I don't really have a problem disallowing Rage during an encounter, since that is what started overly complicating what can and cannot be played during an encounter. Overall, I think allowing Rage (as the card is currently written) is a net negative for the game since it starts introducing too many questions of what can and cannot be played. Disallowing Rage (or re-wording Rage's power to specifically allow it) makes it easier to draw a bright line separating what can and cannot be played during an encounter.
It does make Rage a card I would never want in my deck, but that could be more of a factor of my groups play-style where we rarely ever use buffs before an encounter begins "just-in-case". And there are enough other good cards that I wouldn't miss Rage at all.
Can Spheres of Destruction only be initially played outside of an encounter? I thought that it was supposed to be possible to use them during an encounter (going back to the original Rage discussions), but the FAQ that using the power on the card counts as playing the spell seems to contradict this (you would be playing one spell twice on a check).
I think this is fine (although I'm fine with whatever outcome, there's of course a consideration to be made for people who are not knee deep in the rules engine)
I don't like the "enough other good cards" thing as a factor of whether or not cards can be made "useless" - Class Decks and OP are also a consideration, the Bard deck has 1/3 of its spells degraded because of that. Although Rage was a borderline spell in the Bard deck even before this ruling.
I think this is fine (although I'm fine with whatever outcome, there's of course a consideration to be made for people who are not knee deep in the rules engine)
I don't like the "enough other good cards" thing as a factor of whether or not cards can be made "useless" - Class Decks and OP are also a consideration, the Bard deck has 1/3 of its spells degraded because of that. Although Rage was a borderline spell in the Bard deck even before this ruling.
Naw, man. Rage was great, for a 1 spell. Well, situationally. Certainly in the Season of the Shackles, where constitution checks on nasty banes was not uncommon.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Can Spheres of Destruction only be initially played outside of an encounter? I thought that it was supposed to be possible to use them during an encounter (going back to the original Rage discussions), but the FAQ that using the power on the card counts as playing the spell seems to contradict this (you would be playing one spell twice on a check).
I assume you mean Sphere of Fire:
Display this card. While displayed, for your combat check, you may use your Arcane or Divine skill + 1d6; you may additionally discard this card to add another 1d6. This counts as playing a spell. At the end of your turn, or when you would discard this card when playing it, if you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card; otherwise, attempt an Arcane or Divine 9 check. If you succeed, recharge this card; if you fail, discard it.
During the Determine Which Skill You're Using action, you can display it (as long you're actually using it to determine the skill you're using, of course); this counts as playing a spell. And then during the Play Cards and Use Powers that Affect Your check action, you can additionally discard it to add another d6, and this also counts as playing a spell, but it's ok because it specifically tells you that you may do this (per the Golden Rule, if a card and the rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct). And the rule we're discussing here doesn't prevent you from doing it because the action you're taking here (discarding it) directly affects the check.
Playing Rage is different:
Display this card and choose a character at your location. While displayed, that character may bury 1 card from her hand to add 1d10 to her Strength, Melee, or Constitution check. At the end of your turn, if you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card; otherwise, attempt an Arcane 8 check. If you succeed, recharge this card; if you fail, discard it.
As currently written, this doesn't work during a check because you would have to play it during the Play Cards and Use Powers that Affect Your check action, where it would only have an effect if the chosen character buries a card, meaning it doesn't directly affect the check.
While I don't fault the ruling -- it is no more restrictive than I always thought the rules were -- I think you should be able to play Rage during a check. I vote for modifying Rage to allow it, like the Silver Raven Figurine.
Using the power on the displayed card is a separate instance of playing the card according to the FAQ. If you display Sphere of Fire (or one of the similar cards) on a check then you would be expected to also play it by using the power to affect the check. Are we playing one card twice? Does the initial display come with an automatic use that doesn't happen if you played it outside of a check? If I had a power that gave my checks a bonus for not having spells in hand, could I display it on a check without using it to attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I vote for the sidebar. And then maybe Vic car FAQ Rage to reword it so it can be played when it should (e. g. the above mentioned Spheres).
I vote for the sidebar. And then maybe Vic car FAQ Rage to reword it so it can be played when it should (e. g. the above mentioned Spheres).
+1
If rage is the sticking point, then rewrite that one spell
The general rule you proposed looks ok Vic
May I paraphrase it thus?
On another player's check, you may play cards or powers that directly aid that character but not puppet that character in its interaction. In essence the non-phasing players can do no more than activate, actual actions are still the prerogative of the current player
Examples.....
Hmmm...So no "pass and play" kind of actions. Ok. Sounds reasonable. So, at this point what cards are actually being "allowed" by this? Balazar wouldn't be able to draw a monster right, because he'd then have to "feed" it to Padrig, which is another action. And all other things seem out. So is anything actually being permitted that exists right now? (Not that it should matter for the rule, I'm just trying to understand the affected cards.)
As a side note, I'd also like to see Rage stay in as playable in an encounter somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before Rage, the understanding was that you could only play cards that directly affected the check. This just rolls it back to that. So anything that was permitted before rage is still permitted. Anything that would have been "probably not" pre-Rage is "definitely not" now (like Balazar discarding or casting cure on Seelah to give her a card to discard for her bonus). I don't see how this could really go any other way. If you start allowing Balazar to discard spells or casting Rage (as written) it is the start of a slippery slope to things like Merchanting a bow to another character to use on your check or such. It was widely understood (and accepted) that Phantasmal Minion and Call Weapon were not usable during an encounter, but Rage broke that understanding and degenerated to people trying to figure out 3 or 4 power/card chains that only affected the actual check at the very end and that was clearly never supposed to happen.
I do agree that Rage should be permissible in an encounter, but as written it can't be. Unless, I suppose, the rule included some exception specifically for cards that grant a power that will be used (i.e. not cards that fuel an existing power, but add a new power that the character would not have had without the card). That would, I think, only apply to Rage currently, but I haven't read all of the cards so I could be wrong... Feels like re-writing Rage to explicitly override the rule is the easier solution.
The proposed Sidebar ruling is a missed opportunity in my opinion, but it just sticks to the status quo from RotR on, so whatever.
What I don't get and kinda worries me: the proposed solution goes against like a dozen of Vic's posts earlier in the tread that seemed to indicate the status quo has never been what were lead to believe, and that somehow the dev team failed to communicate that we can, in fact, play Tot Flasks to draw Noxious Bombs to play on our Combat checks.
The fact that it took a player resurrecting the thread two months later (during which time internal discussions may or may not have been had) to get a proposed answer from the devs - and one contradictory to Vic's own apparent earlier understanding of the rules - suggests to me that it was never actually clarified internally what actually "relates" to a check, as a hard and fast rule (such as the proposed sidebar is trying to impose just now), which happens to be a cornerstone of the game's mechanic. If that's the case, no wonder there's a whole mess of issues to be had.
My real concern is that the proposed Sidebar sounds like so much legalese and like it's a patch work, meant to fix the implications of Vic's initial interpretation, while at the same time clashing with DESIGN INTENT on several cards on hand (Rage and Balazar's power). And if there's no apparent designer unanimity on what can and cannot be played on a check - how are we supposed to judge it based on abstract rules (like, prior to the Sidebar, how would we decide what relates to a check; and read that "we" as a "casual PACG player that doesn't spend hours on the forums") and how long until we get another "Balazar" and another patch work is needed?
Don't get me wrong, I love the game, the devs don't owe me nothing and I'm not trying to blame anyone, but I can't shake the feeling this issue should've been decided on and set in stone in the earliest concept stage of the game. And it probably was, but just as intent as opposed to a rule. And instead of ever more convoluted rule clarifications (call me dense, but I do somehow find the rulebook getting ever more impenetrable with each new edition), can't we just get a definitive statement on the design intent(probably Mike's, since his name is on the box?) framed around a simple case question, such as:
"Giving another Barrier-encountering player Lockpicks with a Merchant - is it intended as possible or not?"
TLDR (kinda): I find that on great many issues raised in these boards, the devs' initial instinct is to rethink wording and to propose erratas/FAQs while simultaneously trying to account for all previous and future cards and rules, while it would be a lot easier and beneficial for me and for the average player if the person responsible for the card just pops in and says (for example) "Yes, Balazar is meant to draw monster during encounter. No, this is not meant to change the "relate to check" rule. FAQ to follow...". For many this is enough to go on, and they could care less about the later rewording.
Ok....so to clarify. Now Balazar can no longer discard a spell during an encounter to grab a monster right?
I paid for this game fair and square, so I'm just going to ignore this rule. I find it a bit too limiting to have to discard valuable spells for monsters ahead of time.
I also want to echo Longshots post above. I know the complexity and nuances of a game like this are off the chart with hundreds of new cards coming in every set that need to work with the established canon rules. However, theres got to be a better way to handle situations like this than what just transpired here.
For now, I'd say don't pass too much judgement on some of the cards this proposed ruling will impact. Along with making this new rule, they can tweak any card they want to be usable in an encounter. I'm not saying they will, just that we haven't seen the final actual and complete resolution for all this. Don't throw the Balazar out with the bath water.
EDIT: As Vic said about Rage just above me.
Ok....so to clarify. Now Balazar can no longer discard a spell during an encounter to grab a monster right?
I paid for this game fair and square, so I'm just going to ignore this rule. I find it a bit too limiting to have to discard valuable spells for monsters ahead of time.
I also want to echo Longshots post above. I know the complexity and nuances of a game like this are off the chart with hundreds of new cards coming in every set that need to work with the established canon rules. However, theres got to be a better way to handle situations like this than what just transpired here.
I don't really see this as less of a rules change and more of a clarification. I never understood why it would be legal for Balazar to discard a card to draw a monster during an encounter.
The rules have always said:
Players may only play cards or use powers that relate to each step (or relate to cards played or powers used in that step).
with the steps being:
- Apply Any Effects That Happen When You Encounter a Card
- Apply Any Evasion Effects
- Apply Any Effects That Happen Before You Act
- Attempt the Check
- Determine Which Skill You're Using
- Detemine the Difficulty
- Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check (Optional)
- Assemble Your Dice
- Attempt the Roll
- Take Damage, If Necessary
- Attempt the Next Check, If Needed
- Apply Any Effects That Happen After You Act
- Resolve the Encounter
Discarding a spell to get another card in your hand never applied to any of those. And, unlike Rage, you could do it from the start of your turn and hold on to that monster for multiple turns if you didn't end up needing it that turn (or use it for another power such as drawing a card). I don't see any reason for Balazar needs to be able to do it during an encounter.
As the earlier discussion showed, allowing Balazar to do that quickly became a slippery slope of card interactions. How can the rules be written clearly to allow Balazar to do that and not allow, for example, Lini to Merchant a Cure to Kyra to cast on Seelah to use her top deck power during an encounter?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Longshot11 and Ilpalazo,
I think game design for an expanding game works fundamentally different than you think it does. It's not the designers' job to predict every edge case that ever can exist ahead of time. In initial design, their job is simply to build a framework for future creativity, and on the back end, their job evolves into pushing the boundaries of that framework and occasionally extending it.
Meanwhile, the job of the rules is to support that framework as well as it's understood, while leaving flexibility for future boundary-pushing where possible. The more tightly you define things, the less flexibility the designers have to do interesting things in the future, so there's often a deliberate squidginess in the rules. The phrase "affects the check" is a great example of that—if we had firmed it up too soon, we may have done it in a way that would have prevented the designers from being able to make powers like Balazar's at all.
I realize I misread rules a lot of times. But, why is it bad letting Balazar discard a spell during an encounter to grab a monster? And let me add the other options that people are talking about. The Merchant and Cure and whatnot.
WHY are they all bad? And don't just throw the rules at me. What some may call a slippery slope, others may call incredible teamwork.
|
Is it bad?? No. But you make rules for a reason, and it gets crazy if you start creating exceptions every time people want to do something the rules don't allow. Part of the game is strategy. You have to decide when doing something is worth it because of potential future actions, and when it isn't. If you waited till the last possible second for everything you eliminate half the strategy aspect of the game.
If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't include a rulebook, just a notecard that says "Roolz: Draw cards, put them on the table, and throw some dice around. Cheer for winning."
You could've done without that last sentence Andrew. It makes your whole argument look bad.
I will probably continue to allow Balazar to discard a spell for a monster during an encounter. To me, that is using his power. I've never had a Merchant ally, so I don't fully understand that one.
I realize I misread rules a lot of times. But, why is it bad letting Balazar discard a spell during an encounter to grab a monster? And let me add the other options that people are talking about. The Merchant and Cure and whatnot.
WHY are they all bad? And don't just throw the rules at me. What some may call a slippery slope, others may call incredible teamwork.
Let me rephrase the question so that I can try and give you my opinion.
"Why are there some cards and abilities that you can not trigger after you encounter a card?"
There is a bunch of discussion in this thread about which abilities can be triggered during an encounter card is drawn but answering this question is important because it provides a framework about why each ability should or should not work during an encounter.
The answer is planning compared to reacting. Things you have to play before the encounter card is drawn have to do with planning. If you don't have a weapon then maybe you think it is too dangerous to explore. Or maybe you gamble because you know that the only enemy that could be in the deck is the Villain.
Cards you play after the encounter card is drawn let you react. Say you have two weapons in your hand and one is better against monster you are fighting so you choose to play that one.
Abilities that you can play after the encounter is drawn are more powerful then things you have to do before it because reacting is more powerful then planning. This is because it lets you only expend the resource if the eventuality comes to pass instead of having to use the card regardless of what you actually draw. (For the same reason that getting a +2 after you roll is better than a +2 before you roll)
There is also the point that the developers of the game seem to like the idea that people have to plan and decide if you want to spend the card now to protect yourself from what might happen instead of always just spending the card when the thing does happen.
TLDR (kinda): I find that on great many issues raised in these boards, the devs' initial instinct is to rethink wording and to propose erratas/FAQs while simultaneously trying to account for all previous and future cards and rules, while it would be a lot easier and beneficial for me and for the average player if the person responsible for the card just pops in and says (for example) "Yes, Balazar is meant to draw monster during encounter. No, this is not meant to change the "relate to check" rule. FAQ to follow...". For many this is enough to go on, and they could care less about the later rewording.
I'm not sure I like this. You're essentially saying "gimme an answer now!" without giving them the time to think about whether that answer makes sense (in terms of the game universe and in terms of the game rules). Would you be satisfied if they did give that answer, but then a week later said "wait, that doesn't make sense in the game universe/the game rules, so we have to reverse that ruling"?
Besides, most of the questions come up in the context of an actual game, so most of them get ruled on the spot anyway (unless you actually have Vic on hand to answer questions). I think it's okay to wait a bit for an answer in that case.
I realize I misread rules a lot of times. But, why is it bad letting Balazar discard a spell during an encounter to grab a monster? And let me add the other options that people are talking about. The Merchant and Cure and whatnot.
WHY are they all bad? And don't just throw the rules at me. What some may call a slippery slope, others may call incredible teamwork.
The classic example, to me, of why you can't do this is Cure.
Hypothetical, but common situation: you have cure in your hand, which can heal up to 5 cards, but only 3 or 4 cards in your discard pile. You're about to discard a blessing to explore. Do you play Cure now, wasting some of it's potential healing, or discard the blessing and then play Cure? If you explore and encounter something that wipes your hand, then you don't get to play Cure at all - you gambled and, in your greed, lost. If you could play anything during an encounter, then there would be no risk here. You always explore, and then play Cure when you're about to get hand wiped.
Balazar's situation is just an unfortunate, but logical, extension of that rule.
...
Although I will voice that I am going to be implementing a house rule (something that I typically abhor) to allow him to do so, because that's how we've played him thus far.
---
EDIT: Oh, and the merchant is a card you play that lets you give one of the cards in your hand to another player at your location outside of the "Give a Card" step.
EDIT: Oh, and the merchant is a card you play that lets you give one of the cards in your hand to another player at your location outside of the "Give a Card" step.
Sorry, I keep saying Merchant but I'm actually thinking of the other card that lets you give to someone at another location which I can't remember the name of. The Merchant-on-steroids.
Merchant lets you give a card to another character at any location.
Merchant Lord is Merchant on steroids, letting you give any number of cards to another character at any location.
Thanks, Hawkmoon! It's even better than I remembered. So at that point, during Seelahs encounter at location #1, Lini at location #2 could give any number of cards to Kyra at location #1 as long as one of them was a Cure and as long as Kyra casts that Cure on Seelah at location #1 and Seelah had no deck and Seelah uses the top card of the deck to give herself a bonus on a check... No that's just ridiculous. It basically turns the "Players may only play cards or use powers that relate to each step (or relate to cards played or powers used in that step)." rule into "Players may only play cards that kinda sorta relate to each step if you squint" and creates a loophole in the rules big enough to drive a semi through.
I think Orbis and Apophenia nailed where the issue is. Being able to play whatever, whenever will change the difficulty of the game, potentially quite dramatically.
I think Orbis and Apophenia nailed where the issue is. Being able to play whatever, whenever will change the difficulty of the game, potentially quite dramatically.
I'm heaving a sigh of relief after the insanity that was surging through this thread a couple months back. :D Pathfinder wouldn't be the same game without the "well I sure wish I played THAT card before I explored," factor.
Balazar sort of has that same risk/reward that Cure does (assuming he now can't use his power to get a monster during the check). You've got a spell you like, but you are also sort of wishing you had another monster in hand for Padrig. Do you ditch the spell for a monster for a "safer" exploration or do you hold on to the spell for the utility it offers?
Though, I wouldn't say Balazar is quite at the level of playing during a check. And if it was tweaked to let you due it, I wouldn't call it earth shattering.
As a fun exercise, can anyone think of a short phrase that could go on powers to indicate that, even though they don't affect the check, they can be played during a check? I've thought of:
Even during a check, ...
During a check or not, ...
At any time, ...
So, for instance, Balazar could hypothetically become:
You may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box, even during a check.
or
At any time, you may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box.
Something like that.
Pathfinder wouldn't be the same game without the "well I sure wish I played THAT card before I explored," factor.
Dave just perfectly summarized why this will be the best sidebar... yet...
Balazar sort of has that same risk/reward that Cure does (assuming he now can't use his power to get a monster during the check). You've got a spell you like, but you are also sort of wishing you had another monster in hand for Padrig. Do you ditch the spell for a monster for a "safer" exploration or do you hold on to the spell for the utility it offers?
Though, I wouldn't say Balazar is quite at the level of playing during a check. And if it was tweaked to let you due it, I wouldn't call it earth shattering.
As a fun exercise, can anyone think of a short phrase that could go on powers to indicate that, even though they don't affect the check, they can be played during a check? I've thought of:
Even during a check, ...
During a check or not, ...
At any time, ...So, for instance, Balazar could hypothetically become:
You may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box, even during a check.
or
At any time, you may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box.
Something like that.
Perhaps the inverse of Resto cards? "You can play this ability during an encounter?" "At any time" is more elegant, though.
Perhaps the inverse of Resto cards? "You can play this ability during an encounter?" "At any time" is more elegant, though.Balazar sort of has that same risk/reward that Cure does (assuming he now can't use his power to get a monster during the check). You've got a spell you like, but you are also sort of wishing you had another monster in hand for Padrig. Do you ditch the spell for a monster for a "safer" exploration or do you hold on to the spell for the utility it offers?
Though, I wouldn't say Balazar is quite at the level of playing during a check. And if it was tweaked to let you due it, I wouldn't call it earth shattering.
As a fun exercise, can anyone think of a short phrase that could go on powers to indicate that, even though they don't affect the check, they can be played during a check? I've thought of:
Even during a check, ...
During a check or not, ...
At any time, ...So, for instance, Balazar could hypothetically become:
You may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box, even during a check.
or
At any time, you may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box.
Something like that.
Yeah, I should have also said, I'm looking for something short so that character powers like Balazar's don't become too long for the card. Otherwise, the reverse of Resto would be ideal.
So, for instance, Balazar could hypothetically become:
You may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box, even during a check.
or
At any time, you may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box.
Something like that.
"At any time" feels too broad. It expands the power beyond just during an encounter. For example, if a Bane forced you to Bury or Banish any spells as damage, you could use the ability to swap your spells for Monsters. You would want to limit it specifically to "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check" which is difficult without getting far more verbose than Paizo seems to like.
Of course, I stand by the opinion that there is no reason for Balazar to be able to use it during an encounter, any more than there is a reason to be able to Call Weapon during an encounter to get a dagger, but I get that we feel differently :) As the Balazar player in my game, I don't care how it gets resolved as I always intended to play it as only usable outside of encounters and have done so thus far.
How about "during your turn or before you act" ?
So where does it stand: can Balazar discard during an encounter or not?
We're considering this new rules sidebar (so it also applies to other cases where restrictions apply, such as damage prevention):
Rules: Affecting the Situation
In some situations, the rules limit you to playing cards or using powers that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect the check. For example, let's say that a character is attempting a check using a power that adds 1 to her check for each blessing in her hand, and a second character has a power allowing him to give the first character a card. He could give her a blessing, because that doesn't require any other action to affect the check. But he could not give her a card that allows her to draw a blessing from the box, because she would have to do something else—in this case, play that card—to affect the check.
So, Vic, a thing occurs to me about this proposed sidebar.
You can't really ever create a character that adds to checks based on the number of cards in their hand if you implement it.
If a character got +6 to checks with no cards in their hand, and one less for each other card in their hand, they can now play any card during an encounter provided it leaves their hand.
Therefore I would suggest that a character that adds 1 to their checks for each card in their hand can play any card that leaves their hand because it affects the check (makes the check harder). There are some checks you want to fail, after all; having minuses to your checks can be beneficial once in a while.
Therefore a character that gets +1 to their checks for each spell in their hand can play any spell during a check, provided it leaves their hand.
I don't know how big a deal this is to you, if its one at all, but I thought I'd mention it.
Orbis, the power your using has to affect the check. Cure's power doesn't affect the check in any way. Merchant or Merchant Lord, on the other hand, does, because the power is specifically to modify the contents of a player's hand. Your example power wouldn't be a concern.
Which post are you responding to?
Assuming it's my last one: where in the sidebar does it say that the card's power has to affect the check, as opposed to the playing of the card affecting the check?
"In some situations, the rules limit you to playing cards ... that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation."
At this time, the only card we're looking at adjusting due to this ruling is Rage.
8 months later to the day.
Seems like The Hawk has ruled that Balazar cannot discard a spell during an encounter to summon a monster to use on the check. Is this the final word? I treat words from The Hawk as gospel so I am leaning yes. Just strange that I read this entire thread and it just kind of stops so abruptly with no clear answer on Balazar.
This popped to mind from over on BGG.
We're considering this new rules sidebar (so it also applies to other cases where restrictions apply, such as damage prevention):
Rules: Affecting the Situation
In some situations, the rules limit you to playing cards or using powers that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect the check. For example, let's say that a character is attempting a check using a power that adds 1 to her check for each blessing in her hand, and a second character has a power allowing him to give the first character a card. He could give her a blessing, because that doesn't require any other action to affect the check. But he could not give her a card that allows her to draw a blessing from the box, because she would have to do something else—in this case, play that card—to affect the check.
So, the proposed (and I realize it is still only proposed) rule still has an interesting issue. It says I can only give the blessing if it doesn't require an action to be meaningful. But does that then prevent me from using the blessing in an additional way than what made it meaningful for me to have it?
Take Restore Mythic Power as an example. Simply giving someone else a mythic token would be a meaningful actions (assuming they are using a skill that their mythic path adds to). So, it would seem I can play Restore Mythic Power. But, once having done so, can they spend that mythic token to swap a die for a d20?
Or, to put it in the blessings terms. You give me a blessing because I have a power that adds to the check for each blessing I have. Could I also then play that blessing?
Just some thoughts.
Hi Hawk. I don't see why you couldn't play the token or blessing since the way you got it was legal.
And cards have no memory. Once the blessing is in your hand, it doesn't remember how it got there (unlike a summoned card which does remember because a specific exception rule clearly says so). So I would say it's a standard blessing so legal to play.
Make sense?
I would argue that you can do the d20 swap in your example because said swap happens when you assemble your dice. The Restore Mythic Power spell would have already been played at that point in the check sequence.