[Wrath of the Righteous] Weapon of Awe

[WesWagner]

The Weapon of Awe spell has some rules and grammar inconsistency. I believe the intent of the card is to confer only a single +3 bonus, hence the singular title and it is not Weapon(s) of Awe.... however, read as written, you would get a +3 for each weapon that character plays on a check.

"when that character plays a weapon on a combat check" would be invoked for each weapon (even though it was not a explicit each) because "when" is a conditional phrase that is invoked at each incident of a condition, unless the language is clear that it is referring to potentially plural incidents.

This would need to read for avoidance of doubt, something like:

"Whenever that character plays one more more weapons on a combat check, add 3 to that check."

If I am wrong and this card was intended to be allowed to be played with a sword and dagger and get a total +6 .... I will henceforth refer to it as weapon(s) of awe(somesauce)... but I suspect that is not the case.

[Vic Wertz]

I'd say you're correct, as written. Checking with design on intent.

[Zenarius]

Wrath appears to have only two daggers... he he

[WesWagner]

Zenarius wrote:

Wrath appears to have only two daggers... he he

Yes and I have one +1 , and the hand crossbow, and weapon of awe ... and if it would be pretty cheesy to recharge one ranged weapon, recharge another for the extra d8, then on top of that play the dagger 1d4+1 .. and on top of it all with weapon of awe add +6 instead of +3.

I plan to play it as only a single +3 unless I hear otherwise.

[Zenarius]

I really want to hear the answer to this one too.. Sounds broken even if you can throw 3 weapons into the mix makes it +9... Wow

[First World Bard]

Zenarius wrote:

I really want to hear the answer to this one too.. Sounds broken even if you can throw 3 weapons into the mix makes it +9... Wow

That seems pretty unlikely to happen, unless you really build for this sort of thing. Remember that you can normally only play one weapon during a combat check, other weapons need to be "dagger-like" (have the text that says something like "if you played another weapon on this check, discard this card to add 1d4"). Dagger-like weapons are typically weaker primary weapons, so you might not want to stock your deck with them. Also, you need to discard them for this ability (unless you are Valeros or an appropriate Harsk that can recharge them), so it's definately not a combo you can play over and over unless you are one of those characters cycling your deck quickly.

[Longshot11]

So, Vic... any new insight into this matter? :)

[Vic Wertz]

The design team doesn't see a problem here. (In fact, they see an opportunity...)

So yeah, go nuts.

[WesWagner]

Vic Wertz wrote:

The design team doesn't see a problem here. (In fact, they see an opportunity...)

So yeah, go nuts.

So Weapon(s) of Awe(somesauce) it is!

[Longshot11]

WesWagner wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

The design team doesn't see a problem here. (In fact, they see an opportunity...)

So yeah, go nuts.

So Weapon(s) of Awe(somesauce) it is!

It's even more Awe(some) when I imagine Enora meeting the Flesh Golem, and I play the Weapon of Awe on Adowyin at another location, who will discard a Bow to add d4 + 3 to the check!

...although, per the new Sidebar proposal for playing cards "related to the check", I guess Weapon of Awe will be an invalid play during an encounter? :(

[nondeskript]

Longshot11 wrote:

WesWagner wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

The design team doesn't see a problem here. (In fact, they see an opportunity...)

So yeah, go nuts.

So Weapon(s) of Awe(somesauce) it is!

It's even more Awe(some) when I imagine Enora meeting the Flesh Golem, and I play the Weapon of Awe on Adowyin at another location, who will discard a Bow to add d4 + 3 to the check!

...although, per the new Sidebar proposal for playing cards "related to the check", I guess Weapon of Awe will be an invalid play during an encounter? :(

I don't see why. Per the sidebar, as long as Adowyn discards the Bow first, then Weapon of Awe would be legal, right?

[Frencois]

Yes because when played in that order, each card directly impacts the check without requiring any other action.

[Longshot11]

Frencois wrote:

Yes because when played in that order, each card directly impacts the check without requiring any other action.

I dunno... It seems kinda wrong to me if legality (not availability!) of two cards depends on the order they're played...

But (not having the card with me) if the Weapon says "when that character plays a weapon" - doesn't that mean it's too late if you play Awe second (the weapon having been already played)?

[nondeskript]

Any card that works only with specific other types of cards or card traits would always have an order issue. For example, you can't play Magic Weapon until after a Weapon card has been played. You couldn't play Sagacity on a Combat check until after the character attempting the check did something to make the Combat check a Wisdom check (such as playing a Divine Attack spell, with the characters Divine being based on their Wisdom). It feels legal to me, but I get what you're saying. Of course, in that case it could never be played during any encounter, which doesn't seem correct.

[Longshot11]

nondeskript wrote:

Any card that works only with specific other types of cards or card traits would always have an order issue. For example, you can't play Magic Weapon until after a Weapon card has been played.

Yeah, sorry, I worded it wrong. What I meant (but didn't know how to say exactly) was: if I have two players at the table, and they both *know* one is going to play a Weapon, and the other - the 'Weapon of Awe' Spell, as they also know these cards are supposed to synergize - it would be odd to have them to say "I'm going first!", just so they can kinda 'cheat' the wording of Awe. As far as I know there never has been in PACG a 'stacking' mechanic similar to MTG, for example; so while I have to play a weapon in the "Determine your skill" step in order to play "Magic Weapon" in "Affect the check", when both players play Awe/Weapon in "affect the check" it shouldn't particularly matter which goes first, the game should rather just "check" for 'have BOTH a Weapon and Weapon of Awe been played in this step'. I don't know if I'm making any sense...

And, yeah , if the spell is mean to affect a weapon played during the 'determine the skill' (it would be pretty useless otherwise), it seems it can't do that with the "when that character plays a weapon" wording; rather, "for each weapon played by that character" or similar should be needed. Then again, English is not my first language, maybe I'm just confusing things.

[Frencois]

Longshot11 wrote:

...What I meant (but didn't know how to say exactly) was: if I have two players at the table, and they both *know* one is going to play a Weapon, and the other - the 'Weapon of Awe' Spell, as they also know these cards are supposed to synergize - it would be odd to have them to say "I'm going first!", just so they can kinda 'cheat' the wording of Awe. ...

Can I humbly object on two counts:

A) Even if players weren't allowed to tell what cards (e. g. spell) then have in hand, anyway there would be no issue since player B couldn't play WoA until player A plays a wepaon and then he would be entitled to say "Oh I have a WoA, let's play it". So the "chosing" of the order of play would be anyway automatic by default.

B) But more important, it's a coop game based on an RPG where characters adventure together and try to survive together. So thematically it seems obvious that the cleric is allowed to say "Guys, for your info, I'm able to cure now" as soon as he draws a cure spell.
Actually the only reason not to play with visible open hands if if Not-this-Mike was to come with a new adventure were there would be an evil traitor within the party or something like that.
And NO MIKE I didn't give you that idea!!! Anyway I'm sure Not-this-Mike already had it :-)