| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crowe has a power that states 'You may bury a card to add 1d10 ([]+1) and the Electricity or Force trait to your Strength, Melee, or Arcane check; if the check has the Attack trait, you may recharge the card instead.'
The group I was playing with read it as three different ways.
1 (My interpretation) - If the 1d10 is being used to acquire a spell with the Attack trait then the buried card would be recharged.
2 (The bloodrager) - Anytime Crowe Attacks a monster/villain/henchman he may recharge a card (instead of bury)to add 1d10 to his check.
3. (Other Guy) - If the bloodrager uses the power while playing a spell with the Attack trait they would recharge the card instead of burying it.
I have made some wrong calls in the past, which I usually discover while on these forums, but I didn't find anything pertaining to this. Thanks in advance :)
I believe #3 is correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guy number 3 is closest. The check has to have the attack trait, which isn't as always the case just from playing any spell with the attack trait.
Checks get traits in 3 ways.
1. The skill you use for the check is a trait for the check.
2. The traits of any card you play to determine your skill for the check are added to the check. (Like cards that say "For your combat check...")
3. If a card or power tells you to add a trait to a check.
If Crowe is making a strength, melee or arcane check, he can bury a card to add 1d10 and the electricity or force traits to it. (This is an example of #3 above.)
If Crowe is making a strength, melee or arcane check and that check has the attack trait (most likely from playing a spell fit his combat check that had the attack trait on the card), he can recharge a card to add 1d10 and the electricity or force traits to it.
Although you could probably make a case for #1 as well
I don't think so. #1 was about trying to acquire a spell. The traits of the card you are trying to acquire don't become traits of the check.
Sounds good to me, I can certainly see #3 as being correct. I will also look out for additional cards that add the attack trait in the future. Thanks again for the help.
I don't think so. #1 was about trying to acquire a spell. The traits of the card you are trying to acquire don't become traits of the check.
I - as usual - would support Hawk on this one.
If you look at Crowe's power feat on his Mauler role, you need an extra power feat to apply it to cards that have the Attack trait, rather than just checks that have the Attack trait.
Anyways, there's no explicit rule in the rulebook or the FAQs that say that a check to acquire on a card has all the card's traits, so they don't.
If you look at Crowe's power feat on his Mauler role, you need an extra power feat to apply it to cards that have the Attack trait, rather than just checks that have the Attack trait.
Anyways, there's no explicit rule in the rulebook or the FAQs that say that a check to acquire on a card has all the card's traits, so they don't.
Good catch there! What is the card though? The one you are trying to defeat or acquire or the one you are recharging?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is the card you would otherwise be burying.
You may bury a card to add 1d10 (□+1) (□+2) (□+3) and the Electricity or Force trait to your Strength, Melee, or Arcane check; if the check (□ or the card) has the Attack trait, you may recharge the card instead.
The power feat is simplye "the card", so we have to look back earlier to find which card it is referring to. The only card mentioned is the one you are going to bury. The same logic applies to how you understand "recharge the card" as well, with both using "the card" as a reference.
And, since you can sometimes make checks when not trying to defeat or acquire a card (like to close a location for example) we can't assume the power only applies to checks that involve an encountered card.
All that to say, with the power feat, the traits of the card you "sacrifice" for his power matter, since using a card with the Attack trait for his power means you can recharge it instead. That will be a great way to help him with checks to recharge cards, since I don't think there is any way to get he Attack trait on a recharge check. (Though Crowe can no get the Force or Electricity traits on his recharge check, which I also think is new.)
If you look at Crowe's power feat on his Mauler role, you need an extra power feat to apply it to cards that have the Attack trait, rather than just checks that have the Attack trait.
Anyways, there's no explicit rule in the rulebook or the FAQs that say that a check to acquire on a card has all the card's traits, so they don't.
Oh,I was under the impression that all the traits on the card would count. My apologies : (.
In those cases they use wording like "for your check against a card with the X trait," which is how Dexterity-based Melee characters were able to get their hands on Finesse weapons.
In those cases they use wording like "for your check against a card with the X trait," which is how Dexterity-based Melee characters were able to get their hands on Finesse weapons.
That makes sense. I'm realizing I would have had Crowe playing wrong (and probably wondering what his marauder power did differently), and then was wondering if I've been playing S&S wrong.
"Attack" is a trait. Even though you conceive of yourself attacking the monster with your weapon, the "attack" trait doesn't get added to the check unless it is a trait on the card you play to determine the skill or mentioned in a power you use.
In a similar vein to OP, would the check only have the attack trait if the card played for the check had attack on it? Specifically, would using a weapon on a melee check have the attack trait since the weapon cards themselves don't have the attack trait, unlike spells?
Right. You can't bury an Attack card and get Attack on a weapon play; the card being played for the check has to have Attack on its own.
And yes, it means that Crowe is... basically Amiri, until he gets that first power feat at the end of AD1, or a Manual of War so that he can temporarily get it as a "virtual" feat.
That's what I thought. So Crowe's first listed power is very limited until/unless he starts using offensive spells?
Not really. You just need to be willing to bury cards. I use the power quite frequently on Crowe.
I've not played him, but I think it would be very useful. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the first time I looked at Amiri I thought "who wants to bury cards?" My wife chose her later and showed me just how awesome she could be. I would be totally willing to give Crowe a try.
I love burying less helpful boons. It's like trashing cards to fine-tune / accelerate your deck in a deck builder, except afterwards you get to share the lucre with your friends.
Totally agree. When my wife was playing Amiri, I'd often play a blessing to help her get a card I wanted. She'd bury it at some point for her power, then give it to me at the end of the game.
Burying things you don't want is the absolute best, especially if you can find powerful cards that bury themselves and keep your deck thin. Oh, those heady days of Merisiel's Holy Candle and Revelation Quill~
Burying things you don't want is the absolute best, especially if you can find powerful cards that bury themselves and keep your deck thin. Oh, those heady days of Merisiel's Holy Candle and Revelation Quill~
Or Lirianne's ability to bury some other card in order to overclock her guns.
I love Amaryllis' ability to try any roll again. It's my main use for the Cape of Escape.
Yeah. In our Season of the Shackles run, Amaryllis found a similar use for Wand of Shield and so on...
Got to play Crowe last night, replacing a fallen Seelah (too much discarding of her deck, and then a bad run in with an Arboreal Blight). At one point I found myself with both spells in my hand, facing down a henchman in the Abattoir. Nasty, nasty location with a full group, and I realized that whichever attack spell I cast, that was only going to come out to 3d4, and even a blessing would only bump that to 4d4- except I could RECHARGE a card for an additional d10. I'm looking forward to getting his first power feat, but this ability has its uses.
Got to play Crowe last night, replacing a fallen Seelah (too much discarding of her deck, and then a bad run in with an Arboreal Blight). At one point I found myself with both spells in my hand, facing down a henchman in the Abattoir. Nasty, nasty location with a full group, and I realized that whichever attack spell I cast, that was only going to come out to 3d4, and even a blessing would only bump that to 4d4- except I could RECHARGE a card for an additional d10. I'm looking forward to getting his first power feat, but this ability has its uses.
The cost being, of course, that you have to banish the spell; and 3d4 vs. 1d12+1 (what you'd have just punching) is about equal without a blessing.
You might not be able to replace it, though. The tighter range is an advantage, to be sure, but if you find Arcane utility without finding Attack spells, you're not getting the Attack spells back.
Those spells aren't really that useful until you pick up a power feat unless you get caught without a weapon. I usually end up burying the to add the d10 to his melee check or discard them as damage.
Here is another Crowe question, and I sincerely hope it doesn't explode into a huge new rules development like my previous Balazar question on using his power during encounters.
Can Crowe use his "When you defeat a monster, you may move or put the bottom card of your deck on top of your deck, then end your turn." if he somehow fights a monster outside of his turn (summoned monsters, or a ranzak like evasion power for example?). I'm like 95% sure he can, but just want to make sure.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. No reason either of those things wouldn't be allowed outside of your turn, it's just another case of ignoring the impossible instruction tacked onto the end.
If it said "you may end your turn to move or put the bottom card..." That might be different.
Sorry if this is obvious but : When you defeat a monster, you may *move* or put the bottom card of your deck on top of your deck, then end your turn.
Is that "move" referring to the card or allow crow to move to another location?
Move refers to allowing Crowe to move to another location.
Cool thanks!!
Acutally, Vic, the card Storm uses the word "move".
