ive noticed on a lot of cards, it says "summon and encounter" , examples being ambush if you fail, and when you encounter justice ironbriar, how do those work with the evade ability or anything that allows you to evade a monster, I mean to me they sound like they are worded that you have to fight them, but im pretty sure ive read that things that make you summon and encounter things still can be evaded by merisiel and such, so which is correct, you can evade the monster ambush finds and evade the monster justice ironbriar makes you encounter, or cant?
also was wandering about the wording on poog of zarongel, he can be recharded to add 3 with the fire trait to a combat check, keyword im curious about is "A" , ive seen a lot of allies and cards that needed correcting to say "your" when they were originally "A" , so what about poog, can I use him to add to a teammate's combat check? as usual, thanks
You can evade a summoned monster, the same as you can evade a monster from a location deck (if you are Merisiel or have a card that allows you to of course). Evading is part of the "encountering a card" sequence:
Rulebook v3 p24 wrote: Encountering a Card
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.
So by virtue of the fact you are having an encounter, evading is an option.
But notice some barrier cards (Zombie Horde for example) tell you that if anyone does not defeat their summoned monster, the barrier is undefeated. Evaded would be not defeated, so if anyone evaded their summoned monster, the barrier would be undefeated.
Poog is correct as is. The cards that have had "a" changed to "your" are cards that are letting you succeed at something (for example Swipe). The fact you can only succeed at your own thing is in the rulebook. So changing "a" to "your" doesn't change how you could have used those cards, it just makes it more plain and obvious how they can be used.
I just figured that I would piggy back this thread since my wife and I were wondering about the magic trait. I believe that we are playing correctly, but just wanted to make sure. When you need the Magic trait to defeat a monster, having the Fire or Acid trait, does not imply that you also have the Magic trait, correct? For instance, if Merisial were to use the Heavy Crossbow and the discard ability from the Poisonous Dagger +2, she would not have the Magic trait on the attack, correct? Or if Valerous uses a Long Sword and also uses Poog to add the Fire trait.
Sad. They really need something, other than the Elven Ranger that can the Magic trait to a combat check.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Erixian wrote: For instance, if Merisial were to use the Heavy Crossbow and the discard ability from the Poisonous Dagger +2, she would not have the Magic trait on the attack, correct? In this example, what you really want to use the Poisonous Dagger +2 on its own to give the magic trait.
Edit: The Magic trait represents monsters that require magic to defeat, most often ghosts or other incorporeal critters. All magic weapons (things with the +1 or +2 in the name, plus some specific named weapons) have the magic trait; you should be acquiring yourself some magic weapons not too far into the game. Though I admit it can be pretty brutal running into Ghosts and Spectres early on in the Lost Cost.
I am well aware that I should use the dagger to get the Magic trait. If I did it in that way, there would be no confusion. I was just using it an example. Hehe.
I was more wondering about cards like Poog who can add to someone else's check, mainly because of characters such as Lini who might be using her power to fight.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Erixian wrote: I am well aware that I should use the dagger to get the Magic trait. If I did it in that way, there would be no confusion. I was just using it an example. Hehe.
I was more wondering about cards like Poog who can add to someone else's check, mainly because of characters such as Lini who might be using her power to fight.
Heh, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure it was clear for other people that read the thread as well. :)
I hear that Lini can get a lot of use out the the amulets of Mighty Fists / Fiery Fists, especially if Sanjan is not around to call dibs on them. Other than that... Lini has a lot of spells, so perhaps it's worth running Holy Light or Swipe. But yeah, as for things that straight up add the magic trait to someone else's check.... I'm drawing a blank.
Gotcha, gotcha.
I never really thought about that. I might have to look into that a little more, actually. I think that the Elven Archer is the only card that adds the Magic trait. I can't really think of another.
Erixian wrote: I think that the Elven Archer is the only card that adds the Magic trait. I can't really think of another. I'm confused by this comment. The two amulets First World Bard mentions add the Magic trait to a combat check.
I think Erixian probably sees the two amulets as being an item in place of a weapon. So the Elven Archer is a card that doesn't "Determine Which Die You're Using" but that can add the Magic trait to the check.
While Amulet of Mighty (or Fiery) Fists doesn't "Determine Which Die You're Using" it can only be played if you determined to use you Strength or Melee skill (or Dexterity for Sajan). It is a substitute for a weapon.
I can't pull up the FAQ on my phone, but you can use the amulets on any combat check not using a weapon I believe. Including something like Seoni playing Swipe. Maybe the FAQ changed that, but I don't think that was part of the errata for the cards.
Also, on cards that add the Magic trait, there is also the Deathbane shield for your own checks, and can be used as long as you aren't using a two handed weapon (so, great for Lini using her d10, if I remember correctly that she can get an armor)
Amulet of Mighty (and Fiery) Fists can't be used if you played a weapon or a spell with the attack trait on the check.
Amulet of Mighty Fists wrote: 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.
Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hawkmoon269 wrote: You can evade a summoned monster, the same as you can evade a monster from a location deck (if you are Merisiel or have a card that allows you to of course). Evading is part of the "encountering a card" sequence:
Rulebook v3 p24 wrote: Encountering a Card
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.
So by virtue of the fact you are having an encounter, evading is an option.
But notice some barrier cards (Zombie Horde for example) tell you that if anyone does not defeat their summoned monster, the barrier is undefeated. Evaded would be not defeated, so if anyone evaded their summoned monster, the barrier would be undefeated.
Poog is correct as is. The cards that have had "a" changed to "your" are cards that are letting you succeed at something (for example Swipe). The fact you can only succeed at your own thing is in the rulebook. So changing "a" to "your" doesn't change how you could have used those cards, it just makes it more plain and obvious how they can be used.
So if I run into any wording that says "succeed at" , then it should have "your" if it has "A", but things that add dice or such to checks unless they specifically say "your" , then they are correct with "A" ? correct? just trying to clarify that one hardcore because it can be extremely revelvant in gameplay
alkatrazshock wrote: Hawkmoon269 wrote: You can evade a summoned monster, the same as you can evade a monster from a location deck (if you are Merisiel or have a card that allows you to of course). Evading is part of the "encountering a card" sequence:
Rulebook v3 p24 wrote: Encountering a Card
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.
So by virtue of the fact you are having an encounter, evading is an option.
But notice some barrier cards (Zombie Horde for example) tell you that if anyone does not defeat their summoned monster, the barrier is undefeated. Evaded would be not defeated, so if anyone evaded their summoned monster, the barrier would be undefeated.
Poog is correct as is. The cards that have had "a" changed to "your" are cards that are letting you succeed at something (for example Swipe). The fact you can only succeed at your own thing is in the rulebook. So changing "a" to "your" doesn't change how you could have used those cards, it just makes it more plain and obvious how they can be used.
So if I run into any wording that says "succeed at" , then it should have "your" if it has "A", but things that add dice or such to checks unless they specifically say "your" , then they are correct with "A" ? correct? just trying to clarify that one hardcore because it can be extremely revelvant in gameplay Correct. Anything that let's you "succeed", "acquire", "defeat", or "evade" should say "your check" instead of "a check".
Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee. Sajan could, of course, use his dexterity die, because his power lets him do that for unarmed attacks.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself.
csouth154 wrote: Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee, or dexterity for Sajan.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your unarmed combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself. wouldn't the wand be your 1 item used on the check? so you wouldn't be able to use the amulet due to the rule of only 1 card of each type per player on any check?
alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee, or dexterity for Sajan.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your unarmed combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself. wouldn't the wand be your 1 item used on the check? so you wouldn't be able to use the amulet due to the rule of only 1 card of each type per player on any check? Oh, yeah! That is correct. That is why you can't do that.
I guess no re-wording is necessary. Mark that down as a brain-fart. ;)
csouth154 wrote: alkatrazshock wrote: Hawkmoon269 wrote: You can evade a summoned monster, the same as you can evade a monster from a location deck (if you are Merisiel or have a card that allows you to of course). Evading is part of the "encountering a card" sequence:
Rulebook v3 p24 wrote: Encountering a Card
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.
So by virtue of the fact you are having an encounter, evading is an option.
But notice some barrier cards (Zombie Horde for example) tell you that if anyone does not defeat their summoned monster, the barrier is undefeated. Evaded would be not defeated, so if anyone evaded their summoned monster, the barrier would be undefeated.
Poog is correct as is. The cards that have had "a" changed to "your" are cards that are letting you succeed at something (for example Swipe). The fact you can only succeed at your own thing is in the rulebook. So changing "a" to "your" doesn't change how you could have used those cards, it just makes it more plain and obvious how they can be used.
So if I run into any wording that says "succeed at" , then it should have "your" if it has "A", but things that add dice or such to checks unless they specifically say "your" , then they are correct with "A" ? correct? just trying to clarify that one hardcore because it can be extremely revelvant in gameplay Correct. Anything that let's you "succeed", "acquire", "defeat", or "evade" should say "your check" instead of "a check". Quick Question: is every "a check" supposed to be "your check"? I thought those were for specific cards. Certainly not blessings....
Ironvein wrote: csouth154 wrote: alkatrazshock wrote: Hawkmoon269 wrote: You can evade a summoned monster, the same as you can evade a monster from a location deck (if you are Merisiel or have a card that allows you to of course). Evading is part of the "encountering a card" sequence:
Rulebook v3 p24 wrote: Encountering a Card
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.
So by virtue of the fact you are having an encounter, evading is an option.
But notice some barrier cards (Zombie Horde for example) tell you that if anyone does not defeat their summoned monster, the barrier is undefeated. Evaded would be not defeated, so if anyone evaded their summoned monster, the barrier would be undefeated.
Poog is correct as is. The cards that have had "a" changed to "your" are cards that are letting you succeed at something (for example Swipe). The fact you can only succeed at your own thing is in the rulebook. So changing "a" to "your" doesn't change how you could have used those cards, it just makes it more plain and obvious how they can be used.
So if I run into any wording that says "succeed at" , then it should have "your" if it has "A", but things that add dice or such to checks unless they specifically say "your" , then they are correct with "A" ? correct? just trying to clarify that one hardcore because it can be extremely revelvant in gameplay Correct. Anything that let's you "succeed", "acquire", "defeat", or "evade" should say "your check" instead of "a check". Quick Question: is every "a check" supposed to be "your check"? I thought those were for specific cards. Certainly not blessings.... No. We are just talking about those cards that resolve a check without rolling or that evade encounters.
csouth154 wrote: alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee, or dexterity for Sajan.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your unarmed combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself. wouldn't the wand be your 1 item used on the check? so you wouldn't be able to use the amulet due to the rule of only 1 card of each type per player on any check? Oh, yeah! That is correct. That is why you can't do that.
I guess no re-wording is necessary. Mark that down as a brain-fart. ;) happens to all of us, im just glad I got to correct someone for once, normally im the one always needing help, muwhahah :P
alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee, or dexterity for Sajan.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your unarmed combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself. wouldn't the wand be your 1 item used on the check? so you wouldn't be able to use the amulet due to the rule of only 1 card of each type per player on any check? Oh, yeah! That is correct. That is why you can't do that.
I guess no re-wording is necessary. Mark that down as a brain-fart. ;) happens to all of us, im just glad I got to correct someone for once, normally im the one always needing help, muwhahah :P LOL. Well, I knew it wasn't allowed; but when I tried to think of how to explain why, I completely blanked and figured somehow he had found a loophole. Even while I was posting, I KNEW there was something my brain wasn't latching on to...
csouth154 wrote: alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee, or dexterity for Sajan.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your unarmed combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself. wouldn't the wand be your 1 item used on the check? so you wouldn't be able to use the amulet due to the rule of only 1 card of each type per player on any check? Oh, yeah! That is correct. That is why you can't do that.
I guess no re-wording is necessary. Mark that down as a brain-fart. ;) happens to all of us, im just glad I got to correct someone for once, normally im the one always needing help, muwhahah :P LOL. Well, I knew it wasn't allowed; but when I tried to think of how to explain why, I completely blanked and figured somehow he had found a loophole. Even while I was posting, I KNEW there was something my brain wasn't latching on to... I guess for that loophole to exist, there would have to be an item that determines your die AND allows you to use an additional item on the check. Luckily, such an item does not exist...
alkatrazshock wrote: csouth154 wrote: Andrew K wrote: Ok, so spell is mentioned. Wasn't sure.
Now I remember what I was thinking about being cool that I did with Sajan -- items. I Wand of Scorching Ray'd the A6S4 boss and used the amulet
Hmm. Well, I think you've found an unintended loophole. That amulet is meant to only be usable during unarmed combat checks using strength or melee, or dexterity for Sajan.
I think they should have worded it as follows:
"For your unarmed combat check, reveal this card to roll your strength or melee die + 1d4 with the magic trait."
This would absolutely make it impossible to use any other card that determines your die, because with this wording it would be that kind of card, itself. wouldn't the wand be your 1 item used on the check? so you wouldn't be able to use the amulet due to the rule of only 1 card of each type per player on any check? Yup. I done goofed.
Hawkmoon269 wrote: You can evade a summoned monster, the same as you can evade a monster from a location deck (if you are Merisiel or have a card that allows you to of course). Evading is part of the "encountering a card" sequence:
Rulebook v3 p24 wrote: Encountering a Card
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.
So by virtue of the fact you are having an encounter, evading is an option.
But notice some barrier cards (Zombie Horde for example) tell you that if anyone does not defeat their summoned monster, the barrier is undefeated. Evaded would be not defeated, so if anyone evaded their summoned monster, the barrier would be undefeated.
Poog is correct as is. The cards that have had "a" changed to "your" are cards that are letting you succeed at something (for example Swipe). The fact you can only succeed at your own thing is in the rulebook. So changing "a" to "your" doesn't change how you could have used those cards, it just makes it more plain and obvious how they can be used.
Ran into something else last night that relates to this, how does evade work with things like warrens and shrine to lamashtu ? if evade is part of the encounter, then does that mean even if you evade a monster at the warrens or evade a blessing at the shrine of lamashtu, that their ability still activates?
I believe that "when you Encounter" happens before the option to Evade.
Correct, even if you evade you still encountered the card. So the Shrine, Warrens and even Blessing of the Gods powers activate before you can even decide whether to evade or not.
See this and this for a longer example.
First World Bard wrote: The Magic trait represents monsters that require magic to defeat, most often ghosts or other incorporeal critters. All magic weapons (things with the +1 or +2 in the name, plus some specific named weapons) have the magic trait; you should be acquiring yourself some magic weapons not too far into the game. Though I admit it can be pretty brutal running into Ghosts and Spectres early on in the Lost Cost. I like to think that it teaches you to appreciate the magic stuff when do you get it.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Wertz wrote: First World Bard wrote: The Magic trait represents monsters that require magic to defeat, most often ghosts or other incorporeal critters. All magic weapons (things with the +1 or +2 in the name, plus some specific named weapons) have the magic trait; you should be acquiring yourself some magic weapons not too far into the game. Though I admit it can be pretty brutal running into Ghosts and Spectres early on in the Lost Cost. I like to think that it teaches you to appreciate the magic stuff when do you get it. I expect that's why the RotR demo deck list is as it is... when you're just starting out as Valeros, even a +1 Dogslicer is a gift from the gods, given you know there is a Spectre in one location deck. Of course, exactly *who* would enchant a dogslicer is another question entirely. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
First World Bard wrote:
I expect that's why the RotR demo deck list is as it is... when you're just starting out as Valeros, even a +1 Dogslicer is a gift from the gods, given you know there is a Spectre in one location deck. Of course, exactly *who* would enchant a dogslicer is another question entirely. :)
RANZAK
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion
|
Chief Technical Officer
