Sufferring an existing Scourge (Dazed)

[Sathar]

Apologies if this was answered already, I thought it came up but couldn't find it and the Locked Door thread doesn't quite answer it.

If you suffer a scourge that you already have marked you do not add a marker and there is no additional effect, but does it still count as suffering a/the Scourge?

Specifically, Dazed says that if you did not suffer this Scourge this turn you may remove it at the end of your turn. If a character already has a marker on Dazed and suffers a new Dazed on their turn, can they still remove it at the end of turn or is the Dazed in effect extended an additional turn?

[Jenceslav]

Sathar wrote:

Specifically, Dazed says that if you did not suffer this Scourge this turn you may remove it at the end of your turn. If a character already has a marker on Dazed and suffers a new Dazed on their turn, can they still remove it at the end of turn or is the Dazed in effect extended an additional turn?

To my understanding, the character is already marked, so they cannot receive additional marker or suffer the scourge, becoming un-Dazed(TM) at the end of this turn. At least that's how I played it, believing that the "ignore" statements cover this. But let's wait if there is official answer or some rules-expert fans clarify this.

Rulebook wrote:

If you are instructed to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction.

…
If you suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, the scourge has no additional effect; do not add another marker.

Hmm, can be probably interpreted both ways.

[Sathar]

That's my issue:

On one hand it's like Ignore where the new instance of Dazed has no effect on the character whatsoever (though the Scourge instructions never use the actual keyword "Ignore")

On the other hand it's like damage -- If you're instructed to suffer 2 points of damage but have no cards in your hand, you don't do anything but you have still "taken" 2 points of damage.

[Renata Maclean]

It doesn't say you can't suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, just that it has no additional effect. So you would be considered to have suffered it that turn as well, and not lose it until next turn.

At least, that's my reading.

[Longshot11]

*sigh*

^More reasons why Paizo should put out a FAQ that "suffer a scourge" and "mark a scourge card" ARE the same thing (or, if I'm totally wrong - how and why they *aren't*).

Mike had said (due to changing a location named "Ship" to "Boat") that "We can't have a location with the same name as a card type." - indeed, it's less than intuitive design.

Now, however, there's TWO things called "scourge" in the game! There's a CARD TYPE named "Scourge" and there's also the "SCOURGE MARKER" - which is the "real" Scourge that players suffer and care about - but it not being identified as such WILL continue to be a great source of confusion in the future...

[Frencois]

Dazed says that "if you did not suffer this Scourge this turn" you may remove it at the end of your turn.
It doesn't say "if you did not add a marker this turn"...

Rules say "If you suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, the scourge has no additional effect; do not add another marker."
It doesn't say "If you suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, you don't suffer it again".

So to me:
A) When you suffer another time the same scourge you do SUFFER it another time... it just happen that it has "no additional effect".
B) So if you are Dazed again, nothing changes in your status BUT you did suffer it (again) this turn.... so your are dazed for another turn.

And besides, thematically, makes a lot of sense.

That's why I fully disagree with:

Longshot wrote:

More reasons why Paizo should put out a FAQ that "suffer a scourge" and "mark a scourge card" ARE the same thing.

The marker is there to show your status that doesn't change if your are poisoned multiple time.

However suffering again a scourge is a different game concept that is very important to keep separate (IMHO).
It allows for powers that say "when you suffer a scourge...", and you want them to kick up everything you "suffer" it, even if you already "have" it.
E. g. I can have a location that says: "When you suffer the scourge Poisoned, take 1d4 Poison damage", and I want you to take damage every time you are bitten, even if the lasting "Poisoned" effect is not changed.

IMHO.

[Sathar]

That's the way I read it, though our player who kept summoning the same Danger every turn that he couldn't beat and would re-daze him wasn't happy with me.

[skizzerz]

The rulebook says “If you suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, the scourge has no additional effect; do not add another marker.”

If that counted as suffering a scourge for effects that care whether or not you suffered a scourge that turn, that would be an additional effect. Since we’re told there’s no additional effect, the only logical conclusion is that you are not considered to have suffered a scourge.

So, you can’t be re-Dazed if you’re Dazed, because being re-Dazed means there’s an additional effect (unable to remove Daze unlike normal). And the rulebook says “no additional effect.”

[Frencois]

Rereading it, I feel I stand corrected.
But it isn't totally clear.
I would have preferred a single rule like "you cannot suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for"

[skizzerz]

I could be wrong as well, the intent of “no additional effect” could simply be them trying to say “don’t apply the text of the scourge twice” but you’re still considered to have suffered it.

But, if you’re told not to do anything, I really think that should mean that it has no other game effects whatsoever.

[Droideka]

I think I have been playing this wrong and I think Skizzerz is most likely correct.
I hope this is addressed in the FAQ, just to be sure :)

[Vic Wertz]

"If you suffer a scourge, a thing doesn't happen" is not negating the fact that you suffer it. (If we wanted to do that, we would say "If you would suffer a scourge, don't suffer it.") It means exactly what it says: Even though you're suffering it, the scourge doesn't have any additional effect, and you don't get an additional marker from it.

And "the scourge has no additional effect" also means exactly what it says: the scourge itself—and only the scourge itself—has no additional effect. If the scenario said "when you suffer a scourge, discard a card," nothing here is turning that off, so you would need to discard a card.

[Frencois]

Thanks Vic.

So I was right for once... Champagne for everyone.

[PinkRose]

So, no additional dazed effects, except you can't get rid o it that turn.

So if I get hit on the head in round 1 and suffer Dazed, then get hit on the head in round 2 and suffer Dazed again, I can't get rid of Dazed until the end of round 3. Correct?

[Frencois]

Yep

[EmpTyger]

A similar question: Let's say X has the item Plaguebringer's Mask, and Y was previously Plagued. If X would now become Plagued, could they use Plaguebringer's Mask choosing Y? Or could X not play Plaguebringer's Mask, since there would be no effect, as Y is already Plagued?

Plaguebringer's Mask wrote:

When you would suffer the scourge Plagued or encounter a Disease card, reveal to choose another local character to do so instead.

[skizzerz]

I’d say they could.