The short answer is...
I believe, Rules As Written, you're right on both cases. Displaying a card is playing a card (as per the rulebook), and using a power on a displayed cards is also playing a card. You cannot play the same card twice on the same check; therefore it's not allowable to display a card and choose to use it on the same check. You've understood the rules as written flawlessly.
However, I've had conversations about this with well-respected members of this forum before, and as a direct result I am currently of the opinion that the intent is usually that you can both display and use a power on that card simultaneously as if you played one card. After all, that was the explicit intent of designers behind similarly-worded cards, and it otherwise leads to some cards being very hard to use (like Caustic Fog). A better example is Sphere of Fire, where designers have openly said that you can display it once you get into combat, but that should technically be playing it twice as per the rules about displaying spells.
It's possible that a future rulebook or FAQ may update these clauses; here's hoping.
The other reason why most of those don’t work (even ignoring the playing it twice thing) is the “affecting the situation” rule. If displaying the card in and of itself does nothing, then it cannot be used during an encounter because it never affects the situation. It requires another action—using the while displayed power—to have an effect.
Beyond that, I have only one point:
Winds of vengeance: Can be used in response. The only optional power is the movement one. Adding to your check and reducing damage is automatic and always in effect. Therefore playing it directly affects the situation and doesn’t require playing the card twice.
It’s ambiguous whether or not “you may” is implicit for the full list, and I’d argue it is not. If we treat the list as one instruction the choosing to use the power means you’re required to do all 3 of those things, which doesn’t make any sense. If instead we treat each list element as a separate instruction, then the only optional one is moving. If “you may” was intended to be on each element separately, they would have just written it that way in my opinion or at the very least made the separator between the 2nd and 3rd power an “or” (to imply you choose one of the three things) instead of an “and” (to imply all are in effect); the existing cards are usually very verbose and explicit about such things.
...A better example is Sphere of Fire, where designers have openly said that you can display it once you get into combat, but that should technically be playing it twice as per the rules about displaying spells.I couldn't find such a comment by a designer about Sphere of Fire. Do you know where? There's this thread and this thread. In the 2nd thread, this person and the one below claim Sphere of Fire can be played during combat, referencing Vic Wertz's comment on Rage. However, Rage was subsequently errata'd, whereas Sphere of Fire was not.
Frustratingly, you're right that there's no explicit designer quote clarifying it, but there have been threads where well-respected members of the forums have answered player questions with "You can play Sphere of Fire once you're in combat" and there have been multiple designer posts, none of which contradicted that answer. If there's community consensus and a designer doesn't overrule it, that's a pretty compelling point for an unofficial, but accepted, 'ruling'.
I absolutely agree, still, that RAW a huge variety of cards cannot be displayed once you're in an encounter, because displaying it is not directly relevant, and it would imply you're playing that card twice in most cases (unless they have a 'passive', relevant bonus, such as displaying a Tower Shield that decreases damage being dealt to you).
What do you think about what Yewstance said about Sphere of Fire and Caustic Fog?
I didn't have much to add to Yewstance's already-excellent answer. RAW is a firm no, but a lot of these cards absolutely and horrendously suck if you aren't allowed to play them during an encounter, so I (and many others) just look the other way when you try to do such a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.
So, Winds of Vengeance, Fire Shield, Chalice of Ozem, and Sphere of Fire could all be displayed and used immediately. Since the Brutalized Flesh Golem requires a recharge, it could not.
Another example would be the Hunter Class Deck Cohort, Pygmy Ankylosaur, which has both of these powers:
-While displayed, you may reduce all damage dealt to you by 1.
-While displayed, you may put this card on top of your deck to reduce all damage dealt to you by 4, or to 0 if you have a role card.
So we would allow a player to display and use the first power in response to taking damage, but not the second power.
Winds of vengeance:
It’s ambiguous whether or not “you may” is implicit for the full list, and I’d argue it is not. If we treat the list as one instruction the choosing to use the power means you’re required to do all 3 of those things, which doesn’t make any sense. If instead we treat each list element as a separate instruction, then the only optional one is moving. If “you may” was intended to be on each element separately, they would have just written it that way in my opinion or at the very least made the separator between the 2nd and 3rd power an “or” (to imply you choose one of the three things) instead of an “and” (to imply all are in effect); the existing cards are usually very verbose and explicit about such things.
Really? It seems quite clear to me that all three abilities are optional, and that the meaning of the card is:
-you may move at the end of your turn
AND
-you may add 1d8 to your combat checks
AND
-you may reduce Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Range combat damage dealt to you by 4
You mention that they should have written "or" instead of "and" to indicate this, but to me that would have been more confusing; in that case, would you only be allowed to do a single one of those three things per casting of the spell? It would have been unclear if, after using the spell to add to your combat checks, you could also use it to prevent damage or move.
I also believe that, if the designers wanted only the move to be optional, they would have written the power this way instead:
"While displayed, add 1d8 to your combat checks, reduce Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Range combat damage dealt to you by 4, and you may move at the end of your turn."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.
I would defer to Vic to issue a more elaborate explanation, but that is pretty close to the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.I would defer to Vic to issue a more elaborate explanation, but that is pretty close to the intent.
Hum... I absolutely hate arguing with Mike for whom I have the ultimate respect but if I may...
In situations where you can only play cards that DIRECTLY affect the situation (you know, the famous: I cannot during an encounter play a card that would allow me to play another card affecting the situation), I would argue that RAW you cannot "display the card" if the "while displayed" doesn't DIRECTLY affect (passive effect). If the "While displayed" needs you do do something else (recharge, discard, play another power from another source...) to affect then you cannot Display in the first place. IMHO.
Unless FAQed by Vic as Mike is (rightfully as usual) suggesting.
Seen from my little place across the pond, but I may have missed something.
We always played the Golem like that: you take your chances at the beginning of the turn typically, and display it if you think you'll need it.
The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.I would defer to Vic to issue a more elaborate explanation, but that is pretty close to the intent.Hum... I absolutely hate arguing with Mike for whom I have the ultimate respect but if I may...
In situations where you can only play cards that DIRECTLY affect the situation (you know, the famous: I cannot during an encounter play a card that would allow me to play another card affecting the situation), I would argue that RAW you cannot "display the card" if the "while displayed" doesn't DIRECTLY affect (passive effect). If the "While displayed" needs you do do something else (recharge, discard, play another power from another source...) to affect then you cannot Display in the first place. IMHO.
Unless FAQed by Vic as Mike is (rightfully as usual) suggesting.Seen from my little place across the pond, but I may have missed something.
We always played the Golem like that: you take your chances at the beginning of the turn typically, and display it if you think you'll need it.
I think what Mike is effectively saying then is that the intent is for cards with effects that are optional, but don't require you to do an action to activate, to be considered passive. Which to me seems reasonable in and of itself - an effect starting with the words "you may" passively triggers, and then you simply choose how to resolve it. The only problem I see with it is that it seems inconsistent with the rulings on whether you're considered to be "playing" the card or not, which as far as I understand is based on whether a choice was made not whether an action was taken.
This inconsistency is exactly my point.