Yes, you can draw it. No, you can't play it twice. See this thread. And while cards don't have memories, you do. The game does ask you to remember things from time to time. And you aren't being asked to remember much here, just that the card you put on the bottom of your deck has already been played.
The set aside rule is a bit weird, the intent of it is as follows:
1. If you know where the card will be ending up, put it there immediately
2. If you don't know where the card will be ending up, set it aside until you know
Examples of #1 include Staff of Minor Healing and the vast majority of boons, playing a spell you don't have the relevant skill for (so it is banished), or choosing not to attempt the recharge check on a spell after playing it.
Examples of #2 are any card with a recharge check that you either must attempt or that you want to attempt. As recharge checks are handled after the main check the card is played on, the card is set aside until that recharge check is attempted. (Encounter sequence has Attempt the Check and Attempt the Next Check, If Needed steps. Recharge checks are considered as "next checks" rather than interrupting the current check with another one)
On the one hand: page 8 of the Mummy's Mask rulebook states "When you play cards... set them aside while you process their effects." This would imply that the Dagger is set aside while you're drawing a knife, only then recharging and winding up on the bottom of your deck.
Note that when "something happens INSTEAD of another thing" (as Simoun's power is worded) - the second thing *doesn't happen at all*. In other words, if you chose to use Simoun's power - you're playing the Knifes by *recharging* them, not by the "set aside" limbo that usually applies to cards with recharge check, i.e. your Knifes are *at no point* discarded.
More generally: it feels like preventing the Dagger from being played a second time violates the metarule "Card's Don't Have Memories". The card doesn't know that it was already played on your check; it just knows that "another weapon" was played, so why shouldn't it be able to be played again?
While, in the thread that Hawkmooon linked, there seems to be a majority user consensus, there has been no official stance on the subject (the closest you get is Keth Richmond's - a designer with Lone Shark- post on the matter, which however does not represent an official ruling, by his admission), I do express a dissenting opinion similar to your argument. You'll probably be best served by reading the discussion and making up your own mind, but from my POV - pending a post by Mike or Vic, each side of that argument is 'home-ruling', one way or the other.
I personally play it that you can re-use the DD, as the benefit is far from exploit, while at the same time - and much more importantly! - going the other way hugely undermines my current understanding of the game - and that damage far outweighs the meager benefits double-dipping into Doubling Dagger brings.
I personally play it that you can re-use the DD, as the benefit is far from exploit, while at the same time - and much more importantly! - going the other way hugely undermines my current understanding of the game - and that damage far outweighs the meager benefits double-dipping into Doubling Dagger brings.
Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what part of the game it undermines? I'd love to understand more.
Yes, you can draw it. No, you can't play it twice. See this thread. And while cards don't have memories, you do. The game does ask you to remember things from time to time. And you aren't being asked to remember much here, just that the card you put on the bottom of your deck has already been played.The discussion in that thread seems to center on the notion of whether the card itself counts as "another weapon". If that's the limitation that prevents you from playing it on itself, would it change the dynamic if I played another knife in between? That is, I use a DD to use ranged + whatever for my combat check, recharge it to draw itself, and then use a Fate Blade to add to the check; at this point, whether or not the DD is "another weapon" relative to itself, the Fate Blade *definitely* is - can I now use the DD to add to the check as well, even if I couldn't before?
Yes, exactly. You must play "another" weapon. It isn't so much that you can't play the DD twice, as that you must play another weapon to be able to play the second power. So, yes, if you played Fate Blade or another card after defining your Combat check with the DD, then you could indeed play the DD a second time on the same check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread might have the most discussion about "set aside" that I've seen.
Hawkmoon's link is what prompted the "set aside" rule to be created. However, the FAQ that introduced the rule originally sheds more light on the intent: "Revealing and displaying happen instantly. Every other action waits until you know what action it really is."
Note "until you know what the action it really is" -- if you know going into it that it is going to end up in a particular place, it isn't set aside. You only set it aside if you don't know where it's going to end up at the time of playing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#2 is correct, however each paragraph on a card is its own power*. You are allowed to play the same card multiple times for different powers, as long as you do not use any individual power more than once.
(* Some cards have paragraphs containing instructions, for example the paragraph concerning recharge checks for spells. These paragraphs are not powers.)
each paragraph on a card is its own power*. You are allowed to play the same card multiple times for different powers, as long as you do not use any individual power more than once.
@OP: the above is correct, and when you think about it - it's the same rule that allows you to play multiple powers from your character card on the same check.
I personally play it that you can re-use the DD, as the benefit is far from exploit, while at the same time - and much more importantly! - going the other way hugely undermines my current understanding of the game - and that damage far outweighs the meager benefits double-dipping into Doubling Dagger brings.Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what part of the game it undermines? I'd love to understand more.
Well, I tried to explain it in the other thread, but perhaps I can't do it well enough. It wall comes down to "Cards don't have memories", I suppose.
For me, the deck is "amnesia zone", and I can't accept the disconnect between what the consensus implies: that (Argument A) if I have two DDs in my deck - the game doesn't care which specific card I just played (so I can use any of the two); but (Argument B) if I have only 1 - I suddenly can't play that very particular instance of it.
What Argument A says (and I actually agree with it!) is - the game doesn't care which *PHYSICAL* card is retrieved and played (we already know it doesn't care if you play two cads with the same name)from the two DDs in your deck; however, if we assume the intrinsic equivalence between "You just played a Dagger of Doubling on your check" with "You just played *this* *physical* card on your check" (Argument B), then Argument A (the one *everyone* seems to agree is valid!) directly contradicts the "If you play *ANOTHER* weapon..." clause.
So, to me, allowing for *both* Argument A and Argument B is a paradox.
For my part, I support Argument A, but then - when we consider the "If you play *ANOTHER* weapon..." clause - Argument A is ONLY possible, if we disassociate the "DD played on your check" from any of the X physical DD entities in your deck (i.e. we disallow Argument B). Based on "Cards Don't Have Memories", I not only see this as a plausible interpretation, but as a mandatory one.
Hmm... I see what you are saying. And if you did have two copies of the card and shuffled your deck before searching it, I personally wouldn't force you to know which one was really "another" weapon.
I guess the question is whether they'll ever design anything like that (if they haven't already).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still stand by my argument in the linked thread. You as a player have a memory and know what you have played. If you have two copies of DoD in your deck, your deck has been shuffled, and you draw one of them; you don't know which copy you drew unless they have some distinguishing mark on them. As such, you get to choose whether that copy you drew is the same one you already played or the other one (whichever is more advantageous to you).
On the flip side, if the deck is NOT shuffled and you knew you recharged the one you played, then you know the one on the bottom is the one you played and the one further up has not been played. Whichever you draw, you know the status of it already.
If you only have one DoD, then you know you've played it already and cannot play it for the same power again (although you can play it for its other powers). Trying to loop the same power on the same card simply because it stopped in your deck as part of the combo is equivalent to searching your deck for cohorts using Adowyn's power when you know there aren't any cohorts in there just so you can get a free shuffle: it's cheating.
There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook to support Longshot's position here, and plenty of evidence to the contrary that players are supposed to know what the state of their deck is like (see aforementioned Adowyn example, which was confirmed by Vic as not being allowed). As such, you should remember that you played a DoD and it went into your deck. The only free pass you get is 2+ copies and a shuffled deck, so you genuinely do not know which copy you are drawing, in which case the most logical course of action is you choose which one you drew (as if you did know which was which, you'd be able to choose which one to grab as well; shuffling should not arbitrarily penalize you for this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there should be no material difference in this case between recharging and shuffling. In your example with the shuffle + draw top card, I'd still say you get to choose which copy of the card that is.
Such a situation is unlikely to ever come up, there are a lot of other hypothetical things in the game that cause mind-bending conundrums that are unresolved by the rulebook only by virtue of them not existing. If the rulebook needed to account for every hypothetical situation, it would likely exceed 100 pages in length. For example, how to handle encountering a villain at a location that is always permanently closed, when all other locations are either temporarily or permanently closed as well. By RAW, you win the game even if you lose that fight. This seems nonsensical, but it will not be addressed in the rules until that situation is actually possible.
I'm not aware of a single power that allows you to draw random cards from your deck during an encounter. All such cards I can think of (Mastiff, Renewal, etc.) explicitly say they cannot be played during an encounter. As such, do not expect an official ruling on your hypothetical situation.
As for remembering the order of recharged cards: you are correct. There is no rule that says you have to remember it. However if you do remember them and pretend that you do not remember them in order to exploit some game effect, that is cheating. If you legitimately do not remember, then you're in the clear and can do whatever that game effect is.
The DoD reuse question is interesting & thorny.
I can't slice the Gordian Knot, but I will offer: there seems to be something dodgy about recharging a card & then, on the same check, claiming I don't know that the card at the bottom of my deck is the card I just recharged...
Can you point to anywhere where it's actually stated you can use multiple powers on a single card on the same check? It's stated that you can use only one card of a given type on a given check, and that when you play a card you must choose a single power. Is this just a case of reading the rules finely? (because my group has definitely misunderstood this rule, if so)#2 is correct, however each paragraph on a card is its own power*. You are allowed to play the same card multiple times for different powers, as long as you do not use any individual power more than once.
(* Some cards have paragraphs containing instructions, for example the paragraph concerning recharge checks for spells. These paragraphs are not powers.)
Character cards spring to mind. Otherwise you'll need some way to bypass the "one card of each type per check or step of an encounter" rule to use multiple different powers on the same card in a single check. Time Stop comes to mind as one way of doing this; it allows you to play any number of cards of each type during an encounter. You still can't use the same power on the same card more than once (no revealing Belt of Giant Strength fifty times to get +50 on the check), but it would let you use a reveal power as well as some other power on the same card provided both powers apply to the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you point to anywhere where it's actually stated you can use multiple powers on a single card on the same check? It's stated that you can use only one card of a given type on a given check, and that when you play a card you must choose a single power.
Тhese two are *not* mutually exclusive.
Nothing in the Rulebook actually says you can't use multiple powers from the same card - so you *are* allowed to do it.
However, since each of those powers would count as a separate instance of "playing an X-type card" - this would violate the "1 card per type per check" rule.
Therefore, if something allows you to circumvent the above limitation ("You may play any number of armors during this encounter", etc...) - you will default to the "I am allowed to play any number of *different* powers from the same card" situation.
I've thought more about this and I'm realizing how much this is a very hypothetical situation.
In what can really happen, it is obvious for Simoun which Dagger of Doubling she played, since it is the bottom card. She knows when she searches which one it it.
If Simoun had 2 Daggers of Doubling (DD1 and DD2), played DD1, and DD2 was in her deck, she could draw DD2 and play the second power on it (adding 1d4).
That is what can really happen. It isn't hard to know which card you've played.
Hypothetically, if Simoun could shuffle instead of recharge:
If Simoun has 1 Dagger of Doubling, she'd shuffle it, then search her deck. Search means she looks at the whole entire deck. She'd notice there was only 1 Dagger of Doubling in it. She'd also remember that not even 2 seconds ago she shuffled a Dagger of Doubling into her deck. So that must clearly be it. If she drew it, she'd know she couldn't play it again.
If Simoun has 2 Daggers of Doubling, DD1 in her hand and DD2 in her deck, she'd play DD1, shuffle into her deck then search her deck. She looks at the whole deck. She sees 2 Daggers of Doubling. She doesn't know which is which. But it doesn't matter. She knows that one of them is not the one she just played. So she has a valid option of drawing a Dagger of Doubling and playing it.
Since searching = look at the whole deck, choose the card you want, and shuffle the deck, the outcome is the same. If Simoun happens to choose the valid DD2, she'd can play it. Her deck would be shuffled after searching it. If she accidentally chooses the invalid DD1, it doesn't matter. She still shuffles her deck after searching and plays a Dagger of Doubling. Yes, technically it isn't the "right" Dagger of Doubling, but the outcome is exactly the same as if she'd chosen the right Dagger of doubling: She has a shuffled deck that contains a Dagger of Doubling and she has a Dagger of Doubling in her hand that she thinks she can play. Whether DD1 or DD2 is in her hand, she knows she can play Dagger of Doubling for the check and Dagger of Doubling for the "add 1d4" because she knows she saw she had 2 Daggers of Doubling while searching her deck.
To really get where this would matter, you'd need either the second power on Dagger of Doubling to let you search and draw a knife, or you'd need so many Daggers of Doubling that it would be a problem to keep track of. Counting to 2 isn't hard. I'm not sure where we should put the limit on how tough this kind of thing should be to remember, but 2 clearly isn't it in my opinion.
So, this seems to be really on the side of hypothetical for now. That isn't to say maybe it wouldn't be better to just fix it now in case something else happens. But right now I don't see how you couldn't possibly "know" in such a way that you change the end result of your actions.
At least, that is what I think. Maybe I'm missing something.
Can you point to anywhere where it's actually stated you can use multiple powers on a single card on the same check? It's stated that you can use only one card of a given type on a given check, and that when you play a card you must choose a single power. Is this just a case of reading the rules finely? (because my group has definitely misunderstood this rule, if so)#2 is correct, however each paragraph on a card is its own power*. You are allowed to play the same card multiple times for different powers, as long as you do not use any individual power more than once.
(* Some cards have paragraphs containing instructions, for example the paragraph concerning recharge checks for spells. These paragraphs are not powers.)
How so? How has your group misunderstood the rule? What has your group done that you think might be a violation of the rule as skizzerz gives it?
However, since each of those powers would count as a separate instance of "playing an X-type card" - this would violate the "1 card per type per check" rule.Why? It's still one card.
I have to assume you are not being deliberately obtuse, so please read through the rulebook again. The section on playing cards very clearly states that choosing to use a power on a card means you are playing that card. As such, using two powers -- even if they are on the same physical card -- means that you are playing two cards.
As Longshot said, the "one card of each type" rule and the "can't play the same power more than once" rule are complementary, not contradictory. If you have a card that lets you bypass one of those rules (such as Time Stop or by activating powers on character cards, as you do not "play" character cards so they completely bypass the one of each type rule), you are still bound by the second.
I have to assume you are not being deliberately obtuse, so please read through the rulebook again. The section on playing cards very clearly states that choosing to use a power on a card means you are playing that card. As such, using two powers -- even if they are on the same physical card -- means that you are playing two cards.However, since each of those powers would count as a separate instance of "playing an X-type card" - this would violate the "1 card per type per check" rule.Why? It's still one card.
Hmmm.... I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me you would be saying that these sentences have the same meaning:
You may only play 1 weapon.
You may play a weapon only once.
But there meaning is clearly different. The rules say you may play only 1 weapon. They say that when you play that weapon, you must choose 1 power to activate. But they don't say you can't play that same weapon again.
The only limits once you've chosen which card to play is that you can't reveal the same card twice (that is where the "reveal" is defined), that you can't use the same card's same power twice during a check (unless it is a "when" power) and that when a playing a card makes it leave you hand, that action can only activate one power. Typically, this doesn't matter since other than revealing a card means the card leaves your hand, and therefore that fact it isn't in your hand means you can't play it for a second power. But if you can get it back in your hand again, I'm not sure the rules really prevent you from playing the same card again, as long as you use a different power
That is why I asked how his group misunderstanding that ever practically mattered. You would need a card that affects the check that leaves you hand when played and a way to get that card back into your hand while you were still attempting the check (and really still playing cards that affect the check) in order to create a problem. I wasn't aware of any way to do that.
If I had an Acolyte...
Recharge this card to add 1d4 to your Arcane or Divine check.
Recharge this card to add 1d6 to your check to recharge a card that has the Magic trait.
and I had a power that said "When you play an ally, you may search your deck for an ally and draw it" then, while attempting an Arcane check to recharge a spell, I could recharge it for 1d4, draw it, and recharge it for 1d6.
I'd have to stop there, since I've activated both powers on the card now once on this check. But I'm pretty sure I could play it twice.
Does anything do that though? Or is that still just hypothetical.
Hmmm.... I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me you would be saying that these sentences have the same meaning:
You may only play 1 weapon.
You may play a weapon only once.
Окay, in other words, you claim the game makes a difference between:
You may only play 1 Weapon. (i.e. one instance of a Weapon card power)
and
You may only play 1 Weapon card. (where revealing the same weapon twice would constitute playing TWO Weapons, but would still be playing ONE Weapon card)
Correct? If you structure it like that, I think the absurdly thin line between the two notions is not something a game designer would willingly put in their product.
Also, if we want to go that way, the reveal limitation is:
You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.
Note the singular up there. Now, I think we agree this rule is put in to prevent you from abusing the crap out of Belt of Giant Strength, or what have you. However, if we take your interpretation to be correct - the reveal limitation in no way at all affects weapons that have multiple reveal powers. I.e. I would be able to both fight with my Staff of Dark Flames, AND to boost my combat check with it. Sounds about right?
Bottomline, I would actually be pretty cool with Hawk's interpretation, but I think some errata and clarifications would be in order.
I've actually played it as if you could only play 1 card of each type once (so you can't play the same card twice). But when I started combing through the rules looking at Sithobi1's question, it made me rethink what I'd done a bit.
By the way, I've reread this thread and I'm wondering if the answer about the Swallowtail Bracers was correct. Even if what I listed about about revealing the same card twice is wrong. Doesn't the second power being a "when" power mean you can still use it every time that thing happen? See this about Ring of Climbing for more insight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back at the rulebook, I think you are correct. Nowhere can I see anything stating that using 2 different powers on the same card counts as playing 2 different cards. You are certainly "playing an ally" twice (in the case of Acolyte), but the restriction is worded "one card of each type", which seems to imply that multiple powers on the same card are allowed. In your linked thread I relied on "Cards Don't Have Memories" -- but that rule can't cut both ways, in the sense that if I argue a player has memory above to know the Dagger of Doubling was already played despite going back in the deck, I can't also argue that the player does not know that the card in his hand that never left his hand suddenly hasn't been played before and is a "different card" for the purpose of the 1 of each type restriction.
I still believe the intent of the rules is that you can't use 2 different powers on the same card, though, as that is meant to fall foul of the "one of each type" rule. The lack of official clarification on your linked thread lends weight to this being the intent, as the designers typically do not step in if there is community consensus and that consensus agrees with what they want.
Well, like I said, I haven't necessarily been playing the way I discussed it above. I definitely had Staff of Dark Flame in my deck and not revealed it twice. So I think we've been playing the same way. I'm just not sure that was technically the right way.
Also, this thread made my heard hurt today.
Ok, I can't believe this hasn't been resolved already with regards to a very very simple and common case. Forget thought experiments shuffling daggers into your deck and back again for no clear reason (other than to confuse the rules), here's a much simpler question:
Can I reveal Evangelist for +1 to my check, then recharge her for another d4 (or d6) as well?
I was sure this must have come up already (since it's what everyone would want to do with her) but I can't even find the question anywhere.
Actually, that question was solved a long time ago:
The Snakeskin Tunic in RotR AD2 actually had a reveal power and a recharge power. You can't use both in the same check because you're considered to be playing the same card.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is the intent (and how a lot of us seem to have been playing) but I can understand Sithobi1 and others not reaching that conclusion.
Hi everyone. You lost me long ago in this interestning discussion. So I think we need a clarification from Mike or Vic since it isn't 100% obvious.
Ok, so in that case... if it's already been confirmed that playing different powers on the same card counts as playing two cards of the same type (and that linked thread on the armour thing confirms it to me), what are we even arguing about? Just whether the rules should be FAQ'd to say "may play a card of each type no more than once" instead of "may play no more than 1 card of each type"? (or maybe "may, for each type of card, play a card of that type no more than once" is even less ambiguous)
The whole business about whether it's the same dagger and whether you know it's the same dagger seems to be irrelevant in the light of that anyway, since either way you can't play it again.
Though having said all that, I do think it would be better if you could play multiple powers from the same card, confirmed false or not. The armour thing annoys me especially, all the armours with alternative powers that help combat no longer function as armours when you suddenly find you need them.
Also, if we want to go that way, the reveal limitation is:
You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.Note the singular up there. Now, I think we agree this rule is put in to prevent you from abusing the crap out of Belt of Giant Strength, or what have you. However, if we take your interpretation to be correct - the reveal limitation in no way at all affects weapons that have multiple reveal powers. I.e. I would be able to both fight with my Staff of Dark Flames, AND to boost my combat check with it. Sounds about right?
I know Longshot drives around curves in this game with two wheels hanging over the edge of the cliff, but I can't parse the cited rule in such a way that it would allow revealing the same card twice on the same check or step to use different powers on the card.
You reveal the card to use power A. Have you revealed it for its power? Yes.
You reveal the card to use power B. Are you revealing it for its power? Yes. So you can't do that. The fact that B is different from A is irrelevant.
Maybe Longshot's interpretation is the intent, but it's not what the rule says. It would need to say, "You cannot reveal the same card for the same power ...".
Actually, that question was solved a long time ago:
The Snakeskin Tunic in RotR AD2 actually had a reveal power and a recharge power. You can't use both in the same check because you're considered to be playing the same card.
This raises the playing-the-same-card twice question, but it only answers it in the weakest possible sense:
1) The OP opined that you can't do that.2) One community member agreed.
3) Vic posted in the thread without correcting them.
Vic has said if the community reaches an agreement on rules question on the forum, and no one from Paizo corrects them, then that's official, but it would help to get an official confirmation here, because oversights happen...
(Still, I always thought you couldn't play the same card twice on the same check or step, and I'm incredulous we can't find a rule or FAQ stating this.)
I can't parse the cited rule in such a way that it would allow revealing the same card twice on the same check or step to use different powers on the card.
You reveal the card to use power A. Have you revealed it for its power? Yes.
You reveal the card to use power B. Are you revealing it for its power? Yes. So you can't do that. The fact that B is different from A is irrelevant.Maybe Longshot's interpretation is the intent, but it's not what the rule says.
First, I'll make the caveat that I'm not native speaker, so there's that. That being said, however, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you, since, to my English understanding, in the sentence:
You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.
- "its" is a determiner, placed before a noun to express ownership ("the card's" and to determine the specific item referred to ("the power"); or, an equivalent sentence would be:
You may not reveal the same card for the power of the card more than once per check or step.
- in the above, "the" is a definite article, used to refer to something widely accepted, or previously mentioned. We interpret it in the context of the preceding text - "When you play a card, it will usually require you to take one of the following actions.
• Reveal: Show it from your hand then put it back in your hand."In that context, another equivalent wording would be:
You may not reveal the same card for the card's power that you played by revealing more than once per check or step.
- finally, the very definitely singular "power", again interpreted in the context of the Italics text above, again addresses the card's power that you played by revealing, and in no way indicates that it refers to any wider multitude of objects
Now, all of the above only matters if we accept Hawkmoon's reading that playing 2 powers on the same card constitutes playing 1 card for purposes of the "1 card per type per check" limitation.
Now, where it gets interesting is this:
- if Hawkmoon was wrong - then we wouldn't need this Belt of Dexterity FAQ - as the "1 card per type per check" limitation would then sufficiently cover against using 2 powers on the same card on one check
- since we did get that FAQ though, by argument from the contrary, it seems evident that playing 2 powers on the same card does *not* break the "1 card per type per check" limitation
TLDR: Upon reflection (and in reversal of my previous stance), I now see those 2 things to be true:
- you are allowed to play 2 DIFFERENT powers on the same card on the same check
- you are allowed to do the above, even if both powers require a Reveal
(As an aside: this thread is a mess. Forget Dagger of Doubling - it seems there are contradictory understandings of much more fundamental rules here. Official input seems sorely needed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to throw a further wrinkle into these things, but doesn't Vic's comment here about damage reduction superseding the "one of each type" limit (which, admittedly, contradicts previous posts on the same topic) also apply to the Snakeskin Tunic case? It doesn't affect most of the rest of what we've been talking about, but I wonder if we're even still confident in the answer for that specific case.
Barring further official clarification, do not put any weight into that comment. It contradicts rules that are plainly written in the rulebook, and therefore errata to the rulebook is needed for that comment to be considered correct. If you wish to comment further with your input on that matter, please discuss it on the thread you linked rather than derailing this thread.
(As an aside: this thread is a mess. Forget Dagger of Doubling - it seems there are contradictory understandings of much more fundamental rules here. Official input seems sorely needed.)
Agreed, it may be best to move this to another thread, summarizing each side of the argument so it can be discussed more cleanly.
I also agree with your post that the "You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step." rule is a restriction on using the same power on a card more than once -- it does not restrict you from using the same card for multiple different powers once each.
The real question is imo "does using two different powers on the same card count as playing only one card, or two cards for the purpose of the 'one card of each type per check or step' restriction?" The RAW suggests it would be considered one card, where I strongly believe RAI says it should be two cards (so you can't use both powers barring other circumstances).
In your linked thread I relied on "Cards Don't Have Memories" -- but that rule can't cut both ways, in the sense that if I argue a player has memory above to know the Dagger of Doubling was already played despite going back in the deck, I can't also argue that the player does not know that the card in his hand that never left his hand suddenly hasn't been played before and is a "different card" for the purpose of the 1 of each type restriction.
Actually, in part, it was the reverse logic that made me argue that you shouldn't "remember" a recharged DoD, the same way you don't remember that a Revealed card in your hand is the "same" card - which I thought is supported by the generally accepted reading of Snakeskin Tunic et al. , that you may not both reveal it for your check AND use it to prevent damage. Of course, now I realize there hasn't been an official stance on the Snakeskin...
Bottomline, either the "Snakeskin Consensus" is wrong, OR the Belt of Dexterity FAQ ("You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.") is redundant.
(Also, if this turns out to be true
...using two different powers on the same card count as playing only one card...
- I pity the guys over at Obsidian...)
So, if it is of any value, this is how I'm playing for right now. It might not technically match the rules, but it is what my gut tells me seems to be right.
1. Playing a card once counts as the limit for 1 card/type/check. You can't play the same card twice.
2. The armor rule about 1/source only applies when there is more than 1 source. So, it is 1 armor/step/source. When you play an armor on a check to defeat a monster and fail and therefore take damage, that is one source. So you can't play another armor (or the same armor as above) to reduce damage. If a scenario said "If you fail a check to defeat, you are dealt 1d4 Fire damage" that is a separate source. I can't reduce the combat damage in the example above because I played an armor to add to the check to defeat, but I can play an armor for the Fire damage.
3. Shuffling your deck doesn't erase your memory. Nothing does. For now, I'll trust the designers to not put me in a situation where there is anything that hard to remember. We haven't demonstrated a situation that exists right now where the burden on memory is actually high. I'm trusting the designers to not make remembering things hard and for it to be obvious when I should or shouldn't know that a card is the same card or not.
That's just for now until some of these things are clarified. And if you played with me and understood those things differently for your character, that would be fine with me.
Bottomline, either the "Snakeskin Consensus" is wrong, OR the Belt of Dexterity FAQ ("You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.") is redundant
Hmmpff... In my arguments above, using the BoID FAQ, I totally forgot that the card had the text "You may play another item on the check."
In that case, I return to my initial stance that each instance of playing a power on the same card counts as playing different "type X" cards, and I would furthermore argue that very BoID FAQ debunks Hawkmoon's theory (as the FAQ illustrates that the "another" in "You may play another item on the check." is by default understood to also apply to the same BoID).
In regards to the DoD: the BoID FAQ would also indicate that even if a card is played for a Reveal power, it immediately becomes "another" card for purposes of playing any further powers on it - which should then apply even more for a card that's been Recharged.
And yes, I know this totally goes against how Daggers and Shields are understood to work. My head hurts...
My apologies for the threadcromancy.
To recap:
(1) If I use different powers on the same card, am I playing two instances of the card type, or just one?
(2) Can I reveal the same card twice to use different powers on the card on the same check?
Regarding (1):
In this old WotR Swallowtail Bracers discussion, the community (including me) understood playing different powers on the same card to be playing two instances of the card type. Vic & Co didn't correct us. I think the judgement stands.
Which leads to the curious result that you can reveal a weapon for your combat check, and then discard the same weapon to use a "when playing another weapon" power on that same check. (If I had the time and Hawk-fu I could find a post from Vic confirming that, I think.)
Regarding (2):
Somehow I snoozed through Longshot's 7/14 rejoinder ... which I must say is deft for a non-native English speaker. (May I someday speak my second(or later) language as well.)
But this sentence
You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.
which Longshot (and apparently skizzerz) interpret as
You may not reveal the same card for the card's power that you played by revealing more than once per check or step.
I always understood instead to mean
You may not reveal the same card for a power on the card more than once per check or step.
To whit:
Reveal this card to add 2 to an Arcane or Divine check. You may play another item on this check.
When you take Combat damage, reveal this card to shuffle up to 2 cards into your deck instead of discarding them.
If I reveal these Robes to add 2 to my combat check, I cannot then reveal the same Robes to shuffle 2 cards I am discarding for Combat damage I sustained on that check. In my understanding.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Shuffling your deck doesn't erase your memory. Nothing does. For now, I'll trust the designers to not put me in a situation where there is anything that hard to remember. We haven't demonstrated a situation that exists right now where the burden on memory is actually high. I'm trusting the designers to not make remembering things hard and for it to be obvious when I should or shouldn't know that a card is the same card or not.
We've been trying hard to avoid the possibility of that question arising in actual play, but I don't think it's completely avoidable. So we've decided to close the loophole: If a specific card may or may not be the same card you have already played on a check, treat it as if it is.