Andy Clautice
United States
Denver
Colorado
-
- A Hunter enters a city at night.
- A New Vampire is waiting there.
- The die roll is 4-6, so the vampire escapes.
- The Hunter has no Knife or Stake to pursue the vampire.
- Does the Hunter's turn end?
The Play-By-Forum FAQ points out that the rulebooks are inconsistent. However, if you play that the Hunter's turn does not end, you can get a situation like I had last night.
- The above scenario played out, and we went by my own rulebook: the Hunter's turn did not end.
- The city was also Dracula's current location, so the Hunter then fought Dracula.
- Dracula played Escape (Bat) and won the combat roll.
- Dracula would have been replacing a city card that had an encounter on it, effectively moving the encounter.
Instead, we ruled that the encounter was discarded, just because we didn't know what else to do. I don't know of any rule that would cover such a situation, which makes me think that the New Vampire should indeed end the hunter's turn.
Of course, there may be some other line or but of text that makes this all clear - if anybody knows it, I would be much obliged.
-
Mark McEvoy
Canada
Ottawa-ish
Ontario
-
Van Helsing's turn would not end. Mina's, Godalming's, or Seward's would.
Unsure about the source of the ambiguity. From the rules at FFG's site:
"If There Are Encounters
If there are any encounters in the Hunter’s
current location, they must be resolved. To do
this, the Dracula player chooses one
encounter in the location and reveals it. He
then looks up its “E n c o u n t e r e d :” effects on
the back of this rule book and carries them
out (including any Agent combat that might
result, see “Combat,” on page 15). Once the
encounter has been resolved, it is returned to
the encounter pool. If there are any more
encounters left at the location (and the first
encounter did not end the Hunter’s turn),
Dracula then chooses a new encounter and
resolves it. If there are no further encounters
in the Hunter’s location, the Hunter’s turn
ends.
Exception: Van Helsing may rest, resupply,
or trade even after having an encounter during
his turn. However, if Van Helsing’s encounter
states that it causes his turn to end, or if he
fails to kill his opponent in a combat
encounter, then Van Helsing’s turn ends
immediately and he may not rest, resupply, or
trade."
edit: On further investigation, even Van Helsing is done. The New Vampire section on back of rulebook specifically says "If the Vampire escapes, the encounter remains where it is
and the Hunter’s turn immediately ends (no further encounters,
including Dracula)". So that even overrides Van Helsing's relentlessness.
-
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
-
thatmarkguy wrote: Unsure about the source of the ambiguity. From the rules at FFG's site:
The source of the ambiguity is that there are multiple versions of the rulebook out there. EDIT: Worth nothing is that Andy already pointed out the below, so the source of the ambiguity should have been clear, but here are the details anyway.
This has been discussed in regards to the Play-By-Forum games here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/FoD_PBF_FAQ
Q: If a hunter meets a New Vampire at night, the die roll is 4-6, and the hunter lets the New Vampire escape, does his turn end?
A: There are actually two versions of the rulebook: one that says it does, and one that says it does not. The online rulebook says that the turn ends, but the online FAQ repeats the statements from the (other version of the) rulebook that says that it does not end. Obviously the FAQ came after the rulebook, but it is unknown whether the online rulebook came before or after the FAQ. In FoD2 the moderator decided to follow the line of the online rulebook, as the FAQ does not list the statements about the New Vampire as errata. [FoD2]
Note that the italicized/underlined section above is my addition (for this post) to the entry in the PBF FAQ.
Basically - the online FAQ and the online rulebook disagree. The online FAQ agrees with one version of the printed rules and it is unclear which is more recent, the online rulebook or the online FAQ.
EDIT 2: And I missed another detail, that the section Mark quoted was the general section on Encounters and not the New Vampire reference (which is where the discrepancy lies).
I'm not sure how relevant this section is to Andy's question, though, because his scenario involves Dracula's presence. In one version of the rulebook, the Hunter's turn ends, in the other, he'd move on to fight Dracula.
-
-
I play it so, that it ends Hunters turn, as it enables Drac to play NV on hide to protect another one not only by bitting, therefore reducing the randomness (although also slightly empowering Dracula).
-
-
I can at least confirm which version is more recent - the one where the hunter's turn does NOT end is used in the international translated versions, and also in the revised English one.
But the situation Andy pointed out shows that there are problems with this.
-
Halesowen Boardgamer
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
-
I will continue to play that the encounter ends the turn, this fits in with the minion encounters that end the turn if they remain in the location. Although the version that doesn't mention ending is the later one, I believe that this is an error introduced in the later edition that wasn't in the original (this would not be the first time that this has happened in an FFG game).
Some possible history
The game was published in 2006 and the FAQ entry appeared in the V1.0 of the FAQ dated March 2006, so that is very soon after the game appeared. The section referred to is not in the errata section and so is not meant to be a change in the rules, but merely a clarification as to how this encounter worked. No mention is made of the turn ending in the FAQ but this would not require clarification as that part of the rules needs none.
I suspect that later on when the newer edition was being produced, someone was told to go through the FAQ and make sure everything was included. The FAQ entry seems to be a complete description of the encounter and so may have been used as the basis for the section in the later rules by someone who perhaps was not aware that the FAQ section was not actually complete after all.
I may, of course be wrong about all this.
-
|
|
Posted Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:50 pm
