Another Damiel Q - possible eratta needed


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Damiel has a power that says "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."

Now, obviously, this means that if you play an alchemical card that says to banish itself you recharge it. Less obviously, if you banish an alchemical card for another effect, such as the "when closing" power on some locations, you recharge it instead.

But what about cards you haven't acquired yet? Aren't you banishing a card when you fail to acquire it? Or when you close a location? What if any of those are Alchemical? While I'm sure it's not the intention, it sounds to me like if you encounter an Alchemical boon and don't evade it, you'll either acquire it and put it in your hand or fail to acquire it and recharge it. And if you recharge it this way, does it go on the bottom of your deck or the location deck you found it in? What if you encounter a bane with the Alchemical trait - do you recharge it after defeating it?

Although I guess it could be argued that YOU aren't banishing the cards in these situations, the game is, but that just doesn't feel like a real solution.

Suggested fix - "When you would banish your card that has the alchemical trait..."

Thoughts? Particularly from Mike or Vic?


Or they could just had a 'for its power' somewhere in there.


Reptilian wrote:
Or they could just had a 'for its power' somewhere in there.

That would be a nerf to the power. It would make it so that if you banish to close a location it stays banished, whereas right now you'd get to keep it.

A small nerf, to be sure, but it would directly weaken the power instead of simply clarifying it.


Orbis Orboros wrote:
Reptilian wrote:
Or they could just had a 'for its power' somewhere in there.

That would be a nerf to the power. It would make it so that if you banish to close a location it stays banished, whereas right now you'd get to keep it.

A small nerf, to be sure, but it would directly weaken the power instead of simply clarifying it.

I think that's how it should be resolved. He shouldn't be able to recharge a card that's supposed to be banished to close a location.


Perhaps. I just hesitate to suggest instilling nerfs to fix problems unrelated to power level.


Clarifications to rules as intended are not the same things as nerfs. If they never intended you to recharge cards banished by closing a location, and they clarify it, it's not nerfing the ability. It's that you're doing something beyond the intent... it's not intentional exploitation, but it's not within the design of the game, either.

If, however, they decided it should work one way, then change it because of unintended consequences / perceived overpower of an ability, then that is a nerf, and I would agree, likely has a better way of handling.

You may call it two ways of explaining the same thing, but nerfing is something people take way too personally in the first place, so it becomes more important to understand what a nerf really is.

If they really don't want you to banish cards from closing a location, they're not taking away something from you you should have had in the first place.

The wording of it is unfortunate, though, if they don't intend it to act that way, since even the rules provide that "you" are the one banishing cards when closing a location, so as written, it should work the way Orbis describes.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Other characters have powers that state "for its power" already, such as Valeros: "When you would discard a weapon for its power, you may recharge it instead." Based on that, it seems like it would be intentional for Damiel to recharge would-be-banished alchemical cards even if it wasn't for their powers. Maybe wording like this would work:

"When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait from your hand or deck, recharge it instead."

However, something to consider (something that was brought up in playtest many times) is that there is precious little space for writing precise rules language on cards. "For its power" could have been left out to save space for Damiel's other more wordy powers, assuming that the intent is clear enough. There are far less situations that call to banish cards outside of their powers compared to reasons to discard a card other than to use its powers.


Well, the other consideration I was making with the omission of "for its power" would be that if another power you use, or closing a location (example) requires you to banish the card, that it could still be salvaged. That seems in line with the theme of the power; though if it were just "for its power" that would definitely remove the ambiguity, for sure.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

As far as recharging on a banish close, this is my thought (and the way I will play it unless Vic or Mike say otherwise):

The check to close is to banish a card. If you do not banish a card you have not succeeded at the check. Period. It is no different then Merisiel closing a location that requires you to summon and defeat a bandit in ROTR. Yes she can evade it but if she does that you didn't make the check and didn't close the location.

Are there any examples in ROTR where you can effectively avoid the check to close a location and still close it? I don't remember any...


nondeskript wrote:

As far as recharging on a banish close, this is my thought (and the way I will play it unless Vic or Mike say otherwise):

The check to close is to banish a card. If you do not banish a card you have not succeeded at the check. Period. It is no different then Merisiel closing a location that requires you to summon and defeat a bandit in ROTR. Yes she can evade it but if she does that you didn't make the check and didn't close the location.

Are there any examples in ROTR where you can effectively avoid the check to close a location and still close it? I don't remember any...

Counter-argument.

Let's create a hypothetical card for a moment:

Alchemical Dust wrote:

Traits: Alchemical

Reveal this card to add 1 to your check.

Banish this card to add a die to your check.

By your logic, (it seems to me that) Damiel would never be able to use this card to add a die to a check because he could never fulfill the condition of banishing it. Which seems to me to be against the intent of his power.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
nondeskript wrote:

As far as recharging on a banish close, this is my thought (and the way I will play it unless Vic or Mike say otherwise):

The check to close is to banish a card. If you do not banish a card you have not succeeded at the check. Period. It is no different then Merisiel closing a location that requires you to summon and defeat a bandit in ROTR. Yes she can evade it but if she does that you didn't make the check and didn't close the location.

Are there any examples in ROTR where you can effectively avoid the check to close a location and still close it? I don't remember any...

Counter-argument.

Let's create a hypothetical card for a moment:

Alch Pebble wrote:

Traits: Alchemical

Reveal this card to add 1 to your check.

Banish this card to add a die to your check.

By your logic, (it seems to me that) Damiel would never be able to use this card to add a die to a check because he could never fulfill the condition of banishing it. Which seems to me to bo 100% against the intended use of his power.

Counter-counter-argument:

"Rules: The Golden Rule
If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct. If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types."

Based on this, Damiel is good with making a non-banish-banish to activate a power for a card, but not for closing a location.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I agree. I think this will be errataed to clarify that the power only applies when you use the card for it's power, like every other recharge power I can recall seeing so far. Until I see official word otherwise, I will play it that way as it clearly is in the spirit of all other recharge abilities to date.

Of course I could be wrong. The free power on Wu Shen's role card was different than nything seen before and looked like a typo at first but Mike clarified that it was correct. So looking at the past isn't going to always show you the future.

I suspect we'll get a clarification on this before my copy even ships so it won't matter by the time I'm playing. I will say that if he gets to always recharge anything alchemical rather than banish regardless of what causes the banish it is a hella good power.


pluvia33 wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
nondeskript wrote:

As far as recharging on a banish close, this is my thought (and the way I will play it unless Vic or Mike say otherwise):

The check to close is to banish a card. If you do not banish a card you have not succeeded at the check. Period. It is no different then Merisiel closing a location that requires you to summon and defeat a bandit in ROTR. Yes she can evade it but if she does that you didn't make the check and didn't close the location.

Are there any examples in ROTR where you can effectively avoid the check to close a location and still close it? I don't remember any...

Counter-argument.

Let's create a hypothetical card for a moment:

Alch Pebble wrote:

Traits: Alchemical

Reveal this card to add 1 to your check.

Banish this card to add a die to your check.

By your logic, (it seems to me that) Damiel would never be able to use this card to add a die to a check because he could never fulfill the condition of banishing it. Which seems to me to bo 100% against the intended use of his power.

Counter-counter-argument:

"Rules: The Golden Rule
If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct. If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types."

Based on this, Damiel is good with making a non-banish-banish to activate a power for a card, but not for closing a location.

It could be ruled with the Golden Rule, but I don't think it applies. They're not in conflict, you see, not in my opinion at least.

The situation is that a location makes you banish a card, and Damiel lets you recharge whenever you banish. It's not like Lini at the Farmhouse where both Lini and the Farmhouse are trying to replace discard with recharge/banish.


I could see this as a similar situation to Lini at the Farmhouse, where the Farmhouse effect overrides her ability to recharge animal allies. I know Damiel's case isn't exactly the same, but I could accept the logic that the location telling you to banish something overrides his ability to recharge banished alchemical cards. Just a thought.


Ashram316 wrote:
I could see this as a similar situation to Lini at the Farmhouse, where the Farmhouse effect overrides her ability to recharge animal allies. I know Damiel's case isn't exactly the same, but I could accept the logic that the location telling you to banish something overrides his ability to recharge banished alchemical cards. Just a thought.

If the location said "whenever you banish a card with the alchemical trait, bury it instead" I would agree. But they're not in opposition, trying to change the same thing - the location's ability is triggering Damiel's.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I do see a conflict. The location wants you to banish a card to close. You're not really banishing a card, so it doesn't close. Since locations are higher on the Golden Rule ranks, it wins the argument.

Now, if a monster has a power that says Damiel has to banish a card to truly defeat it, he can "banish" an alchemical item, recharge it instead, and it still meets the condition for the monster because character abilities are higher up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'd also say he gets to recharge it. I'm pretty sure the unique wording is very intentional. If he's banishing a card with the Alchemical trait for any reason, he gets to recharge it instead. And I think it is meant to cover this exact unique kind of thing. Nothing can take Damiel's Alchemical cards away from him.


pluvia33 wrote:
I do see a conflict. The location wants you to banish a card to close. You're not really banishing a card, so it doesn't close.

I don't see why not. You get to where you can close the location. You make the action to close it. What is the action? Banish a card. You banish it. Two things happen. The location closes because you did the action, and Damiel's ability recharges it instead of banishing it.

Ugh, it's so hard to describe why...

They're not in direct conflict. That would be if the location said you cannot do something that Damiel said you could, or vise versa...

I feel like I'm trying to explain what a word with that has no synonyms means.

I see what you're saying, but the location doesn't care if the card actually gets banished in the end or not. Just that you make the action...

I don't know. I guess I'll wait for someone with a better grasp of how to explain these things pops in. I'm great at explaining many things, but evidently not this.

EDIT: I think it has to do with the words Banish and Recharge. Damiel is basically saying that when you banish a card, it goes to the bottom of your deck instead of the box. Worded that way, there's no conflict at all. And remember, the location doesn't say the card has to make it to the box.. Banishing is an action you make, not something the location is waiting for, so it works. If that doesn't explain it, then I give up lol


Orbis Orboros wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:
I do see a conflict. The location wants you to banish a card to close. You're not really banishing a card, so it doesn't close.

I don't see why not. You get to where you can close the location. You make the action to close it. What is the action? Banish a card. You banish it. Two things happen. The location closes because you did the action, and Damiel's ability recharges it instead of banishing it.

Ugh, it's so hard to describe why...

Maybe another example can help here, as it pretty much applies to at least one power per character.

Valeros: Instead of discarding to use a card's power, you may recharge it. If it worked as a conflict, then by recharging it you wouldn't get to actually use the benefit of the weapon since the weapons usually say "discard to get extra whatever", since it's no longer actually being discarded. The effects replace the others, but the triggered event still occurs... it was banished, which was converted to recharging.


Deekow wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:
I do see a conflict. The location wants you to banish a card to close. You're not really banishing a card, so it doesn't close.

I don't see why not. You get to where you can close the location. You make the action to close it. What is the action? Banish a card. You banish it. Two things happen. The location closes because you did the action, and Damiel's ability recharges it instead of banishing it.

Ugh, it's so hard to describe why...

Maybe another example can help here, as it pretty much applies to at least one power per character.

Valeros: Instead of discarding to use a card's power, you may recharge it. If it worked as a conflict, then by recharging it you wouldn't get to actually use the benefit of the weapon since the weapons usually say "discard to get extra whatever", since it's no longer actually being discarded. The effects replace the others, but the triggered event still occurs... it was banished, which was converted to recharging.

I appreciate the attempt, but it doesn't work as an example because pluvia's understanding is that it works because weapons are lower on the Golden Rule Totem Pole than characters.


Ashram316 wrote:
I could see this as a similar situation to Lini at the Farmhouse, where the Farmhouse effect overrides her ability to recharge animal allies. I know Damiel's case isn't exactly the same, but I could accept the logic that the location telling you to banish something overrides his ability to recharge banished alchemical cards. Just a thought.

I believe that this was resolved that the animal's discard turned into a bury before Lini got to apply her power. S&S Lini will shuffle the card into her deck instead (or put it on top after a feat).

I asked the Damiel question last week, but there was no answer yet, presumably due to GenCon.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Until now these are the only ways to recharge cards (as far as I can recall):

1. Activate a power with a cost of recharging (Lem for example)
2. Activate a card which triggers a recharge power (matching the blessing deck or Valeros using a discard weapon power for example)
3. Activate a cure card or abilities. (Kyras cure ability or a cure spell card for example)
4. Activating a card with a recharge check and passing the check (most spells for example)
5. Activating a card with an automatic recharge (some allies for example)
6. Encountering a card that forces a recharge (Bandit)
7. Closing a location that allows a recharge when closed. (I think there was one or two of these but I can't remember for sure.)

The pattern here is that with the exception of the last two, every one of these required activating the card. The last two are a minor penalty from a bane and a reward for closing. This would be the first way to recharge a card without activating, encountering anything or being rewarded. That is why I don't think it is the correct interpretation. But I concede that as written it could certainly be interpreted that way and should be either errataed or clarified that you are correct.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
nondeskript wrote:

Until now these are the only ways to recharge cards (as far as I can recall):

1. Activate a power with a cost of recharging (Lem for example)
2. Activate a card which triggers a recharge power (matching the blessing deck or Valeros using a discard weapon power for example)
3. Activate a cure card or abilities. (Kyras cure ability or a cure spell card for example)
4. Activating a card with a recharge check and passing the check (most spells for example)
5. Activating a card with an automatic recharge (some allies for example)
6. Encountering a card that forces a recharge (Bandit)
7. Closing a location that allows a recharge when closed. (I think there was one or two of these but I can't remember for sure.)

The pattern here is that with the exception of the last two, every one of these required activating the card. The last two are a minor penalty from a bane and a reward for closing. This would be the first way to recharge a card without activating, encountering anything or being rewarded. That is why I don't think it is the correct interpretation. But I concede that as written it could certainly be interpreted that way and should be either errataed or clarified that you are correct.

Magical armors can be recharged without any other effect.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ah. You're right. Totally forgot that one. In my defense I mostly played Sajan and Ezren so armor wasn't something I dealt with much. Kinda like weapons.

But even that, at least, was highly restricted. Only when resetting your hand and only if you were proficient. This is still a much more powerful recharge mechanic. Of course it could be offset by alchemical cards not being that useful. I went drunken master in ROTR because I figured there would be better potions than the healing ones and that didn't work out well. If the potions and alchemical cards are similar it nukes the whole thing, IMO. I'll hopefully find out next week if my game arrives.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Also, the literal interpretation of the power is the same interpretation that means you auto-recharge alchemical boons if you fail or do not attempt the check to acquire them. And even auto acquire all the alchemical cards in a location deck when you close it. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that is what they intended. So it definitely will need an errata to settle the whole thing. The only question is how far back does the errata scale the power.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
nondeskript wrote:
Also, the literal interpretation of the power is the same interpretation that means you auto-recharge alchemical boons if you fail or do not attempt the check to acquire them. And even auto acquire all the alchemical cards in a location deck when you close it. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that is what they intended. So it definitely will need an errata to settle the whole thing. The only question is how far back does the errata scale the power.

Does sound OP to auto-acquire a bunch of cards when you close a location but maybe it's supposed to be that way. Would make Damiel an alchemical super-magnet.


I feel that you two didn't read the original post... That was the point of making this thread...


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I'd also say he gets to recharge it. I'm pretty sure the unique wording is very intentional. If he's banishing a card with the Alchemical trait for any reason, he gets to recharge it instead. And I think it is meant to cover this exact unique kind of thing. Nothing can take Damiel's Alchemical cards away from him.

Eh, I think it's more likely it was unintentional. It seems a bit silly that he would be able to recharge alchemical when he would have to banish them for closing locations, or after failing to acquire one. Valeros' weapon discard power used to be worded that way, but they fixed in by adding "for its power." I think this is the same situation here.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I did read the original post. I just disagree about how far back the power will be reduced. I feel that your assumption about what is intended is too generous (recharging on a banish to close). I think it is more akin to Sajan's Drunken Master recharge without the check.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
I feel that you two didn't read the original post... That was the point of making this thread...

Your original point is probably correct that the intention is not for literally every card that Damiel banishes he then recharges.


Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game Subscriber

I assume you only recharge when banishing from your hand.

Sovereign Court

eddiephlash wrote:
I assume you only recharge when banishing from your hand.

Yea I'm definitely thinking the clarification will be if you banish it from your hand, maybe discard/deck as well.

Sovereign Court

eddiephlash wrote:
I assume you only recharge when banishing from your hand.

Yea I'm definitely thinking the clarification will be if you banish it from your hand, maybe discard/deck as well. Still for any reason though, whether playing it, closing a location, or some crazy jerk of a monster that makes you banish a card!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well, I'll admit I didn't read the OP carefully enough. I brought in some assumptions from the playtest. I'm not 100% sure how much it is ok to say how things worked in the playtest, but I will say this was worded slightly differently. I specifically asked in the playtest about banishing cards to close locations and, at that time, the playtest version of his powers applied to that situation. It didn't matter if he had played the card or not, he got to use his powers on it.

But again, that was the playtest, it wasn't the final result. The playtest version worked slightly differently, but it did apply to any situation when he banished a card. Having looked at the production one more closely, I'd also think it is intended to be something like "from your hand".

But, given how dependent he will be on on potions, I'm not sure letting him basically auto-acquire these boons and recharge them might not be over powered. But of course, I have no idea what these boons will look like in later decks, so I really have no idea.

So to summarize: I have no idea how this power should work and no idea what comes in future decks.


Andrew K wrote:
Yea I'm definitely thinking the clarification will be if you banish it from your hand, maybe discard/deck as well. Still for any reason though, whether playing it, closing a location, or some crazy jerk of a monster that makes you banish a card!

I would agree with this, for this reason:

If you are banishing the card from your hand by playing that card or as the result of some power, you (the character) are doing it and have a power you can activate to recharge it.

However, if you are banishing it as the result of a failed check to acquire, you (the player) are doing it and have no power to that says you do anything other than put it back in the box.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Very interesting, hawkmoon. I concede. :-) That is a very nice power! Can't wait for this to ship so I can start playing!


Just my 2 cents:

Concerning the ability's text: "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."

I actually see it as specifically saying 'you' would banish.

If a monster makes you banish a card, then the monster is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If a location makes you banish a card to close it, then the location is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If an ability makes you banish another card to use it, then the ability is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If you fail to acquire a boon and must banish it, the rules are banishing the card, not you.

However, if you choose to banish a card for its own ability, that was your choice specifically to banish that card, therefore you are banishing the card, and it would recharge.

All that being said, my interpretation may be completely wrong, or I might be getting the correct result just for an incorrect reason, or I might be totally correct.

Clarification is definitely needed for this ability, because Banishing is one of the ways to play a card, but it is also an outside requirement imposed by other effects. And it seems very similar to the other abilities for Discard/Recharge, in which you had to specifically discard a card for its own ability in order for auto-recharges to kick in, and having to discard it for any other reason did not allow the recharge.


Firedale2002 wrote:

Just my 2 cents:

Concerning the ability's text: "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."

I actually see it as specifically saying 'you' would banish.

If a monster makes you banish a card, then the monster is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If a location makes you banish a card to close it, then the location is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If an ability makes you banish another card to use it, then the ability is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If you fail to acquire a boon and must banish it, the rules are banishing the card, not you.

However, if you choose to banish a card for its own ability, that was your choice specifically to banish that card, therefore you are banishing the card, and it would recharge.

All that being said, my interpretation may be completely wrong, or I might be getting the correct result just for an incorrect reason, or I might be totally correct.

Clarification is definitely needed for this ability, because Banishing is one of the ways to play a card, but it is also an outside requirement imposed by other effects. And it seems very similar to the other abilities for Discard/Recharge, in which you had to specifically discard a card for its own ability in order for auto-recharges to kick in, and having to discard it for any other reason did not allow the recharge.

I disagree. By your logic offered that the monster, location, etc is banishing the card, then the alchemical item is banishing itself, not you.


Firedale2002 wrote:

Just my 2 cents:

Concerning the ability's text: "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."

I actually see it as specifically saying 'you' would banish.

If a monster makes you banish a card, then the monster is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If a location makes you banish a card to close it, then the location is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If an ability makes you banish another card to use it, then the ability is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If you fail to acquire a boon and must banish it, the rules are banishing the card, not you.

However, if you choose to banish a card for its own ability, that was your choice specifically to banish that card, therefore you are banishing the card, and it would recharge.

All that being said, my interpretation may be completely wrong, or I might be getting the correct result just for an incorrect reason, or I might be totally correct.

Clarification is definitely needed for this ability, because Banishing is one of the ways to play a card, but it is also an outside requirement imposed by other effects. And it seems very similar to the other abilities for Discard/Recharge, in which you had to specifically discard a card for its own ability in order for auto-recharges to kick in, and having to discard it for any other reason did not allow the recharge.

The rules regarding closing a location refer to "you" repeatedly. That is the single reason I feel that any instance of banishing an alchemical will cause it to be recharged, including closing locations. I tried to dispute it on that very reason you give about it being a neutral closing (as in the game is closing, not you) but the rules proved me wrong.


Orbis Orboros wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

Just my 2 cents:

Concerning the ability's text: "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."

I actually see it as specifically saying 'you' would banish.

If a monster makes you banish a card, then the monster is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If a location makes you banish a card to close it, then the location is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If an ability makes you banish another card to use it, then the ability is banishing the card, not you; you are just selecting which one.

If you fail to acquire a boon and must banish it, the rules are banishing the card, not you.

However, if you choose to banish a card for its own ability, that was your choice specifically to banish that card, therefore you are banishing the card, and it would recharge.

All that being said, my interpretation may be completely wrong, or I might be getting the correct result just for an incorrect reason, or I might be totally correct.

Clarification is definitely needed for this ability, because Banishing is one of the ways to play a card, but it is also an outside requirement imposed by other effects. And it seems very similar to the other abilities for Discard/Recharge, in which you had to specifically discard a card for its own ability in order for auto-recharges to kick in, and having to discard it for any other reason did not allow the recharge.

I disagree. By your logic offered that the monster, location, etc is banishing the card, then the alchemical item is banishing itself, not you.

Not really. All the others have an effect and that effect is causing you to do something to the card of your choice, you're simply choosing which card (even if you only have the option of one card because of its traits or type). By playing the card, you, yourself, are choosing to activate an ability that specifically does something to the card directly, not indirectly leaving you a second choice for you to deal with that card.

It's a difference between the choices you make. Being forced to choose something is different than choosing something directly to start with.

If you choose to use a character power that requires you to discard a card, your first choice is choosing to use the power; using the power forces you to discard a card (sometimes a specific card or a card with a certain trait) and then you make a choice as to which card you have to discard. Discarding the card is your secondary choice, not the first.

However, using an ability on the card that discards the card, itself, isn't letting you choose the card to discard. You choose the ability, and that ability directly discards the card, there is no choice concerning which card to discard.

In playing the ability, you don't have a choice of which card it deals with whatsoever; that choice is taken away from you by the ability, so by choosing to play the ability, it directly causes the card to go away. It is your primary choice, not a choice in response to the ability being activated.

You choose an ability that discards the card; you don't choose which card to discard after the ability says to discard a card.

---

If you go to the grocery store and buy something, then you are given the option for paper bags or plastic bags, your choice was to buy something and the result of buying something gave you an option to get paper bags or plastic bags. The store may be out of plastic bags so you end up getting paper bags anyway; your choices were limited (only having one option) but it was still a choice but not the primary choice.

However, if you go to the grocery store and buy an item that is wrapped in a paper bag, itself, then you're directly choosing to get paper bags because it's directly part of the choice, it's not a secondary result.

Sovereign Court

There's actually already an example in game that would disagree with you Firedale

The Farmhouse Location wrote:
If you would discard an ally, bury it instead

This "At this location" power still causes you to bury allies even if a bane forces you to. Regardless of why, YOU are the one discarding the ally (or banishing a card, or whatever the bane is making you do). Something may be forcing you to, but you are still the one doing it.


Andrew K wrote:

There's actually already an example in game that would disagree with you Firedale

The Farmhouse Location wrote:
If you would discard an ally, bury it instead
This "At this location" power still causes you to bury allies even if a bane forces you to. Regardless of why, YOU are the one discarding the ally (or banishing a card, or whatever the bane is making you do). Something may be forcing you to, but you are still the one doing it.

You're quite right there, and I was actually stuck on having read something that wasn't actually there.

Many of the abilities in question that require directly playing a card actually say "When you play ___" as opposed to "When you discard ___" or "When you bury ___" or "When you banish ___."

This ability doesn't actually have that (nor does the Farmhouse), so I'd have to concede this part and void my argument, as my mind was stuck thinking about one thing that wasn't even related, since it's not the playing a card part that's causing the issue.

Sovereign Court

YES! I WON THE DISAGREEMENT OTHERS COULD NOT WITH A SINGLE POST!!!

I mean, uh, I'm glad I could help with the confusion :)

I'm hoping the only correction this power needs is that it only works with banishes from your own cards (hand/deck/discard), and not things like failing to acquire one from the location deck. As it reads, it would pop from failed acquires, but I highly doubt they meant it that way because that's pretty broken. When you add in what someone mentioned earlier, about how you banish all cards in the deck when you close a location, that would just make the character broken past even being fun or fair.


Bumping the thread in hopes of a reply from Mike or Vic.


In the play-test, the intent was (this was specifically confirmed by Chad) that Damiel could use his power even if you had NOT played the card being banished. Remember too, that it must be Damiel doing the banishing, so it's not like he just gets to grab any potions the get sent to the box... HE has to be the one closing the location for it to work that way. It's powerful, but seemingly that was intended.

I probably shouldn't give specifics, but as I recall from the play-test, the really nice potions don't show up for a while anyway. Maybe he'll actually get some use out of a blast-stone though ;)


There are some great potions in the Character Add-On deck. The let you make attacks.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Orbis Orboros wrote:
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."


That should cover it as long as we don't get cards that banish cards from your deck. :)

God forbid we ever get any of those, that would be terrifying D:


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, doesn't something in Spires of Xin-Shalast do just that?

But I think its fine that he can't recharge banished cards from his character deck. An effect like that should be terrifying.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Another Damiel Q - possible eratta needed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.