I have a question regarding the wording of some cards and how they can be played, specifically when it comes to the words "a check" and "any check."
Consider the card "Aid" which states: "Discard this card to add 1d6 to a check." My understanding is that this can be any check, whether its for your own combat check, or for another character's check to close a location, or recharging a card etc.
So could the word "any" be substituted in for "a" with the same effect?
Now look at the card "Find Traps" which states: "Discard this card to add 2 dice to any check to defeat a barrier." Why doesn't it say "a check to defeat a barrier?"
Are the designers trying to specify a difference in the methods of play for these cards, or are the words "a" and "any" interchangeable?
Thanks for any help you can offer.
They're interchangeable; no subtle grammar tricks here as far as I can tell. Both instances mean that you are not limited by whose check it is (unlike something that says "add 1d6 to your check"), although there may be other restrictions in effect as is the case with Find Traps.
Chief Technical Officer
|
No functional difference. In Runelords, we used "a check" most of the time. In S&S, we began to prefer "any check" because it more effectively communicated to players that it included checks other that their own. (There are still places where "a check" reads better, usually after we have already clearly communicated whose checks it applies to.)
I see. Thanks for the timely responses! Now I have a follow up question:
If you look at the card "Chime of Unlocking" it says "Reveal this card to defeat a barrier with the Lock trait."
Even though the wording on this card says "a barrier," implying that it can be a barrier anyone is encountering, it actually would only work on a barrier you are encountering because of a rule that says you cannot resolve someone else's encounter for them. Is this correct?
So would the general rule of thumb be that it's okay to play cards that add dice to other peoples checks but not cards that would instantly defeat their checks for them? (Unless the card specifies otherwise)
Once again I appreciate the clarification, my friends and I are enjoying this game very much!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Even though the wording on this card says "a barrier," implying that it can be a barrier anyone is encountering, it actually would only work on a barrier you are encountering because of a rule that says you cannot resolve someone else's encounter for them. Is this correct?
This is correct. And even though it was true by rule before, starting with Wrath, we're adjusting the wording on these to explicitly say things like "Reveal this card to defeat a barrier you encounter..."
That makes sense to me. Thank you. Can't wait to try out Wrath. Still enjoying Rise of the Runelords though.
|
Are you making a distinction there between "Reveal this card to defeat a barrier you encounter..." and "Reveal this card to succeed at a check to defeat a barrier (you encounter)..." or are you putting somewhere in the rules that you can only defeat barriers that have a check to defeat? (And refrain from using "SEE BELOW" when you actually mean "NONE" in the check to defeat box?)
I think you're reading too much into this. The two conditions you mention are different: "Reveal this card to defeat a barrier you encounter ..." and "Reveal this card to succeed at a check to defeat a barrier you encounter ...". Things like Masterwork Tools and Thieves Tools are supposed to work against barriers in general. You'd see text similar to the first. But things like a Pole or Crowbar are against a specific type of barrier (with a check to defeat) so you'd be seeing the second style of text.
Vic was just giving an example ... probably not describing the wording for all cards (and powers) used against barriers.
|
Theryon - That's not the only distinction to be made in those phrasings.
While we have not encountered one yet - there is every possibility of Paizo eventually creating a barrier (a Villain Barrier??) which would require multiple checks to defeat.
In which case - the "Reveal this card to defeat a barrier" would effectively handle BOTH checks, while the second phrasing would only help/handle one of the checks.
Thus far, there is no difference between "...to defeat a barrier..." and "...to succeed at your check to defeat a barrier..."
See this thread: Clarification on Monster in the Closet barrier
|
|
Nod Orbis - and I see where Vic is coming from.
I'm just not sure I agree with the idea of 'shorthand'. I understand there is limited space on the card, but from a pure linguistic standpoint -- there are differences here.
i.e. Suppose it's a character that has an ability of "when you succeed at a [SKILL] check, draw a card" and the barrier has a check to defeat of type [SKILL]
Does the power trigger or not?
For the "succeed at your check to defeat" - the answer is obviously Yes.
For the first though, an argument could be made that the card was defeated without a check -- it was defeated by the played boon. In which case the power isn't triggered.
Just to be clear - I'm not meaning to dispute Vic's statement that it IS shorthand. Rather just his conclusion that this isn't worth clarifying in the FAQ/Errata.
Nod Orbis - and I see where Vic is coming from.
I'm just not sure I agree with the idea of 'shorthand'. I understand there is limited space on the card, but from a pure linguistic standpoint -- there are differences here.
i.e. Suppose it's a character that has an ability of "when you succeed at a [SKILL] check, draw a card" and the barrier has a check to defeat of type [SKILL]
Does the power trigger or not?
For the "succeed at your check to defeat" - the answer is obviously Yes.
For the first though, an argument could be made that the card was defeated without a check -- it was defeated by the played boon. In which case the power isn't triggered.
Just to be clear - I'm not meaning to dispute Vic's statement that it IS shorthand. Rather just his conclusion that this isn't worth clarifying in the FAQ/Errata.
Hmmm... So, a very real situation:
Thingy
BarrierCheck to defeat: Craft 10
When you succeed at a Craft check, you may examine the top card of your deck; if it is an item, you may add it to your hand.
And of course the Thieves Tools.
If Damiel uses the Tools to defeat the Thingy, does he get to examine the top of his deck?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say yes. And here is why: you still have to go through the attempt a check sequence. And you'd play Thieves Tools at a specific point in that sequence.
Attempting a Check
1. Determine which skill you’re using.
2. Determine the difficulty.
3. Play cards and use powers that affect the check (optional).
4. Assemble your dice.
5. Attempt the roll.
6. Take damage if you fail a check to defeat a monster.
Damiel would declare it Craft in Step 1. He'd play the Tools in step 3. He'd get to skip steps 4 and 5 (and 6 becomes unnecessary). I'd see that as Damiel succeeding at a Craft check.
|
|
That's if you read it that Thieves Tools would be played at the point, Hawkmoon.
Again playing devil's advocate here -
it could be interpreted that it's not 'attempt the check', but you play it in an earlier step (i.e. 'before you act' step) - in which case a check is never actually made -- which would mean that the power would not activate.
Again - Vic has stated it is synonymous and therefore I agree with your interpretation that yes Damiel would get to examine the top card.
I just think that there are enough real situations in the game that a question could come up, that it wouldn't hurt to put it in the official FAQ.
That's if you read it that Thieves Tools would be played at the point, Hawkmoon.
Again playing devil's advocate here -
it could be interpreted that it's not 'attempt the check', but you play it in an earlier step (i.e. 'before you act' step) - in which case a check is never actually made -- which would mean that the power would not activate.Again - Vic has stated it is synonymous and therefore I agree with your interpretation that yes Damiel would get to examine the top card.
I just think that there are enough real situations in the game that a question could come up, that it wouldn't hurt to put it in the official FAQ.
I wouldn't mind an official clarification. But I will say this: it pretty much has to be played at that point.
Thieves' Tools itself doesn't say to play it "when encountered" or "before you act" or "after you act", so that would mean they don't relate to what is happening in those steps (unless something else required you to make a Disable check and you were going to use that power of the tools). You could try to make an argument that you play them when you resolve the encounter, but by that point the barrier would already be undefeated and the tools don't let you change the end result. So really, you'd have to play them during the "attempt the check" step of the encounter. And in that step, they don't determine the skill or affect the difficulty, so they must affect the check.
By default, you defeat a card by attempting the check(s). That would mean you would play the tools then too.
I think the bigger issue is that any one who hasn't been to the non-FAQ part of the site / forums would be able to determine that using the Tools here would let Damiel examine the top of his deck (assuming it does - and if it doesn't, why not?).
|
|
I don't disagree at all Hawkmoon.
As I said - I just have an issue with the 'shorthand' because I think it does leave some room for questions that the longer phrasing of "succeed at a check to defeat" makes absolutely clear.
(i.e. that the check DOES happen, that if multiple checks are required - it only succeeds at ONE of the checks, etc).
And it's only 5 additional words - it's not like it takes a paragraph to explain it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Thus far, there is no difference between "...to defeat a barrier..." and "...to succeed at your check to defeat a barrier..."
See this thread: Clarification on Monster in the Closet barrier
When I explained that shorthand thing, I did say that's how *I* saw it. I'm not sure if Mike necessarily would have agreed. Also, that was before we had the discussion about the distinction between checks listed as "see below" and "none", and I'm not sure if *I* believe that shorthand thing anymore. We'll have to get back to you.
(Also, I'm not aware of any *non-hypothetical* situations where it matters...)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules from RotR right up through Wrath have always included the following:
Check to Defeat: This is the skill check or combat check needed to defeat the bane. If the check is listed as “None,” the bane cannot be defeated.
So Enemy Ship had originally (and correctly, at the time) been listed as "See Below" instead of "None," because it can be defeated... but then we changed it to "None" to make Rum Bottle and such not work against it (see this thread).
As part of that resolution, we decided that if a card has a check to defeat or acquire that can't be explained, we'd use See Below; if it doesn't have a check to defeat, we'd use None. But that wasn't actually what had determined the distinction until that point. Before, it was "If a bane can't be defeated, use None; if it can, use See Below." So that change messes with the rule I quoted above, because using the new distinction (which is otherwise a good thing), Enemy Ship can't be defeated.
So what we need to do is adjust the above rule to this:
Check to Defeat: This is the skill check or combat check needed to defeat the bane. If the check is listed as “None” or "See Below," the requirements to defeat the bane may be stated in the bane's power. If the check is listed as “None” and the power does not state the requirements to defeat the bane, the bane cannot be defeated.
So that takes care of Enemy Ship and its like, but we need a little more to tell you whether or not "defeat an x" is really shorthand for "automatically succeed at your check to defeat an X". Which we've decided it is. So we also need this:
If a power says you can automatically defeat a bane or acquire a boon, it only applies to cards that have a check to acquire or defeat.
See any issues here?
So that takes care of Enemy Ship and its like, but we need a little more to tell you whether or not "defeat an x" is really shorthand for "automatically succeed at your check to defeat an X". Which we've decided it is. So we also need this:
If a power says you can automatically defeat a bane or acquire a boon, it only applies to cards that have a check to acquire or defeat.See any issues here?
I think this needs clarifying for cards with more than one check. Namely, do you automatically succeed at one of the checks, or all checks?
You may also want something to clarify that with cards such as Rat Swarm ("If you succeed at the check to defeat by 4 or more" etc.), an automatic success doesn't count as having beaten the check by a certain amount.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Good call on the first part... let's go with "If a power says you can automatically defeat a bane or acquire a boon, it only applies to cards that have one or more checks to acquire or defeat."
As far as Rat Swarm goes, that's a bit too specific an interaction to really cover here.
I think that is good and very useful, but how does it address the question of whether "automatically defeating" counts as "succeeding at a check to defeat". E.G., the Damiel question above. I'm confused.
So for a bane/boon with multiple checks, "automatically acquire" or "automatically defeat" means you still need to roll the second check? If so, that seems counterintuitive for what the wording would indicate, and I can see people getting very confused about that. Perhaps it should say that every check was successful?
So for a bane/boon with multiple checks, "automatically acquire" or "automatically defeat" means you still need to roll the second check? If so, that seems counterintuitive for what the wording would indicate, and I can see people getting very confused about that. Perhaps it should say that every check was successful?
If a power says "(automatically) succeed at your check to...", it means ONE check so I would agree with Vic that if you have multiple checks, you onlmy get to pass one.
Then if the power says "(automatically) defeat..." it would mean succeed at ALL checks... and indeed if someone had a power like "if you succeed at a check to..." that power would trigger many times (unless clearly stated otherwise) in case on a single "(automatically) defeat..." power played against a multiple checks card.
... until proven wrong by the Not-this-Mikghty-God
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Actually, forget that phrasing—let's go with what we *mean* first.
You succeed at all the checks to defeat or acquire on the card (and there must be at least one), unless any of them is a check you're not permitted to succeed at, in which case you don't defeat or acquire the card at all.
See any holes there?
a check you're not permitted to succeed at
What does this refer to?
I am just wondering when exactly I play it. It seems on a bane with multiple checks, I would play it during the first check and it would affect the future checks too, even though I wouldn't be playing it during this checks (which are separate steps).
Would anything prevent me from attempting check 1 normally then playing such a card for checks 2+?
Does anything that happens while I am attempting a check need to happen multiple times? For example, if a location said "When you attempt a check, recharge a card." And I used this kind of card to defeat a bane with 3 checks to defeat, do I recharge 3 cards?
Actually, forget that phrasing—let's go with what we *mean* first.
You succeed at all the checks to defeat or acquire on the card (and there must be at least one), unless any of them is a check you're not permitted to succeed at, in which case you don't defeat or acquire the card at all.
See any holes there?
Seems good. Maybe want to explicitly mention that the check is simply considered successful without there being a roll (since there are powers on cards that care about what you rolled on the check, swarms and Admiral Thrune come to mind).
I'm assuming "not permitted to succeed at" is along similar lines of the Sin Eater barrier in WotR where it says "you aren't allowed to acquire allies." (except instead it would say something like "You aren't allowed to succeed at Constitution or Fortitude checks")
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I am just wondering when exactly I play it. It seems on a bane with multiple checks, I would play it during the first check and it would affect the future checks too, even though I wouldn't be playing it during this checks (which are separate steps).
A good question—I'd say the we want you to play it when you would attempt the check. Which would mean we'd need to add a sentence to that effect under "Attempt the Check" (page 10 of the Wrath rulebook).
Would anything prevent me from attempting check 1 normally then playing such a card for checks 2+?
Doing what I said above would. :-)
Does anything that happens while I am attempting a check need to happen multiple times? For example, if a location said "When you attempt a check, recharge a card." And I used this kind of card to defeat a bane with 3 checks to defeat, do I recharge 3 cards?
Because you play it when you *would* attempt the check, you don't actually attempt the check, so none of that stuff ever happens.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
a check you're not permitted to succeed atWhat does this refer to?
Mainly this. But there's room for other things.
I am just wondering when exactly I play it. It seems on a bane with multiple checks, I would play it during the first check and it would affect the future checks too, even though I wouldn't be playing it during this checks (which are separate steps).A good question—I'd say the we want you to play it when you would attempt the check. Which would mean we'd need to add a sentence to that effect under "Attempt the Check" (page 10 of the Wrath rulebook).
Would anything prevent me from attempting check 1 normally then playing such a card for checks 2+?Doing what I said above would. :-)
Does anything that happens while I am attempting a check need to happen multiple times? For example, if a location said "When you attempt a check, recharge a card." And I used this kind of card to defeat a bane with 3 checks to defeat, do I recharge 3 cards?Because you play it when you *would* attempt the check, you don't actually attempt the check, so none of that stuff ever happens.
Seems much better. Waiting for your rephrasing to test it...
Mainly this. But there's room for other things.a check you're not permitted to succeed atWhat does this refer to?
In that case I think it should be "automatically succeed at."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
So we think the concept is sound. So we're looking to add this to "Attempt the Check," as a new paragraph in between "look at the card’s powers and immediately do whatever it says there" and "After you attempt the check, deal with any effects that were triggered by the check":
If a power allows you to automatically defeat or acquire a card, you may use it at this time. Using such a power counts as succeeding at all checks required to defeat or acquire the card. You may not use such a power on any card that does not have a check to acquire or defeat, or on any card that has a check you're not allowed to succeed at.
So we think the concept is sound. So we're looking to add this to "Attempt the Check," as a new paragraph in between "look at the card’s powers and immediately do whatever it says there" and "After you attempt the check, deal with any effects that were triggered by the check":
If a power allows you to automatically defeat or acquire a card, you may use it at this time. Using such a power counts as succeeding at all checks required to defeat or acquire the card. You may not use such a power on any card that does not have a check to acquire or defeat, or on any card that has a check you're not allowed to succeed at.
I still think it should be "...you're not allowed to automatically succeed at." Given that every check can be rolled and succeeded on.
Sounds good otherwise.
I think I've been playing this game wrong the entire time. Does this mean for a "combat then combat" check, a) I would be limited to 1 blessing (and other card types too) per person for the entirety of both checks? b) if using a weapon for the first combat, would be unable to use a weapon for the second?
No, you're fine. On a multi-check card (such as a monster with Combat THEN Combat), each check is a separate check, so the one card type per person per check refreshes.
Added FAQ entry.
... You may not use such a power on any card that does not have a check to acquire or defeat, or on any card that has a check you're not allowed to succeed at.
Shouldn't that last part be "a check you're not allowed to automatically succeed at"? Or are there indeed checks where you are not allowed to succeed, like, at all? That doesn't sound like it would make a lot of sense.
Check to defeat: ain't happening
You forgot about that one already?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Added FAQ entry.... You may not use such a power on any card that does not have a check to acquire or defeat, or on any card that has a check you're not allowed to succeed at.Shouldn't that last part be "a check you're not allowed to automatically succeed at"? Or are there indeed checks where you are not allowed to succeed, like, at all? That doesn't sound like it would make a lot of sense.
I could imagine a card—let's call it "Test of Faith"—that includes something like "If you do not have the Divine skill, you automatically fail this check..."
Ah, I was trying to sort this out myself... I would have guessed that a card like that (assuming it doesn't exist already, and I'm just forgetting) would have text like the recharge checks: "If you do not have the Divine skill, banish this card."
But, I obviously have far less insight into what all possibilities have to be watched out for :)
OK then :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Ah, I was trying to sort this out myself... I would have guessed that a card like that (assuming it doesn't exist already, and I'm just forgetting) would have text like the recharge checks: "If you do not have the Divine skill, banish this card."
But, I obviously have far less insight into what all possibilities have to be watched out for :)
But what if we have a power we want to apply to you?
Test of Faith
Barrier
Intelligence Divine 16
Illustration: A panoply of bejeweled golden drinking cups, with one ordinary-looking wooden cup barely noticeable among them.
Before you act, succeed at a Divine 20 check or you may not play Blessings on the check to defeat. If you do not have the Divine skill, you automatically fail this check.
If defeated, recharge all the blessings in your discard pile. If undefeated, you die.
But what if we have a power we want to apply to you?
Test of Faith
Barrier
Intelligence Divine 16Illustration: A panoply of bejeweled golden drinking cups, with one ordinary-looking wooden cup barely noticeable among them.
Before you act, succeed at a Divine 20 check or you may not play Blessings on the check to defeat. If you do not have the Divine skill, you automatically fail this check.
If defeated, recharge all the blessings in your discard pile. If undefeated, you die.
Intriguing! You could rearrange the wording a bit if you really wanted to ("You may not play blessings on this check, unless you have the Divine skill and succeed at a Diving 20 check"). I'm sure there are other circumstances you could come up with that would re-introduce the tricky bit, though.
But, I'm still glad to see what a "may not succeed check" could be talking about!
Ah, I was trying to sort this out myself... I would have guessed that a card like that (assuming it doesn't exist already, and I'm just forgetting) would have text like the recharge checks: "If you do not have the Divine skill, banish this card."
But, I obviously have far less insight into what all possibilities have to be watched out for :)
But what if we have a power we want to apply to you?
Test of Faith
Barrier
Intelligence Divine 16Illustration: A panoply of bejeweled golden drinking cups, with one ordinary-looking wooden cup barely noticeable among them.
Before you act, succeed at a Divine 20 check or you may not play Blessings on the check to defeat. If you do not have the Divine skill, you automatically fail this check.
If defeated, recharge all the blessings in your discard pile. If undefeated, you die.
This example, though.
You have chosen... wisely.
But what if we have a power we want to apply to you?
Test of Faith
Barrier
Intelligence Divine 16Illustration: A panoply of bejeweled golden drinking cups, with one ordinary-looking wooden cup barely noticeable among them.
Before you act, succeed at a Divine 20 check or you may not play Blessings on the check to defeat. If you do not have the Divine skill, you automatically fail this check.
If defeated, recharge all the blessings in your discard pile. If undefeated, you die.
The bolded sentence just refers to the check to be able to play blessings, correct? And, yes, I know this is an entirely hypothetical card.
