Does not state the "at this location" modifier. So if I'm in a cave and my buddy encounters a trap in the town hall, I can use my tools to help him? Seems odd roleplaying wise to help others with certain items from different locations.
Nope. You can't defeat anything you didn't personally encounter.
Thanks for clarifying this. For some reason I came away from the rulebook thinking "cards can help anybody unless they explicitly say 'your' check". Not sure why I thought this!
Possibly confused because they can be played any time unless specified otherwise.
Thanks again!
@Vic
Does this implied you apply to all items with the defeat "keyword" ?
If yes can you errata this and if its only a few cards with you or your ommited can they be added to the "reprint list" I think this may apply to Caltrops as well.
are there any other implied use of you or your /
Implied you and yours are an issue with a game that has some cards that deliberately are not restricted and others that are.
I believe errata and/or a rule is required. Even if its something like items without a ranged , magic or arcane trait can only be used by the holding character on their own checks or actions.
AFAIK anything that mentions 'defeat' has an implied 'you'.
As such, it's something to clarify in the rulebook/FAQ but not something to change on all the cards that mention defeating something.
AFIK only anything that says "...defeat a barrier" has the implied you
ALSO
Nope. You can't defeat anything you didn't personally encounter.
does not mean others can's assist by using powers or boons.
I think you will find that only the Mattock, Thieves and masterworks Tools and Caltrops have a power or powers without a restriction on use defined by you , your, character at your loctation etc..
I have posted elsewhere that these implied you and yours are quite concerning and it would be great to clear them up.
I have been playing Caltrops and Thieves second powers without you or your restrictions.
by implied you I take it means on your defeat check.
I think I have posted this elsewhere today, seems to be an implied you or your gaggle of posts going on, does this implied on your check only apply to items or all boons.
Seems inconsistent that the majority of cards specify you or your or location restrictions but the minority do not and some of thse have an implied restriction but some don't.
If you update the rule book then it needs something like :-items that are used to defeat a bane cannot be used by a character unless they are attempting the check in their turn, otherwise the card will override the rule.
Please add Tome of Knowledge to the items that may be able to assist other characters in their checks.
This has the Magic trait so maybe it does not have an implied your check.
I'm 99% sure the implied you applies to all references with the wording 'to defeat' or 'to evade'. (I.e. you can only use the Mattock, Thieves Tools, etc on your own checks)
Here's the wording on some of the cards:
Caltrops
1. Banish this card to evade/defeat a monster...
Thieves' Tools
1. Reveal this card to add 1 die to your Disable check
2. Discard this card to defeat a barrier...
Mattock
1. Reveal this card to add 1d8 to your non-combat Strength check
2. Reveal this card to use STR or MELEE in place of the normal skill in a check to defeat a barrier...
Tome of Knowledge
1. Reveal this card to add 1d6 to a Knowledge check
2. Recharge this card to succeed at a Knowledge check
So, what do we know for sure and what is still unclear?
Caltrops - we are sure here. "To evade" and "To defeat" have been officially clarified as only being applicable to the character who plays the card. This is where the "implied you" comes in: "To evade/defeat" is effectively shorthand for "To allow YOU to evade/defeat".
Thieves' Tools - we are sure here.
The first power is explicitly for your own Disable checks. (Whether or not you can use this if you do not have the DISABLE skill listed on your character card is another question entirely)
The second power is "to defeat" and we now know what that means.
Mattock - we are (fairly) sure here.
The first power explicitly only applies to your own checks.
The second power is "to defeat", so I'm fairly sure this only applies to your own checks. This card could be clarified with an Errata to reword it "...in your check to defeat..." but if 'to defeat' always has an implied 'you' then this is not necessary (we just need a FAQ entry about what 'to defeat' means). Thematically this makes sense too - you can't just throw the Mattock from one location to another to help your colleague!
Tome of Knowledge - this is less clear...
The first power is explicit and can be used for ANYBODY's Knowledge check.
The second power is not "to evade" or "to defeat" but it is "to succeed". We need input from Mike or Vic here. Does "to succeed" have an implied "you" as well? Or can this card be used on anybody's checks?
Until I hear otherwise I will be playing it as usable on anybody's checks (in line with the first power on the card).
I believe Mike addressed how Tome of Knowledge works in this BGG post.
The cards called into question in the OP of that thread were Caltrops, Thieves' Tools, Holy Water, and Tome of Knowledge.
All those cards can only be used on your encounter. On somebody else's encounter, you don't have a barrier to defeat, and you don't have a Disable check to make, and you don't have a monster to evade. So those cards can't be used in that situation.
The first power of the Tome of Knowledge can be used on anybody's Knowledge check, though. That assumes a check is underway.
He says all those cards can only be used on your own encounter. The only exception he lists is the *first* power of Tome of Knowledge, so that seems to imply that the second power is not an exception.
|
As I understand it, the rule of thumb is that you can only assist other characters' checks during an encounter. Since a check is a die roll, any assistance that would prevent dice from being rolled, by auto-defeating or evading, isn't allowed to be played. Unless, of course, the card specifically says it can, as with some spells and most potions.
This would also apply to all encounters, regardless of what you're encountering - bane or boon.
If I'm right, I hope Mike or Vic will come along and confirm it. I think this is a clearer way of explaining it than the "implied 'you'" explanation that leads to debates about which cards have that implied.
As I understand it, the rule of thumb is that you can only assist other characters' checks during an encounter.
Where did you get this from? I think it's perfectly legitimate to help outside of an encounter, so long as there's a check/roll to interact with (e.g. I think you can play a blessing to boost somebody else's recharge check on a spell, even if that spell/recharge was not part of an encounter).
Following on from @QuantumNinja's post, it seems we can add "to succeed" to the list of verbs with an implied you. As such "to evade", "to defeat" and "to succeed" effects can only be played on your own checks unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Thanks guys for the quick resolution of this!
So, to update my previous comments:
Tome of Knowledge - this is now clear too!
The first power is explicit and can be used for ANYBODY's Knowledge check.
The second power is "to succeed" which has an implied 'you' so can only be used on your own checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm 99% sure the implied you applies to all references with the wording 'to defeat' or 'to evade'. (I.e. you can only use the Mattock, Thieves Tools, etc on your own checks)
I don't think the ruling is specifically tied to the words "defeat" and "evade". It's more general than that. I think ANY time *you* play a card, the implied subject is *you* (i.e. the one playing the card). So long as it makes sense for *you* to take the action at the time *you* try to play the card, *you* may do so. Otherwise, *you* can't play the card.
Let me try to explain that another way. The generic syntax of most cards is "[Play] this card to do [verb]", where [Play] could mean reveal, display, discard, banish, recharge, or bury. The implied subject is always *you*, the one holding the card in your hand, so it's implied that *you* are the one doing [verb]. In other words, the card can be read as, "*You* [play] this card so that *you* do [verb]."
Examples:
1. Caltrops: Banish this card to evade/defeat a monster...
This means:
*You* (the one holding this card) may banish this card so that *you* evade/defeat a monster.
Only the one who encounters a monster may defeat it or evade it. How do we know this? Because the rulebook says:
When *you* explore a location, flip over the top card of the location deck and put that card on top of that deck. If *you* have a power or card that lets *you* evade that card, you may immediately shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated. If *you* do not evade it, first apply any effects that happen before the encounter. Then, if it’s a boon, *you* may try to acquire it for your deck; if it’s a bane, *you* must try to defeat it.
In this case, the *you* in the rulebook (i.e. the active player) and the implied *you* in Caltrops are the same. In the case where *you* are the one who encountered a monster, it wouldn't make sense for someone other than *you* to play Caltrops, so they can't.
2. Tome of Knowledge: Recharge this card to succeed at a Knowledge check
This means
*You* (the one holding this card) may recharge this card so that *you* succeed at a Knowledge check.
It doesn't make sense to play this if *you* aren't the one attempting a Knowledge check, so *you* can't. Only the person actually attempting a Knowledge check can succeed at it, so only they can be the one to play Tome of Knowledge.
3. Potion of Glibness: Banish this card to choose a character at your location to succeed at a Diplomacy check.
Contrast this one with Tome of Knowledge. This card means:
*You* (the one holding this card) may banish this card so that *you* choose a character at your location. The chosen character succeeds at a Diplomacy check.
*You* are the one choosing, but *you* are not necessarily the one to succeed at the check (although you could be, if you choose yourself). Thus, *you* can play the card even if *you* are not the one engaged in a diplomacy check.
4. Mattock Reveal this card to use STR or MELEE in place of the normal skill in a check to defeat a barrier...
This means
*You* (the one holding this card) may reveal this card so that *you* use Strength or Melee in place of your normal skill in a check to defeat a barrier.
In this case, only a player actually attempting a check against a barrier can "use Strength or Melee in place of the normal skill." Thus, only the player attempting a barrier check can use Mattock's power.
5. Guidance: Discard this card to add 1 to a check.
This means
*You* (the one holding this card) may discard this card so that *you* add 1 to a check.
The person to the play the card is the one doing the adding. Nothing in the rulebook prevents someone from adding onto another player's check, so it make sense for anyone to play this card whenever there's a check going on.
Following on from @QuantumNinja's post, it seems we can add "to succeed" to the list of verbs with an implied you. As such "to evade", "to defeat" and "to succeed" effects can only be played on your own checks unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Again, I think ALL verbs have an implied *you* in this game. When I say, "Show me your ticket to board the train" the implied subject is *you*. *You* will be the one to show me your ticket, and if so, *you* will be the one to board the train. Someone else can't board the train if you show me your ticket.
Similarly, the syntax "Play this card to do [verb]" always implies that the one playing the card is the one who will be doing [verb]. Another player doesn't get to do [verb] if I'm the one playing the card.
@QuantumNinja - that's interesting and may well be right! I'll bear this in mind next time I play the game and post here if I find any counter-examples or follow-up queries.
If Mike or Vic could weigh in on this in the meantime and confirm you're right that would, of course, be awesome too!
@QuantumNinja - that's interesting and may well be right! I'll bear this in mind next time I play the game and post here if I find any counter-examples or follow-up queries.
Yes, please do! I'm pretty confident about this interpretation, but I would definitely love to hear about any situations that contradict it.
|
|
As I understand it, the rule of thumb is that you can only assist other characters' checks during an encounter.Where did you get this from? I think it's perfectly legitimate to help outside of an encounter, so long as there's a check/roll to interact with (e.g. I think you can play a blessing to boost somebody else's recharge check on a spell, even if that spell/recharge was not part of an encounter).
That's not what I meant, but I can see how my word order choice wasn't the clearest.
I meant that the only thing you can help with during an encounter is a check, not that encounters are the only time you can help with a check.
So you can't encounter (or evade) the card for the other character. You can only assist their check when they encounter it. Or, if there's more than one check to make during the encounter, then you can make one of them, but the character doing the encountering must do one of them. But you can't play a card that says "Beat this encounter", because it's not your encounter to beat. Again, that's where the implied "you" comes from.
Unless you have a card that says otherwise, of course, like most potions and some spells.
So here's my rule of thumb summarized more clearly, I hope:
Anything that affects a check (dice rolling) can be played on any character, at any location, unless it says otherwise ("your check", "at your location"). Anything that doesn't affect a die roll, or prevents dice from being rolled, has an implied subject of "you", unless otherwise specified on the card.
Hopefully, this makes more sense.
@QuantumNinja - that's interesting and may well be right! I'll bear this in mind next time I play the game and post here if I find any counter-examples or follow-up queries.Yes, please do! I'm pretty confident about this interpretation, but I would definitely love to hear about any situations that contradict it.
Lets wait for Vic please.
It may only apply to Items or to defeat a barrier.
Why stretch this to Tome of Knowledge and add in "you" everywhere.I am fairly sure I have seen examples of Guidance use to assist other's checks.
Its perfectly reasonable to play a spell or blessing to help someone else and recharge it after use , so the same could apply to a magic item, I can see inanimate objects being restricted to their location or even the "owner" but blessings and spells are not and so why can't an Arcane or a Magic item.
To totally change the order of word to justify your insertion of you is a bit weird, I could do that with almost every card.
You added a whole phrase *You* (the one holding this card) and new meaning.
By your reasoning no cards unless they state it can be used other than the player whose turn it is on his own action... which is clearly untrue based on the rules, play examples , Paizo posts. etc.
This is only your way of viewing the rules and repeating it doesn't make it any less or more true.
The owner playing a card is equal to you may play and yes you are carrying out the action but this does not imply you can't carry out the action to aid another character and that because you recharge it , it restricts it to you playing it for your benefit. See the rules side boxes on card play.
It will be difficult to contradict if all verbs have an implied you unless of course Vic say all verbs do not have an implied you.
Of course Blessings do contradict this rule as do many of the spells.
The rule is the opposite—you can play cards unless something tells you you can't.
If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time, with the exception that during each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited.But when something says "your Combat check," you can't play it on someone else's.
So if you look at the weapon Shortbow, the first power says "your" check—so it can't help anyone else—while the second power says "a" check—so it can help someone else.
Posted on Wednesday Here
@St@rm@n - the comments I have made are all based on posts from Mike.
I added Tome of Knowledge to this based on the comment by Mike that @QuantumNinja linked to. In it he was explicit that the second power of Tome of Knowledge could only be used to succeed (auto-pass) your own check.
Mike has also been explicit about "to defeat" and "to evade" in other posts. Which is why I say "we are clear about these".
These are not me asserting and re-asserting my own hunches. These comments are me collating and sharing Mike's comments which are generally considered 'law' unless Vic later over-rules him.
@St@rm@n: in the thread you linked to Vic is talking about an effect which is something like "add 1d4 to a combat check at another location". There is no dispute about this.
Vic has also said (in #3 of THIS thread) that there's an "implied you" in the "to defeat" wording.
It's these "implied you"s that are muddying the water, but I think @QuantumNinja might be right about this and the 'you' being implied by the verbs.
In other words cards that affect a check (add bonuses or dice) can be played on other people's checks unless they say otherwise. Cards that let you auto-pass / evade checks cannot be played on other people's checks unless explicitly allowed.
Maybe but I seem to recall examples of spells being used to evade monsters at other locations and so why not the knowledge from a magic tome.
I am also wary of mike's comments because as he said he has so many iterations of the rules in his head he can't always be sure if it made the final cut.
You are right implied you to all verbs is a confusion.
I recall invisibility being used to aid a character at another location evade a monster.
Well... I'm pretty sure you can't use Sleep, Enfeeble or Invisibility to allow other people to evade monsters (either at your own location or elsewhere) but if you know of a thread that officially says otherwise please post a link so I can improve my wisdom!
This on I'm not sure of.
Tome of knowledge- reveal card to add 1d6 to a knowledge check
Recharge this card to succeed at a knowledge checkThis is the only item with this language. It does not say "choose another character, or "for your check". The wayit reads sounds like it can be used for any characters check regardless of location. Is this correct.
Those two powers work differently.
The first one says "Is there a Knowledge check happening somewhere now? Here's 1d6."
The second one says "Are you looking to succeed at your Knowledge check, and have played this card? Then you succeed."That is, you can't use the card to succeed at a Knowledge check unless you, the active player, are making it. But you, the card-playing player, can add a die to any Knowledge check.
Mike
The critical part is no implied your or you but to aid any check.
@Cheez thats how I play it.
I think Boon's (except Blessings) that have no Magic or Arcane traits can't be used to aid others unless explicitly stated.
The reverse is true for other Boon's if they have no retriction they can be used to aid others.
@Cheez - find traps is not the same thing, I don't think we have any dispute about that one :)
Find traps explicitly says "add 2 dice to ANY check to defeat a barrier". In other words "YOU add 2 dice to any (character, at any location) check to defeat a barrier". The illustration even shows a spell caster helping somebody else to defeat a barrier!
@St@rm@n - I can't help but think the 'magic traits' thing is a red herring. There is no mention of this anywhere in the PACG rules (and I've not seen any mention of it from official sources) so why would it be true?
@St@rm@n - I just read the quoted thread you posted and nothing in it suggests to me that my interpretation of Mike and Vic's comments to date is wrong...
Mike's post is exactly the same as what @QuantumNinja and I have said here, namely:
1. "Reveal this card to add 1d6 to a Knowledge check" can be used to help other people. Mike says about this: "(this power means that) you, the card-playing player, can add a die to any Knowledge check."
2. "Recharge this card to succeed at a Knowledge check" can ONLY be used on your own check. It's nothing to do with the traits. It's because this power doesn't add dice to a check. Mike says about this: "you can't use the card to succeed at a Knowledge check unless you, the active player, are making it"
The thread also clarifies that you cannot use the spells mentioned to let another player evade an encounter.
... so I'm sorry, but I still don't see where you're coming from and I think @QuantumNinja (and @Fromper's summary in the Caltrops thread) has the right idea.
I believe that all of these questions can be answered with "If you think there's an implied 'you,' there's an implied 'you.'"
We're working on a major clarification that hopefully will wrap up most of these issues.
Having an official ruling that ressort to implied words is plain terrible. What other implied word are we to add ? is there an implied "may" before the damage card so I am not obligated to take them ? it make sense in "my" interpretation.
I really don't see a problem with the implied "you" when a card says something like "Discard this card to succeed at check." It's not some weird stretch of interpretation that there's an implied "you" in there, it's standard English. That sentence always implies the one who discards is the one to succeed. And the implied subject of an imperative statement is always *you*.
The alternative would be to always write it out as, "YOU may discard this card so that YOU defeat a monster." Perhaps that would be clearer, but it comes at the expensive of sounding awkward/unnatural and adding 4 extra words to the card. Maybe those 4 words don't matter much when you've got plenty of white space to spare, but when you get cards with multiple complicated effects, suddenly 4 extra words per sentence starts to make a difference.
Thanks Mike. I think that interim statement along with @QuantumNinja's grammar lesson have made this clear enought (for me) for now.
Good luck figuring out some wording for the FAQ that will be universally understood! Perhaps you should start with the three examples listed above? (To evade, To defeat, To succeed)
Thanks Mike. I think that interim statement along with @QuantumNinja's grammar lesson have made this clear enought (for me) for now.
Good luck figuring out some wording for the FAQ that will be universally understood! Perhaps you should start with the three examples listed above? (To evade, To defeat, To succeed)
I do not think it is clear and I did not need a grammar lesson.
I do not see an implied you in all the circumstances mentioned.
I am definitely with Nathaniel on this.
It makes me feel that the rules are being made up as situations arise.
Play a card basically means use a card so that is already implied and defines in the rules to include all its users.
Just because some want to play the game one way does not mean it is right or even it is wrong.
I see a lot of contradictions and really Vic is the only one to sort this out.
A rule for playing cards during Checks that do not say you or yours (I think that is already in the rule book and FAQ)
A rule for playing cards outside of a check and outside of your playing turn e.g. to Evade , Defeat, Close , explore, recharge.
I thought Magic/Arcane/ Blessings as they can be used outside of your turn to aid others , during checks, should be available outside of checks.
Use of a blessing to allow another character to explore etc.
This really started on limiting items use , which is why I thought their traits may play a part.
Please lets wait for Vic.
I have shelved my game until this is officially ruled on as clearly I have been playing it wrong. I am not sure the way its going it will be so enjoyable. I thought an RPG was about co-operative play , even if your in the same location you can't help much and to keep swapping objects and having the time running out makes a 4+ game very difficult.
On the other hand when you come to multiple complicated sentence, implying sentence subject wont do no good either.
I agree that in this peculiar case the "You" is clear. Even if nowhere in the rulebook players are warned that there is implied "you" to be read on the card.
The trick is that you are opening a pandora's box as someone called it out. You are expliciting stating to the players that the text written on the cards is not bullet-proof and that they are supposed to be interpretating and adding to it to get to the correct use.
And that is a path I dont want to see open with some of the rule lawyers I know. Heck, just look at the amount of rules question this created, because now everyone is asking if they got the correct action for every cards... even when they strictly apply what is written.
I think the designer meaning is unclear. They keep telling this game is cooperative and we can play cards at any time to help other people. Then when they interpret their own cards it sound like they changed up their mind and add implied pronoun to limit player cooperation.
"Discard a card to defeat a monster" is a valid card and one interpretation in a cooperative game would be for you to be able to help your teammate wich encounter the monster. It is even what the rulebook say. Now the "Implied You Limit" sound like developpers back-paddling and trying to change the rules without changing the cards.
"Discard this card to succeed at check" have no you implication until someone read a FAQ (It could be read as any check as well as your check). And the fact that we NEED a FAQ to play it the way the developpers currently intent us to do is telling of how either : the rules are written or the developper keep changing their mind on the level of cooperation they put into the game.
100% spot on.
@NathanielGousset - in Paizo's defence, I just want to say two things.
Firstly, I don't think they're changing the rules or re-inventing the game at all. They thought they had written rules which were clear enough to be understood by everyone but, in this instance, this has not happened.
Secondly, I think the rules are quite explicit if you take the time to work with them. It's just that people tend to skim through the rules once (before playing the game) then play with an 'interpretation' of them in their heads.
In a co-op like this I think we profit from re-reading the rules several times after we've played the game.
The case in point here is 'when can you play cards to help other people'?
Outside of an encounter you can play things like Cure, Mend, etc. They don't relate to checks.
Inside an encounter there are a number of clear steps. The first step is trying to evade. The rules here say "If YOU have a power or card that lets YOU evade that card, you may immediately shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated."
Nobody else can help you evade. That's clear enough.
The one place we have room for interpretation (and the area I hope the FAQ covers) is that it's not just evade here. By extension (as clarified by Mike in several places, including here) ANY card/power that lets the turn character bypass the check (auto-defeat, auto-pass) can only be played in this part of the encounter and can only be played by the turn character (unless a card/power says otherwise).
Now on to the check itself. The Rulebook says "During each step, you and the other players may perform only the specified actions."
Step one: Determine which skill you're using
The sentence which controls the playing of cards and powers is: "you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that changes the skill you are going to use." There's a clear and explicit YOU here so other players cannot interfere.
Step two: Determine the difficulty
This is just maths, there are no cards/powers played here.
Step three: Play cards/powers that affect the check
The rules say "Players may now play cards from their hands (and powers) to affect the check."
This is where you can add dice and bonuses to other people's checks. This is where cards apply to anybody's checks anywhere unless limited by the card text. If any such card is limited to only your own checks then they always say so. Cards that let you auto-pass checks are not in this category. They do not affect the check (they bypass the check) - and once that is clarified in the FAQ I don't think there is anything else that you could debate!
As a final note, @St@rm@n raised the prospect of a character discarding a card to let somebody else explore again. To me, this is clearly not allowed. The cards say "Discard this card to explore your location". Exploring is only allowed on your own turn. Maybe if you're standing in the same place as another character you might think you can use this to let them explore again but I'm pretty sure you cannot. Outside of a check you can only play 'to do' cards on yourself. This is the whole point about Ezren having no blessings so being limited in his explorations unless he's caught up in a frenzy of magical discovery. If another player could use blessings to let him explore again then this would not be the case.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Thanks Mike. I think that interim statement along with @QuantumNinja's grammar lesson have made this clear enought (for me) for now.
Good luck figuring out some wording for the FAQ that will be universally understood! Perhaps you should start with the three examples listed above? (To evade, To defeat, To succeed)
I do not think it is clear and I did not need a grammar lesson.
I do not see an implied you in all the circumstances mentioned.
I am definitely with Nathaniel on this.
It makes me feel that the rules are being made up as situations arise.
Play a card basically means use a card so that is already implied and defines in the rules to include all its users.
Just because some want to play the game one way does not mean it is right or even it is wrong.
I see a lot of contradictions and really Vic is the only one to sort this out.
A rule for playing cards during Checks that do not say you or yours (I think that is already in the rule book and FAQ)
A rule for playing cards outside of a check and outside of your playing turn e.g. to Evade , Defeat, Close , explore, recharge.
I thought Magic/Arcane/ Blessings as they can be used outside of your turn to aid others , during checks, should be available outside of checks.
Use of a blessing to allow another character to explore etc.
This really started on limiting items use , which is why I thought their traits may play a part.
Please lets wait for Vic.
I have shelved my game until this is officially ruled on as clearly I have been playing it wrong. I am not sure the way its going it will be so enjoyable. I thought an RPG was about co-operative play , even if your in the same location you can't help much and to keep swapping objects and having the time running out makes a 4+ game very difficult.
You've SHELVED your game because of this minor issue? Man... I just don't understand some of the rules-lawyering going on on this and other threads. It's a game, and not even a competitive one! Play it in such a way that YOU have fun. If you can't have fun with this game, I honestly feel that it might be an issue with the way you're playing it, not with the game itself. My group has consistently enjoyed it, and we've now played through the Base scenarios with every character, a few of them in multiple iterations, and through the 1st adventure several times as well.
@cartmanbeck - I cannot agree more. This game rocks and I'm not quite sure why @St@rm@n has shelved it. Especially since he's active in the forums so now knows what the rules are!
Personally, especially since this is a co-op, I want to feel that I'm not 'cheating the game' by doing something wrong and playing it in the way the designers intended - which is why I ask so many questions.
Sometimes I'm very wrong, but I usually come out of the forums wiser than when I went in!
And, to thank Mike and Vic for their contributions I try to give back by being active and answering questions that pop-up that other people have asked that I now know the answers to. (It's probably a little selfish to - some kind of effort to leave my own threads as the only unanswered ones so the Paizo guys can focus on them!)
|
|
Thank you to h4ppy for that long post. I agree 100%.
I can't believe that anyone would accuse Paizo of trying to change the rules of the game. It's pretty obvious that Mike, Vic, and company knew what the rules were all along, but some people are misinterpreting certain cards, so they're just clarifying.
Imagine a situation where I say of the game (perhaps even in a review) "Some of the rules/cards seem a little tricky to understand, so mostly we just make it up as we go along, but we're having a blast playing it". Is there anything wrong with such a statement? Especially as regards a co-op game (where arguably the taking part is much more important than the winning)? Because if there is, I'm not seeing it. Sure, there might be cards that were *mean't* to be played in a different way; maybe I'm not playing quite as the designer intended. But where's the harm? Back in the day, I remember reading rule books that said "if you have two conflicting interpretations, throw a dice to choose between them", and others which said "play this game any way you want to - you bought it, after all."
I have put it on my shelf not thrown it away. I just want this clarified before I start gaining experience. As I said I have been playing it wrong according to this thread. I read the rules more than once and the Playing Cards is to me quite clear as it stands.
I clearly understand the check process as that is detailed and has been clarified on here.
Its not being a rules lawyer to want clear concise rules , its being a rules lawyer pulling phrases here and there to make a new rule or prove a point.
I am pretty sure Blessing of the Gods just says discard this card to explore. I don't have the game with me.
I like playing games as intended before I have any house rules. Normally with a good game design intent provides a balanced game.
I didn't see any issue with the rules being tricky to understand it really is not that complex.
What is a problem is that they were not complete and if I had not read on this thread that some cards that do not have you or yours cannot be played at any time I would still be playing it totally wrong.
I am not saying there is any harm , what is wrong with wanting a clarification from Vic.
H4ppy even stated the same in another thread.
and I agree with his "Personally, especially since this is a co-op, I want to feel that I'm not 'cheating the game' by doing something wrong and playing it in the way the designers intended - which is why I ask"
Which is exactly how I feel.
I didn't accuse anyone of anything maybe you implied that , I said that's how it felt.
Everyone has their own view of what they will accept in a game and personally if ""play this game any way you want to - you bought it, after all." I would not buy it.
I obviously can play anything I buy how I want but that is not what I am buying.
I haven't said this before but some might know me from rules development on other systems with credits in the rule books from companies like LnL, GMT DVG, Lost Battalion Games ... I am not new to this and I have been involved with far more complex games. I also run a few FAQ's for these companies.. so I can see both sides.
I just asked for a Clarification from Vic and it was nice of everyone to chime in with their version and for Mike of course (is he now official as I got the impression from Mike he wasn't sure if what he had to say would apply to the latest rules).
Why keep stating the same thing , I understand what you are saying and did so the first time , I just want it officially confirmed.
I'm not sure what you are asking to be officially clarified, but if it relates to playing a blessing to explore for another player on their turn then take a look at this.
Blessings say " discard this card to explore your location"
Rulebook says " you may never explore on another players turn" page 9 at the bottom of the explore section.
So, the way I read it is that you will never be able to play a blessing to explore on another players turn.
Does that interpretation of the rules need an official stamp of approval? If it does then you are making this game impossible for you to play and have fun while doing it.
I hope that did no come out sounding like a jerk that's not my intention. The majority of question i see being asked about these rules have simple solutions, although i agree that some of them are not easy to find in the rulebook or various threads.
No that wasn't it, its the "if a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time, with the exception that during each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited."
Also "you may never explore on another players turn" isn't broken if you play a card that says discard to explore a location and use it to allow another player whose turn it is to explore his location.
I saw it as blessings/spells being used to aid others in the spirit of you can play a card at any time.
Should it be you can play a card at any time during your turn and only on your actions unless the card allows otherwise.
This is a big change to how I have been playing and I don't see why those of us who want a clarification are being given such a hard time.
If some and I don't me Tracker1 or H4ppy had just been patient then it would not have become such a big deal.
This is a fundamental part of the game. I think the added implied stuff may have been well intentioned but is causing issues.
Anything implied will be from one person's viewpoint and quite different to a ruling.
I hope Vic can find the time to comment here, but until he says otherwise it is my understanding that "to explore" means "to allow YOU to explore".
This is based on the comments from Paizo so far (and @QuantumNinja's comments really helped me get a handle on this too - I think he's right).
Since you've been active in these threads I think you also realise that this is the case, but are hoping that Vic over-rule and change things back to the 'old way' you've been using so far?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Yeah I just don't see why this would need clarification. The blessings are obviously only usable by the person playing them for exploration "dicard this card to explore your location." and the rulebook states you can't ever explore on another player's turn. Seems clear-cut to me.
I wish we had just opened another thread rather than tacked it on to this one.
I do have an issue when inserting an implied anything especially an implied "you" now Mike and Vic both used this term.
As I have stated before I have never played a RPG game before. The nearest I have come to it is Magic Realm, Mage Knight (boardgame) some computer games and maybe Hero Quest.
So I am not used to rules being decided on the spot etc.
This game seems to be aimed at gamers that aren't looking for an RPG gme and all its DM/GM etc. Which means we wont be used to those sort of rule sets.