The villain Gogmurt has the effect "You may not play allies with the Animal trait".
The question is: can Lini use her "reveal an ally with the Animal trait to add 1d4 to a check" power when fighting Gogmurt?
I know that this power doesn't count as playing the card you reveal but, because the power itself requires an Animal ally (to which Gogmurt is immune) what happens here?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Since you're only using the Animal to power your character's power, I see no reason why you couldn't use it. Think of it more like Lini is getting the animal to use the "aid another" action to help her with her checks... the animal isn't directly attacking Gogmurt or anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the rule book and the FAQ their are numerous references that classify revealing a card as one the actions that come under playing a card.
Playing a card means activating a card’s power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing the card. When a card has multiple powers, you must choose one of them
I realise that the card reveal is a sub action of Lini's power but discarding is almost always a sub action of something and it is in the same list.
On that basis and to he consistent I would say no As revealing the card is playing the ally. The whole point of Gogmurt is that it neutralizes animals.
@St@rm@n - yes, this is where my dilemma comes from.
However, we also need to bear in mind the concept that "when a card is used to pay the cost for a different power then the 'payment' card is considered blank (and cannot be recharged)". But I don't know how far this stretches, since it's an unofficial concept gleaned from the forums rather than something concrete from the rules.
In the 'playing a card' section of the rules, the first sentence is "Playing a card means activating a card’s power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing the card."
In the Lini case we are not 'playing the card', we are activating her power - and just revealing the Animal Ally card as 'payment'. But the power requires the payment card to be an Animal Ally, which is exactly what Gogmurt is immune to.
I think the rules as written mean that she CAN use the power? But it feels wrong to me, so I wonder what the designers' intent is here and what her power really represents... is she channeling 'energy' from the animal and then using it to focus? Or is the animal harrying/interacting with the bane? In the latter case it would seem to make sense that the power could not be used?
You are activating its animal trait to enable a power.
We probably need a FAQ entry / clarification that using a card as payment does not count as playing a card unless a specific card trait is required.
Or
"when a card is used to pay the cost for a different power then the 'payment' card is considered blank (and cannot be recharged) and no element on the card , including a trait, can be used."
The wrongness is self evident.
We've got this at the moment:
Playing a card means activating that card's power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing that card. Doing something with a card that does not activate that card's power does not count as playing that card. For example, if Kyra discards a spell to activate her healing power, it doesn't count as playing that spell (meaning she also can't recharge it).
Since it's not "playing the card" either it's meant to be OK or Gogmurt/Lini needs a FAQ (which is, of course, painful if it's just for this one edge case).
Basically what I am saying however we are not discarding a blanlk card but using a specific trait to activate a power. Granted not that cards power.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
But since you're not using the card's power, then you should be able to use the card. Seems very cut-and-dry to me.
St@rm@n, I know you're just trying to understand the game and play "correctly" but I think your semantic arguments are more detrimental to others' understanding than they are helpful. I'm not trying to incite an argument or anything here, I've just noticed that your arguments are generally REALLY specific about wording, and sometimes you just have to use common sense when interpreting this game. At least that's how I've understood Vic and Mike's posts.
Actually in this case I think the opposite is in play and perhaps trying to see how it could fit in with the rules.
The spirit of this situation would indicate you cannot use the animal ally.
If you look at the response to a lot of my points especially when care has been taken to answer the actual issue I am raising e,g, the one on default die that the second sentence is confusing. Which was my original point and not the issue as described in the first sentence which everyone focussed on.
Many of my questions have resulted in A FAQ entry but far more have FAQ entries that have surprised many of the major contributors.
I feel wording is important to clear understanding. In this case the rule is clear but the common sense says its wrong for this situation.
At this point in time I have given up trying to play the game correctly or at all. I just want an updated FAQ with the 3-4 things Mike has indicated are in progress and thn it would be great if an updated rulebook was available.
Some advice given to me on how to play has been overturned and so much has changed it is hard to work put what is even intended let alone correct.
Why is it any less reasonable for you or someone else to make a point based on common sense or implied words than for me to comment on the words as written.
My first post on this thread quoted the rules. I had not noticed it had been reworded in the FAQ I just wish we had one source an updated rulebook without the need to constantly cross reference the FAQ(which is needed and aI am glad its there) and this forum to keep up with the latest changes.
I bought the game to play it and every weekend I hope that enough has been sorted so that I can re introduce it at Monday night sessions. remember for every poster there is probably hundreds of others with the same issues. I see the same questions raised on BGG and when it was played on club night. I know others have said this on here and BGG but it is awkward when you have to keep explaining that despite the rulebook the game should be played this way because I saw it on a forum which may then contradict how a previous card ws played.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
You know, you're right about the common sense on this case. Common sense would say you can't use your Animal ally at all against Gogmurt if the ability specifically requires Animal allies. You win this round :)
In general, though, I worry that the arguments about semantics of specific cards are making thing MORE complicated, not LESS. I don't understand why, while you're waiting for the creators to update their FAQs, you can't play in the way that makes the most sense to YOU and your group. The creators of the game have jobs, an I'm sure that they have other things on their plates than just updating the FAQ every single day with a new ruling. I just feel that you're being unreasonable with your expectations that they fix every single little problem with the game RIGHT NOW, because it's a BIG game.
You should have seen the playtest... there were really big problems with the game, and the creators listened to all of our input and made the game WAY better. They're doing that now also, but they need a little time to get everything done.
Does that make sense?
But since you're not using the card's power, then you should be able to use the card. Seems very cut-and-dry to me.
St@rm@n, I know you're just trying to understand the game and play "correctly" but I think your semantic arguments are more detrimental to others' understanding than they are helpful. I'm not trying to incite an argument or anything here, I've just noticed that your arguments are generally REALLY specific about wording, and sometimes you just have to use common sense when interpreting this game. At least that's how I've understood Vic and Mike's posts.
The semantic arguments that St@rm@n and others make are tremendously useful to me. Some may see it as nitpicking, but I see it as finding issues that we can fix in future releases.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The semantic arguments that St@rm@n and others make are tremendously useful to me. Some may see it as nitpicking, but I see it as finding issues that we can fix in future releases.But since you're not using the card's power, then you should be able to use the card. Seems very cut-and-dry to me.
St@rm@n, I know you're just trying to understand the game and play "correctly" but I think your semantic arguments are more detrimental to others' understanding than they are helpful. I'm not trying to incite an argument or anything here, I've just noticed that your arguments are generally REALLY specific about wording, and sometimes you just have to use common sense when interpreting this game. At least that's how I've understood Vic and Mike's posts.
Fair enough, Mike, consider my statements retracted. I just get frustrated when I see you guys doing what I consider is a great job on getting things updated, yet so many posts saying you could do better.
Thanks Mike, really glad my input is useful.
and @cartmanbeck I am not asking for anything "RIGHT NOW" you seem to be putting words in my mouth.
I am waiting and hoping it will stabilise soon , I havn't put a time limit on it and I don't recall pressuring anyone for answers the odd hint or reminder.
It is my choice to wait and you don't need to understand why but as you have sort of asked :- I have had a go at playing it and I got a lot wrong ,since then there have been at least 5 major changes and a dozen minor ones and Mike is considering some more, that change the game quite a lot. We want to play as a campaign and not develop our characters on shifting sands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, Mike, consider my statements retracted. I just get frustrated when I see you guys doing what I consider is a great job on getting things updated, yet so many posts saying you could do better.
This line shows up every time someone makes a post.
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk.As long as that is observed, I'm fine with anything that comes my way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The villain Gogmurt has the effect "You may not play allies with the Animal trait".
The question is: can Lini use her "reveal an ally with the Animal trait to add 1d4 to a check" power when fighting Gogmurt?
I know that this power doesn't count as playing the card you reveal but, because the power itself requires an Animal ally (to which Gogmurt is immune) what happens here?
Your comment begins "I know that this power doesn't count as playing the card you reveal," and that's where it should end too. If it doesn't count as playing a card, it's not playing a card.
Thanks for the clarification Mike!
As some other people echoes on this thread, it 'felt wrong' to be doing it but if it's fine, it's fine.
I'll be sure to send Lini in to face Gogmurt personally to make the most of it next time I take a party through that scenario :)
We've added this to the FAQ.