Restricted Access · ArkhamDB

This is a question as opposed to a review: suppose an investigator controlled the custodian and then lost control of it in Act 3a. Then for the purpose of Act 2b (and the scenario resolution), is it true that the investigator "has performed" the "An investigator controls the Custodian?"

To be clear, I think this is different from Act 2a, where it states "if three of the following are true..." and when you lose control, it is no longer true that you "have control". However, given the way the game resolves the number of tasks in the resolution of the scenario, it seems it expects the number of tasks you have "performed by the time the scenario ends" (as opposed to, say "to be true by the time the scenario ends") to be definitely between 3 and 6, and you can get into a state where you only have 2 tasks (by doing the Custodian and 2 other tasks, then losing the custodian), which is not given a consequence in the resolution.

7/25/21

krzhang · 7

You'd have to control the custodian at time of resolution; the text isn't in quotes so it's not asking you to remember something, it's just looking at the game state. It should say, roughly, "the more of the following that are true, the better..." but it seems to have slipped under QA's nets. — SGPrometheus · 809 7/26/21

I agree with SGPrometheus; you need control when all payers reach the “resign” condition. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1051 7/27/21

That seems to be right to me as well but like the OP said , it does create a new hole in the rules in the resolution. If you advance from Act 2a to 2b with control of the Custodian and two other things , lose control of the Custodian in Act 3 and don't complete any other tasks by the time you resign then you end up with 2 tasks completed in the resolution and no instructions for what to do. And yeah, I also kinda think that suggests the intent was for it not to be possible to "un-do" the tasks....Might be worth asking over — bee123 · 31 7/28/21

I'd just go for the 3 tasks completed bullet; it doesn't get much worse than that anyway :p — SGPrometheus · 809 7/29/21

hehe I do agree with that! I still hold that if we are going to take cards to their word though, we would incentivize minmax players to go for the 2 tasks instead of the 3 to dodge a ‘ — krzhang · 7 7/29/21

(argh misclick) “better” outcome, so an errata would be nice. — krzhang · 7 7/29/21

禁止通行

歸位程式 - 背面

FAQs

Reviews

禁止通行

歸位程式 - 背面

相关卡牌

FAQs

Reviews