Cape of escape has been mentioned before, but I couldn't find an answer to this:
"Bury this card to move, or to evade an encounter and then move."
In a scenario like Press Ganged!, where there is only one location, am I allowed to play Cape of Escape to evade an encounter, even though I cannot technically move? Does this fall under "ignore things that are impossible" or "cards don't do what they don't say"?
Personally I would disallow it.
You could not use the "Bury this card to move" power if you had nowhere to move to. Moving is explicitly described as going to another location. Since the card does not say "you may," it's mandatory to move when you play that power. So adding an evade effect before that still leaves you playing a card that forces you to move when you can't. In other words, adding a separate legal part to the play doesn't make it less of an illegal play. That's how I would rule it anyway, I'm open to being corrected.
I've always assumed flavor-wise that the way the cape helps you evade is through movement away from the danger. If you cover yourself with a magic cape but don't go anywhere, you'll still get hit!
I think I'd also probably not think you could use it.
Hum, nice one.
If I remember well (don't have the rule in front of me), the golden rule says that if a condition is impossible to meet then ignore it and the rest of the sentence/paragraph.
Since evading is possible and THEN moving isn't, not sure that the impossibility to move has any effect on the evasion (because evasion happens earlier in the sentence).
I would tend to rule you can evade.
|
Well apparently last night's comment never posted.
I'd disallow it, because I believe to activate a power of a card, you have to be able to do that whole power. If it said "you may move", then it'd be optional and you could do it. It says "and", though, and to me that means you can't use that power at all because you can't fulfill the full power.
Okay, got it. Makes sense, just wanted to run it past you guys, so thanks. I guess Cape of Escape ≠ Invisibility Cloak!
EDIT: Never mind, misunderstood. Ignore me.
I'm curious to see where you got the "you must be able to do that whole power" thing from, Andrew.
"Anyone can play a card whenever the card allows it. 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....
If you are instructed to play, reveal, display, discard, recharge, bury, banish, or otherwise manipulate a card, that card must come from your hand unless otherwise specified. You may not activate a power that doesn’t apply to your current situation. For example, you may not play a card to reduce damage when damage is not being dealt, and you may not play a card to evade a monster when you are not encountering a monster."
"Bury this card to move" obviously can't happen if there is only 1 location because it doesn't apply to the current situation (you can't move)
The issue is "Evade an encounter and then move". I think I'd parse it the same way hawkmoon and Andrew do; both of those have to apply to your current situation before you can use it. You wouldn't be able to ignore the "then move" part if there was another location to move to, so you have to be able to do both.
I ignore flavor when parsing rules text. I'm sorry, Pathfinder the RPG kinda trained me this way, there's so many corner case rules in the RPG that actually make absolutely no sense if I had to use flavor to justify it. So for the sake of my sanity, I just don't do it.
Er, I should have clarified and asked you about where you think the "whole power" comes from in terms of rules. But if it's just an implicit way of interpreting "doesn't apply to your current situation", sure.
It's because of the word "and" that I believe you need to do the whole thing. It isn't may, or an "or", it's and. Can't do "and" then you aren't able to use the power. To me it'd be like Lini recharging an ally to explore and saying she doesn't actually want to explore, just recharge the card.
I'm not saying you're wrong about cape of escape, but that isn't the same thing. Lini is not doing something because she doesn't want to, not because it is impossible.
Er, I should have clarified and asked you about where you think the "whole power" comes from in terms of rules. But if it's just an implicit way of interpreting "doesn't apply to your current situation", sure.
From Vic's post on the Alehouse thread, he clarifies that the ignorable part of a power is a full instruction, which is loosely defined and on a case-by-case basis. On the reading of Cape of Escape, there are two instructions that you choose between due to the comma or construction, these are:
1. "Bury this card to move"2. "Bury this card to evade an encounter and move"
Both instructions require being able to move, since you cannot move you cannot perform that instruction. As such, you cannot evade the encounter either. Read through the Alehouse thread linked to see that the Alehouse has the exact same scenario with the word "and" causing two things to happen, and you being unable to use the power if you are unable to do one of those two things (in that case, you can't recharge the ally due to it not actually going into your hand due to scenario rules, so you can't draw a card either).
From Vic's post on the Alehouse thread, he clarifies that the ignorable part of a power is a full instruction, which is loosely defined and on a case-by-case basis. On the reading of Cape of Escape, there are two instructions that you choose between due to the comma or construction, these are:
1. "Bury this card to move"
2. "Bury this card to evade an encounter and move"Both instructions require being able to move, since you cannot move you cannot perform that instruction. As such, you cannot evade the encounter either. Read through the Alehouse thread linked to see that the Alehouse has the exact same scenario with the word "and" causing two things to happen, and you being unable to use the power if you are unable to do one of those two things (in that case, you can't recharge the ally due to it not actually going into your hand due to scenario rules, so you can't draw a card either).
Right, but there's a different sequence there. In Rum Punch vs. Alehouse you get this.
Alehouse, "When you acquire an ally, you may recharge it and draw a card."
The sequence is this:
1. When you acquire an ally, you may recharge that ally.
2. If you recharge the ally, draw a card.
If you somehow can't draw a card due to some effect, you recharge the ally and Ø. If you somehow can't recharge the ally, you don't get the draw.
----
Cape of Escape, "Bury this card to evade an encounter and move"
The sequence, similarly, is this.
1. You may bury Cape during the evade step of an encounter.
2. If you do, you may evade an encounter.
3. If you evade, move.
If you somehow can't move, you evade and Ø. If you somehow can't evade, you can't play Cape during an encounter.
From Vic's post on the Alehouse thread, he clarifies that the ignorable part of a power is a full instruction, which is loosely defined and on a case-by-case basis. On the reading of Cape of Escape, there are two instructions that you choose between due to the comma or construction, these are:
1. "Bury this card to move"
2. "Bury this card to evade an encounter and move"Both instructions require being able to move, since you cannot move you cannot perform that instruction. As such, you cannot evade the encounter either. Read through the Alehouse thread linked to see that the Alehouse has the exact same scenario with the word "and" causing two things to happen, and you being unable to use the power if you are unable to do one of those two things (in that case, you can't recharge the ally due to it not actually going into your hand due to scenario rules, so you can't draw a card either).
Right, but there's a different sequence there. In Rum Punch vs. Alehouse you get this.
Alehouse, "When you acquire an ally, you may recharge it and draw a card."
The sequence is this:
1. When you acquire an ally, you may recharge that ally.
2. If you recharge the ally, draw a card.If you somehow can't draw a card due to some effect, you recharge the ally and Ø. If you somehow can't recharge the ally, you don't get the draw.
----
Cape of Escape, "Bury this card to evade an encounter and move"
The sequence, similarly, is this.
1. You may bury Cape during the evade step of an encounter.
2. If you do, you may evade an encounter.
3. If you evade, move.If you somehow can't move, you evade and Ø. If you somehow can't evade, you can't play Cape during an encounter.
I believe you're mistaken. It is my understanding that if you can't draw a card, you can't recharge the ally either.
Further, I think the analogy between the two effects is thus:
Trigger: Acquire an ally (optional activation)
Effect: Recharge the ally AND draw a card.
Trigger: Evade step of an encounter (optional activation)
Effect: Bury, evade, AND move.
Notice that these all lack a "then" or "second effect" section, which is used when you are to ignore an instruction. An example would be with Heggal's heal and how Swab gets around it:
Trigger: A legal opportunity to play optional "any time" effects (optional activation)
Effect: Reveal a Diplomacy ally and heal d4+x cards.
Next effect: [If possible] Discard the ally.
Note that here, there is an opportunity for something to happen between two parts of the effect, possibly making part of the effect impossible (such as the swab triggering on the heal and recharging himself). It is in this case that you get to ignore an impossible instruction.
NOTE: Normally, I would create an additional section, "cost;" but in this case I think that unnecessarily muddies the water (and due to wording, I'm not altogether certain that there is a cost in the Alehouse).
|
|
It's because of the word "and" that I believe you need to do the whole thing. It isn't may, or an "or", it's and. Can't do "and" then you aren't able to use the power. To me it'd be like Lini recharging an ally to explore and saying she doesn't actually want to explore, just recharge the card.I'm not saying you're wrong about cape of escape, but that isn't the same thing. Lini is not doing something because she doesn't want to, not because it is impossible.
Fine.
She does the same exact thing, except an effect says she currently can't explore (say, because she failed to defeat a monster that prevents any more explores).
Better?
So, my totally-unofficial-could-be-reversed take on this is to follow the impossible rule from Magic: The Gathering.
101.3. Any part of an instruction that's impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn't, there's no effect.)
Since this is a weird scenario with only one location, there's a part of the process that would normally trigger (you move) that you can't trigger (there's nowhere to move). But you've already begun processing the power. You've started an encounter, buried a card, evaded the encounter, and then tried to move. The game stopped you from doing that. So by the reading of the expanded impossible rule from Magic above, now it's on the game to tell you the consequences of that effect. Since it doesn't say anything, there's no effect.
To clarify further, imagine you're playing a totally normal Runelords scenario, and you're at the Treacherous Cave. You encounter a Goblin Commando. You bury a card. You evade the Goblin, shuffling him into the deck. You try your very hardest to move. To do so, you need to succeed at a Constitution or Fortitude 6 check to move, which you proceed to fail. Now, you can't go back in time and unshuffle the Goblin out of the deck, and you sure don't get to unbury your card. So you declare the move impossible, and the consequence is that you stay at the Cave.
So, I'd say that in this weird case of having only one location, you can play Cape of Escape. If we want you not to be able to do so, we'd have to make the Cape say something else, or have a special rule for what happens when there's only one location.
So, my totally-unofficial-could-be-reversed take on this is to follow the impossible rule from Magic: The Gathering.
101.3. Any part of an instruction that's impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn't, there's no effect.)Since this is a weird scenario with only one location, there's a part of the process that would normally trigger (you move) that you can't trigger (there's nowhere to move). But you've already begun processing the power. You've started an encounter, buried a card, evaded the encounter, and then tried to move. The game stopped you from doing that. So by the reading of the expanded impossible rule from Magic above, now it's on the game to tell you the consequences of that effect. Since it doesn't say anything, there's no effect.
To clarify further, imagine you're playing a totally normal Runelords scenario, and you're at the Treacherous Cave. You encounter a Goblin Commando. You bury a card. You evade the Goblin, shuffling him into the deck. You try your very hardest to move. To do so, you need to succeed at a Constitution or Fortitude 6 check to move, which you proceed to fail. Now, you can't go back in time and unshuffle the Goblin out of the deck, and you sure don't get to unbury your card. So you declare the move impossible, and the consequence is that you stay at the Cave.
So, I'd say that in this weird case of having only one location, you can play Cape of Escape. If we want you not to be able to do so, we'd have to make the Cape say something else, or have a special rule for what happens when there's only one location.
Hmmm. So why couldn't you play the Cape against an enemy that can't be evaded to move? (You'd finish the encounter, albeit at a different location)
Just playing Devil's Advocate
|
|
I don't think you'd really have to change the Cape or make a special rule. You could just adjust the impossible rule to say something to this effect.
If something forces you to do multiple things, you do what you can and ignore any impossible steps. If you choose to activate a power, you must be able to at least attempt the full power.
So failing the Cave's check wouldn't stop the rest of a voluntarily activated power, because you were at least able to attempt to move. If you only had one location, you can't even attempt to move so you don't do any of the power and can't activate it in the first place.
I don't think you'd really have to change the Cape or make a special rule. You could just adjust the impossible rule to say something to this effect.
If something forces you to do multiple things, you do what you can and ignore any impossible steps. If you choose to activate a power, you must be able to at least attempt the full power.
So failing the Cave's check wouldn't stop the rest of a voluntarily activated power, because you were at least able to attempt to move. If you only had one location, you can't even attempt to move so you don't do any of the power and can't activate it in the first place.
That's how I understood it to work in the first place (every game I've ever played that I can think of works the same way).
But the first example in Mike's post has nothing that's changing - there aren't several locations that then become one location, there's one location from the get go, and he's saying you can still play the Cape.
Hmmm. So why couldn't you play the Cape against an enemy that can't be evaded to move? (You'd finish the encounter, albeit at a different location)
Because the unevadable monster stops you from playing the card. It is no longer in a situation where the card can trigger, so you try to bury the card to trigger it and you fail to do that.
Similarly, if you played a card that said "Bury this card to move," you can't play it. You can't move and that's the triggering mechanism.
Anyway, I'm sure this is a highly interpretable situation, and the right solution might be to clarify the definition of move so that it's sealed up.
Hmmm. So why couldn't you play the Cape against an enemy that can't be evaded to move? (You'd finish the encounter, albeit at a different location)Because the unevadable monster stops you from playing the card. It is no longer in a situation where the card can trigger, so you try to bury the card to trigger it and you fail to do that.
Similarly, if you played a card that said "Bury this card to move," you can't play it. You can't move and that's the triggering mechanism.
Anyway, I'm sure this is a highly interpretable situation, and the right solution might be to clarify the definition of move so that it's sealed up.
So what's differentiating between the evade part being significant enough to determine timing, but the move part being ignorable? The fact that it's listed second? The word "then," even though it's in the same sentence and everything? What if it said "Bury this card to move, or to move and then evade an encounter" - would that change things?
What bothers me about this is that there is so little differentiating between the evade being significant and move not being so. Had you separated the sentences, I think we all would have ruled opposite. Thus:
Bury this card to move, or to evade an encounter; you must then move.
Bury this card to move.
Bury this card to evade an encounter. Then move.
But the move is attached to the evade. The only words separating them are "and then." Would your ruling have differed if it had said "...to evade an encounter and move?" I had just figured the "then" was because it seems nonsensical to move before the monster had been evaded.
IDK, I appear to be rambling. This just really threw me for a loop.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm not sure I agree with Mike's conclusion. The way I read it—and indeed the way I have intentionally been constructing things—"Bury this card to ... evade an encounter and then move" is a single instruction. If I had thought the intent was to allow you to evade an encounter even if you couldn't move, I'd have broken it into two instructions, as Orbis said above.
That said, moving to the same location is certainly possible in the game, as evidenced by the difference between "move to a random location" and "move to a random other location." (However, when that happens, the rules explicitly state that your character is not considered to have entered or left a location, so effects that trigger off of those things don't happen.) Now, maybe Mike might want to say "you can *be moved* to the same location, but you can't *choose* to move to the same location..."
I'm not sure I agree with Mike's conclusion. The way I read it—and indeed the way I have intentionally been constructing things—"Bury this card to ... evade an encounter and then move" is a single instruction. If I had thought the intent was to allow you to evade an encounter even if you couldn't move, I'd have broken it into two instructions, as Orbis said above.
That said, moving to the same location is certainly possible in the game, as evidenced by the difference between "move to a random location" and "move to a random other location." (However, when that happens, the rules explicitly state that your character is not considered to have entered or left a location, so effects that trigger off of those things don't happen.) Now, maybe Mike might want to say "you can *be moved* to the same location, but you can't *choose* to move to the same location..."
Reasonable. Like I said, the best solution might be clarifying the definition of move so that this is closed off.
I'm not sure I agree with Mike's conclusion. The way I read it—and indeed the way I have intentionally been constructing things—"Bury this card to ... evade an encounter and then move" is a single instruction. If I had thought the intent was to allow you to evade an encounter even if you couldn't move, I'd have broken it into two instructions, as Orbis said above.
I feel like my feet are grounded again. :)
That said, moving to the same location is certainly possible in the game, as evidenced by the difference between "move to a random location" and "move to a random other location." (However, when that happens, the rules explicitly state that your character is not considered to have entered or left a location, so effects that trigger off of those things don't happen.) Now, maybe Mike might want to say "you can *be moved* to the same location, but you can't *choose* to move to the same location..."
This is new to me. I assumed "random" was an exception - I didn't know you could move to the same location in a non-random fashion. Does this mean that - for now - you can play the Pteradon to move to the same location (basically, not move) and explore there with an extra d6 for combat? Essentially making it a superior Velociraptor?
That said, moving to the same location is certainly possible in the game, as evidenced by the difference between "move to a random location" and "move to a random other location." (However, when that happens, the rules explicitly state that your character is not considered to have entered or left a location, so effects that trigger off of those things don't happen.) Now, maybe Mike might want to say "you can *be moved* to the same location, but you can't *choose* to move to the same location..."This is new to me. I assumed "random" was an exception - I didn't know you could move to the same location in a non-random fashion. Does this mean that - for now - you can play the Pteradon to move to the same location (basically, not move) and explore there with an extra d6 for combat? Essentially making it a superior Velociraptor?
I echo Orbis's thoughts here in that I didn't think you could willingly choose to move to the same location (if I did, I'd have argued the other way above in that you can evade by choosing to move to your current location), but that effects that move you allow you to stay still.
From the rulebook, page 8:
Move: You may move your token card to another location. Moving then triggers any effects that happen when you enter or leave a
location. (If you do not move, your character is not considered to have entered or left a location.) If you are commanding a ship that is not anchored, other characters at your location may be able to move with you (see Commanding and Moving Ships on page 17).
That quote applies to the move step on your turn, where it says you may move to another location, i.e. not the one you are currently at. I could not find any other rules related to moving, however.
Oh. Faulty memory I guess!
Well then, what about using Droogami to explore the same location you're at? He doesn't say "another location." :3
Doing so would be useful for maximizing explores at a specific individual location.
The FAQ is unclear about whether you can stay at the same location if told to move (to me). "When you choose to move, you must always select a new location" says nothing about when you are told to move [non-randomly].
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are told to move, and a location is not specified, that means you're choosing the location, and you can't choose the one you're at.
If you are told to move, and the location is specified (or determined randomly), that's covered by "it is possible for some effects to move you to the same location you came from."