After you act, Adelita deals 1d4 Force damage to a random character at your location. If the check to defeat included the Swashbuckling trait, YOU take the damage instead
1) Now, Adelita has TWO checks to defeat, so:
1.1 Is the correct wording "if either of the checks to defeat had the Swashbuckling trait..."
OR
1.2 "if any of YOUR checks to defeat had the Swashbuckling trait..."
2) In conjunction with the above, I am still unclear at who that YOU (that is forced to take the damage) is though?
2.1 is it the character who encounters the card?
2.2 is it the character who made a check with the Swashbuckling trait?
2.3 (IF 2.2. is true) - what happens if both checks were made by different characters, and both had the Swashbuckling trait?
Also, the standard follow-up question to the above two entries: WHY?
Thanks in advance for the insight.
It means this:
"If [any of the checks] to defeat included the Swashbuckling trait, [the person who encounters the card] take[s] the damage instead"
The encountering player and only the encountering player reads the BYA and AYA powers, so "you" in that sentence must refer to the encountering player.
Any time there's a condition of the form "if the check to defeat/acquire [something]", and there's two checks, it means "if either of the checks to defeat/acquire [something]". Or at least any time this has come up the card has been FAQ'd to say that.
The encountering player and only the encountering player reads the BYA and AYA powers, so "you" in that sentence must refer to the encountering player.
Respectfully, this is not true at all - given the whole "BYA, succeed at ARcane/Divine or YOU may not play spells", et at. business. I was actually pretty pissed by the "YOU is EVERYONE" ruling, but there it is -and that is what cause the confusion. Specifically, the rule is:
If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing,it applies to any character who does that thing.
So,if my suggested 1.2 wording is the *intent* - it would be ambiguous if the encountering player or the player who actually had Shwasbuckling would be forced to take damage ( we see some logic in the later actually being the intent)
Otherwise, I actually lean towards your interpretation, for the reasons you mention in your last paragraph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd lean towards thinking that the power should be updated to say the card needs updated to simply add the "if either" phrase to the AYA power.
Then it is just a matter of understanding who you is.
By default, you is the character that encountered the card. There are 2 exceptions. The first one you've pointed out, if an effect happens if or when you do something, it applies to anyone who does that thing. The second is that if you attempt a check against a card you didn't encounter, while you are attempting the check powers that apply to the character that encountered it apply to you.
We can throw the second one out because this power happens during the "after you act" step. At that point, the other character isn't attempting the check, so the powers that apply to the character that encountered it no longer apply to the other character.
So, is it the first situation, the one you mentioned? I'd say no, specifically because it doesn't say "if YOUR check to defeat" in the AYA power. That, to me, seems like the AYA isn't caring about who, just that the situation existed. Compare with the Shadow of the Sphinx. That change made clear that either check applied but also made clear that the encountering character was the "after the encounter" power applied to.
It is confusing, but I think that seems the most clear way to go.
The encountering player and only the encountering player reads the BYA and AYA powers, so "you" in that sentence must refer to the encountering player.Respectfully, this is not true at all - given the whole "BYA, succeed at ARcane/Divine or YOU may not play spells", et at. business. I was actually pretty pissed by the "YOU is EVERYONE" ruling, but there it is -and that is what cause the confusion. Specifically, the rule is:
If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing,it applies to any character who does that thing.
Ok I'm having trouble digging it up, was the ruling that
A) The encountering player makes the check, and if it fails nobody can play spells, because the "you" refers to anyone making a check.B) Anyone who wants to play a spell makes a check, and the result of their own check applies to them. Even people who aren't making the check themselves.
?
I vaguely recall B matching the Obsidian app, but I would have thought B would require FAQing the cards involved to not include any mention of BYA.
In either case, I can see why that would cause some doubt, but it doesn't apply here. The key point is that the condition "If the check to defeat included the Swashbuckling trait" and the effect "YOU take the damage instead" are not linked in any other way. Obviously one is the condition and the other the effect, but what I mean is that not a single word in one refers or relates in any way to the other. Which means they can and should be evaluated entirely separately. And if you evaluate them separately you end up with what I said originally. By the time you evaluate the meaning of "you", the assisting player has finished interacting with the card and there's no way for any future "you"s to apply to them.
Contrast to how it should be worded to work the other way:
"If a check to defeat has the swashbuckling trait, Adelita deals 1d4 force damage to you. Otherwise, after you act, Adelita deals 1d4 force damage to a random character at your location". Also note how that could deal damage twice if both checks have the swashbuckling trait. That's another thing that makes me more confident in my interpretation, because if it's meant to be the person who added the trait then you have a new problem of how to do two different things "instead".
To make it work the other way and only deal damage once:
"After you act, Adelita deals 1d4 Force damage to a random character at your location. If any player's check to defeat included the Swashbuckling trait, one of those players must take the damage instead". Notice how what I had to do was link the condition and effect with the words "one of those".
Chief Technical Officer
|
If either check included the trait, the damage is dealt to the character that encountered the card. Added to FAQ.