I love this character's design!
At first I thought that choice of Roles didn't matter, since you are always flipping the card, but on second look I'm thinking that you're locked into one choice of Role when it comes time to add feats. So if you choose Chief, you may play a lot of the game with Survivor up, but you'll never have access to the feats that are unique to Survivor?
I'm also wondering, under what circumstances you would ever lose a feat? I see that some people have house rules about losing feats when dying, but outside of that...?
thanks
Hmmm... I read that as saying you always have the same number of feats on both sides, even if they aren't exactly the same ones.
You would transfer any from your character card to both sides when you earned your role card, and then from there you would adding them in equal quantity to both sides.
My interpretation was the same.
When you get a feat on one role, you get a feat on the other.
I'm also wondering, under what circumstances you would ever lose a feat? I see that some people have house rules about losing feats when dying, but outside of that...?
thanks
There were some monsters in WotR that would do that to you, if memory serves.
I'm also wondering, under what circumstances you would ever lose a feat? ...
Actually the real Ak goblin song is :
Ak is gotta cut loose, feat lose
Licks off his Licktoads toes
Please, Tanis, nurse me off some trainees
Ak, get back, come on before we lack
Toes or booze, everybody cut feats loose
All answers are always within a Goblin song
[Edit : We aren't responsible for wathever feat may be lost in translation from Goblin to french then to Elvish]
You can voluntarily give up a skill feat in WotR by using the Gift of Nocticula. Diurgez Bloodlord also unchecks a skill or power feat if you die while encountering him.
Ah. I was reading it as "When you gain or lose a feat on this card, also [gain or lose that same feat] on the opposite side of this card," that is, it applies to the feats shared by both sides. But I do like "When you gain or lose a feat on this card, also [gain or lose a feat] on the opposite side of this card" better.
thanks
|
I actually hadn't even noticed the role flipping when I picked up my deck at GenCon. I got it on Thursday, and it wasn't until talking with someone at the special Friday when he said "Yea and the whole role card concept is really cool". I had no clue what he was talking about until then, I was too in shock over how awesome it's going to be to go 99.9% invincible by turning my hand size to 0-8 every turn!!
Diurgez Bloodlord also unchecks a skill or power feat if you die while encountering him.
What the actual what?!
Diurgez Bloodlord also unchecks a skill or power feat if you die while encountering him.
As if dying wasn't already enough...
Diurgez Bloodlord also unchecks a skill or power feat if you die while encountering him.As if dying wasn't already enough...
I've heard of adding insult to injury, but this is adding injury to injury.
From the rulebook :
If there’s more than 1 checkbox associated with a skill, power, or card type, you must check the unchecked box farthest to the left before you can check immediately adjacent boxes. For example, if a skill has boxes labeled +1, +2, and +3, you must check the +1 box before you can check the +2 or +3 box, and you must have checked +1 and +2 before you can check +3. These boxes aren’t cumulative—that is, “+2” replaces “+1,” so they do not add together to make +3.
From the Ak character card :
When you reset your hand, you may treat your hand size as 3, 4, or 5 (□ or 2 or 6) (□ or 1 or 7) until the end of the turn.
So if I get two power feats and check the two boxes for the power listed above, can I treat my hand size as :
(a) 3, 4, 5 or 2 or 6 or 1 or 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7)? or(b) 3, 4, 5 or 1 or 7 (1, 3, 4, 5, or 7)?
By the rulebook, I think it should be (b), but I also think the rulebook example is a bit lacking in complexity, compared to actual situations.
I agree with Andrew, but this passage could use rewording. I know the intention is you don't lose most powers because you checked the next box. But like Andrew says, some powers (like CD Lini's combat boost, or WotR Kyra's) do have an increasing progression which is not cumulative.
Some characters who have two different feat upgrades in separate parentheses can usually opt for the second even if the first is not chosen.
Is anyone playing Damiel such that: "You may discard a card to add 1d6 (□+1) (□+2) (□+3) and the Poison or Fire (□ or Acid, Cold, Electricity, or Mental) trait to any combat check at your location; if the discarded card has the Alchemical trait, add an additional 1d6 (□ 1d12)" means that you can't get the d12 without spending 4 feats?
The rules here may need rewording, but common sense can usually tell which are intended progressions like (□+1) (□+2) (□+3) and which are separate upgrades. You can't have +3 without having +1.
With Ak, I'm not sure. As worded I think you could take (□ or 1 or 7) first. You can have (1,3,4,5,or 7) without having (□ or 2 or 6). Arguably having the 1 and 7 options is most useful, but who knows? Maybe there'd be times you'd wish you could go with 6...?
If that's not that case, maybe it should be worded "you may treat your hand size as 3, 4, or 5 (□ or 2 or 6) (□ or 1 or 2 or 6 or 7)" Ultimately, though, I'm sure the designer had a specific intent that's not coming across clearly, so I guess we'll see.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No you cannot take 1 or 7 first. Adjacent parenthesis are always taken in order, no exceptions.
You can take the Acid, Cold, etc. or the d12 in your example in any order, including before the +X bonuses because they are not immediately next to each other. If you see ")" followed immediately by "(", you must take them in order. If ")" is not immediately followed by "(" you can do any order.
It's like the order of operations!