Avoid acquiring boons

[Elaborigen]

I know it's been asked for before, but with the latest update it's becoming extra frustrating to being required to roll to get any boon.

This extra frustration comes from scenario 4 in deck 5 in which 1 location makes you recharge a card after succeeding at any roll and (more annoyingly) the location which makes you banish a different item from the one you just got when you get any item.

Bye bye wand of enervation! I really needed this basic potion of basicness!

 

Can we please have a button in some corner or something not too intrusive to avoid rolling for things we don't want? It's part of the board game rules.

Up to now it was just bloating our decks during a given scenario, but this scenario is extremely annoying.

 

 

[nsr]

This would be nice. For now my solution is to send in Seelah who has no items.

 

If you do end up in this situation you can forfeit to avoid banishing an irreplaceable item.

[Ethics Gradient]

We've been asking for that feature for a while...

 

Best advice until then is to manually change the check type you're attempting.  More often than not, boons have multiple checks to acquire them.  

 

Usually you can switch it to a d4 or d6 without bonuses to manually "blow" a roll.

[elcoderdude]

Arrggg! Just hit the "banish another item" scenario.

This is extremely frustrating. By adventure 5, your deck is well-honed: if you have an item, you want it, and probably pretty badly.

Right now what I'm doing is forfeiting if I really want to keep the item. It's a royal pain.

 

Can a developer explain WHY the app contradicts the card game rules and forces you to attempt to acquire?

[Ethics Gradient]

We never really got a response during this ancient thread (I don't want that boon!).

 

While certainly an annoyance before, the Vault of Greed location highlights how a rules divergence in digital is adding some quality-of-life issues for players.  Having a "Pass" option for boons would be nice fix.

[Borissimo]

Nathan said explicitly in this thread during the closed beta that the feature would be included, even going so far as to point out that he understood the reasons why it was an important feature. Well Nathan (& Co), the window of this not being a high priority has long closed.

[imaenoon]

Yeah, that 5-4 scenario really sucks. Ezren ended up losing his +2 int crown that lets him play another item on a check. Of course, I was a bit greedy in that I had three +2 int items that helped him pound down the baddies, but losing it hurt. Lem lost the enervation wand. Ugh.

 

When I went to the vault, I saw another wand, but I didn't see the crown. Maybe if I'd chosen the robes, they'd still be in the vault since their a scenario reward? I could farm the crown (it's not the loot crown) but I've played that particular party without farming and just taking what I get as I complete the scenarios. I want to play it as if it were tabletop. Well, just a game and all, but it hurts losing good gear.

[Longshot11]

Yeah, that 5-4 scenario really sucks. Ezren ended up losing his +2 int crown that lets him play another item on a check. Of course, I was a bit greedy in that I had three +2 int items that helped him pound down the baddies, but losing it hurt. Lem lost the enervation wand. Ugh.

 

When I went to the vault, I saw another wand, but I didn't see the crown. Maybe if I'd chosen the robes, they'd still be in the vault since their a scenario reward? I could farm the crown (it's not the loot crown) but I've played that particular party without farming and just taking what I get as I complete the scenarios. I want to play it as if it were tabletop. Well, just a game and all, but it hurts losing good gear.

While I fully support they finally implement "decline to acquire", what I don't get is - why doesn't anyone in that location just discard their own items (so they have nothing to banish, if the location is triggered)? Am i missing something?

[elcoderdude]

 

Yeah, that 5-4 scenario really sucks. Ezren ended up losing his +2 int crown that lets him play another item on a check. Of course, I was a bit greedy in that I had three +2 int items that helped him pound down the baddies, but losing it hurt. Lem lost the enervation wand. Ugh.

 

When I went to the vault, I saw another wand, but I didn't see the crown. Maybe if I'd chosen the robes, they'd still be in the vault since their a scenario reward? I could farm the crown (it's not the loot crown) but I've played that particular party without farming and just taking what I get as I complete the scenarios. I want to play it as if it were tabletop. Well, just a game and all, but it hurts losing good gear.

While I fully support they finally implement "decline to acquire", what I don't get is - why doesn't anyone in that location just discard their own items (so they have nothing to banish, if the location is triggered)? Am i missing something?

 

 

Yeah, the first time I was caught by surprise, because I had completely forgotten the location power (from playing the card game), and  I misread it  (in the digital game), so I thought it was the typical "When you acquire an item, banish an item", not "banish another item".

 

The second time I didn't have this excuse.

 

I will point out your approach causes you to burn turns.  If you draw items, you have to not explore in order to pitch the items. Of course, you only have to do this while there are items in the deck (but there are a lot). But it could be painful to a large party.

 

I was playing the "I can choose a bad skill and avoid the acquire" game.  But Lini still made a Strength 5 check with a d4+1.

Edited November 24, 2016 by elcoderdude

[mccrispy]

 

Yeah, that 5-4 scenario really sucks. Ezren ended up losing his +2 int crown that lets him play another item on a check. Of course, I was a bit greedy in that I had three +2 int items that helped him pound down the baddies, but losing it hurt. Lem lost the enervation wand. Ugh.

 

When I went to the vault, I saw another wand, but I didn't see the crown. Maybe if I'd chosen the robes, they'd still be in the vault since their a scenario reward? I could farm the crown (it's not the loot crown) but I've played that particular party without farming and just taking what I get as I complete the scenarios. I want to play it as if it were tabletop. Well, just a game and all, but it hurts losing good gear.

While I fully support they finally implement "decline to acquire", what I don't get is - why doesn't anyone in that location just discard their own items (so they have nothing to banish, if the location is triggered)? Am i missing something?

 

 

 

I will point out your approach causes you to burn turns.  If you draw items, you have to not explore in order to pitch the items. Of course, you only have to do this while there are items in the deck (but there are a lot). But it could be painful to a large party.

 

I was playing the "I can choose a bad skill and avoid the acquire" game.  But Lini still made a Strength 5 check with a d4+1.

I concur! You can't afford to burn items just so you don't Banish them (though the net effect on card count is the same). Besides, some Items are too useful to have in your hand (and indeed, your strategy may be built around them, at least in part). This is another example of where the failure of the digital to implement the physical is incomplete or defective and therefore irritating, to say the least.

[Longshot11]

 

 

Yeah, that 5-4 scenario really sucks. Ezren ended up losing his +2 int crown that lets him play another item on a check. Of course, I was a bit greedy in that I had three +2 int items that helped him pound down the baddies, but losing it hurt. Lem lost the enervation wand. Ugh.

 

When I went to the vault, I saw another wand, but I didn't see the crown. Maybe if I'd chosen the robes, they'd still be in the vault since their a scenario reward? I could farm the crown (it's not the loot crown) but I've played that particular party without farming and just taking what I get as I complete the scenarios. I want to play it as if it were tabletop. Well, just a game and all, but it hurts losing good gear.

While I fully support they finally implement "decline to acquire", what I don't get is - why doesn't anyone in that location just discard their own items (so they have nothing to banish, if the location is triggered)? Am i missing something?

 

 

 

I will point out your approach causes you to burn turns.  If you draw items, you have to not explore in order to pitch the items. Of course, you only have to do this while there are items in the deck (but there are a lot). But it could be painful to a large party.

 

I was playing the "I can choose a bad skill and avoid the acquire" game.  But Lini still made a Strength 5 check with a d4+1.

I concur! You can't afford to burn items just so you don't Banish them (though the net effect on card count is the same). Besides, some Items are too useful to have in your hand (and indeed, your strategy may be built around them, at least in part). This is another example of where the failure of the digital to implement the physical is incomplete or defective and therefore irritating, to say the least.

 

I'm not saying you two are not right, but what I use as a general strategy:

 

If I have people with no items in starting hand (hello, Seelah) - I send them in that location.

If not - I go for other locations first; if I encounter an item somewhere else - I make a reasonable effort to acquire it, and then go to the Vault on the next turn with that character.

If I don't encounter an item in this turn - I discard all items (preferably, from the character with the least quantity/quality of items) - this guy goes to the Vault next.

 

An important thing to note is that you only need to obtain ONE crappy item somewhere else to entirely circumvent the Vault's drawback: once you have this as insurance, you can explore there freely; if you acquire an item from the location - you banish the first one, but now you have the second one as insurance, and so you move on...

[mccrispy]

Agreed. If I have a crappy item on hand and it doesn't screw with my "always be able to close your Location" strategy​ then I'll do it. But in Scenarios where a failed attempt at closing a Location is a major setback, I'm unwilling to take that particular risk (the cost in Blessings and Allies for the extra Explores and Combat Checks, not to mention the Blessings needed for a Closure Check when the Character has a D4 for the required skill is simply to much in my experience - with a party of 6 one or two failures to Close a Location can sink my game). This is particularly noticeable when all checks are being increased by 2D4.

[elcoderdude]

Longshot -- you make good points, but if you send a character with any items in their deck to the Vault, and they don't acquire an item on their first turn there, but they use any cards, then boom. You're faced with potentially burning a turn to avoid this problem we shouldn't be having in the first place.

[imaenoon]

I would simply say that there should be an option to avoid rolling on gear because those are supposed to be the rules. However, the work around you described is pretty much what I use. ...And some gear is better than others, especially, in my opinion, for casters, so I send people who can either lose the gear or don't have any. I don't like playing with Seelah, so that's not an option. However, the point someone made above about changing the check to something specific that forces you to roll a d4 works also. Nevertheless, I don't think you should have to do it. Of coruse, more importantly, I think the fact that my new four player party keeps running afoul in deck 1 where the boss springs a wrathful sinspawn before the fight. Somehow, there's a glitch that keeps preventing me from moving past the die roll. I'm actually here now looking for a solution and that problem is far worse than one where at least you know exactly what you're getting into after the first time you play the scenario in deck 5.