Questions about the team The Sentinels

Correct.

All of them.

Between them the Sentinels have 52 hit points. If area-of-effect attacks only damaged one of them they would be very overpowered indeed.

I don't know if I'm reading you wrong or not, but that's not how Infection works with the Sentinels. Infection only affects one of the Sentinels, other Sentinels can't be Infected, and the Sentinels count as a single infected Hero.

No, just the Sentinels.

They do. As 1 standard character.

But only one takes the infection damage

"Your heroes" are not "their heros". Your = the player. The wording is rock solid. Their rationals might be a different matter all together 

That bit has been clarified officially and is in my FAQ.  Those cards which allow you to un-incapacitate a character can only ever been used on a member of the Sentinels hero.

When it says your hero, you have to treat it as if each hero had its own player.

Well then by the same logic something that said 'you may play a card' would let either of your heroes play a card, and that's clearly not how it works.

I think the spirit of intent for the card is clear. 

With that said though, this is a co-op game. If your group decides to play something a certain way, regardless of "official" response or Forum consensus, theres nothing preventing you from doing so. In fact, most here will encourage to play by "group consensus" regardless I'd imagine. The game is here to have fun after all.

The forums are here when you want/need a rules arbitrator.

I was playing Team-S (Scholar, The Sentinels, & Setback) versus Plague Rat. Write had his signature power out and Sentinels Tactics was in play. I wanted to be sure that the following was legal:

Everyone is infected and Plague Rat is flipped. Scholar has Flesh to Energy in play. On his turn, he uses Rat's deal 3/heal 3 power to hit Writhe, who redirects 1 of it to Plague Rat, then Scholar heals 3 and does another 3 to PR.

On the Sentinel's turn, Writhe does himself 1 irreducible damage, which he redirects to PR (and it isn't reduced...) so Sentinel Tactics triggers and Dr. Medico can heal Scholar for 3, and he does yet another 3 to PR. And then Idealist can still use her power to 2 damage to Plague Rat.

So depending on what Setback is doing, the group could be healing 6 - 9 HP / turn while doing 11 damage to Plague Rat and still being able to play cards.

Is this just a really nice combination, or am I missing someting?

Sounds okay to me :). Even better if Rat's still got his Locus out, in which case all the Infected people have +1 damage, so while their Infection damage is increased by a point, so is the Scholar's zappy-zappy when he heals :D.

Just note that if Scholar is at max health, he can't be healed anymore.

That is a legit scenario.  Very cool too.  Don't poison people who aren't made of flesh.

I've had people toss attacks on the Scholar just so I can heal to do more damage :)

I have one misgiving with this part: writhe is not the source of the damage he redirected and thus does not trigger Sentinels Tactics, but if you played the idealists power before Dr Medico's it would trigger it and you could do everything you said just not in the same turn order. Its a technicality but one you'll find helpfull if you can can get to redirect the operatives damage so the chairman replies on her for hitting him.

Infections cause self-inflicted damage. Why wouldn't he be the source?

Yeah, if Writhe is supposed to hit himself and he redirects it, that's fine - he is still the one dealing the damage. If Rat had been the one trying to hit him then yes, it wouldn't count to trigger Sentinels Tactics, but as it's Writhe trying to clobber himself then it's perfectly legit :).

Yeah, I was going to post that, then I caught myself.

Question about Sentinel Tactics:

"The first time one of your heroes does damage, you may use a power"  Is this meant as A) "The first time one of your heroes" or B ) "The first time one of your heroes..." In option A, you could chain in with Mainstay or Writhe or Medico doing damage, which triggers Tactics, and then Idealist uses her power to deal damage, which would trigger Tactics again (it is the first time she is doing damage), and give you another power.  Option B simply allows Tactics to only work once, for the first instance of damage.  I am expecting it to be Option B, but Option A just sounds like such an awesome chaining ability, kind of like AA with all his instruments.

I've always assumed it means any one of the four - the first time any one of them deals damage, Sentinels Tactics triggers. If someone else then deals damage, that's the second time so it won't trigger again (regardless of which hero is dealing the damage on either occasion). That said, now you've brought it up I can see the reasoning for it chaining (and probably therefore being rather overpowered and probably not supposed to work that way), given that Flame Barrier specifies "the first time Ra is dealt damage by a target" and means that if he gets hit by multiple targets in the same turn, he gets to burn all of them (same with Wraith and Combat Stance).

No no. Lets not go down the "well I can see it..." road with this.

Its solidly B. Sentienels Tactics will only trigger the First time One (read as: any single one) does damage. It does not say the First time Each Sentienel deals damage.

Flame Barrier only triggers once per turn Ameena. Not multiple times in the same turn. Am I missing something there guys? Otherwise it would say "Whenever Ra is damaged by a target" instead of "The first time" wording. Its restrictive wording.

It's in Spiff's FAQ, based on a quote from Christopher found at https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/combat-stance-0.

Ok I WAS missing something. Thanks HeroComplex

I would assume the intent of Sentinel Tactics was for it to only trigger once per turn, but the wording does seem to lean towards once per turn per Sentinel...

I thought this came up in playtesting and it was confirmed it triggers once. I have a history of a remembering things that never really happened though (should I see a doctor about that?), so maybe I'll do a little digging

I just played Team-S vs. promo Gloomweaver and they were amazing!  Three heroes that heal, tank, and dps all in one!  My favorite 3-man team now.

I remember the ruling was once per turn, I think I was the one who first asked about it during playtesting after someone in my group asked about it.

Reading the rules on plauge rat it makes it sound like sentinels h = 4 on them, but only one gets infected...  

H does not equal 4 just because you have the Sentinels; they count as one hero.

then reading everything with the debate... the power legacy has healing each hero means you choose only 1 to heal out of the group?

Sorry for questions, new to game and seeing how this balances.

They are one hero but four hero targets. Motivational charge heals each hero target, so they're all healed, Plague Rat infects a hero, so they are collectively infected.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer.

Far as I can tell, a target is anything with HP, so a hero target is anything with HP controlled by the players. See also Unity and her golems, or Visionary and her...uh, I forget what that illusion of hers is called, but you know.

Unfortunately it doesn't always.  Most cards do say Hero Target and that works fine, but when a card just says "deal damage to that hero", it's ambiguous what the Sentinels ought to do.  The general consensus is that you pick whichever one you want, but it's not really that this is the "correct" answer, just an obvious one and the best we can come up with.

As far as Im' aware, if it says "hero targets" then all of the Sentinels are affected. If it says "each hero" then the Sentinels are only one hero between them so you'd pick which one of them was affected, just as you choose which of them gets the Infection when fighting Rat.

Yes yes, I get that part.  Probably so do most players, even if they're very new.  The tricky part is....

I really don't see how you're making the leap across that "so".  To my way of thinking, there's no clear reason for assuming that it's possible to choose one hero who gets dunked in the River of Lava while all the others just stand on their shoulders or something (especially if it's anyone other than Mainstay).  The rules clarifications provided for the Sentinels are hugely inadequate IMO; they don't even state a general rule akin to the one you've presented here, they just point out Plague Rat as an example, as if he was the only card that generates such strangeness.  When I'm fairly sure at least one similarly weird example is found in Vengeance, though I don't remember offhand what it is.  It should really have said "The Sentinels interact strangely with effects such as Plague Rat's 'Infection' cards"; then we could more fittingly generalize.

As is, it's sort of like turning onto a road and not seeing a speed limit sign, so deciding it's perfectly okay if you drive 120 MPH; my reaction is to go "why would you assume that's ever allowed, even if it hasn't been specifically prohibited?"

But it does explain it - you just said so yourself, it uses Infection as an example. If something affects "a hero" and the Sentinels is/are that hero, you can then choose which of them is the specific target who recieves the effect (whatever it is).

No, that's what I said it should do, but it doesn't.  Plague Rat is not being listed as an example; it is the only thing mentioned.  No analogy is created between it and anything else.  No other scenarios are even acknowledged.  They could have done it in a single sentence, and didn't bother to.

Again, that's certainly the apparent intent, but I don't think there's any excuse for them having not said it outright.  It's just like how they failed to mention shuffling decks in the EE rulebook; why would you leave such a fundamental detail unspoken, no matter how obvious it is?

Well, I don't really see why you wouldn't shuffle a deck when it's run out of cards, otherwise you'd have to stop playing right there or something. But I think the hero/hero target thing has been clarified not just in the rulebook, but here on the forums as well. Maybe have a look in Spiff's rules clarification thingy as that contains everything that has been officially (ie, by someone from >G) stated with regards to resolving rules queries and stuff.

Or you could just be stuck with whatever you have (I'm speaking in a general games context; it would work very poorly for SOTM in particular).  Shuffling decks when they run out is certainly not a meta-rule that all players of all card games will know to apply in all cases, so I do think it should have been mentioned.

When I started playing, my play group thought that you didn't reshuffle, and that was part of the risk of playing Tachyon - she was really powerful and fast, but if you ran out of deck before you killed the villian you were hosed.  We hadn't seen the Matriarch or Akash'bhuta yet, who obviously require deck shuffling.

My group did figure out we were supposed to re-shuffle, but it took a long while to actually find that rule in our rulebook (Enhanced Edition, newer printing) when we needed it, since it appears in a Quick Reference but not in the main rules sections.  I believe in Magic and various other games you actually lose outright if you need to draw and your deck is empty, and in Vs. System, I'm pretty sure nothing happened---unless you were playing the one team that had a strategy of depleting the opponent's deck and the card that let you win if their deck was empty.  So it's definitely reasonable for a new player to be confused about what they're supposed to do: re-shuffling, the heroes losing, and nothing-so-your-resources-are-limited-now are all possibilities from other games that folks may have played.  (At least based on the base set, since as jsz2 noted, some later villains like Akash'Bhuta help point players towards the answer.)

I've also got to agree with Edwin that the Sentinels entry in the Vengeance rulebook probably could have had a bit more information to help figure out unusual situations.  It notes that the player gets to decide what happens if it's ambiguous which character card is affected, but that doesn't actually explain how to handle cards that say they effect just "the hero."  It might be that this line was intended to convey something like "if something affects the hero as a whole, pick one Sentinels character card and apply that effect to just that character card," but I don't think it actually gets there.  First you have to know that the effect will apply to just one of the character cards before the language about ambiguity seems to apply, so I do wish there'd been a sentence explaining in general terms how to handle effects that impact just "the hero," or a clause added like Edwin suggested.  There is an example about Plague Rat, which is helpful, but it starts with "Note that Plague Rat's Infections interact with The Sentinels oddly."  If anything, that language is suggesting that the rule about Infections is not giving you a rule to follow generally, because it's talking about Infection as a strange interaction rather than as an example of how The Sentinels work generally.

By the time I came around, the reshuffle rule was in the book (again?), so while I agree it's important, I'm covered there.  Some of the rules about The Sentinels, though, I think we're all still figuring out and/or relying on forum consensus---the rules and official rulings we've seen before do leave gaps here and there that we're still filling in.

This has probably been discussed before, but I just wanted a quick reference: since they all have the same nemesis symbol, does one member of The Sentinels deal extra damage when forced to damage another one?

I would imagine so - any other targets on the same team who share a symbol (eg the Ennead) deal extra damage if forced to hit each other, so presumably the Sentinels have the same problem.

When dealing with an ambiguous option, the player chooses, right?  So the Plague Rat sounds like a classic ambiguous situation.  Ergo, the player chooses what happens.  Also, the Sentinels get nemesis bonuses against each other.

They shouldn’t. I remember Christoper saying that Nemesis bonuses were designed to work between decks; since The Sentinels share the same deck, they shouldn’t apply the bonus when dealing damage among themselves. But they apply between the four Void Guards and between The Sentinels and each Void Guard.

As for the general discussion about how The Sentinels work with effects that target only “a hero”, the ruling seems pretty clear to me: they are a SINGLE hero, but made up of four separate hero targets. When it’s not clear who the precise target of an effect is (just like when a card says “a hero” or “one hero”), the player gets to choose the specific hero target to be affected. So if a card deals damage to “a hero”, you choose which one of the 4 takes the damage; if an effect heals “one hero”, you choose which one of the four gets the healing.

Each individual character of the Sentinels is a nemesis to each other much like Ennead members.  The rules clarifications for them from MigrantP and Christopher Fireside chats are compiled here:

https://sentinelswiki.com/index.php?title=Sentinels/Clarifications

Yes, the Sentinels get a Nemesis bonus against each other like the aforementioned Ennead, and also like the Chairman and the Operative. A Nemesis bonus applies between different targets, not different decks.

You're right about the Sentinels counting as one hero with four hero targets, however - I'm pretty sure this is mainly for the purposes of Plague Rat's Infections.

Also, just realised this thread has just been awoken since 2014 :O.