Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pumpkin

Unoffical FAQ (and suggested answers) thread....

Recommended Posts

sorty said:

I think that Nate French is working with LCG games from such a long time that he cannot do such mistakes and bad wording. I have faith in him. "AFTER" imho means AFTER not WHEN.

Well, nothing against your high opinion of Nate French or against Mr. French himself, but I'd like to note that the CoC AP cycle he worked on was riddled with errors, most notably it included game terms that only exist in AgoT. Nobody's perfect; Mr. French is not an exception.

Also, the terms 'when' and 'after' are used interchangably in CoC. Here's the relevant excerpt from the current CoC FAQ:

Some cards use the term “when” and others use the term “after” for their timing (ie. When this character commits versus After this character
commits). Is this a timing distinction?
No. For all timing purposes, these cards should operate in the same timing window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are very bad news. I don't know other LCGs so I couldn't imagine the existence of such problems. My apologize.

I hope mr.French have done it better this time. But now I'm not so sure. I'm feeling sick...omg.

In this game the attack phase is really the sum of several steps... we cannot play with cards with text  "after xxx attacks" that changes meaning from card to card... hope French will choose one meaning for all the cards, or else it's really bad news.

My precious... is getting corrupted? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the official FAQ comes out, here is how I am playing it.  Might be right, might be wrong, who knows.

Beastmaster:  I'm playing this according to the polish translation.  "When" it attacks, deal it another card.  So it gets 2 cards.  The idea of it getting another card AFTER the attack has resolved is just odd.

Chieftan: It's first attack is 3.  AFTER the attack has resolved, it gets a counter

Wargs: I'm also playing this as AFTER the attack has resolved, otherwise it would declare as an attack and then run off back to the staging area before damage was dealt.  This cant be right.

So, in summary, I think AFTER should mean "after it is completed" and Beastmaster should actually read "when"

 

Wording on other cards in the LCG has been a little disappointing.  Keywords from AgoT somehow appearing on cards in CoC and different things meaning something different for each game.  Since I play all of them, it's tricky trying to remember the differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I might have made a mistake earlier: I think Doomed and When Revealed do both execute before and Response events that might destroy the enemy or complete the location, and then Surge executes separately.  Doomed and Surge are ignored if they appear outside of the Quest Staging phase.

 

Have we had any responses in here about Despair and Misty Mountain Goblins? Zambo on BGG said that the current location acts as a buffer for both encounter cards, but there is some disagreement on BGG because one uses "quest" and the other uses "quest card".  And what happens if there are no progress tokens on the current location (or not enough in the case of Despair), does the overflow take away from the quest card at that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kirkbauer said:

 I might have made a mistake earlier: I think Doomed and When Revealed do both execute before and Response events that might destroy the enemy or complete the location, and then Surge executes separately.  Doomed and Surge are ignored if they appear outside of the Quest Staging phase.

 

Have we had any responses in here about Despair and Misty Mountain Goblins? Zambo on BGG said that the current location acts as a buffer for both encounter cards, but there is some disagreement on BGG because one uses "quest" and the other uses "quest card".  And what happens if there are no progress tokens on the current location (or not enough in the case of Despair), does the overflow take away from the quest card at that point?

The results of the conversations here are summarised in FAQ 20 and 32. Generally we agree with Zambo, disreagarding any slight wording changes on the card as just poor editing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Doomed and Surge are ignored outside the questing phase, the Q&A about Objective cards is confusing.  Most of the time (for now) objective cards are only revealed and placed during setup of the 3rd quest.  In that case, the Surge is ignored, but the answer says you resolve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Grogan said:

Until the official FAQ comes out, here is how I am playing it.  Might be right, might be wrong, who knows.

Beastmaster:  I'm playing this according to the polish translation.  "When" it attacks, deal it another card.  So it gets 2 cards.  The idea of it getting another card AFTER the attack has resolved is just odd.

Chieftan: It's first attack is 3.  AFTER the attack has resolved, it gets a counter

Wargs: I'm also playing this as AFTER the attack has resolved, otherwise it would declare as an attack and then run off back to the staging area before damage was dealt.  This cant be right.

So, in summary, I think AFTER should mean "after it is completed" and Beastmaster should actually read "when"

 

Wording on other cards in the LCG has been a little disappointing.  Keywords from AgoT somehow appearing on cards in CoC and different things meaning something different for each game.  Since I play all of them, it's tricky trying to remember the differences.

I agree with you except for Beastmaster. I play that after means after. Therefore, he's dealt one shadow card during the attack and one after. Of the current shadow effects, probably 75% have no bearing on whether or not the enemy is in combat. The only ones that do are the +atk effects and they only exist on 3-4 different cards. So, the second shadow effect is just as likely to be potent as the first one.

My feeling is that "attack" is pretty clearly defined in the rulebook as having 4 substeps from declaring attackers to determining combat damage. So I read these cards as "After determining combat damage..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mestrahd said:

I agree with you except for Beastmaster. I play that after means after. Therefore, he's dealt one shadow card during the attack and one after. Of the current shadow effects, probably 75% have no bearing on whether or not the enemy is in combat. The only ones that do are the +atk effects and they only exist on 3-4 different cards. So, the second shadow effect is just as likely to be potent as the first one.

My feeling is that "attack" is pretty clearly defined in the rulebook as having 4 substeps from declaring attackers to determining combat damage. So I read these cards as "After determining combat damage..."

The problem with this is: Beastmaster doesn't say anything about resolving the shadow card.  So if you play it this way, why would you ever reveal and trigger the shadow card?  You've already gone past step 3 of resolving the enemy attack.  So then in my opinion the card would just be dealt and then discarded at the end of the Combat phase.

If they meant it this way, I think they would have said "After Dol Gul Beastmaster attacks, deal and immediately resolve an additional shadow card."

Zambo over on BGG was a playtester and confirmed that the intention is for the Beastmaster to have 2 shadow cards while resolving the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "resolving" is as much implied as "When he attacks" is. Your argument practically defeats itself. It's clear there's poor wording on the card, but whether the Polish version is the true text or just a mistranslation has yet to be discovered. They will have to produce a FAQ with wording to the effect of "and resolve it" or change it to "When". Until then, I think playing it either way has merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Grogan said:

Until the official FAQ comes out, here is how I am playing it.  Might be right, might be wrong, who knows.

Beastmaster:  I'm playing this according to the polish translation.  "When" it attacks, deal it another card.  So it gets 2 cards.  The idea of it getting another card AFTER the attack has resolved is just odd.

Chieftan: It's first attack is 3.  AFTER the attack has resolved, it gets a counter

Wargs: I'm also playing this as AFTER the attack has resolved, otherwise it would declare as an attack and then run off back to the staging area before damage was dealt.  This cant be right.

So, in summary, I think AFTER should mean "after it is completed" and Beastmaster should actually read "when"

 

Wording on other cards in the LCG has been a little disappointing.  Keywords from AgoT somehow appearing on cards in CoC and different things meaning something different for each game.  Since I play all of them, it's tricky trying to remember the differences.

I think Paul has it right here. It makes sense. It is easier for me to believe that the above descriptions are how the cards were meant to be played. I suppose one could easily argue the Chieftain either way, but if you interpret Beastmaster & Wargs in any way other than what Paul said above, then why bother at all? The interpretation seems to go against what the game is trying to accomplish.

I believe when we get the offical FAQ, it will reflect this. I know we must all be technical in how we interpret the grammar on the cards; I feel the wrong wording was used on these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elven Archer said:

Paul Grogan said:

 

Until the official FAQ comes out, here is how I am playing it.  Might be right, might be wrong, who knows.

Beastmaster:  I'm playing this according to the polish translation.  "When" it attacks, deal it another card.  So it gets 2 cards.  The idea of it getting another card AFTER the attack has resolved is just odd.

Chieftan: It's first attack is 3.  AFTER the attack has resolved, it gets a counter

Wargs: I'm also playing this as AFTER the attack has resolved, otherwise it would declare as an attack and then run off back to the staging area before damage was dealt.  This cant be right.

So, in summary, I think AFTER should mean "after it is completed" and Beastmaster should actually read "when"

 

Wording on other cards in the LCG has been a little disappointing.  Keywords from AgoT somehow appearing on cards in CoC and different things meaning something different for each game.  Since I play all of them, it's tricky trying to remember the differences.

 

 

I think Paul has it right here. It makes sense. It is easier for me to believe that the above descriptions are how the cards were meant to be played. I suppose one could easily argue the Chieftain either way, but if you interpret Beastmaster & Wargs in any way other than what Paul said above, then why bother at all? The interpretation seems to go against what the game is trying to accomplish.

I believe when we get the offical FAQ, it will reflect this. I know we must all be technical in how we interpret the grammar on the cards; I feel the wrong wording was used on these.

 

I haven't played enough to run into the Chieften or Wargs, but did run into the Beastmaster last night when playing with my nephew (who I was teaching the game to). He asked about it and I said, well, we  put it out after even though it seemed useless. So upon seeing what Paul said and re-thinking it, I will play it as you play it "when" so there will be a chance of 2 shadow card effects. Otherwise why bother putting  a second one out there after the attack is resolved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Attacking is not comparing offense vs defense and dealing damage. This is the last step of the attacking phase.

Attacking starts with Choose an enemy. From this moment the chosen enemy is considered as attacking. 

So I play everything that says "after X attacks" right after X's attack has been chosen to be resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fabest said:

 Attacking is not comparing offense vs defense and dealing damage. This is the last step of the attacking phase.

Attacking starts with Choose an enemy. From this moment the chosen enemy is considered as attacking. 

So I play everything that says "after X attacks" right after X's attack has been chosen to be resolved.

 

So then you would deal the Beastmaster 2 Shadow Cards as soon as you choose that enemy to attack you and then reveal those Shadow Cards normally before you resolve that attack on your defender. Right? happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- First you deal 1 shadow card to each enemy engaged with you. So the Beastmaster has his 1st one.

- Then, when I decide that it's his turn to attack, I deal him another one.

- Finally I resolve both during the step "Resolve shadow effect"

That's how I play it and how it seems to make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fabest said:

- First you deal 1 shadow card to each enemy engaged with you. So the Beastmaster has his 1st one.

- Then, when I decide that it's his turn to attack, I deal him another one.

- Finally I resolve both during the step "Resolve shadow effect"

That's how I play it and how it seems to make sense to me.

That doesn't really differ a great deal from Paul's suggestion, except that the actual cards DGB gets may be slightly different.

I definitely think the intent of the card is for it to have two shadow cards, with potentially two effects to resolve when shadow effects normally resolve; quite how you choose to get to that point is less important.

I've seen some people saying they are dealing the 2nd shadow card literally after the attack has resolved, and then only applying it if the effect is relevant at that point, for me that option is non-sensical.

What do you do with Wargs though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the encounter Deck. I have bought multiple Core And have put 3 of every card into the deck as per the "Deck Construction" rules.

I noticed it is slightly easier in single player to win but harder in multiplayer.

Is this correct or acceptable? I could not find anything to reference this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yes, each quest lists the encounter card sets you are supposed to use, and for reference, the contents of each set are listed on the support page for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pumpkin said:

You only play with one encounter deck, in the RAW, regardless of the number of core sets you have.

 

pumpkin said:

You only play with one encounter deck, in the RAW, regardless of the number of core sets you have.

 

Can you reference that information for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mestrahd said:

The "resolving" is as much implied as "When he attacks" is. Your argument practically defeats itself. It's clear there's poor wording on the card, but whether the Polish version is the true text or just a mistranslation has yet to be discovered. They will have to produce a FAQ with wording to the effect of "and resolve it" or change it to "When". Until then, I think playing it either way has merit.

All I'm saying is if you think it occurs after the attack is complete, the second shadow card is useless (which almost certainly wasn't the intention).  If you think it occurs before the attack, then Chieftan gets a bonus on his first attack, which may or may not be what was intended.  All I'm going on is Zambo who was a playtester and his comments in this thread:

 

javascript:void(0);/*1305492360604*/

(http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/6747760#6747760)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but just being a playtester doesn't make someone an expert on anything. Zambo has stated somewhere that he was never employed by FFG, so his opinion is that of a person with more playing time than us, that's all. I was a closed beta tester for World of Warcraft, but does that make me an end all expert on WOW? I hardly think so. AFAIK, playtesters for this game are like all beta participants, they're given the game and try to break it, with no interaction with the developers.

Long story short, until Nate French gives us official templating (since it's his game) then we can play it how it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Thalin question.  His text says "When revealed BY the encounter deck" -- I hate to nitpick, but I am honestly confused by the word "BY" here.  It seemed to me to imply the encounter deck must have agency, while my questing companion interpreted it to mean "from the encounter deck."

So the question is: If the player searches the deck for a card (i.e. pulling out the boss spider from one of the quest cards), does this trigger Thalin's ability?  According to the rules, he is still considered to be committed to a quest, so that's not in question.  But it seems to me the spiders are being revealed BY the players (or perhaps BY the quest deck) but not BY the encounter deck, as per his text.

Not sure what was the intent.  Seems like if it was how I played it that it could have been made more clear (i.e. when revealed during the staging phase).  I would guess I was being too nitpicky, but on the starter quest, I figured better to play the ruling that makes it harder rather than easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam said:

Another Thalin question.  His text says "When revealed BY the encounter deck" -- I hate to nitpick, but I am honestly confused by the word "BY" here.  It seemed to me to imply the encounter deck must have agency, while my questing companion interpreted it to mean "from the encounter deck."

So the question is: If the player searches the deck for a card (i.e. pulling out the boss spider from one of the quest cards), does this trigger Thalin's ability?  According to the rules, he is still considered to be committed to a quest, so that's not in question.  But it seems to me the spiders are being revealed BY the players (or perhaps BY the quest deck) but not BY the encounter deck, as per his text.

Not sure what was the intent.  Seems like if it was how I played it that it could have been made more clear (i.e. when revealed during the staging phase).  I would guess I was being too nitpicky, but on the starter quest, I figured better to play the ruling that makes it harder rather than easier.

Personally, I'd go with it meaning "from". If FFG really wanted these sorts of specific nuances to be realised from the cards, the rulebook would have been 200 odd pages long to fully cover all the different card wordings and what their exact interpretation was supposed to be. IMO!

When I play I try and intepret the card in the simplest, most obvious fashion, rather than honing in on a specifc word, so in my games Thalin deals damage whenever a card is placed in the staging area during the quest phase regardless of how it got there, provided he is questing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...