Seba Stian
Norway
Molde
flag msg tools
mb
Hi, the massing is my favorite adventure and the only one we have not completed yet (We only have the core set, KD and massing).

1) I am surprised by the fact of the witch king has no victory points. Does it mean that when you kill him he goes to the discard pile and then it may appear again when reshuffling the encounter deck?

2) Pelennor Fields says "If the players have crossed the Anduin, Pelennor Fields gains: "When faced with the option to travel, the players must either travel to Pelennor Fields or raise each players threat by 3."
When we crossed the Anduin there were two Pelennor Fields in the staging area.
Now when there is no active location we have the option to travel there.
2.1) If we decide not to travel to Pelennor Fields should we increase our thread by six?
2.2) If we decide to travel to one of the Pelennor Fields should we increase our thread by three for the one we didn't travel to?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rauli Kettunen
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
surrutia wrote:
1) I am surprised by the fact of the witch king has no victory points. Does it mean that when you kill him he goes to the discard pile and then it may appear again when reshuffling the encounter deck?


Yes, but Carrock's 4 Unique Trolls can come back (though oddly enough, not the Hill Trolls which are also in the scenario), same for Nazgul in Dol Guldur. I think the idea is engage WK, pay the cost to keep him engaged (if you can't kill him), run like hell.

Quote:
2) Pelennor Fields says "If the players have crossed the Anduin, Pelennor Fields gains: "When faced with the option to travel, the players must either travel to Pelennor Fields or raise each players threat by 3."
When we crossed the Anduin there were two Pelennor Fields in the staging area.
Now when there is no active location we have the option to travel there.
2.1) If we decide not to travel to Pelennor Fields should we increase our thread by six?
2.2) If we decide not to travel to one of the Pelennor Fields should we increase our thread by three for the one we didn't travel to?


2.1: I'd say six.
2.2: Hmm, toughie. Since it is only possible to travel to one location per turn, could see it as no increase, but then again, you didn't travel to the other PF, so threat +3.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
I'd say six and three respectively.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jakub praibis
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
I would say 6 and 0.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
I think b) is 3. The title is self-referencing, ie it's not referencing to other cards with the same title. The PF in the staging area must resolve its text - it self-references, this card did have the option to travel but it finds itself in the staging area -> threat should go up by 3.

Patrick
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seba Stian
Norway
Molde
flag msg tools
mb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
PBrennan wrote:
I think b) is 3. The title is self-referencing, ie it's not referencing to other cards with the same title.


I would agree if the card said "this location", but it says "Pelennor Fields"and we did travel to Pelennor Fields.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
You can rightly argue both cases because constant effects shouldn't self reference by title for exactly this reason.

I'm leaning towards that you travelled to "a" Pelennor Fields, but you didn't travel to "this" Pelennor Fields, because the game has established a high number of precedents where self-referencing by title only refers to itself, not copies of itself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
It's a general rule that if a card uses its own title in its effect, it's referring to itself and not any other card with the same title. Just like how if you have a Snowbourn Scout in play, and you play a second one, you only get to put one progress token on a location, not two.

You get 3 threat per Pelennor Fields that you did not travel to. If you have two in the staging area, you're going to raise your threat by either six or three, depending on the choices you make.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jakub praibis
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
But the option is only to travel to one location. So once the other location is active, the option is no longer there. Same as if another location had already been active.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
The second PF had the option to travel ... there was no active location after all. But the chose the first PF. If he'd chosen the second PF, then the first PF would have raised the threat by 3 instead ;-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seba Stian
Norway
Molde
flag msg tools
mb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
PBrennan wrote:
The second PF had the option to travel ... there was no active location after all. But the chose the first PF. If he'd chosen the second PF, then the first PF would have raised the threat by 3 instead ;-)


You almost convinced me but...
with that reasoning what happen if you have two The East Bight (When faced with the option to travel, the players must travel to The East Bight if there is no active location.) in the staging area and no active location?
It seems to me that you reach a dead end where the game is obligating you to travel to two locations at the same time.

That does not happen with the other interpretation.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duke Of Lizards
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
flag msg tools
Livin's mostly wasting time, and I waste my share of mine
badge
I am a breathing time machine
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
I also think 6 and 0 for 2.1 and 2.2. When there is a conflict in timing, the first player chooses the order of resolution. Since both of these Forced effects happen simultaneously, they can be resolved in any order. Thus, if you travel to Pelennor fields A, when Pelennor Fields B is resolved, there is no longer the option to travel. Thus, no threat increase for the second copy of the card.

Of course, you could also choose to ignore the first, raise your threat by 3, and then travel to the second
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
surrutia wrote:

You almost convinced me but...
with that reasoning what happen if you have two The East Bight (When faced with the option to travel, the players must travel to The East Bight if there is no active location.) in the staging area and no active location?
It seems to me that you reach a dead end where the game is obligating you to travel to two locations at the same time.

That does not happen with the other interpretation.


In that example, you have two conflicting passive effects, which the rules say need to be resolved by the First Player (you travel to one East Blight and can't travel to the other).

In the Pelennor Fields example, the passive effects aren't conflicting at all - you have a way out. Either travel to the PF, or raise your threat by 3.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wim D
Belgium
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
polychrotid wrote:
I also think 6 and 0 for 2.1 and 2.2. When there is a conflict in timing, the first player chooses the order of resolution. Since both of these Forced effects happen simultaneously, they can be resolved in any order. Thus, if you travel to Pelennor fields A, when Pelennor Fields B is resolved, there is no longer the option to travel. Thus, no threat increase for the second copy of the card.

Of course, you could also choose to ignore the first, raise your threat by 3, and then travel to the second


I think this is correct!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
Except that you don't process cards in order when determining which to travel to. The process is to assess all locations in the staging area together (ie they all have the option to travel) and choose which one to travel to, if any.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
What happens if there is already an active location? Do the players still have "the option to travel"? ISTM the answer to this question will help answer the other questions.

If an active location removes your option to travel (I think it does) then IMO you would not raise your threat if you travel to one PF and leave the other in the staging area. I would say that you have to evaluate the cards in order. If you travel to the first PF then you have an active location when it is time to evaluate the 2nd PF so the 2nd PF does not increase your threat.

I think this fits in with the spirit of the card as well. The spirit seems to be that if you have the choice to travel to PF then you must do so or else pay the consequences but if you don't have the choice then you are not penalized.

Edit: I'm agreeing with what polychrotid already said.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
BitJam wrote:
What happens if there is already an active location? Do the players still have "the option to travel"?

No, then there's no option to travel. But why are people thinking they're processed in order? In what order - LIFO, FIFO, most threat?

If you have the option to travel, you evaluate all the cards simultaneously (ie they all have the option to travel) and then choose which one travels (if any). The others had the option to travel, but didn't.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
PBrennan wrote:
If you have the option to travel, you evaluate all the cards simultaneously (ie they all have the option to travel) and then choose which one travels (if any). The others had the option to travel, but didn't.

I admit this interpretation is possible but it feels strained. The FAQ says simultaneous effects occur one at a time in whatever order the first player decides.

But the main thing I dislike about this interpretation is that severely punishes you for clearing out the active location and rewards you for having an active location which seems far above and beyond what the intent of the PF card was. This in turn will encourage people to "game" the system by leaving an active location in place when there might be a chance of crossing the Anduin with two PFs in the staging area.

I think I understand where you are coming from. You are saying the new text on both PF cards gets evaluated before you have a chance to travel to either one of them. I just don't think that this is what the designers intended. I don't think they intended to punish players simply because they have two copies of PF in the staging area when they cross (or have already crossed). I think the intent was to greatly encourage you to travel to PF if you are able. ISTM that having to travel to the first copy of PF and then having to travel to the second copy of PF is already bad enough. Piling on with an extra unavoidable +3 threat seems inappropriate.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rauli Kettunen
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
BitJam wrote:
This in turn will encourage people to "game" the system by leaving an active location in place when there might be a chance of crossing the Anduin with two PFs in the staging area.


Not sure how good it is to leave an active location and not try to clear it. If you don't clear it, you don't get progress on the quest. Pelennors have 7 progress requirement, so they aren't that quick to clear either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
Dam the Man wrote:
Not sure how good it is to leave an active location and not try to clear it. If you don't clear it, you don't get progress on the quest. Pelennors have 7 progress requirement, so they aren't that quick to clear either.

On second thought, I don't think it is possible to have an active location when you cross the Anduin. Still, a delaying tactic might be best if you have Northern Trackers working on getting rid of the PF card(s).

I think the automatic +3 threat increase was unintended (if it exists). It makes the game unnecessarily messy. I think the intent was to encourage you to travel to PF if able, not to further punish you for having two copies of PF in the SA when you cross the Anduin.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
Official Answer
From Nate:
If a card is self-referential, it refers only to that copy of itself. If multiple copies are in play, and you travel to one, the other would resolve. If you travel to neither, they both resolve once, for themselves.

A card that refers to other copies of itself will use language to the effect of "any copy of..." or "another copy of..." or "a card with the Title..." In the absence of such a term, if a card refers to its own title in the text it should be read as self-referential, and only self-referential.


Confirming it's 6 and 3.

OP, can you append " - received official answer" to the title. Thx.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
Thanks Patrick.

I wish Nate's ruling would have specifically addressed the timing issue since that was my main concern but maybe it's just time for me to give up on guessing what the designers intended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Massing at Osgiliath - 3 rule questions
So it's just like AGoT, which is what I normally use to make my predictions.
 
 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.