1) Can you use more than one applicable power from the same character on one check? I know you can't use more than one type of card per character per check but not sure about powers. Specifically I'm wondering about Zadim as both his powers that add dice to checks could apply to the same combat check.
2) Pretty sure I know the answer to this one but can Zadim use the reveal power on a weapon card for his combat check and then discard that same weapon for his power to add his stealth skill to that combat check? (This feels to me like Lini being able to reveal an animal to add a d4 and then use that same animal card for its own card text on the same check, but want to make sure)
3) Invoke. So if I understand this term correctly, a check invokes the poison trait if either the character attempting that check has the poison trait as part of their check or the bane you are against has that trait listed. Assuming that's correct, the rules also say that "a bane invokes a trait if it deals only damage of the type that matches that trait." So a bane that does all poison damage invokes poison. However, in that case, would the CHECK invoke poison as well? Zadim's power is specifically activated when you are making a "check that invokes the poison trait". If he's up against a bane that doesn't have the poison trait listed but does all poison damage would he then be able to use that power?
Thanks!
1) Can you use more than one applicable power from the same character on one check? I know you can't use more than one type of card per character per check but not sure about powers. Specifically I'm wondering about Zadim as both his powers that add dice to checks could apply to the same combat check.
Yes, absolutely.
2) Pretty sure I know the answer to this one but can Zadim use the reveal power on a weapon card for his combat check and then discard that same weapon for his power to add his stealth skill to that combat check? (This feels to me like Lini being able to reveal an animal to add a d4 and then use that same animal card for its own card text on the same check, but want to make sure)
Yup. You've got it. He is playing it in the one case and using it for his power in the other. And since he plays it first (to determine his skill) by just revealing it, he has it to discard for his power as well.
3) Invoke. So if I understand this term correctly, a check invokes the poison trait if either the character attempting that check has the poison trait as part of their check or the bane you are against has that trait listed. Assuming that's correct, the rules also say that "a bane invokes a trait if it deals only damage of the type that matches that trait." So a bane that does all poison damage invokes poison. However, in that case, would the CHECK invoke poison as well? Zadim's power is specifically activated when you are making a "check that invokes the poison trait". If he's up against a bane that doesn't have the poison trait listed but does all poison damage would he then be able to use that power?
The way I read it, no, he can't do that. A bane can invoke the Poison trait, even when the check doesn't. I'm not sure how common that would be or if I can think of a card that does that, but it very well could be so.
EDIT: Looks like I can find some examples. The Abyssal Scavenger from S&S deck 5 deals only Acid damage, but doesn't have the Acid trait. So, it is a bane that invokes the Acid trait even though the check against it doesn't (unless you can ignore its immunities and play a card that adds the Acid trait to the check).
Other examples include:
RotR C Satyr
RotR B Pillbug Podicker
RotR 4 Shining Child
RotR 5 Azaven
RotR 3 Barl Breakbones
RotR 2 Caizarlu Zerren
RotR 5 Simulacrum of Vraxeris
RotR B Siren
S&S B Bilge Spider Swarm
I'm going to stop there, but I could go on.
EDIT: Looks like I can find some examples. The Abyssal Scavenger from S&S deck 5 deals...
I can't think of an example, but is it safe to assume that a monster with the powers:
"BYA, succeed at a check or you're dealt X damage Type A.
All damage dealt by this Monster during the check is Type B."
... does not invoke Trait B?
Otherwise, judging from the mummy dragon in the preview blog, which I think is the first Monster I have see with an 'elemental trait', I assume the designers would have put the corresponding trait on all monsters that they want vulnerable to a specific element, i.e. if the monster *lacks* the Trait - that would be a conscious effort to deny the check that specific trait (unless added by a player, of course).
EDIT: ...or Hawkmoon and I are mistaken, and that sentence about the 'single type of damage' is a way to retro-fit monsters like the Abyssal Scavenger to the 'invoke' mechanic?
Yeah, that type of monster doesn't deal only one type of damage, so it doesn't invoke a trait due to that part of the rule.
That check invokes the Acid trait, but the check itself does not have the Acid trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(A) A card has a trait if it is listed in the traits of the card.
(B) A check has a trait if the card you played to determine your skill has that trait (i.e if (A) was true of the card you played), if a power added that trait, or it is the skill you are using for the check.
(C) A card invokes a trait if it is listed as one of the traits on the card (i.e. if (A) is true).
(D) A check invokes a trait if (B) is true or if (C) is true of the card you are attempting the check against* (and therefore (A) is true of it as well).
(E) Additionally, a bane invokes a trait if it only deals damage of that type. This does not make (A) (B) (C) or (D) true.
I think I got that right.
*And remember, a check against is any check required of that card. If it appears as the check to defeat/acquire or anywhere in the text of that card, it is a check against that card.
Awesome, thanks, Hawkmoon!
You are welcome.
Thanks for the speedy response!
Couple more quick questions.
Regarding Marvaro, I'm a little unsure on the timing of when you can use his ability to display a card and gain the appropriate skills for the rest of the turn. Can you display multiple cards for example after your last exploration, before the end of your turn? What I'm getting at is it appears that he can basically freely use that ability to recharge any unwanted cards in hand every turn, since those displayed cards are recharged at the end of the turn. Is this the case? Or is there a limit to how often you can use that power?
Regarding Traders, I understand that you can freely trade cards between characters before visiting the trader. But the section on rebuilding your deck between scenarios, including putting buried cards back in your deck, is in the next section of the rule book, after the trader rules. I find it hard to believe that buried cards wouldn't be back in circulation before visiting traders but I'm unsure because of the order that everything's written in the rules. Would love some clarification on this.
Regarding Marvaro, I'm a little unsure on the timing of when you can use his ability to display a card and gain the appropriate skills for the rest of the turn. Can you display multiple cards for example after your last exploration, before the end of your turn? What I'm getting at is it appears that he can basically freely use that ability to recharge any unwanted cards in hand every turn, since those displayed cards are recharged at the end of the turn. Is this the case? Or is there a limit to how often you can use that power?
It would seem so. I'd say you can use it between any step of the turn and at any time having a skill is relevant. So, you could display all your cards at the start of your turn. And you could display all your cards just before the end of your turn.
Regarding Traders, I understand that you can freely trade cards between characters before visiting the trader. But the section on rebuilding your deck between scenarios, including putting buried cards back in your deck, is in the next section of the rule book, after the trader rules. I find it hard to believe that buried cards wouldn't be back in circulation before visiting traders but I'm unsure because of the order that everything's written in the rules. Would love some clarification on this.
Hm... That could probably be a bit more clear. But I'd play it as yes, you can trade your buried cards. The rules about traders uses the term "your cards" or "her cards" which includes your buried pile. Page 9 of the MM rulebook tells you that.
Your cards include your deck, the cards in your hand and your buried, discarded, and displayed cards.
The trade rules say "..all characters may trade boons amongst themselves" and I see nothing that says where those traded cards come and go. Then it says "putting the appropriate number and type of cards from her cards into the box" when you trade. Your cards includes you buried cards.
The weird thing though, it is only after that you banish any displayed cards that would have been banished. Which sort of sounds like you can trade them away before that happens. Which maybe doesn't seem quite right.
Thanks, Hawkmoon. Yeah a bit of official clarification on the trader / buried cards thing would be good, but I think overall the intent probably is that all of those cards are available.
We too would like a clearer sequence of events between games. The way we play it is:
A) At the end of game (i. e. trading between characters that just ended a scenario together) :
1) manage displayed cards
2) collect cards (buried, discarded...) in your hand
3) receive reward cards
4) distribute cards from dead characters between characters that survived the scenario and let those characters trade any cards between themselves without restrictions of deck validity
5) trade once with a displayed trader
6) put cards you don't want in a global pot in the middle of the table
7) complete your deck to make it valid with cards in the middle of the table until you cannot
8) return extra cards to box
9) draw from the box at random valid (i. e. Basic only then with AD <= to the scenario you played-2, of needed type and specificity - like it must be an item and/or Staff) cards to complete your deck (if needed).
B) At the start of the next game
10) trade between characters that will start the game, keeping everyone's deck valid (i. e. Trading cards of the same type, keeping a Staff if I must have one, and so on).
We like it this way because it avoids "playing the system" (else you could say I don't care banishing stuff during scenarios because I'll just filled my hands with basic stuff at the end and then go to traders to get back nice stuff). On the other end it enables (if a character died) to let every survivor to keep in step 6 some high level equipment that can be trade with the replacing newbee character of the unlucky player during step 10. Yes it means that survivor will end up with a couple of basic cards but we feel that:
A) it mimics well the RPG where if you have to pay for resurrecting a friend, it will cost you a couple of magic items usually.
B) it gives you some upgrades to look for in the next game
C) it mitigates well the fact that in our rule new characters always join a game (even AD 6) only with random basic cards (before step 10 trading)... which is a bit harder but so cool.
Please note that the exact rule has you deal with displayed cards after you go see traders. But we don't really see why you could collect all your cards including buried ones except displayed ones in order to trade them. Doesn't feel right thematically and we don't see where there could be and issue from a game point of view. Furthermore, it's a mess on the table if you have both end of scenario displayed cards (which means you may even need to keep locations and other cards in order to manage displayed cards), traders cards and cards traded between players at the same time in the middle of the table.
That's my take on it as well, however I think that section of the rules could use some cleaning up to make it more clear that it's all technically "legal."
I like your point by point breakdown above. The only part I still wonder about from the way it's probably intended to play is whether you're supposed to get rid of excess cards (back to the box) before trading (thus making the trades more difficult (at least initially we have so many excess cards that there's really no "cost" to these trades, we've got plenty of junk to throw at the traders for the couple of cards we might want) as you would end up short cards and needing to take some basics after trading (vs having excess cards available to choose from still). I *think* that your way is probably correct but I'm not 100% sure.
I believe your steps 4 & 10 are house rules, and I'm doubtful on your placement of number 3 as well. I remember dying and having my friends swap out some of their cards for my best ones, then I lost the rest, AND had to wait until the next rebuilding phase to get them back.
But as has been stated before, the PACG police aren't going to hunt you down. It sounds much easier to come back from the dead in your group.
Hum, for me 4 and 10 aren't house rules (but waiting for online MM rules to be sure). What is house rules until proven otherwise is my order of steps, but as far as I can tell any step seems to be as such in the rules.
As Brainwave said, it looks good, certainly works, isn't the order of the rules (traders after dealing with displayed car(ds for example), but may actually be better until proven guilty. Vic?
I believe your steps 4 & 10 are house rules, and I'm doubtful on your placement of number 3 as well. I remember dying and having my friends swap out some of their cards for my best ones, then I lost the rest, AND had to wait until the next rebuilding phase to get them back.
But as has been stated before, the PACG police aren't going to hunt you down. It sounds much easier to come back from the dead in your group.
Interesting. I didn't look at all the points in detail before enough to notice the step involving a dead character.
I've never had a character die (and continue - I've had some die when I was first starting and then just gave up and started over from scratch) mid-adventure so haven't perused those rules in detail. But am surprised that you keep those cards at all, would have thought all of the dead character's deck would just go back to the box. I don't want to derail but is this a house rule or do other characters indeed have the ability in the rules to get cards from a dead character's deck after the adventure?
I believe your steps 4 & 10 are house rules...
10 is definitely not a house rule.
Trade Cards If You Like. Before starting a scenario, players may freely trade cards from their character decks. After trading, each character deck must still conform to the list of card types specified by the character card.
(But note, that is not legal in Organized Play.)
And I'm not sure what you are objecting to in 4. It sounds like it's not the dispersal of a dead character's cards, so I assume it's the trading.
Between Games
After each scenario, you must rebuild your character deck. Start by combining your discard pile with your hand, your character deck, any cards you buried under your character card, and any cards you displayed; you may then freely trade cards with other players.
I don't have the MM rules handy, but I assume they're the same.
I don't want to derail but is this a house rule or do other characters indeed have the ability in the rules to get cards from a dead character's deck after the adventure?
I don't have a quote on hand, but yes, it's a rule. That way, the survivors can sacrifice some of their less valuable cards to salvage a unique Loot for example, from the dead man's deck.
Page 14 in WotR, Page 13 in MM. Here is the WotR version as amended by this FAQ:
The other characters may use the dead character’s cards when they rebuild their decks after the scenario; any cards they don’t keep are then returned to the box.
If I could divert this away from dead characters (which is hopefully an issue I never have to face, although so nearly was at the very end of our last session - two lives dependent on one successful roll...) and also raise my concerns about the order trading around cards and going to Traders
That's my take on it as well, however I think that section of the rules could use some cleaning up to make it more clear that it's all technically "legal."
I like your point by point breakdown above. The only part I still wonder about from the way it's probably intended to play is whether you're supposed to get rid of excess cards (back to the box) before trading (thus making the trades more difficult (at least initially we have so many excess cards that there's really no "cost" to these trades, we've got plenty of junk to throw at the traders for the couple of cards we might want) as you would end up short cards and needing to take some basics after trading (vs having excess cards available to choose from still). I *think* that your way is probably correct but I'm not 100% sure.
The only way I can really wrap my head around it is if the order of the whole 'trading between players' and the 'one Trade each with a Trader' was quite fluid, and I'm not certain it's supposed to be. Say every character was going to the same Trader, are they really supposed to have arranged all their cards beforehand? And I'm even more confused if all the 'spare' cards were supposed to be back in the box, because then - as Brainwave said - you're going to end up with gaps that need filling from the box, which seems completely counterintuitive
Well from what I remember, nothing in the rules says you need to have excess cards (i. e. above your cards feats) at the end of a scenario to be able to visit a trader and trade with it.
So yes you can end up giving cards to a trader (I mean giving more cards than you'll have in return) and then having not enough and having to take some back from the box to fill a valid deck.
This is one of the reasons we house ruled that you fill your deck with random cards. It felt too powerful after an ADx scenario to trade 2 AD(x-1) cards you don't really like vs an ADx of choice from the trader plus and AD(x-2) of choice from the box (to fill the deck if needeed). The way we play you indeed get your ADx of choice from the trader but the filler will be random and can be any AD level from 0 to x-2.
Our point being that if your deck is already optimized with AD3to5 cards after only say 2 AD5 scenarios, rewards for the rest of AD5 will lack interest.
And yes, once that rule on traders is clear, we don't see why characters should be prohibited to make the best of it. So if they want to trade stuff before and after meeting with traders, be it. At least in our home games.
Regarding Marvaro, I'm a little unsure on the timing of when you can use his ability to display a card and gain the appropriate skills for the rest of the turn. Can you display multiple cards for example after your last exploration, before the end of your turn? What I'm getting at is it appears that he can basically freely use that ability to recharge any unwanted cards in hand every turn, since those displayed cards are recharged at the end of the turn. Is this the case? Or is there a limit to how often you can use that power?It would seem so. I'd say you can use it between any step of the turn and at any time having a skill is relevant. So, you could display all your cards at the start of your turn. And you could display all your cards just before the end of your turn.
Just a clarification, "you could display all your cards at the start of your turn" means after the "Advance the Blessing Deck" step, right? My understanding was that you could play cards between each step, but not before that first one.
Yeah. I just meant it as basically once that "do anything" moment occurs on the turn, you can do it. Your turn always really starts with Advancing the Blessing Deck. So, you flip a blessing, apply start of the turn effects, then you could display all your cards if you wanted.
Yeah. I just meant it as basically once that "do anything" moment occurs on the turn, you can do it. Your turn always really starts with Advancing the Blessing Deck. So, you flip a blessing, apply start of the turn effects, then you could display all your cards if you wanted.
Thanks - just wanted to double check, as I played it wrong the other day (display whole hand to avoid lightning storm damage at start of turn), read up on timing to correct myself, and wanted to make sure I was getting it right now!
1. Question - does the Trigger trait come into play when you encounter a card as part of exploration or does it only trigger when the card is examined?
Thanks
The only way I can really wrap my head around it is if the order of the whole 'trading between players' and the 'one Trade each with a Trader' was quite fluid, and I'm not certain it's supposed to be. Say every character was going to the same Trader, are they really supposed to have arranged all their cards beforehand? And I'm even more confused if all the 'spare' cards were supposed to be back in the box, because then - as Brainwave said - you're going to end up with gaps that need filling from the box, which seems completely counterintuitive
One of the things that convinces me it's definitely not supposed to be a fluid part of the trading between players phase is because of the 'if multiple characters go to the same trader, randomly choose the order they Trade in' rule
(therefore I still don't actually get it)
Chief Technical Officer
|
1. Question - does the Trigger trait come into play when you encounter a card as part of exploration or does it only trigger when the card is examined?Only when examined.
Hold on a second there... the question used terminology that doesn't mean anything in the game ("come into play"), so there's a small possibility whiteant99 wasn't asking what you think he was asking (though he probably was).
If the question was "On a card that has the Trigger trait, does the 'when examined' power happen when you encounter it without examining it?" The answer to that is no.
But if the question was "If the card I'm encountering has the Trigger trait, but I did not examine it, does it still have the Trigger trait?" The answer to that is yes.
I assumed so, but in the sub-section about solo play it says Zadim isn't good for playing alone which has me doubting myself. With that skill plus a cheap and efficient examine he seems great for clearing a location by himself.
I think the idea is - he is BETTER not being solo, as his skill brings value to the whole party. You can assume he was balanced around that and, if played solo, he's therefore weaker than other, non-assisting characters. Yes, combat will probably not be a problem, but with his mediocre dice - everything else will be.