Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Who shuld "ignore" the Corrupted trait?


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

In regards to the the following cards:

Blessing of Moloch wrote:
When any character plays a weapon on a check, discard this card to add 2 dice; if this card has the Corrupted trait, that character discards a card.
Blessing of Mephistopheles wrote:
Discard this card to add 2 dice to any check by a character at another location; if this card has the Corrupted trait, that character shuffles 1d4 monsters from the box into that location deck.

On one hand, the rule about ignoring is along the lines of "if you ignore something, it never has any effect on YOU". This leads me to believe the character doing the check has to ignore the Corrupted blessings.

OTOH, it seem more intuitive that the character playing the Blessing should ignore the trait, and -carrying blessings like those- seem more likely that he/she will have prepared for ignoring the Corrupted trait (given that blessings can't be redeemed - it can't really be expected that another character will be prepared to counter *your* cards)

Furthermore, BoM shuffles monsters in a location - it can be argued which player is really *affected* by this, if any at all. Is the fact that player X must perform the shuffling enough to designate him the "affected player"?

Bonus questions:
- if I play such Blessings on a check - is a player then allowed to play Redeemer Blacksmith (for example) to ignore the Corrupted trait? It doesn't require any further action to be a valid play (so it 'pertains to the check" technically) but then again - its effect doesn't really have to do with the check at all (it doesn't even modify the check's traits - it only modifies a single card's traits, that have no bearing on the situation)?
- if the above is allowed - would the Redeemer actually count against my '1 ally per check' limit, i.e. is he 'played on the check"?

What bothers me is, while some of the questions above have seemingly apparent answers by RAW, those answers don't really coincide with what my 'intuitive' call would be, so I thought I'd probe the public opinion on them.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think I'd say the character playing it is the one for whom ignoring it would matter. But it does seem tricky.


I agree with Hawkmoon (including their last sentence).

The text about ignoring that you're referring to is part of "The Golden Rules" section:
"If a card tells you to ignore something, the thing you’re ignoring never has any effect on you"

I think the important point to make about it is that that text is not defining what it means to ignore something, it's describing what it means. It's not saying "ignoring means X and only X". The point of that sentence is to say that the card-hierarchy is not relevant to questions of whether to ignore something. The "you" in that sentence should not be read as restrictive. So we're left with the natural interpretation of what it means to ignore something which in this case is for it to not enable those effects, regardless of who they impact.

To me the more interesting question is whether the affected player also could play a card to ignore the corrupted trait. I'd argue that no, they can't (or at least they can but it has no impact), because the instructions apply only to the person reading the card, and once the "is it corrupted" check is made then it's the blessing forcing the discard not "the corrupted trait" on the blessing, despite the trait having a causal influence. I think any other interpretation could lead to problems in the future - imagine for instance a card that affects multiple people in a linked way. For instance, if it said "if this has the corrupted trait, each player passes a card to the player to their left". If a subset of people could ignore that effect what would even happen?

As for the other two questions, I believe "finish one thing before starting another" means that the discard or monsters happen after you're finished the check, and thus you can recharge the blacksmith after the check, and relevance to the check and card type constraints are not an issue.


The FAQ which led to the current Golden Rule text specifically says that when something is ignored, you are the only person who ignores it. So, the "you" in the sentence should be read as restrictive. Its origin shows it is exactly that.

Responding to Longshot's questions, I'd look to the wording of the power used to ignore the Corrupted trait.

Zelhara Torturer wrote:
Once per turn (__ or any number of times on your turn), when a power happens if a boon has the Corrupted trait, you may ignore that power.

For Zelhara:

1) She can ignore the effects of the above blessings when anyone plays such a blessing on her check; but,
2) Other characters cannot use her power to ignore the effects of these blessings when she plays them on their checks. It is the character receiving the benefit of the blessing that would have to be able to ignore the Corrupted effects.

Emil wrote:
When you play a card that has the Poison (__ or the Corrupted trait), you may ignore that trait and immunities to it.

Emil's power is different.

1) Emil can only ignore the effects of the above blessings when he plays them on his own checks; when other characters play the blessings on his checks, he can't.
2) Other characters cannot use his power to ignore the effects of these blessings when he plays them on their check. (If Emil played a blessing that added the Poison trait to your combat check, you would not think you would then be able to ignore the bane's immunities to Poison, right?)

Bonus question:
I have this text for Redeemer Blacksmith (it may not be exact -- it's from a database, not the card):

Redeemer Blacksmith, maybe wrote:
Display this card to ignore the Corrupted trait on a card until the end of your turn, then recharge this card.

This doesn't pertain to the check at all, in the cited cases. Nothing about playing this card alters the check in any way (it alters other things happening to you). If the bonus to the check was being altered (say someone played a Corrupted item that adds +3 to your check, but adds +6 if the item is not Corrupted), then I'd say it does pertain, and is playable, and counts as the ally played on the check.


elcoderdude wrote:

The FAQ which led to the current Golden Rule text specifically says that when something is ignored, you are the only person who ignores it. So, the "you" in the sentence should be read as restrictive. Its origin shows it is exactly that.

Responding to Longshot's questions, I'd look to the wording of the power used to ignore the Corrupted trait.

Zelhara Torturer wrote:
Once per turn (__ or any number of times on your turn), when a power happens if a boon has the Corrupted trait, you may ignore that power.

For Zelhara:

1) She can ignore the effects of the above blessings when anyone plays such a blessing on her check; but,
2) Other characters cannot use her power to ignore the effects of these blessings when she plays them on their checks. It is the character receiving the benefit of the blessing that would have to be able to ignore the Corrupted effects.

Emil wrote:
When you play a card that has the Poison (__ or the Corrupted trait), you may ignore that trait and immunities to it.

Emil's power is different.

1) Emil can only ignore the effects of the above blessings when he plays them on his own checks; when other characters play the blessings on his checks, he can't.
2) Other characters cannot use his power to ignore the effects of these blessings when he plays them on their check. (If Emil played a blessing that added the Poison trait to your combat check, you would not think you would then be able to ignore the bane's immunities to Poison, right?)

Thanks for a bit more history on the "you" part of that sentence. That said, what I believe is that it's there to fix cases like "Before you act, each character [does a thing]" for characters with an "ignore before you act powers" ability. In fact I'm pretty sure that's exactly the question that brought it up. But the point of it is to specify that "you" is one person not "everyone".

However, I think this is a different case. It's not whether "you" is everyone, but who "you" is in the first place. For Harpies, each character gets their own separate BYA check, each character has to ignore their own check. In this case, you play the blessing, it's your power, you're causing the damage, it's your responsibility to ignore it.

What I'd compare it to is this. Imagine a BYA power that said "Before you act, each character at your location deals damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the attack trait in their hand to another random character at their location". You have a power to ignore BYA powers, the other character at your location does not. Who takes damage?

Well the "only applies to you" part means someone takes damage rather than no-one, and it's important to be clear about that. But I would argue that you are the one who takes damage, because they are the one who can't ignore the BYA power and they deal damage to you.

Similarly in this case, you're the one with the blessing, you're the one causing the damage, you're the one who needs to contain the corruption.

I agree it's not clear, but this is how I see it.

elcoderdude wrote:

Bonus question:

I have this text for Redeemer Blacksmith (it may not be exact -- it's from a database, not the card):
Redeemer Blacksmith, maybe wrote:
Display this card to ignore the Corrupted trait on a card until the end of your turn, then recharge this card.
This doesn't pertain to the check at all, in the cited cases. Nothing about playing this card alters the check in any way (it alters other things happening to you). If the bonus...

I'd agree with what you've said insofar as whether you can play the blacksmith during the check goes, but you've ignored my argument that the monsters/discard happens (and can be averted) after the check. In the same way that recharge checks, Ezren's draw-a-spell power etc. happen after the check. You can for instance use an item on a combat check with a spell and then use it again on the recharge check, this seems the same to me.

It occurs to me that the order these things are done in could matter for other reasons as well (e.g. the last card in your hand is the longspear that you're using, can you discard it to reroll or have you already discarded it to the blessing?)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Huh. I have to admit, I expected more unanimity in the other direction. So maybe I'm on to something, and there's room for clarification on the 'ignore' rule...

@ Irgy: Thanks for the exhaustive argument. It's pretty much the direction I'm intuiting into. However, what I'd like is if we could turn those "I believe" and "I think" into "According to the Rulebook..."

@ Hawkmoon: I'd be particularly interested if yoy can give your thinking behind your position.

@ Elcoderdude: I agree that the wording of the 'ignore power' itself actually matters and that Emil seems pretty clear-cut, in that he get to ignore the Blessings when he plays them, and he can't when he's the "bless-ee".
Zelthare is much less clear and good example of why I asked in the first place. You state how you *think* she works, but can you interpret your stance in the context of the Rulebook? Why exactly do you think she can ignore ONLY when she's the target, instead of when she's ONLY / ALSO the one playing the blessing?
Also, I'm not sure the argument you're making for Redeemer; are you saying that I can't play him because he doesn't factually change the check it self (with which I agree) or because playing him doesn't 'affect the situation' (with which I'm a bit unsure by RAW, as his play doesn't 'require someone to do something else to meaningful')?

(On further reflection, I actually came to the conclusion the Redeemer questions are a moot point, as there is actually a problem with the quoted Blessings. Both of their "if Corrupted" effects are actually the type of effect that lately has been consistently FAQ'ed into "After the check..." - at which point Redeemer would be legal by any stretch. If we don't hear from someone official, I'd probably post another thread to suggest those FAQ's but if y'all have some thought, especially why you think I may be wrong - please, let me know.
EDIT: Sorry, Irgy, I just noticed the last part of your post. Seems we're on the same page here.)


Irgy, I'm glad to see another active rules lawyer on the boards. (I just hope we don't frustrate the less detail-oriented players like cartmanbeck.)

Irgy wrote:

What I'd compare it to is this. Imagine a BYA power that said "Before you act, each character at your location deals damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the attack trait in their hand to another random character at their location". You have a power to ignore BYA powers, the other character at your location does not. Who takes damage?

Well the "only applies to you" part means someone takes damage rather than no-one, and it's important to be clear about that. But I would argue that you are the one who takes damage, because they are the one who can't ignore the BYA power and they deal damage to you.

Rewriting to be a better fit for PACG (because PACG characters never deal damage -- banes do):

Hypothetical BYA power wrote:
Before you act, for each character at your location, a random other character at the location takes an amount of damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the Attack trait in the hand of the first character.

Say I have a power to ignore BYA powers, and another character at my location encounters this bane. I'd process this as:

1. Start with my character as the "each character". Say I'm holding 2 weapons. The BYA says the other character suffers 2 damage. This happens. My character in no way affected by this -- I'm just being counted as "a character". It would be the other character that would have to ignore the BYA power to avoid this.
2. Consider the other character as the "each character". Say they're holding 2 Attack spells. The BYA says I suffer 2 damage. But I ignore BYA powers. So I don't. (The alternative is: if the BYA was "every character suffers 2 damage", then I would ignore the damage, but because the damage is based on a character's hand, I don't? That doesn't make sense.)


Longshot11 wrote:
Zelhara is much less clear and good example of why I asked in the first place. You state how you *think* she works, but can you interpret your stance in the context of the Rulebook? Why exactly do you think she can ignore ONLY when she's the target, instead of when she's ONLY / ALSO the one playing the blessing?

Looking at the complete FAQ I cited:

FAQ wrote:

When you're told to ignore something, does everybody ignore that thing, or just you?

Just you.
Resolution: On page 2 of the rulebook, in the Golden Rule, change "if a card tells you to ignore something, the thing you’re ignoring never has any effect" to "if a card tells you to ignore something, the thing you’re ignoring never has any effect on you". (See this this FAQ entry for more about "you.")

Zelhara is ignoring the Corrupted trait, but she is the only one ignoring it, and the meaning of "ignore" means, the Corrupted trait has no effect on her. When Zelhara plays a Moloch or a Mephistopheles on someone else's check, the punitive consequence is not something that happens to her; it is something that happens to the other character. You're treating 'effect on me' as meaning 'changing in any way the consequences of my action'. I'm treating 'effect on me' as meaning 'changing the game state of my character or constraining my ability to perform an action'. I think the latter is consistent with the rules. I agree this might not be explicitly spelled out.


About the Redeemer Blacksmith question:

Irgy wrote:
I'd agree with what you've said insofar as whether you can play the blacksmith during the check goes, but you've ignored my argument that the monsters/discard happens (and can be averted) after the check.

You are quite right -- I did completely overlook that. Now that I think about it, the answer to the timing question isn't obvious at all.

Irgy wrote:
In the same way that recharge checks, Ezren's draw-a-spell power etc. happen after the check. You can for instance use an item on a combat check with a spell and then use it again on the recharge check, this seems the same to me.

The recharge situation is not analogous, because the rules explicitly state that a check to defeat and a recharge check for a card used in the check to defeat are in different steps of the encounter.

But the Ezren examine example is exactly on point. The FAQ is here. The problem is -- that's a Runelords FAQ,, and the suggested phrase is not in the MM rulebook, nor is anything like it.

Longshot11 wrote:
On further reflection, I actually came to the conclusion the Redeemer questions are a moot point, as there is actually a problem with the quoted Blessings. Both of their "if Corrupted" effects are actually the type of effect that lately has been consistently FAQ'ed into "After the check..." - at which point Redeemer would be legal by any stretch.

I'm looking around for a current FAQ. I found the Shadow of the Sphinx scenario power and the spell Sirocco (which made me laugh out loud). Both of these are trying to avoid nested encounters, so they don't seem applicable. I vaguely recall Vic discussing timings like this on the forum but haven't the Hawk-fu to find it.

Although I assumed Moloch's "discard a card" and Mephistopheles' shuffle-monsters-into-the-location happen immediately. I now see four possibilities:
#1. The punitive effect happens immediately, during the "Play cards and Use Powers that affect your check" step. It's just like discarding/recharging the weapon used on the check -- it occurs at the exact same time as the benefit. (Note that if Moloch discards the weapon revealed for the check, that changes nothing, but if it discards armor, the armor couldn't be used to sop up damage.)
#2. The punitive effect happens during the "Take damage, if necessary" substep of the "Attempt the check" step.
#3 We have a *new* substep of "Attempt the check", after "Take Damage, if necessary". The new step is "Resolve consequences of cards & powers played during Attempt the Check". This is what the Runelords FAQ seems to say, but it was not implemented (and frankly, it is confusing, because it doesn't include recharge checks).
#4. The punitive effect happens during "Attempt the next check, if needed" step of the encounter.

I have taken *way* more time than I had this morning writing these posts; I'm out of time, so I'm just going to opine that #2 makes the most sense to me. I am unconvinced by #4.

Getting back to the question of "is it legal to play Redeemer Blacksmith in this situation":

MM rules p.9 wrote:
Characters may only play cards or use powers that relate to each step (or relate to cards played or powers used in that step).

It's bleached into my bones that cards & powers used during a check must alter the check, but the most current rules text indicates Longshot is right: even if the punitive impact of Moloch/Mephistopheles occurs during "Take damage, if necessary" substep, ignoring the Corrupted trait on those cards definitely relates to a "card played in [the Attempt the Check] step", and so is quite legal.


elcoderdude wrote:

Irgy, I'm glad to see another active rules lawyer on the boards. (I just hope we don't frustrate the less detail-oriented players like cartmanbeck.)

Irgy wrote:

What I'd compare it to is this. Imagine a BYA power that said "Before you act, each character at your location deals damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the attack trait in their hand to another random character at their location". You have a power to ignore BYA powers, the other character at your location does not. Who takes damage?

Well the "only applies to you" part means someone takes damage rather than no-one, and it's important to be clear about that. But I would argue that you are the one who takes damage, because they are the one who can't ignore the BYA power and they deal damage to you.

Rewriting to be a better fit for PACG (because PACG characters never deal damage -- banes do):

Hypothetical BYA power wrote:
Before you act, for each character at your location, a random other character at the location takes an amount of damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the Attack trait in the hand of the first character.

Say I have a power to ignore BYA powers, and another character at my location encounters this bane. I'd process this as:

1. Start with my character as the "each character". Say I'm holding 2 weapons. The BYA says the other character suffers 2 damage. This happens. My character in no way affected by this -- I'm just being counted as "a character". It would be the other character that would have to ignore the BYA power to avoid this.
2. Consider the other character as the "each character". Say they're holding 2 Attack spells. The BYA says I suffer 2 damage. But I ignore BYA powers. So I don't. (The alternative is: if the BYA was "every character suffers 2 damage", then I would ignore the damage, but because the damage is based on a character's hand, I don't? That doesn't make...

In your hypothetical BYA power above, I'd say if you encounter it and can ignore BYA powers, it does nothing; if you're not encountering it, you might be damaged even if you can ignore BYA powers. To me, it's a single power which happens to you and might affect other characters, and not a power that happens to every character at the location.

You seem to be using "ignore BYA powers" as "ignore the consequences of BYA powers".

In the following BYA power, would you have to take the Dexterity check and only ignore the damage, or do you ignore the check itself?

Check and damage BYA power #1 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or you are dealt 1 Electricity damage.

My reading would be that you ignore the power itself, so no check. Now let's compare with different variations on the power:

#2-Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.
#3-Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random other character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

Again, to me, an ignore BYA power would mean that you simply wouldn't take the check at all, even if the damage might be dealt to another character.

And now, if we add just a bit more complexity:

#4-Before you act, every character at your location must succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

At that point, it still seems to me that you don't take the check if you can ignore BYA powers, but might take damage from other characters at your location failing said check.

So, for which of these powers do you have to take the check? For #4, do you ignore the check AND damage you'd receive from other characters failing the check?

What about the following power:

#5-Before you act, each character at your location may discard a card, otherwise a random other character at your location must bury a card.

If there are two characters at the location, does that mean the power can have no effect? The Ignore character doesn't have to discard because he ignores the power, AND he doesn't have to bury a card after the non-Ignore character chooses not to discard a card?


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Shnik wrote:
If there are two characters at the location, does that mean the power can have no effect?

This is possible with all powers, and is generally covered by the "ignore impossible instructions" rule. I'm not saying that's what would happen in *your* example; I'm only saying the power having potentially no effect is not a problem in itself.


Shnik, you raise interesting points. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that if I can ignore BYA powers, I can ignore the BYA power of a bane I encounter, but I cannot ignore the effects I would suffer due to the BYA powers of banes encountered by other characters.

A relevant question is, what is the significance of the "You" in "Before You Act"? A lot, you might think. So did I. But the answer is: none. The step is really "Before the encountering player acts". (Notice the OP's question in that thread is, Can I use an item that reduces BYA damage to reduce damage I suffered from the BYA power of a bane which another character encountered? Vic indicates the answer is Yes.)

For example, This means Merisiel doesn't suffer damage applied to all characters by a BYA power of a bane another character encountered.

So, to recap:
1. When you ignore something, it never has any effect on you.
2. Before you act is about "when", not "who".

Shnik wrote:
You seem to be using "ignore BYA powers" as "ignore the consequences of BYA powers".

It certainly includes that. See #1 and #2.

Let's say my character, who may ignore BYA powers, and your character, who cannot, are at the same location.
(A) What happens when I encounter a bane with the power given below?
(B) What happens when you do?

BYA 1 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or you are dealt 1 Electricity damage.

(A) I don't need to attempt the check.

(B) You do, and can take damage.

BYA 2 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

(A) I don't need to attempt the check.

(B) You do. If you fail, and you are randomly selected, you take damage; if you fail, and I am randomly selected, I don't (see #1).

BYA 3 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random other character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

(A) I don't need to attempt the check.

(B) You do. But even if you fail, no one takes damage, since you aren't an "other character", and I ignore BYA powers (which, by the rules, never have any effect on me).

BYA 4 wrote:
Before you act, every character at your location must succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

(A) I can just ignore the whole thing.

(B) This is the spin I found most interesting in your post. If I don't roll, did we fail the criteria? My take is: we both roll. If we fail, and the random damage is applied to me, I take no damage. But if it is applied to you, you do. If I choose instead to ignore the stipulation, the damage clause is still triggered. The analogous situation is if Merisiel evades a summoned bane which all characters encounter, it is not true that every character defeated the bane.

Revised BYA 5 wrote:
Before you act, each character at your location must discard a card, or else a random other character at your location must bury a card.

I rewrote this to conform to PACG, as "may" is optional.

(A) I can just ignore the whole thing.
(B) Again, interesting. If I choose not to discard a card, the "or else" does apply, as not every character discarded. If I am chosen to bury a card, I don't. If you are chosen to bury a card, you do. (I could choose up front to discard a card to avoid the possiblity of you burying a card -- which is what I would usually do, as a loyal team player.)

Like Longshot said, "no effect" is a perfectly reasonable result, and consistent with the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Having thought about it more, I'm changing positions. The character that received the benefit (and potentially has to pay the penalty for it being corrupted) is the one for whom ignoring matters. This makes sense on so many levels.

First, it is the most clear reading of the rules. The character that would potentially have to do something based on the corrupted trait is the one that can influence whether they have to or not.

Second, it makes sense thematically. This isn't as important, and theme shouldn't be how we primarily understand the mechanics of the game, but I can see why this makes sense from a design perspective.

For example, I'm one of these evil characters. Someone goes and asks one of these evil deities to help me. Why would I, as a corrupt character, be punished by a corrupt deity? Ignoring the corrupted trait for these characters is because they are also corrupted.


elcoderdude wrote:
Shnik, you raise interesting points. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that if I can ignore BYA powers, I can ignore the BYA power of a bane I encounter, but I cannot ignore the effects I would suffer due to the BYA powers of banes encountered by other characters.

Actually, what I was trying to say (though it might not have been apparent) was:

I don't know.

I could see it going both ways.

It's more of whether:
A) you can ignore the whole BYA power that would apply to you, even though consequences of the BYA power of "other characters" could apply to you; or
B) you ignore any "consequences" of BYA powers that would affect you, even though consequences of "your" BYA power could apply to another character.

(Or, C) both A and B, though that seems inconsistent to me.)

With my #5 example, I was more trying to go for a "every character must either discard a card or choose another character to bury a card".

So, say:
#6: BYA, each character must discard a card and also select another character at their location to bury a card.

With 1 Ignore character and 1 non-ignore character at that location, I'd see the following possibilities:
A) Ignore buries a card, non-Ignore discards a card (only non-Ignore's "power" happens, and Ignore is affected by it);
B) non-Ignore discards a card and buries a card (the power happens for both characters, but Ignore isn't affected);
C) non-Ignore discards a card, nobody buries anything (the best of both A & B).

Without a ruling, I'd probably use option A for my games, since that seems the simplest way to play it, but that's just me.

Going back to the original topic of Corrupted cards and traits...

Using BoMoloch for all examples.

For Emil, "ignore the trait on cards", I'd would play it that it affects the character who played the card:

-Emil plays the Blessing, "does the card have the Corrupted trait?", no, the power doesn't happen and no discard happens.
-Someone else plays the Blessing on Emil, "does the card have the Corrupted trait?", yes, so the power happens and Emil discards. The fact that he ignores the trait doesn't affect the power played by another character.

As for Zelhara, "ignore the power that happens if a boon has the Corrupted trait", I see that one as being a lot more like "ignore BYA powers", with the same possibilities:

A) Ignore the power itself, so if she plays the card, no effect, if the card is played on her by another character, she still suffers the consequences (has to discard a card);
B) Ignore the effects of the power on her, so if she plays the card on another player, the consequences (discard a card) still happens to that character, but if the Blessing is played on Zelhara she doesn't have to discard;
C) The best of both A & B, so no discard whether Zelhara plays it on anyone or it is played on her.

Again, no idea which would be the correct interpretation.

So, maybe not that helpful, then, but at least I think those are the only three options?


OK, I understand your #5 better now.

To save us all another wall of text from me, I'll just say:
-- For #6, I'd say C.
-- I agree with your Emil interpretation, but that's because his power is limited to the Corrupted cards he himself plays.
-- For Zelhara, I'd say B.

I think I've written enough to explain why.


elcoderdude wrote:


BYA 2 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

(A) I don't need to attempt the check.

(B) You do. If you fail, and you are randomly selected, you take damage; if you fail, and I am randomly selected, I don't (see #1).

See, this is the part that feels like double-dipping to me.

I think there has to be a limit. If you have an ignore BYA power, and also a power that says, say:
"When a character at your location takes damage, you may draw a card"
Then if another character takes damage from a BYA power, surely you could draw a card?

There has to be a "directness" threshold somewhere. To me, putting that threshold at the most direct point, such that no double-dipping can occur, is the fairest and simplest way for things to work.

Whether that's what the rules actually say though I'm not so sure. I do sometimes tend to get a little caught up in assuming things work the way that I think they ought to work...

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Second, it makes sense thematically. This isn't as important, and theme shouldn't be how we primarily understand the mechanics of the game, but I can see why this makes sense from a design perspective.

I just want to say re: theme, if it was anything other than a blessing then the theme argument would go the other way. If it was my "Staff of Moderately Accurate Fire" that added a die and dealt a damage to you, then it would be clear that I'm the one who needs to aim my staff properly. Also, if it was an effect like Blizzard which damages everyone, it doesn't make thematic sense to me to create a blizzard which only hurts a few people. The corruption is in the object, ignoring the corruption means preventing the corrupt effect from happening not sheltering someone from its consequences.

Blessings are a bit different because they're non-corporeal and the difference between me using a blessing and you using a blessing is hard to pin-down thematically. But the ruling should cover both cases.


Irgy wrote:
If you have an ignore BYA power, and also a power that says, say: "When a character at your location takes damage, you may draw a card" Then if another character takes damage from a BYA power, surely you could draw a card?

One question would be, how is the ignore power worded? I'd expect it says "may" (You may ignore a BYA power). Then of course you could draw a card.

Beyond that, it gets a little trickier. I think I've nearly beaten this horse to death, though, so I'll stop here, unless others are interested in pressing on.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blessing of Moloch wrote:
When any character plays a weapon on a check, discard this card to add 2 dice; if this card has the Corrupted trait, that character discards a card.
Blessing of Mephistopheles wrote:
Discard this card to add 2 dice to any check by a character at another location; if this card has the Corrupted trait, that character shuffles 1d4 monsters from the box into that location deck.
The Golden Rules wrote:
If a card tells you to ignore something, the thing you’re ignoring never has any effect on you.

The character playing the card is not affected by the presence of the Corrupted trait, so that character ignoring it would be meaningless. "That character" is affected by it's presence, and could therefore benefit from ignoring it.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Who shuld "ignore" the Corrupted trait? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.