The Horsechoppers in the Goblins Burn! deck (some magical, some not) require you to be not proficient with weapons AND have the Goblin trait to avoid the difficulty penalty. (I don't know if there are also some in the Goblins Fight! deck--didn't look.) But the Horsechopper +1 promo card from waaay back when issued with Rise of the Runelords doesn't specify the Goblin trait requirement, just the weapon proficiency requirement.
Should the old Horsechopper +1 promo have the Goblin requirement added to it to avoid the penalty, now that a few more have been incorporated into the game?
While we're on the Goblins Burn deck: Flaming Buckler Gun allows recharge at hand reset, while Venomous Buckler Gun does not - apparently one of those is 'bugged' and does not conform to the "Magic Buckler" template (don't have my S&S on hand though, so I can't say which one)
In SnS, Reflecting Buckler and Benevolent Buckler both can't be recharged at hand reset, but Flaming Buckler Gun can.
Bucklers and Buckler Guns aren't the same type of card.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Flaming Buckler Gun allows recharge at hand reset, while Venomous Buckler Gun does not - apparently one of those is 'bugged' and does not conform to the "Magic Buckler" template (don't have my S&S on hand though, so I can't say which one)
For maximum consistency, Flaming Buckler Gun probably shouldn't have that, but we're not going to take it away.
Not sure about the new Goblin burns horsechopper ruling.
If you do not have the Goblin trait and Are proficient with weapons, the difficulty is increased by 4.
Is the correct play
A) a Goblin with profiency can use weapon without penalty because both Are needed to get penalty
B) or you get penalty even if one of the things: not goblin or character is proficient
The wording is so much different than the promo version, so not sure how this class deck version is suposed to work.
I am sure that not Goblin, proficient will get penalty.
C) How about non Goblin, not proficient? (He would be good with old promo, but how about this new)...
Not sure about the new Goblin burns horsechopper ruling.
If you do not have the Goblin trait and Are proficient with weapons, the difficulty is increased by 4.Is the correct play
A) a Goblin with profiency can use weapon without penalty because both Are needed to get penalty
B) or you get penalty even if one of the things: not goblin or character is proficientThe wording is so much different than the promo version, so not sure how this class deck version is suposed to work.
I am sure that not Goblin, proficient will get penalty.
C) How about non Goblin, not proficient? (He would be good with old promo, but how about this new)...
Well, it's pretty much 2-tiered check:
TIER 1: Are you Goblin?
a) YES! => You're okey.
b) Nooo...? => Go to TIER 2
TIER 2: Are you proficient with weapons?
a) I didn't serve a 20-semester sentence in Mage school for that! => You are OK.
b) YEEEES! VALEROS SMASH! => Take that -4 penalty, meat shield!
It is this AND and how it is mean to be read this time problematic.
For me failing one is enough to fail. To you it seems to be that one fail is ok, if other is not.
Because it can be...
Are you Goblin... yeas... and you proficient... yeas. So false and true with and would work like you thinked it would work...
But if this is again or type and... or ... you see my point. ;)
But if you Are correct then this indeed does work differently than Promo version.
Think of it like this:
(1) Is it true that you do not have the Goblin trait?
(2) Is it true you are proficient with weapons?
If both are true, the entire statement is true and you take the penalty.
They decided to make sure that even Goblins that are proficient aren't penalized when using their namesake weapon.
I think the wording you're confusing it with Hannibal_pjv would be this:
"The difficulty is increased by 4 if you do not have the Goblin trait and if you are proficient with weapons."
(I don't think I necessarily needed to move the result to the start but I think it could be read either way if I didn't)
But I think the interpretation of that power as being of the form:
"If ([A] and [B]) then [C]" (as opposed to "If [A], and also if [B], then [C]")
is technically unambiguous from the wording given, even if it is a little confusing.
Thanks!
Yep irgy did put that dilemma in more easier form!