Incorrect LATs

I’m currently playing a game of Champions of ME with my son and we’ve been discussing our turns, probably more than I would have with another player. Last turn the DS did two LATs and were told by both of them that the artefacts were possessed by Dain at 2719. Dain did have these artefacts a few turns ago but hid them so he’s not holding them and they are not at 2719.

We asked Clint and, in his usual enigmatic way, he said the this is not an issue with the game or coding.

Can anyone suggest why these two LATs are giving incorrect information?

I’m always excited to learn something new about mepbm. And in this case, it looks like a rarely seen game mechanic is working as intended. Locate Artifact True will still report the location and current owner of an artifact for a character who purposefully drops/hides an artifact. Dain is the still the owner of those artifacts; he still possesses them. The advantage of doing what Dain did, even though Cohen didn’t know it at the time, is that the player who is casting LAT to recover those artifacts will have to find a different way of doing so. It adds another dimension of usefulness to the drop/hide artifact order.

That explanation fits the situation. I still think the spell shouldn’t be reporting an incorrect location for the artefact. I’ve played this game for 30 years and I’ve not come across this before.

Personally this is just ridiculous. I guess killing Dain will make them unowned again?

Don’t be mean to Dain.

I am going to more than mean to him, Throkmaw is hungry

Dorves are really bad for Dragon cholesterol levels. There’s also the hairball issues from their unkempt beards. Teach your pet Dragons to spit out the dorf morsels after chewing.

Interesting indeed, one way to find out if this explanation is true, will be simply to LAT the Palantir of Elostirion in a traditional 1650 game, as it begins always hidden by Cirdan…

K we’ve fixed this now, thanks for the feedback. I’m cautious to reply here about the details as it’s an active game, but if ever you comes across a piece of code that doesn’t appear to work the way you should get in touch, with full details and we’ll get to work on it. It can take a while as we have 1000s of things we want to do and the code is very old code with some inconsistencies that we’ve found that need fixing, plus new developments. (Eg all the new modules, FAS updates, code updates etc)