|
Except that it is not a card. The same way that the abilities of Poog are the same as a fiery Weapon spell but are infact not a spell. Cards say what they do. No more and no less.
There are other effects in the game which trigger on when a spell is played. They do not mention card in their description.
Subject line pretty much says it all. This question was raised in regards to the Sloth location rule. We know it counts as playing a spell, but does that mean it counts as playing a card?
For the record...I'd think the answer would be yes, but official confirmation would be awesome. Thanks in advance!
No, you are playing a spell, but not a spell card.
I can honestly say I won't be surprised with either answer being correct. The one thing that has me on the "it counts as a card" side of the fence is that in this game a spell is defined as a type of card. So there is a PACG specific meaning of what a spell is. That leads me to conclude that when something I the game says you have played a spell, it means a card by definition of what a spell is.
But like I said, I won't be shocked to be wrong.
I can honestly say I won't be surprised with either answer being correct. The one thing that has me on the "it counts as a card" side of the fence is that in this game a spell is defined as a type of card. So there is a PACG specific meaning of what a spell is. That leads me to conclude that when something I the game says you have played a spell, it means a card by definition of what a spell is.
But like I said, I won't be shocked to be wrong.
I'm with you, Hawkmoon. Consider the wording on some items: "You may play another item on this check." How can you play an item without playing an item CARD? The only things that can be played are cards; therefore, whenever you play SOMETHING, you play A CARD.
Here is another way to think about it that makes it seem like Seoni's power has to be understood to be playing a card:
According to the rules, "Each player may play no more than 1 CARD of each type during each step" of an encounter (Page 10, revised rules, emphasis mine). Obviously, if Seoni's player tried to use her power and then tried to play another spell card on the same check (Guidance, for example), everyone would balk. Why? Because Seoni's player has already played a spell CARD on the check, and you can only play one CARD of each type per check. If Seoni's power did not count as playing a spell CARD, then the restriction that the power counts as playing a spell will not have the desired effect of preventing her from using another spell CARD on the check.
Here is another way to think about it that makes it seem like Seoni's power has to be understood to be playing a card:
According to the rules, "Each player may play no more than 1 CARD of each type during each step" of an encounter (Page 10, revised rules, emphasis mine). Obviously, if Seoni's player tried to use her power and then tried to play another spell card on the same check (Guidance, for example), everyone would balk. Why? Because Seoni's player has already played a spell CARD on the check, and you can only play one CARD of each type per check. If Seoni's power did not count as playing a spell CARD, then the restriction that the power counts as playing a spell will not have the desired effect of preventing her from using another spell CARD on the check.
An interesting take. Hmmm, now I'm not so sure. There's an awful lot af ambiguity in these rules... Fortunately, Vic and Mike are happy to clean them up. :)
|
I think this one falls under the general rule cards doing what they say, and not doing what they don't say. With the way this one was worded, I certainly would not be surprised though to see it clarified as just having been worded poorly and Mike saying it is a card play. Until that happens though, I'm in the boat of it not being a card, and only clarifying it as a spell so that you don't play another spell with it (which, even with the rule quote above, I don't automatically see as meaning it counts as a card play)
I'm in the boat of it not being a card, and only clarifying it as a spell so that you don't play another spell with it (which, even with the rule quote above, I don't automatically see as meaning it counts as a card play)
I just don't see how this could be right. The rules only restrict you from playing two spell CARDS on the same check, not from playing two spells. So, unless Seoni's power is considered playing a card, there is no reason that she could not play another spell on the check. She can just say, "Well, the rule is that I cannot play two spell CARDS, but I have yet to actually play a spell CARD, so even though I have used my power, which counts as a spell, I can still play a spell CARD now." That just can't be right.
|
|
There's definitely a wording error on one or the other. The restriction either doesn't apply to cards only, and applies to powers like Seoni's as well -- or, her power does count as a card.
There is an error, no argument there. However, I'm going with the rulebooks statement (and a general rule for all game so play), that if a card and the rules disagree, you go with the card.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seoni's ability says it counts as playing a Spell. It should be read as "Spell Card."
It has already been discussed elsewhere that using her ability disallows you from playing "another spell" which is how most people read it. Thus its effect means she counts as playing a "spell card." When people play an item card, most don't think "I'm playing an item card!", they think "I'm playing an item!"
*Ezren's ability: "After you play a spell with the Arcane trait, you may examine the top card of your deck; if it’s a spell, you may put it in your hand."
*Valeros's ability: "When you play a weapon, you may recharge it instead of discarding it."
*Lini's ability: "You may reveal an ally with the Animal trait to add 1d4 ([]+1) ([]+2) to your check."
*Sajan's ability: "You may play any number of blessings on your combat check; recharge them instead of discarding them."
*Seoni's other ability: "You automatically succeed at your check to recharge a spell ([] or item) with the Arcane trait."
One can plainly see that most of the abilities when referring to a specific card type do not use the word "Card" but instead just simply use the Card's Type. The exceptions are usually ones where other things on the card are referenced, such as traits (as in Ezren's second ability). But when referring to the actual card type, "Card" isn't used.
That being said, I think this falls under the 'common sense and rules lawyering beyond recognition' area where the game designers didn't think people would read 'too much' into a card, especially after saying that the cards do what they say.
My opinion on it...
You can't read all the other abilities as referencing cards and then suddenly, for just Seoni, arbitrarily stop using that system. "Oh, all these abilities reference cards, but for this location, Seoni's doesn't reference that it counts as playing a card, so I can play a spell! Yay!"
No. If you want to decide that hers isn't playing a card, then you need to stop using all the other characters' abilities, since they don't refer to playing 'blessing cards' or 'an ally card' but instead refer to just 'blessings' and 'ally.'
You can't switch between both ways when it suddenly gives you an advantage.
Important distinction (which I think most/all here get): if Seoni's power means that she is playing a Spell Card, she still isn't playing the discarded card.
|
|
Well I just typed up a huge post and my connection died as it tried posting, so I'll have to redo it later.
Long story short,
CCsouth -- I never said anything remotely close to other powers counting as something. My error comment is that either Seoni should count as a card, but doesn't say so, or the book saying of each CARD type should remove the word card to account for her power not being a card. Noone outside of Paizo can say without absolute certainty which it is, no matter how much they want to.
Firedale - Noone is arbitraily changing anything. It's a fingers/thumbs thing to me. All spell cards are spells, not all spells are spells cards. There may be spell powers. For all we know, S&S or OP may even have more of these types of things.
Both sides of this make a ton of sense to me. However, without clarification, I'm going with cards doing/not doing what they do/don't say. The fact the word "play" has been used for cards so far doesn't count as a ruling.
Chief Technical Officer
|
From the Skull & Shackles rulebook:
Playing a card means using a power on that card by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing that card or by performing another action specified by that card. If a power says using it counts as playing a boon, it counts as playing a card. Doing something with a card that does not use a power on that card does not count as playing that card.
I admit we'd never thought about this issue prior to set 5 coming out. But it's a simple loophole to fix, as Vic notes above.
Now, here's my philosophy behind that. There is a thing in this game called a "spell." It has meaning. Actually, it has dozens of meaning scattered all over the rules. We have to care about whether you can play another one, for example. And when you play a spell, all sorts of things can trigger: You might get to draw from your deck, for example. You might be dealt a point of Mental damage. Pretty much anything, really.
So when we say you've played a spell, we want to know all of those things are in play. And some of those things might also care whether you've played a card. But we don't want a trifurcated system where we have to write that this time it's a spell and that time it's a card and this other time it's a spell card.
So, a spell's a spell, and that means that even though it might not be a card, it's a card. Trust me, you'll thank us later.
Mike
A power is a power unless it says it is something else, and this clearly is saying it is a spell.
To be clear, it is also a power, for things that care whether you used a power.
Power = power.
There is a rule that says, "You may not use a power that doesn’t apply to your current situation." And that really does apply to both character powers and boon powers. Similarly with, "you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use." When we're referring to using powers, it's likely applying to any card you want to reference.
Later we say about the reset step, "You may play cards and use powers unless a power directed you to reset your hand and end your turn." In that last use of power we're saying all powers--not just from character or boon cards, but any card at all. (Most likely, it's a Ghoul.)
Related to this, can I recharge the spell I've discarded to Seoni's power since it counts as playing a spell?
Seoni's recharge power is that she succeeds at the recharge check for spells with the Arcane trait.
You automatically succeed at your check to recharge a spell ([] or item) with the Arcane trait.
When she discards a card for her "fireball" power, there is no recharge check for her to attempt, because she only gets to attempt a recharge check on a card if she plays that card.
Recharge: This explains circumstances under which you may recharge the card—put it on the bottom of your deck—after playing it; it usually appears on cards that you would otherwise be required to discard.
And playing a card means activating a power on that card.
Playing a card means activating that card’s power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing that card. Doing something with a card that does not activate that card’s power does not count as playing that card.
So, the card Seoni discards for her power, she has not played because she didn't not activate a power on the discarded card. And since she has not played it she cannot attempt the recharge check on it. And since she cannot attempt the recharge check, she cannot automatically succeed at it. All that is true no matter what the card is that she chooses to discard for her power.
Yeah. It is easy to get excited about the character powers and over apply them or hope for things that don't come about.