Ahmotep - Favored Card


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Now this seems like a silly question as I don't think anyone would actually DO this (I hope). But Ahmotep's Favored Card is "Card that has the Staff trait". What happens if someone fails to put any cards in their deck with the Staff trait? Seems like she'd never make a legal starting hand.
There is no requirement that says it needs to be one in her deck, such as Estra being required to include the ally "Honaire" as 1 of her allies.


It's been asked before in some thread I don't recall, but we have yet to receive an answer, so thanks for making the thread!
I'm interested in the answer as well.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Well, obviously you wouldn't build such a deck, because you couldn't start play. Usually, I think, you'd actually want to play, so there's no need for a ruling here in my opinion.


Isn't that kind of like naming "Loot" for Lem's favored card type when you don't have any Loot in the deck?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yes, seems like the same issue. Depending on interpretation, this would either prevent your character from participating in the scenario, or maybe even prevent the scenario from beginning at all. So there is no reason to do this, unless you want to p off the other players.


A loot weapon still counts as both weapon and loot for the sake of favoured card type, right?
One could easily end up with all weapons replaced by loot on a character with favoured card: weapon.

Another thing:
Ahmoteps favored card is very restricting for a potential magus class deck, isn't it? Assuming each character is supposed to be playable with their class deck, there need to be a lot of staffs in it to not lock her into a single low power card, while seltiyel is not very compatible with them...


Zaister wrote:
Well, obviously you wouldn't build such a deck, because you couldn't start play. Usually, I think, you'd actually want to play, so there's no need for a ruling here in my opinion.

Imagine that - for whatever reason (I haven't seen Amhotep's deck list btw)- she only carries one Staff in her solo campaign. Then she fails against a Bane that has a "banish a random card" power and loses her Staff, without acquiring any others within the adventure.

It's a valid question.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In this case, after the scenario she will need to add a new card from the box to her deck in order to comply to her deck list, and will certainly be able to add a staff.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not necessarily, if she banishes her staff, fails to acquire any other staffs, but acquires a different weapon beforehand and is fired to fill the spot with the acquired weapon.

(Yes, traders make this less likely, but not impossible.)


WotR Rulebook wrote:

After each scenario, you must rebuild your character deck. Start by combining your discard pile with your hand, your character deck, any cards you buried under your character card, and any cards you displayed; you may then freely trade cards with other players.

Your deck must end up meeting the Cards List requirements on your character card , along with any deck adjustments on your role card, if you have one. Loot cards count as cards of their type. If you can’t construct a valid deck from the cards your group has available because you don’t have enough of certain card types, choose the extra cards you need from the box, choosing only cards with the Basic trait.

After you begin the adventure Demon’s Heresy, you may ignore the Basic trait restriction; instead, you may use any cards in the box from the base set and the Character Add-On Deck, as well as any cards from an adventure whose adventure deck number is at least 2 lower than the adventure you’re currently playing. If you have cards left over after rebuilding all of the surviving characters’ decks, put them back in the box.

Let's just argue that the favored card is part of the Cards List Requirements and we have answers to both questions.

Zaister is right then: Since you have to rebuild a valid deck, you can always choose the staff you just banished.
Maybe one could construct a case where you removed all the AD-2 staffs from the game due to them having the basic/elite trait, but even if that would be possible, its too unlikely to be actually relevant.


I personally would rule it like a character with favorite card type: none.


Doppelschwert wrote:
Let's just argue that the favored card is part of the Cards List Requirements and we have answers to both questions...

That!

You need to build a valid deck, period. So worst case scenario, you exchange one of your card with a basic staff of the same card type from the box before the game starts.

Orbis wrote:
I personally would rule it like a character with favorite card type: none.

Hi Orbis. Actually I wouldn't IMHO (since doing that would actually just be just deleting the staff requirement altogether).


Frencois wrote:

That!

You need to build a valid deck, period.

The mains issue here is, you *can* construct a valid deck without any Staffs.

Frencois wrote:
Orbis wrote:
I personally would rule it like a character with favorite card type: none.

Actually I wouldn't IMHO (since doing that would actually just be just deleting the staff requirement altogether).

You react like the Favorite Card is supposed to be a penalty (and it's understandable, as for many characters, it kind of is - when compared to getting a weapon in their starting hand), but I'm not sure that's what's its intent.

Especially in MM, I have the feeling we're getting a much more player-friendly design philosophy, so I'd say "FC: Staff" is intended to both allow you to keep other weapons in your deck AND to guarantee you still get to draw your Staff at start, as opposed to it basically dictating what you may put into your deck - which would be over-restricting, and unprecedented for a the "FC" mechanic.


Longshot11 wrote:

The mains issue here is, you *can* construct a valid deck without any Staffs.

I think the main issue is what constitutes as a valid deck. I bolded in the (old) rulebook, that you are supposed to build a deck that meets the Cards List requirements. The question is whether having a 'favoured card' is part of the Cards List requirements or not. I don't have my base set yet, but can anyone look up the part of the WotR rulebook and see if it changed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was my point, for me a *valid* deck is by implicit definition a deck that enables you to draw a *valid* first hand. I don't see how a deck without any *valid* hand could be itself *valid* IMHO.

This said this isn't really a meaningful debate. As Zaister cleverly pointed out, what's the point in building a deck you cannot play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frencois wrote:
This said this isn't really a meaningful debate. As Zaister cleverly pointed out, what's the point in building a deck you cannot play?

Тhe point is - you may be forced into a non-valid (by your definition) deck. Either way, the Build Deck/Starting Hands rules as we know them are not equipped to handle the issue:

- nothing says you can have a valid Starting Hand if you don't have any corresponding cards in your deck (my thesis)
- nothing says you're allowed to chose a Staff from the box if you're forced into a non-Staff deck (yours and Doppelswertz's view)

We all draw our theories based on what we *think* the intent is, but -the way I see it- RAI don't support either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doppelschwert wrote:
I don't have my base set yet, but can anyone look up the part of the WotR rulebook and see if it changed?

The MM rulebook doesn't have any significant change in this section that addresses this situation. The paragraph where you bolded 2 sentences appears exactly the same to me.


Frencois wrote:

Hi Orbis. Actually I wouldn't IMHO (since doing that would actually just be just deleting the staff requirement altogether).

What staff requirement? That's how I see it. There's nothing that says you have to put a staff in the deck. You just would rule that it would mean you can't draw a starting hand where I would rule differently, but there's no "staff requirement"


Orbis Orboros wrote:
Frencois wrote:

Hi Orbis. Actually I wouldn't IMHO (since doing that would actually just be just deleting the staff requirement altogether).

What staff requirement? That's how I see it. There's nothing that says you have to put a staff in the deck. You just would rule that it would mean you can't draw a starting hand where I would rule differently, but there's no "staff requirement"

The favored card rule says that if you draw a starting hand without a favored card you need to redraw, this puts you in an infinate loop and so unable to start the game


Longshot11 wrote:


- nothing says you're allowed to chose a Staff from the box if you're forced into a non-Staff deck (yours and Doppelswertz's view).

Don't have the rules in front of me but if I remember well there is a rule that says that if you cannot rebuild a valid deck at the end (or start) of a scenario, you MUST draw the required cards from the box. And since you always draw a basic Staff....

IMHO as always.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Frencois wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:


- nothing says you're allowed to chose a Staff from the box if you're forced into a non-Staff deck (yours and Doppelswertz's view).

Don't have the rules in front of me but if I remember well there is a rule that says that if you cannot rebuild a valid deck at the end (or start) of a scenario, you MUST draw the required cards from the box. And since you always draw a basic Staff....

IMHO as always.

I agree that this is the intended way that it should work, but it's a legitimate issue, because the rules don't allow for your favored card not being part of your deck... so if you banished your staves and have non-staff weapons that you acquired during the scenario, as the rules are written, you have to use those, and then your deck does not have your favored card, and you create the infinite loop.


I would house-rule it like I think Orbis suggests: if you don't have your favored card in your deck, act as if your favored card is None. But it is a gap in the rules.

Scarab Sages

This is such a small gap that I can barely see it. Like: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...?" question. Who in their right mind wouldn't stack Amhotep's deck with as many staves as possible; like, are we talking about an edge case that would only happen .00000001% of the time? Wouldn't most normal people just find a sensible way to make this work and learn to deal with it - like, the "none" favored card solution? How do we have 20 posts already about this picayune rules question and none yet about whether Amhotep is great or not, or how people have found her as they're playing her, or...?


Calthaer,

The reason is the same as the whole idea of saying "Loot" for favored card type any. If someone were to get a fantastic staff card, it's reasonable to expect they may try to empty their deck of others to ensure starting with that card. However, should they lose that card for some reason, then they'd be left out in the cold. Yeah, it's obviously powergaming, but that is how some people like to play this game.


You could also potentially do this by accident. Cannibal Haunts from RotR can banish the top card of your deck. If that was your only staff, you'd have this problem.

Though, it still isn't very likely. And Ahmotep is much more awesome than such a situation is likely.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Added to FAQ.

Note that the Estra situation in the original post is different: Estra does indeed specifically instruct you to include Honaire as 1 of her allies.


Thanks for the answer, Vic.

The wording of the FAQ implies that a 'valid deck' is one that includes a 'valid starting hand', so I guess we can take that as part of the definition from now on.

Grand Lodge

On a vaguely-related note, without the C deck, I only saw one card with the Basic and Staff traits: the Flame Staff item. Was I completely oblivious? Are there more that I'm missing?


No, I think that is it. I think C only has one more copy of Flame Staff, no other basic staves.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James McKendrew wrote:
On a vaguely-related note, without the C deck, I only saw one card with the Basic and Staff traits: the Flame Staff item. Was I completely oblivious? Are there more that I'm missing?

Amhotep is a C character though, so you will have the C deck. Which opens up a general question: do people play C characters without the C deck if they are in a 1-4 player game? My expectation has been: If I'm playing a C character, I will add the C deck. In Rise with Valeros and Lem, I didn't for a bit but eventually added it to try to get that Deathbane Light Crossbow. In S&S, Damiel needed C for all this alchemical goodies. And in Wrath, I believe C had more animal allies for Adowyn to acquire.


I don't remember what's in base versus character, but there are several weapons with the staff trait that are basic, so you can use those as well.

Grand Lodge

isaic16 wrote:
I don't remember what's in base versus character, but there are several weapons with the staff trait that are basic, so you can use those as well.

Not in the Mummy's Mask set. I remember the Djinni Staff (not Basic) and another weapon-staff that you can pump spells through for various attacks, but I don't think there's a Quarterstaff, for example...

And yes, I'll use C deck characters at will, but I only put the rest of the C Deck cards in the box if I have 5 or 6 characters running at once. I've been gun-shy since I ran into WAY too many Demonic Hordes in SotRi.

Lone Shark Games

C includes multiple basic Staff weapons and Staff items, and Base+C include a variety of awesome non-Basic staffs for Ahmotep to use. I would definitely suggest adding C boons, because there are some great ones :)

In testing, there was definitely a period of time in which I kept a single Staff in Ahmotep's deck because I wanted to have that exact Staff in my starting hand every time. Great question, folks!

Grand Lodge

Keith Richmond wrote:
C includes multiple basic Staff weapons and Staff items, and Base+C include a variety of awesome non-Basic staffs for Ahmotep to use. I would definitely suggest adding C boons, because there are some great ones :)
Keith Richmond wrote:
In testing, there was definitely a period of time in which I kept a single Staff in Ahmotep's deck because I wanted to have that exact Staff in my starting hand every time. Great question, folks!

That plan has also crossed my mind, once I have something better than the Flame Staff.

Scarab Sages

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't the Explorer's Staff a basic staff weapon?


Calthaer wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't the Explorer's Staff a basic staff weapon?

That's exactly the one I was thinking of.


Ah yes. Explorere's Staff is a basic staff weapon. There are 3 in the Character Add-on Deck.

There are quite a few Elite ones, which look pretty cool.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

First World Bard wrote:
Which opens up a general question: do people play C characters without the C deck if they are in a 1-4 player game? My expectation has been: If I'm playing a C character, I will add the C deck. In Rise with Valeros and Lem, I didn't for a bit but eventually added it to try to get that Deathbane Light Crossbow. In S&S, Damiel needed C for all this alchemical goodies. And in Wrath, I believe C had more animal allies for Adowyn to acquire.

The designers specifically put cards in C to go with the characters in C. Same deal with Class Decks. If you're playing a character from one of those decks, I strongly recommend using its cards.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As an aside, I now want to take Amhotep through Rise of the Runelords, given the sweet loot staves that set has. If I did so, I'd probably mix the Witch class deck into the box, seeing as it's the class deck I've seen Item staves in.

Scarab Sages

I played the first scenario with Amhotep (and Channa Ti and Simoun) last night, and was jazzed to get that Djinni staff. If the second one doesn't turn out to be a horrible death trap designed to kill off new, weak characters, I am going to start getting excited about the set.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I take the C decks out when playing OP with 1-4 players, because they dilute the boons, and anything a player needs for their class should be in their deck. But if I'm playing normally I leave them in.


We always play in groups of three, and I add one copy of each card that can only be found in the C deck to the box (both banes and boons).
This usually leads to better variety without diluting the cards too much.
While that gives things like Deathbane Light Crossbow to RotR, it also adds cards like the Satyr, so it evens out.

The remaining cards are used as the backside for sleeving printed cards from the seasons.

First World Bard wrote:
As an aside, I now want to take Amhotep through Rise of the Runelords, given the sweet loot staves that set has. If I did so, I'd probably mix the Witch class deck into the box, seeing as it's the class deck I've seen Item staves in.

In my opinion, one of the best items in this set is the Staff of Minor Healing, so taking two copies of this alone is bound to make her really strong.

I'm still hoping we'll see a Staff of Major Healing at some point in a set, that would be awesome.


Staff of Minor Healing was one of those items I thought was NEVER coming back, so I was pretty surprised to see in when rifling through the Summoner deck, then I was REALLY surprised to turn it over and encounter it during a MM game. Consider me happy!

Though it's a lot harder to fit it in Simoun's 4 item deck than it is in Merisiel's (eventually) 9 item deck (which had two :D)

Lone Shark Games

Staff of Minor Healing was on our kill list for a couple of years. Then we decided that while it has been on the precipice of "too good," it remains on the cliff and not in the canyon.


I take that as a low chance for a staff of major healing ever happening?
Sad times, sad times indeed...

Looks like I'll have to cling to the hope of another mythic set for a chance of that card to appear, or just homebrew it myself.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I could see the possible design for a Staff of Major healing as something like this:

Staff of Major Healing wrote:


Recharge this card and bury a card to recharge 1d4+1 random cards from your discard pile.

This way you're at worst healing 1 card overall (bury 1 and heal 1) but at best you're healing 4 cards. In either case, it does include a penalty of a buried card.


Mike Selinker wrote:
Staff of Minor Healing was on our kill list for a couple of years. Then we decided that while it has been on the precipice of "too good," it remains on the cliff and not in the canyon.

Thanks for the inside design update! (I'm not sure we officially knew there was a 'kill list' before now. I assume Holy Candle is at the top of that list?) I'm curious, is Surgeon in the same position as the Staff? And if not, what's the difference that makes it more acceptable?


Mike Selinker wrote:
Staff of Minor Healing was on our kill list for a couple of years. Then we decided that while it has been on the precipice of "too good," it remains on the cliff and not in the canyon.

Mike, in case you run out of blog ideas somewhere in the next decade or so - my group would love to read something on the design considerations on what constitutes "too good" of a card (or too bad, for that matter *cough*Trapsmith Gloves*cough*).

We're always super-amazed reading how some players are ecstatic about a card that we find next to useless (yes, SoMH is one; the other that comes to mind is Restoration). One of the great things about PACG is how different playstyles it appears to support, but since there can be two so radically different player readings on a card - we're interested how it looks on the designer side of things, what makes you fall on one side or the other.


Longshot11 wrote:
*cough*Trapsmith Gloves*cough

I have to say, Wand of Shield is personally insulted that you did not use it as the example of bad cards.


isaic16 wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
*cough*Trapsmith Gloves*cough
I have to say, Wand of Shield is personally insulted that you did not use it as the example of bad cards.

Wand of Shield I can *get* - it's literally a Shield/Helmet for armorless wizards.

The Gloves... just baffle me. "Bury" for 2 dice? (and I'm divesting their value from making their debut in a set that floods with Temptation/Horde barriers!) - the mere comparison with a Crowbar would make me expect they 'Discard' for 2 dice and then they give you a moderate-difficulty Recharge check with Disable(/Craft?).
I guess bottomline is, we don't judge a card in a vacuum, on its own merit, but we *compare* it with what else exists out there: Gloves would probably be in every character's deck if we were just starting RotR, and there were no other counter-Barrier items. But in a world of Thief's Tools, Crowbars, heck, even Mattock... So, yeah, we're curious how this whole appraisal process goes at Lone Shark.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Ahmotep - Favored Card All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.