|
St@rm@n, I just have to ask: Does your screen name mean you're a fan of the movie/TV show Starman from the 80's, the comic book superhero Starman, or something else? Sorry, but as a fan of that old movie and TV show, and having read the completely unrelated 90's comic of that name, I just couldn't resist asking.
As for your statements in this thread, you keep talking as if the "implied you" stuff was added after the fact to change the rules. This simply isn't the case. It's just English language grammar. "You" as the subject of those sentences was always there, but many people just didn't notice it. It's a subtle part of the English language that native speakers instinctually go along with in most situations, but don't realize on a conscious level why it works the way it does.
For example, what are the subjects of the following sentences?
"Discard this card to explore your location."
"Explore your location."
I'll agree that relying on one of the more subtle aspects of English language grammar isn't the clearest way to express meaning, especially in a game that will likely be played around the world, sometimes by people who don't speak English as their native language. But trying to claim that it's any sort of change in the rules, or argue with the clarifications that rely on it, is just wrong.
But that is different from discard this card to explore a location.
In your examples "your" is the implied you.
This is not an english essay it is a set of game rules and I could see no reason why discard/recharge/banish a card to explore a location could not be done by one player to aid another. This is a fantasy game and we already have cards working over distance to aid checks.
My screen name was given to me years ago basically as I had done a mathematical analysis of astrological calculations based on sideral calendar (winding back time to show 4000 year old constellations and mapping current dates against them) This gave fix positions as a reference. The data showed that the constellations were just a backdrop against a time line which measured collated data. The stars were just place holders. Interesting side effect when you worked out someone's astrological data and plotted it in 3 it comes out as a double helix.
|
|
But that is different from discard this card to explore a location.
In your examples "your" is the implied you.
This is not an english essay it is a set of game rules and I could see no reason why discard/recharge/banish a card to explore a location could not be done by one player to aid another. This is a fantasy game and we already have cards working over distance to aid checks.
The exact wording on cards with that ability is "Discard this card to explore your location." If you agree that the implied "you" is there, then what is there to debate? The fact that you can only use it for your own exploration on your turn is how the cards work, per the rules.
As for why it works that way, it's because that's how the game was designed. From a plot/theme perspective, you're right - you could come up with a fantasy reason why it could let you help others. Or you can explain it as your character having the blessing, which makes you the blessed one, so the gods only want to help you specifically.
I couldn't tell you why the creators chose to make it that way. Maybe they felt it was the most balanced way to design it. And it seems to work pretty well as a balanced game, so I'm enjoying it as is. If you want to house rule that you can use these cards to give someone else an extra exploration on their turn, then go for it.
My screen name was given to me years ago basically as I had done a mathematical analysis of astrological calculations based on sideral calendar (winding back time to show 4000 year old constellations and mapping current dates against them) This gave fix positions as a reference. The data showed that the constellations were just a backdrop against a time line which measured collated data. The stars were just place holders. Interesting side effect when you worked out someone's astrological data and plotted it in 3 it comes out as a double helix.
Interesting, though definitely not an answer I was expecting. :)
But that is different from discard this card to explore a location.
No, it's not. There is still an implied "you" in the phrase, "Discard this card to explore any location."
Think of it as an instruction. The card is instructing someone to discard it. Who is it instructing? The player who has it in their hand, because only the person holding the card can play it.
So the card is basically saying, "Hey you, the guy who's holding this card! Discard this card, then explore a location."
The guy doing the discarding has to be the one to do the exploring. If he's not allowed to do an exploration now, he's not eligible to discard the card now.
When an instructor is talking to you directly and he says "Do all of the homework to learn the course material", he means he wants YOU to do all the homework so that YOU learn the material. He's not saying YOU do all the homework so that your classmate Bob learns the material.
That example has the EXACT same sentence structure as "Discard this card to explore a location." The cards is telling YOU to discard so that YOU explore a location. No one gets to discard but YOU. No one gets to explore but YOU.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the ruling is specifically tied to the words "defeat" and "evade". It's more general than that. I think ANY time *you* play a card, the implied subject is *you* (i.e. the one playing the card). So long as it makes sense for *you* to take the action at the time *you* try to play the card, *you* may do so. Otherwise, *you* can't play the card.
Let me try to explain that another way. The generic syntax of most cards is "[Play] this card to do [verb]", where [Play] could mean reveal, display, discard, banish, recharge, or bury. The implied subject is always *you*, the one holding the card in your hand, so it's implied that *you* are the one doing [verb]. In other words, the card can be read as, "*You* [play] this card so that *you* do [verb]."
Yes to all that!
I'm not happy with the wording on Tome of Knowledge. If the intent is that it can only help you, it should say "succeed at your check" instead of "succeed at a check" and if the intent is that it can help others, it should say "choose a character to succeed at a check". I will check with Mike to verify his intent.
So all the cards can only be played by the holder for an action to be carried out by the holder unless the card states otherwise.
Which is a lot different than the rule as stated under playing cards which allows a card to be played at any time if it does not have restrictions, apart from during a check when a strict sequence need to be followed.
The implied "you" makes a nonsense of Blessings of the gods which allows "you" to play a card to add a die to another's check.
I would much prefer a straight forward statement than all this implied stuff as I still feel it could imply something else.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm not happy with the wording on Tome of Knowledge. If the intent is that it can only help you, it should say "succeed at your check" instead of "succeed at a check" and if the intent is that it can help others, it should say "choose a character to succeed at a check". I will check with Mike to verify his intent.
The intent is that the second power is designed to help only yourself. FAQ updated.
So all the cards can only be played by the holder for an action to be carried out by the holder unless the card states otherwise.
Which is a lot different than the rule as stated under playing cards which allows a card to be played at any time if it does not have restrictions, apart from during a check when a strict sequence need to be followed.
The implied "you" makes a nonsense of Blessings of the gods which allows "you" to play a card to add a die to another's check.
I would much prefer a straight forward statement than all this implied stuff as I still feel it could imply something else.
I still don't see the issue with Blessing of the Gods in this context. If I'm holding a BotG in my hand while someone else is making a check, the rulebook says I can play it then to affect their check:
Play Cards That Affect the Check (Optional): *Players* may now play cards from their hands to affect the check. Each player may play no more than 1 of each card type; for example, 2 different players may each play 1 spell to help your check, but no single player may play 2 spells. Players may not play cards at this time unless the cards affect your check...
Extra emphasis on *players*. That rule is what would allow *me* to play the BotG in my hand to add to a die to *another player's* check. Even though *another player* is the one attempting the check, *I* am the to discard the BotG and *I* am the one to add a die to the check. The rule quoted above is what allows *me* to do this in this situation.
Contrast that with BotG's other effect: "Discard this card to explore your location." Again, if *I* discard it, then *I* explore my location. But if it's another players turn, I can't do this because the rulebook explicitly says so:
You may never explore on another player’s turn.
Well, @St@rm@m, you now have the official word from Vic so it's time to take PACG off the shelf (after it's brief hiatus) and relearn the game. Trust me - it's still REALLY fun. And if your new understanding makes it a little harder then that's just a little more challenge for you, which is only a good thing. Right?
Thanks to Vic for helping us out here.
And special congratulations to @QuantumNinja for figuring out the underlying missing element and giving us all a much-needed grammar lesson!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Here's the deal: most card powers boil down to two parts, which I'll refer to as "pay a cost" and "activate a power." Unless it tells you otherwise, *you* pay the cost, and *you* activate the power. "You" are the implied subject for both paying and activating. But *activating* the power is not the same as *benefiting* from that power. Whenever it makes sense (and unless you're told otherwise), anyone can benefit from that power.
Maybe it'd help illuminate things if I give some examples, pairing the implied subject with the verb, and isolating them in brackets:
Longsword (1st power):
Cost: [You reveal] the card.
Power: For your combat check, [you roll] your Strength or Melee die + 1d8
Who can benefit from your rolling? Only you: "your" combat check.
Night Watch (2nd power):
Cost: [You discard] the card
Power: [You explore] your location.
Who can benefit from your exploring? Only you: "you explore."
Blessing of the Gods (2nd power):
Cost: [You discard] the card.
Power: [You add] 1 die to a check.
Who can benefit from your adding? Anybody making a check, because there are no restrictions stated on the check that you're adding to.
Thieves' Tools (1st power):
Cost: [You reveal] the card.
Power: [You add] 1 die to your Disable check.
Who can benefit from your adding? Only you: "your" disable check.
Thieves' Tools (2nd power):
Cost: [You discard] the card.
Power: [You defeat] a barrier.
Who can benefit from your defeating? Only you: "you defeat."
Potion of Glibness:
Cost: [You banish] the card.
Power: [You choose] a character at your location to succeed at a check.
Who can benefit from your choosing? The character you choose.
Holy Water (1st power):
Cost: [You discard] the card.
Power: [You evade] a bane.
Who can benefit from your evading? Only you: "you evade."
Guard (2nd power):
Cost: [You banish] the card.
Power: [You reduce] damage dealt to any character.
Who can benefit from your reducing? Any character.
Levitate:
Cost: [You discard] the card.
Power: [You move] a willing character.
Who can benefit from your moving? Any willing character.
Blast Stone:
Cost: [You banish] the card.
Power: [You add] 1d4 to a combat check at your location.
Who can benefit from your adding? Anyone making a combat check at your location.
If there's a particular card power that's confusing you, let me know, and I'll help you break it down.
Here's the deal: most card powers boil down to two parts, which I'll refer to as "pay a cost" and "activate a power." Unless it tells you otherwise, *you* pay the cost, and *you* activate the power. "You" are the implied subject for both paying and activating. But *activating* the power is not the same as *benefiting* from that power. Whenever it makes sense (and unless you're told otherwise), anyone can benefit from that power.
....
Thank you Vic
That is basically what I have been trying to say I had no issue with who can play and activate it and I think almost everyone understood the implied you in this context. Which is why it didn't need spelling out in a grammar lesson.
I was basically trying to decide when it made sense for anyone to benefit from the power when the card did not indicate and inline with Playing cards in the rule book. I never understood why people thought I could not understand who played the card when every example I made was about who benefited.
Vic has already sorted the Intention behind Tome of knowledge.
So this brings us back to some of the original issue which is who benefits.
As the above examples show when the power states you,yours at a location or any its normally quite clear. Just because "you" pay the cost does not always mean "you" benefit.
It is other cases and I can see why this may need a few more FAQ entries.
If the card has a power to evade, close or defeat then "you" must be the active player and the player playing the card to benefit from it.
Blessing of the Gods when compared to the others seems no different oin structure from Thieves tools 2nd power so all this implied you and your is not helping me, only the explicit statement of either Blessing of the Gods 2nd power can be used to benefit anybody or when evading, closing, defeating only you can play cards to help yourself.
Therefore a non active player , unless specifically noted on a card, cannot discard a card to meet the active players closing, evade or defeat requirement.
This seems to mean that only time you can play a card for someone else to benefit is during a check , unless the card clearly states it.
Which is as I posted here and elsewhere quite different from the first rule in Playing cards. So this rule definitely needs to be changed.
@St@rm@n - the powers, as written, on Thieves Tools and BotGods are:
Thieves' Tools: Discard this card to defeat a barrier...
BotGods: Discard this card to add 1 die to a check.
If you replace "to" with "to allow you to" then there is no inconsistency here. The interpreted cards are:
Thieves' Tools: Discard this card (to allow you) to defeat a barrier...
BotGods: Discard this card (to allow you) to add 1 die to a check.
It should then clear that Thieves' Tools can only be used when you personally face a barrier and BotGods can be used to add 1 die to anybody's check.
There is nothing inconsistent here, but it could perhaps be pointed out and made clearer in a FAQ.
With regard to the rulebook, it says "If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time". That could perhaps be clarified as "you can play it at any time that it has a material effect".
In other words, you could try to play Thieves' Tools at any time but the reality is that it's effect only works (so is only legal to play) when you face a barrier. You're happy that you cannot play it when you face a Monster (because there's no 'legal target'), so why not just be happy that you cannot play it when somebody else faces a barrier?
The basic problem is that the paizo folks thought it was obvious that only the active player could defeat, evade, or succed at a check.
The thing is that board gamers are all Rule's lawyers at heart, so they didn't see this as obvious.
The solution is to state specifically in the rules that "only the player encountering a card can defeat, evade, or succed at a check". Without this change, you will never satisfy the obtuse.
...well, except when a card says "discard this card to allow a character at your location to evade a monster"!
To me it's a nuance of the card writing. Once you understand that nuance, everything's very clear. It's like understanding what a die was... it took me a little while to understand but now it's clear.
Blessing of the Gods (2nd power):
Cost: [You discard] the card.
Power: [You add] 1 die to a check.
Who can benefit from your adding? Anybody making a check, because there are no restrictions stated on the check that you're adding to.---
Thieves' Tools (2nd power):
Cost: [You discard] the card.
Power: [You defeat] a barrier.
Who can benefit from your defeating? Only you: "you defeat."---
Err, I am sorry but the important point here is not the "YOU" it is the "A".
You play to blessing to add to "A" check, any check. But you use thieve's tool to defeat "A" barrier, only your barrier.
It make no sense. Either "A something" means any or it mean yours. I think Thieves tool should be rewritten to specify a Barrrier you are encountering, because currently it is like BotG and affect A barrier, any barrier.
@NathanielGousset - I think we all need to sympathise with Paizo here. There's limited space to write things on the cards and they thought the language used was self-evident/clear. Some people got it immediately, some others (myself included) needed some nudging to get to the right place.
I can see where you're coming from, but Vic's posts have clarified this for anybody that reads this thread. YOU cannot 'defeat' something that YOU are not encountering and that's all there is to it. There's no 'window' to play a card like this during the encounter resolution process (which we all know is locked down), only to play cards to boost the check in hand. Auto-passing is not boosting a check (it's bypassing it) and perhaps this is what needs to be clarified in the FAQ?
For me, the only remaining question is how best to help other people understand how these cards work, by either adding to the general FAQ or specific card errata. IMHO, I think a more general FAQ entry is needed because I imagine there are going to be lots more cards like this in the rest of the AP.
You're free to play the game however you like! House rules are the lifeblood of happy gaming groups.
For me, I like to know how the designers intended it to be played and I try to stay as true to that as possible. The game is still a great co-op and everybody really has to work together as a team to get through the scenarios before the Villain escapes.
Not everybody misunderstood the cards. I've seen several posts from people that were surprised we ever questioned this!
And I know I felt kind of cheesy when I (mistakenly) used a Thieves' Tools to defeat a different character's barrier at a different location. It just felt wrong and I *knew* I was at best stretching the limits of the intended gameplay.
Perhaps the main culprit is that sentence in the rulebook which says "If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time, with the exception that during each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited."
This seems to be the root of many people's misunderstanding of these cards.
Rewording this (or adding some more details about the to defeat, to evade, to explore, etc cards) might be something useful for the FAQ.
In Paizo's (continued) defence, this is their first card game AFAIK and a co-op one at that. Quite possibly the hardest combination to write rules for! We are the pioneers, buying into this first release. I, for one, am happy to be along for the ride, bumps and all, because there's a really great game - and great adventuring experiences to be had - underneath it all.
yes h4ppy as has been stated this is the source of all the inconsistency.
If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time, with the exception that during each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited.
Tome of knowledge requires changing / FAQ entry then so do any following its path and contradicting the above rule.
Basically anything that allows you to circumvent a check is an exception to the above role and can only be played by the active player.
If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time with the following exceptions
1. To circumvent a check or close a location you have to be the active player carrying out a Defeat, Disable, Evade or Close action.
2. During each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited.
|
|
And I still say the easiest way to think of this is in terms of cards that affect checks (die rolls) and cards that don't.
Cards that change die rolls (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location.
Cards that do something other than affect a die roll can only be used to help yourself.
Period.
And yes, I'm well aware that probably half the boon cards in the game are exceptions to this, starting with every weapon, every "blast" spell, and every potion. But those cards are explicit enough with wording like "your check", "at your location", "choose a character to ...", etc that there's no need to argue about them.
I have yet to see an explanation or example from Mike or Vic that doesn't agree with this rule of thumb. I really think that if they confirm that my rule of thumb is accurate, this is the easiest way to explain it to people, and this is what should be added to the FAQ and updated rulebook.
And I still say the easiest way to think of this is in terms of cards that affect checks (die rolls) and cards that don't.
Cards that change die rolls (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location.
Cards that do something other than affect a die roll can only be used to help yourself.
Period.
And yes, I'm well aware that probably half the boon cards in the game are exceptions to this, starting with every weapon, every "blast" spell, and every potion. But those cards are explicit enough with wording like "your check", "at your location", "choose a character to ...", etc that there's no need to argue about them.
I have yet to see an explanation or example from Mike or Vic that doesn't agree with this rule of thumb. I really think that if they confirm that my rule of thumb is accurate, this is the easiest way to explain it to people, and this is what should be added to the FAQ and updated rulebook.
I don't disagree with you, its just your easy way of thinking about it isn't everyone else's and certainly not mine.
Its not the half the cards that have you or yours etc on its the other half that only have "a" on.
I just don't want to have to examine the grammatical construct of every card that isn't explicit. From other forums I also know others feel the same as me. Is this just something RPG players accept, this just reinforces that they are not for me.
I cannot see why my suggestion to change the play a card rule is not acceptable, its clear and does not require a reconstruction of every sentence on the cards.
Oh and I am not convinced your statement above is true "Cards that change die rolls (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location."
I would accept that Cards that impact a check (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location but that is not in doubt as it is quite clear from the rulebook.
I realise there is a strong group that think this is all obvious but there are also others that don't.
From Vic's post I believe he recognises this and is happy to clarify individual cards.
This game is attempting to bridge the gap between genres and maybe if you want to encourage this some posters could be more easy going and stop using slightly insulting terms such as "Rules lawyer" because we want a good rule set and to play the game as intended.
We also don't need grammar lessons especially when it centred around language that was never in doubt and as Vic pointed out it was who benefits from the action that I and others were asking about.
Over on the BGG games can live or die by their rules and where PACG is nowhere near the LOTR Dice Building Game fiasco, I believe Paizo may need to accept that part of its target audience wants a more structured defined rule book. To be fair part from a few cards which are in the FAQ it the Play Cards rule section that needs tidying up, specifically when you can play cards that have no restrictions, to benefit others actions.
I would also like to see some designers notes on how the co-op is meant to be co-operative. Apart from some basic planning on this character would be better at that location or paired with a certain character, the newly clarified rules mean passing chards is more important than playing them , however this is extremely costly in terms of time and lost actions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
And I still say the easiest way to think of this is in terms of cards that affect checks (die rolls) and cards that don't.
Cards that change die rolls (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location.
Cards that do something other than affect a die roll can only be used to help yourself.
Period.
And yes, I'm well aware that probably half the boon cards in the game are exceptions to this, starting with every weapon, every "blast" spell, and every potion. But those cards are explicit enough with wording like "your check", "at your location", "choose a character to ...", etc that there's no need to argue about them.
I don't think it's that simple either.
@VicWertz - there was a clarification suggested by @faded on the BGG forums. I've posted it on the "when to play cards" forum which is where I think this discussion has moved to.
I will have a major clarification on this shortly as well.
It was in my "skill and dice are not the same" guideline in this post.
It is definitely not the rulebook's job to do what you suggest. It's the card's job. However, there are some methods of interpreting cards in the rulebook that you should follow when doing so.