Those are kind of open questions. They came up with Varril.
Check out this thread and this one.
I would say you can use it with a spell (though maybe there needs to be a tweak to major that happen).
And yes, it is definitely a wisdom check.
1. No, both are powers that determine which skill you're using. As such, you can only use one of them. I cannot speak towards the intent of the power, but the rules are clear on it. It seems likely that it's supposed to work with spells though since her favored card type is spell and she otherwise has no combat prowess, so I'd ignore that rule for now and just say it works.
2. Any skill you use is added as a trait to the check, so it is a Wisdom check. In my opinion, it also remains an Arcane (or Divine) check, but per Hawkmoon that isn't a settled science just yet.
For the record, I agree that the rules don't seem to allow you to use the power and an check defining spell. But my suspicion is that the desire is that it should work. I could very well be wrong, but we'll have to wait and see.
As for (2), the question is whether "instead of" even matters. Does using a replacement power always "negate" the original skill? Or only sometimes. Mother Myrtle is like WotR Kyra. And in that case it was said it both remains the original skill and the skill she defined. So yes, is basically Arcane: Wisdom +0 and Divine:Wisdom +0.
My Myrtle is Tier 4, and this is how I've been playing her:
Oh my poor elderly soul! A goblin! Let me look in my bag here for a spell... Take this!
- *sets aside Force Missile*
- *combat becomes arcane, arcane becomes wisdom check* (So it is a combat arcane wisdom check)
- *somehow manages to roll a 9 on 1d12+2d4*
- *doesn't have the Arcane skill so she prepares to banish it*
- *remembers she knows how to recreate spells so she attempts a Knowledge check*
- *succeeds and recharges it and somehow survives the encounter*
So she doesn't have the Arcane or Divine skills, she can just attempt those checks. It seems unfair to spellcasters to first replace the combat check with an arcane/divine check, and then not allow them to actually cast the spell with their replacement skill. The game's unfair enough to spellcasters already. ;)
If the intent were for her to use items for combat, I think she'd have a higher dexterity (or at least the ranged skill, or the ability to use her craft skill for her ranged combat check). Having a d4 for your combat skill SUCKS. I was SO EXCITED to get the 4 Item that allows her to use her craft skill for her combat checks (as long as she has another alchemical item around). But that's a long time to survive with a d4.
I would think Blessing of Abraxas would work on her spellcasting combat checks, since it still has the Arcane trait.
Anyway, all this has hurt my head and I need to go sit down. *is already sitting*
I just made a Mother Myrtle character this past weekend and, like Rebel Song, I was assuming those attack spells in the alchemist deck were for her.
Anyway, all this has hurt my head and I need to go sit down. *is already sitting*Join the club.
I feel like a *already sitting* duck while I wait for a clear answer on whether or not Mother Myrtle can cast attack spells using her Wisdom. That's a critical answer to have before deciding to play her.
Cwack Cwack Cwack
No, banishment of cards due to playing an Arcane/Divine spell without the associated Arcane/Divine skill is a power, just like any other phrase in the power section of a card.
It's just not an optional power and only gets played if it's triggered.
No, banishment of cards due to playing an Arcane/Divine spell without the associated Arcane/Divine skill is a power, just like any other phrase in the power section of a card.
Got it. :)
Honestly, I had no idea, that this banishment effect of spells is also a power.
Erh...It's...complicated.
So, if I recall correctly (and if I do, someone with better search-fu will probably be able to support me with a quote) - the "recharge" part of the text on a card is NOT a power (I'll be damned if remember the exact reason about it, though)
HOWEVER, due to some weird Rules space-time continuum twisting, the effect that you would get from the recharge text (usually, 'recharge' or 'banish') is considered (retroactively, so to speak) the way in which you play the card "for its power". So, in theory, if you have a location power "If you would discard a spell for its power, banish it", and you play as spell by discard, *but then recharge it* - you will NOT trigger the location power. The relevant rule being this:
When you reveal a card, it does not leave your hand. When you
display a card, it leaves your hand immediately. When you play cards
by performing any other actions, set them aside while you process
their 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.
Yeah, PACG is weird and beautiful like that :)
TLDR: Yes, banish due to lack of Arcane/Divine *does* trigger Myrtle
Longshot is correct and I am wrong. :)
The rulebook has a definition of powers on a boon:
Each power is presented as a complete paragraph. Powers allow you to perform a specified action to cause an effect, such as discarding the boon to add to a check... If a paragraph on a boon doesn't require you to perform an action with that boon to cause an effect, that paragraph is not a power; do what it says at the appropriate time. For example, if a paragraph says "After you play this card, if you have the Divine skill, recharge it instead of discarding it."
This covers exactly this case.
The fact that it's banished for the power is covered by the rulebook quote that Longshot provided.
I do have a question though: Vic said that the Sling Staff activates Damiel's recharge power. However Damiel says "for its power", and the Sling Staff doesn't have the Alchemical trait, so that means banishing a card that has the Alchemical trait counts as "for its power" even if it's banished with another card's power? That doesn't seem right; why does this work?
Something being banished for its power means that the card was played for its power and that the card was banished for any reason. The "for its power" clarification blocks things like the card being banished due to a When Closing requirement or Crawling Cyclops Hands. For the Sling Staff thing you linked, I'd have to disagree with Vic on that one -- I simply cannot see how that would count as "for its power."
I do have a question though: Vic said that the Sling Staff activates Damiel's recharge power.
I believe in the quoted thread, Vic only replies to the OP, that Damiel's power also means "When you would banish a card that has the alchemical trait FOR ITS POWER..."
He is not in fact confirming that the Sling Staff represents "Banishing an Alchemical item for its power", as the OP assumes.
Basically "Do X with a card for it's power" means that you had to do X because of the fact you played the card. It doesn't mean that you played the card by doing X.
Mother Myrtle plays a spell by discarding it.
Mother Myrtle has to banish the spell because she played.
Therefore, Mother Myrtle banished the spell for its power.
The same would be true if the reason the spell was banished was because a location said "When you play a spell, banish it."
In a related note - Mother Myrtle is the only character I know of that can use Commune repeatedly during a scenario to get lots of blessing (normal spellcasters would bury it, but Myrtle instead replaces the "banish" effect with "recharge/discard"). I'm curious is this interaction was intended (this becomes extra powerful when she can pull spells/allies whenever she/anyone-around-her defeats a monster).
This has been discussed already in this thread. The conclusion as I understood it was yes you can, yes it's a little overpowered, but no it's not considered to be worth "fixing" in some way so just enjoy it.