Actually, doesn't something in Spires of Xin-Shalast do just that?
Cannibal Haunts -- you banish either a card from your hand, or the top card of your deck; your choice.
Actually, doesn't something in Spires of Xin-Shalast do just that?Cannibal Haunts -- you banish either a card from your hand, or the top card of your deck; your choice.
Yes, but that choice - it's very significant.
Damiel has a power that says "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."We will adjust that to "banish a card from your hand."
This will work in most cases, but I can see a potential problem for alchemical cards that may get displayed and then banished later. Would that still be considered "from your hand"? Even if it is, I could still see it being a confusing situation for players.
Maybe the standard "for its power" would be better, but that may be a reduction in the strength of the ability. Would having saying both be too longwinded/cumbersome?
"When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait from your hand or for its power, recharge it instead."
That's a good point. Nice catch, Pluvia.
|
Hmm that's an interesting conflict in the intent. He should be doing it for closes, but wording it that way keeps him from recharging displays. Your way recharges displays, but no longer works the intended way of including things like closes and monster powers. Unless it was specifically written with a display power to keep him from recharging it.
Choosing between recharging display potions, and recharging for everything non-power when it's in his hand, wording it to recharge displays hurts the character a lot more. From his hand makes the power fit the character better, even if there is the occasional card you wish could be recharged.
|
|
I really doubt that it was initially intended for him to recharge potions he banished for any reason from anywhere (how it is written), so the intent was almost definitely what Mike clarified to, that it does it from his hand.
As for not knowing the ratio, unless Paizo overloads all the adventures with alchemical items, which would ruin items in general for everyone who isn't Damiel, I'd bet my life you'll see various banishes more than displayable potions. I see 7 items on the card list that I know are alchemical (6 items called Potion, plus Tot Flask). Even counting the very few that aren't obvious by name, Paizo knows how to balance the game, and having so many display alchemicals that recharges on displayed cards are more commonly needed than recharges from any hand-based banish (monsters, locations, etc.) would be extremely unbalanced and, again, basically kill items for everyone who isn't Damiel.
Your suggestion of banishing it unless you failed to acquire it still has its flaws though. It would allow recharges from banished discards or deck cards. That could be changed to "from your hand unless you failed to acquire it", but then that allows recharging cards from a location deck that gets closed while it still has cards in it. Without writing down verbal diarrhea, I don't think there is any way to cover aspect that it should, without covering aspects it shouldn't (assuming that recharging displays is intended, I don't believe it is).
We are working on this. Stay tuned.
...wording it to recharge displays hurts the character a lot more.
When you see potion of heroism, you'll change your mind. :D
Potion of Heroism:
It's the best potion in the game (and perhaps the best buffing card) thus far I think.
...wording it to recharge displays hurts the character a lot more.When you see potion of heroism, you'll change your mind. :D
Potion of Heroism:** spoiler omitted **
It's the best potion in the game (and perhaps the best buffing card) thus far I think.
Eh... I still think I wouldn't use it unless I was Damiel. Then again, I play small groups, so cards that work well with extra explores like this aren't as good, since we can usually close all the locations down without ever having to use a aingle blessing to explore again :P
Eh... I still think I wouldn't use it unless I was Damiel. Then again, I play small groups, so cards that work well with extra explores like this aren't as good, since we can usually close all the locations down without ever having to use a aingle blessing to explore again :P...wording it to recharge displays hurts the character a lot more.When you see potion of heroism, you'll change your mind. :D
Potion of Heroism:** spoiler omitted **
It's the best potion in the game (and perhaps the best buffing card) thus far I think.
You wouldn't keep it in your deck unless you were Damiel or Drunken Master Sajan, sure.
But that ability is still insanely strong. It works on non-combat checks, too...
But I can see how single explore turn games would make it seem weaker.
Yeah, I realize it works on non-combat checks. But like you said only Damiel or Sajan could even keep it. If I acquire it as Damiel, I'd definitely be using it.
Er... which means I'm probably in agreement with you after all XD. Maybe not the best potion (I really like alchemical glue and healing), but still really good.
Yeah, I realize it works on non-combat checks. But like you said only Damiel or Sajan could even keep it. If I acquire it as Damiel, I'd definitely be using it.
Er... which means I'm probably in agreement with you after all XD. Maybe not the best potion (I really like alchemical glue and healing), but still really good.
I do think it's the best. Healing is just a worse cure, and even Damiel can take Cure instead if he needs to (though he prefers potion of healing). Glue is solid, and I will take it, but it's not near as good to me. But I do rate evading very low on the power scale if it's not an ability on the character - like armor, it clogs your hand until you get a good use for it, and it wastes an explore. But Damiel has other uses for potions in his hand...
Potion of heroism, however, is a better Aid (except for distance), and I already like Aid a lot - I might even run Aid with Damiel. Lasting the whole turn, though... and adding to precombat checks followed by the combat is really good (remember Harpy monks from RotR AP4?).
I did read the card first Orbis. Your pointing to one card right now,compared to everything that changing it to banishing for a card's power would ignore (closing, monster powers, etc). I stand by what I said.
Alright, alright, I just think that PoH is crazy good and I would rather get to recharge it than the rare card from my hand by a different power. :D
I can hardly think of anything that banishes a card from your hand (a location and a Bane from AP6 are all that comes to mind) whereas I'll be wanting to spam PoH from the instant I acquire it (which could be as early as the first scenario). To me it's an easy choice (go with PoH).
I didn't mean to sound condescending or rude or anything.
|
|
I actually missed that line of the post. That could work fine. However, I'm curious, is this actually banishing it for its power? I read it as displaying for its power,and part of that power is banishing. In a similar manner, I don't consider spells as banished for their power, but discarded / revealed / etc, and the power causes them to be banished.
However, I'm curious, is this actually banishing it for its power? I read it as displaying for its power,and part of that power is banishing. In a similar manner, I don't consider spells as banished for their power, but discarded / revealed / etc, and the power causes them to be banished.
I believe it is banishing for it's power - PACG has no concept of "costs" to play cards/powers like Magic or other TCG's. The "cost" is just part of the power.
My understanding: If you are banishing/burying/discarding/recharging a card because the power text of the card is telling you to do it for any reason, you are performing this action "for its power."
|
|
I did read the card first Orbis. Your pointing to one card right now,compared to everything that changing it to banishing for a card's power would ignore (closing, monster powers, etc). I stand by what I said.I didn't mean to sound condescending or rude or anything.
You didn't, but I didn't mean to either. I reread my post, definitely sounded that way to me. Then I reread it without your name in it and somehow it sounded fine. I'll just quit addressing anyone and start making vague, non-directed statements. Apparently that'll make everything sound fine lol.
