Hi,
I have a small question concerning some allies like Droogami who says:
"Discard to move, then you may explore"
According to the rulebook glossary, move is defined on page 6 as:
"Move: You may move your pawn to a distant location." (emphasis mine)
So we've played that I can play Droogami, refuse to move, and simply explore my own location. But then comes the card The Big Sky who says:
"Discard to explore, or to move then explore."
Which seems to imply that the "move" section would actually be mandatory.
So am I right in saying that Droogami doesn't force me to move, or would i only have a choice if it said "you may move" ?
Also, if moving is mandatory: i know that i can choose to move to my own location if it's the only one in play, but what happens if i'm entangled ? Can I still use Droogami to explore my own location without having to move ?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The definition of "Move" on page 6 is referring to your move step, which means the time during your turn when you can move without having to play any powers to do so. The "may" in that definition does NOT apply to other powers, like Droogami above.
If you look on the same page in the "Rules: Moving" box, it explicitly says that "other effects may allow or force you to move." Droogami's power is an example of this... in order to play Droogami's explore power, you must first more.
This also means that the situation you mention at the end of your post... there's only one location left... WOULD mean that you just can't use Droogami's explore power, except that, as you mentioned, you're allowed to move to the same location if it's the only one, as explained in that same callout box.
Ok so that's what I was starting to lean towards, thanks for the confirmation.
Would I be right in saying that I can use Droogami to explore my own location if i'm entangled though ? By the rules "If one effect
would move you while another effect prevents you from moving,
do not move", so I would definitely stay at my location, and nothing would stop me from resolving the rest of the card, right ?
Chief Technical Officer
|
Nope. From Playing Cards, on page 8: "You may not use a power that doesn’t apply to your current situation. For example, you may not play a card to reduce damage when damage isn’t being suffered, and you may not play a card to evade a monster when you are not encountering a monster."
If you can't move, you can't choose to use a power that's primary application is to move you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't move, you can't choose to use a power that's primary application is to move you.
I've had similar discussions over my years of PACG, but that statement comes very close to answering something that's popped up over and over for me.
Is the "primary application" of a power always the first thing that power does? So if a card said "Discard to explore, then move." that would be allowed if you were entangled, but not a card that said "Discard to move, then explore."?
Similarly, you can use a card that says "Discard to examine the top of your location, then explore" on someone else's turn - you just won't be able to explore after you examine?
For most of PACG's history, I've thought of it like that - then I was contradicted on these forums by a veteran player, and then pointed to a source (which it would take some time for me to dig out) that suggested the entirety of a power had to be 'legal' to be played in the first place. In response, I pointed out that such a reading carried numerous oddities (including powers that you didn't know whether they would be legal or not until you'd applied part of the power).
I've had a lot of gray-area run-ins with the 'apply to your current situation' rule, so I'd love to hear anything else you have to say on the matter.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The important thing here isn't really that it comes first—it's that there's an explicit dependency: The power says do A, then B. That is, you don't get to do B until you've done A, so if you can't do A, you can't use the power.
But it's important to note that the restriction I cited ("you may not use a power that doesn’t apply to your current situation") is placed on you solely in the context of determining whether you can choose to activate a power or not. If an active power (for example, from a scenario rule, or from a monster you're encountering) says "Do A, then B," there's no choice in it: you have to do everything in it that's not impossible.
So if a monster you encounter says "After acting, move to a random location then discard a card," and you can't move, you ignore the impossible part (per the Golden Rules), but you still have to discard the card.
The important thing here isn't really that it comes first—it's that there's an explicit dependency: The power says do A, then B. That is, you don't get to do B until you've done A, so if you can't do A, you can't use the power.
(In advance; sorry for the long post, but this is the closest I've gotten to passing the largest barrier to me achieving a significantly greater understanding of PACG rules templates.)
Firstly, thank you for the answer, but it leads to a separate question. When does the word 'then' imply a dependency, and when is it separate?
I'd like to reference this post for a valuable design insight. See the quotes below...
When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may recharge a card (□ then you may draw a card).
[...] If the intent had been to make drawing independent of recharging, it would look like this:
"When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may recharge a card. (□ Then you may draw a card)."
So I'm trying to apply the rules as stated in these forums as clearly as possible to try to understand character powers, and I may be missing something because I occasionally find oddities. For example...
On your turn, you may discard a spell (□ then you may move). Then explore your location.
If you have the first power feat checked, is the exploration conditional on having chosen to move?
Additionally, is the exploration conditional on having discarded a spell in the first place?That's clearly the intent (as opposed to Ezren just announcing "I take a free exploration" whenever he wants), but as far as parsing that from a rules standpoint it seems less clear.
In the Imrijka example above, the 'rewritten' power that makes recharging a card optional fit the following syntax...
{condition}, {optional effect}. {independent optional effect}.
{}, {}. {}.
Applying this to MM Ezren's power, he's describing the following...
{condition}, {optional effect} {dependent optional effect}. {independent optional effect}.
{}, {} {}. {}.
The above is assuming that that "When you defeat a monster on your turn" and "On your turn" are both conditions, and everything else is simply an effect, whether dependent or not. With that reading, it looks like MM Ezren can explore whenever you want without paying any cost on his turn, which is clearly not the intent.
There's no meaningful identifier between the 'effects' to determine which are a cost and a benefit, since "recharge a card" (Imrijka) and "recharge a spell" (MM Ezren, Spell Sage Role) are virtually identical. So if the issue is with me as opposed to the template, that must mean I'm misunderstanding what defines a condition. That "when you do X" is different to "during your X" or "On your X", and I'd love clarification on this.
===========================
Similarly, I'd like to parse the intent and functional reading of some other powers.
At the start of your turn [you] may replace your character and role with the Red Raven's. Then you may exchange a card in your hand with a card in your kit.
Similar question; is the exchange conditional on replacing your character card?
If MM Ezren's exploration is conditional on discarding a spell, then I suppose the kit-switching is conditional on switching character cards.
However, based on the suggested rewrite to CD Imrijka in the forum linked above, it looks like the full stop and "Then" is supposed to indicate that the second part is independent of the first - that is, you get to exchange a card to/from your kit whether or not you changed character cards.
What's the intent here?
At the end of your turn, you may move (□ then examine the top card of your location); any local characters may move with you.
As per the CD Imrijka ruling, you must move before you get to examine the top card of your location; if you elect not to move you do not get an examination.
Is that the intent, and have I read that right?
When you encounter a barrier (□ or a monster), you may evade it, then move; then end your turn.
So here's an example with a 'then' preceded by a comma (common on boons) and then a semicolon, rather than a full stop or a space.
Even so, it looks like both comma and semicolon function similarly to spaces (from a rules standpoint, rather than a grammatical one). If you do not choose to evade, you may not 'activate' the power and thus you do not move or end your turn. Once you have chosen to evade, you must complete all of the listed instructions as best as you are able (even if something prevents you from moving, you still end your turn, for example).
===========================
In summary...
Trying to apply rules-lawyering based on how MM Ezren appears to work, vs how CD Imrijka has been stated to work, is difficult for me, and appears (to my eyes) to list contradictions. However, between these cases (assuming preceding commas are not handled differently to spaces) they do seem to cover the entire scope of how the terms "then" and "may" are handled in PACG, so I'd consider it invaluable for me to learn how to resolve these apparent contradictions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure MM Ezren is worded correctly.
If he didn't have that power feat in there, he would have been worded "On your turn, you may discard a spell to explore your location." Adding the move power before that made chronological sense, but broke a dependence that needs to exist. A more appropriate (but perhaps more confusing) wording would be "On your turn, you may discard a spell to explore your location. (□ Before that exploration, you may move.)"
Alright. That sufficiently clears up a long-standing confusion for me, and I think - taking some of these statements together - I have a stronger grasp on optional vs required effects than I've ever had before. Thanks again!
I will assume that my interpretations about the other characters were correct (Aric doesn't need to change character cards to access his kit, Amiri only gets an examination if she chooses to move).
Posting here rather than making a new forum topic, because the discussion here is directly relevant.
The Curse of the Crimson Throne location Glade features the following location text...
When you encounter a non-story bane, you may summon and encounter the danger. If you defeat it, banish the encountered bane; otherwise, evade it.
QUESTION: If you choose not to summon and encounter the danger; do you automatically evade any (non-story) bane you encounter, or do you encounter them normally?
MY OBSERVATIONS: I feel like the intent is that you encounter the bane normally - otherwise the location basically reads "Replace all monsters and banes with copies of the danger", which seems a bit... boring?
But as per the above posts, it's been clearly identified that a separate sentence means that the latter sentence is not conditional on the previous sentence having been completed. It fits the following template (as I described above)...
{condition}, {dependent optional effect}. {independent condition and effect}.
{}, {}. {}
That is, the second sentence occurs no matter whether or not you chose to summon the danger. If you choose not to summon the danger, you clearly didn't defeat the danger (note that the second sentence checks whether you defeated it - not whether it was encountered or "undefeated" or any other significant template), so the bane will always be evaded... right?
=====================
RELEVANT SIDE-NOTE: This is another example of the template "non-story bane", which Vic has previously said is incorrect templating, and technically would apply to all boons you encounter which is certainly not how the Glade is meant to work, since you cannot 'defeat an encountered bane' when its a boon.
I agree that the "otherwise" in the second sentence catches the case where you choose to not summon and encounter the danger. This leads to three scenarios (using the obvious intent for "non-story bane" to refer to banes that are not story banes as opposed to all cards that are not story banes):
1. You do not encounter the danger. The original bane is evaded.
2. You encounter and fail to defeat the danger. The original bane is evaded.
3. You encounter and defeat the danger. You banish the original bane and then continue with the encounter against it. Nothing says that you no longer encounter the original bane, just that you banish it.
I disagree. But maybe it's me not being a native English speaker.
For me:
- The "otherwise" refer to the second sentence, not the first.
- The first "it" in the second sentence refer to "the danger" in the first sentence.
- The second "it" in the second sentence refer to "the encountered bane" in the second sentence.
So the second sentence only apply if you decide to summon the danger. If not you encounter the encountered bane as usual. So I would modify skizzerz scenario as such.
1. You do not encounter the danger. The original bane is encountered as usual.
2. You summon, encounter and fail to defeat the danger. The danger returns to the vault. The original bane is evaded (i. e. reshuffled in the location usually).
3. You summon, encounter and defeat the danger. The danger returns to the vault. The original bane is banished. So whathever the outcome of what comes next it will end up banished. ... but I agree that it is unclear whether you should continue with the encounter against it (if not something like a "instead" seems lacking somewhere).
I think I'm in agreement with Frencois, assuming I understand the structure he has described.
1. You encounter a non-story bane.
2. You may encounter it and resolve the encounter as normal.
3. Alternately, you may encounter the danger. If you defeat the danger, banish the originally encountered bane. If you don't defeat the danger, evade the originally encountered bane.
It's all just a mechanic to allow for the danger to be a recurring threat while preserving just one encounter for each bane in the location. It also allows for different tactics, especially against banes that might not normally be banished if they are defeated or with effects that make them less desirable to encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post-script: One of my party members hates me every time I "waste" a turn randomly moving to the Base,
My impression is, you should never count the Base when determining the number of locations, or a random one thereof.
Having played Valeros the Besotted, I can confirm at least how I played it.
1) Longshot is right you cannot consider The Base when rolling randomly to go to another location. So you never end at the Base using that power.
2) On the other end nothing p^events you when moving from the Base to use the power.
A) Indeed, if there is only (outside of the base) 1 location, you cannot use the power.
B) Indeed, if there is only (outside of the base) 2 locations, you can use the power knowing exactly where you'll end up.
C) Indeed, you can use the power even if you have no card to heal. But you better not use it if you have no card to draw :-)
Why do I think you can use the power to just draw if you have no card to heal? Because it is not written in a way that would suggest you use the power to heal (in which case it will fall into the rule forbidding it). I. e. if they wanted the power to not be usable if you had nothing to heal, it would be written something like:
When you move during your move step, you may move to a random other location TO heal a card and then draw a card.
IMHO
Looping back to the Glade: the otherwise does indeed refer to the second sentence as Frencois said.
If you defeat it: this can only apply if you chose to summon the danger and you subsequently defeat it.
Otherwise: EVERY OTHER SCENARIO. This means the case of “choose to not summon” in addition to the case of “summon but do not defeat”
That’s just the English definition of “otherwise,” it’s a catch-all for saying “every other case that wasn’t just listed.”
All sentences of the power apply in every case. There is nothing impossible about the wording of the 2nd sentence that would let you ignore it if you didn’t summon the danger. That’s why Yewstance posted here, incidentally. Scroll up to see Vic’s clarifications on this.
All sentences of the power apply in every case. There is nothing impossible about the wording of the 2nd sentence that would let you ignore it if you didn’t summon the danger. That’s why Yewstance posted here, incidentally. Scroll up to see Vic’s clarifications on this.
Thanks skizzerz; and yep, that's why I used this thread. Because this is the only (half-recent) thread where it has been objectively confirmed that all sentences of a power should always be used when that power occurs, even if previous sentences are impossible or were chosen not to be used as part of a 'may' effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this isn't the main topic of this thread but it caught my attention, because I may have been interpreting a card wrong all this time.
3. You encounter and defeat the danger. You banish the original bane and then continue with the encounter against it. Nothing says that you no longer encounter the original bane, just that you banish it.Is it necessary that the card says explicitly that the encounter is over? I've been playing through Mummy's Mask and my group's Mavaro has been using Key of the Second Vault for a long time.
Bury this card to banish a non-villain barrier that has the Lock, Obstacle, or Trap trait that you encounter or is displayed next to your location.If I use this card to banish a barrier that I encounter, do I still have to continue with the encounter afterwards?
The rulebook offers the following: "During the encounter, effects might cause the card you’re encountering to be acquired, defeated, or undefeated. This does not end the encounter unless the effect specifically says it does."
While it doesn't state so explicitly, this applies just as much to other actions such as banishing the card. Unless the effect specifically says that the encounter is over, you continue through the encounter as normal. In the case of banishing a card during the encounter, the only thing this changes is that an undefeated or evaded bane remains banished instead of being shuffled back in.
I have a feeling that Key of the Second Vault is intended to bypass the encounter, so it'd need an FAQ in that case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the "non-story bane" issue, I think a minor change to the wording of Glade's power would completely alleviate this confusion (as was done for MM Ezren above)
Something like:
At this Location:
When you would encounter a non-story bane, you may instead summon and encounter the danger. If the danger was summoned and defeated, treat the encountered bane as defeated. If the danger was summoned and undefeated, treat the encountered bane as evaded.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The rules for the Base have been updated: You can choose to move to or from the Base, but you do not count it when choosing random locations, so you can't be randomly moved to it.