Hi, here's a few somewhat unrelated questions which I've built up over time, and which I haven't found or figured out an answer to yet.
1) I'd like confirmation on my understanding of the interaction between cards like Poison Cloud and Blizzard etc., with different cards that make it difficult or impossible to play them through different means.
1A) Karzoug Statue is immune to the attack trait. My understanding is that you can use a cloud which was played earlier (although this is somewhat difficult to set up in that particular scenario) but not play a new one when you encounter him. It doesn't matter if you're the encountering player or another player.
B) Karzoug the Claimer says "before attempting to play a spell [do stuff]". I think this applies to anyone who tries to play a cloud in reaction to the encounter, but again has no impact on one in play from a previous encounter that turn?
C) Some cards that I can't remember say "[before you act] make a [check] or you cannot play spells". My understanding is that these on the other hand do not prevent anyone from playing clouds, because the cloud is played before that check is even made. I also believe that against these cards, people who play other support spells like "Fiery Weapon" are not affected in any way (don't have to make the check and can use the spell even if the encountering player fails it). I also think a second player helping with one of two checks to defeat is unaffected by the "before you act" check.
2) Isawyn the Diva says you can't play cards with the attack trait or weapons if you fail a certain check. I auto-failed the check (d4 for an 11), then used a Buckler Gun. Was this legit? It's an armour not a weapon, but it says it "counts as playing a weapon". The apparent purpose of saying that is to allow you to play another armour (and to not allow another weapon I guess, though as far as I can tell that's never relevant). But does this extend to not being able to play it in the first place? My interpretation was that I'm playing an armour which counts as a weapon. From a technical perspective it doesn't "count as playing a weapon" until I play it to activate that text, by which time I've already played it so it's too late to tell me I can't. Am I just being too much of a lawyer here?
3) The Pirate Council has an alternative method of defeat, by banishing some plunder cards. It doesn't say random, so does that mean you can choose the cards? I know the plunder pile is face down, but for instance you might remember that for the bottom card we rolled armour, the second card weapon and the top card spell. If you want weapons the most, can you choose for instance to give away the top and bottom card (armour and spell) but keep the middle (weapon)?
1) I'd like confirmation on my understanding of the interaction between cards like Poison Cloud and Blizzard etc., with different cards that make it difficult or impossible to play them through different means.
1A) Karzoug Statue is immune to the attack trait. My understanding is that you can use a cloud which was played earlier (although this is somewhat difficult to set up in that particular scenario) but not play a new one when you encounter him. It doesn't matter if you're the encountering player or another player.
B) Karzoug the Claimer says "before attempting to play a spell [do stuff]". I think this applies to anyone who tries to play a cloud in reaction to the encounter, but again has no impact on one in play from a previous encounter that turn?
C) Some cards that I can't remember say "[before you act] make a [check] or you cannot play spells". My understanding is that these on the other hand do not prevent anyone from playing clouds, because the cloud is played before that check is even made. I also believe that against these cards, people who play other support spells like "Fiery Weapon" are not affected in any way (don't have to make the check and can use the spell even if the encountering player fails it). I also think a second player helping with one of two checks to defeat is unaffected by the "before you act" check.
A. The Cloud spells you only play once, which is when you display them. After that, they are a static bonus. So, if the cloud is already displayed, things that prevent you from playing spells don't prevent you from getting that bonus. See this comment by Vic.
B. You are correct about Karzoug. This is made explicitly clear here.
C. Anyone who wants to play a spell with the attack trait has to attempt the check. This is clarified in this FAQ and you can see the open discussion about it between the design team and the community here (isn't Paizo great like that?). See the third and fourth posts where "hags" are discussed. Hags says "Before the encounter (i.e Before you act), succeed at an Arcane or Divine 14 check or you may not play spells with the Attack trait." Vic makes it clear that this now applies to anyone wishing to play a spell with the attack trait. That would mean even if you were playing the spell prior to the "Before-you-act" step.
2) Isawyn the Diva says you can't play cards with the attack trait or weapons if you fail a certain check. I auto-failed the check (d4 for an 11), then used a Buckler Gun. Was this legit? It's an armour not a weapon, but it says it "counts as playing a weapon". The apparent purpose of saying that is to allow you to play another armour (and to not allow another weapon I guess, though as far as I can tell that's never relevant). But does this extend to not being able to play it in the first place? My interpretation was that I'm playing an armour which counts as a weapon. From a technical perspective it doesn't "count as playing a weapon" until I play it to activate that text, by which time I've already played it so it's too late to tell me I can't. Am I just being too much of a lawyer here?
It counts as a weapon in the fullest sense of counting as a weapon. So you can't play it if you can't play a weapon.
3) The Pirate Council has an alternative method of defeat, by banishing some plunder cards. It doesn't say random, so does that mean you can choose the cards? I know the plunder pile is face down, but for instance you might remember that for the bottom card we rolled armour, the second card weapon and the top card spell. If you want weapons the most, can you choose for instance to give away the top and bottom card (armour and spell) but keep the middle (weapon)?
I would say that since it doesn't say random, it has to be the top card. The plunder is a face down deck. So this FAQ and the one right below it apply.
Vic makes it clear that this now applies to anyone wishing to play a spell with the attack trait. That would mean even if you were playing the spell prior to the "Before-you-act" step.
I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing something. I get all the changes to immunity type powers and that 'you' is now supposed to target anybody that meets the power's condition (play a spell), but how does that make anyone go through an Arcane/Divine check to play Cloud if the power is worded "before you act" (i.e. it happens after "when you encounter", when the Clouds are played) ??
Well, I'm going off my memory here, but I think there is somewhere that this comes up in a thread. I'm searching for it now.
Ok. So I think I'm remembering this thing about evasion. Evasion has a clear rule that anything relating to evading kicks in when you try to evade. And Vic later mentions making all the evasion stuff clearer.
So, I can see myself being wrong on this one. Perhaps you can play a "When you encounter" kind of spell if the monster doesn't prevent you from playing it via a check until "before you act."
OTOH, a monster that was Immune to the Attack trait would be safe (right?).
OTOH, a monster that was Immune to the Attack trait would be safe (right?).
<grumble> friggin' Karzoug Statue... <grumble>
Of course, in RotR 5-5, you only need to run into a Gecko, FAIL your check against it, and chase it into the Statue Location. Then you can Cloud the $%it of the Statue. Yeah, right.
OTOH, a monster that was Immune to the Attack trait would be safe (right?).
Yeah. Since what a monster is immune to isn't tied to any step of the encounter, it applies all the way through. So, if a monster was immune to the attack trait, it would prevent you from playing Toxic Cloud (though not from receiving the dice from a previously played Toxic Cloud).
Though no such monsters technically exist. They just simply say "You may not play spells with the Attack trait" unrelated to attempting a check or not.
Spells with the attack trait are kind of funny. Imagine if monsters did say they were immune to the attack trait. Wouldn't it be weird to see some monsters say "Succeed at a check or this monster is immune to the Attack trait." Does anything else become immune during an encounter?
There are a bunch of ways this power kicks in.
"You may not play spells with the attack trait." Just a blanket prevention. This is on all golems I think. No Toxic Cloud here. (Kazoug Status basically fits here, though has a unique wording.)
"Succeed at a check or you may not play spells with the attack trait." This isn't tied to a step, so it obviously kicks in when you want to play a spell with the attack trait.
"Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells with the Attack trait." You see this on all kinds of banes, including hags. This one is the issue. Can you play Toxic Cloud or other things that happen prior to the "Before-you-act" step regardless of this check?
"Roll a 1d6. On 1, 2, or 3 you can't play spells with the Attack trait." Remember the Leng Spider? Good times. Again, not tied to a step, so clearly kicks in when you want to play the spell. Basically the same as the second one, just isn't a check but a simple roll of the die.
There might be others too.
The crazy things cards do to try to model SR and magic immunities, -ish. :)
The crazy things cards do to try to model SR and magic immunities, -ish. :)
Well the first three are straightforward, although that last one is just crazy :)
"You may not play spells with the attack trait." seems to be the wording for stuff that is immune to magic (such as constructs). Doesn't actually say "immune to" though so no Mythic Archmage for you (this matches the RPG though in that there are no Mythic Archmage abilities that allow one to bypass immunities as far as I can tell).
"Succeed at a check or you may not play spells with the attack trait." is quintessential spell resistance (SR), because that's basically exactly what you do in the RPG as well (make a Caster Level check against the target's SR or the spell fails). In a way, the card game version is nicer because you still get to keep the spell in your hand for later use, unlike the RPG where the spell slot is wasted.
"Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells with the Attack trait." To me this one seems to be a saving throw of some sort -- succeed or be incapacitated to a state where you are no longer able to cast spells. The cause is left as an exercise for the reader, and likely differs based on each individual bane encountered with the ability.
For the last one, maybe it has a way to become immune to magic but that ability wasn't active when you encountered it, so if you come before it initiative-wise you can affect it? Best I got anyway for the 50/50 chance -- I don't have the RotR AP (yet) so can't check on the source material to see what was actually being converted.
In all, it's amazing the sorts of things you guys come up with to stay mostly true to the source (RPG) material, yet still make it work well and be fun in card form without being horribly complex.
Thanks Hawkmoon269 and others.
It counts as a weapon in the fullest sense of counting as a weapon. So you can't play it if you can't play a weapon.
Damn, it felt so clever at the time too. Partly because I didn't see the "counts as a weapon" clause at all initially. If I could only remember what I had in my hand at the time I'd go back and reroll it. My memory is that I had a decent chance even without it...
I would say that since it doesn't say random, it has to be the top card. The plunder is a face down deck. So this FAQ and the one right below it apply.
Ah right, I'd seen that but it never occurred to me that it would apply, makes sense though. What's interesting is that it was none of the possibilities I considered for what to do. It's most similar to being random, but it's different because you know what type it is - even if you can't change it, you at least know whether you'd be losing the card type you wanted before you decide whether to just take the damage and fail instead.
As far as (1) goes, I think I'm good with (A) and (B), and good with clouds generally because they get played before things like (C) have the chance to apply. But, I'm still unclear on how "before you act" type powers interact with multiple players making checks or playing spells that affect checks. Especially with RotR cards that were printed before the "before you act" templating was used but which would presumably have used it.
On the one hand, it kind of makes sense that an ability like "[before you act] make [a check] or you can't play spells" should affect a player trying to play a spell on a second check, and also affect players playing spells to help on a single check. On the other hand, it certainly doesn't make sense for something like "Before you act, each character at your location takes 1d4 acid damage" to be applied a second time (to everyone!) just because someone else is helping with one of the checks, or, even sillier, just because someone else is using powers to help with a single check. But these desires interpret the same templating two different ways.
Personally I think that if a card wants anyone playing a spell to make a check it should say something like:
"You may not play spells [with the attack trait] unless you make [a check]"
Otherwise a "before you act" type power (including those from before the "before you act" templating that just say to do something) should work the same way regardless of what the power does, which is to say they always only affect the encountering player.
This seems consistent with (or more to the point unaffected by) the FAQ wording, but inconsistent with the stated desire for that FAQ wording to impact other people trying to play spells against hags (both from this thread).
So, if a monster was immune to the attack trait, it would prevent you from playing Toxic Cloud (though not from receiving the dice from a previously played Toxic Cloud).
Funnily enough, Vic's quote was in response to my question, and at the time I took it at face value. It was only when I started preparations for my solo-Ezren run, that I found out that's EXACTLY what Karzoug's Statue says...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think that if a card wants anyone playing a spell to make a check it should say something like:
"You may not play spells [with the attack trait] unless you make [a check]"
I agree this would be an improvement.
The rules about Encountering A Card list these steps:
Apply Any Effects That Happen When You Encounter a Card
Apply Any Evasion Effects
Apply Any Effects That Happen Before You Act.
Attempt the Check.
Attempt the Next Check, If Needed
Apply Any Effects That Happen After You Act
Resolve the Encounter
From this it is clear that BYA powers do not apply to each check. The step only happens once, for the player encountering the card.
In the case of "Before you act, succeed at a [x] or you may not do [y]", I thought we had a FAQ which said this applied to everyone, but I can't find that. This is the closest I could find. Also we have Hawkmoon's link. Neither seems to answer the question. I think in this case you could argue the limitation only applies to the player encountering the card.
Chief Technical Officer
|
From the FAQ: "If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things; however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action."
When a card says "Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," technically, every character has to attempt that check at that time. Of course, most characters know at that point whether or not they want to play a spell with the Attack trait, and don't bother rolling if they don't... but on the odd chance that a character realizes later that the result of the roll they didn't actually bother to make at the correct time matters, then that character should immediately roll to find out what the result of their Schrödinger's Roll was, but realize that that roll really happened then and not now. Easy!
(And yes, that one "before you act" roll for each player covers all checks on a multi-check encounter.)
On to the question of whether or not you can play a spell *before* "before you act."
If the spell says you can play it when you encounter a card, you can play it in the "Apply Any Effects That Happen When You Encounter a Card" step.
If the spell has powers that relate to evading the card you're encountering, you can play it in the "Apply Any Evasion Effects" step.
If it can't be played in either of those steps, it can't be played until after you're forced to attempt the "before you act" check.
From the FAQ: "If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things; however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action."
When a card says "Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," technically, every character has to attempt that check at that time. Of course, most characters know at that point whether or not they want to play a spell with the Attack trait, and don't bother rolling if they don't... but on the odd chance that a character realizes later that the result of the roll they didn't actually bother to make at the correct time matters, then that character should immediately roll to find out what the result of their Schrödinger's Roll was, but realize that that roll really happened then and not now. Easy!
(And yes, that one "before you act" roll for each player covers all checks on a multi-check encounter.)
On to the question of whether or not you can play a spell *before* "before you act."
If the spell says you can play it when you encounter a card, you can play it in the "Apply Any Effects That Happen When You Encounter a Card" step.
If the spell has powers that relate to evading the card you're encountering, you can play it in the "Apply Any Evasion Effects" step.
If it can't be played in either of those steps, it can't be played until after you're forced to attempt the "before you act" check.
Ok, thanks for that Vic. I think what to do is clear enough to me in all cases now, so in theory I'm done.
...
So the fact that I'm still writing stuff is just because I like arguing, though at least I usually learn something in the process.
I don't understand why every character is supposed to make that check at that time. In the before you act phase "you" is the player encountering the card, not everyone. In every other case of a "before you act" power, only the person making the encounter is affected (unless of course it explicitly says "each character [at this location]", but the existence of those cards only further highlights that the default is not everyone). Take Bunyip for instance, does every other character who might make any check this turn need to make the Bunyip's Wisdom-or-[something] check?
It doesn't feel like the FAQ covers this case properly. It's not an effect that happens "if or when you do a particular thing", it just happens once in the "before you act" phase and then affects what you can and can't do later. Maybe the FAQ should also say something like "If a card requires you to make a check in order to be able to do something, any player who wants to do that thing must make the check"?
When a card says "Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," technically, every character has to attempt that check at that time. ..
What Irgy said. Do all "Before you act" powers apply to every player who will attempt a check against the bane? Because that would make this game dramatically more difficult.
So there was a location in S&S "Whenever you fail a check against a monster, discard d4 cards from the blessings deck."
So if a person there encounters a monster with "Before you act, succeed at Wisdom 10 or you can't play attack spells", everyone has to do that check, right? Even if they don't want to play attack spells. So everyone who fails has to discard d4 cards from the blessings deck.
Would this also apply even if the other party members weren't at that location?
So there was a location in S&S "Whenever you fail a check against a monster, discard d4 cards from the blessings deck."
So if a person there encounters a monster with "Before you act, succeed at Wisdom 10 or you can't play attack spells", everyone has to do that check, right? Even if they don't want to play attack spells. So everyone who fails has to discard d4 cards from the blessings deck.
Would this also apply even if the other party members weren't at that location?
Actually, I don't think that would happen in this case. The wording is "before you act, do X or you may not play spells"
If that wording is accurate, you are given two options, succeed at the check or do not play spells. If you do not intend to play spells, I think you can just choose option two and not attempt the check. If, though, it said "Before you act, attempt X. If you fail you may not play spells." that would be a mandatory action. Are there cards with that wording?
When a card says "Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," technically, every character has to attempt that check at that time. ..What Irgy said. Do all "Before you act" powers apply to every player who will attempt a check against the bane? Because that would make this game dramatically more difficult.
I would like to request a clarification on this also.
Why specify "before you act, each character must attempt a Con/Fort 6 check or bury..." if "before you act, attempt a Con/Fort 6 check or bury..." means the same thing?
|
When a card says "Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," technically, every character has to attempt that check at that time. ..What Irgy said. Do all "Before you act" powers apply to every player who will attempt a check against the bane? Because that would make this game dramatically more difficult.
Personally I think it's completely logical that anyone attempting one of the checks would have to complete any BY A requirements. In fact, not just that, but if you are modifying the check in some way that would normally be covered by the BYA, it should apply to regardless of whether your making one of the checks or just throwing in an assist spell.
If it doesn't apply to what you're doing, it should only be required if you are attempting one of the checks to defeat. If it applies to what you're doing, it should be required as long as you are playing any card at all during the encounter.
When a card says "Before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," technically, every character has to attempt that check at that time
I just noticed Vic said every character, not every character attempting a check, or every character at the location. Every character.
Is this case of a before you act power applying to every character a special exception for spell resistance?
Karzoug's power is much clearer:
Before attempting to play a spell with the Attack trait, succeed at an Arcane or Divine 15 check or you are dealt 1 Poison damage and you may not play spells with the Attack trait.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
From the FAQ: "If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things; however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action."
With added emphasis:
"If a bane... limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things."
So when a card says "before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," that's limiting the things you can do. So if you know you want to play a spell, you obviously have to attempt the check at that time. If you "know" you don't want to/can't play a spell, you don't have to waste time rolling the dice... but if later in the encounter you find out that you were wrong, and in fact do want to play a spell, then you have to roll the dice to find out what the result of the check that you didn't realize you had already attempted was.
So when a card says "before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," that's limiting the things you can do. So if you know you want to play a spell, you obviously have to attempt the check at that time.
That's very clear. So "before you act" powers are only universal when specifying limits.
I still find it confusing that this is a "before you act" power, when only the character encountering the card has a "before you act" step.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yes, only you (the person encountering the card) can go through the steps, but the rules for the Before You Act step say "If any powers on the card you’re encountering happen before you act, they take effect at this time."
So it's your reaching that step that causes those powers to execute, but that doesn't mean that those powers are limited to affecting only you. (Consider all the monsters that make multiple characters summon and encounter copies of themselves before you act...)
From the FAQ: "If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things; however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action."With added emphasis:
"If a bane... limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things."
So when a card says "before you act, succeed at a check or you may not play spells," that's limiting the things you can do. So if you know you want to play a spell, you obviously have to attempt the check at that time. If you "know" you don't want to/can't play a spell, you don't have to waste time rolling the dice... but if later in the encounter you find out that you were wrong, and in fact do want to play a spell, then you have to roll the dice to find out what the result of the check that you didn't realize you had already attempted was.
I get what you're saying. Again I'm just arguing because it's my idea of fun. I'm also now not arguing about what to do any more just whether the wording of the rules is as good as it could be. Whether it's worth changing is up to you.
The problem is there's another whole clause attached to the part you emphasized, which undermines that interpretation:
"however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action."
The limitation is the result of attempting a check, so it only applies to the player who attempted the check. Now I get that this is just there so that people don't think player A's failed check result applies to player B. But the side effect is that it then appears to overrule (being a "however, if" attached to the same sentence) the part that tells you to apply it to everyone in the first place.
I think the desired interpretation is that there's two separate limitations here:
A) "you cannot [do a thing]"
B) "before you act make [a check] or you cannot [do a thing]"
So the first part tells us that (B) applies to everyone, since it's a limitation (and it's not the result of any action), while the second part tells us that (A) applies (in possibly multiple copies) only to each individual who fails their check.
The confusion is that (B) looks a lot more like a check than a limitation. I have the following suggestion which would make it, well, I'd be lying if I said "clear", but at least "unambiguous":
"If a bane... limits or conditionally limits the things you can do"
It's not a great fix though because it introduces a whole new concept ("conditional limitations") from nowhere, it requires the same sentence to apply twice in different ways to parts of the same power (not a new problem but not fixed either), and no-one would ever understand why it's there without going through this whole process. But if nothing else it might make clear what I'm bothered about with this.