The forums moved on March 1, 2021. Please read this page for more information.

Sacred Sites Under Threat

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
AdamH
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: May 17, 2018
Sacred Sites Under Threat

The event "Sacred Sites Under Threat" came up in a recent game and we couldn't figure out what is supposed to happen here. I'll copy the relevant part of the text. There's an option we can choose:

 

Cost: 3 Energy per land where you do damage, aided by fire   In each land with a sacred site and invaders: Either do 2 damage or Destroy 1 presence from each spirit

 

I guess I'm not sure how to apply the cost here, maybe I'm just not reading the card properly or something? Maybe someone here can explain it using little words for me? We ended up skipping this event and just drawing a new one because we couldn't figure it out. Thanks.

Dandolo
Dandolo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Playtester
Joined: Nov 28, 2015

Yeah the wording on that one threw us off as well. Our interpretation was:

In each relevant land:

Either you pay 3 energy , and the spirits there collectively do 2 damage to the invaders.

Or you pay no energy but destroy 1 presence from each spirit in the land.

dpt
dpt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Playtester
Joined: Aug 06, 2013

Dandolo has the correct interpretation. Note that "you" is interpreted communally: the spirits as a whole pay that Energy cost in the usual way for choice events (including the aid by Fire).

It's worded the way it is because the costs are pooled. Eg, if you do damage in 2 lands, it costs 6 Energy; you can pay for that by Forgetting one card with Fire and discarding another. If the Energy costs were separate you wouldn't be able to do that, since you don't get change for overpaying for Events.

I updated the relevant FAQ, I hope that clarifies things.

AdamH
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: May 17, 2018

OK this makes a lot more sense to me. I guess I understand why it was worded that way too, thanks for the clarification :-)