Just FYI.
This same question is going to apply to Charmed Red Dragon from Fortress of the Stone Giants as well. That ally is in the Paizo preview.
I figured you did Vic. I was just more putting out there for anyone else that was following this thread. Thanks!
Hmmm...
A shady looking man walks up to you and says "Hey buddy, for a few coins I'll tag along and offer my services" (Encountered the card.)
"On second thought, you look incompetent. I'd rather not risk getting caught with you." He walks away with indifference. (Failed your check to acquire.)
You continue on your way, before realizing something doesn't feel right. Checking your pack, you realize you've been pilfered! (Effect of failing to acquire takes affect.)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor
|
What you are doing by not attempting the check at all (if you don't evade) IS choosing to fail. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that.
I just think you can't equate "failing to acquire" to "failing the check". You can't deliberately fail a check in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, you can only fail to roll high enough to succeed.
Note what I'm responding to in your words: "That implies clearly that a check to acquire has been failed".
The check isn't failed if you choose not to attempt it, but you still failed to acquire. I feel that's an important distinction. Were the wording on the burglar "if you fail a CHECK to acquire", no burgle would happen if you declined to make the check.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor
|
Mechanically speaking, declining to make a check is not attempting and failing it.
Encounter a boon, three possibilities exist for all characters, barring card text overriding:
* Choose not to attempt to acquire ("you may attempt"). There is no failed check in this scenario. Banish the boon.
* Attempt to acquire, and fail. This is a failed check. Banish the boon.
* Attempt to acquire, and succeed. This a successful check. Acquire the boon.
It's critical to not designate the first a failed check to acquire. Take the Glassworks. "If you a fail a check, discard the top card of your deck". Choosing to not attempt to a acquire a boon does not trigger the Glassworks failure clause.
Check to Acquire: If you encounter a boon while exploring a location, you may attempt a check to acquire the card. If you succeed at the check, put the card in your hand; if you fail, or choose not to attempt the check, banish the card (see Playing Cards on page 9). You need only attempt the check to acquire when encountering a card in a location deck, not when drawing it from your deck or playing it from your hand. Loot cards do not have a check to acquire; instead, you earn them as a reward for completing a scenario.
Sorry if I seem too pedantic on this point, but I think equating not making a check with failing a check leads to future confusion.
Still discussing. Your patience is appreciated.
Much appreciated. It is a bit of a tangle, but we'll get it right.
HM, I would disagree with your last. We need to avoid the encounter word, as it has us all bolloxed. The burglar needs to say "This card may not be evaded" if the intent is to take the damage if you don't acquire it (because if Merisiel or someone else can't evade it, then they either accept the damage or attempt the acquisition. Your first wording doesn't fix the problem, because people are going to think if they evade, they don't encounter.I agree with this assessment. If their intent is for evasion not to ignore that text, the most elegant way of solving it would be to just say you can't evade the card. I don't believe that is their intent, though.
But that would change the mechanics of the card. Flat-out giving him immunity to evasion changes how you can interact with the card. Consider these cases:
Case A) The burglar can be evaded. His effect only triggers only when you do not evade and fail to acquire him.
Case B) The burglar can be evaded. His effect will trigger when you evade him or when you fail to acquire him.
Case C) The burglar cannot be evaded. His effect will trigger when you fail to acquire him.
This thread is about whether A or B is the intended interpretation of the card. My point here is that Case C is not identical to Case B. Case C denies you the option of evading the card and leaving it for another character to acquire. It forces you to attempt a check you may not necessarily want to attempt, and potentially end up banishing a boon you didn't want to banish.
I could argue the flip-side of your argument just as easily:
If their intent is for evasion to ignore that text, the most elegant way of solving it would be to just say that effect triggers "after the encounter."
Quantum, I don't see how C could fit at all with the way the card is worded. To me (and HM), the golden rule makes case B the only reasonable choice, but obviously csouth disagrees.
No, I'm on the same page as you. Case B is what makes the most sense to me, too.
csouth seems to support Case A. Earlier in this thread, he essentially said "If the designers intended for the burglar to work like case B, they should have made it case C." In other words, I think he was trying to imply that case B is equivalent to case C. I was trying to point out that case C is NOT equivalent to case B.
My position is not quite the 'A' that you described. I think his effect triggers if you do NOT evade and either fail the check or choose not to attempt it. Maybe that's how you meant to word it.
You are right, that is a more accurate way of putting it.
In the meantime, I'm glad the design team is taking their time with this one rather than rushing simply to get us a response.
One thing that will not change: The Burglar can be evaded. Same with the Charmed Red Dragon. All we're wondering here is whether the cards hurt you when they get evaded.
I think I found another card that this issue of "what gets ignored when you evade" sort of relates to. Tangletooth. Though Tangletooth is really a crazy card to think about with the rules.
Each character at this location encounters Tangletooth. If any character does not defeat Tangletooth, she is undefeated.
If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close this location.
The first power there isn't a "Before the Encounter" or "After the Encounter" effect. So if Merisiel encounters Tangletooth, I'd say that her evading Tangletooth doesn't avoid everyone else at her location having to encounter him as well.
Compare it to the Zombie Nest. And keep this fact in mind: The application of powers on barriers with a check to defeat of "None" is explicitly states has happening once you get to "Attempt the check".
Attempt the Check....If a card’s check section says “None,” look at the card’s powers, and immediately do whatever it says there.
So, here is Merisiel encountering Zombie Nest with Sajan at her location:
Each character at this location summons and encounters a Zombie Minion henchman. If any character does not defeat the Zombie Minion, the Zombie Nest is undefeated.
Encountering a Card Zombie Nest
Evade the card (optional). Merisiel evades the Zombie Nest here.Apply any effects that happen before the encounter, if needed.
Attempt the check. The Zombie's nest powers don't don't activate until here because it is a barrier with a check to defeat of None. So the Powers are never activated, so Sajan doesn't have an encounter.
Attempt the next check, if needed.
Apply any effects that happen after the encounter, if needed.
Resolve the encounter.
If Merisiel encounters the Zombie Nest barrier with Sajan at her location, and she evades the barrier, Sajan doesn't have to encounter a Zombie Minion henchman.
But Tangletooth isn't a barrier with a check to defeat of None. So, the way I've argued to understand evading, his powers apply as soon as you encounter him. Remember, I'm arguing (in a polite and friendly manner) that evading avoids things that are "Before the Encounter", "After the Encounter", "Attempting the check", "Attempting the next check", and "Resolving the encounter" and only those things.
Cards Do What They Say. Read any card as it is encountered or played, and do whatever it says as soon as it makes sense to do so.
So, since that power kicks in immediately, Merisiel evading Tangletooth doesn't mean Sajan avoids the encounter. He'd still have to encounter Tangletooth. And since not every character defeated Tangletooth (Merisiel didn't) Tangletooth would be undefeated.
So, I just wanted to throw that little wrinkle out there. I think it supports the idea that evading should only avoid things that happen as parts of the steps of Encountering a Card sequence.
I know the design team is still discussing whether the burglar should cost you a card if you evade him. If he should cost you a card, then I'd say leave him as is. If he shouldn't, then I'd say change him to "After the Encounter, If you do not acquire this card, discard 1 weapon or item." Likewise for the Charmed Red Dragon's 1d4 Fire damage. If Tangletooth should not be encountered by the other characters if the first character evades him, then make his power "After the encounter, each other character at this location encounters Tangletooth. If any character does not defeat Tangletooth, she is undefeated."
I really think that understanding of evade makes the most sense and allows for a consistent and simple understanding of evading and the steps of an encounter.
I will continue to wait patiently for your decision. Thanks.
I feel that the whole idea behind evade is that you straight up skip past the card like it never happened. Flip over the card, say "I don't want to deal with that," evade it, and shuffle it back in. I think you should avoid the Burglar and Red Dragon's abilities.
However, I'd say that there should be a keyword or something for things that happen before the evade, for things like the giants that have the d4 preventing evasion, and Tangletooth. On Tangletooth, with the way I feel Evade should work, I think that if Merisiel flips over Tangletooth other players should encounter him even if she evades; but if another player flips Tangletooth over and she evades it, it should not count towards making Tangletooth undefeated.
Just how I feel.
But, with things as written, were I a judge, I'd say that Burglar and Red Dragon do bad things upon evade, the giants only roll their d4 before evasion because they prevent evasion (applying common sense that doesn't really make sense from a rules perspective) and that evading Tangletooth when flipping will make others encounter him, and if anyone evades him he'd be undefeated. So I'd say there are probably some errata needed.
Just my two cents.
I think that the "keyword" is that they don't have the keywords "Before the encounter" or "After the encounter" or other keywords that are part of the encountering a card sequence to indicate evading negates those powers. And so unless there is something to tell you that power only applies to a particular part of the encountering a card sequence, it applies the moment you encounter the card.
The Ogrekin tells you to do it "When encountered" and that is before you start the sequence (so before Evading). The same term is used on the cloud spells.
Now, "When encountered" could be added to everything you wanted to indicate would happen regardless of evading, but that would be extra text. And you'd have to add it to all the immunities. And I think "When encountered" is supposed to signify things that happen at a specific point in time, i.e. "Before you start the Encountering a Card sequence." If so, it wouldn't quite work for the Burglar: "When encountered, if you do not acquire this card, discard 1 weapon or item." Well, I won't know if I acquired him or not until I'm resolving the encounter, so that isn't a "When encountered" thing. But maybe there is an example of where "When encountered" doesn't mean "before going through the Encountering a Card sequence."
Chief Technical Officer
|
At this point, I think Burglar may end up saying "If you fail the check to acquire this card."
As for your new issue, I think that we may want to delete this text entirely:
"If a card’s check section says “None,” look at the card’s powers, and immediately do whatever it says there."
Most of those effects, as well as the "when you encounter" effects, and even effects like Tangletooth's effect, really want to be ruled by the "do whatever it says as soon as it makes sense to do so" rule.
At this point, I think Burglar may end up saying "If you fail the check to acquire this card."
As for your new issue, I think that we may want to delete this text entirely:
"If a card’s check section says “None,” look at the card’s powers, and immediately do whatever it says there."
Most of those effects, as well as the "when you encounter" effects, and even effects like Tangletooth's effect, really want to be ruled by the "do whatever it says as soon as it makes sense to do so" rule.
So, for the Burglar, what if someone chooses to not attempt to acquire it? That (I think) doesn't count as failing the check. So you would avoid the burglar taking an item or weapon from you.
It's not a matter of priority. What exactly happens when you encounter a card is a very thorny issue, and we are balancing it against both what we have done and what we want to do in the future. Discussions continue, and your patience is appreciated.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The current plan: Burglar stays as is. The rules get a few changes, though.
"Evade the Card (Optional)" becomes:
Apply Evasion Effects. You may use a power or card that lets you evade the card you’re encountering. If any powers on the card you’re encountering relate to evading the card, they take effect at this time. If you evade the card, do not activate any other powers on it. Shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.
"Attempt the Check" gets the following addition:
If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.
What this means is if you evade, the burglar's second power does not occur. If you do not evade, and either choose not to acquire it or fail to acquire it, the power occurs.
The current plan: Burglar stays as is. The rules get a few changes, though.
"Evade the Card (Optional)" becomes:
Apply Evasion Effects. You may use a power or card that lets you evade the card you’re encountering. If any powers on the card you’re encountering relate to evading the card, they take effect at this time. If you evade the card, do not activate any other powers on it. Shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.
"Attempt the Check" gets the following addition:
If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.
What this means is if you evade, the burglar's second power does not occur. If you do not evade, and either choose not to acquire it or fail to acquire it, the power occurs.
Hmm....I think the Apply Evasion Effects might be somewhat confusing without defining what relates to evading. Immunities and "you may not evade" phrases I assume are the intended things. But like CSouth says above, this revision of evading seems to sort of override "When encountered" and "If encountered" powers. I think I'd read that and assume I could evade a Blessing of the Gods. Not knowing if there might be other things that lead you to this, I'd ask, why not just make the change to Attempt the Check and make the Burglar's second power an "After then Encounter" effect? Maybe you guys have more in the works then what I know of.
And to clarify: Failing to acquire wouldn't be exactly the same as "failing a check to acquire". So the Glassworks and Rusty Dragon would still have avoidable effects by choosing not to attempt the check. Do I have that right?
So, I've been thinking about this overnight. I appreciate the effort to be clearer about evading. But, we've already seen people believe that they can evade a Blessing of the Gods, and the suggested change I think would just push more people in that direction, since they would reason that the power on BotG didn't relate to evading, so they could ignore it. But I do actually like the wording in general. So, if I could make a friendly amendment, I'd suggest this:
Apply Evasion Effects. You may use a power or card that lets you evade the card you’re encountering. If any powers on the card you’re encountering relate to evading the card, they take effect at this time. If you evade the card, do not activate any other powers on it that haven't already activated. Shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.
I think that little phrase leaves the space necessary for "When/If Encountered" effects and maybe other things you might have planned.
Or have you considered just making "Apply Encountered Effects" the first part of the sequence?
Thanks for your attention to this. And thanks again for allowing us to give feedback. It is appreciated.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
OK, but this begs the question: What about text on a card that starts with "When you encounter"?
Such text does not relate to evasion, and this new rule instructs us to therefore ignore it. Am I wrong?
No—you still fire off "when you encounter" effects when you encounter a card, which is before you have the opportunity to evade it. The evade text I quoted doesn't need to allow it because it already happened.