Awhile ago i was under the assumption that a check ended after the dice were rolled, and this allowed a player to play spells like arcane armor after the check before taking damage. I believe i got that Idea from Mike. i see that has changed with the FAQ on Arcane Armor, and know the Take Damage section is included as part of the check.
A recharge section has also been added to the FAQ, and this takes place before the resolve the of the encounter step.
So, i guess the check is now completed after taking damage, since you will be able to recharge cards, and before resolving the encounter.
Correct?
A monster that deals damage after the encounter does so outside of any check, so this takes place after resolve the encounter?
On the Back of the rulebook under attempting checks. The last step is resolve the check.
Should that be changed in the FAQ, to resolve the encounter? Since it seems like the check ends before this step?
I thought the rulebook was clear that 'damage reduction' was a separate phase so you could play, for example, one spell on the combat itself and then another one to reduce damage?
You may only play 1 card of each type at any given time; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon to modify the same combat check or more than 1 spell to prevent damage from a single encounter.
I've seen comments from Mike suggesting that this 'damage reduction' phase is a separate check so think that the FAQ, in this instance, is actually making things less clear!
...unless I've completely misunderstood the damage reduction phase!
A major clarification on this is coming as well. Short answer: All of that is in the check.
@Mike - so that means that, by default, each character CANNOT play cards/powers for damage reduction if they used the same types/powers on the check itself?
By default, yes. I'll get this clarified soon.
Interesting... so can we expect that damage reducing spells will generally be exceptions to the "one spell per check" rule then? Otherwise, it sure does seem that their usefulness will decline pretty steeply. Why bring a card like arcane armor at all, for example, if you couldn't use it because you actually attempted to make the check. Perhaps these spells need to be reclassified in some way, similar to how weapons and armor are separate classifications, and thus can both be used.
@Mike - Wow... that's a pretty major change compared to what I understood!
So you cannot (until card errata/updates say otherwise):
- use Guard if you used an Ally during the check
- use Bracers of Protection if you used an Item during the check
- use Mirror Image / Arcane Armor if you played a Spell during the check
I look forward to seeing the update! (And would be grateful if you could update this thread when there's some news on this)
Thanks!
Oh, and when working out the updated wording keep in mind whether you intend for people to be able to play BOTH Arcane Armor and Mirror Image (or any two cards of the same type) or even two of the same card (e.g. two Arcane Armors) on the same damage reduction/check and be careful to word the errata accordingly!
|
@Mike - Wow... that's a pretty major change compared to what I understood!
So you cannot (until card errata/updates say otherwise):
- use Guard if you used an Ally during the check
- use Bracers of Protection if you used an Item during the check
- use Mirror Image / Arcane Armor if you played a Spell during the checkI look forward to seeing the update! (And would be grateful if you could update this thread when there's some news on this)
Thanks!
Agreed. This is one ruling I definitely didn't see coming, or particularly like. I'll have to see what the final decision is, but this may be the one detail of the game I choose to house rule.
|
|
I'm pretty sure they've already ruled that Arcane Armor is an exception, in that it can be used even after using another spell in the fight. That one might actually be in the FAQ already - don't remember now.
But if they rule out using stuff like Amulet of Life or Bracers of Protection after using combat items like the Blast Stone or Sage's Journal, then that's a pretty big change to how we've been playing. I always thought of the damage phase as being separate from the combat check, so you're using a whole new set of cards.
@Mike - Wow... that's a pretty major change compared to what I understood!
So you cannot (until card errata/updates say otherwise):
- use Guard if you used an Ally during the check
- use Bracers of Protection if you used an Item during the check
- use Mirror Image / Arcane Armor if you played a Spell during the checkI look forward to seeing the update! (And would be grateful if you could update this thread when there's some news on this)
Thanks!
This is totally the opposite to how I understood the rule. I understood healing/damage reduction could occur after the encounter.
I will be quite interested in the final ruling. I am also concerned that we seem to be collating more and more exceptions.
Seems there is hardly a rule I have played correctly..:(
OK, feedback heard.
I think the confusing sentence is:
Just as with attempting a check, each player may play no more than one of each card type.
This may argue for rethinking what we intended. Hang on for a bit on this.
Mike
|
|
If you go back and look at the rulebook, Mike's statements on this are consistent with the rules. Pages 11 and 12 are mostly a big section on "Attempting a Check". Part of that process is "Take Damage, If Necessary", which includes playing damage reduction cards. So playing those cards has always been defined as part of the check process.
It just seems counter-intuitive to consider this part of the check, since most of us think of the word "check" as meaning the die roll, not all the accompanying steps that go with that die roll. It also seems counter-intuitive that the damage reduction cards you can use would be restricted, because of something that happened before you determined that you were taking damage.
EDIT: Heh. Ninja'd by Mike.
|
|
Thinking about it, the problem comes from this FAQ entry:
If I've already played a spell on a check, can I play Arcane Armor to reduce damage?
Generally, you can't play a second spell on a check unless it says so. However, damage-reduction spells (and only spells, for the most part) should usually say so.
Resolution: On the spell Arcane Armor, add the following at the end of the first power: "You may play this card even if you have played another spell on this check."
I'd say that instead of the resolution modifying the Arcane Armor card, and then leaving other damage reduction spells, items, and allies unresolved, the resolution should be in the rulebook instead. On page 12, there's a paragraph about using cards to mitigate damage. Just add a sentence or two in that paragraph to say that it's ok to repeat a card type during damage reduction that was used earlier in the check, but each player may only use one of each card type during the damage reduction phase. Unless the card says otherwise, of course (ie shields that can be used with other armor cards).
I'd assume that's the answer most of us are hoping for. Hopefully, it's compatible with Mike's original intention for these types of cards in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before I issue my ruling post on this (and lots of other things), let me see if I can explain why we play this way. I want to see how you react to it before going forward.
First, some allies:
Guard subtracts 3 damage from one check. It doesn't have an exception to the 1-per-check rule, so if you've already played another ally, you can't play it. Because it has the Basic trait, you can very likely get it back before the next scenario.
Archer adds roughly 2.5 to your check (call it 3 for now), so it is the equivalent of subtracting 3 damage -- but you might also win the check in the process, which is better than losing. It also doesn't have an exception to the 1-per-check rule. It does not have the Basic trait. If it gets banished, you're not easily getting it back.
Under these circumstances, if you can make a Ranged check, you always want the Archer for combat purposes. And that's exactly what we want, because Basic cards are worse than non-Basic cards, and exploring should get you better cards.
Now, some items:
Amulet of Mighty Fists adds roughly 2.5 to your check (call it 3 for now), but it comes at a huge cost: you can't use a weapon. It also doesn't have an exception to the 1-per-check rule. It has the Basic trait.
Bracers of Protection subtracts 1 from damage. It doesn't have an exception to the 1-per-check rule. It also has the Basic trait.
Sajan now has a choice: He can add 2.5 or subtract 1. He always takes the Amulet. But Harsk doesn't. He doesn't want to lose his weapon, so he ditches the Amulet and takes the Bracers.
In the next set you'll see Ring of Protection. Its text is:
Reveal this card to reduce damage dealt to you by 1. You may play another item on this check.
So it's vastly better than the Bracers. But you don't have it yet. You might want it, and when you find it, you'll toss those Bracers in the trash. Again, Basic cards are worse than non-Basic cards, and exploring should get you better cards.
Arcane Armor, on the other hand, was a problem. It's crucial that Arcane Armor have the "You may have played another spell" text, because Ezren, Seoni, and others are not going to give up their Acid Arrows for the chance to reduce damage. That's why we errataed it. (We're still working on Mirror Image, which may or may not get changed.)
I hope this helps explain why we did it this way. I can see why there was confusion. Does this explanation help resolve it? Are you swayed to my side?
Mike
A second note: As the designer, I can see all the cards to come. But it's clear people are evaluating this game as just the base set and character add-on deck, which is totally fair. But those two pairs of glasses might not have the same color lenses. Just something for me to think about.
I can see the choices and a parallel between do I use a two handed weapon or do I use a one handed one and a shield.
I think damage reduction allies and spells could be seen as healers post the damage and so it would be far easier to add a post damage step where they can be played following normal one per type rules. Less errata and in the spirit of your intention.
I include allies, items are not independent, whereas an ally will act by type with little direction, so 1 can attack and the other can protect the character without obstructing each other.
I'd love to hear about particular combinations of card-plays that people think might be disallowed by this rule, and how valuable those combinations feel to people.
Ignore Arcane Armor and Mirror Image for now, as we're already looking at those two.
I've seen Guard & Archer/Soldier/Acolyte/Snake/etc, and Amulet of Mighty Fists & Bracers of Protection/Sihedron Medallion. Any others?
I think damage reduction allies and spells could be seen as healers post the damage and so it would be far easier to add a post damage step where they can be played following normal one per type rules. Less errata and in the spirit of your intention.
To be clear, there are damage-reduction allies (Guard, Aldern Foxglove) and healing characters (Father Zantus, Ameiko Kaijitsu). They do different things.
Similarly, there are damage-reduction items (Bracers of Protection, Ring of Protection) and healing items (Potion of Healing, Staff of Minor Healing). They also do different things.
Mike
I think damage reduction allies and spells could be seen as healers post the damage and so it would be far easier to add a post damage step where they can be played following normal one per type rules. Less errata and in the spirit of your intention.
This is an interesting idea, but there are big functional differences between healing and preventing damage that make it troubling. If we were adding steps, I suspect that we'd be more likely to add a damage step directly, but that has its own impact.
Thanks!
|
|
Well, that does put it into perspective. I'm not sure if I like it, but at least I understand it better.
And really, I think the initial misunderstanding comes from people just forgetting that taking damage is part of the "check". I've said several times in discussions here that I thought the game definition of the word "check" is a die roll, and nobody has ever disagreed with me. Looking at the rules again from the perspective of this discussion, it's obvious that I was wrong about that definition. The word "check" means the entire series of steps on pages 11 and 12 of the rulebook, which includes rolling dice, but also much more.
So I knew all along you could only use one of each card type in a check, but I didn't think of the damage step as part of the check.
As for Chad's question of specific card combos affected, my big one is the Amulet of Mighty Fists with any damage reducing items. Our Sajan has been using those together all along, culminating with him getting the loot card at the end of Burnt Offerings. Though honestly, I don't know how often he actually lost fights while he had the amulet and a damage reducer in hand at the same time. It may never have actually happened, despite having those cards in his deck.
Other than that, my group never uses the Guard ally. We tend to avoid allies that don't have the "discard to explore" option, unless they have something else that's specifically awesome for that character, like the Acolyte for a spellcaster, or Shalelu letting you scout the top of the deck.
I've said several times in discussions here that I thought the game definition of the word "check" is a die roll, and nobody has ever disagreed with me.
That's on me. There have been a lot of threads.
|
|
I've said several times in discussions here that I thought the game definition of the word "check" is a die roll, and nobody has ever disagreed with me.That's on me. There have been a lot of threads.
I wasn't trying to assign blame, or say that you should have caught it and corrected me. I was just pointing out that it's an easy mistake to make. Most people focus on the die rolling aspect of making a check, so it's easy to overlook that taking damage is considered part of the check, rather than something that happens after the check, as many of us had apparently thought.
No, I know. But I would have written about this sooner if I'd processed it.
Thanks for clearing that up Mike.
Oops... quite a fundamental error on my behalf (and many of the other familiar faces on these boards)!
Having said that, I completely understand where you're coming from and how you've had this in mind when balancing the cards. I personally have no issue with this ruling/clarification - I'm just embarrassed to have got it so wrong in the first place!
And, heck, making the game a little harder is not a problem (at the moment, at least...).
Looks like I'll have to go through and play the whole first Adventure again. What a terrible shame. Not! And there was me thinking I'd have to wait for Skinsaw before doing more adventuring :)
Oh, not enough hours in the week!
Thanks for clearing that up Mike.
Oops... quite a fundamental error on my behalf (and many of the other familiar faces on these boards)!
Having said that, I completely understand where you're coming from and how you've had this in mind when balancing the cards. I personally have no issue with this ruling/clarification - I'm just embarrassed to have got it so wrong in the first place!
And, heck, making the game a little harder is not a problem (at the moment, at least...).
Looks like I'll have to go through and play the whole first Adventure again. What a terrible shame. Not! And there was me thinking I'd have to wait for Skinsaw before doing more adventuring :)
Oh, not enough hours in the week!
@Fromper in your post when you detailed 5 or 6 points I recall I posted I agree but you should change die roll to check. The When to play die thread.
@H4ppy now you know why I said I would shelve it until all these points were cleared up.
@Chad / Mike , I didn't literally mean a healing just a way to define them as post damage actions as opposed to avoid damage (Armour).
Now if Mike would just clarify the thread on default die. I may already to take it off the shelf.
Wow you guys have been busy. Thanks for all the clarifications, and it seems to have cleared things up for me. But this is all like a revelation, i'm really not sure if I have been playing it wrong, because i am not sure how many times this situation has come up. But i really missed this in my read through of the rules.
So, getting back to the question that I still don't think had been answered.
When does the check officially end?
Thanks
Let's go with (wording unofficial):
After you deal with all consequences of the check, but before you make any other checks.
Does the check include after the encounter damage etc.
I don't think so. The check is part of the encounter.
(But I've been wrong already today!)
In other words, I think it's:
1) before the encounter effects
2) the encounter itself (including the check and all checks relating to recharging cards used in the encounter)
3) after the encounter effects
Because it (Guard) has the Basic trait, you can very likely get it back before the next scenario.
One more thing, Mike... it's off topic, but since you mentioned it ;)
Can you always CHOOSE to go back to the box and pick up a basic card? Or can you only go back to the box if the party does not have enough of a certain type of card to fulfil everyone's deck requirements?
E.g. if the party has acquired lots of new allies and has more than enough for every character, can I choose to ignore them all and instead pick a (new) Guard from the box instead?
In the rules (emphasis mine) it says:
If you can’t construct a valid deck from the cards your group has available because you don’t have enough of certain card types, choose the extra cards you need from the box, choosing only cards with the Basic trait.
From your comment above it seems like you think it's easy to get a new Guard if you want one. But, in my experience, we're never short of cards so (following the "only if you can't" bit of the rules) can never go back to the box for replacement Basics and sometimes have to suffer with cards we found but feel are worse, rather than the basics we might prefer.
This seems thematic enough but, as ever, would be great to know what your intent was!
That is absolutely right.
Sorry... it's right that:
(a) you can always choose to go back to the box for basic cards (or whatever level related to the adventure/scenario you're playing)
or
(b) you can only take cards from the box when you're missing something
?
Sorry... it's right that:
(a) you can always choose to go back to the box for basic cards (or whatever level related to the adventure/scenario you're playing)
or
(b) you can only take cards from the box when you're missing something
?
I think Mike was referring to your reply to my question. Your second question on basic trait cards was posted within the same minute as his reply. Don't think he could have replied that fast.
By the rules: You can't get a Basic boon unless you've banished one. (Or your party has.)
Then again, this is one of those cases where you could simply make a new character and have him trade you the stuff you want, so whatever.
@Tracker1 - gotcha! Didn't notice the timestamps :)
So Mike was saying that http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q7dz?When-does-a-check-officially-end#32 was correct (which is nice to know)!
@Mike - but you can't create a new character unless you take him with you on the scenario, so we'll stick with "no going back to the box unless you don't have enough cards" for now.
Thanks again!
OK, I've made a first attempt at a timing sequence document and posted it on BGG:
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/95118/turn-sequence-breakdown
Hopefully this can be commented on and refined through community interaction so that we end up with a clear flow of what can happen when!
I don't see why not they are two separate checks and the only restriction is the active character must make one of them. Between , before or after checks you can play any time cards. He could cats strength before the first check as it lasts until the end of the turn.
So the first check would end after dealing damage (if any), and then the second check starts, so card types used for the first check can be used again. That makes sense
Yes, I think that's right.
It's what you end up with using my timing sequence doc too ;)