Yes and Yes as far as I can tell too!
I concur, the answer to both questions is "yes." I do, however, think the FAQ's rewording may need to be... well... reworded. The FAQ's wording seems to possibly imply that you should be playing this spell during a check, which I think is not the original (or current?) intent. If this card were played to prevent before the encounter (or after) damage dealt by a monster, it would not be being played for a check.
Perhaps Vic can chime in here?
I agree that that's most likely the intent (the original card worked that way). The problem is the bolded part
"If a monster deals damage to you, you may display this card, even if you have played another spell on this check ."
which seems to imply the card should be played on a check. A better wording might have been
"If a monster deals damage to you, you may display this card to [effect]. If played during a check, you may play an additional spell on that check."
Though, there may have have been problems with the amount of text versus the card size with a wording like that.
"If a monster deals damage to you, you may display this card to [effect]. If played during a check, you may play an additional spell on that check."
That doesn't quite work either. For example:
I cast Force Missile for my combat check. I've now used up my one spell for that check. I fail the check and take damage. Your re-wording of Mirror Image doesn't grant me an additional spell for the check unless I've already cast Mirror Image. Since I didn't cast Mirror Image during this check, I don't get to cast an additional spell. Therefore, I can't cast Mirror Image.
It's difficult in this case to come up with a succinct wording that captures everything.
EDIT: This just reminded me of an issue I've had with the revised wording of Amulet of Mighty Fists on the FAQ.
Amulet of Mighty Fists: "Reveal this card to add 1d4 with the Magic trait to your combat check; you may not play a spell with the Attack trait or a weapon on this check."
In this case, revealing the Amulet of Mighty Fists is something you would generally do *after* playing a spell with the Attack Trait or a weapon. The fact that it can retroactively put a constraint on a card you've already played is a little weird to me.
QN, you're completely right. Any such rewording would need to account for both damage done BEFORE, AFTER and as a result of FAILING the check. That's a tall order, especially with limited card space.
How about: "If a monster deals damage to you, you may display this card, even if you have played another spell on a check. Roll 1d4; on a result other than 1, reduce the damage to 0. Do this each time a monster deals damage to you. Discard this card at the end of the turn."
Just replace "this" with "a". The indefinite "a" gets rid of the idea that there had to be a check. Sure, it can technically be read to say, "well I played a spell on a check about an hour ago, but this says its ok to play this now anyway" but that isn't practically different from in terms of outcome.
Another option "...even if you have played another spell on this part of the encounter..."
But the first one sounds better to me.
Technically, its very likely that you've already played a spell on a check, since that would refer to other previous checks as well. It might be safer to go with something like
"You may play this in addition to another spell if played during a check, or play another spell on the same check for which this card was played."
I kind of doubt you'd be able to fit that onto the card though.
I think we should all send Vic condolences every day for the difficult job he has (though I'm sure he still loves that job, right Vic!?)
Indeed. I don't envy you the headache of trying to choose words thousands upon thousands of people will have to read and interpret. I have to do it for just a dozen or so people at work, and it gives me a headache, so I can't imagine how much worse yours would be.
Please always know, (and I think Captain Bulldozer and most of the others who discuss these things would agree) that when we talk about the wording, it isn't in a critical spirit, but only in a friendly one. I'm sure most of what we say are things you've debated already. Its only out of our love for this game and our desire to see others enjoy it that we talk about such things.
Thanks for putting up with all of us and for struggling through the boons and banes of the sound patterns we call the English language.
Side note: I see the FAQ now mentions a second printing. Congrats on selling out the first one.
Ah, I hadn't looked at the FAQ for this card. So it no longer reduces damage from any source, only from monsters?
Well, the original had to at least start with monster damage. But it could be read to reduce any source of damage on the rest of the turn. But yeah the reworked version only accounts for damage from monsters, not barriers, locations or scenarios.
Well, the original had to at least start with monster damage. But it could be read to reduce any source of damage on the rest of the turn. But yeah the reworked version only accounts for damage from monsters, not barriers, locations or scenarios.
Which makes more sense anyway :)
Amulet of Mighty Fists: "Reveal this card to add 1d4 with the Magic trait to your combat check; you may not play a spell with the Attack trait or a weapon on this check."
In this case, revealing the Amulet of Mighty Fists is something you would generally do *after* playing a spell with the Attack Trait or a weapon. The fact that it can retroactively put a constraint on a card you've already played is a little weird to me.
You can't use the Amulet of Mighty Fists after playing a spell with the Attack trait or a weapon; it is constraining itself from being played. Bare-handed combat only (or with a Snake).
I think what he is saying is Amulet of Mighty Fists should say "You may not play this card if you played a spell with the Attack trait or a weapon on this check."
Because you would play that spell or weapon in the "Determine which die you are using" step of the attempting a check sequence and then play the Amulet of Mighty Fists during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check" step. So the Amulets's words feel wrong because you would already have played a weapon or spell by the time you got to the step where you would play the Amulet, but it seems like it is telling you something you can't do from that point forward int the check.
Yep, Hawkmoon summarized it pretty much perfectly. What I meant to say is that the wording of Amulet of Mighty Fists *suggests* it is putting a constraint on a card you previously played, even though mechanically, it is really putting a constraint on itself. I think Hawkmoon's rewording clears up the issue.
There are about a million times when we could say "play or have played," and we don't because oh my head.
There are about a million times when we could say "play or have played," and we don't because oh my head.
Did you ever think that in developing this game, you'd be simultaneously training yourself to be able to write proper legal documents? :)
Like I'm not trained in that.