I don't want that boon!

[Kgk4569]

Sajan especially punishes those with bloated decks.

[269Hawkmoon]

Having played all 3 games, in the card version, multiple times... I can confidently say there are many cases where you would not want to acquire a boon.  

 

Obsidian's new method of pulling cards makes sense due to their Treasure Chests... but... it does hurt the strategic value of removing cards you don't want from the likelyhood of drawing them.  When the whole idea of no experience (XP) is substituted by probability of random cards... it does suck you can't remove basic cards.   

 

However, that said, just because there are less cases in the Rise of the Runelords, does not mean cases to not encounter boons do not exist.  Sometimes it is worth while to get boons you do not want... extra HP, trash items you can banish for closing, etc... however,  many cases exist in Wrath of the Righteous where you do not want a boon.  People arguing that they "never would decline a boon", sure, that's great, if that is your play-style... but that doesn't make it ok that the option does not exist.  

• Having boons you do not want make heals less useful.  You'll stay alive, but you are less efficient since there are not many ways to draw cards DURING a turn. I try to heal when i know what is in my discard pile... often aiming to leave only my heal in my discard pile to retrieve it later.  Having boons I do not want in there makes it less likely I will heal back the cards I want and it will take more turns to get the combinations of cards I DO want... which goes against the whole idea of having 30 turns.  
• There exist henchmen/bosses you can't defeat (or get bonuses) if you have a certain type of card in your hand (corrupted)... and when a lot of cards have that trait... imagine being forced to take them right before meeting said henchmen/villain.  
• Some characters whose main gimmick/strength is to reveal/draw/recharge cards with a certain keyword on it to reliably do anything and you end up filling your deck with cards you don't need, slowing you down.  The oracle is a perfect example of this... someone whom you only want divine cards to keep your turn moving.  
• Since you are allowed to pull boons from the "box" up to 2 adventures prior to your current one... by Adventure 6... I may want to purposely banish a card, and never encounter that type of card, to get a specific card.  For instance, if I had bad luck, I may banish an adventure 1 card though a location (lets say a spell), and as a group, have everyone not encounter spells unless its a good one.  This way, at the end, I can pull up to an Adventure Deck 4 card from the box into my hand.  (Same with cards like the Candle, for instance). 
• The holy candle (and other broken items).  You can literally guarantee your party always has a holy candle by just not encountering non-banishable items the moment you use your candle after a certain adventure number.  Basically, hold onto it until you need it... and then for the rest of the game... don't encounter items (unless a really good one comes up).   If you do this, you can always have extra blessings every game.  It's very doable in a 2-player party for instance.  Also an easy way to trivialize Legendary encounters. 

These scenarios are all likely and real.  It doesn't matter if they are game-breaking, it's a rule for a reason. 

 

Also @hawkmoon... your own thread says the opposite.  Vic Wertz posted this after Mike's response.  

 

 

The current plan: Burglar stays as is. The rules get a few changes, though.

"Evade the Card (Optional)" becomes:

Apply Evasion Effects. You may use a power or card that lets you evade the card you’re encountering. If any powers on the card you’re encountering relate to evading the card, they take effect at this time. If you evade the card, do not activate any other powers on it. Shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.

"Attempt the Check" gets the following addition:

If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.

What this means is if you evade, the burglar's second power does not occur. If you do not evade, and either choose not to acquire it or fail to acquire it, the power occurs.

 

Also, the updated rules clarify this as well, since you can only opt out of attempting a check for a boon during the "Attempt to check" portion of a turn.  Which also clearly says that if you do not attempt the check, you fail the check.  

 

That post from Vic and the rules say that you fail to acquire it, not that you fail the check. The Burglar says "If you do not acquire this card, discard 1 weapon or item." It doesn't say it happens only if you fail the check. It happens if you fail to acquire it, which includes deciding not to acquire it or failing the check to acquire it.

 

I still think there is a difference between failing the check to acquire and failing to acquire. If you choose to not attempt to acquire a card, you fail to acquire it, but you haven't failed the check.

[wakasm]

I agree, I think there is a difference between failing to acquire, and failing a check to acquire.   Burgler steals stuff no matter if you fail on a roll or decide not to engage in the card since both cases cause a fail to acquire.  That part I agree with.  I don't think that was what was in question though.  

 

The part that I think is either in disagreement or unclear is (or maybe we are saying the same thing) is if choosing not to encounter a boon is

1. A failed check
2. Not a check to acquire at all. 

Both situations count as failing to acquire it, but only one of those two situations counts as a "Failed check to acquire".  

 

Logic dictates that if you choose not to acquire a boon, you fail to acquire it, but since you are not rolling anything, you are even failing a check to acquire. (this is how I believe it should be or how I believe the rules are intended).  So for instance, Glassworks you ignore that penalty because you did not fail a check.  This woudl mean being allowed to not acquire a boon, as rule, is more strategically viable in the Glassworks and is how I personally play the card game.  

 

The rulebook, however, is not 100% explicitly clear, since, the whole "may try to acquire a boon" falls under the "Attempting a check" portion of the rules.  

• Encountering a card 
• Apply encountering effects
• Apply evasion effects
• Apply before you act effects
• Attempt the Check (you may choose to encounter a boon verbiage is referenced here)
• Attempt next check (if needed)
• Apply after you act effects
• Resolve the encounter 

 

Because of where the rulebook clarifies that you may choose not to acquire a boon;  under the "attempt the check" portion of the rulebook... choosing not to acquire a boon is still part of the attempting the check step and failing since you are already mid-check at this point.  

 

If this clause was not under the "Attempt the Check" portion... this would be 100% clearer or if they included verbiage saying "this does not count as a failed check".   

So the question becomes - is choosing not to acquire a boon, during the attempt a check step, the same as rolling a theoretical fail or does no roll happen at all?   

 

I personally side that it's intended to be no roll happens and thus no "check" occurs, but I also believe the rules, as written, are not clear and actually imply it's a failed check.  

 

That is the portion where I could use some evidence on if you have it.  

Edited May 18, 2016 by wakasm

[Borissimo]

Hawk is extremely prolific on all of the PACG forums and I'm not sure I've ever seen him be wrong about anything. I admit that this makes me want to agree with him. However, it does seem unambiguous that choosing not to acquire a check is the same as failing the check.

 

The discussion linked to in Hawk's post took place in 2014, which is before the following was added to the "attempt the check" segment of the Wrath of the Righteous rulebook:

 

If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.

 

Since this text is in the "attempt the check" section, it follows logically that if you choose not to attempt the check, your decision is treated equivalently as attempting the check and failing it. The difference between "fail to acquire" and "fail a check to acquire" is pedantic; the former is just shorthand for the latter. There is literally no other meaning of "fail to acquire" other than "try a check to acquire something and fail the check."

[wakasm]

I actually agree that there is a difference between "fail to acquire" and "fail a check to acquire".   I just don't think there are many examples of the game enacting that difference.  

 

A theoretical example would be:  

 

Scenario Effect:   "In this scenario you cannot acquire a card with the corrupted trait on it"

Location Effect:   "At this location, take one damage when you fail to acquire a card"

Second Location Effect:  "At this location, take one damage when you fail a check to acquire a card" 

 

In this scenario, you could pass a check to acquire, but still fail to acquire something.  Similar to you can defeat a bane, but it is still considered undefeated.   

 

I just think the rules specifically are messed up in clarifying if choosing not to encounter a boon is a failed check, or a skipped check.   They are intentional with the wording "otherwise" so I am not sure why they are not intentional with the wording here as well.  

 

I still believe they intend it to be a skipped check, but I think the rules, interpreted as written, wrongfully imply it to be a failed check.  Otherwise they could have written it as "If you choose not to encounter a boon, it is the same as rolling and failing the check" (or something even more concise). 

Edited May 18, 2016 by wakasm

[269Hawkmoon]

Here we go. I had to do some more digging. This is more recent:

 

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t2nk?15B-The-Tower-That-Would-Not-Die-Scenario-Rules#9

[Borissimo]

Woooooooow that was some epic digging, Hawk! Okay, I guess the matter's closed -- we have it from an offiical source that "failing a check to acquire a boon" is NOT the same as "failing to acquire a boon." This means that if the text of "night approaches" is "When you fail a check to acquire a boon, discard a blessing from the blessings deck," and if Obsidian eventually implements the option to pass on boons, then choosing not to roll for a boon should in fact NOT trigger the blessing loss. That makes the option to pass on boons a pretty huge deal (for Heroic/Legendary players, anyway) after all!

[wakasm]

Good to see that the logical, intended effect is clarified.  I just wish they could word it properly in the rules to avoid having to dig.  

 

Thanks Hawk

[da_mayor]

My attitude is a practical one.  If you make a difference between "failing to acquire" and "failing a check to acquire" the devs have more control over the things that zap you for doing one of the other.  "We want raise the stakes on deciding to make an acquire check" can be one options, and "We want people to HAVE to try to acquire everyting to keep from getting zapped" is another.

[Kgk4569]

It could be a new wildcard "You must attempt a check on every encounter or take X damage"

[wakasm]

My attitude is a practical one.  If you make a difference between "failing to acquire" and "failing a check to acquire" the devs have more control over the things that zap you for doing one of the other.  "We want raise the stakes on deciding to make an acquire check" can be one options, and "We want people to HAVE to try to acquire everyting to keep from getting zapped" is another.

 

Which is why having really clear rules is needed.  Having nuanced rules also makes the game a lot more entertaining (IMO).  So agreed!

[elcoderdude]

I would just add that you can auto fail the check but not refuse to take the check.

 

In the card game, this is not true.  You can choose not to attempt the check to acquire a boon. This counts as failing to acquire the boon (for cards like Burglar). It does not count as failing a check to acquire the boon (for cards like Glassworks).

 

EDIT: OK, I see this was already clarified in this thread.

Edited May 21, 2016 by elcoderdude

[hfm]

I still say diluting your deck is a fallacy and I would much rather have life than an exact deck of 15.

When I get done with my current group of Half-Height Heroes, I'll run through with Kyra, Sajan, Valeros, Ezren, and Seelah and report on how the "bloated" decks  work.

 

Running ONE game isn't going to be statistically significant. The one time you end up having that useless item in your hand instead of a spell or blessing and you really needed it will eventually happen. People are asking for choice that exists in the tabletop game. Why not add it in? No one is forcing you to use the "force-fail" if it's added in. You can feel free to go ahead and acquire the boon for yourself if that's the option you choose. It's about choice.

[Longshot11]

I still say diluting your deck is a fallacy and I would much rather have life than an exact deck of 15.

Rose, respectfully, try that one with a solo caster and tell us how it works out for you.

 

As for your proposed 5-player party to test deck 'bloating' impact - I suspect you won't feel it at all. First, the more heroes you have, the more exponential is your power to compensate any one single character's flawed hand (so it won't burden you much if you pull out a crappy card once or twice). Second, you'll only have 6 turns per hero - this makes it unlikely you'll go through your whole decks even once, which lessens the impact even further  - contrast that with a solo caster, who's likely to see his deck (diminishing as it may be with each turn) 2-3 times in a game. These are pretty much two opposite ends of slider, and in between them 'bloating' impact varies from 'negligible' to 'you have only yourself to blame'.

[PinkRose]

I'm going to posit that it isn't deck bloat that kills Solo Casters.

It's Dexterity-based Traps.

Took me 4 trys to get through Brigandoom! with Ezren on Normal mode.

[LunarWolf]

It has already been correctly stated that electing not to make a check is in fact failing said check. But it still might be useful. One situation I can think of is the quest mode stipulation "when you acquire a spell, bury a card". There are quite a few spells where I would not consider this a worthy trade at all, and it would be very nice to be able to auto-fail the check to acquire them.

[Longshot11]

It has already been correctly stated that electing not to make a check is in fact failing said check. But it still might be useful. One situation I can think of is the quest mode stipulation "when you acquire a spell, bury a card". There are quite a few spells where I would not consider this a worthy trade at all, and it would be very nice to be able to auto-fail the check to acquire them.

Not quite. Rather (as also previously stated), declining to acquire counts as "failing to acquire", not as "failing a check to acquire" (i.e. you would be safe at Glassworks).

Also, the benefits of declining to acquire don't need to be further established, but your example is not very good - in those scenarios, you can always elect to just bury the spell you just acquired, so you win nothing, you lose nothing.

 

Indeed, not cluttering your deck with garbage (for healing purposes) and the wildcard Night Approaches are probably the most obvious arguments for having the option to decline. However, starting with the next Adventure, another reason will become much more important: your ability to rebuild your deck not only with Basics, but with any cards whose AD# is your current AD# - 2.

So, for example, until now (AD3) the precious Augury has alluded my Ezren, but I get a location that closes by "Banish a card". Normally, I'll banish a spell to close, then I'll take extra great care not to pick up any other spells until end of scenario (I just decline them), and at the end - I just pick up the Augury when rebuilding my deck. However, as it is now - I suddenly stumble across a Detect Magic, or even worse - Sleep. Even when I switch my check from Arcane to Intelligence, I still have a d12 to roll and the chance to fail is negligible, thus saddling me with atrocious spell, instead of a game-changing one.

 

Another point to consider: the "scroll-user" characters - Sajan, Merisiel, Harsk. They can pick up a spell card feat, but without the appropriate Arcane/Divine skill they will always banish it. This means, they'll usually pick-up a Cure (you can never have too much of those), then take care not to pick up other spells, and at Rebuild Deck they just pick up a new Cure.

Also, post-AD2, they can pick Augury (again, tremendously useful) and do the same trick, or, if paired with casters, they can use their Spell slot to "shop" upgrades for the caster. (Ezren is still flinging Acid Arrows; however his partner Harsk banishes his Cure and at deck rebuild selects Scorching Ray; then, before the next scenario, you exchange the Ray for Ezren's Acid Arrow, and then, during the scenario, Harsk banishes it in battle - you'll probably lose the battle, but Harsk has an armor to soak it up; rinse-repeat until your caster's spell-book is up to date).

Both of the above strategies get hamstrung by the inability to decline acquiring.

[PinkRose]

Lunarwolf, just Bury the spell you just got.

[LAntorcha]

Lunarwolf, just Bury the spell you just got.

DIZZ IS MADNESS!!!

 

"Aquire a spell, then throw it to the litter" ..... Great Game Mechanic.

Edited May 22, 2016 by LAntorcha

[PinkRose]

You still get to add it to your deck and the end if you want.

[wakasm]

You still get to add it to your deck and the end if you want.

 

But alas, you bring up the point people keep counter-arguing with you.  There are many cases you do NOT want it added in the end.  There are many cases you do NOT want even a single spell in your pool of choice.   If I play as a Harsk, who adds 1 spell as a card feat, and always want a CURE in that spell slot... I want to always-always-always turn down spells... so at the end of the game, I will have no spells in my pool, and can then fetch a CURE automatically.   "The scroll" example a previous posted pointed to. 

 

Without the option to say no to boons, this is impossible, and thus, makes taking a spell slot on a character like Harsk useless.   And there are multiple examples/variations of just this one scenario... like trying to keep a Holy Candle in your item pool at all times.  

 

People have statistically, mathematically, and logically brought up multiple real use cases to have the option to turn down the chance to "acquire a boon".  It's so real in fact, that the designers of the game included it as a rule, and later on, in harder scenarios, will be much more noticeable if not included.   Plus, player choice is a good thing... it makes the game deeper with more longevity for all involved.  

 

Related [Link]

Edited May 23, 2016 by wakasm

[Kreniigh]

I just started playing this past weekend, so I'm late to this discussion.  Has there been some change to the scenario rules for Local Heroes since this was all debated?  Because it's an unambiguous example of a forced check to acquire causing harm to the party...  I'd rather choose not to make a check to acquire if the odds are against me and the consequence is loss of a card from the blessings deck.

 

[Greenvise]

I just started playing this past weekend, so I'm late to this discussion.  Has there been some change to the scenario rules for Local Heroes since this was all debated?  Because it's an unambiguous example of a forced check to acquire causing harm to the party...  I'd rather choose not to make a check to acquire if the odds are against me and the consequence is loss of a card from the blessings deck.

 

You will never be able to skip the check.

 

You will eventually be able to voluntarily FAIL the check - just like in the physical card game. But you're still stuck with difficult "acquire-or-suffer" situations, as is the case with Local Heroes. Being able to SKIP the check would make scenarios like that one trivially easy.

[Kreniigh]

 

I just started playing this past weekend, so I'm late to this discussion.  Has there been some change to the scenario rules for Local Heroes since this was all debated?  Because it's an unambiguous example of a forced check to acquire causing harm to the party...  I'd rather choose not to make a check to acquire if the odds are against me and the consequence is loss of a card from the blessings deck.

 

You will never be able to skip the check.

 

You will eventually be able to voluntarily FAIL the check - just like in the physical card game. But you're still stuck with difficult "acquire-or-suffer" situations, as is the case with Local Heroes. Being able to SKIP the check would make scenarios like that one trivially easy.

 

 

There is no mechanism in the physical card game to allow a player to voluntarily fail a check.  As has been proven upthread, there is a mechanism to allow a player to voluntarily fail to acquire a boon without making a check.

 

IIRC, this scenario is fairly easy in the physical card game, a lull between challenges to allow players to accumulate some allies.  Even if the developers have decided to make all scenarios equally difficult for the app (and I can see that being the case, since people are a lot more likely to grind the same scenarios over and over than in the physical game), this could easily be accomplished by changing the scenario rule to what the burglar has:  penalty applied when failed to acquire, not when failed a check to acquire, which would maintain the difficulty without changing the game fundamentally across the board.

[RedPred]

I just started playing this past weekend, so I'm late to this discussion.  Has there been some change to the scenario rules for Local Heroes since this was all debated?  Because it's an unambiguous example of a forced check to acquire causing harm to the party...  I'd rather choose not to make a check to acquire if the odds are against me and the consequence is loss of a card from the blessings deck.

 

It's a challenge mate. Some are harder then other of course. For example if you get that wild card with -5 blessing in the deck, you have a wonderful nightmare. But leveling your characters, choosing optimal chars for that scenario (charisma over all) and getting better cards for your chars decks, will make you close Local Heroes Legendary in around 20 turns also with 6-party (it's my favorite scenario when I have to hurry). So virtually you can't lose (and I never got close that point really).