I've got a couple of questions about cards with the phrase "You may play another card of this type on this check."
The first is, what about when I'm playing this card as part of an encounter, but not a part of a check? For instance, when the Scout deals me 1d4-1 ranged combat damage before the encounter, it doesn't seem I can play a Ring of Protection followed by an Amulet of Life (or some other item). Most Before the Encounter damage centers are a d4, so it isn't likely to be a whole lot, but I was just wondering if that was how it was intended.
The second question came up over at BGG and there is some info relating to it here.
It seems from all that that when a card says "You may play another card of this same type on this check," it is granting you the ability to play that second card of the same type after playing the first one. While a card that says "You may play this card even if you already played a card of this type on this check." grant you the ability to play that specific card after having played a previous card of the same type.
So, assuming that I'm understanding that correctly, that would mean the Ring of Protection and other damage reducing items can only stack with other damage reducing items and not with an item played for a combat check. Do I have that correct?
Thanks.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think some folks may be conflating different rules.
In the latest rulebook, Encountering a Card has several steps. Each player may play no more than 1 card of each type during each step, may activate any power no more than once during each step, and may not play any cards or activate any powers between these steps.
The steps are:
Evade the card (optional).
Apply any effects that happen before the encounter, if needed.
Attempt the check.*
Attempt the next check, if needed.*
Apply any effects that happen after the encounter, if needed.
Resolve the encounter.
Each of those Attempt the Check steps requires several actions:
Determine which die you’re using. (Note that you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use.)
Determine the difficulty.
Play cards and use powers that affect the check (optional).
Assemble your dice.
Attempt the roll.
Take damage if you fail a check to defeat a monster.
*So to answer a question a couple posts above, yes, a check is a step, so if you play a card during a check, you cannot play another card of the same type during that check, and if you activate a power during that check, you may not activate it again during the same check... but if you have a subsequent check, that's a new step, and you can do those things again.
Thanks for chiming in Vic. Any comment on my my original question?
Can I play two Rings of Protection during "Apply any effects that happen before the encounter"? (Doesn't seem like it.)
Can I play Ring of Protection to reduce combat damage for failing a check (i.e. as part of Take damage if you fail a check to defeat a monster) if I played Wand of Force Missile to determine which die I used? (Doesn't seem like it.)
Thanks again.
My first question is because these cards tend to say you can play another item on this check, and "before the encounter" isn't (usually) a check. At least not a check that directly results in taking damage. Like the Scout, for instance. I don't see how I could play the Ring of Protection and the Amulet of Life both on his 1d4-1 ranged combat damage before the encounter.
My second question is because the usefulness of the ring of protection seems rather limited. I am assuming that is how it was intended, but thought I would ask. So that isn't so much a question of how to interpret the rule, but more the thought behind that phrase on that card. Add you can see in my original part, I know (or think I do) the technically correct answer already. I am wondering more about why.
I could see that being the intent, so to some extent it makes sense. But I guess I'm just a more a "Card do what they say" kind of guy. It only says check. If it is meant to allow you to play multiple cards of that type on the other steps of the encounter, it could just say "You may play another item." That would seem to cover checks and steps of an encounter.
Thanks Vic. It is most appreciated.
I'd also like an official answer to his second question - does the ring or belt or whatever have to be played first, or does it simply not count towards the one per step? Could I use the sage's journal to improve my combat check against a henchman, and then reveal the ring to reduce damage?
If the ring said "You may play this card even if you have played another item during this step" as Vic suggests it might, then yes.
But I think in general an official answer to the question "Does 'You may play another item on this step/check' mean that the 'another item' must be played after the item that granted you that effect?" would be nice.
Mike said that technically it does, but I wouldn't want to hold him to that if he was just answering a very specific question about the interactions of armors.
Right now, I see two kinds of phrases:
Phrase 1: You may play another item on this step/check means that you can play another item after playing this one, but can not play this one after playing another item (unless that other item also had this power).
Phrase 2: You may play this item even if you played another item on this step/check means that you can play this item after playing another item. But you can not play another item after playing this one unless that other item has phrase 1 on it.
So the order and phrase matter greatly. I was basically thinking what Vic is suggesting, that maybe the Ring should have phrase 2 and not phrase 1. But phrase 1 should be on items like the Belt of Giant Strength for instance.
I've not seen anything that I would interpret as simply "This doesn't count toward the limit of items on this step/check" though such a thing might exist.
I think the choice of phrase in the design allows them to limit the interaction of one card with another. Which is probably important. For instance the Amulet of Life is pretty powerful. I don't think it should necessarily have Phrase 2 on it. But if I want to combine it with a Ring of Protection, then the Ring of Protection lets me do the combining, even though the Amulet of Life does not. But if they want to put Phrase 2 on the Amulet of Life, I'm fine with that too.
I've not seen anything that I would interpret as simply "This doesn't count toward the limit of items on this step/check" though such a thing might exist.
I'd agree, I've not seen anything like that, and I agree with your conclusions. I would rule that it would have to be played first, were I a judge. But it sounds like the designers intent on a card like this to be able to play it before or after.
We have an answer on that. The item that gives permission to use an additional item must be played first. Compare the wording with the wording of the power that defensive spells received in the errata: "you may play this spell even if you have already played a spell on this check."
Then I'd like to discuss this further with them. The ring prevents damage, and so naturally gets played after any other items used during the check, sav items that prevent damage. I strongly feel that the ring should be able to be played as well as something like the sage's journal.
. The ring prevents damage, and so naturally gets played after any other items used during the check, sav items that prevent damage. I strongly feel that the ring should be able to be played as well as something like the sage's journal.Try my variant rule for items with the accessory trait. It's a very subtle but more thematic change made specifically with this situation in mind. If you have any questions about it, just put them in that thread. :)
I don't like to employ house rules. I may do setup stuff like remove all the easy banes to make the game harder, or play with extra locations, but nothing that alters actual gameplay.
We are discussing this.
To conflate the issue, you have items like Amulet of Fiery Fists, which says "You may not play a weapon on this check." I've always thought that was a little strange, because Amulet of Fiery Fists gets played in the step after the one where you would generally play a weapon.
I wonder if the intended effect is not to retroactively exclude a weapon from being played, but rather to exclude *itself* from being played when a weapon has already been played. Something like "Amulet of Fiery fists may not be played in a check where a weapon is played" would capture that idea.
But anyway, this does kinda relate to the current discussion, because if Amulet of Fiery Fists can retroactively prevent a weapon from being played during a check, it's not an unreasonable stretch to say that an item that allows you to play an additional item during a check could be used to grant itself as the additional item if another had already been played.
Hawk, I don't know why you wouldn't be able to play RoP and either Amulet of Life/S. Medallion together during any check unless you've played one of those "stopper" Items, basically either the Necklace of Fireballs or one of the Wands during the combat check when you'd want to use them to absorb the failed check. Since you can play an Item during the before and after encounter step even when you played one during the encounter/combat step, that would be the only time they could trip you up. Literally every other Item we'd be worried about using has the phrasing that lets you use another Item on that check (which should be changed to step).
Oh, I'm not saying you can't. And I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just saying that if they felt there was a reason not to let all the damage reducing items be usable even if you played another item, I could understand that.
Compare it to armor. If you play Snakeskin Tunic for the Dexterity Bonus, you can't play a Wooden Shield to reduce damage. Because the order matters. So if they felt that the Amulet of Life reduced so much damage that letting you play it even if you played a "combat" item was too much, they could just leave that phrase off the Amulet of Life.
That's all I'm saying. Not that anything should or shouldn't have a particular phrase. Just that I can understand them saying, "This combo would be too much, so we'll make it so you can't do that."
Though if Ring of Protection said both phrases, then you could always do Wand-RoP-AoL, but that is committing to 3 items in your hand/deck.
Resurrecting an old thread! Yay! There may or may not also be a question here of uniqueness . For example, if a player has 2 belts of strength (or whatever they're called) which say "you may play another item on this check" then would it be legal to, for example, play a belt, then the second and then follow it up with a THIRD item? Ezren players may want to take advantage of various items that all allow another item to be played and increase intelligence by static modifiers.
Regarding the question of uniqueness, "another item" could be interpreted to mean "any other item card in your hand" or it could mean "an item from your hand that is not a copy of this one".
You can play the two belts and another item. See this thread. So each of these items grants you the ability to play another card, but this FAQ change prevents you from revealing the same card twice for its own power.