$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 117.69

7,136 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
45% of Goal | left

Support:

Bull Gator
msg tools
Okay here's an interesting start to a solo game of Cobas Haven:

I chose Sea-Ward Tower as my starting objective. For its guard I drew another objective, Tower of the Heron, and added that to the staging area. Next I drew The Raider's Assault. To satisfy that, I attach Scouting Ship to the still unguarded Tower of the Heron, then The Raider's Assault goes to the discard pile. Then it seems the rules say I need to draw the next card from the encounter deck to satisfy Tower of the Heron's Guarded Keyword. I draw Corsair Warship, and attach it to Tower of the Heron.

The rules do seem to allow for an objective having more than one guard. Rulebook p.24: "Once all encounter cards attached to a guarded objective are dealt with, the players can claim the objective in the manner specified by its card text." But there are no clear instructions on how to resolve potential conflicts.

For example, how do I handle engagement checks if two ships with different engagement costs are guarding an objective? Do both engage me when my threat triggers the first one? [Grim rule]

What if one guard was an enemy and the other was a location? Do you have to destroy the enemy AND explore the location before claiming the objective? If so, I assume if I make the location the active location, the enemy is not considered in the staging area, but is still in play for purposes such as archery.

Or have I completely missed something?

2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you draw a second guarded card in a row, you have to draw new cards for each of the guarded cards. You never have two cards guarding a single objective. It's almost like you get an extra surge, because you will end up revealing an extra guarded card. I know this has come up before, particularly with Hunt for Gollum, if you want to search for previous official rulings.
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominic B
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Teamjimby wrote:
You never have two cards guarding a single objective.

You explained the case of two guarded objectives in a row very well. But because of The Raider's Assault one objective having two cards guarding it seems to be the case here.

I needed a while to reconstruct the whole situation to get it. You, Mr Gator, posted a very good question and I don't have an answer yet. But your assumption that two cards end up guarding Tower of the Heron seems about right, I came to the same conclusion.

In my opinion this case really screams for an official answer, so I sent the whole case to FFG. I'll post it here as soon as they reply.


Edit: typos and maybe still some left
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Leonce wrote:
Teamjimby wrote:
You never have two cards guarding a single objective.

You explained the case of two guarded objectives in a row very well. But because of The Raider's Assault one objective having two cards guarding it seems to be the case here.

I needed a while to reconstruct the whole situation to get it. You, Mr Gator, posted a very good question and I don't have an answer yet. But your assumption that two cards end up guarding Tower of the Heron seems about right, I came to the same conclusion.

In my opinion this case really screams for an official answer, so I sent the whole case to FFG. I'll post it here as soon as they reply.


Edit: typos and maybe still some left

Ah, I didn't know what the Raiders Assault said, but now I've looked it up. Apparently it attaches a card to an unguarded objective. I'm not sure exactly how this would play out. You could just attach the ship to the Sea-Ward Tower to avoid the problem. But if you chose the Tower of the Heron, it's possible that you would not need to draw another guarded card. That is quite the interesting edge case.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Wilmer
United Kingdom
Brandon
Durham
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems to me that the Raiders Assault guards the Sea-Ward tower. The 'when revealed' effect then guards the Tower of Heron so there is no need to draw another encounter card for a further guard (it now being guarded).

I may be missing the point but I thought the the reason to draw off the encounter deck in this case was to fulfil the guarded keyword, which in this example the single treachery card has already fulfilled for both guarded cards.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bull Gator
msg tools

SolarJ wrote:
It seems to me that the Raiders Assault guards the Sea-Ward tower. The 'when revealed' effect then guards the Tower of Heron so there is no need to draw another encounter card for a further guard (it now being guarded).

I may be missing the point but I thought the the reason to draw off the encounter deck in this case was to fulfil the guarded keyword, which in this example the single treachery card has already fulfilled for both guarded cards.



We've talked about that on the discord server. The section of the rulebook dealing with the "Guarded" Keyword seems to say it is always necessary to draw the next card of the encounter deck to guard an objective. At that point in the development of the game I'm sure no one could foresee a card effect attaching a guard in some other manner before a proper guard could be drawn. I agree we need an official ruling.


"Rules of Play" (p.24)

The guarded keyword is a reminder on some objective cards to reveal and attach the next card of the encounter deck to the objective when it enters the staging area from the encounter deck, and place them both in the staging area. The objective cannot be claimed as long as any encounter card is attached. Once that encounter is dealt with, the objective remains in the staging area until it is claimed. If another objective card comes up while attaching a card for the guarded keyword, place the second objective in the staging area, and use the next card of the encounter deck to fulfill the original keyword effect.

Enemy and location cards attached to guarded objectives do still count their threat while the enemy or location is in the staging area. An encounter card attached to a guarded objective is dealt with in the following method, depending on its card type:

Enemy: The enemy leaves play, either by being defeated or as the result of a card effect.

Location: The location leaves play, either by being fully explored or as the result of a card effect.

Treachery: The treachery’s effects resolve, or are canceled. (Treachery cards are immediately triggered when they are revealed.)

Once all encounter cards attached to a guarded objective are dealt with, the players can claim the objective in the manner specified by its card text.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bull Gator
msg tools
Text of "The Raiders' Assault"

When Revealed: Choose a Ship enemy that is not currently guarding an objective. Attach that enemy to an unguarded objective in the staging area, guarding it (return that enemy to the staging area if it is engaged). If no Ship enemy is returned to the staging area by this effect, The Raiders' assault gains surge.

Sorry I didn't include these in the original post - I was afraid it would be tldr
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bullgat0r wrote:

Once all encounter cards attached to a guarded objective are dealt with, the players can claim the objective in the manner specified by its card text.


Since the plural "cards" is used for a singular objective, it is clearly permitted under the rules for a guarded objective to have multiple cards attached to it. There's also no indication in the rules that the guarded card reveal is conditional on lack of attachments, an encounter card must be drawn for each guarded objective to satisfy the keyword. So this is right:

Sea-ward Tower needs encounter card for guarded keyword.
Tower of Heron revealed, needs encounter card for guarded keyword.
Raiders Assault revealed, satisfies guarded keyword for Sea-ward tower, effect results in attachment to Tower of Heron.
Additional encounter card needed to satisfy guarded keyword on Tower of Heron. This may or may not result in an additional attachment.

I note that the base rules cover the effect of how Enemy, Location, and Treachery are dealt with. Side-quests are not covered, but I think how it is dealt with is obvious. Objectives do not qualify, but interestingly the Ranger of the North is *not* an objective, and would seem to qualify as a Guarded reveal, so the card it surges into would NOT attach to the guarded objective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominic B
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I finally got an official answer from Caleb.

Caleb Grace wrote:
Great question. The correct way to resolve this setup is to attach the Scout Ship to the Sea-ward tower when The Raider’s Assault is revealed.
The reason you must choose to attach the Scout Ship to the Sea-ward tower is because the treachery instructs you to attach the Ship enemy to an ‘unguarded’ objective. The Tower of the Heron is not ‘unguarded’ in this situation because you still have to resolve its guarded keyword. That leaves Sea-ward tower as the only legal target for The Raider’s Assault.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bull Gator
msg tools
Thanks. So what I'm hearing is that an objective is not considered unguarded until it is assigned a guard which is then defeated, explored or in the case of treacheries, is resolved.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominic B
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bullgat0r wrote:
Thanks. So what I'm hearing is that an objective is not considered unguarded until it is assigned a guard which is then defeated, explored or in the case of treacheries, is resolved.

The strange thing here is drawing a treachery as a "guard". I thought in our example the Sea-Ward Tower would count as guarded as long as The Raider's Assault is still in its fulfillment process.
But it seems that as soon as a treachery is revealed as a guard the guarded keyword is resolved and the objective counts as unguarded even if the conditions of the treachery have yet to be fulfilled.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Wilmer
United Kingdom
Brandon
Durham
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Leonce wrote:
I finally got an official answer from Caleb.

Caleb Grace wrote:
Great question. The correct way to resolve this setup is to attach the Scout Ship to the Sea-ward tower when The Raider’s Assault is revealed.
The reason you must choose to attach the Scout Ship to the Sea-ward tower is because the treachery instructs you to attach the Ship enemy to an ‘unguarded’ objective. The Tower of the Heron is not ‘unguarded’ in this situation because you still have to resolve its guarded keyword. That leaves Sea-ward tower as the only legal target for The Raider’s Assault.


Thanks for that!

Didn't see that coming at all!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bull Gator
msg tools
Leonce wrote:
Bullgat0r wrote:
Thanks. So what I'm hearing is that an objective is not considered unguarded until it is assigned a guard which is then defeated, explored or in the case of treacheries, is resolved.

The strange thing here is drawing a treachery as a "guard". I thought in our example the Sea-Ward Tower would count as guarded as long as The Raider's Assault is still in its fulfillment process.
But it seems that as soon as a treachery is revealed as a guard the guarded keyword is resolved and the objective counts as unguarded even if the conditions of the treachery have yet to be fulfilled.


You raise a good point. We might have let Caleb off too easy. According to the rulebook (see quote above) the guard is not considered "dealt with" until the treacheries effects are "resolved or are cancelled." So Sea-Ward Tower would be just as guarded as Tower of the Heron at the instant The Raiders Assault is looking for a target. The Raiders Assault would not move any ships and it would go on to surge.

Probably not a good idea to create a card that can simultaneously be a guard and trigger off its own objective's guarded status.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.