|
Jabor posted:I don't have JotL, but looking at the card lists, Demolitionist doesn't seem overly slow? You have two reusable move 3s and a move 4-6, plus Windup if necessary, so you can be playing an okay bottom move nearly every single turn pretty easily. What am I missing? quote:On the scenario front, reading discussions of it elsewhere, it seems like enemies mostly spawn when you bust the rocks - so it shouldn't be too hard to find a spot to safely long rest? I'd used one loss ability and had to lose a card to avoid a 6-damage monster crit, but those were both pretty late in the run. My wife went a little too liberal with her loss cards, so we're going to try to be a bit more careful. The pace on that one seems very rushed for two players, though.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:It's a big map with a lot of space to traverse when it's only two players. Demolitionist is almost completely melee-only, so doing move 2 and the occasional move 3 still feels slow. Windup requires you to not move the previous turn, so it's situational. I mean, you only have four turns per rest cycle, right? So as long as you're not ditching one of your moves early, you're moving 3+ the majority of the time. If you need to cross a lot of space you can use Windup to fill the fourth turn, otherwise you can make use of one of the other bottom action abilities. If you don't need to cross a ton of space, the top half of Windup also seems really good for getting value out of a turn in which you're out of range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:My wife and I recently started Jaws of the Lion 2-player. She's the Hatchet, I'm the Demolitionist. We flew through the first three scenarios (fittingly, since they're a tutorial), but we feel like we hit a wall on Scenario 4. My wife and I are playing through as Hatchet/Red Guard and I'm playing a scenario ahead solo as Voidwarden Demolitionist. I just soloed S4 last night and used his move 4 and burned his AOE on the last group and STILL needed to hit a blessing to kill the final enemy on his last two cards. VW still had 3-4 turns worth of cards. This is my first time playing GH and I don't think I was doing anything wrong, but it really just felt like he was card starved and if you have to spend a couple of turns not pressing into fights you just run out of gas too soon in that scenario. I think I have stam potions available in the shop now, so I might grab him one before the next scenario. I short rested every time though, so my inexperience probably caused me to not notice that they give you the ability to long rest in the same scenario they give you the ability to choose not to fight things by controlling your own spawns. The game is teaching me, if I bother to learn. Huxley fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
I have a Void Warden question because I am not understanding some of their cards. So pg 7 of the Learn to Play says, "Actions contain multiple abilities, with each ability seperated by an ability line (dotted line). Any ability or action can be skipped." So VoidWarden Level 1 Freeeze the Soul Bottom Stun (Range 3) | Curse Self (Spend Night to Ignore the Curse) with | being the dotted line. So if those two parts are separate abilities, what is the point of the second Curse ability. If it can be skipped, why include an ability to ignore it. Thematically, it feels like the Curse should happen regardless as its the "cost" of getting the stun. But mechnically...? I feel like I'm reading something wrong because the Void Warden has all these cards that read thematically like "take a penalty to get a bonus" but the card formatting just lets you skip the penalty. jadarx fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jul 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
Better, full answer: Can I choose to not perform specific parts of an action and what is considered a negative effect? You may not skip the following abilities/effects: * Negative effects: Effects that when performed will (not may) reduce hit points, lose cards, or apply a negative condition to yourself or an ally . * Stand alone infusions (i.e. not attached to a specific ability). Note that infusions gained from modifier cards are considered attached to the attack so they can be skipped. Also, for characters, at least one ability on the action must be performed in order to gain the standalone Infusion. This is not true for monsters, they cannot skip abilities and do perform their infusion even if they can't perform another ability during their action. * XP granting abilities, whether standalone or attached to another ability. If standalone, at least one ability on the action must be performed in order to gain the XP. * +/- X ability adjustments from modifier cards. * Individual targets of an AoE attack - if you do the attack, all eligible targets in the area must be attacked. Note that Add Target and Target X are not AoE abilities and can be skipped. For Target X, you may attack less than X targets. * Charges and their effects of a multi-use item or ability if the triggering conditions have been met
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
Is that just from the FAQ? Because I searched the JotL glossary and learn to play (and didn't want to get gloomhaven rulebook out) and it says nothing like that. I know that's the right answer, but the JotL rules just say you can skip abilites and then doesn't seem to go into any more detail on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
Kalli posted:* Individual targets of an AoE attack - if you do the attack, all eligible targets in the area must be attacked. Note that Add Target and Target X are not AoE abilities and can be skipped. For Target X, you may attack less than X targets. Does anyone know if "target all enemies adjacent/within range x/etc." follows the target x rules or the AoE rules? This came up in a session once, and all the errata I can find are about monster AI and suchlike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Does anyone know if "target all enemies adjacent/within range x/etc." follows the target x rules or the AoE rules? This came up in a session once, and all the errata I can find are about monster AI and suchlike. It could be an AoE ranged attack, an AoE melee attack, or a non-attack effect depending on the card. But I honestly don't know what you think the difference is between "target x" and "AoE" - they're basically handled identically. Each enemy can get targeted only once, and each gets their own modifier flip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Does anyone know if "target all enemies adjacent/within range x/etc." follows the target x rules or the AoE rules? This came up in a session once, and all the errata I can find are about monster AI and suchlike. They're not identical, but they're close. Multi-hex targeting allows you to pick and choose targets within the targetable hexes. Likewise, with Target X you can also choose to target less than X. But "target all" means that if you target at least 1 then you must target all that satisfy the conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Does anyone know if "target all enemies adjacent/within range x/etc." follows the target x rules or the AoE rules? This came up in a session once, and all the errata I can find are about monster AI and suchlike. We had a long debate on this back in May starting from this post. No-one ever found an official ruling, so it's just arguments about people's interpretations of the rules which you may or may not find convincing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
NRVNQSR posted:We had a long debate on this back in May starting from this post. No-one ever found an official ruling, so it's just arguments about people's interpretations of the rules which you may or may not find convincing. The FAQ says that all eligible targets in an attack's area (e.g. all adjacent, all within range 2, etc.) must be attacked, so it just depends on whether you believe that effects are subject to the same rules. I thought this was pretty definitively settled when someone pointed out the Cragheart ability Dirt Tornado. "Muddle all enemies and allies in the targeted area" seems cut and dry; it would be silly if you could choose to muddle your enemies and not your allies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 09:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:"Muddle all enemies and allies in the targeted area" seems cut and dry; it would be silly if you could choose to muddle your enemies and not your allies. That problem is already covered by a different rule: You can't skip muddling allies because that's a negative effect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The FAQ says that all eligible targets in an attack's area (e.g. all adjacent, all within range 2, etc.) must be attacked, so it just depends on whether you believe that effects are subject to the same rules. I thought this was pretty definitively settled when someone pointed out the Cragheart ability Dirt Tornado. "Muddle all enemies and allies in the targeted area" seems cut and dry; it would be silly if you could choose to muddle your enemies and not your allies. The issue (for me, at least) is that there are two kinds of multi-target attacks, which follow different rules. Anything that targets an area targets anything within that area, and you don't get to pick and choose. Plus the thing about Dirt Tornado being covered by a different rule. Anything that hits a specific number of targets lets you attack fewer than the listed amount of targets, even if you could target more. You could make the case for "target all" falling in either of those boxes, and I was hoping there'd been a definitive FAQ answer. It comes up pretty rarely, since another rule specifies you can't avoid negative effects, and there's little reason to want to attack a viable target otherwise. E: NRVNQSR posted:We had a long debate on this back in May starting from this post. No-one ever found an official ruling, so it's just arguments about people's interpretations of the rules which you may or may not find convincing. Oh yeah, I chimed in almost immediately to that question with the AoE interpretation. I'm gonna stick to my original reading even though it is now to my detriment. Thanks! Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jul 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
I feel like it’s a safe bet that since 1. there are explicitly some rules that prevent you from reducing the enemies you are attacking in a certain type of multi attack, and 2. the attacks in question explicitly have the keyword “all”...that you have to target all enemies. Although I do totally get that both “target X” and “target all” feature the word “target” and therefore it’s not unreasonable to assume they are more similar than “area of effect”. Still, I would go with the former interpretation just because it’s slightly more challenging and usually Gloom rules tend to lean toward that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:It's a big map with a lot of space to traverse when it's only two players. Demolitionist is almost completely melee-only, so doing move 2 and the occasional move 3 still feels slow. Windup requires you to not move the previous turn, so it's situational. I still think this scenario is overtuned for two players, especially considering it's part of the tutorial. We didn't just lose the first attempt, we got crushed. Oh well, we're having a blast, and it's a fun way to pass this neverending quarantine. Edit: And then Scenario 5 was easy again. Almost too easy. I do think Scenario 4 is an outlier. WhiteHowler fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I feel like it’s a safe bet that since 1. there are explicitly some rules that prevent you from reducing the enemies you are attacking in a certain type of multi attack, and 2. the attacks in question explicitly have the keyword “all”...that you have to target all enemies. Although I do totally get that both “target X” and “target all” feature the word “target” and therefore it’s not unreasonable to assume they are more similar than “area of effect”. Still, I would go with the former interpretation just because it’s slightly more challenging and usually Gloom rules tend to lean toward that. Yeah, I get the confusion, just one more way that Gloomhaven's rules wind up being less than perfect. I think it's pretty silly to argue that "target all" means less than all but people should play the game however they want QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jul 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
NRVNQSR posted:That problem is already covered by a different rule: You can't skip muddling allies because that's a negative effect. If the area contains two allies, and you choose to only target one of them for muddling, then the negative effect has not been skipped; you just chose to have it target fewer than All allies. So the question boils down to whether All really means All.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If the area contains two allies, and you choose to only target one of them for muddling, then the negative effect has not been skipped; you just chose to have it target fewer than All allies. So the question boils down to whether All really means All. Yes it does
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If the area contains two allies, and you choose to only target one of them for muddling, then the negative effect has not been skipped; you just chose to have it target fewer than All allies. So the question boils down to whether All really means All. The question is whether "all" creates one effect or multiple effects. If muddling multiple allies is one effect then you can't skip it because it's negative. If muddling multiple allies is multiple effects you can't skip any of them because they're all negative. In either interpretation you can never skip muddling allies, but in the second interpretation you can skip muddling enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 10:22
|
|
|
People need to start posting specific cards with spoilers if necessary. It's dumb as gently caress to be arguing about well maybe edge cases in a void when the cards are very specifically worded in who they effect and the layout determines what can be skipped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 11:36
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:People need to start posting specific cards with spoilers if necessary. It's dumb as gently caress to be arguing about well maybe edge cases in a void when the cards are very specifically worded in who they effect and the layout determines what can be skipped. They're literally talking about the Cragheart starter card, and the text has been quoted already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 11:38
|
|
|
Jabor posted:They're literally talking about the Cragheart starter card, and the text has been quoted already. Yeah I got that part which is why NRVNQSR posted:The question is whether "all" creates one effect or multiple effects. If muddling multiple allies is one effect then you can't skip it because it's negative. If muddling multiple allies is multiple effects you can't skip any of them because they're all negative. In either interpretation you can never skip muddling allies, but in the second interpretation you can skip muddling enemies. makes no sense because dirt tornado is an aoe, with a specific line about muddying allies and enemies in the targeted area. Target X/all is a key word. You can't target allies, so you will never see a target X/all that muddles allies and enemies in the first place. Maybe it's just lovely rules writing that dirt tornado says "targeted area" and not just "area".
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:makes no sense because dirt tornado is an aoe, with a specific line about muddying allies and enemies in the targeted area. I would certainly agree that Dirt Tornado isn't very relevant to Zulily's original question about attacks. I think QuarkJets was calling back more to the question from May, which is about abilities like Sweeping Blow ("Push 1, Target all adjacent enemies"). Though even then you're still right that "Status, Target all enemies" isn't really the same as "Apply status to all enemies". NRVNQSR fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
I'm just gonna post some basic class cards that I think apply, rather than posting the specific cards that have come up for me and make it a weird mess of spoilers. I don't have the game on hand, images grabbed from random imgur guides, sorry for big:  Icy Blast top is a standard AoE attack. The rules explicitly state that in whatever area you hit, you must attack all viable targets.  Mass Hysteria top is a "Target X" ability. Even if you have four targets within range, you can choose to attack fewer than four targets if need be.  Cranium Overload top is a "Target All" ability. There could easily be a scenario where one target is adjacent to the Mindthief and has shield and retaliate, and you'd rather avoid hitting them while still hitting everybody else. There is no unambiguous rule on whether this is permitted, as it is only specified that you must hit every target within the red hexes of an AoE attack, and that you can forgo targets with a "target X" attack. E: I just noticed that two of the cards in question have muddle as an added effect. Added effects are not pertinent to the question I have been asking, I'm only curious about who must be hit with the "attack" effect. Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:E: I just noticed that two of the cards in question have muddle as an added effect. Added effects are not pertinent to the question I have been asking, I'm only curious about who must be hit with the "attack" effect. Yeah, there's no problem with the added effects; for both Icy Blast and Mass Hysteria the rules are clear that you can choose separately for each attacked enemy whether to apply the muddle, and it would be the same if you enhanced Cranium Overload to add muddle. The only question here is which attacks can be skipped. Incidentally this repo has nice scans of all the individual cards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:
I think you've misread that. Cranium Overload top is a "Target all enemies" ability. The Mindthief is not an enemy so would not get targeted; if it had said target all without specifying enemies it would have got attacked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I think you've misread that. Cranium Overload top is a "Target all enemies" ability. The Mindthief is not an enemy so would not get targeted; if it had said target all without specifying enemies it would have got attacked. That isn’t what they are saying. They are saying it is ambiguous* whether you must target all adjacent enemies, and that there are scenarios you might not want to (the example they use is that one of the adjacent enemies has retaliate) * it’s ambiguous because the FAQ declares you must target all enemies in a hex pattern AOE but don’t need to target the full amount of a “target X” and it’s unclear if “target all” is the same as the latter
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Just have everyone play a brute without any AoE card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:
Seems pretty clear in the “all” language of the target all. That you must target all within that range. This is the simplest explanation and likely what the rule makers were thinking when they wrote “target all”, IMO Edit: ah wait I see what you all mean, target all could essentially be a target x for all enemies within the initial range. That still feels slightly more of a stretch in reasoning. It feels like the intent of target all is to simply force you target everything, as implied in the word “All”. But... merely targeting everything can still mean you can choose whether to attack it or not. But it must be that you’re forced to attack all enemies. That’s the simplest explanation of the rule writers intent. I have no idea nevermind Truecon420 fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Truecon420 posted:Seems pretty clear in the “all” language of the target all. That you must target all within that range. This is the simplest explanation and likely what the rule makers were thinking when they wrote “target all”, IMO Oh I totally agree, was just re-summarizing the debate so that the word "ambiguous" didn't become a sticking point in my correction
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Truecon420 posted:Seems pretty clear in the “all” language of the target all. That you must target all within that range. This is the simplest explanation and likely what the rule makers were thinking when they wrote “target all”, IMO if "target X" actually means "target X or fewer" (as opposed to, say, mtg targeting rules, where if something says "destroy six target creatures" you need six valid targets) then "target all" could just as easily mean "target all or fewer". or it could not, it's genuinely ambiguous
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Does anyone have any suggestions for cool combos and playstyles with Red Guard? It seems rather straightforward honestly as just a potential tank and melee beater, but I'd like to hear how other people are building it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:if "target X" actually means "target X or fewer" (as opposed to, say, mtg targeting rules, where if something says "destroy six target creatures" you need six valid targets) then "target all" could just as easily mean "target all or fewer". or it could not, it's genuinely ambiguous I hear your reasoning via the rules available, but it would be pretty funny if the rule makers meant “target all or fewer” by “target all”
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
NRVNQSR posted:The question is whether "all" creates one effect or multiple effects. If muddling multiple allies is one effect then you can't skip it because it's negative. If muddling multiple allies is multiple effects you can't skip any of them because they're all negative. In either interpretation you can never skip muddling allies, but in the second interpretation you can skip muddling enemies. In the second case, you would also be able to skip muddling all but one ally. That case can be interpreted as Target X, essentially. If you effect one ally, then the negative effect was not skipped; you just chose to target less than X allies. Since that interpretation is intuitively wrong, that rules out the Target X interpretation; therefore Target All (or Effect All) must effect All potential targets. Or in other words, All really means All, and not something else
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Thanks for posting cards by the way, it makes it way easier to follow the logic.Truecon420 posted:Seems pretty clear in the “all” language of the target all. That you must target all within that range. This is the simplest explanation and likely what the rule makers were thinking when they wrote “target all”, IMO I think RAW that interpretation that target all is equal to target x is right. There's no exceptions in the FAQ that leads me to believe target all is handled any differently to target x. It's a normal attack with a variable amount of targets. Like any attack with variable targets, you can't target allies, but you can choose whether or not you attack enemies, and whether or not your attack will apply an effect to a target (but you have to decide that before you draw your attack modifier). RAI though I would definitely force the mindthief to attack everything. You don't get to direct brain explosions in specific directions, and if the brain splatter triggers retaliate so be it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 08:59
|
|
|
Question about the Frosthaven pledge manager - I see that Wave 2 has opened up, but it looks like it has a limited selection of items compared to Wave 1? I was hoping to pick up a copy of base Gloomhaven in this wave. Is that no longer possible or am I just blind?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 09:13
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:Thanks for posting cards by the way, it makes it way easier to follow the logic. I agree that Target all may be related to target x. But I also don't think there's evidence to assume that target all works like target x, beyond the similarity in wording and key phrase. I also don't think it's necessarily intended to be a "normal attack". It is an attack with variable targets, but it is different than normal variable target attacks because it requires additional language, that being an "enemies" or "allies". Where most target x attacks automatically imply a target type based on their respective damage number or heal amount, Target all will specify the target type; and you can only do the target all action to that type. This difference in necessary wording implies that it, although likely similar to target x, it may be something different all together. But again i'm clearly talking out of my rear end. The points you make are persuasive. I think this issue is needlessly complex and without any clarification from the rules or rule maker I default to the simplest explanation, which is that you indeed target All when you target all
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
interrodactyl posted:Question about the Frosthaven pledge manager - I see that Wave 2 has opened up, but it looks like it has a limited selection of items compared to Wave 1? As far as I can tell Gloomhaven and all the accessories for it was Wave 1.. If you wanted to add it to your pledge I think you needed to do it then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 09:57
|
|
|
And with Scenario 56 completed, our Saw and Brute have retired, replaced by Two-Mini and Scoundrel (Brute unlocked Angry-Face, which we already had. Oh well, at least we got a side quest and a random item design out of that unlock). My Cragheart reached Level 6, and Angry Face autoleveled to 5, thanks to Prosperity increase. We're going to play some side scenarios for a bit, to get used to the new characters, before attempting Scenario 72. I've heard some scuttlebutt that it's rather tough, but no specifics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:Thanks for posting cards by the way, it makes it way easier to follow the logic. Can you point to anything specific that leads you to believe that Target All is handled like Target X, as opposed to the word "All" being literal? Another point that may or may not influence opinions: there are some cards that use a variable X when describing damage or number of targets, I think that helps to distinguish Target All as not being a Target X ability. In fact, I would argue that any card that does not have the Target symbol is not a Target X ability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:51
|
|