Are you folks thinking the rule that stops you is "You may not activate a power or play a card that doesn’t apply to your current situation"?
I believe that Balazar's power does apply to his situation if (and only if) he's using the monster right away—say, to add 1d4 to his check to defeat a barrier, or if he's immediately feeding it to Padrig to affect his check.
I was just thinking that you can only use powers that affect the check. Balazar's power doesn't affect the check directly, it lets him do something else to affect the check.
Assuming these card don't say you can't play them during an encounter, because I know some do can you...
Play Tot Flask to put the potion Damiel needs in his hand?
Use Adowyn's power to find Leryn or another cohort?
Use Powder Horn to get Lirianne a firearm?
And how far could I take such a thing? Could Oloch be attempting a Diplomacy check, Damiel play Tot Flask to get Potion of Glibness, then play Merchant to give the Potion of Glibness to Oloch?
Also on the list, Feiya's power to use allies to get spells.
I think a bigger problem with the "searching" powers is, you have to remember if the card is there or not. Does Damiel really have that potion of glibness in his deck? If not, he'd have searched his deck, not found the potion of glibness, complete playing Tot Flask by taking say a potion of fortitude, and have a card that doesn't affect the check from playing Tot Flask during a check.
(Again, assuming Tot Flask doesn't say on the power that you can't play it during an encounter. I don't have my cards with me.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you folks thinking the rule that stops you is "You may not activate a power or play a card that doesn’t apply to your current situation"?
I believe that Balazar's power does apply to his situation if (and only if) he's using the monster right away—say, to add 1d4 to his check to defeat a barrier, or if he's immediately feeding it to Padrig to affect his check.
I was just thinking that you can only use powers that affect the check. Balazar's power doesn't affect the check directly, it lets him do something else to affect the check.
Assuming these card don't say you can't play them during an encounter, because I know some do can you...
Play Tot Flask to put the potion Damiel needs in his hand?
Use Adowyn's power to find Leryn or another cohort?
Use Powder Horn to get Lirianne a firearm?
I think what Vic is going for is this, based on the two posts.
1. Fetch a card: If the power only fetches a card, then the target card is allowed to modify (but not determine) a check, and must be played when fetched in this way. Exceptions are explicit, such as with WotR Seoni.
2. Fetch and play a card: If the power fetches and plays a card (such as with Recast,) then the target card need only apply to the situation, and is of course played as part of the power.
---
Tot Flask would be illegal: playing the fetched potion would violate the one-card rule (a second item.) It'd otherwise be ok for something like a Potion of Fortitude, but not a molotov.
Adowyn's power is fine. (Edit for correction: not allowed due to timing.)
Powder Horn is a Call Weapon case: you can use it on a support-power firearm such as Dragon Pistol, but not to give Lirianne a weapon to wield for her check.
Also, chaining (fetch -> Merchant -> someone else plays the card) would not be legal, since it has to be fetch -> play.
|
But Vic, even here the power to pull a monster doesn't affect the check. It gets you a card that lets you use something that does. So by that same logic, why couldn't you use Call Weapon during the Determine Skill step (like this power, it doesn't directly affect the step, but allows you to get a card that does)?
And yes, I actually was under the impression you couldn't play Call Weapon at all during an encounter, even for say, pulling a Dagger to add to playing a weapon. And that was logic I was OK with because Call Weapon doesn't affect the step directly, so I wouldn't expect it to be allowed. Just like pulling a monster doesn't affect it directly so I wouldn't expect it to be allowed.
If this is actually allowed, then I see zero reason to disallow Call Weapon during the Determine Skill step. (Who h, don't think I'm trying to push for CW to be allowed. I don't think it should be, but I see a big inconsistency in rule application here)
I have a hard time seeing how fetching a card is from a deck or discard pile or randomly from the box is different than giving a card from one player to another.
Yes, Tot Flask and Potion of Glibness would be illegal. But why would using Merchant to give a card from my hand to someone else be illegal? It is really just the same as fetching, just it comes from my hand instead of your deck (or the box or your discard pile).
And if using Merchant to give a card during an encounter is legal, then Tot Flask to get a potion of glibness to then give to Oloch via Merchant would also seem legal.
It seem that the question is, does "affects the check" mean that the end result must affect the check, or that the power you use itself must affect the check. I've treated it like the later. If it is the former, I think a whole world of possibilities are opened up.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Play Tot Flask to put the potion Damiel needs in his hand?
So long as it affects the check, and he has a legal way to play two items on the same check... which he probably doesn't.
Use Adowyn's power to find Leryn or another cohort?
Her power begins "At the start of your turn," so no.
Use Powder Horn to get Lirianne a firearm?
So long as it's one of the few firearms with powers that affect the check, yes.
Use Adowyn's power to find Leryn or another cohort?Her power begins "At the start of your turn," so no.
Yeah. That is what happens when I just try to go from memory on the cards and not look at them.
Use Powder Horn to get Lirianne a firearm?So long as it's one of the few firearms with powers that affect the check, yes.
I think at one point I had more of those that did than those that didn't when I played Lirianne, specifically so I could help others more and use them in non-combat situations. Dragon Pistol, Dragon Pistol +1, Navigator Musket. I can't remember if there were a few more or not.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
But Vic, even here the power to pull a monster doesn't affect the check. It gets you a card that lets you use something that does. So by that same logic, why couldn't you use Call Weapon during the Determine Skill step (like this power, it doesn't directly affect the step, but allows you to get a card that does)?
During an encounter, you may only perform specific actions at specific times, and "Determine Which Skill You're Using" doesn't let you do anything other than "play 1 card or use 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use."
I have a hard time seeing how fetching a card is from a deck or discard pile or randomly from the box is different than giving a card from one player to another.
Yes, Tot Flask and Potion of Glibness would be illegal. But why would using Merchant to give a card from my hand to someone else be illegal? It is really just the same as fetching, just it comes from my hand instead of your deck (or the box or your discard pile).
And if using Merchant to give a card during an encounter is legal, then Tot Flask to get a potion of glibness to then give to Oloch via Merchant would also seem legal.
It seem that the question is, does "affects the check" mean that the end result must affect the check, or that the power you use itself must affect the check. I've treated it like the later. If it is the former, I think a whole world of possibilities are opened up.
It's that the power must either affect the check on its own, or pull up a card that does for immediate use.
Also, giving a card can't normally be done during an encounter; that's why Silver Raven Figurine explicitly allows it during when-you-encounter.
Play Tot Flask to put the potion Damiel needs in his hand?So long as it affects the check, and he has a legal way to play two items on the same check... which he probably doesn't.
What about his "Discard card to add 1d6...if it has the Alchemical trait add..." ability? Could you use Tot Flask to get an item with the alchemical trait to discard?
I have a hard time seeing how fetching a card is from a deck or discard pile or randomly from the box is different than giving a card from one player to another.
Yes, Tot Flask and Potion of Glibness would be illegal. But why would using Merchant to give a card from my hand to someone else be illegal? It is really just the same as fetching, just it comes from my hand instead of your deck (or the box or your discard pile).
And if using Merchant to give a card during an encounter is legal, then Tot Flask to get a potion of glibness to then give to Oloch via Merchant would also seem legal.
It seem that the question is, does "affects the check" mean that the end result must affect the check, or that the power you use itself must affect the check. I've treated it like the later. If it is the former, I think a whole world of possibilities are opened up.
It's that the power must either affect the check on its own, or pull up a card that does for immediate use.
Also, giving a card can't normally be done during an encounter; that's why Silver Raven Figurine explicitly allows it during when-you-encounter.
I'm not sure I see where the "immediate" part was stated. Did I miss that in the thread? (I have been traveling a bit lately and so am playing catch up on some of these threads.)
There is no rule that prohibits giving a card during an encounter, any more than there is a rule that prohibits searching your deck during an encounter. It is just that you can't do either unless something says you can. Again, I'm not sure why Merchant would be different than any of these other things. It takes a card from one place to another. If that card will affect the check, I don't see any rule that cares about where you got the card from. Just that the card has to be playable.
And just to clarify, I'm not saying I'm opposed to these possibilities. I think we'd see more people using Powder Horn or Merchant if they could use them during an encounter. It just isn't how I understood things.
My only real issue at the moment is that, at least for the ones that search your deck, you have to know that you have a card in your deck that will affect the check. Most people probably would know that. But it just doesn't feel quite right to me.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Also on the list, Feiya's power to use allies to get spells.
Seems fine to me.
I think a bigger problem with the "searching" powers is, you have to remember if the card is there or not. Does Damiel really have that potion of glibness in his deck? If not, he'd have searched his deck, not found the potion of glibness, complete playing Tot Flask by taking say a potion of fortitude, and have a card that doesn't affect the check from playing Tot Flask during a check.
Setting the "two items on one check" issue aside for the sake of discussion, clearly he can't do that. (We're not going to rule on the social contract here, but in my groups, if such a thing happened, we'd "unplay" the Tot Flask rather than let him keep the potion.)
As far as actual rules go, you have to know that thing you're going to do relates to the check, and how well you know your deck is your own problem. (But it *does* mean that you can't do something that would require you to succeed at a check to have a legal effect, or that would involve a random card that *might* have a legal effect, or things like that.)
What about his "Discard card to add 1d6...if it has the Alchemical trait add..." ability? Could you use Tot Flask to get an item with the alchemical trait to discard?
At the unnecessary risk of discarding two cards instead of one? The Tot Flask itself has Alchemical.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
What about his "Discard card to add 1d6...if it has the Alchemical trait add..." ability? Could you use Tot Flask to get an item with the alchemical trait to discard?Play Tot Flask to put the potion Damiel needs in his hand?So long as it affects the check, and he has a legal way to play two items on the same check... which he probably doesn't.
Seems legit to me.
Seems legit to me.What about his "Discard card to add 1d6...if it has the Alchemical trait add..." ability? Could you use Tot Flask to get an item with the alchemical trait to discard?Play Tot Flask to put the potion Damiel needs in his hand?So long as it affects the check, and he has a legal way to play two items on the same check... which he probably doesn't.
What about Tot Flask to get a Potion, Merchant to give it to someone else? (And that sort of raises the Merchant question that has been going on as well.)
Clearly, the potion would probably be banished, but still might be worth it. Even better if I'm playing Damiel and the other person has the Tankard.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Also, giving a card can't normally be done during an encounter; that's why Silver Raven Figurine explicitly allows it during when-you-encounter.
That's not quite right. There's no specific rule that says "giving a card can't be done during an encounter," but there are more general rules that say you can only do specified things during parts of the encounter, and the only things you can do "when you encounter" a card are things that specifically say you can do then when you encounter. So the text on Silver Raven Figurine lets that action happen at that specific time.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
What about Tot Flask to get a Potion, Merchant to give it to someone else? (And that sort of raises the Merchant question that has been going on as well.)
Clearly, the potion would probably be banished, but still might be worth it. Even better if I'm playing Damiel and the other person has the Tankard.
I don't see an issue there, though Mike might.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
At the unnecessary risk of discarding two cards instead of one? The Tot Flask itself has Alchemical.What about his "Discard card to add 1d6...if it has the Alchemical trait add..." ability? Could you use Tot Flask to get an item with the alchemical trait to discard?
Ha! Yeah, as I was looking for examples of things that fit into this category, I found quite a few things that you can do that are really not worth doing.
Also on the list, Feiya's power to use allies to get spells.Seems fine to me.
I think a bigger problem with the "searching" powers is, you have to remember if the card is there or not. Does Damiel really have that potion of glibness in his deck? If not, he'd have searched his deck, not found the potion of glibness, complete playing Tot Flask by taking say a potion of fortitude, and have a card that doesn't affect the check from playing Tot Flask during a check.Setting the "two items on one check" issue aside for the sake of discussion, clearly he can't do that. (We're not going to rule on the social contract here, but in my groups, if such a thing happened, we'd "unplay" the Tot Flask rather than let him keep the potion.)
As far as actual rules go, you have to know that thing you're going to do relates to the check, and how well you know your deck is your own problem. (But it *does* mean that you can't do something that would require you to succeed at a check to have a legal effect, or that would involve a random card that *might* have a legal effect, or things like that.)
Hmm...So no Charm Person or Charm Animal during the encounter. No Ven Vinder too if I remember him correctly. Although, if I had a power that let me do something with human allies or animal allies (or allies in general) I'd assume those would be playable.
And I guess the random card thing is totally fine if I have a power that lets me use any card? i.e. Lini can get a random card to discard to increase her die size.
Just thinking through possibilities here.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
And I guess the random card thing is totally fine if I have a power that lets me use any card? i.e. Lini can get a random card to discard to increase her die size.
That would be fine... but those sort of things often end up being in the "not worth doing" category, as in many cases you could just use the card that you would use to fetch the random card.
I don't see an issue there, though Mike might.What about Tot Flask to get a Potion, Merchant to give it to someone else? (And that sort of raises the Merchant question that has been going on as well.)
Clearly, the potion would probably be banished, but still might be worth it. Even better if I'm playing Damiel and the other person has the Tankard.
I think the difference here is that the Balazar action immediately affects the check, while the Tot Flask>get Potion>Merchant>play Potion sequence has at least two steps that don't affect the check. But I could be talked into it.
So, since no Paizo employee debunked it, I take it that later on in the AP, even if Balazar defeats a 'basic' monster he won't be able to take it into his hand?
Is it okay to do things that require checks that you are guaranteed to succeed at?
If it is Stargazer Alahazra's turn and she knows the top card of another location deck is a Blessing of the Gods, can she recharge a Divine card to encounter the BotG (guaranteed acquisition) and then play it on her current check?
I assume that she can examine the top card of Melindra's deck so that Melindra can recharge that card and then play Strength on herself so that she can draw the item that was number two on her deck. (Perhaps it is a Tot Flask which she uses to search for a crappy item that she passes to Lini with Merchant. Lini will discard it to change her Dexterity die for the actual check. PACG, truly a co-op game!)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Is it okay to do things that require checks that you are guaranteed to succeed at?
Nope—that would be a check within a check, and you can't do that.
If any cards played while attempting a check include their own checks, resolve the current check in this step and the new checks in subsequent steps.
You won't be able to resolve the "new" check until you complete the original check, which means the result of the new check can't *affect* the original check, so it's not a legal play.
I think the difference here is that the Balazar action immediately affects the check, while the Tot Flask>get Potion>Merchant>play Potion sequence has at least two steps that don't affect the check. But I could be talked into it.I don't see an issue there, though Mike might.What about Tot Flask to get a Potion, Merchant to give it to someone else? (And that sort of raises the Merchant question that has been going on as well.)
Clearly, the potion would probably be banished, but still might be worth it. Even better if I'm playing Damiel and the other person has the Tankard.
I think, if you want to close of chained sequences like that, it might need clarified somewhere, specifying how immediately the thing that affects the check must happen.
This makes Balazar even better than I thought he was (not that he had any real problems before). He can hold on to spells and then, if he runs into a more difficult check, swap it for a monster.
Is it okay to do things that require checks that you are guaranteed to succeed at?Nope—that would be a check within a check, and you can't do that.
So something involving a random card that is known to be drawn from a legal distribution is okay? (Lini can cast Restoration as long as there is only one card in her deck that can't legally be played on the check, for example.)
Wow thats cool! My team's poor balazar has been having to discard before explore since we always understood that once encounter began/card flipped we had to follow the encounter sequence without extra stuff (I.e cure... Etc being played).
Cure is actually another reason to close of longer chains. Someone could argue that if the only cards in my discard pile were all Dragon Pistols, playing cure to get the card into my deck, then playing tot flask to get it into my hand would be something that affects the check.
Also, could Flenta (she has a recharge power like Valeros, right?) play a weapon like Dancing Scimitar to determine the skill, and thus recharge it, then play Call Weapon to get it and use it again to affect the check, recharging it via her power?
I am just going from memory of things there, so maybe I am missing something, but the point is, does this create situations that allow me use the sane card twice?
In general, I am actually liking this new found understanding, though perhaps it could use some clarification a bit in rules, if possible.
(And I realize it is now Saturday and this discussion might not be active over the weekend. I bust wanted to get my thoughts down while I had them. I have also identified a whole bunch of threads where I need to go correct myself and point them to here.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have also identified a whole bunch of threads where I need to go correct myself and point them to here.)
Surely the end times are upon us.
Ok, how about this possibility, which is only one step removed from directly affecting the check.
RotR Seelah is making a check. She wants to discard the top card of her deck to add to it. But she has no cards in her deck. Can she play cure to put cards in her deck so she has one to discard? What if she had some cards, but could increase the odds of it being a blessing or spell by playing the cure?
I am definitely really excited about some of the possibilities here (though not that cure one). Probably most excited about the merchant, even if you can't chain it. A blessing heavy character could send the right blessing to another character during a check. Like if I had 2 b.gorum and it was the top card. I could merchant one to you and play one myself on the check.
From my perspective - granted I'm a rules idiot - I see no reason why the cure to add cards into a deck in order to use a character power shouldn't work.
I really like the Seelah example; I was going to involve Swab, but her powers make Cure particularly interesting.
For variety, assume that Melindra is forced to use Strength for a combat check (which she will fail) and knows that the Amulet of Life is on the top of her deck (always adventure with Alahazra). Can she cast Speed to take the Amulet of Life into hand to deal with the combat damage, which is considered part of the current check? If she had a chance of success, could she cast Speed either before the combat check or after discovering that she had failed it?
Can we give a Parrot to someone who is not guaranteed to make their check? Do they need to be guaranteed to be within 4? If the answer to both of those questions was yes, and it were possible to fail the check by 5 (at most) then we should be able to give both the Parrot and Audessa Reyquio ('Reveal to add 1 to your check. You may play another ally on this check.'); must we give Audessa first? (I think that sending the Parrot first is no different from any of the other enabling moves.)
I feel like you all are being mega chill about maybe the biggest rules shift in PACG to date? Like, when questions like this have come up in the past the answer has generally boiled down to "you can't unless there is text on the card that explicitly relates to the check/action at hand." Haven't people been trying to figure out how to play Cure during an encounter since day 1? Is this only boggling my mind? Did I maybe cross over into an alternate dimension where everything is the same except for this one Pathfinder rule?
(I mean, besides all the doctors and nurses in this hospital having pig faces, but I thought it'd be rude to point that out)
Well, I tried to stop you...
I don't like the cure one. Some of the others seem ok. And I do really like the merchant. It doesn't seem over powering to be able to give a card.
To sum up my understanding of this thread:
We have a rule that during an encounter:
Players may only play cards or use powers that relate to each step (or relate to cards played or powers used in that step).
Previously this was understood in a strict sense. Gaining a card to be used during a step was thought to not relate to the step.
The new understanding is that during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check" action of attempting a check, and only during this action, the active player can use powers and play cards which gain a card which will be used to affect the check, and other players can use powers and play cards which give the active player a card which will be used to affect the check.
Is this correct?
I really like the Merchant one too because Merchant would be incredibly underused if that weren't the case.
Still, I think we'll need to compile all these examples into a "rules clarification" document. It's not exactly a very intuitive rule.
To sum up my understanding of this thread:
We have a rule that during an encounter:
Players may only play cards or use powers that relate to each step (or relate to cards played or powers used in that step).Previously this was understood in a strict sense. Gaining a card to be used during a step was thought to not relate to the step.
The new understanding is that during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check" action of attempting a check, and only during this action, the active player can use powers and play cards which gain a card which will be used to affect the check, and other players can use powers and play cards which give the active player a card which will be used to affect the check.
Is this correct?
I think mostly, though I think the jury is still out a bit, so I wouldn't really change anything you are doing right now.
Basically, the summary right now is that you can use a power to get/give a card as long as that card can then be used to affect the check. And you have to be 100% sure that card will be used to affect the check, because if it can't, you can't do it.
I feel like you all are being mega chill about maybe the biggest rules shift in PACG to date?
Whenever a can of worms that will present exciting opportunities is presented, we all gather 'round to smash them together like we are christening a new ship with a bottle of champagne.
Then we sit back to see if the ship sinks or is devoured by the worms.
I am so amazed by this can-o-w that I didn't post until now. Also because I do play Balazar in my group so I want to stay unbiased for fear the other members of my group would kill me. Anyway this one may win the can-o-worms weekly contest twice in a row which is an achievement. And Hawk threatning to modify thousands of his own posts is like - as Mogloth pointed - redesigning the full game and shacking the core roots of all our knowledges and faiths. Both the "can I play this even if it doesn't directly affects but because it let (or even may let) me do that that will directly affect (and if so can I have a chain or 'let or may let')?" and the "can I get to keep that basic critter I just smashed even in AP3?" are key issues with consequences.
Thank Iomedae for that, in my case the AP0 scenarii are so frustrating (failed yesterday our 3rd attempt at B4) I guess we'll dump the game before the answers to those questions would have had any impact anyway. Me poor Ballhazard... :-)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
RotR Seelah is making a check. She wants to discard the top card of her deck to add to it. But she has no cards in her deck. Can she play cure to put cards in her deck so she has one to discard? What if she had some cards, but could increase the odds of it being a blessing or spell by playing the cure?
I'm not so sure about that one, because while it has effects that affect the check, it potentially has effects that *don't* affect the check. That is, it's one thing to get a single card that you're definitely going to use, but when you're potentially moving around multiple cards and only using one of them, I think that's going too far. Obviously, this is all to be discussed with the designers, but I think that's too much cheese.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Also, could Flenta (she has a recharge power like Valeros, right?) play a weapon like Dancing Scimitar to determine the skill, and thus recharge it, then play Call Weapon to get it and use it again to affect the check, recharging it via her power?
I am just going from memory of things there, so maybe I am missing something, but the point is, does this create situations that allow me use the sane card twice?
In that case, you may be *using* it twice, but you're only *playing* it once. *Playing* the same card twice will necessitate avoiding the "no more than one of each card type per check" rule, which means you'll usually be limited to cards that already have that allowance built in, like "reveal to X, additionally recharge to Y" things.
Yeah. I'm thinking about something more like this hypothetical, but not outside the possibility of existence, weapon:
For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill + 1d8. You may additionally discard this card to add another 1d6.
When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d8 to your combat check.
Then, Flenta discards it for the first power to determine the skill (but really recharges it), play call weapon to put it back in her hand, then uses the second power too.
I realize now that I'm looking at cards that all these says "another weapon" so that might be the thing that invalidates that possibility.
I'm not so sure about that one, because while it has effects that affect the check, it potentially has effects that *don't* affect the check. That is, it's one thing to get a single card that you're definitely going to use, but when you're potentially moving around multiple cards and only using one of them, I think that's going too far. Obviously, this is all to be discussed with the designers, but I think that's too much cheese.
So in this interpretation, if you want to use the top card of your deck and have no use for the second card, you could use a power 'Draw one card to hand' but not 'Draw two cards to hand', even if you only had the second power (through Restoration if it didn't explicitly say that it can't be played during an encounter, for example)?
My head hurts.
You guys should really wait for Vic to rule on this before throwing out your Balazars.
Or is that Balazarii ?
Alahazra is encountering a boon remotely and wishes to add a blessing to the check; she's got one on top of her deck. Can she cast Detect Evil to encounter Koko from her current location, take 1 Ranged Combat damage Before You Act, use Stanching Buckler to draw the blessing, do the check for the boon and then do the delayed combat check with Koko?