The Mummy's Mask 6C scenario Crypt of Air has the power:
When Sandstorm causes you to move, you are dealt d4 Electricity damage.
The question is: If Safety Bubble or Elemental Treaty is displayed at a location when this occurs, is a character protected when they move FROM such a location, or TO such a location, or both?
I'm thinking: the damage happens before you move, so the SB/ET has to be at a location you move FROM in order to protect you.
Does that sound right?
Аt the risk of contradicting my stance in other instances where "when" caused discussion, I would take the scenario power to mean "At the same time as you move, you're dealt 1d4 Electricity damage", i.e. damage and move occur at the same time, therefore you're allowed to chose which one to resolve first. So ET/SB can protect you on either the exit location, or on the destination location, but, of course, not both.
We played bubble protected at the FROM location not the TO location
I'm with Matsu because I see
"When Sandstorm causes you to move" relative to before
whether
"When Sandstorm caused you to move" relative to after
We have 3 votes to 1, but the fact that a well-versed player like Longshot sees it differently shows the answer is not clear.
An official clarification would be helpful.
Agreed
My natural interpretation would be the "TO" location. If you can't do two things at absolutely the same time (if you could I'd argue neither location would help), then you have to do one then the other. It makes no sense to me to for A to cause B and yet for B to happen before A. Especially without a stack. So you finish moving and then ask what else happens as a result.
I realise there's precedents where you resolve some conditional effect first. Like if something says "When you encounter a monster with the undead trait each other character encounters an Ancient Skeleton", you resolve the ancient skeletons first. But the difference is those Ancient Skeletons are happening during the original encounter not before it, even if they are resolved first. The difference with a move is there's no "during". There's no point in time when you're nowhere. You're at one, and then you're at the other.
Realistically of course there would be a during, you don't just teleport. Going by that neither location should help. You could have
a bubble at both ends you're still getting zapped while you're blown around. But even though that makes more thematic sense I don't expect it's the right resolution.
Just my view though, and thereby really just making the case for needing clarification.
It's an interesting take on things... my initial reaction is the thematic explanation is usually not a reliable guide for PACG nuances. "Allow for abstractions" and all that.
Still -- in this case I could see the Sandstorm damaging you as it picks you up to fling you somewhere else. So the Safety Bubble protects you from that. Or you are damaged as you land after being flung. So the Safety Bubble protects you from that. Or both.
My natural interpretation would be the "TO" location. If you can't do two things at absolutely the same time (if you could I'd argue neither location would help), then you have to do one then the other. It makes no sense to me to for A to cause B and yet for B to happen before A...
The difference with a move is there's no "during". There's no point in time when you're nowhere. You're at one, and then you're at the other.
Huh. This actually seems to clear up the situation and to indeed be the correct interpretation.
There is indeed no "during" *in the particular context of moving. It's a binary condition, where you can A)"Have not moved" - and scenario power is not triggered; OR B)"Have moved" - and the scenario power triggers, while you're obviously already at your new location.
What confused me is memories about discussions similar to the one me and Skizzers had in this thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ty4a?Couple-of-rules-questions-for-Mummys-Mask #12
The quoted post from Vic gives some interesting insight on the nature and intent behind "When".
Note, that in the quoted thread and rules however, there *is* a sort of "during" - the sort of "limbo" where played cards are assigned, until *competing effects* are resolved.
That discussion is not directly relevant to the current thread, as A) here we're not talking about playing cards, and B)we're talking about *sequential effects*.; however, it shows that a term ("When") can sometimes have different interpretations and effects in different situations.
I haven't time to chase that thread (and: why don't you make them links? :), but I think movement has 3 parts:
1. You begin moving (you depart the location you are at)
2. You travel from your starting location to your ending location
3. You finish moving (you arrive at the location you are moving to).
Damage that happens "when you move" could conceivable happen in 1, 2 or 3.
So saying damage that happens "when you move" happens at the starting location isn't saying "A causes B but B happens before A". I see it very much as analogous to an effect that happens when you encounter a card.
I haven't time to chase that thread (and: why don't you make them links? :),
I shamefully admit - I don't know how :)
I think movement has 3 parts:
1. You begin moving (you depart the location you are at)
2. You travel from your starting location to your ending location
3. You finish moving (you arrive at the location you are moving to).
I don't see that being supported by the rules. However, my initial response was based on the exactly same *intuitive* approach to what a "move" constitutes. So maybe we need that to be cleared up as well?
Damage that happens "when you move" could conceivable happen in 1, 2 or 3.
Then I suppose we're in agreement that if you're correct about the "3 parts of Move" - you can indeed chose either the start or finish location to be dealt/prevent damage? (or conceivably even "during", if for example both location give you extra penalties "if you're dealt Electricity damage")
So saying damage that happens "when you move" happens at the starting location isn't saying "A causes B but B happens before A". I see it very much as analogous to an effect that happens when you encounter a card.
I'm not ready to contradict that, but can you give an example for "when you encounter a card" that illustrates what you mean?
As an aside, if any dev swings by and is willing to comment: I *really* can't see why we haven't moved away from the contentious use of "When", since "Before" or "After" seem perfectly serviceable replacements, and not nearly as ambiguous?
I haven't time to chase that thread (and: why don't you make them links? :),I shamefully admit - I don't know how :)
Racing to get to work to make a production change --
see the How To format your text button at the bottom of this page.
For an example -- hmmm. Shrine of Lamashtu?
Bottom line, it should be better to avoid sentences like "When you move..." and only select between :
"When you would move..."/"When Sandstorm would cause you to move..."
or
"When you moved..."/"When Sandstorm caused you to move..."
Note that
"When you would move, do that"
isn't at all the same as
"When you would move, do that instead"
IMHO
I haven't had time to dig into this yet, but timing-wise we know the effect has to happen at the very earliest after you determine where you are moving to. This is because (in general, haven't checked Sandstorm's wording) you could be forced to "move" to the same location, but that does not count as moving and therefore you would not trigger any movement-related powers.
I would argue that once you determine the location, you move to that location in the same step (there is no in-between opportunity where you can play cards or use powers after you know where you are going but haven't yet went there). A logical consequence of that argument is that a "when you move" power must therefore trigger only once you've arrived at your destination.
That being said, I have not yet had time to thoroughly examine other cards for precedence, so take the above as just musings. I seem to recall at least one location card with a similar power, so the discussion on that may inform what the correct answer here is.
I would argue that once you determine the location, you move to that location in the same step (there is no in-between opportunity where you can play cards or use powers after you know where you are going but haven't yet went there).
Hi skizz,
Hum... IMHO I would somehow disagree. In many places in the game you have powers that say:"When you would do X, do Y instead"
(See the very interestning numerous posts from Vic on these issues).
Point is: it's not because you roll to know where Sandstorm is taking you and you happen to roll elsewhere than where you were that the move will indeed happen.
Imagine another power somewhere on a displayed card (for example your character has a curse) that says "When you would be moved, go eat pizza instead".
I'm pretty sure that in that case, you agree you wouldn't move. And wouldn't take Crypt of Air damage (I guess... although we could debate that to).
But anyway that means that the other card's power indeed had the "in-between" time to act (if not it would mean that all the "instead" powers in the game just wouldn't work, and that's definitively neither the intent, neither the Rule-As-Written).
What I mean is that there IS always an in-between time (maybe not for you to play powers, but certainly for permanent powers to kick it - like the one on the Crypt of Air scenario). So IMHO that kills you argument.
I'm not saying that in the end it proves that somehow you are still at the starting location, I'm just saying it isn't a proof that you "have left" (if you see what I mean).
OK let's make it short: we need a FAQ (either on the specific cards text, or a general ruling on how to interpret those sentences).
A power that is worded "When you would move" would happen before you determine the location you are moving to, in my opinion. Such powers would therefore always trigger even if you end up staying put. On the flip-side, "When you move" happens after the move has finished, and only happens if you actually moved -- there is no in-between step that is being interrupted in either case.
A power that is worded "When you would move" would happen before you determine the location you are moving to, in my opinion. Such powers would therefore always trigger even if you end up staying put. On the flip-side, "When you move" happens after the move has finished, and only happens if you actually moved -- there is no in-between step that is being interrupted in either case.
Ok
A power that is worded "When you would move" would happen before you determine the location you are moving to, in my opinion. Such powers would therefore always trigger even if you end up staying put.
This statement felt bit odd to me, so I consulted the rulebook, and I have to admit, there may be merit to it:
When you choose to move, you must always select a new
location, although it is possible for some effects to move you to the
same location you came from. If you do not change locations, your
character is not considered to have entered or left a location.
So, by a literal reading of the above, even if you 'stay' in the same location - you're considered to have been "moved" (although you're expressly NOT considered to have "entered" or "left" a location.
The logical disconnect, however, as well as the fact that most locations don't use a "when you enter/leave this location" language, but instead "when you move or are moved from/to this location" make me believe RAI is that you "have not moved" if an effect 'moves' you to your current location. IF this is true, determining *where* you move - and therefor, *if* you move- should be an absolute prerequisite for triggering any "When you (WOULD) move..." powers.
EDIT: I only now noticed this statement:
... This is because (in general, haven't checked Sandstorm's wording) you could be forced to "move" to the same location, but that does not count as moving ...
@skizzers: If you believe that staying at the same location does not constitute "moving", why would you consider it triggers "When you would move" powers?!?
I view that the determination of which location you are moving to as well as the act of moving there are inseparable; i.e. a power cannot interject itself in between those two actions.
I also believe the following:
"When you would" powers always happen before the thing they state,
"When" powers always happen after the thing they state.
Now, in the context of a "When you would move" power interacting with a "Move to a random location" power, there is one of two ways to interpret the timing (equally valid, imo):
1. The power happens before you randomly determine the location you move to. In this case, the power will always happen even if you later randomly determine that you are staying put.
2. The power happens after you randomly determine the location you move to, but before you actually move there. In this case, the power may or may not happen depending on whether or not you are staying put.
I favor option 1 only because it's simpler to adjudicate; it doesn't have another condition hidden inside of it.
Reading between the lines of your rulebook quote, I believe that you have not moved (and therefore do not trigger movement-related powers) unless you have left one location and entered a different location. Any other interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense ("you moved but didn't enter or leave any location" is a rather nonintuitive statement).
Now to get back to the condition in the OP, which is "When Sandstorm causes you to move"
Per what I said above, this happens after you are caused to move, which due to my belief that the act of moving cannot be interrupted, means that it happens after you have finished moving. If you stayed put, the power does not happen as you did not actually move (and thus Sandstorm did not cause you to move). If you did move, you're at the new location when the power happens, so the new location's At This Location and displayed cards are in effect.
Forcing the act of movement to be atomic (can't be interrupted) makes adjudicating this and future similar cases very easy, you simply look at whether the power is worded "when you would" (in which case it happens before the move, so you're still at the old location) or "when" (in which case it happens after the move, so you're at the new location). Trying to introduce the ability for a power to happen partway through the act of movement (such as after randomly determining where you are moving to but before you move there) opens up a lot of corner cases where the wording could go either way, and introduces complexity that I believe doesn't need to exist.
1) Thanks Vic, that will answer the first issue (i. e. You apply the "at that location" powers of the destination location if it interacts with the Sandstorm power)
2) Still we have the point of "did you move if a power moves you to a random location that ends up been your starting point"?
My reading of the rules is that it does not say "your character is not considered to have moved" but specifically "is not considered to have left or entered a location", which is clearly more restrictive and adds precise concepts (entering, leaving).
Knowing Mike and Vic's very good bias at making things easy the only reason I see for them to not have used "is not considered to have moved" is that indeed the character has moved (even if he she stays in the same location.. time for a moonwalk dance).
So any power that cares whether a character will/would/did move would apply.
But any power that cares whether a character will/would/did move to or from a (specific) location wouldn't apply.
IMHO.
PS: sorry for doubleposting (I'll flag myself), the Paizo site went down as I was correcting my non-native Elvish gibberish.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still we have the point of "did you move if a power moves you to a random location that ends up been your starting point"?
...Moving then triggers any effects that happen when you enter or leave a location. When you choose to move, you must always select a new location, although it is possible for some effects to move you to the same location you came from. If you do not change locations, your character is not considered to have entered or left a location.
So if an effect moves you to the same location you came from, you did in fact move. And you're correct: Effects that care whether or not you moved (such as Grey Garrison's "When you move, draw a random monster from the box and shuffle it into this location deck") will go off. But effects that care whether or not you are moving to or from a location (like Guardian Vault's "When you move to this location, you are dealt 2 Poison damage") will not go off.
It would probably be more accurate to rephrase those rules like so:
...Moving then triggers any effects that happen when you move from or to a location. When you choose to move, you must always select a new location, although it is possible for some effects to move you to the same location you came from; if you do not change locations, your character is not considered to have moved from or to a location.
But I wonder if telling people that they moved, yet didn't move either to or from anywhere is actually more confusing than using the non-game terms "entered" and "left," which I believe people readily interpret in their correct English sense, leading them to apply the rules correctly.
But I wonder if telling people that they moved, yet didn't move either to or from anywhere is actually more confusing than using the non-game terms "entered" and "left," ...
I, for one, readily admit that I've been reading this incorrectly for 4 sets in a row. The fact is, when the second sentence tells me If you do not change locations, your character is not considered to have entered or left a location. , I read that as you're not considered to have moved at all (because, why would 'move' powers not be triggered otherwise?); then I retroactively impose this interpretation on the first sentence, so I end up reading it is possible for some effects to move you to the same location you came from to actually mean some powers instructing you to move may result in you staying in your current location.
I strongly suspect I'm not the only long-time player having been confused by this. In my head, I can't seem to divide powers into "triggers when you move, *even if you stay at the same location*" and "trigger only when you move TO and/or FROM" - I see them all as powers that "trigger when you move"; the logical disconnect seems to great and rather arbitrary.
Unless there are some strong design considerations for the contrary(but skipping through the cards, I couldn't find anything that would seem to be crucially affected), I would prefer if you could just make the approach to 'move' consistent. I don't particularly care if it ends being "you're considered to have moved, to and from, even if you stay at the same location", or "you're not considered to have moved at all if you stay at the same location" (though the later seems much more logical).
As it is, currently we're left actually having two *different* Move modes - "Move to Another Location" and "Move to Same Location", which -to me- seems very counter-intuitive and confusing, while having no obvious design benefits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconding that it seems odd that you can be moved to the location you are already at, and this does count as moving, but does not cause you to enter or leave a location.
It seems either it shouldn't count as moving, or it should count as leaving & entering (as if a sandstorm whisked you into the sky then put you back down where you started).
Ok that must be we frenchy always doing things wrong but on that part we did play it the way Vic describes it since day one... and it felt right.
Fun to see how much all is just a question of point of view and habits.
It will be confusing for us to change that vision of "moving" after 4 sets.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The movement rules for Core include these bits:
When you choose to move, select a distant location and move your pawn to it. Any effects that happen when you move happen at this time... Some effects can also move you to your current location. When this happens, do not apply any effects that happen when you move.
So when the Sandstorm hits you in the Crypt of Air, you take the Electricity damage where it drops you... unless it drops you where you started. Lucky you!
|
So you can't throw up a protection spell to reliably counter the Sandstorm - it always damages you at the location you moved to, not from? Came here looking for exactly this...it radically alters the scenario, making it much more difficult. This is going to be as awful as that AD6 organized play scenario for Mummy's Mask with a siege deck that our collective group of three 3-person tables has failed something like 7x and had 1 success to show for it...
|
|
Wow...made another attempt at this one tonight. With no reliable way to consistently reduce damage for the party (since everyone's sent to a random location - not even a random open or closed one, so you have no way to selectively "funnel" people to a particular location with a Safety Bubble), this one is not a lot of fun.
Scenarios like this, where you just have to hope you get lucky and you don't hit too many of the 6(!) Sandstorms in the deck, and that you just happen to draw your armors and damage reduction cards (and keep them in your hand)...after a few attempts, I usually put the game down for a few months and just don't come back to it.
Or even years...I never did finish my Wrath of the Righteous set. Been putting it off until absolutely every other set has been completed...then I guess I'll dig it out and give Tarlin, Adowyn, and that halfling arcanist (whatever her name is) another shot at finishing it.
I have not run this one, so its I cant really comment on the difficulty.
Two things I would consider:
1 - Does your group not have enough damage mitigation. There are some really cool armors that would help.
2 - Just hand wave the scenario and move on. Or modify the rules to make it fair. This game is foremost about having fun. If you are not having fun then it will be a problem.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
By the way, even though the solution I gave was quoted from the new Core rulebook, you can find the correct answer in the Mummy's Mask rulebook. Its movement rules say "...move your token card to another location. Moving then triggers any effects that happen when you enter or leave a location." So your token card is explicitly already at the new location when Sandstorm's damage fires off.