I play by myself so I have no one else to bounce questions off of, so I'm doing it here.
Sage's Journal: on my check against a story bane, I can reveal or bury, but not both, correct?
Noxious Bomb: says you may ignore the monster's after acting power. What if the monster says Each local character? Does the noxious bomb ignore for all local characters or just the character that played it?
Lady Despair (blessing): as the hour, and only 2 characters at a location, is "a random local character" the other character, or are both characters randomized?
Journal: Unless it’s a power you can play freely (don’t have core yet so I don’t know), you can only do one because it’s the one Item that’s allowed to be played on the check.
Bomb: When you ignore something, it only has no effect for you. Everyone else is still effected. So, only the character that played the bomb ignores such a power.
Blessing: Both characters are randomized. It would say “a random other local character” or something similar if it meant to exclude you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skizzerz is right on all counts, even without having Core yet :)
Campsite-can you recharge a displayed boon?
Armor in general: if something does damage to all local characters, only 1 character can use an armour card, correct? The others would have to use some other kind of card to prevent the damage?
Campsite-can you recharge a displayed boon?
I'll assume this is a location that states something like "To close, recharge X boon(s)"?
- When you're instructed to do something with a card, it has to come from your hand, unless instructed otherwise (so no displayed cards) - unless Core has changed that. You should be able to find relevant text about dealing with cards in the Rulebook (iirc).
Armor in general: if something does damage to all local characters, only 1 character can use an armour card, correct? The others would have to use some other kind of card to prevent the damage?
Each instance of damage is treated as a separate... "thing". So, you may play an Armor for each character when resolving their damage (but not, for instance TWO armors on the same character)
Note that if a card says something like ÿou're dealt 1d4 Combat damage, then 1d4 Poison damage"- that, as of MM, was treated as ONE instance ("source") of damage (with the game not being very clear on what a "source of damage" is) - so you could play an Armor on only one of those. Paradoxically enough, if you have a character with a "When you're dealt damage, reduce it by 1" - it would apply to BOTH the Combat and Poison, treating them as two "things". But I could be forgetting the specific rule/FAQ that was limiting you to 1 armor in this scenario, in which case someone will probably correct me soon enough...
Campsite-can you recharge a displayed boon?
No, has to come from your hand.
Armor in general: if something does damage to all local characters, only 1 character can use an armour card, correct? The others would have to use some other kind of card to prevent the damage?
Assuming you are talking about something like the Ogre's power: "Before acting, each local character suffers 1 Combat damage.", you can play an armor for each character-instance of damage.
p13 Suffering Damage: "Collectively, the party may play no more than one boon of each type to affect damage to the same character from the same source"
You're all right on top of this. Thank you. I'll keep playing and keep asking questions.
The art is solid (but I'm not keen on the squiggles that end up on top of every character's head).
The rules are, despite my questions, tight.
The quick start is a great product.
Thanks to everyone who worked on it.
Can Seelah use both of her character powers on the same check? Make a check a Divine check AND add a d4 plus the magic trait?
I'm afraid of the answer.
Also on Seelah converting a check to Divine. It says listed trait, does that mean listed on her card? Meaning she can roll a d8 for a Dexterity check (because Dexterity is on her card) but she can't roll a d8 for acrobatics, because that's not on there. Once in awhile, an acrobatics check is easier than a Dex check so I thought I would clarify.
Finally, can a moderate move this thread to the rules section? Sorry.
Can Seelah use both of her character powers on the same check? Make a check a Divine check AND add a d4 plus the magic trait?
I'm afraid of the answer.
Yes (I assume, could be something in the wording), there's no general rule that prevents you to use two powers on the same check.
Also on Seelah converting a check to Divine. It says listed trait, does that mean listed on her card? Meaning she can roll a d8 for a Dexterity check (because Dexterity is on her card) but she can't roll a d8 for acrobatics, because that's not on there. Once in awhile, an acrobatics check is easier than a Dex check so I thought I would clarify.
It means "listed on the card you're encountering" (again, I'm speculating, based upon how 'listed' was previously used in powers)
It'd be helpful if you could quote the text of relevant cards or powers you're asking about. A lot of people don't have Core yet and won't be able to give definitive answers without knowing the exact text (and for those that do, their cards may not be handy for them to reference at the time they're posting).
That said, based on the context you've given, I agree with both of Longshot's answers. I'll expand a bit on the first question below:
Using a power on your character card counts as playing your character card on a check. However, the limitation for checks is that the party can collectively play no more than one of each type of boon on a check. Character cards are not boons, so the "one of each type" rule doesn't apply to character powers.
Using a power on your character card counts as playing your character card on a check.
Is that new in Core? Because it is definitely not true pre-Core.
Using a power on your character card counts as playing your character card on a check.Is that new in Core? Because it is definitely not true pre-Core.
Yep. That's new in Core. Also new in core is that you add all of your character's traits to a check as well. I'll give the rulebook quotes when I get home (if I remember).
Got you covered, skizzerz!
Choosing to activate a power on a character or on a displayed card also counts as playing that card.
Your character’s traits are also added to the check (so if you’re Fumbus, your checks have the Goblin and Alchemist traits).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got you covered, skizzerz!
Choosing to activate a power on a character or on a displayed card also counts as playing that card.
This really does a number on some characters' abilities with the new rules. The first one to come to mind is Brielle. With the new rules, a player now has to choose to either reveal an item on her combat check or bury a card for d12 on Strength/Charisma. Meligaster is another. By the new rules, she can either discard a card for Arcane + d4 on her combat check or reveal a monster for d4.
I've been nervous about how different the Core version is to ACG 1.0 and, having now played the game, it's hard to imagine how a good number of characters are going to work with the new book, much less how the scenarios can even be done. That single page of "Transition" isn't going to be anywhere near sufficient to cover things. Core (ACG 2.0) is a full blown new edition and, while some of the existing material will work, a fair amount of it is going to end up shelved like previous version rpg books.
I get the feeling the new edition was designed with little to no thought to ensuring class deck compatibility. Limiting checks to one card of each type for the entire table only makes sense when combined with how cards have been rewritten. New versions of old cards have a lot more versatility, so it's likely that types of cards that seldom influenced checks will become more common rather than the blessing spam from 1.0 games. Attack spells are a prime example. Using a spell to support a combat check in Core edition will become common since attack spells now come with a support secondary ability.
To make things even worse, many old cards have become less useful. Ranged weapons are a prime example. For example, if a player uses a weapon on their combat check, another player can't play a longbow for its secondary ability to add d4 since a weapon card has already been played on that check.
All in all, if I didn't have thousands of cards accumulated over several years, and was just starting out with Core, I'd be thrilled with it overall. As a new edition of the game, played without older cards in the mix, it's pretty nicely structured. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with Class decks built for old rules, pondering how much of a headache Society play's going to become in a few days.
As a side note while I'm muddling through the new rules, unless I missed it somewhere, a player only recovers cards at the end of THEIR turn, before resetting. So, if someone plays a spell to help my check on my turn, they don't get to recover it until the end of their next turn since the rules only mention a player performing recovery at the end of their turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This really does a number on some characters' abilities with the new rules...
??
As stated above : Using a power on your character card counts as playing your character card on a check. However, the limitation for checks is that the party can collectively play no more than one of each type of boon on a check. Character cards are not boons, so the "one of each type" rule doesn't apply to character powers.Am I missing something ?
This really does a number on some characters' abilities with the new rules...??
As stated above : Using a power on your character card counts as playing your character card on a check. However, the limitation for checks is that the party can collectively play no more than one of each type of boon on a check. Character cards are not boons, so the "one of each type" rule doesn't apply to character powers.
Am I missing something ?
For some reason, I read that all wrong, both in the manual and in the thread. Heck, I've been playing for years and never realized that there's the word "power" on cards other than the character card until today. I'd seen the part on the Transitioning page about boon limits and saw the "Powers that can be played freely do not count toward this limit." and my brain focused on Power feats...
Thank goodness that's not the case. I was sweating over how that'd go over with the crew once Society play kicks off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranged weapons are a prime example. For example, if a player uses a weapon on their combat check, another player can't play a longbow for its secondary ability to add d4 since a weapon card has already been played on that check....
Actually, this ability will now say "freely" - i.e it won't count towards your 1 boon/type limit.
Otherwise, you're correct that pre-Core cards lack in versatility and are probably not the best bet for 2.0 rules.
New weapons with powers to add to other character's combat checks will used the 'freely' keyword to make them playable. And for old weapons, there's a compatibility rule that will make them work:
On weapons and spells from previous sets, any power that adds to or subtracts from a check, or that rerolls dice, may be played freely. Powers that also determine the type of check may not be played freely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note while I'm muddling through the new rules, unless I missed it somewhere, a player only recovers cards at the end of THEIR turn, before resetting. So, if someone plays a spell to help my check on my turn, they don't get to recover it until the end of their next turn since the rules only mention a player performing recovery at the end of their turn.
That is somewhat confusing in the new rule book, and I'm hoping they'll clear it up. But I'm pretty sure the intent is that you deal with your recovery pile at the end of every turn.
Banish: Most cards you banish return to the vault, shuffled in with other cards of the same type. However, if you would banish a card you played that has a during recovery power, instead set it aside in a recovery pile. At the end of the turn, you can attempt to recover some of these cards (see End Your Turn on page 6).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on this comment from Vic in another blog post, the intent seems to be that everyone who played a spell will do recovery at the end of the turn.
"Because most recharge checks used to happen in the middle of an encounter, everything usually had to stop and wait while those checks were resolved; now, the next player can usually get on with their turn while other players process recovery. (Ok, this isn’t true when the next player also has to do recovery, but since it’s true more often than not, it does save time.)"
The implication here is that the recovery phase speeds the game along, unless the player whose next turn it is has to do recovery before he can start his turn. Thus, off-turn recovery for all spellcasters seems to be the desired intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New weapons with powers to add to other character's combat checks will used the 'freely' keyword to make them playable. And for old weapons, there's a compatibility rule that will make them work:
On weapons and spells from previous sets, any power that adds to or subtracts from a check, or that rerolls dice, may be played freely. Powers that also determine the type of check may not be played freely.
I took that to mean a numeric value as opposed to a die value. If it counts for both, then I'm seeing an equally bad issue. It's possible that I missed a more robust definition of "freely" but all I recall seeing is that it nullifies the 1 card per type rule for a check. If that's the entirety of that keyword, it opens the door for certain characters to recharge every card in their hands on a single off-turn check (since a lot of 1.0 weapons include the discard for d4 secondary effect). Class deck Harsk with ranged weapons and the whole Fighter deck for melee. Plus, that's just for one character. Rather than players hording blessings to unload on the final boss combat check, it'll be weapon cards and LOTS more small dice.
While that is possible, a Harsk with 5 longbow variants in his hand is going to be pretty useless for anything other than adding 5d4+X to a combat check, so I don't see too many people planning to do that all that often.
That's an interesting point. Does "Freely" also negate the one card per type per person?
Yes. The new rule is "Each character may play any number of cards, but collectively, the party may play no more than one of each type of boon; powers that can be played freely do not count toward this limit." (CRB, "Encountering a card", pg 8)
That replaces this rule: "Each character may play no more than 1 card of each type during each step; for example, a character may play no more than 1 blessing while attempting a check, though multiple characters could each play 1 blessing. A character may not activate a given power more than once during each step, other than effects that can be used each time something particular happens." (MM, "Encountering a card", pg 9).
While that is possible, a Harsk with 5 longbow variants in his hand is going to be pretty useless for anything other than adding 5d4+X to a combat check, so I don't see too many people planning to do that all that often.
Add in his ability to recharge a card for d4 on a check and he only needs 4 ranged weapons with that ability, which isn't hard to come by. For example: Longbow, Shock Longbow +1, Light crossbow, and Heavy crossbow are all (B) weapons. Class deck Harsk is going to go all in with ranged weapons as is. He's a frequent new player character in my area so we see him a lot. Unless there's a lot of combat around for him to dump them for weapon assists, like most weapon combatants, he's likely to either discard cards to cycle cards or sit on a hand full of ranged weapons. The better cards tend to have the assist secondary ability so he's going to be able to dump all of his in-hand weapon cards, with his special ability kicker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New weapons with powers to add to other character's combat checks will used the 'freely' keyword to make them playable. And for old weapons, there's a compatibility rule that will make them work:
On weapons and spells from previous sets, any power that adds to or subtracts from a check, or that rerolls dice, may be played freely. Powers that also determine the type of check may not be played freely.I took that to mean a numeric value as opposed to a die value. If it counts for both, then I'm seeing an equally bad issue. It's possible that I missed a more robust definition of "freely" but all I recall seeing is that it nullifies the 1 card per type rule for a check. If that's the entirety of that keyword, it opens the door for certain characters to recharge every card in their hands on a single off-turn check (since a lot of 1.0 weapons include the discard for d4 secondary effect). Class deck Harsk with ranged weapons and the whole Fighter deck for melee. Plus, that's just for one character. Rather than players hording blessings to unload on the final boss combat check, it'll be weapon cards and LOTS more small dice.
You can indeed stack 'freely' cards as much as you want, but I don't think it's a particularly strong strategy.
A lot of 'freely' use cards are discards or buries (not recharges/reloads), so they're costly to stack in traditional circumstances. Furthermore, they tend to offer much less benefit than the typical blessing, and the card they're on provides less variety.
A ranger carrying 5 ranged weapons around could allow someone at a distant location to forcibly pass a difficult combat check, yes, but in the meantime they're carrying 5 cards that don't help them for closing checks, BYA checks, AYA checks, boon acquiring, healing, barrier checks, movement, damage reduction or exploration abilities. On their own turn, they usually effectively have 4 dead cards.
The idea of turning a large number of cards into a large number of d4s isn't unique to post-Core, anyway. There are several characters who could discard, bury or recharge a number of cards to add an equal number of dice to a check, and there's even been weapons (like the 'pepperbox' firearms, and a few Hell's Vengeance weapons) that could do similar things. Overwhelmingly, however, these have been considered not worth the cost expenditure, even though you could dump your hand to ensure you defeat a villain - you should be able to succeed just with regular amounts of support anyway.
Also, pre-Core you were allowed to discard multiple daggers to support a single combat check anyway, from memory, because they had a line that said you could do so "even if you played a weapon on this check".
Also, just to confirm; you cannot use a character power more than once per check or step, which is listed elsewhere in the rulebook, and has been a rule since Rise of the Runelords. Lem cannot recharge multiple cards for the same check, for example.
I agree that the bows are easy enough to come by. But what I meant was that a player with 5 weapons in hand should realize (after gaining a little bit of experience with the game) that he needs to discard at least a couple of those to dig for more useful cards in his deck.
He could keep them all so he can help nova-blast a monster, but then he can only explore once per turn and can't help with anything else.
You can indeed stack 'freely' cards as much as you want, but I don't think it's a particularly strong strategy.A lot of 'freely' use cards are discards or buries (not recharges/reloads), so they're costly to stack in traditional circumstances. Furthermore, they tend to offer much less benefit than the typical blessing, and the card they're on provides less variety.
A ranger carrying 5 ranged weapons around could allow someone at a distant location to forcibly pass a difficult combat check, yes, but in the meantime they're carrying 5 cards that don't help them for closing checks, BYA checks, AYA checks, boon acquiring, healing, barrier checks, movement, damage reduction or exploration abilities. On their own turn, they usually effectively have 4 dead cards....
Dagger is a single corner case card, only usable on the owner's check, whereas I'm talking a large number of ranged cards for Harsk. It's not just him, the same sort of thing could be done with any of the Class deck Fighters supporting a local combat. There are a number of characters that recharge rather than discard weapons and this changes them drastically, I just focused on Harsk because him and the other ranged rechargers are the most versatile since they can do this with any distant combat. Heck, if one of the Class deck fighters is at the location of a player encountering the villain and Harsk is at another location to support, +3d4 is minimum and only goes up from there since both will most likely have a weapon to pitch and Harsk can recharge a second card for his ability (all 3 cards recharging). It only goes up from there, and that's without someone blessing the check. None of this meshes with the rationale for putting the restriction in place from the blogs. Late game, weapon users will just hang onto 2-3 weapons to dump on the final fight rather than hope for a blessing. Is the restriction to prevent overkill or not? The mechanics don't match the intent.
I'm not sold on forced drama with the new card restriction. It feels like a ham-fisted change. With how often we've had last turn all or nothing villain combat checks determining win or loss, having everyone go all in to ensure a last minute victory has resulted in no less a collective sigh of relief than we'd get from a risky die roll, and in some cases might not have been possible to achieve in higher tier encounters. Or, being able to have a d4 strength character pull out an unarmed Combat check because everyone at the table pitched in to give her a chance (don't get Mother Myrtle riled up). That's especially so with how hard some of the existing adventures can be with non-optimal groups. Doing Society Adventure 5-1 without stamina/fort managing characters in the new rules is going to go from hard to Season 2-3 levels of unfun. I don't even want to ponder trying to crank out a Season 1 Core run with the card restrictions.
It's frustrating that the rpg got copies of playtest rules for so long before actual release. With how brief the Transition page is, I'm nervous about the new Society rules being blind dropped on us with just how confused the Transition is looking to be. It sure would have been nice to have had a month or so to try things out with the old sets before tossing Core in as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're looking for the Story Bane Roster card, which is on the back of one of the purple Wildcards.
Story Bane Roster: Each Adventure Path includes 1 or more of these cards, providing a categorized list of story banes for that Adventure Path. When an effect requires a random story bane from one of these categories, randomly choose it from the appropriate story bane roster. When an effect requires a random story bane and no category is specified, randomly choose a category first.
The story bane roster for The Dragon’s Demand is on the back of the wildcard The Onslaughts.
Much appreciated!
I was just trying to find the Eldritch Banes info :-)
Full Plate: so you display the armor, then draw it back to your hand when you take combat damage. This allows you to discard for other damage, correct?
It's this the point of drawing this card after displaying it?
Full Plate: so you display the armor, then draw it back to your hand when you take combat damage. This allows you to discard for other damage, correct?
It's this the point of drawing this card after displaying it?
You're correct that you can draw it to reduce incoming damage, then discard it for remaining damage. However, it's probably not the main point of that wording. There's a few differences between having simply a 'passive' power (like "Reduce Combat Damage dealt to you by 1") compared to the 'draw' cost.
The main difference is that drawing it would count as playing an armor. Playing a boon refers to taking some active action (like discarding/revealing/recharging) with a card to make an effect happen. Since drawing the armor is playing it, you cannot play a second armor at the same time as drawing Full Plate, so having multiple cards with similar effects in play can't stack together to give you huge effective resistance to damage.
If it said "While displayed, reduce combat damage dealt to you by 1", then it would be a non-optional, passive effect that would not count towards your one-armor-per-damage limit, and having 4 armors that all said the same thing would reduce combat damage dealt by 4 in total. Stacking armors to basically make yourself immune to damage is undesirable from the designers' perspective - or at least, they only allow you to do that with Helms and Shields, which need to take up space in your hand.
Though the idea of Valeros struggling to walk as he's swaddled in multiple layers of steel, scale, chain and hellknight armor is an amusing mental image.
There All-seeing Eye. Blessing 3
When this is the hour, when you would examine the top card of a location, you may examine the top 2.
If I use detect evil, I look at 2 cards, but do I only encounter if the top card is a monster, or if either card I examined is a monster?
At most you may encounter the first one.
Detect Evil (if I remember well) let you examine the top card, then let you encounter if a monster. So this is how I would play it:
A) You examine the top card. If there is a trigger, you process it.
B) Since "When" trumps "Then", you then examine the second. If there is a trigger, you process it.
C) Since you finished all requested examinations, you now process shuffling the location deck if it is required as a the consequence of a trigger or another power forces you to.
D) Only now can you process the "then" of Detect Evil (since you finished processing the rest). "Then" only if the first card is still the first card and a monster, you may encounter it (and obviously only this one).
Note that you could examine the first card, the examine the second that would be a barrier with a trigger forcing you to encounter it, fail your check against the barrier, reshuffle the whole location deck, and never get to encounter the monster.
IMHO.
Chief Technical Officer
|
As a side note while I'm muddling through the new rules, unless I missed it somewhere, a player only recovers cards at the end of THEIR turn, before resetting. So, if someone plays a spell to help my check on my turn, they don't get to recover it until the end of their next turn since the rules only mention a player performing recovery at the end of their turn.That is somewhat confusing in the new rule book, and I'm hoping they'll clear it up. But I'm pretty sure the intent is that you deal with your recovery pile at the end of every turn.
Banish: Most cards you banish return to the vault, shuffled in with other cards of the same type. However, if you would banish a card you played that has a during recovery power, instead set it aside in a recovery pile. At the end of the turn, you can attempt to recover some of these cards (see End Your Turn on page 6).
Warhammer: when do you choose to reload to ignore the after acting powers?
Options are when you reveal or when you apply after acting effects? The first would be before damage, the second would be after damage. Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the card specifies timing in the power (again, please quote the powers you’re asking about), it would be used in the After Acting step.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warhammer: when do you choose to reload to ignore the after acting powers?
Options are when you reveal or when you apply after acting effects? The first would be before damage, the second would be after damage. Thoughts?
Unless the card specifies timing in the power (again, please quote the powers you’re asking about), it would be used in the After Acting step.
Skizzerz is correct in that if the card didn't specify otherwise, that would be the timing.
However, the card does specify otherwise (which is why quoting powers is helpful to the forum).
For your combat check, reveal to use Strength or Melee + 1d8; if proficient, against a monster, you may additionally reload to ignore its after acting powers.
The power to ignore after-acting powers is an 'additional' cost to the initial use, which is explicitly to reveal it for your combat check. As a result, you must reload it during the combat check in order to allow you to ignore the after-acting powers of the monster.
This also means, for example, if the monster does not feature a combat check as an option to defeat it, you could not use the Warhammer to ignore its after-acting powers.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skizzerz was correct—you reload it in the After Acting step. That "additionally" does not define timing—it just tells you that you can't do the second without having done the first. (Just as if its second power were to reroll dice—you would do it after the roll, or if it were to reduce damage, you would do it when suffering damage.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I stand corrected! My apologies.
Though it does seem like a curious case. 'Additionally' powers that reroll dice or reduce damage all occur in the same step as combat, but an 'additionally' power that works in the After-Acting step would mean that a single card's power (a power is usually limited to being its own paragraph) is being used in two different steps of a check. That would mean that you're using the Warhammer's power in two different steps, and so I presume you are 'playing' it twice.
So if you had a power that said "When you play a weapon for its power, you may draw a card", then you'd draw 2 cards if you both revealed and reloaded it here, but you wouldn't draw 2 cards if you revealed a Longspear then discarded it for a reroll, correct? Or am I wrong? I'm actually interested in this, now.
I suppose there's already cards that affect multiple steps - like a spell you display when something is encountered to prevent some damage dealt until the end of the encounter, or a weapon that adds bonuses to sequential checks to defeat - but most of those are clearly 'displayed' to represent an ongoing application of one or more powers, or at least are clearly not 'playing' the card more than once. In Warhammer's case, though, it almost looks like it reads as though one paragraph is allowing you to play it twice, in different steps.
Or is it possible for two costs, doing different things, in different phases, to be 'one' power, and considered playing the card 'once'? Does it still count towards your one-weapon-per-step limit in two steps?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skizzerz was correct—you reload it in the After Acting step. That "additionally" does not define timing
Whoa, hold the presses! This is actually a pretty heavy statement that... actually makes a lot of sense? I DO admit that's NOT my table's understanding of this wording and wouldn't have played it so, but now that we've been told otherwise - this can't just be left as a by-the-by comment.
First, all of Yewstance's questions are valid and important and merit answer.
Second, if we take Vic's comment about ""additionally" does not define timing" on face value (and I can't see why not, even if it deeply bothers me for clashing with my reading of the rules so far), consider that the following should be true:
- We have an Example Monster: "Combat 20 THEN Combat 25. AA, succeed at Knowledge 9 check or roll 1d4; on a roll of 1, you die."
- I reveal Warhammer for first check. I CAN'T reload it at this point to ignore AA - meaning I risk losing it to damage, but also meaning I get to use it for the second combat
- I reveal a Longsword +3 for the second CtD - I have already satisfied Warhammer's prerequisite for the "additionally" so I don't need to stick with it (I still can't reload it as "ignore AA" is still not "relevant" to the action at hand
- I defeat the monster, AA time! - I can now reload the WH to ignore the AA power in it's entirety but I chose not to!
- I make a Knowledge check and I fail. I can STILL reload WH to ignore AA, but I chose not to.
- I roll 1d4 and I get a 1 - I should die! So NOW I finally decide to reload WH and this stage I ignore the AA power and get on with my life
- Any effects from the AA up to this point still remain (say, Shardra making a Knowledge check at the Glassworks, with the candlestick; or anything caring about me rolling a die - the d4) - exactly as evading with a Whip after a failed combat doesn't DeLoarean the rest of the encounter back to its start
So, did I get all of this right? If not - why? It DOES *feel* somehow wrong to me, but I'm still pretty shocked by this new revelation and I can't find Rules ground to support it - or to oppose it, for that matter. Any Rulebook quotes this or that way are welcome.
Im really interested in this thread now. I believe Vic's statement can open up a lot of corner cases shenanigans.
@Longshot, Im fairly sure there is a ruling that once you commit to making the roll you cannot ignore the effects. So once you attempted the Knowledge check you cannot stop that process.
@Longshot, Im fairly sure there is a ruling that once you commit to making the roll you cannot ignore the effects. So once you attempted the Knowledge check you cannot stop that process.
Well, the whole game is exception based. Especially when it comes to cards that straight up state that you should *ignore* something - they override the general rule that that thing should happen. (Only the word "never" can't be overriden - per the Rulebook)
What you say is true in the sense that, as I mentioned above - you DO incur consequences when you commit to the Knowledge check: if you succeed and you're Shardra - you get to examine; if you fail and you're at the Glassworks - you lose a card. You do NOT have to incur the rest of the AA power, however, if you chose to ignore - and you can ignore it, because there's "relevance" for playing WH at that exact time.
(Strictly speaking, IIRC, the rule you're talking about concerns making a choice, as in "you may succeed at check X or you may discard Y to...". If you chose to attempt the check, but fail, you may not then backsies and chose to discard a card (the more "expensive", but surefire option))
EDIT: Actually, here it is, from the meta rules at the end of Rulebook:
"If a location makes you choose between attempting a check or banishing a card before closing it, you can’t attempt the check and then banish the card if you fail" - though this is not a rule of itself, rather an example for the meta-rule "Choices matter".)
If you fail the combat check and take damage, it should matter whether you choose (or are forced) to discard the hammer.
If you fail the combat check and take damage, it should matter whether you choose (or are forced) to discard the hammer.
It would be that way if the entry for ignoring AYA was a different line or maybe its own sentence. The way its currently written most people will interpret it like Yewstance pointed out. With this new "ruling" there will be new interactions. Yewstance already outlined some concerns. I would like to see those answered.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We're discussing, but I will point out Longspear: "For your combat check, reveal to use Strength or Melee + 1d8; you may additionally discard to reroll." Seems pretty clear the reveal happens in Determine Which Skill You're Using and the discard in Roll the Dice. If it didn't, you'd have to decide whether you were discarding before you knew the result of the roll.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would mean that you're using the Warhammer's power in two different steps, and so I presume you are 'playing' it twice.
I think you're right that's an important question, but the fact that the two "plays" are at different times isn't relevant—it's a valid question even if the two plays were both at the same moment. That is, we need to address it regardless of the outcome of the timing issue.
I think the answer for it is this:
If a card you play says you may "additionally" play it using another action, it counts as playing that card once, even if the second action happens later.
Question is, are there any "additionally" cards where you think it *should* count as a second play?
We're discussing, but I will point out Longspear: "For your combat check, reveal to use
Strength or Melee + 1d8; you may additionally discard to reroll." Seems pretty clear the reveal happens in Determine Which Skill You're Using and the discard in Roll the Dice.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I see you've already make another clarification post, so this whole rules analysis I'm making isn't relevant. This post can be ignored.
These aren't objectively different steps from the gameplay definition of the term 'step', which is important. If they were different steps, you could play a weapon in the Determine Which Skill You're Using, then play a different weapon (not even needing the 'freely' keyword) to add a bonus in the Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check stage, then again play a different weapon to provide a reroll in the Roll the Dice stage.
Whilst these are stages, they ALL occur in a single step, as defined in the rulebook. The all occur in the step defined in Page 9: "Attempt the Check". So having a power have multiple facets doesn't really seem to be an issue here (such as in Longspear), because you're clearly not playing the same card twice in the same step, as that would be violating other rules about playing a card once per step (and one card of a type per step).
Before Acting, Attempt the Check and After Acting are actually different steps. So the one-card-per-step limit applies to each individually - you're allowed to bless a Before Acting check, then bless a check to defeat, and then bless a sequential check to defeat, and then bless an After Acting check, after all.
If I am wrong on this, and different stages of a single check ARE DIFFERENT STEPS, then this is extremely important to know. That means you could bless a check with a blessing, then use a different blessing for a post-roll buff (which you have previously not been able to do). It also means you'd be able to reveal an armor to add a bonus to your check, then also recharge that armor to reduce damage taken if you fail the check (which you've also not been able to do - this has even been covered in forum threads and the official digital game with the Snakeskin Tunic Loot armor from RotR).
If a card you play says you may "additionally" play it using another action, it counts as playing that card once, even if the second action happens later.
Question is, are there any "additionally" cards where you think it *should* count as a second play?
That seems like a very fair solution, which should resolve any oddities. I'll keep an eye out for any issues it may cause or any situations where they should count as second plays, but I don't expect it to usually come up. The "additionally" phrase almost never causes effects outside of the current step, after all - 'ignoring Before Acting and/or After Acting' is the most common use case where that occurs.
Thanks for the prompt response, Vic!