GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 132.7
49% of Goal | left
I bought the game at the last SPIEL (2016), played my first session of it yesterday and generally enjoyed it very much as a quick, card based set collection game. It also went over well with my game group, especially with the folks who enjoy lighter games that are also not totally devoid of tactical deciscion making. But although the rules are very well written and laid out otherwise, we came upon one issue, I would kindly ask for a clarification on:
As I understand the rules on p.9 of the rulebook and the following example quest, defeated challenges immediately transform into gold, without further delay or need of any other game effect, go into the active players gold pool and can, from there, be spend as soon as the next challenge is encountered. Even if the quest as a whole is not completed succefully, the questing player can keep all the gold (= the challenges defeated) in his pool. If my understanding is not incorrect so far, how does this relate to the rule of early failed quests on p.13? This rule I understand as if the player, if he does not defeat at least (the first) two challenges of a quest, he had to put back the one gold / challenge card onto the quest he possibly earned by defeating the very first challenge before facing the second one he could not defeat. So, as the challenge has already transformed into gold, the player needs to take the exact same challenge out of his gold pool and attach it back onto the quest as a challenge in its original first position, correct?
Assuming that was correct: While keeping this first defeated challenge / gold separate from his pool in case it needs to be put back would be easy to do, I wonder if this technically forbids the player to spend the one gold he already earned while still on his quest. So far, I can't think of any reason for him to do so if he could not, by spending it on a temporary ability (icon) defeat the next (second) challenge and thereby pass the threshold. But in theory, I see no rule that would forbid him to do so. Thus, if the second challenge is in turn not defeated, but the gold earned from defeating the first challenge was already spent, the original first challenge would have to be restored from the discard pile, correct?
But even if this follow-up question "may I spend the first gold earned on a quest, even if may be supposed to put it back as the original challenge?" is more of a hypothetical nature, an explanation / clarification if we understood the general rule of early failed quests correctly would be very much appreciated.
Small additional question: I assume, challenges added to a quest (if not explicitly stated otherwise be the effect) always go on top of challenges already in place, thereby becoming the new first (and second, etc.) challenge, correct?
Kind regards, T.Bursche
The Early Failed Quests-rule has been added to avoid players just starting a quest in order to get rid of a quest which could be interesting for other players.
So, in this case, you may not keep the gold of defeated challenges. The quest remains in place instead of being replaced. In fact, you just lose your involved heroes.
To answer your hypothetical question: money which is spent, is spent. In this particular case, I would suggest to draw a new challenge to replace the previous one.
Additional question: new challenges go indeed on top of all the others.
Thank you very much for your fast and helpful reply!
Indeed it appears as a smart design decision, limiting the ability to run a quest one has no chance of completing, simply to take it out of the game so another player can’t score it. My gamegroup picked up this destructive option immediately when, by adding a second treasure card, a six-treasure-quest was created that would have granted two players immediate victory, if one of them would complete it. In our case, one other player was able to take out this quest without violating this very rule, as he managed to defeat four challenges. Thus, selectively taking out quests remains a tactical option without being too easy to accomplish.
As I said, a smart design choice which definitely contributes to the overall game. My compliments!
Sincerely, T. Bursche