Small Demon

Shnik's page

Organized Play Member. 59 posts (703 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>


PACS Adventure 7-1 is a PDF and isn't on sale; it seems like it should be? It wasn't on sale during the Black Friday digital products sale either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With the Card Game becoming a Legacy system, what are the odds of seeing the Wrath of the Righteous, Mummy's Mask, and Core/ Curse promos on the Paizo store?

Since none of the currently available promos have run out, and those never having been reprinted to the best of my knowledge, it seems like Paizo probably have a pile of the other promos remaining, too. Seems like it would be simple to set up to allow them to get rid of existing product, while also being an easy source of income. And it would make many fans happy!

Here's to hoping.

(Phew, I'm not the only one who didn't roll 18 on the Boon roll now!)


For Hakon's spells:

With your special ability, I don't think Commune is a good fit; that only leaves you two spells to swap between, with odds of one being in your hand and the other in the discard low (especially since playing your "second" spell means both are discarded, unless you heal yourself with it).

As for Tier 2 options, Disable Mechanism seems a bit narrow in use, even with both Quinn and Vika having Disable. You already have Divine Insight which is just a bit worse dice-wise and a lot more broadly applicable, I feel.

This post by Vic Wertz indicates that proxies not representing a card are simply treated as Proxies.

And this later FAQ entry modifies the part of the rulebook JohnF mentioned, adding that proxies are their own cards and don't need a "proxied" card to function.

So it seems that, as a card, in this scenario, the Proxies are just that, with a level of 0 and no other properties.

So are we doing the "single roll" thing for upgrades?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

P3 gets the Y upgrade, since it's his first choice. P1's roll for Y upgrade is only if it hasn't been handed out in the "first pick round", and there are 2+ players who want it in the "second pick round" (which only happens if some players didn't get their first pick).

With the "one-roll" method, it would be possible for people to lose their first choice to someone else's second (or later) choice. If the rolls and choices are as follows: -P1 Roll 30 Pick A, Pick C; -P2 Roll 20 Pick A, Pick B; -P3 Roll 10 Pick B; then P2 would get his second choice, Pick B, even though it's P3's first choice.

That would work with me too, it's just not the "standard" I've seen with PBP before. Would be less typing in a few posts, at the very least. :¬P

What I was saying was "first picks first", so you look at everyone's first picks before looking at anyone's second pick. So in your example, Player 3 gets the Armor since it's his first pick. Player 2's "Armor - 800" roll is ONLY used if there's a tiebreaker needed for an Armor in a "second" round.

Since I'm the only one who rolled more than once, JohnF's messages kind of seem aimed at me, so I'll give my thoughts on the matter. (Sorry for the screwy formatting, it was fine while writing. Guess the forums don't like double spaces.)

I've always thought we were doing a "first choices first" thing. So in the below example:

Upgrades: Weapon Spell Item Ally
Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4
Weapon 800 Weapon 900 Item 100 Ally 400
Item 200
Ally 500

Even though Player 1 rolled higher than Players 3&4 for the Item and Ally, since they were P3&4's first choices, they would get them regardless of what P1 rolled. (Which also seems to be how it would work in an IRL game; I've never actually played an IRL PACS game with randoms, but I'm pretty sure no-one would say "my first choice is this weapon, but you guys who want the item and the ally, don't take them yet, I'll roll you for them if I don't get the weapon".) It feels to me like JohnF's "only one roll per player" would be worse for people looking for a single type of upgrade; in the above example, with his first "800" roll, that would have allowed Player 1 to get the Item instead of Player 3.

The point of rolling more than once is for possible second/ third/ etc. choice tie-breakers, like below:

Upgrades: Weapon Spell Item Ally
Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4
Weapon 800 Ally 300 Weapon 900 Ally 400
Item 200 Item 300
Ally 500

At that point, we'd look at Player 1 & 2's rolls for their second choice. Posting them in an initial message in a PBP game simply saves time.

Obviously we also need to account for the "delayed posting" of a PBP game; in this example:

Upgrades: Weapon Spell Item Ally
Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4
Weapon 800 Weapon 900 Weapon 1000 Ally 400
Item 200 Ally 600
Ally 500 Item 300

Player 2's "actual" second choice would be the Item, since there's no more ally to pick (just like in an IRL game, no one would say "my second choice would have that other card that was already picked in the first round, so I'll skip choosing a card for the actual second round").

Obviously, this also relies on player honesty. Since players don't all choose and write at the same in a PBP game, it would be possible for a less scrupulous player posting later to say: "Well my first choice would be weapon and my second would be spell; I'm not interested in anything else. Now I see Player 1's first pick was weapon and he rolled 1000, so he got that; and Player 2's first pick was also weapon (which P1 is getting), and his second pick spell, for which he rolled 1000, so I wouldn't be getting anything this round. So I'll just say spell is my first pick, that way I get it instead of P2".

And, yes, it's still possible for us to discuss and agree between ourselves for some upgrades; for example, if Gimry says "Enora would really like to have a Spell 3 as soon as possible, I've got an upgrade that would really help me", and everyone agrees, then, great!

Hope this long text made sense!

As for bonus deck upgrades, I'm all for everyone getting a first pick before second picks are handed out.

-I'm good with Core only, but don't mind adding Curse if the other players want it.

-Normal is fine for me.

-I have a slight preference for Discord, since that's where my other games take place.

I own Core and Curse, but I have also purchased a huge pile of class decks I want to play with! I'll be using replacement cards where appropriate.

For Arabundi, he seems really spell-oriented, so I'd tend towards Ultimate Magic.

I'll be playing Vika, using the Fighter Class Deck and Ultimate Combat.

Skillwise, that's Melee and Fortitude, a touch of Disable, and... Craft!

Haven't created the PFS character or sent the proof of ownership yet.

I'm interested. I'll probably make a Fighter.

Off-turn, Attic Whisperer BA

Wisdom 4: 1d6 ⇒ 5 => passed, not Dazed

Turn 13, The Paladin
Hour: When another character avenges your encounter, heal 1d4 cards.

Explore => Razor Snare

Recharge The Lost_H to add 1d4 (scenario power)

Acrobatics 6: 1d8 + 1d4 + 2 ⇒ (5) + (3) + 2 = 10 => defeated

Just realised that Grazzle's constant healing makes my Harrow a lot less useful, heh.

Recharge Compass 2 to move to Library and examine => Sage's Journal

Radovan jumps over the snare and into the library, where he notices... books.

End turn

Radovan wrote:

Hand: Blessing of the Quartermaster 1, Quartermaster, Kama, Rings of Bondage, Rapier_C,

Quang: Acolyte_B
Deck: 10 Discard: 0 Buried: 2
Hero Points: 0
Available Support:
Other: "

Skills and Powers:

Strength d8 ☐ +1 ☐ +2 ☐ +3 ☐ +4
Dexterity d8 ☐ +1 ☐ +2 ☐ +3 ☐ +4
-Disable: Dexterity +2
-Stealth: Dexterity +2
Constitution d8 ☐ +1 ☐ +2 ☐ +3
Intelligence d4 ☐ +1
Wisdom d6 ☐ +1
Charisma d8 ☐ +1 ☐ +2
-Diplomacy: Charisma +2

Favored Card: Ally
Hand Size: 5 ☐ 6
Light Armors, Weapons
At the start of the scenario, display any 1 devil form (☐ or 2 devil forms). Once per turn, when a character at your location is dealt damage by a bane, display a monster from the box next to a displayed devil form.
Add 1d4 (☐ 1d6) to your combat check that does not have the 2-Handed trait; add an additional 1d4 if you did not play a weapon.
Reduce Fire, Poison, or Ranged Combat damage dealt to you (☐ or to a character at your location) by 1.

Turn 17, Prayer
Hour: No effect.

"A giant bear in a storehouse? Now this, I've got to see."

Move to Storehouse

Explore => Chemist (Henchman)

Well since I'll need to get rid my hand to close regardless, might as well make the most of it.

When encountering, display Banner

Everyone gets +1 to combat checks until a bane is undefeated.

When encountering, summon Lamm's Lamb

Diplomacy 6: 1d10 + 6 ⇒ (5) + 6 = 11 => defeated

"How about you, who can I murder to help you? Yargin Balko, and he's right back there? Thanks."

Before acting, 1 Acid damage

Reveal Covering Heavy Shield_B to prevent

Raheli suffers 1 Acid damage. Cards discarded as damage are discarded randomly.

Discard Blessing of the Samurai 3 to bless; bury Covering Heavy Shield_B to add 1d12

Diplomacy 7: 1d12 + 2d10 + 3 ⇒ (4) + (5, 3) + 3 = 15 => defeated, Covering Heavy Shield_B recharged

Closing time => discard hand

Storehouse closed!

Marker added to scenario

WPC, draw 2 items => Noxious Bomb & Cape of Escape

Keep Cape of Escape

Move to Alley; Raheli moves to Alley

During the fight, one of the chemist's workstations tips over, setting fire to the storehouse. Brielle and Raheli manage to run back out to the alley, snatching an interesting cape from one of the crates on the way.

So it wasn't a fight, it was a nice peaceful conversation where Yargin just gave me the cape on my way out, but that wasn't as interesting to write.

End turn

Brielle wrote:

Hand: Cape of Escape_B, Naginata, Blessing of the Samurai 2, Blessing of the Gods, Crowbar_C,

Displayed: Banner,
Deck: 10 Discard: 3 Buried: 0
"Hero Points: 0 // Brielle has the following scourges marked:
While Marked:
On each check or step, you may play no more than 1 boon.

At the start of your move step, you may end your turn to remove this scourge.

Available Support: Use Blessing as needed
Movement: Move to Boat if closed
Other: "

Skills and Powers:

Strength d8 ☐ +1 ☐ +2 ☐ +3 ☐ +4
-Melee: Strength +3
Dexterity d6 ☐ +1 ☐ +2
Constitution d8 ☐ +1 ☐ +2 ☐ +3 ☐ +4
Intelligence d6 ☐ +1
Wisdom d4 ☐ +1
Charisma d10 ☐ +1 ☐ +2 ☐ +3
-Diplomacy: Charisma +3

Favored Card: Item
Hand Size: 5 ☐ 6
Light Armors, ☐ Heavy Armors, Weapons
You may bury a card from your hand to add 1d12 (□+1) to your Strength or Charisma check. If you succeed at the check, you may recharge that card instead.
For your combat check, you may reveal an item that has the Object or Tool trait to use your Melee skill + 1d8 (□ 1d12) plus the card’s adventure deck number; you may additionally discard it to add another 1d8 and the card’s traits.

Mhuirich, I don't have access to the Hangouts yet, will that get done soon? Was there a problem with the ID I gave you?

Hi everyone,

I'll be playing a fresh Tier 1 Brielle, using the Barbarian Class Deck and the Ultimate Combat Add-On Deck. I'll be using substition cards from Core and Curse as appropriate. No previous boons.

I'd rather play Normal difficulty.

I'm in the Eastern Time Zone, and can usually post a bit throughout the day.

Remember that PACS scenarios don't need to be played in order, so it would be possible to gain medals on the KoK by playing 1-2D or 1-2E before playing 1-2B. And they can also be useful if you are simply replaying 1-2B after winning it a first time.

But, yes, regardless of the order in which you play scenarios, the first time you display the KoK card in Adventure 1-2, it will be useless to your character (though other players could make use of it if they've already won some of the scenarios which reward you with a medal).

Brother Tyler wrote:
I suppose the "by Deity X" means that the check gets the X trait.

Yup. That's in the Core rulebook on page 12, "Rules: Bless" section:

If a power blesses by a deity, or if a card used to bless has the Deity trait, add the deity’s name as a trait to the check. For example, if a check is “blessed by Sarenrae” or is blessed by a card that has the trait “Deity: Sarenrae,” add the Sarenrae trait to the check.

A little fix needed: in the PDF, Pizazz's Whistleblower role lists his proficiencies as "Weapon" instead of "Arcane Divine Instrument".

For Adventures 6 & 7, the "Build the Vault" section states: "Start with all level 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 cards". Shouldn't that include level 6 cards as well (and possibly level 7 for Adventure 7)?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One interesting thing to note in the new Guide, the following updated sentence (p.8):

-You can replace your character with any character of the
same class, along with a matching role card.

In the previous guide this was limited to characters from the Base sets and Character add-on decks.

This means you can now use, for example, Varian from the Pathfinder Tales deck with the Hell's Vengeance 2 deck. So many more possibilities!

The Pathfinder Tales deck can now be used with a whopping 28 characters!

Matsu Kurisu wrote:
Shnik wrote:
Matsu Kurisu wrote:
The key issue is the limit of only one card per type per check across the table rather than per player with you hand being old cards caused huge game play issues as a majority of the cards in hand were now dead on other players turns and we couldn't support well.
Can you elaborate on this? From all my plays, the vast majority of times two or more players played a card of the same type on the same check, it was a blessing. Were players sitting on hands filled with blessings that couldn't all be played at the same time? What cards were "dead" on other players' turns because of that rule change?

Most new cards have templates of

Ally / Item- top power is local check not personal only
Attack spells - arcance +Xd or +Xd to others check
Ranged weapons - support power is freely

So there is a lot more options to support

Well, sure, the new Core is made to have more interactions/ support between players; but, apart from multiple Blessings on the same check, how are the Class decks worse now than they were in pre-Core OP?

As for the Ranged Weapons, the new rulebook says that any "old" Weapon or Spell which adds to a check can be played freely, so you can still play your old Longbow, Strength Spell, or Aid on combat checks that are already using Weapons or Spells.

Matsu Kurisu wrote:
The key issue is the limit of only one card per type per check across the table rather than per player with you hand being old cards caused huge game play issues as a majority of the cards in hand were now dead on other players turns and we couldn't support well.

Can you elaborate on this? From all my plays, the vast majority of times two or more players played a card of the same type on the same check, it was a blessing. Were players sitting on hands filled with blessings that couldn't all be played at the same time? What cards were "dead" on other players' turns because of that rule change?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
Nope. Still not buying "less cleanup" as the reason for banishing locations, but if that's the version y'all want to stick with...
But could banishing locations also save 30 seconds of clean-up? Sure.

Saving 30 seconds of clean-up... by spending 30 more seconds of in-game time doing it. That's rather funny, I mean:

Blog wrote:
Another thing making the game faster: recovery banishing locations. By having this step at the end of your turn game, you don't need to interrupt your turn game (i.e., the game flow)

Am I the only one who finds this kind of... contradictory? "Interrupting your game to make recharge checks? Absolutely inefficient, let's make a new rule about that! Interrupting your game to banish locations? So efficient, let's make a new rule about that!"

Also, I'm really not seeing what's better about "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to take 0 (which is a failure)" rather than "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to not roll and count it as a failure". You still "take the time to decide" between taking 0 or rolling the dice...

Don't get me wrong, I liked the blog post as a whole, informative and interesting, and I'm sure that games with the new Core will be overall faster than the previous sets; but it shows how you can turn anything into a positive by putting the right spin on it, even contradictory statements and non-changes...

Vic Wertz wrote:

I will poke our store manager on the WotR/MM promos.

Sorry to bring this up again, but any update regarding these promos?

I believe combined shipping on both these and Core+ might make it worth my while to order directly from Paizo.


Upon reading that Core+ gave you your role card earlier, I was excited to think that meant "more post-role power feats"; but now I'm realizing it simply means "less total power feats". For every previous AP and Season, you'd gain a minimum of 7 power feats, 3 pre-role and 4+ post-role. Now, with the hard cap of 6 power feats in Adventure Level 6, getting your role at end of 2/ start of 3 simply means 2 pre-role feats and 4 post-role feats.

As someone who loves power feats, that's kind of disappointing. Unless future paths will regularly have adventures going up to levels 7+?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding win-loss ratio in coop games: to me, there's a HUGE difference between a one-off game and a campaign game.

For one-off games, like Pandemic, Spirit Island, and The Mind, having a low success rate is all right, and can even be a feature. I play these games for the challenge first and foremost*.

But for campaign games, like Gloomhaven, Sword & Sorcery, and PACG, my main reason to play is to experience the story and character progression. I don't want to have to replay every scenario two or three times to win it, especially since playing a complete campaign is already a big time investment, and having to replay scenario feels like a waste of time. I'm completely fine with having a success rate of 100% (or almost) for campaign games.

Regardless of the type of game, I still want my choices to matter: to me, no game can justify a turn 2 loss due to randomness with no player agency!

*Obviously, the actual first and foremost reason to play coop games in general is for the camaraderie and fun!

A few other improvements:
-Season of the Righteous has an extra 0-4A Skill feat listed, surely a leftover from Season of the Shackles copy-paste.
-Season of Plundered Tombs is missing the Extra Feats section.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
We don't know how much space a scenario takes up.

Actually, yes we do.

Mike mentions that each scenario is a two-page spread. So, for Core, if the pictured scenario 0 really starts on page 6, that would mean a maximum of 9 scenarios for the 24-page storybook. For Curse, if the first scenario is on page 2, that's a maximum of 23 scenarios for the 48-page storybook.

I'll have to admit, being used to 30+ scenario APs, this (seemingly?) low number of scenarios has me a bit worried. Still, I'm reserving final judgment until I get the actual products/ official confirmation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but notice that a lot of cards previewed in this blog use the names and images of existing cards, but they all have different powers to the original in some way. How does that fit with the previously-mentioned design policy that cards with differing powers should be uniquely named? Will it be possible for players to have two cards in hand with the same name but differing powers, or will there be errata released for a lot of older cards to bring them in line with the Core version?

I feel the latter could be problematic for Organized Play? (-"A Wisdom check, I'll play my Sage to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Sage can't do that anymore." -"In that case, I'll play my Teamster to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Teamster doesn't do that anymore either. Didn't you bring and read the mandatory 250-page errata along with your 110-card Class Deck?")

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5-P2 is now available to the public.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Available here!

Half-price on all Adventure Paths and Class decks up to and including Mummy's Mask.

The shipping still kills it for me, sadly...

For people wondering about shipping costs:

Instead of using the Subscription product (which only shows "Cheapest possible"), add the actual item to your cart. Both the Core and Curse sets can be added to your cart from the Preorder tab on this page. Then, if you click on Checkout and go to the Shipping tab, it will list the actual shipping costs.

For reference, here in Canada, the Core set costs 29$ in shipping, while CotCT costs 26$ - so, Curse is still a lot more expensive than the single 110-card decks from previous sets. (But also, less expensive than 6 separate 110-card decks.)

Frencois wrote:
Dark Forest wrote:
At This Location: When you explore, examine the top 2 cards. Shuffle 1 into the deck, and encounter the other.

Note that the interestning thing is that, the way we read it RAW, if there is only 1 card in the deck when you explore, it reads

Dark Forest with one card wrote:
At This Location: When you explore, examine the top card. Shuffle it into the deck.

, since the rest of the sentence AFTER the comma is impossible.

Which could be understood as you cannot explore the last card.

Well, if you want to get technical... :¬P

The card doesn't say "When you would explore, examine the top 2 cards instead. {etc}".

So, by RAW, it would actually be the opposite that happens: when there are two or more cards in the location, you examine & encounter one from the location power, then ALSO get your regular encounter from exploration; when there is only one card left in the location, you examine it (no free encounter) then get your regular encounter from exploration!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

4-7 is now available.

However, the price is kind of unexpected... 5$ for what I believe to be only two scenarios? Especially since previous capstones were free promos.

skizzerz wrote:

Winds of vengeance:

It’s ambiguous whether or not “you may” is implicit for the full list, and I’d argue it is not. If we treat the list as one instruction the choosing to use the power means you’re required to do all 3 of those things, which doesn’t make any sense. If instead we treat each list element as a separate instruction, then the only optional one is moving. If “you may” was intended to be on each element separately, they would have just written it that way in my opinion or at the very least made the separator between the 2nd and 3rd power an “or” (to imply you choose one of the three things) instead of an “and” (to imply all are in effect); the existing cards are usually very verbose and explicit about such things.

Really? It seems quite clear to me that all three abilities are optional, and that the meaning of the card is:

-you may move at the end of your turn
-you may add 1d8 to your combat checks
-you may reduce Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Range combat damage dealt to you by 4

You mention that they should have written "or" instead of "and" to indicate this, but to me that would have been more confusing; in that case, would you only be allowed to do a single one of those three things per casting of the spell? It would have been unclear if, after using the spell to add to your combat checks, you could also use it to prevent damage or move.

I also believe that, if the designers wanted only the move to be optional, they would have written the power this way instead:

"While displayed, add 1d8 to your combat checks, reduce Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Range combat damage dealt to you by 4, and you may move at the end of your turn."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.

So, Winds of Vengeance, Fire Shield, Chalice of Ozem, and Sphere of Fire could all be displayed and used immediately. Since the Brutalized Flesh Golem requires a recharge, it could not.

Another example would be the Hunter Class Deck Cohort, Pygmy Ankylosaur, which has both of these powers:

-While displayed, you may reduce all damage dealt to you by 1.
-While displayed, you may put this card on top of your deck to reduce all damage dealt to you by 4, or to 0 if you have a role card.

So we would allow a player to display and use the first power in response to taking damage, but not the second power.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Card layout-wise, I really feel the "hour" and the "traits" locations on the cards should have been switched. Now, when holding a hand of cards, the traits will be mostly hidden.

Also seems like there's more "unused" space on the card. I hope the size of the text in the Powers box won't be smaller than on the current cards.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Available now! 5-1-Threads-Unravel

Hi all!

Nok-Nok the Godthief here, ready to play!

American East Coast, just to have even more time zones in there...

So... How do I set up/ use an alias for this game, like TColMaster and Dinketry have?

Race Dorsey wrote:
I'm unsure when Season 5 Adventure Deck 1 will be available. We played it at Gen Con but the reporting option for these scenarios hasn't gone up yet either. Between that and the product not being up on the site I am guessing it isn't intended to be released quite yet. Or someone needs to flip a switch somewhere.

Strangely, Adventure 1 was listed on the site for a day or two last week, but has since been removed.

You're also missing all the Lems from the OA1 list.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Version 5.1 of the Guide clarifies this by being explicit in the one other place you might think to apply it:

• If your character is not from an Ultimate Add-On Deck, you may add the cards from any 1 Ultimate Add-On Deck.
• If your character is from an Ultimate Add-On Deck, you may add the cards from any 1 Class Deck or Character Deck (but not a Character Add-On Deck, another Ultimate Add-On Deck, or any other type of deck).

Is version 5.1 available anywhere online? The current version for the PDF on this site is still 5.0.


Brother Tyler wrote:
For those of you that don't pop into the blogs on a daily basis, the blog entry for the Ultimate Equipment Add-On Deck, including the iconic ninja, Reiko, hit the street (it's not appearing here in the PACG forums - yet).

It's actually listed in the Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild forum:

Back when the RotR and S&S promos were made available for sale here on, the WotR promos had also been added soon after before being quickly removed less than a day later.

Are there any plans for the WotR promo cards to be sold on at some point in the future?

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?

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?

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>