Chief Technical Officer
|
We've been working on a subtle revision (mainly to the "Encountering a Card" portion of the rulebook) that fixes a few minor timing issues and answers a lot of frequently asked questions. However, our editorial team is pretty slammed, and it's going to be a few days before it gets the final polish. It's important enough, though, that I think it's worth posting in its current form.
[NOTE: This text has been superseded. Please see this post for the current text.]
• On page 10, under Playing Cards, replace the paragraph under the example with the following text:
"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 an encounter, you may only perform specific actions."
• Replace the Encountering a Card section with the following text:
Encountering a Card
When you encounter a card, you—and only you—can go through the following steps. No one else can do these steps for you, though other players might be able to play cards to help you deal with the encounter's challenges. During each of these steps, you and the other players may perform only the specified actions. You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon during a check or more than 1 spell to prevent damage from a single source, though multiple players could each play 1 spell to prevent damage from that source. You may only play cards that relate to each step, and may not play any cards or activate any powers between these steps. After you flip over the top card of the location deck, put it on top of the deck and read it, then go through these steps in order:
- Evade the card (optional): If you have a power or card that lets you evade the card you're encountering, you may immediately shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated.
- Apply any effects that happen before the encounter, if needed.
- Attempt the check: If it’s a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if it’s a bane, you must try to defeat it. (See Attempting a Check, below.) If a bane’s “Check to Defeat” section says “None,” look at the bane’s powers, and immediately do whatever it says there.
- Make the next check, if needed: If another check is required, such as if you played a boon with a check to recharge, or if your bane requires a second check to defeat, resolve it now.
- Apply any effects that happen after the encounter, if needed. Do this whether or not you succeeded at your checks.
- Resolve the Encounter: If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it; if you don’t succeed, it is undefeated— shuffle the card back into its location deck. If you succeed at a check to acquire a boon, put it in your hand; otherwise, banish it.
• Replace the Attempting a Check section with the following text:
Attempting a Check
Many times during the game, you will need to attempt a check to do something, such as acquire a new weapon or defeat a monster.
Each boon card has a section called “Check to Acquire.” This section indicates the skills that can be used in checks to acquire the boon, and the difficulty of the checks. If multiple checks are listed on the card with “or” between them, choose one of them. If you succeed at the check, put the card into your hand. If you fail, banish the card.
Each bane card has a section called “Check to Defeat.” This section indicates the skills that can be used in checks against the bane, and the difficulty of the checks. If multiple checks are listed on the card with “or” between them, choose one of them. If there’s a “then” between them, you’ll need to succeed at both checks sequentially to defeat the bane; you must attempt both checks, even if you fail the first (because failure often has consequences). “Or” takes priority over “then,” so if a card says “Wisdom 10 or Combat 13 then Combat 15,” you must first attempt either a Wisdom check with a difficulty of 10 or a Combat check with a difficulty of 13, and then attempt a Combat check with a difficulty of 15. In the case of a bane that requires multiple checks, any character at that location can attempt one or more of the checks, as long as the character who encountered the bane attempts at least one of them. If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it. If you fail to defeat any bane, it is considered undefeated and is shuffled back into the location deck. If you fail to defeat a monster, you take damage (see Take Damage, If Necessary, below). If you defeat the bane, it is banished.
Attempting a check requires several steps which are explained below.
Determine Which Die You’re Using: Cards that require a skill check specify the skill or skills you can use to attempt the check. Monsters often call for a combat check. Some cards have a check to defeat, while some have a check to acquire; still others have checks to recharge or checks made as part of using a power. “Check to Defeat” and “Check to Acquire” are followed by one or more skills; you may use any of the skills listed for your check. (For example, if a check lists Dexterity, Disable, Strength, and Melee, you may choose to use Dexterity, Disable, Strength, or Melee to attempt your check.)
Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one; you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that changes the skill you are going to use. When you play a card that does this, add that card's traits to the check; for example, revealing the weapon Longsword +1 for your combat check adds the Sword, Melee, Slashing, and Magic traits to the check. This isn't the same as giving you a skill, though; for example, the spell Holy Light adds the Divine trait to your check, but it does not give you the Divine skill. If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4. You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.
Most monsters can be defeated with a combat check. Weapons and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; if you don’t play such a card, use your Strength or Melee skill. (A few items that can be used in combat don’t use any of your skills; they instead specify the exact dice you need to roll or the result of your die roll.)
Determine the Difficulty: To succeed at the check, the result of your die roll and modifiers must be greater than or equal to the difficulty of the check. In checks to defeat a bane or acquire a boon, the difficulty is the number in the circle under the skill you’ve chosen. In other checks, the difficulty is the number in the text that follows the skill you’ve chosen. (For example, where a card’s power instructs you to attempt a Fortitude 7 check, the difficulty is 7.) Some cards increase or decrease the difficulty of a check; if, for example, a card says that the difficulty is increased by 2, add 2 to the number on the card you encountered; if it says that the difficulty is decreased by 2, subtract 2 from the number.
Play Cards and Use Powers 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; players may not play cards that modify a skill unless you’re using that skill, and players may not play cards that affect combat unless you’re attempting a combat check. Do not add traits from these cards to the check; for example, playing the spell Guidance does not give the check the Divine trait. If a card states that it is immune to a particular trait, players may not play cards with the specified trait. Additionally, players may use any powers that apply to the check. Each power may be used no more than once per check. If a bane is immune to a particular trait, players may not use powers that would give that trait to the check.
Assemble Your Dice: The skill you’re using and the cards you played determine the number and type of dice you roll. For example, if you’re attempting a check using your Strength skill, and your Strength die is d10, you’ll roll 1d10. If another player played a blessing to add a die to your check, you’ll roll 2d10. If a bane is immune to a particular trait, do not roll any dice with that trait.
Attempt the Roll: Roll the dice and add up their value, adding or subtracting any modifiers that apply to the check. If the result is equal to or greater than the difficulty of the check, then you succeed. If the result is lower than the difficulty, then you fail. No matter how many penalties are applied to a die roll, the result cannot be reduced below 0.
Take Damage, If Necessary: If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage. For example, if the difficulty to defeat a monster is 10 and the result of your check is 8, the monster deals 2 Combat damage to you. See Taking Damage, below.
• Insert a new section, Taking Damage:
Taking Damage
When you are dealt damage, you and other players may play cards and use powers that reduce or otherwise affect the specific type of damage you’re being dealt. If you’re being dealt Fire damage, for example, you may play cards that reduce Fire damage, or cards that reduce all damage, but you may not play cards that reduce only Electricity or Poison damage. Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source. If a card says it reduces damage, with no type listed, it reduces all types of damage.
When you are dealt an amount of damage, choose that number of cards from your hand and discard them. If you don’t have enough cards in your hand, discard your entire hand and ignore the rest of the damage.
• Add a new section to the back page, Encountering a Card:
Evade the Card (optional)
Apply Any Effects that Happen Before the Encounter
Attempt the Check
Make the Next Check, If Needed
Apply Any Effects that Happen After the Encounter.
Resolve the Encounter
• On the back page, replace Attempting Checks with the following:
Determine which Die You’re Using
Determine the Difficulty
Play Cards and Use Powers that Affect Your Check (optional)
Assemble Your Dice
Attempt the Roll
Take Damage if you lose a check against a monster
...
- Evade the card (optional): If you have a power or card that lets you evade the card you're encountering, you may immediately shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated.
- Apply any effects that happen before the encounter, if needed.
Maybe there should be a note or something for or before evade, explaining that you still have to check the card to see if it can't be evaded (e.g. Grindylow) or if it has a trait that would prevent you from evading it (e.g. Ancient Skeleton is immune to mental, so Invisibility couldn't be used to evade it).
I think the second part is important, because as written, you check for immunity after choosing to evade it or not.
You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon during a check ...
Isn't this contradictory? The first statement says you can only play 1 card of each type during each step, the example on the following statement says you can only play 1 weapon card on the whole check.
If the former is correct, Arcane Armor doesn't need the errata. If the latter is correct, the errata is valid.
@Nathaniel - my understanding is that cards which are played and pending recharge are 'in limbo'. They are not in your hand, deck or discard pile and cannot be affected by anything. They are 'spent' until after the encounter resolution, when you then choose the order in which to recharge them.
OK, lets have a go at editing this! I'll post in relatively bite-sized pieces...
• On page 10, under Playing Cards, replace the paragraph under the example with the following text:
"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 an encounter, you may only perform specific actions."
Remove the spare comma and clarify the end of the sentence, so it becomes: "... during an encounter you may only perform specific actions at specific times (as detailed below)."
Encountering a Card
When you encounter a card, you — and only you — can go through the following steps.......and then later...
Attempting a check requires several steps which are explained below.
It would be better to call the different things something other than steps, otherwise you're going to cause confusion with comments like "During each of these steps, you and the other players may perform only the specified actions."
Perhaps the overall encounter has "phases" and the attempt the check phase has "steps"? If you decide to clarify this they you'll need to do a global search of the entire docs to check that you use the words 'step' and 'phase' consistently. I'll try to use phase and step in the rest of this post...
You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon during a check or more than 1 spell to prevent damage from a single source, though multiple players could each play 1 spell to prevent damage from that source.
The preventing damage example is confusing (see the problems we've had recently with spells like Arcane Armor), see also my notes under the "taking damage" phase below. I think it would be better just to to say: "You may each only play 1 card of each type during each phase; i.e. each player may play up to one valid Ally, one valid Item, one valid Spell, etc per phase."
Oh and be careful saying "cannot" or "may not". Usually in these games negatives are absolute and individual cards cannot (!) over-ride them, although I think in PACG the manual says that only "cannot"s written on CARDS are absolute, not ones in the rulebook.
Evade the card (optional): If you have a power or card that lets you evade the card you're encountering, you may immediately shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated.
As noted by @Mechalibur, it might be worth clarifying the "lets you evade the card you're encountering" means that you have to check for resistances/traits (since you've repeated this clarification through the encounter steps).
Or replace it with an overall note that "Before you play any card, check if the bane you are facing is immune to any of the traits on the card you wish to play. If it is immune then the card cannot be played (e.g. you cannot use Invisibility to evade a Skeleton since it is immune to cards with the Mental trait)." Then keep the note about individual dice with traits in the "Assemble your dice" step.
Part two, attempting a check...
Attempting a Check
...In the case of a bane that requires multiple checks, any character at that location can attempt one or more of the checks, as long as the character who encountered the bane attempts at least one of them. If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it...
Two things here:
1) clarify that "multiple checks" means there's a THEN on the card. I've seen some people think that it means there's Wisdom 10 OR Combat 12, or even a single Wisdom/Arcane 10 check (since it has multiple options). Could clarify this by saying: "In the case of a bane that requires multiple checks separated by the "THEN" keyword, any character ..."
2) the "if the character ... is not able to attempt" bit is VERY confusing! Under what circumstance would this happen? You can always roll 1d4 for a check, even if you have none of the required skills. I guess it's possible you could be paralysed or something by a "before the encounter" effect? Or some side-effect of a different character attempting the first check? I think this could be improved by changing it to: "...In the case of a bane that requires multiple checks separated by the "THEN" keyword, the character that encountered the bane MUST attempt at least one of the checks. Any other characters at that location may attempt one or more of the additional checks. If, for some reason, the character who encountered the bane cannot attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it..."
2a) As a side note here, you say that "other players do not need to attempt checks". Can players CHOOSE to attempt one or (even all) of the checks (and suffer the consequences if they fail)? There are some circumstances where you might want to cycle certain cards out of your hand before your turn...
2b) Might be useful to add a note if a bane with multiple checks is undefeated and shuffled back into the deck then ALL the checks must be attempted again the next time it is encountered since cards do not have memories. There have been several threads asking about this.
Determine Which Die You’re Using: ... Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one; (See note 3)you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that changes the skill you are going to use. (See note 4)When you play a card that does this, add that card's traits to the check; for example, revealing the weapon Longsword +1 for your combat check adds the Sword, Melee, Slashing, and Magic traits to the check. This isn't the same as giving you a skill, though; for example, the spell Holy Light adds the Divine trait to your check, but it does not give you the Divine skill. (See note 5)If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4. You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.
3) Are there any cards that other characters can play here? I think the wording should either be "the party may play only one card/power that changes..." or "the turn character may play only one card/power that changes...", depending on whether anybody else can do so or not. The 'you' is potentially ambiguous and we're trying to clean that up!
4) Should be "...play a card or power that does this..." (e.g. Seoni's power)
5) These two sentences are confusing at best! I would change them to: "If you choose to test a skill not listed on your character card use 1d4 for your skill die (note that you cannot do this when recharging a card - you have to use a skill printed on your character card; see Recharge on page 15)." As far as I understand from these forums, the "only if another card gives your character that skill" text is incorrect and you can ALWAYS choose to roll 1d4 for any missing skill.
(A few items that can be used in combat don’t use any of your skills; they instead specify the exact dice you need to roll or the result of your die roll.)
6) To be super-explicit you might want a note here that "adding a die" to a skill-less check adds one more die of the type used by that item (e.g. blessing played on Wand of Force Missile adds 1d4). Or it might be added in the "Assemble Your Dice" step instead.
Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check (Optional): Players may now play cards from their hands to affect the check. (see note 8)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; players may not play cards that modify a skill unless you’re using that skill, and players may not play cards that affect combat unless you’re attempting a combat check. Do not add traits from these cards to the check; for example, playing the spell Guidance does not give the check the Divine trait. If a card states that it is immune to a particular trait, players may not play cards with the specified trait. Additionally, players may use any powers that apply to the check. Each power may be used no more than once per check. (see note 9)If a bane is immune to a particular trait, players may not use powers that would give that trait to the check.
7) To pass a really eagle-eyed editor, this whole section should say "Characters" not "Players", since one Player could have two Characters and they can both play a card of a given type! There are some other mentions like this in other sections, but it grated the most here ;)
8) If you used a spell in the "Determine which die you're using" step then my understanding is that the same character cannot play another spell in the "Play cards/powers that affect the check" step. This is not clear as written - this step could easily be read as meaning that your choices are reset at the start of this step. I suggest rewriting it to "Remember that each character may play no more than 1 of each card type on a single check. 2 different characters may each play 1 spell to help your check, but no single character may play 2 spells. Further, if you already played a card type (e.g. a spell) during the 'Determine Which Die You`re Using' step then you cannot play another card of that type (e.g. a second spell) in this step."
9) Wait... does this mean that powers add their traits to a check even if they're used in this step? I would guess that this is incorrect so rewrite it as: "If a bane is immune to a particular trait, players may not use powers that have those traits."
Take Damage, If Necessary: If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage. For example, if the difficulty to defeat a monster is 10 and the result of your check is 8, the monster deals 2 Combat damage to you. See Taking Damage, below.
10) Um... I thought combat damage was only if you failed a Combat check? E.g. if you fail a Wisdom check to defeat a monster I thought you suffered non-combat damage?
Part three... taking damage.
My only query here is whether the intention is that your card choices are reset for this step or not.
E.g. if you played an item during the check can use use an item to reduce damage (e.g. Bracers of Protection)? Or if you played a spell during the check can you play a spell to reduce damage (even ones that don't say and/or have not been FAQed to say that you can explicitly play them now in addition to other spells cast).
From Vic's post:
" If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it."
Me:
I know this is in the original rule book, but it has never come up. So, this means if i encountered a monster that just had an acrobatics check, and my character does not have the skill. It would just be shuffled back into the deck?
From Vic's post:
If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4. You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.
Me:
This seems to have not changed, but i know there have been some threads about the contradictory nature of these sentences. Specifically, your saying that I can use a skill that is not listed on my character card, but then the rule says i can only use a skill that is not listed on my card if another card gives my character the skill.
I understand how it works, but it is phrased in a way that makes me read it over a few times, and it is still puzzeling. Any better way to say it?
Could you say for the last scentence:
You may also use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card when another card gives your character that skill. In this case your die is still a d4.
Some thoughts on the taking damage section:
it could be made clearer that if, for instance, you played an item earlier in the check you cannot play an item to reduce damage. With what's written it almost sounds like I will have the option to play the same card types again. A reminder in this section could close up questions about this in the future.
Thanks for all the clarifications to make a great game even better.
From Vic's post:
" If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it."Me:
I know this is in the original rule book, but it has never come up. So, this means if i encountered a monster that just had an acrobatics check, and my character does not have the skill. It would just be shuffled back into the deck?
I don't think that's right... you can always attempt an Acrobatics check, you just roll 1d4. There might be some game effects we haven't seen yet that paralyse or otherwise prevent you from doing anything else on your turn but I think you usually have to attempt a check even if you're very bad at it.
From Vic's post:
If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4. You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.Me:
This seems to have not changed, but i know there have been some threads about the contradictory nature of these sentences. Specifically, your saying that I can use a skill that is not listed on my character card, but then the rule says i can only use a skill that is not listed on my card if another card gives my character the skill.I understand how it works, but it is phrased in a way that makes me read it over a few times, and it is still puzzeling. Any better way to say it?
Could you say for the last scentence:
You may also use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card when another card gives your character that skill. In this case your die is still a d4.
I don't think this is the intention... Mike has posted that you can ALWAYS use 1d4 (even if you have no cards that 'give' or 'boost' that skill. Would be nice to get this clarified once and for all.
Some thoughts on the taking damage section:
it could be made clearer that if, for instance, you played an item earlier in the check you cannot play an item to reduce damage. With what's written it almost sounds like I will have the option to play the same card types again. A reminder in this section could close up questions about this in the future.Thanks for all the clarifications to make a great game even better.
Agreed - see my comments in the posts above. But I'm not sure if the intent here was to change how things work and ALLOW you to re-use card types that you used earlier!
P.S. Vic, have you had a look at the Turn Sequence docs?
Would be...
(a) great to get an official "what you've said there is all correct" thumbs up (or some corrections)
and
(b) I think you could work wonders by turning something like this into a pretty flow-chart / timing diagram that showed what could be done when, when you can play certain cards, when your choices are reset, etc. If you make it pretty enough I'm sure it will virally spread through the PACG community as quickly as any FAQ or rule update.
From Vic's post:
" If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it."Me:
I know this is in the original rule book, but it has never come up. So, this means if i encountered a monster that just had an acrobatics check, and my character does not have the skill. It would just be shuffled back into the deck?
I don't think that's right... you can always attempt an Acrobatics check, you just roll 1d4. There might be some game effects we haven't seen yet that paralyse or otherwise prevent you from doing anything else on your turn but I think you usually have to attempt a check even if you're very bad at it.
Then i am very puzzled as to why this is in the rulebook. If you can always attempt the check even if the skill is not listed on your character card, then when will you ever be in a situation where you cannot not attempt the check. Maybe it will occur with the reason you have stated.
I don't think this is the intention... Mike has posted that you can ALWAYS use 1d4 (even if you have no cards that 'give' or 'boost' that skill. Would be nice to get this clarified once and for all....From Vic's post::
If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4. You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.Me:
This seems to have not changed, but i know there have been some threads about the contradictory nature of these sentences. Specifically, your saying that I can use a skill that is not listed on my character card, but then the rule says i can only use a skill that is not listed on my card if another card gives my character the skill.I understand how it works, but it is phrased in a way that makes me read it over a few times, and it is still puzzeling. Any better way to say it?
Could you say for the last scentence:
You may also use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card when another card gives your character that skill. In this case your die is still a d4.
I was just referring to the last sentence. The entire rewording would be:
If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4. You may also use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card when another card gives your character that skill. In this case your die is still a d4.
From Vic's post:
If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it.
I think what Vic is referring to is some text on the card or some game effect that prevents you from making the check to defeat a monster.
For example, you encounter a monster with the text "Before the encounter, make a Wisdom 10 check. If you fail the check, you may not attempt to defeat this monster." You then roll and fail the Wisdom check, so you would be prevented from attempting the "Check to defeat". In this case, you would simply shuffle it back into the location deck, essentially without encountering it; since you're not making the actual check, you cannot defeat it but you also do not take damage from the failed check.
I am not aware of any (or at least can't think of any) monsters or game effects that do this currently, but there may be some coming or that I am forgetting.
|
I believe that there are cards and situations later in the game that allow you to evade an encounter even after you have failed a check. The Summon Monster loot (spell) card and the Sign of Wrath spell both come to mind.
I know that this is an exception but whatever clarification that is published should keep this in mind.
Might I suggest adding an "Evade the card (situational):" as a new 4th bullet under the Encountering a card section.
|
|
Should the statement "Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source" be "Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source unless a card states otherwise" instead? I know that Magic Shield works this way and I think that Ring of Protection will too.
|
|
Should the "Take Damage, If Necessary" be added to the "Apply any effects that happen before the encounter" and the "•Apply any effects that happen after the encounter" bullets?
Should "Take Damage" and "Taking Damage" be "Resolve Damage" and "Resolving Damage" instead? This topic concerns both damage prevention and assigning damage.
|
|
Does "Resolve the Encounter" need a cross reference to "Henchmen" and "Encounter a Villain" sections of the rules?
Maybe something like this?
"Resolve the Encounter: If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it; if you don’t succeed, it is undefeated— shuffle the card back into its location deck. (For Henchmen also see page 15 and Villains page 16 for additional rules.)
If you succeed at a check to acquire a boon, put it in your hand; otherwise, banish it."
|
So I had some time to go through this in detail. Note that I haven't read any of the other responses yet, so some of this may be redundant.
Encountering a Card
When do cards that auto-defeat an encounter get played? ie Caltrops, Thieves Tools, most potions, etc. I'd assumed they'd be playable at the optional evasion step, but they aren't mentioned here. The fact that these types of cards can't be used on someone else's check should be mentioned, as long as you're re-writing things.
I notice the word "may" in the check to acquire a boon section, compared to "must" for banes. That seems like a confirmation that acquiring boons is an optional roll.
I'd change the wording of "Make the next check, if needed" to "Make additional checks, if needed". There are situations where there may be more than one additional check - ie Playing multiple rechargeable cards for the initial check, or using a rechargeable spell against a monster with two checks to defeat. Now there's a question: If someone plays a rechargeable spell on the first check against a monster with two checks to defeat, do they make the check to recharge the spell before or after attempting the second check to defeat the monster? Probably doesn't matter, but I just thought of it.
Resolve the Encounter: When you say that undefeated banes get shuffled back into the deck, you should point out that villains and summoned banes are exceptions. Also, it says that defeated banes get banished, and the exception for villains should be pointed out.
Attempting a Check
You may want to be very specific that not every die roll is a check, so cards that affect checks might not affect other die rolls. For example, I've seen the question on whether blessings can add an extra die to the amount of healing from a Cure spell at least twice now, so it's probably worth answering here.
When a different character attempts a check against a monster with more than one check to defeat, who takes the damage if the check fails? I'd assume the character making that check, but this isn't specifically addressed.
Again, at the end of the first paragraph, it says that undefeated banes are shuffled back into the deck, and defeated banes are banished, without mentioning the exceptions for villains and summoned banes.
I would change the wording of "(For example, if a check lists Dexterity, Disable, Strength, and Melee, you may choose to use Dexterity, Disable, Strength, or Melee to attempt your check.)" to "For example, if a check lists Dexterity, Disable, Strength, and Melee, you may choose to use any one of those four skills to attempt your check." Besides the wording change, why was that sentence in parentheses? There are a few sentences like that throughout, and I don't understand why any of them are in parentheses.
After all the debate, you still didn't change the wording of "If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check" to add the word "Even" at the beginning! That really needs to be addressed clearly here.
Like most of the rulebook, this uses the word "player" when it should say "character" all over the place. Usually it won't matter, unless one player is controlling more than one character, as often happens in solo games.
"If a bane is immune to a particular trait, players may not use powers that would give that trait to the check."??? Just checked, and this is in the original rulebook, too, but I just hadn't thought about it before. Anyone wanna bet on how many monsters in later adventures will be immune to fire (Seoni-proof)?
I notice this is missing the clarification on what it means to add a die. I know that's in the FAQ, but as long as you're rewriting this section of the rulebook, the "Assemble the Die" section is a good place to include it.
Thank you for including the specific definition of combat damage that I requested. :)
Taking Damage
"Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source." I notice there's no mention of not being able to play card types that the same player used during an earlier step of the check. I thought spells were the exception, but for other card types, you could only use one per check, including the damage section of the check. ie You can't use a Blast Stone item to boost your combat roll, then use an Amulet of Life to reduce the damage when you roll badly, because they're both items affecting the same check.
Again, I haven't read responses to this thread, so I'm sorry if I'm being redundant. I'll go through the other people's responses when I have more time.
From Vic's post:
" If the character who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need to attempt checks against it."
Concerning this, so far, there's no instance that it'd kick in, but it's possible that later on, there will be banes that do things 'before the encounter' that may cause this to happen. There may also be a bane that has specific huge immunities.
Perhaps a card will say "Before the encounter, reset your hand." and then if the person ends up dying to this, then the bane is undefeated, all its bad stuff happens if it has anything else that it can do, and then it's shuffled back in. There's no chance for anyone else to attempt to defeat it since the encountering person couldn't attempt any checks.
Perhaps a card will say "Before the encounter, make a Dexterity check with difficulty 5 or you cannot make any more checks until your next turn."
Maybe there will be a card that says "In order to attempt to defeat the Evil Cultist of Whosawhatsus, you must discard a blessing."
There's no telling what cards might come up (though so far the first option seems the most likely out of the three mentioned here), but there's a chance that things can happen that keeps a character from being able to make a check after they flip the card for the encounter.
When do cards that auto-defeat an encounter get played? ie Caltrops, Thieves Tools, most potions, etc. I'd assumed they'd be playable at the optional evasion step, but they aren't mentioned here. The fact that these types of cards can't be used on someone else's check should be mentioned, as long as you're re-writing things.
In my timing docs I figured you had to put this after the "Determine the difficulty" step in case some of the auto-pass cards are worded "To pass a dexterity check..." or "To pass a dex-based combat check with a max difficulty of 7..."
I think it's after the evade step and at least after the "Determine the skill" step, but willing to be corrected on this (and will update the Turn sequence docs when there's an official answer).
I'd change the wording of "Make the next check, if needed" to "Make additional checks, if needed". There are situations where there may be more than one additional check - ie Playing multiple rechargeable cards for the initial check, or using a rechargeable spell against a monster with two checks to defeat.
I think the point is that you have to make ONE check at a time. So, to me, Vic's wording is right. You have to do the next (one) check, (then the next, then the next, until there are none left).
Now there's a question: If someone plays a rechargeable spell on the first check against a monster with two checks to defeat, do they make the check to recharge the spell before or after attempting the second check to defeat the monster? Probably doesn't matter, but I just thought of it.
For me it has to be before you start the second bane check. The rechargable cards are 'pending' and should be dealt with as soon as possible. Which is before you start a new bane check.
Resolve the Encounter: When you say that undefeated banes get shuffled back into the deck, you should point out that villains and summoned banes are exceptions. Also, it says that defeated banes get banished, and the exception for villains should be pointed out.
I didn't comment on these since there are separate Summoned cards, Henchman and Villain sections. But perhaps pointing out that these extra rules should be checked would make sense. Then again, this is fairly early in the rulebook and is laying out the basics of a check sequence so doesn't necessarily need to cover all the extras.
When a different character attempts a check against a monster with more than one check to defeat, who takes the damage if the check fails? I'd assume the character making that check, but this isn't specifically addressed.
It's the character making the check, AFAIK.
After all the debate, you still didn't change the wording of "If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check" to add the word "Even" at the beginning! That really needs to be addressed clearly here.
+1 for this, as I mentioned above in my post :)
Like most of the rulebook, this uses the word "player" when it should say "character" all over the place. Usually it won't matter, unless one player is controlling more than one character, as often happens in solo games.
+1 for this too, but I guess it really doesn't matter too much.
Thank you for including the specific definition of combat damage that I requested. :)
Is this from a thread somewhere? Because it's not what I understood combat damage to be... I thought combat damage came from failing a combat check, but hope to be enlightened on this soon!
|
|
When do cards that auto-defeat an encounter get played? ie Caltrops, Thieves Tools, most potions, etc. I'd assumed they'd be playable at the optional evasion step, but they aren't mentioned here. The fact that these types of cards can't be used on someone else's check should be mentioned, as long as you're re-writing things.In my timing docs I figured you had to put this after the "Determine the difficulty" step in case some of the auto-pass cards are worded "To pass a dexterity check..." or "To pass a dex-based combat check with a max difficulty of 7..."
I think it's after the evade step and at least after the "Determine the skill" step, but willing to be corrected on this (and will update the Turn sequence docs when there's an official answer).
It can't be after the "Determine the Skill" step, because that would allow you to play a card in that step which doesn't matter. ie Valeros could recharge a weapon just to cycle through his deck, then use holy water to win the encounter, without rolling for the weapon attack. That's why I was thinking it would go in the evade step - auto-defeats prevent a die roll, so I'd think they prevent the entire check, so you'd never even enter into the "Attempting a Check" sequence.
I'd change the wording of "Make the next check, if needed" to "Make additional checks, if needed". There are situations where there may be more than one additional check - ie Playing multiple rechargeable cards for the initial check, or using a rechargeable spell against a monster with two checks to defeat.I think the point is that you have to make ONE check at a time. So, to me, Vic's wording is right. You have to do the next (one) check, (then the next, then the next, until there are none left).
I just don't like that the current wording implies that there's only one "next check". Maybe make it "Make each additional check" or something like that. Or leave the wording Vic posted, but with a sentence on the end to say "Repeat as many times as necessary to get through all subsequent checks."
Resolve the Encounter: When you say that undefeated banes get shuffled back into the deck, you should point out that villains and summoned banes are exceptions. Also, it says that defeated banes get banished, and the exception for villains should be pointed out.I didn't comment on these since there are separate Summoned cards, Henchman and Villain sections. But perhaps pointing out that these extra rules should be checked would make sense. Then again, this is fairly early in the rulebook and is laying out the basics of a check sequence so doesn't necessarily need to cover all the extras.
I like having this mentioned every place that it talks about what to do with a defeated or undefeated bane, just to avoid confusion. If one part of the rulebook gives the details on beating a villain, and the other part just says all defeated banes are banished, then someone's going to ask why they contradict each other. Or a newbie who doesn't remember everything they read the first time through will go to look it up and find this section first, so they'll never look for the other section, because this part doesn't tell them to.
Thank you for including the specific definition of combat damage that I requested. :)Is this from a thread somewhere? Because it's not what I understood combat damage to be... I thought combat damage came from failing a combat check, but hope to be enlightened on this soon!
That's a good question, I guess. This is more of a definition of combat damage than exists in the original rulebook, but you're right that it's not perfect. A confirmation or denial that failing to defeat a monster on a check other than a combat check causes combat damage would be useful.
When do cards that auto-defeat an encounter get played? ie Caltrops, Thieves Tools, most potions, etc. I'd assumed they'd be playable at the optional evasion step, but they aren't mentioned here. The fact that these types of cards can't be used on someone else's check should be mentioned, as long as you're re-writing things.In my timing docs I figured you had to put this after the "Determine the difficulty" step in case some of the auto-pass cards are worded "To pass a dexterity check..." or "To pass a dex-based combat check with a max difficulty of 7..."
I think it's after the evade step and at least after the "Determine the skill" step, but willing to be corrected on this (and will update the Turn sequence docs when there's an official answer).
It can't be after the "Determine the Skill" step, because that would allow you to play a card in that step which doesn't matter. ie Valeros could recharge a weapon just to cycle through his deck, then use holy water to win the encounter, without rolling for the weapon attack. That's why I was thinking it would go in the evade step - auto-defeats prevent a die roll, so I'd think they prevent the entire check, so you'd never even enter into the "Attempting a Check" sequence.
Well, like I said - I'm happy to be told I'm wrong! However, I am pretty sure that auto-passing a check has to happen later than the evade window, since I think "Before the Encounter" and "After the Encounter" effects still happen.
So (referring to my turn sequence docs), if I'm wrong about its timing, I think the other options are either somewhere in the "Choose which skill to test" step or completely outside of the Check sequence.
P.S. I, personally, think "Choose which skill to test" is a much better name for the first step of the check sequence than "Determine Which Die You’re Using", but that's a whole other thread!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Maybe there should be a note or something for or before evade, explaining that you still have to check the card to see if it can't be evaded (e.g. Grindylow) or if it has a trait that would prevent you from evading it (e.g. Ancient Skeleton is immune to mental, so Invisibility couldn't be used to evade it).
I think the second part is important, because as written, you check for immunity after choosing to evade it or not.
Immunity may not be in the right place. Discussing.
You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon during a check ...Isn't this contradictory? The first statement says you can only play 1 card of each type during each step, the example on the following statement says you can only play 1 weapon card on the whole check.
If the former is correct, Arcane Armor doesn't need the errata. If the latter is correct, the errata is valid.
Yeah, terminology issue. Tentatively changing the sentence "Attempting a check requires several steps which are explained below" to "Attempting a check requires several actions which are explained below." Since a check is a step, both are correct.
1) clarify that "multiple checks" means there's a THEN on the card. I've seen some people think that it means there's Wisdom 10 OR Combat 12, or even a single Wisdom/Arcane 10 check (since it has multiple options). Could clarify this by saying: "In the case of a bane that requires multiple checks separated by the "THEN" keyword, any character ..."
Replacing "multiple" with "sequential" (a term which has already been explained).
2) the "if the character ... is not able to attempt" bit is VERY confusing! Under what circumstance would this happen?
Future design space.
2a) As a side note here, you say that "other players do not need to attempt checks". Can players CHOOSE to attempt one or (even all) of the checks (and suffer the consequences if they fail)?
Changed to "the bane is undefeated; other players do not attempt checks against it."
2b) Might be useful to add a note if a bane with multiple checks is undefeated and shuffled back into the deck then ALL the checks must be attempted again the next time it is encountered since cards do not have memories. There have been several threads asking about this.
This will be covered in the metarules.
3) Are there any cards that other characters can play here? I think the wording should either be "the party may play only one card/power that changes..." or "the turn character may play only one card/power that changes...", depending on whether anybody else can do so or not. The 'you' is potentially ambiguous and we're trying to clean that up!
You means you. This is backed up by the earlier statement that "When you encounter a card, you—and only you—can go through the following steps. No one else can do these steps for you..."
4) Should be "...play a card or power that does this..." (e.g. Seoni's power)
Nope. Seoni's power does not add the Female, Human, and Sorcerer traits to the check!
More later.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
7) To pass a really eagle-eyed editor, this whole section should say "Characters" not "Players", since one Player could have two Characters and they can both play a card of a given type! There are some other mentions like this in other sections, but it grated the most here ;)
You're suggesting phrasing like "Characters may now play cards from their hands to affect the check"? Nope. As far as the rulebook is concerned, players are the ones that sit around a table and have hands and decks and discard piles and take actions like playing and drawing cards. Characters are the ones that move around locations and have traits and skills and proficiencies.
For most sessions, they happen to be 1:1, so it's of no import, but reworking everything to say things like "Each player may play no more than 1 of each card type per character" would likely end up confusing more people than it helped.
10) Um... I thought combat damage was only if you failed a Combat check? E.g. if you fail a Wisdom check to defeat a monster I thought you suffered non-combat damage?
You are correct that this represents a change from prior responses: Failing a check to defeat a monster does actually always result in Combat damage unless that monster tells you it's another kind of damage.
(Note that the actual rules didn't really address the issue. Only my statements on the boards ever definitively said otherwise.)
Mike has convinced me that that's the right answer. Take Ghost, for example—you might be trying to exorcise it with a Divine check, but when it hits you, it's doing Combat damage to you just as if you were trying to fight it with your bare hands. We went through every monster that can be defeated with a non-Combat check, and it makes thematic and mechanical sense for every one that doesn't already override it (like Siren).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I believe that there are cards and situations later in the game that allow you to evade an encounter even after you have failed a check. The Summon Monster loot (spell) card and the Sign of Wrath spell both come to mind.
I know that this is an exception but whatever clarification that is published should keep this in mind.
Might I suggest adding an "Evade the card (situational):" as a new 4th bullet under the Encountering a card section.
Should the statement "Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source" be "Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source unless a card states otherwise" instead?
A very big benefit of the "cards break the rules" metarule is that it avoids us from having to add text like "unless a card states otherwise" or spelling out other exceptions (like the evasion issue) that are triggered exclusively by a card or two somewhere in the set. (Summon Monster doesn't do it anymore, but Sign of Wrath still does...)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Should the "Take Damage, If Necessary" be added to the "Apply any effects that happen before the encounter" and the "•Apply any effects that happen after the encounter" bullets?
No—that was one of the big organizational changes here, and it may not be obvious from the formatting in the messageboard post. "Taking Damage" is now a secondary header, on the same level as "Attempting a Check" or "Summoning and Adding Cards". It comes into play whenever you are required to take damage, inside or outside of a check. We don't need to call that section out here, just like we don't need to call out the bit that tells you that drawing a card means adding it to your hand (even though you could be required to draw a card before or after the encounter, too).
The reason that "Attempting a Check" has a "Take Damage" action is because that's the place that tells you "If you fail a check to defeat a monster, take Combat damage." (And then it points you to the Taking Damage section.)
Should "Take Damage" and "Taking Damage" be "Resolve Damage" and "Resolving Damage" instead? This topic concerns both damage prevention and assigning damage.
I would agree that "resolving" is probably a better word for what happens here, but we've already defined the whole damage resolution kaboodle as "taking damage" and it is referred to as such by at least one future card.
10) Um... I thought combat damage was only if you failed a Combat check? E.g. if you fail a Wisdom check to defeat a monster I thought you suffered non-combat damage?You are correct that this represents a change from prior responses: Failing a check to defeat a monster does actually always result in Combat damage unless that monster tells you it's another kind of damage.
(Note that the actual rules didn't really address the issue. Only my statements on the boards ever definitively said otherwise.)
Mike has convinced me that that's the right answer. Take Ghost, for example—you might be trying to exorcise it with a Divine check, but when it hits you, it's doing Combat damage to you just as if you were trying to fight it with your bare hands. We went through every monster that can be defeated with a non-Combat check, and it makes thematic and mechanical sense for every one that doesn't already override it (like Siren).
OK, noted. I always thought that things like failing the DIVINE check for the Ghost led to some kind of mental damage (non-combat) rather than combat damage you could mitigate with a shield or armor. But I'm happy to go with this if that's the new decision.
Oh, and RE: point (4) about Seoni - I see what you did there. Clever! ;)
(i.e. powers do not always add traits to a check, but Seoni's power explicitly says that it does add certain traits to a check)
I guess this applies to my point (9) as well. I.e. powers do not normally add their traits to a check but if they do then you have to consider any relevant immunities before using the power.
Thanks for the work on this and consideration of our comments!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I notice the word "may" in the check to acquire a boon section, compared to "must" for banes. That seems like a confirmation that acquiring boons is an optional roll.
I didn't realize that was in question. Yes, that "may" has always been there; you may choose *not* to acquire a boon.
After all the debate, you still didn't change the wording of "If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check" to add the word "Even" at the beginning! That really needs to be addressed clearly here.
Sorry—I'd noted that change in another file, but hadn't migrated it to this one. "Even" is good.
Taking Damage
"Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source." I notice there's no mention of not being able to play card types that the same player used during an earlier step of the check.
That's correct, because the Taking Damage section now lies outside of taking a check. The "no more than one card of type" restriction now lives where it really belongs—in "Encountering a Card", where it applies to each step.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I guess this applies to my point (9) as well. I.e. powers do not normally add their traits to a check but if they do then you have to consider any relevant immunities before using the power.
Yeah—expect immunity to become more a universal concept than it is. That is, it needs to work uniformly, and in places other than just "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check" and "Assemble Your Dice".
That's correct, because the Taking Damage section now lies outside of taking a check. The "no more than one card of type" restriction now lives where it really belongs—in "Encountering a Card", where it applies to each step.Taking Damage
"Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source." I notice there's no mention of not being able to play card types that the same player used during an earlier step of the check.
This is a biggie!
Just to be clear, when you say each 'step', do you mean that your choices are reset at the start of each of each step within the "Encountering a Card" phase (i.e. at the start of each check and whenever you take damage) or at the start of each step within the "Attempting a check" sequence?
E.g. If it's the former then each character would be allowed to play one spell per check and one spell per damage resolution. If it's the latter then you would be able to play a spell for Determine Which Die You’re Using Choose which skill to test, then play another spell for Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check and then another one in the (now separate) Take Damage phase.
If you could let us know then I'll update the turn sequence docs to reflect this. (I'd guess it's the former but nice to be sure!)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Just to be clear, when you say each 'step', do you mean that your choices are reset at the start of each of each step within the "Encountering a Card" phase (i.e. at the start of each check and whenever you take damage) or at the start of each step within the "Attempting a check" sequence?
Tell me what you take away from this:
Encountering a Card
...During each of these steps, you and the other players may perform only the specified actions. You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon during a check or more than 1 spell to prevent damage from a single source, though multiple players could each play 1 spell to prevent damage from that source...
These are the steps that are part of Encountering a Card:
•Evade the Card (optional)
•Apply Any Effects that Happen Before the Encounter
•Attempt the Check
•Attempt the Next Check, If Needed
•Apply Any Effects that Happen After the Encounter
•Resolve the Encounter
These are the actions that are part of Attempting a Check:
•Determine which Die You’re Using
•Determine the Difficulty
•Play Cards and Use Powers that Affect Your Check (optional)
•Assemble Your Dice
•Attempt the Roll
•Take Damage if you lose a check against a monster
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Determine Which Die You’re UsingChoose which skill to test
We won't be making that change. For one thing, nothing in the cards or rules uses the word "test," and for another, the current terminology is linked with the "For your [X] check, roll your [Y] die" phrasing that appears on a bazillion cards.
'actions' = perfect way to clarify the difference with 'steps'.
It's clear to me now (i.e. you can play one card of each type during "Attempt the Check"), but I don't think that diagram clearly shows that taking damage is outside of the sequence and therefore resets your choices.
Maybe it's a formatting issue as you alluded to above.
Or perhaps you could tweak the proposed wording for the new Damage phase?
Taking Damage
When you are dealt damage, you and other players may play cards and use powers that reduce or otherwise affect the specific type of damage you’re being dealt. If you’re being dealt Fire damage, for example, you may play cards that reduce Fire damage, or cards that reduce all damage, but you may not play cards that reduce only Electricity or Poison damage. Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source. If a card says it reduces damage, with no type listed, it reduces all types of damage.
To:
When you are dealt damage, you and other players may play cards and use powers that reduce or otherwise affect the specific type of damage you’re being dealt. This phase is not part of the encounter sequence and your card/power options are reset every time you are dealt damage. If you’re being dealt Fire damage...
One final(?) note on this new damage wording - it starts "When you are dealt damage...(you can then try to reduce it)..." then the second paragraph also starts the same: "When you are dealt an amount of damage, choose that number of cards from your hand and discard them..."
It might be better to use different wording for these damages to differentiate between the damage you start with and the damage you end up with.
Thanks again for your quick replies!
We won't be making that change. For one thing, nothing in the cards or rules uses the word "test," and for another, the current terminology is linked with the "For your [X] check, roll your [Y] die" phrasing that appears on a bazillion cards.
Determine Which Die You’re UsingChoose which skill to test
It's the die/skill bit that's potentially confusing. On the back of the printed manual it says "Determine the Skill You’re Using" rather than "Determine the Die You’re Using" which I felt was clearer.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I don't think that diagram clearly shows that taking damage is outside of the sequence and therefore resets your choices.
It's not, and it doesn't! If you play an Attack spell during a check to defeat a monster, the intent is that you cannot also play a damage prevention spell (unless, of course, that spell tells you otherwise) during that same check. That's why Taking Damage is an action inside of the Attempting a Check step.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I don't think that diagram clearly shows that taking damage is outside of the sequence and therefore resets your choices.It's not, and it doesn't! If you play an Attack spell during a combat check, the intent is that you cannot play a damage prevention spell (unless, of course, that spell tells you otherwise) during that same check. That's why Taking Damage is an action inside of the Attempting a Check step.
Note, though, that if a monster were to damage you before the encounter, during the encounter, and after the encounter, you *can* play a damage prevention spell during *each* of those steps (or reveal the same Elven Breastplate three times)...
I don't think that diagram clearly shows that taking damage is outside of the sequence and therefore resets your choices.It's not, and it doesn't! If you play an Attack spell during a combat check, the intent is that you cannot play a damage prevention spell (unless, of course, that spell tells you otherwise) during that same check. That's why Taking Damage is an action inside of the Attempting a Check step.
Sorry, Vic - I completely misunderstood your reply to @Fromper...
That's correct, because the Taking Damage section now lies outside of taking a check. The "no more than one card of type" restriction now lives where it really belongs—in "Encountering a Card", where it applies to each step.Taking Damage
"Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source." I notice there's no mention of not being able to play card types that the same player used during an earlier step of the check.
When you said that "Taking Damage ... lies outside of taking a check" and "The ... restriction lives where it belongs - in Encountering a Card", I took that to mean that Taking Damage was outside of the check's restrictions.
And there was me hoping that the Bracers of Protection might get a reprieve! But not being able to use them because you used a blast stone or book earlier in the encounter still applies.
I think I've got it now and will stop bugging you (at least until tomorrow).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Sorry—I just meant that the *rules* for "Taking Damage" are no longer buried under "Encountering a Card"—they're on their own level, along with other big topics like "Closing a Location" and "Dying". When you take damage as the result of failing a check against a monster, it happens as part of that check.
|
|
Yeah, that response to me about the damage confused me in the same way that it confused h4ppy. But now that you clarified, I realize that this isn't the rule change I thought it was. You guys just reworded everything to tell us what those of us who were paying attention on the forums already knew from past discussions.
I think the problem is that the current wording, while saying what it intends to say, is still likely to lose some readers. It's a tricky enough detail that I think it's worth being redundant and overly clear about to make sure everyone gets it. If you were able to confuse rule geeks like h4ppy and I, that's not a good sign. :p
You've got the wording about only using one of each card type during each step of an encounter in the start of the encounter rules, which is good. The one place you mention that restriction in the steps of attempting a check is under the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check" step, which is bad, because it might lead people (again) to believe that the restriction only applies to that step, not to the entire check.
I'd recommend removing that verbiage from that step of the check. Instead, put a sentence or two in the opening paragraphs of the entire "Attempting a Check" section, before breaking it out into the steps within each check attempt, to remind people that this restriction applies across all the steps of the check.
Hi Vic - had to get some sleep :)
Sorry, but I don't think you've quite nailed it yet.
As @Fromper alluded to above, when I read the suggested rules it wasn't clear whether the 'card choice' was reset
- once per check (as intended), and which is mentioned in the "Encountering a Card" paragraph
- when you get to the "Play cards/powers that affect the check", since there's a new mention of the restriction here (but actually you are already restricted by the card you played for "determine the die/skill")
- when you take damage, since there another mention of the restriction there and this is a whole new section of the rules now
...and it wasn't clear, even though I knew this was something being clarified and was looking for it!
Maybe it would be better to word the restriction in "Play card/powers that affect the check" as a reminder that there's a restriction in place already instead of re-stating it?
E.g. change from:
"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."
to:
"Remember that, for the duration of a single check, each player may play no more than 1 card of each type and use each of their powers no more than once." (you can probably remove the example - it should only be needed the first time you mention this restriction)
---
Also, for me, the example given in the "Encountering a Card" section caused (me) confusion since it mentions preventing damage like it's a separate entity (which is confusing since it's not listeed as one of the steps, so is out of context):
You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 weapon during a check or more than 1 spell to prevent damage from a single source, though multiple players could each play 1 spell to prevent damage from that source.
Perhaps reword this bit to clarify that it's per step (and use actual steps for the examples!). Suggested text below:
Encountering a Card
...the specified actions. You may each only play 1 card of each type during each step; for example, you may not play more than 1 spell during the "Before the encounter" step nor play more than one item during the "Attempt the check" step, though multiple players could each play 1 spell/item during each of these steps. You may only play cards...
Then in the "Attempt the check" section, add a sentence:
"Attempting a check requires several steps which are explained below. Remember that, for the duration of this sequence, each player can only play one card of each type and use each of their powers only once."
And possibly even add an example to this paragraph: "...their powers only once - e.g. if you play an item during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check" action then you cannot play another item during the "Take Damage, If Necessary" action."
---
As for taking damage, the separate section's wording is probably fine. However, a reminder added to the "Take Damage, If Necessary" action would probably help enormously, for example:
Take Damage, If Necessary: If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage. For example, if the difficulty to defeat a monster is 10 and the result of your check is 8, the monster deals 2 Combat damage to you. See Taking Damage, below and remember that each player cannot re-use card types or powers that they already used during this check when reducing damage.
---
I hope that helps!
From Vic's post:.
Some thoughts on the taking damage section:
it could be made clearer that if, for instance, you played an item earlier in the check you cannot play an item to reduce damage. With what's written it almost sounds like I will have the option to play the same card types again. A reminder in this section could close up questions about this in the future.
I called this out earler, and I think h4ppy's wording above does clarify this. This one scentence he wrote will make a hugh difference in clearing this up:
"and remember that each player cannot re-use card types or powers that they already used during this check when reducing damage"
If it is not clear to a few people that have been following these rules discussions closely, then it probably is worth the extra wording to make sure the rule is 100% clear.
@Tracker1 - thanks for the agreement!
@Vic - a quick question that's come up re: new combat damage definition: does this affect what's considered to be a "Non-combat check"? E.g. if you use Divine to battle a Ghost, should it be considered a "Combat Divine Check" or a "Non-Combat Divine Check"? And, by extension, can cards that interact with "combat checks" be played when facing a monster regardless of what skill you use to fight it?
(If you want me to move that question to another thread just let me know)
So one thing here still confuses me. We say that all damage caused by failing a check with a monster is now combat damage. Unless the monster says otherwise. So, if a monster doesn't specify (Ghost), it can be blocked by cards that stop combat damage or all damage. If it does specify, it can only be blocked by cards that block that SPECIFIC type and NOT combat damage.
So now we end up with a situation where a breast plate can stop a ghost but can't stop acid. That doesn't make thematic sense.
|
|
So one thing here still confuses me. We say that all damage caused by failing a check with a monster is now combat damage. Unless the monster says otherwise. So, if a monster doesn't specify (Ghost), it can be blocked by cards that stop combat damage or all damage. If it does specify, it can only be blocked by cards that block that SPECIFIC type and NOT combat damage.
So now we end up with a situation where a breast plate can stop a ghost but can't stop acid. That doesn't make thematic sense.
The breastplate never could stop/reduce acid damage.
This just brings cards like Ghost, Siren, Satyr, etc. more in line with the rest of the monster cards and the combat mechanics of the game.
I guess so. I should have been more specific. I guess what I would have preferred is that those cards you mention get errata that indicates they are NOT combat damage. To be blocking a ghost with a shield is just, well, nonsense.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
@Tracker1 - thanks for the agreement!
@Vic - a quick question that's come up re: new combat damage definition: does this affect what's considered to be a "Non-combat check"? E.g. if you use Divine to battle a Ghost, should it be considered a "Combat Divine Check" or a "Non-Combat Divine Check"? And, by extension, can cards that interact with "combat checks" be played when facing a monster regardless of what skill you use to fight it?
(If you want me to move that question to another thread just let me know)
No—it's still true that it's only a combat check when the check to defeat that you've chosen says "Combat."
After all, if you're using Divine to defeat that Ghost, you don't get to play a weapon to roll your Strength or Melee die for that check!
|
|
@Tracker1 - thanks for the agreement!
@Vic - a quick question that's come up re: new combat damage definition: does this affect what's considered to be a "Non-combat check"? E.g. if you use Divine to battle a Ghost, should it be considered a "Combat Divine Check" or a "Non-Combat Divine Check"? And, by extension, can cards that interact with "combat checks" be played when facing a monster regardless of what skill you use to fight it?
(If you want me to move that question to another thread just let me know)
No—it's still true that it's only a combat check when the check to defeat that you've chosen says "Combat."
After all, if you're using Divine to defeat that Ghost, you don't get to play a weapon to roll your Strength or Melee die for that check!
So it's not a Combat Check, but damage resulting from failing the check is Combat Damage. Gotcha.
No wonder so many people pushed back when Mike said to just use common sense.