MM Damiel: "Ignore immunities for that check"... for another character?


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Mummy's Mask Damiel has a power on his toxicologist role:

You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to add 1d4 and the Acid or Poison trait to a
combat check by a character at your location (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check).

Is this supposed to allow everyone to ignore the immunities for the check, or just Damiel?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

My guess is that, when using the second (feat) power, the recharging of a card that has the Alchemical trait allows the character making the combat check, whether Damiel or somebody else, to ignore that bane's immunities for that check. If multiple characters are at the location and have to make a combat check against the/a monster, Damiel would have to recharge a card with the Alchemical trait for each character that needed to ignore that bane's immunities.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Agree with Brother Tyler


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm pretty sure, as written, this power only ever can be used for Damiel to ignore stuff.

That said, between its high cost and limited effect (IIRC, Damiel's native power adds Fire trait to which many MM monsters are actually *vulnerable*), this power would be pretty much crap, so you could home rule it that it can be played on anyone and it still probably won't rank very high on the list of desirable choices...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

”A character in Your location” ... it means any character in his location. IMHO. Much like Lems ”recharge a card to give 1d4...”


I'd agree with Longshot11, that only Damiel can ignore immunities. It could still be helpful to allies if Damiel only has MM blessings that add traits a monster is immune to in hand.


Hannibal_pjv wrote:

”A character in Your location” ... it means any character in his location. IMHO. Much like Lems ”recharge a card to give 1d4...”

"A character at your location" refers only to the combat check. "You" is the subject of "ignore a bane's immunities for that check."


Longshot11 wrote:
IIRC, Damiel's native power adds Fire trait to which many MM monsters are actually *vulnerable*

That's S&S Damiel. MM Damiel is Acid or Poison.

Whether or not you can use it to help your allies (and the answer is likely "you can't"), a Poison-focused Damiel probably wants this power in a set featuring Undead and Constructs.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Only Damiel ignores the immunities. When using the 2nd option it becomes “You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check.”

Nothing about that mentions other characters.


skizzerz wrote:

Only Damiel ignores the immunities. When using the 2nd option it becomes “You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check.”

Nothing about that mentions other characters.

Well perhaps it's the use of the word "that" that implies another character by refering to "a combat check by a character at your location". Otherwise, I feel the power would be written (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for YOUR check) without the need to use the word "that". Otherwise, when rewording the 2nd option like Skizzerz did, there would be no need to keep this "that".

It looks to me that the template "that check" is a bit unusual... Are there other examples of cards or power that use such a "that check"?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I will raise that "ignoring" something always implies that the power only applies to you.

See the relevant FAQ.

That FAQ was created to cover ignoring a BYA or AYA effect - only you can ignore an effect that a BYA or AYA power would have on you; you cannot protect someone else unless a power explicitly said so (such as "allow a character at your location to ignore a BYA power"). But it does seem to apply here as well, and I support skizzerz's assessment.


MuffinB wrote:
skizzerz wrote:

Only Damiel ignores the immunities. When using the 2nd option it becomes “You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check.”

Nothing about that mentions other characters.

Well perhaps it's the use of the word "that" that implies another character by refering to "a combat check by a character at your location". Otherwise, I feel the power would be written (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for YOUR check) without the need to use the word "that".

The check itself does not need to be Damiel's (he could be assisting on a local check), but only Damiel can ignore immunities on that check.


Quote:
You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to add 1d4 and the Acid or Poison trait to a combat check by a character at your location (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check).

There is the full text. I believe this would work on anyone's check at is at his location that he recharged a card for.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Hmmm... true... it does not say or any character can ignore... only ignore...
I am so used that in the same sentence you talk about the same entity, but in English it seems to be more freedom considering that.
In my mother language it would definitely be the same ”any character” that we talk about but it seems that in here we talk abou any character in the first part and only you in the last part.
Native English speaking people. Can you confirm that that is possible in English. In Finnish you have to make them separate sentenses if the subject change. In this case any to you.


Yewstance wrote:

I will raise that "ignoring" something always implies that the power only applies to you.

See the relevant FAQ.

That FAQ was created to cover ignoring a BYA or AYA effect - only you can ignore an effect that a BYA or AYA power would have on you; you cannot protect someone else unless a power explicitly said so (such as "allow a character at your location to ignore a BYA power"). But it does seem to apply here as well, and I support skizzerz's assessment.

Hum... That's enough to convince me that only Damiel can ignore the bane's immunities if the box is checked. However, I do find this very unfortunate and extremely unintuitive.

We are so used to upgrade a power by checking the box after it... But here it seems like two separate things: in the first part you can boost anyone's check by 1d4; in the second part you (and only you) can ignore a bane's immunities during a combat check. What does this have anything to do with the first part?

It might as well just have been this seperate optional power on a line below saying: □ You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to ignore a bane’s immunities on a combat check. If it would have been that way, I believe everything would be obvious and this thread would not exist...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

True... then would it fit to my grammar also, if They would be completely separate powers.


MuffinB wrote:
We are so used to upgrade a power by checking the box after it... But here it seems like two separate things: in the first part you can boost anyone's check by 1d4; in the second part you (and only you) can ignore a bane's immunities during a combat check. What does this have anything to do with the first part?

It is the 1. same action cost (recharge a card); and 2. same situation (a combat check at your location)

The effects you can choose are either 1. add 1d4 and Acid or Poison to the check; or 2. Damiel ignores the bane's immunities.

The second option lets Damiel use support cards (like items or blessings that add traits). Both powers are useful when assisting local combat checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
Native English speaking people. Can you confirm that that is possible in English. In Finnish you have to make them separate sentenses if the subject change. In this case any to you.

The phrase "by a character at your location" is a modifying clause for "combat check". That character is not doing or gaining anything from the first power, the check is what gets acted upon. The whole power is easier to understand if you replace "by a character at your location" with the ACG2 keyword "local".

altered text wrote:
You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to add 1d4 and the Acid or Poison trait to a local combat check (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check).

I think this wording makes clear that Damiel is the only one benefiting from the ability to ignore immunities.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
GM OfAnything wrote:
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
Native English speaking people. Can you confirm that that is possible in English. In Finnish you have to make them separate sentenses if the subject change. In this case any to you.

The phrase "by a character at your location" is a modifying clause for "combat check". That character is not doing or gaining anything from the first power, the check is what gets acted upon. The whole power is easier to understand if you replace "by a character at your location" with the ACG2 keyword "local".

altered text wrote:
You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to add 1d4 and the Acid or Poison trait to a local combat check (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check).
I think this wording makes clear that Damiel is the only one benefiting from the ability to ignore immunities.

+1


If it was only for Damiel, wouldnt the upgraded power read:

Quote:
( [] or to ignore a bane's immunities for your check)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Slacker2010 wrote:

If it was only for Damiel, wouldnt the upgraded power read:

Quote:
( [] or to ignore a bane's immunities for your check)

No, because the rule *defaults* to only him (see above).

Rather, if it was the opposite, it would've been something like:

"You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to add 1d4 and the Acid or Poison trait to a combat check by a character at your location (□ or to allow them/that character to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Much like a card that allows a BYA power to be ignored will only let you prevent being effected by it, not anyone else. Otherwise, it would have to say it "allows a character" to ignore a BYA, as Longshot describes.

(Linked: Sand Elemental, which would only allow you to ignore a BYA, as per the FAQ linked in an earlier post.
AND
Cloud Puff, which is explicitly worded to allow other people to ignore a BYA.)

Slacker2010 wrote:

If it was only for Damiel, wouldnt the upgraded power read:

Quote:
( [] or to ignore a bane's immunities for your check)

Additionally, that would functionally change the power - as written, his power does allow him to ignore the immunities of a bane, not only on his own checks, but also on someone else's check - for example, he could use that power, then play a card with the Poison trait that allows him to support someone else's check (if such a card exists) against an Undead.

I'm not sure if he would be allowed to add a trait to someone else's check against a bane that's immune to it when he (and he alone) ignores the immunity. However... I would hesitantly suggest that he could, as odd as it sounds. The rulebook certainly seems to think so.

Mummy's Mask Rulebook, Page 9 wrote:
If the card you’re encountering states that it is immune to a particular trait, during the encounter, characters may not play cards that have the specified trait or use powers that would add that trait to the check.

So Damiel could not play Poison cards or add the Poison trait to someone else's check against an undead... but by ignoring immunity, he presumably could do both, even if that player is not ignoring the immunity, as per the FAQ above.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / MM Damiel: "Ignore immunities for that check"... for another character? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.