$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 131.4

7,719 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
48.6% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Conan» Forums » Rules

Subject: Teleport question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Eddie Harr
United States
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Can you spend one to teleport into a building, then do some attacks, then go back and spend another to teleport out? So basically, do you have to do all the teleporting you want at once or can you break it up? Thanks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas H
Austria
Linz
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You spend one gem to activate the teleport spell and then one gem per area you want to teleport to. After teleporting you are allowed to do whatever action you want to take (or whichever action you're able to afford), but if you want to teleport again, you have to spend another gem to activate the teleport spell again and then one gem per area.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To elaborate slightly on Thomas' answer: you do not actually "pass through" any intervening spaces on your way to the destination space. Thus, to inspect huts, you must stop in each space (interrupting the Teleport), and then re-cast it if you want to continue teleporting[1]. Unlike many (most?) spells, Teleport has no Exertion Limit (a red number under the casting cost in the top/left of the card), so it can be cast as often as you want/can pay for.

Sidebar:

Interestingly, it seems that almost all players (myself included (repeatedly!)) fail to initially realize that they have to pay the 1-gem casting cost. Instead they just read the spell text and pay only that cost. i point that out only because it's definitely been an FAQ in the forum (and yet, is somewhat inexplicable because the spell clearly has a cost in the top/left... and yet i still missed that in my first 2 or 3 sessions).

[1] = i will never understand why Chrome's built-in spellchecker knows the word Cthulhu, but not the word teleporting.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie Harr
United States
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Oh wow that answered something I didn't even know I had a question to!! I also missed that you had to pay to use the spell then pay how many spaces to move.

So example, I want to teleport one space, I pay two gems? (one to activate and one for the space?).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
eddieharr wrote:
Oh wow that answered something I didn't even know I had a question to!! I also missed that you had to pay to use the spell then pay how many spaces to move.

So example, I want to teleport one space, I pay two gems? (one to activate and one for the space?).


Correct. It seems that everyone misses that, even though everyone is aware of spell casting costs. For some reason we all overlook that "1" in the corner, but not the "3" in the Halo spells. Some kind of mass hallucination or some such.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
And to make your embarrassment worse, it is discussed in every thread about teleporting!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
martimer wrote:
And to make your embarrassment worse, it is discussed in every thread about teleporting!


i can't explain why it happens, but it seems to be limited to this particular spell. Nobody seems to have trouble remembering to pay for a Halo's cost.

i didn't realize i was overlooking the 1-gem cost until Pallantides mentioned it in an old thread (after i had played 2 or 3 sessions incorrectly), and then i felt pretty dumb. But it seems that most people overlook that cost (on that one spell), so i don't feel so dumb anymore .
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My saving grace came when I was reading threads to answer some pre-first game jitters and stumbled across the orb/flap issue and spell casting came up. Also, I have only played one game so less time to screw up.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Smith
United Kingdom
Gillingham
Kent
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's overlooked because it's not wrong to think you just pay 1 per area. You see the cast cost and then read it's 1 per area, ie just multiplying the cast cost by number of areas travelled. Does the card actually say the distance cost is in addition to the cast cost?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
anthony dybacz
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmb
Not explicitly on the card, but if you play it the same as every other spell then, yes it does
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Major Mishap wrote:
It's overlooked because it's not wrong to think you just pay 1 per area. You see the cast cost and then read it's 1 per area, ie just multiplying the cast cost by number of areas travelled. Does the card actually say the distance cost is in addition to the cast cost?


In fact, it does: the casting cost must be paid before the effect of the spell can be played. You don't resolve a Halo's effect before you pay the 3 gems. Same with teleport. Why we all(?) overlook that for this particular spell, though, is unclear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ângelo Cossa
Brazil
flag msg tools
sgbeal wrote:
Major Mishap wrote:
It's overlooked because it's not wrong to think you just pay 1 per area. You see the cast cost and then read it's 1 per area, ie just multiplying the cast cost by number of areas travelled. Does the card actually say the distance cost is in addition to the cast cost?


In fact, it does: the casting cost must be paid before the effect of the spell can be played. You don't resolve a Halo's effect before you pay the 3 gems. Same with teleport. Why we all(?) overlook that for this particular spell, though, is unclear.


No it does not. In the Manual it is written (page 19):

"To cast one of their spells, a hero assings a number of gems equal to the spell's cost"

and in the spell's description is written:

"Assign a number of gems from your reserve zone to this card. For each gem assigned, move your model to an adjacent space"

As it is very usuaal that the text explains what the spells do for they cost it is easilly understood as:

- The cost of the spell is one
- The effect is to move 1 area
- You can do it multiple times as you have no exertion limit

And not:

- The cost of spell is one
- That cost has no effect it is just to enable you to add more gems to move.


The second interpretation is implicit in a very bad way, and you can only be sure of it here in the foruns.

This is one more thing they have to correct in the new version of the manual in my opnion



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galahadba wrote:
sgbeal wrote:
Major Mishap wrote:
It's overlooked because it's not wrong to think you just pay 1 per area. You see the cast cost and then read it's 1 per area, ie just multiplying the cast cost by number of areas travelled. Does the card actually say the distance cost is in addition to the cast cost?


In fact, it does: the casting cost must be paid before the effect of the spell can be played. You don't resolve a Halo's effect before you pay the 3 gems. Same with teleport. Why we all(?) overlook that for this particular spell, though, is unclear.


No it does not. In the Manual it is written (page 19):

"To cast one of their spells, a hero assings a number of gems equal to the spell's cost"



EXACTLY: and it defines a spell's cost as the number in the top-left of the card, right here: Heroes' Book page 19, bullet point (3).

galahadba wrote:

and in the spell's description is written:

"Assign a number of gems from your reserve zone to this card. For each gem assigned, move your model to an adjacent space"


Which cannot be applied until the cost is paid.

galahadba wrote:
As it is very usuaal that the text explains what the spells do for they cost it is easilly understood as:

- The cost of the spell is one
- The effect is to move 1 area
- You can do it multiple times as you have no exertion limit

And not:

- The cost of spell is one
- That cost has no effect it is just to enable you to add more gems to move.

The second interpretation is implicit in a very bad way, and you can only be sure of it here in the foruns.


Then why does the second interpretation apparently work for every other spell? The fundamental parts of a spell (cost, [optional] exertion limit, and description) are all well-defined, and all of them apply equally to all spells.

Edit: adding an exertion limit of 0 to Teleport would be downright wrong because of how exertion limit is defined. Heroes' Book, page 5:

Quote:
A player cannot assign gems to a space if doing so would raise the total number of gems on the space above its exertion limit.


A limit of 0 would, therefore, mean "no gems may be applied," i.e. "this spell cannot be cast at all."


galahadba wrote:
This is one more thing they have to correct in the new version of the manual in my opnion


i disagree heartily. The definition of spells includes their casting cost, and Teleport has a casting cost. There's nothing to correct - all the info is there. To add the text "pay the casting cost" to the spell's description text would be absurd because it would have to be added to every single spell (or else people would start arguing that "that other spell doesn't say so, so we don't have to").

There is no inconsistency in how Teleport is defined, compared to other spells. There is only this weird phenomena that, apparently, all of us happen to overlook its casting cost until it's pointed out to us. We do not do the same with other spells. This is not a problem with Teleport's definition (which is 100% consistent with other spells). This is a problem with... the universe, or some such. It's just damned weird.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ângelo Cossa
Brazil
flag msg tools
sgbeal wrote:

EXACTLY: and it defines a spell's cost as the number in the top-left of the card, right here: Heroes' Book page 19, bullet point (3).


Exactly, you pay the cost to execute the effect that is to move, that's is how a lot of people is intepreting, and it is not becouse they does not know how to read, it is becouse it is done in a confusing way


sgbeal wrote:

Then why does the second interpretation apparently work for every other spell? The fundamental parts of a spell (cost, [optional] exertion limit, and description) are all well-defined, and all of them apply equally to all spells.


When you are playing a game, and you have to go to read other spells (that are not even part of the first scenario) to try to interpret how the spell you are trying to use really works, well, that's actually the definition of "the manual need more information"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Emivaldo Sousa
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
It is weird because it is ambiguous.

When it is clarified, people understand. When it is not, people get confused about it. And the reason is because it is not clear in the first place.

Yes, when pointed out we can see the logic behind it, but it doesn't make the information less ambiguous.

The way the spell reads might not be wrong, but it is certainly confusing, which is not a good thing when talking about game rules. The words "in addition to the activation cost..." would certainly help. And would not make other spells confusing because other spells do not operate in the same way. I guess that there is only one another spell in the game that has this pay for activate and pay for the effect logic.

When no one gets one thing right, the problem is almost always with that one thing

I get what you are saying sgbeal, and I agree that the text is technically correct. But it is still badly written and confusing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galahadba wrote:
sgbeal wrote:

EXACTLY: and it defines a spell's cost as the number in the top-left of the card, right here: Heroes' Book page 19, bullet point (3).


Exactly, you pay the cost to execute the effect that is to move, that's is how a lot of people is intepreting, and it is not becouse they does not know how to read, it is becouse it is done in a confusing way


It's exactly like every other spell.

galahadba wrote:
sgbeal wrote:

Then why does the second interpretation apparently work for every other spell? The fundamental parts of a spell (cost, [optional] exertion limit, and description) are all well-defined, and all of them apply equally to all spells.


When you are playing a game, and you have to go to read other spells (that are not even part of the first scenario) to try to interpret how the spell you are trying to use really works, well, that's actually the definition of "the manual need more information"


i don't buy that: the first scenario starts with 3 spells, two of which do not work like Teleport, and Mitra's Halo starts cast (and that one needs a better an explanation to first-time players, IMO - it's duration instructions are downright weird).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
zinho73 wrote:
It is weird because it is ambiguous.


No, it's not. It's syntactically identical to every other spell: Cost (top/left) ==> Effect (center)

If the cost isn't paid, the there's no point even reading the effect, so the effect text shouldn't even reach our eyes if our eyes don't first scan the top/left of the card (like they do for every other spell).

i haven't yet seen post from a single player which says, "yeah, we got that right on the first try." (To be clear: i'm probably more guilty than many others: i overlooked it on my first 2-3 sessions, and would have continued to overlook it had i not seen a comment about it from Pallantides in this forum.)

As you point out:

zinho73 wrote:
When no one gets one thing right, the problem is almost always with that one thing


In 99.99+% of cases i would agree completely. In this one case, given the 100% consistency of the spell card layout vis-a-vis other spells...

Well...

i'm not sayin' that it was aliens, but...

Maybe, just maybe, Thoth-Amon.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Emivaldo Sousa
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:
zinho73 wrote:
It is weird because it is ambiguous.


No, it's not. It's syntactically identical to every other spell: Cost (top/left) ==> Effect (center)

If the cost isn't paid, the there's no point even reading the effect, so the effect text shouldn't even reach our eyes if our eyes don't first scan the top/left of the card (like they do for every other spell).

i haven't yet seen post from a single player which says, "yeah, we got that right on the first try." (To be clear: i'm probably more guilty than many others: i overlooked it on my first 2-3 sessions, and would have continued to overlook it had i not seen a comment about it from Pallantides in this forum.)

As you point out:

zinho73 wrote:
When no one gets one thing right, the problem is almost always with that one thing


In 99.99+% of cases i would agree completely. In this one case, given the 100% consistency of the spell card layout vis-a-vis other spells...

Well...

i'm not sayin' that it was aliens, but...

Maybe, just maybe, Thoth-Amon.


To me it is very simple:
The goal of the rule is to be clear. Empirically, it is not, no matter how correct you think it is. The rule failed.

I already agreed that it is technically correct, that means nothing because it is not clear. You can write the number three like this: (2+2:2). It is correct, but not advisable in many situations.

And what creates the "ambiguity" (Maybe it is not the exact term, English is not my first language) or lack of clarity is not the number on the left corner, it is the text of the spell, which is not like most of the other spells, because it presents an extra cost (without ever saying that the cost is extra). One can easily mistake the text as clarification on how to spend the number on the left corner.

I am not contesting weather the text is consistent or not: I am saying that the text has to be consistent AND clear.

And even if you are right on this, I really hope no designer team thinks like you:
- We tested the rule and everyone played this wrong.
- Their loss. It is consistent so we are not even trying to clarify it. Let the bastards discuss this eternally on BGG


(and the 0,01% that contradicts the rule, in my opinion, is reserved for Leonardo Da Vinci and other geniuses.ninja )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
zinho73 wrote:
And even if you are right on this, I really hope no designer team thinks like you:
- We tested the rule and everyone played this wrong.
- Their loss. It is consistent so we are not even trying to clarify it. Let the bastards discuss this eternally on BGG


AFAIK (possibly wrong), French-native players haven't reported any confusion on this regard, which is (if it's true) interesting.

Based on the rest of the contents of this forum, i think it's apparent that they never bothered to blind playtest the translated English translations (any of them - not just this spell). i've seen mention from people more familiar with the industry as a whole that "nobody does" blind playtesting of translated editions, under the assumption that "the translation will equivalent to the native one."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Nordwall
msg tools
I have to agree that it is somewhat different than the other spells in text. the syntax is a little different.

Another interesting note is that there are only two spells without an exertion limit - teleportation and inversion. no scenario uses inversion. Instead of choosing to put a maximum, even an unlimited one, there is not one listed. This is different from every other spell, even ones that scale (Return of the Brave, Yajur's Awakening, etc)

I will note that no other scaling spell is used in any scenario, only teleportation. It (and inversion) are the only spells which scale AND manipulate gems in a fashion that scales.

Several of the other scaling spells are listed as X/<exertion limit> and explicitly say the cost of the spell is X. It might have been better to have teleportation say "choose a target space. The cost of this spell is the number of zones required to go through to get to that space, +1" or something, and define the cost as X.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
raleel wrote:
The cost of this spell is the number of zones required to go through to get to that space, +1" or something, and define the cost as X.


That's the best concrete suggestion i've heard so far for making it clearer. i'll expand on that a bit and suggest a cost of "1+X", where the text defines X (as the distance moved).

It's moot, though :/. Monolith has (AFAIK) made no public commitment to fixing any printed/hard-copy text other than the rulebooks (which is a shame, because the skill cards have multiple translation errors which change the meanings of the skills).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
anthony dybacz
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmb
The skills/spells situation could be dealt with by releasing an errata/faq document which, given the game has hit retail, they should have done by now (imho).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Emivaldo Sousa
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:
zinho73 wrote:
And even if you are right on this, I really hope no designer team thinks like you:
- We tested the rule and everyone played this wrong.
- Their loss. It is consistent so we are not even trying to clarify it. Let the bastards discuss this eternally on BGG


AFAIK (possibly wrong), French-native players haven't reported any confusion on this regard, which is (if it's true) interesting.

Based on the rest of the contents of this forum, i think it's apparent that they never bothered to blind playtest the translated English translations (any of them - not just this spell). i've seen mention from people more familiar with the industry as a whole that "nobody does" blind playtesting of translated editions, under the assumption that "the translation will equivalent to the native one."


I know that testing is not common in translations. But the argument is that the text is all right as it is (regardless if it is an original or translation), which is not true, because, in practice, most did not understood it. In reality, the text has been tested now, and did not passed. If the game had not being launched yet or a revised second edition was in the plans it would be wise to review that.

If they did not have problems in french it just menas that it was somewhat clearer (maybe because of how it was written, maybe because of cultural differences, maybe just the choice of words). In my opinion a good rulebook (or rules in general) is like a good teacher: being right means nothing if students are understanding it wrong.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you: I don't think they are going to do the big revision that the game deserves. They should al least add a comprehensive faq and errata at the end of the rulebook, but, who knows?
 
 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.