The skill you chose from the list, the skill you’re using, and any skill referenced by that skill, are all added as traits to the check.
So since you selected Acrobatics and then use Knowledge, it is both a Acrobatics and Knowledge check and you can play your card.
IMHO.
You are using knowledge instead of, not in addition to.
So when you use that power your "selected" skill is Knowledge which in Quinn's case is based of Intelligence. So you could use Intelligence based cards to buff that check or Knowledge ones of course.
Sorry, was wrong. Somehow I missed the « instead »
Sorry, was wrong.
No, you're not. You provided the exact quote that shows why you're right post-Core, whereas Droideka *used* to be right pre-Core - which is actually my personal opinion, as pre-Core there was a very heated debated on replacement skill - and that's one of the longest -if not THE longest- outstanding issues pre-Core.
Per Frencois' quote:
- Acrobatics is the "skill you chose from the list" (although it's talking about CtA/Ds, I take this to also extend to any other checks, such as BA or Closing) - so you ARE adding it as a trait
- Knowledge is "the skill you're using"
- "any skill referenced by that skill" is whatever you Knowledge is based off (usually, Intelligence)
All those 3 are added as traits and your check is Acrobatics, Intelligence, Knowledge check.
I don't think the "instead" matters, as there was a pre-Core 2019 FAQ update that addresses this. As far as I can tell, Quinn's power (as Frencois describes) would be both an Acrobatics and Knowledge check. (Edit: Ninja'd by Longshot.)
See the Mummy's Mask FAQ entry: link
I happen to be playing Quinn right now, so I have a bonus question related to his recharge/reload power:
Quinn plays a Double Chicken Saber +1 (if you roll a 1 on a d8, it gets discarded). He reveals the saber, then recharges/reloads that same saber to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics. He rolls a 1 on a d8, so the saber is supposed to be discarded - but it's already been recharged/reloaded. So what happens to the saber?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm slightly uncertain. I was 100% with Frencois' original answer (and I was going to make a post giving that same answer if he had not already done so), because I was aware that the Core Set finally confirmed that replacing a skill adds both the 'original' skill and the skill you end up using as traits to the check.
However... I'm not as convinced after reading the rulebook closely, because the "Skill you chose from the list" is Combat, in this situation, not what weapon you used. You're effectively replacing a Combat check with an Acrobatics check with a Knowledge check, and the rules clearly indicates that the only traits added to the check are the skill you chose from a list, the final skill you end up using, and skills referenced by that final skill. That's just "Combat", "Knowledge" and "Intelligence" - nothing else.
Of course, all of this would need to parse the intent of what "The skill you chose from the list" means and doesn't mean. Furthermore, I believe pre-existing FAQs that affect the Rulebook text are explicitly non-relevant to Core rules(?).
Long story short... I can see the merit of both sides, but RAW I'm leaning towards Droideka's analysis. The traits added by the relevant rules paragraph are "Combat, Knowledge and Intelligence", not "Acrobatics, Knowledge and Intelligence".
If it were the latter, wouldn't that mean the Combat trait would never be added, and so it would no longer be a "Combat" check, RAW?
I happen to be playing Quinn right now, so I have a bonus question related to his recharge/reload power:
Quinn plays a Double Chicken Saber +1 (if you roll a 1 on a d8, it gets discarded). He reveals the saber, then recharges/reloads that same saber to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics. He rolls a 1 on a d8, so the saber is supposed to be discarded - but it's already been recharged/reloaded. So what happens to the saber?
I would say it cannot be discarded if it's not in your hand. This is not a unique circumstance; some spears - - or other weapons have similar situations turn up, like "additionally recharge to add 1d6" and also having a "discard to reroll" power.
When you are instructed to reveal, banish, discard, bury, recharge, etc something - it must come from your hand, unless otherwise instructed. If that is impossible, then the effect must be ignored like all impossible instructions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are certainly "after you act, banish X" cards, which are intended to be banished whether or not they end up back in your deck or something (See MM Simoun and MM Drelm, who can draw cards that are only supposed to have for the encounter). So that does seem to contradict my own reasoning...
I honestly feel like some cards and effects are written under different intents, here. I'd love to hear an official word on what to do when you're told to discard/bury/banish (etc) a card that's ended back in your deck somehow. Do you search your deck to do so, or do you ignore the effect? It it supposed to be different for some cards and powers compared to others? Weapons that discard under some circumstances vs powers that let you draw a card for temporary use?
Re: the Double Chicken Saber, I'd expect that to fall under the "set the card aside until you know what happens to it" rule (p. 7 of the Core Set Rulebook) and is thus not in your hand to be used for Quinn's character power.
That won't answer all of these types of questions, of course. Also, while considering these types of interactions, don't forget the next paragraph about needing to follow instructions that send cards elsewhere even if they've ended up in a deck.
Yeah, that's trickier than it looks. I think you're right, Yewstance, and it doesn't add Acrobatics in combat... but I'm not sure, and my initial instinct - and RAI-sense - say it should.
In any case, Acrobatics would be added to his checks to acquire (or any other Acrobatics non-combat checks that somehow invoked Finesse) so you could use such a card on those checks.
OK that's indeed tricky. Waiting for official answer.
For the record, I agree I think the intent is that he can buff his combat checks with powers that improve Stealth or Acrobatics checks. It seems thematic, and it also perfectly works well with the "Class Deck" Quinn is given as well as the Blackjack Role provided in the same set.
It also seems odd that he could use some stealth-improving effect when acquiring a Rapier, but not when using a Rapier.
I'm also a bit bothered by the suggestion that "if you roll X, discard this" weapons are supposed to be set aside - though it does seem to fit the RAW - because that's not how it's ever worked in the App and Core explicitly tried to remove how frequently the 'set aside' rules had to be used because it was presumably non-intuitive. Oh well, I guess I'll be playing them as Set Aside for now.
The "Skill you chose from a list" section of the rulebook still needs to be clarified either way. If Combat isn't a skill, then how does the Combat trait get added to your check (since it doesn't seem to be clarified anywhere)? If it is a skill, then I'll further look into side-effects of such a ruling, because I suspect it will lead to some unusual outcomes. Either one will also affect Quinn - and several other characters.
If the "Skill you chose from a list" is supposed to refer to "the skill you chose to use from any option provided by a power", then there's other unusual side-effects this can cause, too, and it contradicts previously established rulings on this forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill you chose from the list unambiguously means the thing printed on the card/storybook that is having you make the check. Y’all are reading way too much into that. The rulebook even gives the example “For example, if you choose combat from the list, ...” immediately after that rule which makes it (imo) very clear.
(Still trying to puzzle through RAW for the Saber, but “set aside” is definitely not the answer because you don’t set aside cards when you use reveal or banish powers)
Chief Technical Officer
|
Skill you chose from the list unambiguously means the thing printed on the card/storybook that is having you make the check. Y’all are reading way too much into that. The rulebook even gives the example “For example, if you choose combat from the list, ...” immediately after that rule which makes it (imo) very clear.
Yes. (And choosing Combat for the example was not mere happenstance.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quinn plays a Double Chicken Saber +1 (if you roll a 1 on a d8, it gets discarded). He reveals the saber, then recharges/reloads that same saber to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics. He rolls a 1 on a d8, so the saber is supposed to be discarded - but it's already been recharged/reloaded. So what happens to the saber?
First, I think there's an issue with Quinn's power. It says "For your check that invokes Finesse, you may recharge (□ or reload) a card to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics or Stealth, and add the card’s level."
The "for your check" wording is used during the Determine Which Skill You're Using action. ("Some powers allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of check. These powers say things like “For your combat check, use Dexterity or Ranged.” You may use only one such power to determine which skill you’re using.") So as written, you can't use the Saber's "for your check" power and then Quinn's "for your check" power. But I'm pretty sure that's not the intent—as written, it would be usable for little more than acquiring Finesse boons that have Acrobatics or Stealth checks to acquire.
I suspect the design intent was in fact what you are trying to do: play a Finesse weapon to determine the skill, then use this power to swap it out. The rules on that say: "Other powers allow you to use one skill instead of another. These powers say things like 'when you attempt a Perception check, you may use Knowledge' or 'use Strength instead of Diplomacy.'" These powers are not subject to the "you may use only one" limit.
So I think this power should read "When you attempt a check that invokes Finesse, you may recharge (□ or reload) a card to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics or Stealth, and add the card’s level." I'm confirming that, but the rest of this post assumes that that's the case.
---
So the first thing you do is reveal the saber. Do the "set aside" rules happen here? They say "Sometimes you don’t know what action to take [when you play a card] and must leave a card set aside until you do." The Saber's power says "reveal... you may additionally discard." Discarding is something you may do after and in addition to revealing, not instead of revealing, so there's no question here: you're revealing it.
Then—while still in the Determine Which Skill You're Using action—you use Quinn's power: you recharge (or reload) the Saber, so now it's in your deck.
Unfortunately, by the time you get to the Play Cards and Use Powers that Affect Your Check action, which is when you could use the Saber's "you may additionally discard" power, the Saber is no longer in your hand, so you can't additionally discard it to add another 1d6.
So what about that other text on the Saber: "If any d8 rolled on this check is a 1, treat it as a 3, then discard this card. If the check is against a monster, you may use the result for any subsequent combat checks against it."?
On page 7, Playing Cards says that when you play a card, "You must do everything the power says when possible." And a bit further on, "Cards often have instructions that you need to follow after you play the card; follow these instructions even if the card is no longer in your hand (even if the card is out of your sight, such as in the vault or in your deck)." So you have to finish executing that power, even if the card is in your deck. If you roll a 1 on that d8, you'll need to fetch the card back out of your deck and discard it.
Thanks Vic! A few more questions...
You said you still needed to follow the instructions about the Saber - what if it was shuffled in? This could happen with some knives summoned by MM Simoun, for example; do you implicitly search your deck for it, and so it will cause a shuffle? If you just recharged/reloaded it, do you just take advantage of your knowledge to discard it without necessitating a deck shuffle?
Also, even with your proposed rewording of Quinn's power, it does seem that a check to acquire a rapier could be an Acrobatics and a Knowledge check (as well as Intelligence); but a check to fight using a rapier would only be a Knowledge/Intelligence check, correct? It seems slightly unintuitive that Acrobatics/Stealth boosting effects will help him acquire boons to fight with, but not to actually fight with those boons (as long as he's using his core combat skill), but the rules seem rather clear on that.
And at last, is it safe to assume that "Combat" is not a "skill", but it's treated like a skill for that section of the rulebook, notably in how and when it's added as a trait to checks?
So you'd get full information as to your deck's order... that's interesting, and I think gives an unexpected benefit to specific powers.
Have fun at GenCon, everyone who's going!
And at last, is it safe to assume that "Combat" is not a "skill", but it's treated like a skill for that section of the rulebook, notably in how and when it's added as a trait to checks?
Combat is neither a skill nor a trait. A combat check is merely one of two types of checks, the other being a non-combat check (no, the rulebook never defines them as a "type" though the previous editions of the rulebooks did refer to them as such). And I'm using the term "type" to distinguish combat/non-combat from the purpose of a check (e.g., to defeat, to acquire, to close, etc.).
Most monsters and many other cards call for a combat check. Typically, when you attempt a combat check, you'll use a power that tells you what skill to use for your combat check; if you aren't using such a power, use your Strength or Melee skill for your combat check.
So if a check to defeat/acquire is a combat check, you choose the skill based on the powers available to you via your character, role, and boon cards; or you default to Strength/Melee. The check then invokes the traits of the skill that you are using, and any skill that it references (e.g., Melee usually refers to either Strength or Dexterity, Arcane usually refers to either Intelligence or Charisma). Combat is not a skill that you choose and is not a trait invoked by a check, but provides a number of skill options to you (most commonly Strength, Dexterity, Melee, Arcane, and Divine).
Another key indicator of this is that Paizo/Lone Shark have established a pattern with regard to how powers are phrased - skills and traits are always capitalized. An example can be seen on the Lini Wild Whisperer role card:
For your combat check, you may bury (□ or discard) a card or recharge an Animal ally to use Survival + 1d4 (□ 1d6) plus the card's level and add the Animal and Melee traits.
The traits "Animal" and "Melee" are capitalized, as is the skill "Survival" whereas "combat" is not capitalized.
This pattern holds true on every card in every AP/deck. The only time you see "combat" capitalized is when it is the first word of a sentence or when it is in all caps (such as on the check to acquire/defeat); and this latter part is where the confusion comes in, evidently.
Looking at the relevant powers for both versions of Mavaro:
You may display a card to gain all skills listed on the check to acquire for that card equal to your Intelligence skill until the end of the turn. (□ You may also add any of that card’s traits to your checks during this turn.) At the end of the turn, recharge the displayed cards.
Play with the top card of your deck faceup. You gain all skills that could be used to acquire that card equal to your Knowledge skill. (□ You may also add any of that card's traits to your checks.)
In both cases, Mavaro gains all of the skills that could be used to acquire the displayed/faceup card equal to his Intelligence/Knowledge. For those cards with non-combat checks to acquire, the relevant skills are listed. It's worth noting that "non-combat" is not a skill, just as "combat" is not a skill. Regardless, you won't see "non-combat" listed under a card's checks to acquire, so it doesn't create the same confusion.
If Mavaro has the Lucky Starknife displayed/faceup, he gains the Strength, Dexterity, Acrobatics, Melee, and Ranged skills equal to his Intelligence/Knowledge.
If Mavaro has the Viking Shieldmaster displayed/faceup, he gains Charisma and Diplomacy equal to his Intelligence/Knowledge, but does not gain "combat" since it's not a skill.
So the question isn't whether or not Mavaro gains the "Combat" skill when he has a card with "COMBAT" listed under it's check to acquire. Rather, the question is whether or not Mavaro gains any of the skills normally associated with combat in those instances. I've listed the six most common above, but the nature of the game allows for the possibility of others. It seems unlikely to me that Mavaro would be granted all such skills, whether the basic six or expanded to include any others. I see two possible outcomes. The first, and more strict, is that "COMBAT" doesn't grant any additional skills to Mavaro (so he would only gain any skills that are explicitly named). The second is a bit more liberal and would allow Mavaro to gain the default combat skills, Strength and Melee, when his displayed/faceup card lists "COMBAT" as a CHECK TO ACQUIRE.
Getting back to Quinn and the Double Chicken Saber, his intellectual abilities might enhance his non-combat checks, but that doesn't guarantee that they're going to significantly enhance his ability to actually physically use boons in combat. This is a case where I think we just need to allow for abstractions with regard to his abilities in acquiring the weapon versus his abilities actually using the weapon in combat.
And at last, is it safe to assume that "Combat" is not a "skill", but it's treated like a skill for that section of the rulebook, notably in how and when it's added as a trait to checks?Combat is neither a skill nor a trait. A combat check is merely one of two types of checks, the other being a non-combat check (no, the rulebook never defines them as a "type" though the previous editions of the rulebooks did refer to them as such). And I'm using the term "type" to distinguish combat/non-combat from the purpose of a check (e.g., to defeat, to acquire, to close, etc.).
This used to be the official line, and I thought it was dumb. I still think it's dumb. The new rulebook lends a lot of credence to combat being an actual skill now, which is far more elegant rules-wise and closes up a lot of loopholes. Take the exact quote above combined with the rule "The skill you chose from the list" and the example "For example, if you choose combat from the list" -- If everything on the list is a skill, and you can choose combat, then by deduction combat is a skill. There is literally no downside to making it a skill, and a ton of downsides for making it some special not-a-skill thing in terms of rules baggage.
I'll also be the first to note that combat's status as a skill or not-skill is not relevant to any currently-printed power. It's purely an academic exercise. I don't want to re-hash any of these arguments, so look for previous posts by myself and Irgy on the topic (Irgy had some very cogent arguments towards making combat a skill in a previous thread and I'd recommend checking them out).
Whether Mavaro gains combat or not is irrelevant because of the rule you quoted: "if you aren't using such a power, use your Strength or Melee skill for your combat check." -- unless you play a card to Determine Which Skill You're Using for your combat check (which will tell you what skills to use), you're locked into using Strength or Melee. So, even if Mavaro explicitly has the Combat skill, he can't actually make use of it.
So you'd get full information as to your deck's order... that's interesting, and I think gives an unexpected benefit to specific powers.
Have fun at GenCon, everyone who's going!
Only if it was shuffled, and the card happened to be the last one you looked at. If you recharged or reloaded, you know exactly where the card is so it'd be cheating to look through the other cards of your deck. If you recharged it and then recharged other cards, I'd expect you to start digging from the bottom of your deck (where the recharge order is already known) rather than the top, so again no additional information gleaned.
If your deck was shuffled, then I'd expect you'd pick one side of the deck to start looking from and stop looking once you find the card in question. No shuffling afterwards, so you do know the order of part of your deck. This matches what Vic said for top blessing of the hourglass: you start looking from the top until you find a blessing, then put all the non-blessings back in the same order.
What I find interesting is what happens if something causes you to bury or banish the dagger before the roll, and you roll a 1? Do you pull it back out of the vault/CD box or your buried pile and put it into your discards? That was the conundrum I was having when trying to formulate my initial answer; I don't see any rules support that says "dig through your deck to discard the card" is any different from discarding from your buried pile or a card that was already banished. In fact, the rule that tells you to grab it from your deck explicitly mentions the vault as well. So, I believe RAW, you would un-banish or un-bury the card and put it in your discards. This won't be relevant in the majority of cases, but is a neat party trick.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I think this power should read "When you attempt a check that invokes Finesse, you may recharge (□ or reload) a card to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics or Stealth, and add the card’s level." I'm confirming that, but the rest of this post assumes that that's the case.
That's certainly what I've assumed when playing Quinn (which is why he has a Sai - a Finesse weapon that lists Acrobatics as one of the skill choices).
The other point where "combat" creates confusion is when powers or rules refer to "Combat damage." This is the only instance where we see "Combat" capitalized in powers, but the rules refer to it as a "type" of damage (where other "types" of damage include Mental, Fire, Cold, etc.). The confusion is created here because those other types of damage correspond with traits, but the causality is that associated traits can lead to types of damage (similar names, different things). The rules don't refer to damage having/invoking traits, however. Nevertheless, the commonality of most types of damage [other than Combat damage] with trait names contributes to the overall confusion with regards to "combat."
I'm pretty sure you're talking about this discussion (linked to the first of Irgy's relevant posts), though I dispute any claims that cogent arguments were made for combat being a skill/trait. The arguments were based on a premise that has never been established, and which contravenes the wording of the rules (original rules, FAQed rules created as a result of the discussion in question, and the current Core Set rules that are derived from the FAQed rules). The argument also goes against something Vic stated in this topic, where the powers that be were "talking about explicitly making it [combat] NOT a skill." That statement allows for two conclusions, and interpretation will often depend upon one's bias.
- The first is that combat is a skill and the powers that be want to make it not a skill.
- The second is that combat is not a skill, but that isn't explicit.
Both of those discussions led to both the FAQ (see the first linked discussion) and the current rules wording. I can't speak for the powers that be in this, but the outcome (the rules wording) implies (to me) that they felt that the rules were clear enough and they didn't need to explicitly state that combat isn't a skill because the examples and templates make that clear enough. The obvious counterargument, for those that subscribe to the first interpretation of Vic's statement, is that the powers that be have decided that combat is a skill/trait and shall remain so. The place where this argument falls flat (in my opinion) is that the rulebook and rules wordings don't support it. This discussion demonstrates that that assumption (whether for or against combat being a skill/trait) may be incorrect and they need to explicitly state that combat is/isn't a skill.
I'll also be the first to note that combat's status as a skill or not-skill is not relevant to any currently-printed power. It's purely an academic exercise. I don't want to re-hash any of these arguments, so look for previous posts by myself and Irgy on the topic (Irgy had some very cogent arguments towards making combat a skill in a previous thread and I'd recommend checking them out).
Whether Mavaro gains combat or not is irrelevant because of the rule you quoted: "if you aren't using such a power, use your Strength or Melee skill for your combat check." -- unless you play a card to Determine Which Skill You're Using for your combat check (which will tell you what skills to use), you're locked into using Strength or Melee. So, even if Mavaro explicitly has the Combat skill, he can't actually make use of it.
Yeah, I actually was misremembering Mavaro's power about adding traits to your check (I wasn't inferring that gaining Combat as a skill was meaningful; just that adding it as a trait to your check would be). So nevermind my complaint there.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Previous discussions about whether combat is a skill or not have ended with more things being in question than there were at the start, regardless of which answer we chose. My strategy for Core was therefore to ensure that nothing relies on the answer. I think we got there. If it turns out there are a couple of cards that care, the fix will most likely be making those cards stop caring.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Quinn plays a Double Chicken Saber +1 (if you roll a 1 on a d8, it gets discarded). He reveals the saber, then recharges/reloads that same saber to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics. He rolls a 1 on a d8, so the saber is supposed to be discarded - but it's already been recharged/reloaded. So what happens to the saber?First, I think there's an issue with Quinn's power. It says "For your check that invokes Finesse, you may recharge (□ or reload) a card to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics or Stealth, and add the card’s level."
The "for your check" wording is used during the Determine Which Skill You're Using action. ("Some powers allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of check. These powers say things like “For your combat check, use Dexterity or Ranged.” You may use only one such power to determine which skill you’re using.") So as written, you can't use the Saber's "for your check" power and then Quinn's "for your check" power. But I'm pretty sure that's not the intent—as written, it would be usable for little more than acquiring Finesse boons that have Acrobatics or Stealth checks to acquire.
I suspect the design intent was in fact what you are trying to do: play a Finesse weapon to determine the skill, then use this power to swap it out. The rules on that say: "Other powers allow you to use one skill instead of another. These powers say things like 'when you attempt a Perception check, you may use Knowledge' or 'use Strength instead of Diplomacy.'" These powers are not subject to the "you may use only one" limit.
So I think this power should read "When you attempt a check that invokes Finesse, you may recharge (□ or reload) a card to use Knowledge instead of Acrobatics or Stealth, and add the card’s level." I'm confirming that, but the rest of this post assumes that that's the case.