I believe I remember seeing that it was ruled that RotRL Sajan can choose to add the fire trait/damage to his flaming fists power.
What about the second power on the Rod of the Viper? If displayed, and later during the same turn a monster is encountered that is poison immune, do you have the choice of dropping the poison trait from your combat checks?
Thanks.
The second power says:
Display this card. While displayed, add 1d12 and the Poison trait to your combat checks.
I'd play this that you simply don't get the additional d12 if the monster is immune to poison. But I'm not certain how this would be handled using the RAW.
The immunity rule is this. (Or at least something close to it. I'm not sure if WotR tweaked it slightly):
If the card you’re encountering states that it is immune to a particular trait, players may not play cards with the specified trait, use powers that would add that trait to the check, or roll dice with that trait during the encounter.
So, you can't roll the 1d12 based on that last clause.
Cool, thanks fellas.
But about just the 'Poison Trait':
Since the displayed card is adding the Poison Trait to all of your combat checks that turn... To be extra clear, you wouldn't see it as making it so you couldn't make ANY combat checks against poison immune banes that show up later, right? You know, since the card is -already- in play and altering your combat checks?
You're seeng it like...each time that the displayed card's power would come to bear on a situation it is sort of like a separate 'playing' of the card? Wouldn't that also allow Enora to recharge a discarded spell each time that her displayed Fire Shield lent a bonus or sumthin'?
Actually, we're really just interested in the intent, not splitting bunches of hairs just for sport. Do you suppose that people are mostly playing this like it doesn't prevent you from making combat checks and didn't really even think twice about it? And that this was also the design intention?
Thx again.
Well, now you are getting a bit technical. The Rod of Viper, once displayed, doesn't count as playing the card again to get the bonus. It is just a bonus that is present, similar to Toxic Cloud or Incendiary Cloud. You don't have to do anything, including make a decision, to get the bonus.
Other cards that are displayed do count as playing them when you use their powers. That is because you are making a choice to activate the power.
See this thread for some explanation.
I'd have to pull out Fire Shield to say anything remotely definite on Enora. But, if it says "While displayed, reduce damage dealt to you by X" then Enora is just getting the beneifit, and not playing the spell over and over again.
The question of such a thing has come up before. I hope most people don't think you just auto fail.
It's quite clear what should happen (i.e. that you just don't get the bonus or the trait). What's far from clear to me is why that's what does happen according to the rules as written. Nothing in the card's wording suggests that adding the trait is optional nor that the trait only applies to the added die. Going by the wording of the rule Hawkmoon quoted earlier, you're not playing the card, you're not using a power, and the trait is added to the check so why wouldn't all the dice have it?
I'm not arguing with the intent, but it feels like a correction is needed somewhere here for this to work.
Well, we've got people leaning a little one way, and a little the other way.
But mostly we just wanted to know that--if we were allowing someone to go ahead to make checks against poison immune banes but just *without* the poison trait and the extra die--we weren't doing something obviously wrong.
I think we have what we were after. And I'm glad that ya'll feel that it's legit to play it this way.
Thanks for the thoughts.
And I'm glad that ya'll feel that it's legit to play it this way.
It's probably the correct way, but not necessarily the legit way. As Irgy pointed out - if there isn't an "you MAY add the Poison trait to all your checks" in there - it shouldn't be possible to ignore it against a Poison-immune monster per RAW, so that may need a FAQ.
As for the Fire Sphere, if I remember correctly, it expressly states that using its power "counts as playing a spell" - so, yeah, technically Enora should benefit from it as many times as you activate it.
PS: The Rod is different, IMHO, than the Toxic Cloud thread Hawkmoon links in that the Clouds specifically add a "die with the X trait" while the Rod adds the trait to your check itself, no questions asked.
Ok. So Fire Shield says...
Display this card. While displayed, you may add 1d8 and the Fire or Cold trait to a combat check attempted by a character at your location.
So, again, you are only playing that when you initially display it. After that it is just a static bonus. So Enora gets to use her power only when she displays it, not every time someone gets the 1d8 from it.
Here is some further insight from Vic with the Toxic Cloud example. He says that, once displayed, you are "using the power" even though you aren't playing the card anymore. So the second part of the immunity rule covers it (players may not ... use powers that would add that trait to the check).
I also think there is a thread somewhere in which Vic says they changed how they worded these from "x dice with y trait" to "x dice and y trait." But let me dig for it to be sure.
RAW agrees with Hawkmoon, although not quite for the reason he specified -- the trait is added to the check, not the dice, so the very last bit of the sentence does not apply. The bit that does apply is "use powers that would add that trait to the check."
Applying an always-active power is still using that power, even though it doesn't count as playing the card. Normally, we can only use any individual power once per check/step, which is why the rules explicitly carve out an exception allowing us to use trigger powers ("When blah happens, do blah") every time they happen. If applying such effects did not count as using powers, then that exception would not be needed. As a result, there is a very strong case that applying Rod of the Viper's effect counts as using its power (it's a power that is applied every time something happens -- namely that you're making a Combat check -- even though it doesn't explicitly say "when").
So applying Rod of the Viper counts as using a power, and we're required to do it on every combat check (not a "may"), but we have a rule telling us that we can't use the power. This is not a case of card trumps rulebook, because the card never says it must be played even if the target is immune. Therefore, the rule still holds and the power may not be used, making attempting to use the power an impossible action and therefore ignored. Since the power is never used, the d12 and Poison trait are never added, and the rest of the check proceeds as normal.
Ok. Still looking for where Vic might have said that. But, in the meantime, I compared the 3 base sets looking for "add X with the Y trait" as well as "add X and the Y trait." I checked whether the phrase was used as a condition (Add 1 die to checks to defeat the Abominable Snowman with the Fire trait.) or as as a power to add the trait (Reveal this card to add 1d4 with the Magic trait to your combat check). Here are the results (I'm only counting distinct cards. So Acolyte appears in B and C in RotR, but I'm only counting it once.)
RotR
With: Used as a condition on 20 cards. Used as a power on 24 cards.
And: Used as a condition on 0 cards. Used as a power on 1 card. But....
In doing my search I stumbled across Spiny Shield. While the first power doesn't exactly meet my search Criteria, it is interesting:
If you played a weapon with the 2-Handed trait on this check, you may not play this card.
Discard this card to add 1d4 and the Ranged and Magic traits to your combat check.
This is a card that needs to use a phrase as both a condition and as a power. The first paragraph uses "with" as a condition. In the second paragraph, "and" is used as a power. Hold on to that throught...
S&S
With: Used as a condition on 4 cards. Used as a power on 0 cards.
And: Used as a condition on 0 cards. Used as a power on 21 cards.
S&S makes a shift to preferring the phrase "that has the Y trait" when making a conditional statement (which I didn't search for) and using "and the Y trait" when a power adds the trait. A few cards slip back to using "with" as a condition, including Jellyfish Cape which has "with" as a condition" and "and" as a power.
WotR (through deck 5)
With: Used as a condition on 0 cards. Used as a power on 0 cards.
And: Used as a condition on 0 cards. Used as a power on 34 cards.
WotR has made a full switch to using "has the Y trait" for conditions while using "and the Y trait" for powers. Spiny Shield reappears here and follows this new format.
That is probably more than you cared to know. But, I think it is clear that the standard format is "has the Y trait" illustrated a condition while "and the Y trait" is used for a power to add the trait.
Now, interestingly Vic said that, if it ever matter, then if they wanted you to understand it as just those dice have that trait, "with" would be the way to got. And if they wanted you to understand it as "you add these dice and the whole check get this trait" then "and" would bit the way to go.
I imagine a big part of the reason they made the change was so that a condition for a power and the power itself would be clearer, but regardless, the reason Rod of the Viper is worded differently is a shift in the format of the text, not a change in how the power should apply.
Sorry if that is information overload. Maybe I'm the only one interested in that, but on the chance anyone else is, I thought I'd share.
Enlightening explanations and breakdown from everyone.
Skizz and Hawk have also helped me to process a number of other potential questions before I even had a chance to have 'em.
Thanks again.
Ok so to paraphrase what I've understood from this, to make sure I've got it:
* Adding the d12 and the poison trait is "using a power" of the card, and you can't use the power because it adds the poison trait, which the monster is immune to. Using the power isn't optional on that card, but you can still be forced not to use it.
* Since you can't use the power the trait isn't added and you can still roll your other dice. Yay!
* Normally using a power is playing a card. But, if the card was played earlier, then you're still "using a power" but not "playing the card" again. So for instance if you played the card earlier, you can still use another item on the check (even when you are adding the dice).
* Also, in a somewhat inverted situation, if the monster was immune to some other trait on the card but not to poison, you could (indeed must) add the dice, because as mentioned above you're not playing the card. I found another thread about Statue of Karzoug and Poison Cloud for instance which mentioned this.
* There's some minor differences in wording on other cards, but they are all intended to work the same way and have converged to one wording in the latest release.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Pretty much right, though I wouldn't say "Normally using a power is playing a card," because while that *is* usually true for card powers, it's not usually the case when it comes to *character* powers. (There are some character powers that specifically say that using it counts as playing a specific card type, but that's fairly unusual.)
Thanks Vic both for confirmation and correction. I guess I meant "Normally using a power on a card is playing the card".
It's easy trying to pick holes in wording on the cards but it's only when I try and write words down myself that I fully appreciate how hard it is to get them right!