stevenjackson121's page

Thanks for the input Hawkmoon! We are going with the houserule that changes the order for Alchemist's kit so that it reads:

4.) "While displayed, [...] shuffle 1d4+1 cards [...]. Then banish [=discard] this card"

Personally I think re-grabbing alchemist's kit guaranteed after you play it is too powerful even once per turn (as in option 2), and this seems consistent with how many other (non-banish) healing spells work like Cure. As I'm the playing playing Skizza, there's no one else at the table who would object to the nerf being too heavy.

I don't like option 1 because I picked Skizza largely for the synergy with the Alchemist class deck (which my friend is playing Damiel from), and I've also kept several healing potions around specifically because I can use Alchemist's kit to bring them back (and then maybe use healing potion to get Alchemist's kit back). I've sacrificed all my potential ammunition slots for the ability to play a healer/gunslinger, and option 1 kills that off a little bit too hard.

Option 3 could work, but we discussed option 4 as the way we'd play it unless we learned RAW disallowed the cycle, at which point we'd follow RAW.

I'm concerned because while it's technically not an infinite cycle, it can be very close to one for all practical intents and purposes.

If you aren't worried about losing to the banes in a deck, you can repeat explore until you've exhausted all of the boons, since after each exploration Alchemist's Kit will be guaranteed to redraw both Flensing Jelly and Alchemist's Kit into your hand for the next iteration.

Doing this at a location like the Temple (which has 0 monsters and 0 barriers) when you know in advance the villian or the henchmen allows you to take it from 10 cards down to 1 (the henchman/villian) in a single turn. You'll even have weapons left at the end to beat the Henchman/Villian.

I'm leaning towards this being too powerful of an interaction (likely going to houserule it even if RAW allows it) since I'm not aware of any other combination of cards that allow a character to encounter every single card in a deck in one turn, with no (or very minor) drawbacks.

Even in the case where the banes are worrisome enough that you can't continue exploring with 0 cards, you can still combo over and over until you exhaust your other resources, then restart the cycle next turn. This allows you to quickly weed out all the boons in the deck, since you get all of those encounters "for free".

Note that taking damage on your initial free explore does not prevent the cycle, you simply use Alchemist's kit's power to redraw both, then play Alchemist kit, then use Flensing Jelly over and over.

This combo is available at Adventure deck 2, and both of the cards are very good on Skizza at this point anyways, he doesn't sacrifice any of his deck's power to set this combo up

Question: Is the following cycle legal?

I begin the turn with no Alchemical cards in my discard pile.

Step 1.) I can display Alchemist's kit (Adv 1 card) when I begin my turn. While displayed, there are next-to-no effects that can ever prevent me from losing this card.

Display this card. While displayed, when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait for its power, discard it instead

Step 2.) During my turn I explore using Flensing Jelly (Adv 2 card). It is discarded, not banished, because of either my innate power or Alchemist's kit's power.

Banish [=discard] this card to explore your location. During this exploration, add 1d4 and the Acid or Poison trait to your combat checks.

Step 3) As soon as I've finished the exploration granted by Flensing Jelly, I use Alchemist's kit second power

While displayed, bury[=discard] this card to draw 1d4+1 random cards that have the Alchemical trait from your discard pile. Then you may [...]

Step 3 (cont)This is a discard instead of a bury because of Skizza's power:

When you play a card that has the Alchemical or Firearm trait, [...] If you would bury or banish it, you may discard it instead

Step 3 (cont)As far as timing goes, anything before the "to" should happen before anything after the two, so I put Alchemical Kit in my discard pile *before* drawing 1d4+1 (minimum 2) cards with the Alchemical trait back into my hand.

Always perform the first action required by a power before performing any other action. For example, if a card says “Recharge this card to recharge a card from your discard pile,” recharge the card you’re playing before recharging the card from your discard pile.

Step 4: Go back to step 2 and repeat until you encounter the henchman.

At no point during the encounter sequence are either of these cards in your hand, so for early adventures next to nothing can stop the chain. Also in early adventures banes who cause you to bury (or banish) cards instead of dealing normal damage are relatively rare, so it's fairly safe (or guaranteed safe if you've viewed the location deck even up to adventure 6) to keep doing this even with 0 cards in hand and failing against every bane.

Is there a rule or errata that blocks this cycle? (Sorry for being brief, in game now and the question came up)

Hawkmoon and ElcoderDude, thanks for taking the time to respond and educate me. I apologize for not reading the most current rulebook before asking a question governing Organized Play.

The most recent rules make it quite clear that you are not playing Tower Shield when you reduce damage with it, so Angban's power does not work to enhance it, but you would be able to play another armor to reduce damage further.

Thanks for the reply Hawkmoon. I know you have a much higher degree of familiarity with and knowledge of this game than me, so I do not doubt your conclusion. To help enhance my own understanding however, I hope you can help clarify the correct interpretation of the last rule that I don't believe your answer (or linked url) touched on:

[...] performing another action required by that card

You play the Tower Shield when your display it. Once it is displayed, you do not have to do anything to activate it,v you just gain the benefit from it. Therefore, when it actually reduces damage, you are not playing it.

1. Are you performing an action with Tower Shield when it reduces damage? No, it is already displayed.
2. Are you activating the power on Tower Shield when it reduces damage? No, it is already active. See this comment.

If the Tower Shield said "you may reduce damage" then you would have to choose to activate it. But, just like you can't choose to not have the difficulty of your checks increased while it is displayed, you also can't choose to not have it reduce damage. Therefore it requires no activation. Therefore you are not playing it at that point.

I agree with both points 1 and 2. I mostly included them for a complete listing of the (potentially) applicable rules. I probably should have clarified that of the listed options, my reading of the rules and card would lead me to believe that I am

performing another action specified by that card

when I reduce damage received.

Some rules regarding what "actions" are:
Under the heading Playing Cards

Any paragraph in the power section of a boon that doesn't involve playing the card for a particular effect is not in itself a power-it's a mandatory action you must take.

Under the heading Attempting a Check

Attempting a check requires several actions that are explained below [...]

It's clear from the first quote actions are not synonymous with powers or playing a card, in fact things you do which don't involve playing the card don't count as powers but do count as an action.

It's clear from the second quote that "action" is a broadly used word in PACG. The first quote defines some sufficient conditions for a piece of text to be considered an action, but it's clear it is not establishing necessary conditions for a piece of text to be considered an action (otherwise the things from the second quote cannot be actions)

This broad definition in the rulebook lead me to believe that the effects of the Tower Shield (damage reduction as well as increased difficulty) would naturally be interpreted as "performing an action specified by [Tower Shield]."

Why is this not the case? (I understand the linked question dealt with "activation" but there is not activation here, merely performing a specified effect--potentially action)

EDIT -- Potential Answer
Is it because of the passive voice that it is not considered an action?
Would it be correct for me to assume that:

Active voice counts as Action

While displayed, reduce all damage dealt to you by 2 and increase the difficulty of all checks by 1d8, or 1d4 if proficient with heavy armors

Passive voice does not count as Action

While displayed, all damage dealt to you is reduced by 2, and the difficulty of your checks to defeat is increased by 1d8, or by 1d4 if proficient with heavy armors.

EDIT 2 --

The phrase "performing another action specified by that card" was put there specifically to make triggering powers on displayed cards also count as playing them. The card is correct, but that phrase in the rulebook could use some extra explanation.

According to the rulebook, actions are only specifically defined to include things which are not powers, and yet this quote says the rule about actions was intended to apply to powers.

If powers are actions, and non-power text are defined to be actions as well, then it seems to me that "action" covers just about anything a card tells you to do.

I just started using Angban in Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild, and I'm a bit confused about Tower Shield, which is a basic armor from his class deck. I want to know what the community consensus (or word of devs) is before I bring him to tables where I could see either of the following two claims being disputed:

1. It counts as playing Tower Shield, therefore it works with Angban's Power, meaning 3 ([ ] 5) reduction on all incoming damage as long as its displayed -- this seems stupidly strong for a basic card comboed with a base character power, and without advance agreement may be likely to be shot down at the table by a GM (Although it does make checks harder by 1d4 while displayed)

2. It does not count as playing Tower Shield, therefore you can play an armor from your hand to reduce damage which has already been reduced by Tower Shield -- this also seems very strong, but probably weaker than #1.

I'm inclined to think that it counts as playing the card based on the Wrath of the Righteous rules on Playing Cards. It feels that one of the conditions is certainly met.

* If you argue the damage reduction results from using a power on that card by [...] displaying it then that means you "played an armor to reduce damage dealt to you."
* If you argue the damage reduction results from activating a power on a displayed card then that means you "played an armor to reduce damage dealt to you."
* If you argue the damage reduction results from performing another action specified by that [displayed] card then that means you "played an armor to reduce damage dealt to you."

I would find it very hard to defend the argument that the damage reduction is not a result of any of these three things, which leads me personally to believe that the answer is #1:
Reducing Damage with a displayed Tower Shield counts as playing tower shield, and it works with Angban's power

Please let me know if you interpret it differently, and especially if you've seen it interpreted differently at a Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild game.

References:

When you play an armor to reduce damage dealt to you, reduce it by an additional 1 ([ ] 3)

At the start of any turn, display this card. While displayed, all damage dealt to you is reduced by 2, and the difficulty of your checks to defeat is increased by 1d8, or by 1d4 if proficient with heavy armors.

Playing a card means using a power on that card by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing that card or by performing another action specified by that card. Activating a power on a displayed card also counts as playing it.