So I'm currently debating switching Lem's Cure spell for a Mass Cure and a couple of questions came up regarding casting the newer Cure spells when there isn't another character at your location -
1) With Mass Cure, the card says "Reveal this card and choose another character at your location. Shuffle 1d4+1 random cards from his discard pile into his deck, and 1d4+1 cards from your own discard pile into your deck, then discard this card."
Is choosing another character part of the cost or can I play Mass Cure when alone and just have the other character be nobody? My initial feel is that you have to have another person to cast it on based on the wording - but considering a location deck is still a location deck even when there is no deck... I could see it going either way. Also to me this makes the card not all that amazing. If you don't have another character with you when you draw it, you either have to waste a turn moving to someone or the card is useless. (Many of my 6 character games have come down to the last turn)
2) Since I'm asking about Mass Cure I might as well check on Major Cure. Major Cure says "Reveal this card and choose a character at your location". Since it just says "a character" can you choose yourself and then when it says "shuffle 1d4+1 cards from his discard pile into his deck and 1 random card from your discard pile into your deck" - both of those things would then apply to you and you'd get 1d4+2 cards shuffled into your deck?
Cool thanks, mainly I just wanted to make sure since I'm in the middle of resetting decks and didn't want to have to go back and retroactively change something if I was way off on that.
'If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction.'
If you were to play Mass Cure, then the first step would be skipped.
'Each card’s powers reference specific situations, and if you’re not in those situations, you can’t play it.'
Possibly you can't play the card because part of it doesn't have a valid target for part of the instruction. Personally, I think that the intent was to prevent you from Curing yourself twice. Is your need to cure yourself part of the situation being referenced?
Lini can do Augury on an empty location deck and can probably recharge a Cure when everyone at her location has an empty discard pile, but can she use an extra animal to explore a location with an empty deck?
My background in other card games says no, but the augury at an empty location example gives me pause.
We need to get Mike or someone in here, I would really like to know how this is ruled. If you can't play it on yourself, I think I'll just stick to major cure in games with less than 4 players. :/
'Each card’s powers reference specific situations, and if you’re not in those situations, you can’t play it.'The more I think about it, the more I believe this is the relevant rule in this situation. If you aren't in a situation in which you can choose another character at your location, you can't play the card.
The rule about ignoring impossible instructions would be useful to assure a player that they could, for instance, play the Mass Cure even if they had no cards in their own discard pile to shuffle into their deck.
It is really hard to say, but I think it should. If you want to know more click the box below. The point of mass cure is to heal multiple people and not necessarily one person and then heal yourself.
I think it is easy to get caught up in the story and like Cedfaz pointed out it makes sense that Mass Cure could be played when you were alone but it would be slightly wasteful. Personally I believe we are over thinking this. Going back to the core guidelines:
"Cards do what they say"
Mass Cure says "Reveal this card and choose another character at your location..."
"Cards don't do what they don't say"
Mass cure doesn't say "Reveal this card, you may choose another character at your location..."
I believe that as written Mass Cure clearly states a command to choose another character and not an option. Consider your character alone at a location with the Mass Cure spell. In this instance whether or not the card is telling you to do something impossible is actually dependent on if you decided to play Mass Cure. If you follow what the card says then you wouldn't reveal the card and the card would never tell you to do something impossible. For the card to actually tell you to do something impossible you have to first make a conscious decision to go outside the rules.
Finally "Allow for Abstractions"
Just because it makes sense to some people that mass cure could be played when you were alone doesn't necessarily mean that was the intent. We have to assume the intent was what is stated on the card until Mike or Vic or someone else official tells us differently.
I think it is easy to get caught up in the story and like Cedfaz pointed out it makes sense that Mass Cure could be played when you were alone but it would be slightly wasteful. Personally I believe we are over thinking this. Going back to the core guidelines:
"Cards do what they say"
Mass Cure says "Reveal this card and choose another character at your location...""Cards don't do what they don't say"
Mass cure doesn't say "Reveal this card, you may choose another character at your location..."I believe that as written Mass Cure clearly states a command to choose another character and not an option. Consider your character alone at a location with the Mass Cure spell. In this instance whether or not the card is telling you to do something impossible is actually dependent on if you decided to play Mass Cure. If you follow what the card says then you wouldn't reveal the card and the card would never tell you to do something impossible. For the card to actually tell you to do something impossible you have to first make a conscious decision to go outside the rules.
Finally "Allow for Abstractions"
Just because it makes sense to some people that mass cure could be played when you were alone doesn't necessarily mean that was the intent. We have to assume the intent was what is stated on the card until Mike or Vic or someone else official tells us differently.
My only reason against your final statement is you would need 2 different cards in your deck for the purpose of healing. I have Cure for healing myself or someone else. I have Mass Cure for healing someone else (required) and myself. I think it defeats the purpose of the card being a higher level spell.
If you think along the lines of what is more usable you would stick with Cure, right? You can use Cure in any instance while you are limited with Mass Cure. (I'm thinking along the lines of utility.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting one. I think the rules would say that you have to have another character. Whether that was the intent or not, only the designers can say. But it might be intended for you to have to make a tough choice, which is a great part of the game. So you'd have to decide whether you were more likely to heal other or heal yourself.
Since Kyra can use her power to heal herself, that might make you more likely to take Mass Cure for her deck than it would for Lini's. And taking Mass Cure might be a more viable option for a character that plays with an Arcane caster that stocks a movement spell or Amiri, since they can help arrange a meeting at a location.
That is the kind of stuff that makes your version of the characters different than my version of the characters. I, for one, really like that kind of stuff.
Since Kyra can use her power to heal herself, that might make you more likely to take Mass Cure for her deck than it would for Lini's. And taking Mass Cure might be a more viable option for a character that plays with an Arcane caster that stocks a movement spell or Amiri, since they can help arrange a meeting at a location.
Hawkmoon beats me to the punch...
I see the light.
Lini can also badger herself over.