Never noticed that forced march can move other players units around.

It's a bit strange if you consider the fluff.

Interesting point Osiris.

Consider us baffled.

No problems. It was only when reading the extract you refered me to that I noticed the wording!?

Vermillian is there an 'authority' who answers any unresolved questions? I presume you would know?

Osiris

jlmott said:

These two questions were both answered by the forum on the previous page :)

Typically the authorities will be apointed from amongst us.

Interested in a job? (by job I mean unpayed unrewarded taskmastering)

Contact Nate. Like I might. lol (on;y cause I lovez this game so far)

vermillian said:

Awesome! I reckon you should Vermillian, you seem to have a great knowledge of the rules already :)

vermillian said:

Why create authorities? FFG could create an open forum, where questions, the official rules are not clearing, are discussed by the community and the game developers to find a suitable solution.

That would solve the problems, where community found different solvings and after offical speak one group is displeased.

Anyway, I prefer playing in a style, that makes sense in logic and balance and not arguing about every (maybe misplaced) comma in the thinest rule lines.

In this case, I would say, from the logical side, that the quest progress is reseted because the attached unit is not concerned/interested  anymore (either by death or by being moved away). From the balanced side I have no idea, because I dont have played the game yet.

Just like Osiris pointed out to us, the abridged passage from page 11 of the rulebook quoted below is important when considering on a possible ruling on this removal (but not leaving play) of the questing unit matter:

<snip> Once a quest card is in play, the
controller of that card has the option of sending his
units on that quest.

To send a unit on a quest, a player plays the unit on
top of the quest card when he plays that unit from his
hand. The questing unit is still considered to be a part
of its controller’s quest zone (it contributes power and
can be used to defend the zone when it’s attacked),
but it is also considered to be “questing” on the quest
upon which it was played. A questing unit allows
resource tokens to be accumulated on the quest, and
once the specified number of resources have been
accumulated on a quest, its effect can be utilised by
its controller.

<snip>

Only one unit can be questing on any given quest
card at any time. If the questing unit leaves play for
any reason, the quest card remains in play but all
resource tokens accumulated on that quest card are
discarded, and returned to the pool in the centre of
the table.

Now...let's focus on the part where it says "if the questing unit leaves play for any reason." I think the definition of what a questing unit is, is just as important as the fact that it has to leave play for the quest card to reset. If a unit is no longer questing, that is the unit is no longer on top of the quest card due to a movement effect played on him, does it matter that this no longer questing unit is removed from play or not? The removal from play refers to a possible death/sacrifice situation of the questing unit while he is committed on that quest and its consequences; however, if there is no longer a unit that fits the description of questing, I think it's fair to rule that it is effectively just as if the questing unit has been removed from play since there is now no longer a questing unit.

I also think that there is some concern when it comes to the text of the card itself...

You definitely will NOT be generating resources on a quest if your Unit is not in the quest zone, questing there... (though I suppose the losely worded word 'questing here' is slightly ambiguous. lol)

lol. osiris, i didn't ask the questions again, it puts the first posting on each page.  :)

thanks though!

Lol DUH! :P

Well after looking at the 'spoiled' card list, there are maany quests that have an 'x' value assigned to them.

Personally I don't see the problem with allowing resources to stack higher than 3 (and therefore benefit from the X value), and I also do not see a problem with having a questing unit be 'forcibly marched', only to have another unit played from a hand to 'finish' the quest.

I see no reason to have the resources removed if the questing unit is moved.

Fluff-wise, the unit got so far on their quest before being moved on and having a further unit complete the quest for them. It's fluffy and meets the rule requirements at present too :)

At the same time I totally accept Ruvions point regarding the definition of a questing unit no longer 'being in play' if it is moved by 'forced march'. This could potentially lead to some confusing situations where the resources stay stacked on the quest until the moved unit is eventually properly removed from the game.

Awkward.

It is possible to send a unit into that zone without assigning them to a quest isn't it? Otherwise I'm thinking that it will be imperative to have multiple quests in play just to have enough units there to adequately defend the zone.

rickert said:

You are correct. Units can still be played to the quest zone (from your hand) and moved to the quest zone via an effect without assigning them to a quest. Currently the only way to embark a unit on a quest is to play the unit from your hand directly to the quest card

I think the safest, easiest solution (in keeping with the whole KISS mentality) is that if a Unit is forcibly moved OFF of a Quest card, it's considered the same as if it was "Removed from play."

Wytefang said:

That would certainly be how I would play it, even though that solution isn't supported by the rulebook. It just seems to make the most sense and is the the method I will be hoping for in any errata.

But can I also itterate that it is my opinion and not one that I would forcibly make other people play.

Osiris