I'm going to agree with RoyalCoat here, the Putrid Ooze is preventing you from playing Banish abilities on armor, no matter what may end up actually happening to the armor card itself.
Note that per this FAQ you don't banish (or even bury) the armor initially; it's just set aside until its effects (reducing damage) are fully processed. Then you go do whatever you need to do with it. Notably, this means that the "bury it instead" wording cannot be construed as rewriting the power as "Bury this card to reduce damage dealt to you to 0" -- the power is still a banish power that just happens to bury the card instead if you're proficient. Since it's still a banish power, the Putrid Ooze stops you from using it.
No, because the Armor ability instructs you to banish the Armor, then if you are proficient, you bury it instead. You are still activating the ability to bury the Armor, just changing what happens after you start playing the ability.
I can see it being argued the other way. Because you 'bury it INSTEAD', you never actually banish the armor (also, there was the FAQ that basically leaves the cards in 'limbo' until you finally determine the action to be done), and therefore playing them should be legal. The Ooze power cares about the ultimate result of the action, not of the way it was 'triggered', IMHO.
EDIT: ninja'd by skizzerz and he was kind enough to link the appropriate FAQ.
Notably, this means that the "bury it instead" wording cannot be construed as rewriting the power as "Bury this card to reduce damage dealt to you to 0" -- the power is still a banish power that just happens to bury the card instead if you're proficient. Since it's still a banish power, the Putrid Ooze stops you from using it.
I don't mean to argue but I'm not aware of the existence of "banish powers". "Banish, or banish not; there is no 'banish power'" , so to speak.
I get what you're saying (that some sort of 'trigger' is what matters, instead of the result) but I have the feeling you're bringing in assumptions from other games, as I can find nothing in support of your point, and indeed, the very FAQ you have linked seems like an argument against it.
I think with armor you know what the action really is the moment you play it. If you are proficient, you bury it. If you aren't, you banish it. So, you wouldn't set aside the armor.
The way it's worded you set it aside no matter what even if you know what the end result is going to be. That said, nobody will be mad if you take shortcuts and do it right away if it doesn't matter.
I'm still mostly certain about the ooze though, I'll make a more thorough argument tomorrow when I have some time to do some in depth research though. In any case, the intent seems to not care about proficiency; oozes just eat through armor regardless of how good you are at wearing it.
The putrid ooze doesn't care if you are proficient with the armor, if you throw it in front of the ooze, no matter how much finesse you do it with, it's acid would just eat right through it.
I was reluctant to get into 'thematic' arguments (as it has been said often enough that 'mechanics' trump 'theme' when necessary), but the first time I read the power, I imagined it as "the person who knows their way around an armor manages to intercept the spray of ooze (or whatever) with the armor; the non-proficient users get burned because the ooze sprays all over the unprotected places of their body'.
If the idea was, as skizzerz says, to relay "your armor is ruined no mater what", I'd imagine the power to be "Bury any armors played on this check", or even "banish".
Aditionally, I can perfectly well reveal or recharge an armor to reduce the Acid damage, so it appears to me that it's not a matter or "your armor does not protect you", but rather "you can only reduce the full damage if you know what you're doing".
At any rate, as Hawkmoon noted - you really know what action you're performing at the time you play the armor; you're NOT going through some "banish, but not really" phase if you're proficient.
Checking on this.
Compare the deck 6 henchman Devastator:
While you act, ... damage dealt by the Devastator is dealt to each character at your location. Armors may not be buried or banished to reduce this damage.
This seems to indicate you can bury armors to reduce damage from the Putrid Ooze.
I know Mike replied, but here are my own thoughts on the matter:
After looking at the surrounding evidence, as-written it appears that you can indeed bury armors to reduce the damage. There are two ways to banish an armor: 1. the power telling you to banish it in order to play the card, and 2. a power that causes you to banish it after-the-fact (possibly dependent on some other check or requirement). The power on Putrid Ooze only covers case #1, due to the wording of "banished to reduce." This means that you cannot banish an armor if the act of banishing the armor is what enables you to reduce the damage. An example of a #2 ability would be the reveal ability on Sweet Dragon Costume that says "Reveal this card to reduce Fire damage dealt to you to 0, then roll 1d12. On a 1, banish this card." In that case, in the event that the Putrid Ooze is doing Fire damage to you instead of Acid damage, you'd still be able to reveal the Costume to reduce it to 0, as you are not banishing the card to reduce the damage, even though banishing it is a possibility after the damage has already been reduced.
If proficient with armors, you are burying the card to reduce the damage, not banishing it. As a result, the Ooze's power does not apply and you can reduce the damage by burying the card. This (to me) smells because that goes entirely contrary to the point of Oozes, which in the RPG an acidic ooze will not only deal its damage to you, but also deals an equal amount of damage to your armor (in other words, it eats through or dissolves the metal of the armor; it don't care how good you are at wearing armors because the metal dissolves all the same regardless of your proficiencies).
Also, in regards to setting it aside versus not, the rules are completely clear and unambiguous -- you always set the card aside for effects other than revealing or displaying, then process the effects, then figure out where the card ends up. Just because you know where the card is going to be ending up doesn't mean that the rule to set it aside no longer applies. Now, in cases where processing the effects cannot possibly impact what ends up happening to the card, sure, just do the end result right away. But in cases where it could matter, the act of always setting it aside is important. Let's say we had a hypothetical card "Banish this card to move 1d4 random cards you have buried into your discard pile. If you have the Divine skill, bury this card instead." -- if you have Divine, you know the end result is going to be that you bury the card. But you still set it aside meaning that the card itself is not buried at the time you move the 1d4 random cards, so you can't cycle it back into your discard.
I disagree on the always setting aside cards.
How to you play healing potions and Damiel?
I disagree on the always setting aside cards.
How to you play healing potions and Damiel?
Sigh. To quote the FAQ:
When you reveal a card, it does not leave your hand. When you display a card, it leaves your hand immediately. When you play a card by performing any other action, set it aside while you process its effects. For example, a spell might tell you to discard it, then allow you to succeed at a check to recharge it instead; set it aside until you resolve the check that determines whether or not you recharge it. While set aside, a card does not count as being in your hand, your discard pile, your deck, or anywhere else.
Potion of Healing says "Banish this card and choose a character at your location. That character may shuffle 1d4 random cards from his discard pile into his deck."
Damiel says "When you play a card that has the Alchemical trait and would banish it, you may recharge it instead."
So, let's say Damiel is playing Potion of Healing on himself. Potion of Healing tells him to banish the card to play it. This counts as "Playing a card by performing any other action" (since banishing is not revealing or recharging), so it is set aside while its effects are processed. Then Damiel shuffles 1d4 random cards from his discard into his deck. Now that we've finished processing the effects of Potion of Healing, we banish it. Except Damiel's power kicks in and says to recharge it instead. The end result is that you shuffle in the 1d4 random cards and then Potion of Healing ends up as the bottom card of your deck.
Nowhere in the FAQ does it say that setting it aside is optional or only done if you don't necessarily know what will happen to it. It says that you set it aside if you aren't revealing or displaying it without any other conditions attached. There is absolutely zero ambiguity in this. If you want to shortcut it because it doesn't actually matter in that instance, then go for it if that makes you feel better. But in cases where it does matter, it's set aside first even if you know exactly where it would end up (for example in Damiel's case the fact it's set aside ensures the potion is on the bottom of his deck and not shuffled in along with the 1d4 cards).
This FAQ indicates Damiel recharges the Potion first, then shuffles in the other cards. In fact, Damiel was one of the reasons the FAQ was created.
I see what you as saying about the FAQ not having a option to not set it aside. So it seems the order is this:
1. Set it aside.
2. Pick it up and recharge it.
3. Shuffle 1d4 random cards from discard pile into deck.
That would suggest armor follows the same pattern of only needing to be set aside long enough to satisfy the condition of setting it aside and then you bury it and then reduce damage.
Still disagree but going to split this off into a new thread since the Putrid Ooze question still needs clarification and I don't want to accidentally make that not happen due to derailing this thread too much :)
You may find the new thread here.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key word is "instead." If you do A instead of B, you did not do B. So if your armor says you may bury it instead of banishing it, and you choose to bury it, then you are not banishing it. All the ooze cares about is whether you're banishing it or not, and since you're not, you're good.
The key word is "instead." If you do A instead of B, you did not do B. So if your armor says you may bury it instead of banishing it, and you choose to bury it, then you are not banishing it.
I know it should be obvious, but this probably belongs in the Rulebook, considering it had to be explicitly stated on the boards.