First - Can you benefit from 2 of the same card? what if the effect is global? Example, if two different paladins have played "Knight Pennon" item, can everyone benefit from both? What about if they both play a "Strength" spell on the same player? My gut says no, but I can't find anything in the rules.
Second - Class Deck Harsk has a Mountaineer (Ally 5) that reads "Reveal this to add 2d8 to a survival check." Can he really reveal this for anyone on any survival check at any location? This appears broken, especially in Skull in Shackles.
Third - Dog Rider Knight Raz has a power that states "When you would bury an armor for its power, you may discard (□ or recharge) it instead". The Henchman Devastator has a power that says Armors may not be banished or buried. Could she use her power to get around the restriction?
Fourth - Society Scenario 1-6D reward states "Each character chooses a boon of a type other than loot from the box." How does this play out? Do you get to select any card in your Class Deck for an upgrade?
1. Yes. Nothing in the rules says otherwise.
2. Yes. It is broken in Skull & Shackles. Many CD characters don't have survival, but 1d4 + 2d8 will beat most ships.
3. Not clear on this one. I would say yes.
4. Yes, that's right. About time. I didn't get anything worthwhile from all the random draws.
3. Yes, you can get around the restriction with Raz's power. See this comment from Vic about a fairly similar situation.
3. Yes, you are discarding/recharging the armor, you are not burying it. The "instead" construction means the original thing never happens. Since the armor is never buried, Devastator's power never applies. See also this post by Vic (ignore my posts in that thread, I was just being wrong all over the place :P)
3. Not clear on this one. I would say yes.
Last night we played it as a "no". While the Raz player disagreed, the other 3 players interpretation was that the "When you would bury an armor for its power,..." part of her power can't trigger due to the Henchman not allowing it.
I made the correlation that if a player has an ability to allow him to use a set skill (example:Charisma) in place of any other skill, this still doesn't allow him to recharge spells without the proper skill. This is due to it being banished before he gets a chance to recharge.
I feel this was the right call, but the Raz player didnt agree so I was looking for confirmation.
EDIT: wow two ninja responses while I was doing this one.
I think no on three. My reasoning is that the Bane prevents you from burying/banishing armor. Raz's power allows you to take a card you were going to bury and discard/recharge it instead. But she was never going to bury an armor because it was not allowed by the Bane.
Im in agreement with Nondeskript (doesnt mean im not wrong). Those cards are written different. The power on an armor gives you a semicolon telling you how the armor acts differently if you are proficient.
Oh I should mention that I'm often wrong and if Hawkmoon says something different, he's right 99.999% of the time.
In this case, though, I stand by my disagreement (for now). The difference with that Putrid Ooze thread is the "When you would bury an armor for its power". The Armor in question in the Putrid Ooze thread never says "When you would banish...", just "if you are proficient, you may bury instead". In this case, you never would bury because you explicitely aren't allowed to bury, therefore the move is still illegal.
|
Here's Vic's note that Hawkmoon and skizzerz mentioned... It's related to a monster that prevents you from banishing an armor. I included the original question.
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.putrid ooze says "before you act each character at your location must succeed at a Dexterity or Stealth 11 check or be dealt 1d4+1 acid damage. Armors may not be banished to reduce this damage.
what if the character is proficeint with the armor? can you still bury armor to reduce the damage?
This would seem to follow the same logic. If you're proficient with armor, you don't have to be able to banish the armor in order to bury it when attacked by a putrid ooze. Similarly, you don't have to be able to banish or bury an armor in order to discard or recharge the armor when Henchman Devastator's power kicks in.
I'm with skizzerz, Hawkmoon and James. Vic's quote directly applies. Raz isn't burying her armor, so she isn't prevented from using it by Devastator.
"When you would" sounds like a trigger to me. The trigger is burying. You can't bury, therefore no trigger, therefore no discard/recharge. The power on the armor card does not have a trigger to change the banish to a bury, so it isn't the same.
You are introducing this concept, trigger, that doesn't exist in the game. What matters is what Raz does with the armor card. She discards/recharges it. Devastator allows this, so she can do it.
Triggers may not be explicitely called such in the game, but they definitely exist:
If a power says it may be used when something happens, you may use it every time that happens.
In this case, the power says it may be used when you would bury an armor for its power, which you cannot do since the bane says no.
The order of operations for this would be:
1. Bane is dealing damage
2. #1 allows you to play armor to negate that damage
3. If you are burying an armor in step 2, Rez's power triggers which allows you to discard/banish it instead.
Without going to bury an armor in #2, you never get to use Rez's power in #3. These are two completely seperate powers, unlike the Putrid Ooze thread where negating damage and changing the banish to a bury were all in the same power. And since the bane prevents you from using bury powers, it also prevents you from using Rez's power to not bury it after the fact.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe Rez's power that turns the bury into a discard/recharge happens before the monster's power that prevents you from burying, but it isn't as clear as it is in the Putrid Ooze thread where negating damage, banishing & burying are all in the same power on the same card, rather than two separate powers on two separate cards.
I have to go with elcoderdude on this one. Since Raz is not going to bury (she is discarding or recharging) then it does not apply.
Let's look at it this way: I am at a diner. They have grilled cheese or pb&j. I want a pb&j. The waiter says I cannot have a grilled cheese... So... who cares? I am getting a pb&j!
More insight from Vic about the use of the term "would" is found in this post.
You are introducing this concept, trigger, that doesn't exist in the game. What matters is what Raz does with the armor card. She discards/recharges it. Devastator allows this, so she can do it.
Actually, the word "trigger" occurs multiple times in the rulebook, so it does exist as a concept (see p.8, p.10, p.17).
However, "when you would" is not the wording that a trigger would use; hawkmoon and James have pointed out Vic's ruling on the matter. I would like for a rule to be explicitly written in the rulebook about it (since it's really easy for people to think that the original triggery thing would happen).
More insight from Vic about the use of the term "would" is found in this post.
I knew Hawkmoon would come though, this settles it.
Still, I wish they would do a better job of explaining or wording. Because without Vic's explanation it DOES read as a triggering effect.
Thanks Hawkmoon, as always, you were correct from the beginning.
Look at it this way, though. Balazar has a power that says:
When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may add it to your hand instead.
If the monster has a power that prevents it from being banished, it doesn't still go into Balazar's hand, because you would not banish it. It can only replace the "banish" with "add it to your hand" if the banish was going to happen in the first place. In the case of Rez, if something prevents burying, you don't get to activate her power because you would not bury it. You can not replace "bury" with "discard"/"recharge" unless you could have buried it in the first place.
What makes this read as a trigger is you would, but "when". In order for "When you would do something" to apply, it has to be legal to do the something and in this case doing the something is not legal, so this is not a time when you would do it.
Good stuff
Nondeskript counters with an extremely good argument.
Still while I agree with Nondeskript on how this is worded. I Think that is not the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it this way, though. Balazar has a power that says:
When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may add it to your hand instead.If the monster has a power that prevents it from being banished, it doesn't still go into Balazar's hand, because you would not banish it. It can only replace the "banish" with "add it to your hand" if the banish was going to happen in the first place. In the case of Rez, if something prevents burying, you don't get to activate her power because you would not bury it. You can not replace "bury" with "discard"/"recharge" unless you could have buried it in the first place.
What makes this read as a trigger is you would, but "when". In order for "When you would do something" to apply, it has to be legal to do the something and in this case doing the something is not legal, so this is not a time when you would do it.
Not sure why you're still arguing this, as it's a settled rule with official clarification. The usage of "when" does not make a power automatically a trigger, it depends on context. "When X happens, do Y" is a trigger, because it sets up a reaction to a condition that was met. "When you would do X, do Y instead" is a replacement effect, not a trigger (to lightly borrow some wording from MtG). Y replaces X, so X never happens. Therefore, things that care about only X happening never take effect.
Balazar's power is both a trigger and a replacement effect (it only fires when a monster is defeated). Raz's power is just a replacement though, so you can treat it as always applying, even before you played the card it would impact. Basically, treat that card as if it had its text "bury" swapped out with "discard" before you even get around to playing it.
If you view it that way, it makes more sense.
You may bury a card to add 1d10 to your Strength or Constitution check, or to your check to defeat a barrier that has the Lock, Obstacle, or Trap trait. (□ Then you may draw a card.) If it is your exploration, but it is not the first exploration of your turn, add an additional 1d6.
Does this mean she always get the 1d6 added to her explorations after the first? Or does she have to satisfy the first sentence and bury a card?
You may bury a card to add 1d10 to your Strength or Constitution check, or to your check to defeat a barrier that has the Lock, Obstacle, or Trap trait. (□ Then you may draw a card.) If it is your exploration, but it is not the first exploration of your turn, add an additional 1d6.Does this mean she always get the 1d6 added to her explorations after the first? Or does she have to satisfy the first sentence and bury a card?
The phrase "an additional 1d6" seems to be clearly pointing that you first have to add the original d10, i.e. you must bury a card.
Yep; when you bury a card and it's not your first exploration of the turn, you get 1d10+1d6 to your relevant check.
When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may add it to your hand (□ and you may draw a card) instead. You may banish a monster from your hand to draw a card (□ or add 1d4 to any check to defeat a barrier) (□ or to any check to acquire a weapon, an armor, or an item) (□ or move after an encounter) (□ or reroll your failed combat check).
This power you can use the 2nd sentence without having to defeat a monster right before. Bothers me there is no consistency in the wording.
|
|
I understand what you're saying, Slacker2010. You'd prefer that Amiri was:
"You may bury a card to add 1d10 to your Strength or Constitution check, or to your check to defeat a barrier that has the Lock, Obstacle, or Trap trait. (□ Then you may draw a card.) In addition, if it is your exploration, but it is not the first exploration of your turn, add an additional 1d6."
So that you know the first part has to happen to get the second part.
That would be better.
Also the Raz armor thing. It doesn't bother me that they intended the power to work that way. I'm ok with it. It is just hard since there is some inconsistency with wording. I know they have to find a balance with words due to cardspace and I probably couldn't do any better so I will take it in stride and just come to the boards for more questions.
I do want to give props to both the Community and Developers for being active on the boards to help clear up the intent of issues like this.
Maybe my group is playing that archmage wrong but we handle it as
"I would play that spell and since it would be an Arcane Intelligence check I could spend a charge to ignore the immunity against the spell."
and not "I cannot ignore the immunity since I cannot spend my mythic charge since I cannot make an Intelligence check since I cannot play the spell since the monster is immune to it."
I think skizzerz cleared up this issue elegantly, but you make a good point. I'd say you're playing exactly as intended.
Chief Technical Officer
|
When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may add it to your hand (□ and you may draw a card) instead. You may banish a monster from your hand to draw a card (□ or add 1d4 to any check to defeat a barrier) (□ or to any check to acquire a weapon, an armor, or an item) (□ or move after an encounter) (□ or reroll your failed combat check).This power you can use the 2nd sentence without having to defeat a monster right before. Bothers me there is no consistency in the wording.
The rules say "Each power on a card is presented as a complete paragraph. When a card has multiple powers, you must choose one of them, and you must do everything that power says when possible." So within a single power, you can't just pick and choose sentences to skip and sentences to execute.
There *is* an issue here, but it's not on Amiri, it's on Balazar: those two sentences should be separate powers.
Not sure why you're still arguing this, as it's a settled rule with official clarification. The usage of "when" does not make a power automatically a trigger, it depends on context. "When X happens, do Y" is a trigger, because it sets up a reaction to a condition that was met. "When you would do X, do Y instead" is a replacement effect, not a trigger (to lightly borrow some wording from MtG). Y replaces X, so X never happens. Therefore, things that care about only X happening never take effect.
Balazar's power is both a trigger and a replacement effect (it only fires when a monster is defeated). Raz's power is just a replacement though, so you can treat it as always applying, even before you played the card it would impact. Basically, treat that card as if it had its text "bury" swapped out with "discard" before you even get around to playing it.
If you view it that way, it makes more sense.
Can we just use this thread to also get an official ruling in the case of Lini vs. Farmhouse? Mike's ancient post over at BGG makes it an uphill battle for me to argue that Lini never discards her animals, so they shouldn't be buried.
(I quote the post above as it provides good context and explanation, in addition to Vic's ruling on the meaning of "would")
Here's the actual BGG post in question.
Both of them are supposedly replacement effects (it actually doesn't matter whether Lini's is or not). But the Farmhouse effect goes first and Lini has to bury her card, so she can't recharge it. Location trumps character.
I think the Farmhouse says "would discard" while Lini's is "recharge instead of discard" without the would. Would means that the other thing doesn't actually happen. So when the farmhouse says "if you would discard, bury instead" you don't ever actually discard. So Lini never has a chance to kick in her power.
Vic's ruling on the Putrid Ooze thread said that "instead" was the keyword. The Hirgenzosk thread said that "would" is the keyword, so that's confusing.
I think the Farmhouse says "would discard" while Lini's is "recharge instead of discard" without the would. Would means that the other thing doesn't actually happen. So when the farmhouse says "if you would discard, bury instead" you don't ever actually discard. So Lini never has a chance to kick in her power.
OK, I'll admit I'm going off the premise that "recharge instead of discard" and "recharge if you would discard" are the same thing. I'm obviously going off a different understanding of how things work, as I don't even see why the Golden Rule has to come into it. From my perspective:
1) For the Farmhouse power to take effect, an Ally must be played, specifically - discarded (it will also affect allies that are discarded for other reasons, but that's beside the point)
2) For me to play an Ally, I must complete a specific action - reveal, recharge, discard, etc..
3) When Lini would discard an ally, she recharges it instead
What I'm saying is - Farmhouse can't kick in if Lini doesn't play her Animal, but since she plays it by recharging - the location 'never' gets to kick in - the hero and location cards are never in conflict, and Golden Rule has nothing to do with the situation. Is there some fundamental flaw in my logic here that I just can seem to grasp?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic's ruling on the Putrid Ooze thread said that "instead" was the keyword. The Hirgenzosk thread said that "would" is the keyword, so that's confusing.
"Would" and "instead" usually travel as a pair and are equally important. (Sometimes the "instead" is implied by context—Hirgenzosk doesn't particularly benefit from having it.)
To clarify, let's take the hypothetical location that says "If you would discard a spell, bury it instead". I'd argue that the spell doesn't get buried if the player makes their recharge check, as per this 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."
By this FAQ, I'd argue even if the Lini player actually discards their Animal, and THEN says "And now I'm recharging it", then the 'recharge' becomes the *real* action, and the Farmhouse doesn't apply.
Finally, let's assume that all of the above doesn't apply, and the player *must* discard before activating Lini's power, and this counts as a *real* discard. In this case, again - there ISN'T any conflict between Lini and Farmhouse, there's only two effects that trigger at the same time - namely, when you discard the Ally - and therefore you may chose the order to apply them. (It can be argued that even if I first recharge the Ally with Lini, the Farmhouse power still gets to resolve, and therefore I must now bury the recharged Ally; however, in this case the player can just opt to apply the Farmhouse effect first, and then to recharge the buried card by applying the Lini effect).
The Lini at the Farmhouse issue has come up again on the Obsidian forum. With Hawkmoon on one side and Longshot on the other (in this current PACG thread), we don't seem to have a consensus.
My Runelords set has:
If you would discard an ally, bury it instead.
When you play an ally with the Animal trait, you may recharge it instead of discarding it.
We have a Vic quote saying "do A instead of B" means B never happened: instead
We have a Vic quote saying "when X would happen, Y happens" means X never happened (cited by Hawkmoon above): wouldWhich takes precedence? The location and character cards aren't exactly in conflict -- I think it is a question of timing.
What is the official ruling? Does Lini recharge or bury Animal allies she discards for their power at the Farmhouse?
|
|
If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule support cards, support cards overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types.
You have two instances of "instead". So hierarchy says it gets recharged because Lini's power turns it into a recharge before the location says the discard is buried.
Um.... Theryon, in the hierarchy the location would overrule the character card.
I still think this is open to interpretation as to whether Lini ever actually discarded the ally.
The Lini at the Farmhouse issue has come up again on the Obsidian forum. With Hawkmoon on one side and Longshot on the other (in this current PACG thread), we don't seem to have a consensus.
My Runelords set has:
If you would discard an ally, bury it instead.When you play an ally with the Animal trait, you may recharge it instead of discarding it.We have a Vic quote saying "do A instead of B" means B never happened: instead
We have a Vic quote saying "when X would happen, Y happens" means X never happened (cited by Hawkmoon above): wouldWhich takes precedence? The location and character cards aren't exactly in conflict -- I think it is a question of timing.
What is the official ruling? Does Lini recharge or bury Animal allies she discards for their power at the Farmhouse?
Farmhouse wins, ally is buried. Let's look at it from two different viewpoints and see that we get the same result in each. I'm going to use the same terminology I used in my earlier post even though it is not official terminology, just to make things easier to type/understand.
1. Lini's power is both a trigger and replacement effect, whereas the Farmhouse is just a replacement effect. As such, the replacement in Farmhouse applies even before Lini gets around to playing the ally. Lini must therefore bury the ally in order to play it, and THEN her trigger happens. Since the replacement part of her power (after the trigger happens) only cares about discarding, and we buried the card to play it, it has no effect.
2. Both powers are simply replacement effects, just Lini's has a string attached that limits when it is used. As such, they apply at the same time and conflict with each other. Per the Golden Rules, locations override characters, so the Farmhouse wins and we bury the ally instead of discarding it.
If Lini's power said something like "On allies with the animal trait, replace any instruction to discard the card with recharging the card", then Lini's power would win. It feels to me like people who think Lini's power wins are reading it as if it functions that way - replacing the instruction to discard with an instruction to recharge, thus there's never a point in time when it would be discarded and instead gets buried.
It always felt that way to me too, but the more I look at the wording, even though the phrasing is quite different I can't actually see any good reason why Farmhouse power happens "later" in any sense. Lini says "when you play", which does kind of feel earlier, but really isn't earlier in any meaningful sense. "When you play" feels like the "start" of playing the card but it really refers to the whole stretch of time during which the card is played.
I'll be short with my point, as barring an official ruling, I think we'll be talking in circles:
1) То PLAY at all the ally with discard power, Lini recharges it *instead*
2) The discard never happens
3) Before the card is played, the "replacement effect" (per Skizzers) of the Farmhouse has nothing to replace
4) When the card is played - the card is recharged, so again there is no 'discard' to replace
As elcoderdude says - this particular issue is not about hierarchy, it's a matter of timing.
(Also, I'm glad this thread got resurrected since I tried to prompt a resolution 7 months ago and then it died. I've made up my mind how I'm going to play this particular situation, but the fact that there are two opposing camps of such conviction - both here and over at Obsidian- means that whatever the resolution - it will have repercussions on many people's understanding of the game that go beyond Lini/Farmhouse.)
|
|
Um.... Theryon, in the hierarchy the location would overrule the character card.
I still think this is open to interpretation as to whether Lini ever actually discarded the ally.
You're right.
But with the two "instead"s, when Lini has played the ally, it has been recharged (instead of discarded). The Farmhouse power never gets activated since the ally was never actually discarded.
|
|
I thought when two things happen at the same time and there's no specified order of operations, you got to CHOOSE the order. The rules don't contradict. They just both get triggered by the same event (Lini would Discard an animal ally for its power). So, the player would likely choose to deal with Lini's power first, which makes the Discard never happen, and thus wouldn't trigger the Location power at all.
|
|
I thought when two things happen at the same time and there's no specified order of operations, you got to CHOOSE the order. The rules don't contradict. They just both get triggered by the same event (Lini would Discard an animal ally for its power). So, the player would likely choose to deal with Lini's power first, which makes the Discard never happen, and thus wouldn't trigger the Location power at all.
If you re-read the two powers, they don't actually happen at the same time.
Lini: When you play an ally with the Animal trait, you may recharge it instead of discarding it.
So when Lini plays that ally, it's recharged not discarded.
Farmhouse: If you would discard an ally, bury it instead.
The ally is never actually discarded so the Farmhouse power never activates.
Sorry to hijack or derail this thread, but is the answer to #1 still yes?
MM introduced/highlighted the idea that activating a displayed card counts as playing it, so using a Pennon counts as an item being played on the check, yes?
Or can multiple still be stacked because it's not a May and therefore doesn't require activating (despite needing someone to reveal other cards to make it +2)?
Thanks.
I think you will find your answer here.
Note the distinction: it is not simply activating a power on a displayed card, but choosing to activate it, that counts as playing the card.
Benefitting from a power that is always active, without you choosing to use it, does not count as playing a displayed card, because you did not choose to activate the power.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lini: When you play an ally with the Animal trait, you may recharge it instead of discarding it.
So when Lini plays that ally, it's recharged not discarded.
Farmhouse: If you would discard an ally, bury it instead.
The ally is never actually discarded so the Farmhouse power never activates.
This is correct. (The Pathfinder Adventures wording on Farmhouse uses "when" instead of "if," but the distinction is grammatical, not mechanical.)