MORE MM questions...


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

1) Glass Elemental / Fire Gecko: both of those reveal for one of their powers, but then (as part of the same 'power text block'), they can result in being discarded, if you 'fail' certain conditions. Our Channa Ti *really* wants to be sure if that counts as “discarding for their power”, as implied by Vic's post here:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tsu9?Wording-Clarification-Banishing-cards-for #13

2) Quicksand Bunyup: when Triggered, he deals you 1d4 Electricity damage; he also has the 'Damage dealt by the QB cannot be prevented” power: by RAW, it obviously applies to the Trigger damage, but this somehow struck us as 'wrong' (maybe because of the specified Electricity damage, which somehow sounds like it should matter in terms of damage prevention? Idk) – so we wanted to check if the intent is for “Damage dealt by QB *while you act* cannot be prevented”?

3) Efriit – Ok, we kicked its butt anyway, but his power (“When encountered, discard a blessing from the Blessings deck for each other open location”) struck as potentially very cruel: with a big party, you only need two unlucky early bumps into the Efreet and no matter that you'd defeat him – you've probably already lost the game by inevitable timeout. So we wanted the check if maybe the intent is that he steals blessings “for each location that is not permanently *or temporarily* closed”?

4) Icy Longspear – does it need the Cold trait? This one came up at Howling Sands - “Guys, I think I'll have to recharge my weapon... oh, WAIT!” The Spear seems to be the only weapon that deals *only* elemental damage, that does not have the corresponding Trait. We *know* the card works 'as is', but we also know it's a RotR legacy card, from a time when combat spells had their 'element' attached to the dice in the power description, so we thought we should check for intent.

5) Shield Cloak – this is an Armor, and it's Magic. Back in RotR it was established that “you may recharge this card when you reset your hand” is a Magic Armor template (with the Lamellar armors in MM being expressly stated -by Vic, I think?- to be the exception), so should the Shield Cloak have this power?

6) Can Simoun use 'double' Perception against certain barriers? By RAW, it's clear she can, but I thought I'd ask, as it seems incredibly powerful – with a single power and skill feats, she's already rolling 2d8+6 against all Traps and Obstacles in the game (which -I think, don't take my word for it- are ALL barriers with check to defeat at this point?)

7) Hypogeum: this promo location has the rule “after you setup, you may summon and build this location” – am I correct that it's When Closing condition (“search and defeat all banes in the location deck”) will pretty much never come into play? It doesn't get a Henchman, so (pending a Henchman that shuffles into random location – so maybe if you replay the scenario with the Giant Eel Henchman?) you'll always have to had grinded through the whole deck (and therefore already defeated all the banes within)?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

1) I presume you're looking for official word, but my guess is, that word is "If it's printed on the card in the "POWERS" area, it's a card's power. If you're following directions there, you're playing a card for its power." So, yes, you're discarding for power. Go Channa Ti!
2) I guess it means that you can't play a card that lets you ignore powers on a card that trigger when you examine it. My question is, does that also mean it can't be reduced? My first read is that you can't keep the damage from being DEALT, but you can reduce it once it's dealt.
3) HATE this guy. We ran into him like three times in one session and, mysteriously, ran out of time. Since Temp Closed locations are only "closed" with respect to the villain escaping (or not), it currently sucks to be us. I honestly presume the suckage is intended, but that's another that can only come from Official Channels.
4) I don't have a card in front of me, but I found an image on line for the RotR version... It's not a card with the Cold trait, but it always adds the Cold trait to a combat check. Normally, I'd wonder why you don't just add the Cold trait to the card, but I sort of answered my own question with the above sentence. If you want to have a card that adds the trait but doesn't HAVE the trait, you do exactly what's been done. (So, I don't know. Maybe? But I LOVE typing words...)
5) I actually re-looked at that recently for a similar situation (magic buckler, I think). Only if it has the Off-hand trait.
6) We've been playing Yes. Embrace the Badassery!
7) That's probably there for temp-closes.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
James McKendrew wrote:
5) I actually re-looked at that recently for a similar situation (magic buckler, I think). Only if it has the Off-hand trait.

I'm not sure I got that - you're saying that if the Armor has the Off-Hand, its *should* or it *shouldn't* get the Recharge power?

I now remember that Bucklers were also excluded for balance purposes (so they're another exception besides the Lamellars), but all the regular Magic Shields have the Recharge.

James McKendrew wrote:
7) That's probably there for temp-closes.

Um, yeah. Silly (and embarrassed) me.

And to throw another one in:

8) We know that Location Close through Henchman is not *part of the encounter*, but is it *part of the exploration*? (for purposes of allies that give you, for example, "add 1d4 to your Survival checks during this exploration", that you used to encounter the Henchman)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

8. Yes. See this comment by Vic.

Lone Shark Games

1) Yeah, it's good to be the druid.
2) Some effects care about what type of damage is dealt, without preventing them. This is certainly true in Season of Plundered Tombs, at a minimum.
3) Scouting really helps this scenario. Don't be too scared off by triggers :)
4) It does not _need_ the trait, though if it were a new design today it certainly might work that way. I wouldn't recharge it for now, though :)
5) MM has a very different take on armor than RotR.
6) Yep. Ditto Drelm with Divine.
7) Villains, roaming henchmen, strange scenarios.
8) It is indeed.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
8. Yes. See this comment by Vic.

Thanks, Hawk!

Since I'm on a roll...:

9) The current rules about immunities are:

"If the card you’re encountering states that it is immune to a
particular trait, during the encounter, characters may not play cards
that have the specified trait or use powers that would add that trait
to the check."

So, by that wording, does it follow when I explore with my Fire Gecko, I can actually add 1d4+Fire trait against an 'Immune to Fire' monster? Seems completely counter-intuitive, but also seems to be completely by the rules?

EDIT:

Keith Richmond wrote:

1) Yeah, it's good to be the druid.

2) Some effects care about what type of damage is dealt, without preventing them. This is certainly true in Season of Plundered Tombs, at a minimum.
3) Scouting really helps this scenario. Don't be too scared off by triggers :)
4) It does not _need_ the trait, though if it were a new design today it certainly might work that way. I wouldn't recharge it for now, though :)
5) MM has a very different take on armor than RotR.
6) Yep. Ditto Drelm with Divine.
7) Villains, roaming henchmen, strange scenarios.
8) It is indeed.

And, thanks a bunch, Keith. A lot of these seem obvious, but many of our players are over-wary that we're not 'cheating' ourselves into playing 'easy mode'. The human mind is strange place.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't think so on the Fire Gecko. You are "using" that power, which you can't do. True, you aren't playing the Fire Gecko during the encounter, but you are still using the power if you add the dice and Fire trait.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I don't think so on the Fire Gecko. You are "using" that power, which you can't do. True, you aren't playing the Fire Gecko during the encounter, but you are still using the power if you add the dice and Fire trait.

We did play that you can just not use the d4 + Fire in this case (because you can't), but still proceed with your normal combat check. Which seems odd.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It is sort of similar to Incendiary Cloud being displayed. You don't play Incendiary Cloud once it is displayed, but you still use its power. But you couldn't do so against something immune to Fire.

The power in question on the Fire Gecko is two sentences. "Discard this card to explore your location. During this exploration, add 1d4 and the Fire trait to your combat checks." The first sentence is how you play the card. You discard it and you explore. The second sentence is an effect or a power that you use during the exploration. In fact, because you aren't playing the Fire Gecko during the exploration it creates, you are free to play another ally on any step of that encounter.

Imagine a hypothetical Fire Gecko Cloud that said "Display this card to explore your location. While displayed, add 1d4 and the Fire trait to your combat checks. At the end of your turn, discard this card." That could stay out for multiple explorations and encounters. If the third card you encountered after playing it was immune to Fire, I don't think you would wonder if you should get the 1d4 and the Fire trait or if you should still even bother to attempt the check. You'd think "I can't use that power."

Likewise, once you've activated the "explore" power on the real Fire Gecko, if anything is immune to Fire, you just can't use that power to get the 1d4 and Fire trait.


Keith Richmond wrote:
6) Yep. Ditto Drelm with Divine.

Are you REALLY sure about this? It's just one power, not two separate powers so I can't imagine why you can apply it twice..

even if the barrier has both Trap and Obstacle traits..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The question is this:

If Simoun is making a Perception check to defeat a barrier that has the Trap trait, can she still use her power to add her Perception skill the the check?

The Drelm version is this:

If Drelm is making a Divine check to defeat a barrier that has the Obstacle trait, can he still use his power to add his Divine skill the the check?

And the answer is indeed yes. Their powers aren't things that "determine the skill" for the check. They just add some dice and some modifiers. Really, in their powers, "Perception skill" and "Divine skill" are just variables so that the powers can grow as you gain skill feats.

Simoun's power basically says "Add 1d8 +2 plus your number of Intelligence skill feats to you check to defeat a barrier that has the Trap trait." It is just a lot easier and thematically appropriate to call it your Perception skill.


Longshot11 wrote:


2) Quicksand Bunyup: when Triggered, he deals you 1d4 Electricity damage; he also has the 'Damage dealt by the QB cannot be prevented” power: by RAW, it obviously applies to the Trigger damage, but this somehow struck us as 'wrong' (maybe because of the specified Electricity damage, which somehow sounds like it should matter in terms of damage prevention? Idk) – so we wanted to check if the intent is for “Damage dealt by QB *while you act* cannot be prevented”?

You can't prevent the damage. Our group had the same question and referred to p.15 of the MM rulebook. "When you examine a card and see that red highlight, make sure you read the card and do what it says!"

That means reading the entire card, and Vic reinforced this premise on another thread (sorry, don't have link handy).


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

The question is this:

If Simoun is making a Perception check to defeat a barrier that has the Trap trait, can she still use her power to add her Perception skill the the check?

I agree with everything that you say Hawkmoon, but original questions in the OP said:

Quote:
she's already rolling 2d8+6 against all Traps and Obstacles in the game

And I cannot agree with this because not all Traps and Obstacles have Perception checks to defeat. That's why I assumed that original question was about whether you can double your perception bonus if your barrier has both Trap and Obstacle traits. And I was surprised that everyone seemed to agree with this :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
magnitt wrote:

I agree with everything that you say Hawkmoon, but original questions in the OP said:

Quote:
she's already rolling 2d8+6 against all Traps and Obstacles in the game
And I cannot agree with this because not all Traps and Obstacles have Perception checks to defeat. That's why I assumed that original question was about whether you can double your perception bonus if your barrier has both Trap and Obstacle traits. And I was surprised that everyone seemed to agree with this :)

Yes , I'm sorry, I didn't formulate that correctly - she's rolling 2d8+6 against Obstacles and Traps that have a Perception check only (but she ads her Perception to all Obst/Trsp, which is (nearly?) all Barriers - so still , pumping her Perception is crazy good. I'm not complaining :)


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

The question is this:

If Simoun is making a Perception check to defeat a barrier that has the Trap trait, can she still use her power to add her Perception skill the the check?

Yes she can, Hawkmoon is right. Actually, Simoun doesn't have a choice and MUST add her Perception skill if able. That's an important distinction compared to Drelm, who "may" add his Divine skill.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I don't think so on the Fire Gecko. You are "using" that power, which you can't do. True, you aren't playing the Fire Gecko during the encounter, but you are still using the power if you add the dice and Fire trait.
We did play that you can just not use the d4 + Fire in this case (because you can't), but still proceed with your normal combat check. Which seems odd.

Just for the pleasure of a little chat with you guys:

The Fire Gecko doesn't say "During this exploration, YOU MAY add 1d4 and the Fire trait to your combat checks." So the way we see it it's a permanent mandatory power. Every combat check will have the Fire trait.
Now if the bane is Fire immune, what now?

One could say: Well I just cannot use the Gecko power... except that you are not using it (as Hawk said). And since there is no "MAY" there is altogether no character's decision involved.

So it's just automatic application of the rules that say if something is impossible, forget it. Yes but you can see that impossibility two ways:
A) Since my combat+[1d4+fire] is impossible vs fire immune, I must remove the [1d4+fire]... If I combat, I won't have it
B) Since my combat+[1d4+fire] is impossible vs fire immune, I must remove the combat+[1d4+fire]... I am just not allowed to make a combat check

Suppose you meet a Fire immune bane that has for checks to defeat COMBAT 20 or DIVINE 10. Wouldn't it make sense to consider that since I took the risk of playing the Gecko, I am now stuck with having to roll divine?

Hehe


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm actually saying you are using it when you add the 1d4 and Fire trait. But you aren't playing it at that point.

The immunity rule prevents you from using powers, which is broader than playing cards. When you get the benefit of the Fire Geckio's 1d4 and the Fire trait you are using a power. The immunity rule says you can't. So don't.

The Fire Gecko itself has the Fire triat I think. So, let's go through this.

1. You play Incendiary Cloud.
2. You play the Fire Gecko to explore. Is anything immune to the Fire trait? No, so you can explore. You'll probably really need to set the Fire Gecko aside into limbo until you finish processing all its effects.
3. You flip over the card and start an encounter. It is some monster with a combat check that is immune to Fire.
4. You are making your combat check. You say to yourself "Oh, I've got this Incendiary Cloud that will help me." But then you see the power adds the fire trait. The immunity rule kicks in and says you can't use that power.
5. You say "No problem, I've I've got this Fire Gecko too and it has an effect I'm still using." But then you see the Fire trait. The immunity rule kicks in and says you can't use that power.
6. You finish the exploration and discard the set-aside Fire Gecko.

The effect is really no different from other cards that are already in play and interact with immunity rules. You can't use that power. It doesn't matter that you aren't playing the card. And it doesn't matter that something said to add the dice. Incendiary Cloud says to add dice and also doesn't say "may" to make it optional, but when something is immune to Fire you know not to. Fire Gecko is the same.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
elcoderdude wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I don't think so on the Fire Gecko. You are "using" that power, which you can't do. True, you aren't playing the Fire Gecko during the encounter, but you are still using the power if you add the dice and Fire trait.
We did play that you can just not use the d4 + Fire in this case (because you can't), but still proceed with your normal combat check. Which seems odd.

Just for the pleasure of a little chat with you guys:

The Fire Gecko doesn't say "During this exploration, YOU MAY add 1d4 and the Fire trait to your combat checks." So the way we see it it's a permanent mandatory power. Every combat check will have the Fire trait.
Now if the bane is Fire immune, what now?

One could say: Well I just cannot use the Gecko power... except that you are not using it (as Hawk said). And since there is no "MAY" there is altogether no character's decision involved.

So it's just automatic application of the rules that say if something is impossible, forget it. Yes but you can see that impossibility two ways:
A) Since my combat+[1d4+fire] is impossible vs fire immune, I must remove the [1d4+fire]... If I combat, I won't have it
B) Since my combat+[1d4+fire] is impossible vs fire immune, I must remove the combat+[1d4+fire]... I am just not allowed to make a combat check

Suppose you meet a Fire immune bane that has for checks to defeat COMBAT 20 or DIVINE 10. Wouldn't it make sense to consider that since I took the risk of playing the Gecko, I am now stuck with having to roll divine?

Hehe

I'm fairly certain this was also covered in the Incendiary Cloud FAQ, since as far as I'm aware, that is not a may condition either. It's been a long time since I read that discussion, but I believe the result was roughly, 'if something cannot be added to a check, it is ignored.

While I chuckled at your comment about being forced to use divine, the fact is, 80%+ monsters don't have an alternate check besides combat, and I think that goes double for fire immune creatures. In that case, do you just rule they fail, and effectively rolled a 0 and have to discard their hand? That's something that strikes me as clearly wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Longshot11 wrote:
James McKendrew wrote:
5) I actually re-looked at that recently for a similar situation (magic buckler, I think). Only if it has the Off-hand trait.

I'm not sure I got that - you're saying that if the Armor has the Off-Hand, its *should* or it *shouldn't* get the Recharge power?

I now remember that Bucklers were also excluded for balance purposes (so they're another exception besides the Lamellars), but all the regular Magic Shields have the Recharge.

Just to clarify, There's a faq ((*tune of Over At The Frankenstein place*) Over at the paizo website...) The ones with the offhand trait SHOULD be rechargable if their magic, and the ones without shouldn't.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / MORE MM questions... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.