| Kreniigh |
Just checking to see if I am interpreting this correctly.
Alain has a lance, Donahan, and two armors in his hand, and he encounters Faxon ("While you act, before any character plays a card, that character recharges a card.") He wants to play his lance, so he recharges an armor. He wants to use the power on the lance to reveal Donahan for 1d8; revealing a card is playing a card, so he recharges the other armor. Now he wants to put Donahan on top of his deck for another d8.
Putting Donahan on top of the deck is still considered playing a card because it is using a power on the card, so he has to recharge a card first. It feels weird to recharge the lance while "in use" but since it has already been revealed, I can't see why it can't be.
If for some reason it can't be, then he can't put Donahan on top of his deck because he'd have to recharge Donahan first, meaning he didn't play a card, so he didn't have to recharge a card, resulting in a paradox and shattering spacetime.
Yes?
| Irgy |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
revealing a card is playing a card
^ Specifically this is the problem. Revealing a card to activate a power on that same card is playing a card, but revealing card A to activate a power on card B is not playing a card. Certainly not playing card A anyway - it does usually involve playing card B, but it's not playing card B a second time in this case because it's part of the same power.
Note that also means you could use the lance's reveal a mount clause against a bane that's immune to allies/cohorts or some such, because you're not playing the mount.
But as Keith already said you can use and then recharge the lance that's fine, so you only need 1 armour in hand to play both cards.
There's no paradox when you have one card in hand against Faxon you simply can't play that card so you don't.