Are heroes like Corbin and others who have shields which may cancel wounds that ignore armor basically immune to the effects of this card?

The card says that at the end of each hero's turn, that hero must discard 1 potion or roll a power die. If the hero doesn't roll a blank, he loses 1 wound ignoring armor.

Corbin's not immune - if he doesn't discard a potion, he definitely has to roll a die!

Of course, if he has a bad roll then he loses.... um... 1-1=... zero wounds.

Why would Gluttony be any different than any other damage source? Heck, some heroes are even immune to the Swallow damage each turn...

mahkra said:

While technically true, you only have to discard a potion if you want to so Corbin is effectively immune (he'll just always choose to not discard one).

I was hoping it would be a better card judging by its high threat and treachery cost. Guess it's not so great. We'll see how it plays out over the course of the dungeon.

I currently already have Hordes of Things in play. With my beasts at silver and my Spider Queen's upgrade of Acidic Poison, I can effectively spawn two upgraded Bane Spiders(with Burn and Pierce 2) every mini dungeon level. Gotta love my faithful archnid.(:

It's all the better that the heroes are in a Legendary Area dungeon, which means it's gonna be effective for one more level(and this final level is a multi-area construct ).

By the way, if I've already reached my Power card quota for the dungeon, can I swap one of the active Power cards for a new one, and if I can, do I discard the other one for threat?

zealot12 said:

There is no rule that allows you to discard an existing power card for a different one, so no, you cannot swap power cards. Not a terrible house-rule IMHO, but technically by RAW it is not allowed.

-shnar

zealot12 said:

Corbin might get a free ride, but that's his special ability. Other heroes who use shields to block the damage aren't exactly getting off scott free. They still have to tap the shield at the end of their turn if they don't want to discard a potion, and that means they won't have it to use against your monsters' attacks. That's not nothing.

zealot12 said:

I'm not sure about the rules, but I would be inclined to allow you to discard a power card from play if you like. You would not get threat for it, though, as you aren't discarding out of your hand.

shnar said:

There is also no rules that says you can't play a power card, just that you may not have more than X power cards 'in play'.
So if you play the Xth+1 card then one must be discarded. However it would certainly not be discarded for threat - it is not being discarded from hand.

There have been discussions on this before and it remains unresolved.

Corbon said:

Gluttony is a good card after all.

Thanks for all replies so far.

One more question: A legendary area dungeon is comprised of 4 levels, where the last one is not a mini-dungeon. Not sure where I read about it,but does the rule that once the overlord cycles through his deck twice, the heroes get ejected from the dungeon, apply in this case? The heroes have more ground to cover so they'll probably never finish the whole 4-level dungeon without the overlord depleting his deck at least one more time.

Never had the deck recycled twice usually not even once in RTL.

zealot12 said:

Yes, it applies. But note that it's twice in one level, not twice in one dungeon.

Mordak said:

+1

Even on Legendary Dungeons, where the heroes go through 4 levels, with the Avatar Upgrade that permanently removed 2 cards, I've never seen the deck cycled twice. And even then, rarely has it cycled once (last Legendary Dungeon it didn't cycle once).

-shnar

We almost had it cycle twice in the final level of the copper RtL dungeon, but only because it was one or two turns from cycling when we first entered the level and we were extremely cautious moving forward.

zealot12 said:

Yes, it would, and Legendary Dungeons are probably the only place its likely to happen, realistically. Although I personally don't enforce that rule as long as everyone is playing fair. That rule only exists to close an abusive loophole.