Simple question, today. Based on a previous ruling that rather startled me.
□ At the start of your check, you may draw a card. If you do not play it by the end of the check, recharge it and suffer the scourge Poisoned.
Am I correct in reading that you still recharge the card if it's no longer in your hand (if you didn't play it)? The most common reason this would occur is if you drew it, then discarded it to Fumbus' "main" power to add 1d4 to his check.
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.
I think that the intent is pretty simple - you must play the card for its power; and if you don't play the card for its power on your check, you suffer the consequences.
Discarding (or recharging) the card for Fumbus's "main" power isn't playing the card for its power.
If you banish the card for its own power, you've played it. If you banish the card for some other card's power, then you haven't played it.
If you don't play the card for its own power, then per Vic's response (about another character's power), then it looks like you "get" to recharge the card and suffer the Poisoned scourge.
What sequence of events are you envisioning where the drawn card would be banished, but not played for its own power?
Oh, the main intent is clear; the oddity is how easily the 'recharge' can be turned into an advantage with Fumbus' main power, and how powerful that is.
What sequence of events are you envisioning where the drawn card would be banished, but not played for its own power?
Mostly hour powers that let you banish a boon to reroll your dice, and there's a couple of (admittedly obscure) cards that let you banish a boon from your hand for benefits, like "Reveal this card and banish a boon to X". Not common; but since you even recharge a card if it's sent back to the vault (as per my quoted text) you can technically cheat some Banish effects this way, as long as it's not a part of playing the card you're banishing.
============================================
Anyway, I must admit that the fact that a discarded card (from your power) gets recharged makes this a really good power (admittedly, Fumbus' other role is also crazy good). Since he can discard any card to add 1d4 and the Acid/Fire/Poison trait to any local check (with the right power feats), and adds 1d6 (or up to 2d6) for his checks invoking Acid/Fire/Poison...
If you don't mind the Poisoned scourge, this power easily is converted to "Recharge the top card of your deck to add 1d4+1d6 to your check". The poisoned scourge doesn't stack, and it's not exactly crippling when compared to the upside (even ignoring the fact that it's not necessarily hard to just clear it just before you end your turn).
You can pretty quickly learn the full order of your deck by just endlessly recharging it, and add an average of +6 to all of your checks at a very low cost. I find it surprising that it so easily trounces the downside of Fumbus' "discard a card" power.
I'd go so far as to say that this power is too strong as-written, in my opinion. The (easily-allayed) Poisoned scourge seems a tiny cost for free +1d4+1d6 to your checks whilst also quickly gathering perfect knowledge of your deck order .
Yep I would have preferred something like:
□ At the start of your check, you may draw a card. If you did not play it and it is still in your hand by the end of the check, recharge it and suffer the scourge Poisoned.
A written today, not only it can fuel Fumbus's power for the price of a recharge but it seems it is also a handy damage reduction : if you discard that card as damage... it will be recharged.
A bit too strong I agree.
I don't think that the "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" rule comes into play here.
In that rule, "the card" (bolded above) is referring to the card that was actually played played (italicized above). In this case, that's the character card and not the drawn card, so this rule doesn't apply.
And if that rule doesn't apply, then "recharge it" becomes an impossible instruction and you ignore it. So if you don't play the card for its power but the card is no longer in your hand, then all that that happens is that you become Poisoned. The card stays wherever you put it.
(I just had a conversation about that rule a couple days ago. It's a strange rule that I'm not really sure has a valid use anymore, since other rules [recovery, set aside until you know what happens to the card] have supplanted it. I was told it may originally have been intended for cards like Tidepool Dragon.)
I think MorkXII has it here. If you've discarded or buried that drawn card for some reason, then at the end of the check you ignore the part about recharging it and suffer the scourge.
Ah, fair. It seems a very prescriptive reading of the rules does suggest that this is a special case because you're using a power that's interacting with another card, rather than a power on a card itself.
As an aside; if the rule is removed that functionally affects some cards. The Chicken Sabre example in the thread I quoted in my original post, for example. It does seem to be an oddly placed rule, though - as mentioned in my original post: the rulings based on it surprised me.
I think MorkXII has it here. If you've discarded or buried that drawn card for some reason, then at the end of the check you ignore the part about recharging it and suffer the scourge.
Hi Hawk.
Ok but then can someone explain me when "follow these instructions even if the card is no longer in your hand" (which is a plain rule in Core) would apply and when it would not. It is really not easy for a non native-English speaker to understand when.
I think MorkXII has it here. If you've discarded or buried that drawn card for some reason, then at the end of the check you ignore the part about recharging it and suffer the scourge.Hi Hawk.
Ok but then can someone explain me when "follow these instructions even if the card is no longer in your hand" (which is a plain rule in Core) would apply and when it would not. It is really not easy for a non native-English speaker to understand when.
I was going to try to explain... but as I read and re-read the rulebook very closely, and re-read Vic's arguments and Mork and Hawkmoon's points... I've come to the conclusion that there's a big, completely unresolved issue here. And I'm now highly confident that Mork and Hawkmoon have contradicted Vic's ruling here.
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).
This rules fragment instructs you to follow instructions on a played card no matter where it ends up, but it doesn't actually say to override impossible actions, so we need to better understand what that means. This is very difficult for me to communicate. But I will try, with an example
Let's say you play a Hypothetical Boon that says...
Reveal and discard another card to explore. At the end of your turn, if the discarded card was Alchemical, recharge it.
Obviously, it's bad design because it's willfully unintuitive. But RAW it's an important case study because it's not far removed from how Fumbus' listed power works. Here's my best attempt at untangling it.
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).
Sometimes you don’t know what action to take and must leave a
card set aside until you do.
If you are instructed to play, reveal, display, reload, discard, recharge,
bury, banish, or otherwise manipulate a card, that card must come from
your hand unless you are activating a power on a displayed card, in
which case you activate it with the displayed card instead
But this means we have a problem!
Which of these rules - or any other rule - says that you shouldn't recharge the card if it's no longer in your discards (like if something caused you to bury your discards)? Quote part 1 is clearly in reference to Hypothetical Boon, not the card you've discarded with it. Quote part 2 doesn't apply. Quote part 3 is overridden by everything as per the Golden Rules.
In fact, can you even recharge a card from your discards if the card never says to recharge it from your DISCARDS specifically, as this doesn't?
Based on Vic's ruling with Double Chicken Saber, it seems like, no matter what happens to the discarded card (as long as it's Alchemical), you should search it out and recharge it, as per Vic's statement which I originally quoted. But there's no reason that this same thing shouldn't also apply to Fumbus' power, unless I'm missing something.
IN SUMMARY: I think the argument of both Mork and Hawkmoon might be right RAW, but wrong by Vic's ruling, and it hinges upon this...
And if that rule doesn't apply, then "recharge it" becomes an impossible instruction and you ignore it.
But is it an impossible instruction? If recharging a card that's not in your hand (when a power is telling you to do so) is an impossible instruction, then pre-Core Staff of Healing or Aegis of Recovery would be impossible instructions. Seelah's power to discard cards from her deck would be an impossible instruction.
The reason why we understand those powers to be okay and Fumbus' power not to be is because they specify a zone, however. The rulebook does say that you have to discard/recharge/bury (etc) cards from your hand by default (see the quoted Rulebook Part 3 above), so we're suggesting that it becomes 'impossible' to do when they're no longer in your hand. But in that case, Vic's original ruling with Double Chicken Saber +1 becomes contradicted by the rules, and he's the ultimate authority here.
His argument leveraged that "you still follow instructions given even if the card giving it changes zone", and I'm not denying that. But Mork and Hawkmoon both just said that - whether you're following instructions or not, you ignore them if they they're impossible (notably, a card is not in your hand and you are told to recharge/discard it). These are conflicting viewpoints, and must be resolved to understand how a lot of cards truly function.
The more I read my post above the less happy I am with it, so I'm giving one more shot to summarize my opinion. I'm pretty certain that Vic's ruling about Double Chicken Saber +1 conflicts with Mork and Hawkmoon's rulings here.
I don't believe the fact that the Double Chicken Saber is being played and the drawn card from Fumbus isn't actually the thing being played is relevant.
It comes down to this question...
"If you are instructed to play, reveal, display, reload, discard, recharge, bury, banish, or otherwise manipulate a card by a character power or a card power, do you ignore the power if the card is no longer in your hand?"
Vic relied on the following rulebook quote to answer this...
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).
But nothing in that quoted rulebook paragraph says to overrule "impossible" actions. They just say don't forget to process them even if the card is moved. I don't believe this rulebook quote should cause Double Chicken Saber +1 to behave differently to Fumbus' quoted power.
I think that Vic's ruling with Double Chicken Saber +1 was wrong. If you are not told - explicitly - to discard/recharge or otherwise manipulate a card from somewhere besides your hand, it becomes an impossible instruction to attempt to do so. I actually can't find a meaningful reason why played cards or character powers should be handled differently, because the only relevant rules are talking about following instructions, not about overruling impossible ones - or defining what is possible.
This does cause other consequences, however, such as letting Drelm and Simoun keep their cards. And I completely agree that IF Drelm and Simoun can't "Keep" their drawn cards from being banished, then Fumbus can't "stop" cards from being recharged (even if they're from discards), contrary to Mork and Hawkmoon's statements.
This is an issue that requires errata, in my opinion.
I'm trying to figure out that other thread about the Double Chicken Sabre, and I'm not seeing the contradiction. Can you summarize?
This seems like an exact situation that the "follow the instructions even if the card isn't in your hand anymore" rule is intended for - when a card itself has an instruction to perform an action and the card isn't in your hand anymore, you still have to follow that instruction. If another power causes you to manipulate that card in your hand, but its not in your hand anymore, that "follow the instructions" rule doesn't apply, and it is impossible.
I don't have time right now to look at Drelm or Simoun, but I'll try to look at them later.
I'm trying to figure out that other thread about the Double Chicken Sabre, and I'm not seeing the contradiction. Can you summarize?
This seems like an exact situation that the "follow the instructions even if the card isn't in your hand anymore" rule is intended for - when a card itself has an instruction to perform an action and the card isn't in your hand anymore, you still have to follow that instruction. If another power causes you to manipulate that card in your hand, but its not in your hand anymore, that "follow the instructions" rule doesn't apply, and it is impossible.
I'm finding it hard to summarize, or even verbalize effectively. But one last try and then I'll step out and let someone explain it to me.
Consider my Hypothetical Boon above; the Follow the Instructions paragraph intuitively describes that Hypothetical Boon's powers should still occur no matter what happens to the Hypothetical Boon, but I'm not seeing where or why it overrules that "when you manipulate a card, it must come from your hand".
The rule tells you to follow instructions, nothing else - it doesn't tell you to otherwise overrule anything.
So the question is; why do you follow Double Chicken Saber's instructions to be discarded (when it's no longer in your hand), but you do not follow Fumbus' instructions to recharge your drawn card (when it's no longer in your hand)?
This is a case of what is (or is not) an impossible instruction, not about whether or not you were instructed to do so, as far as I can interpret. You're being instructed to do something either way, whether you're "[following] instructions even if [a card is] not in your hand", or just using a character power that's right in front of you.
I don't have time right now to look at Drelm or Simoun, but I'll try to look at them later.
Quoted below.
□ When you encounter a card, before you act, you may recharge a card that has the Abadar (□ or Divine) trait to draw a random weapon, armor, or item from the box. After you act, banish that card.
□ When you encounter a card, before you act, you may recharge a card to draw a random weapon that has the Knife and Ranged (□ and Magic) traits from the box. After you act, banish that weapon.
Do you still "Banish the card" if it's no longer in your hand? According to the Fumbus ruling you and Hawkmoon gave, the answer appears to be "No". According to previous rulings (and more in-line with the Double Chicken Saber reasoning, though this doesn't involve playing a card), the answer appears to be "Yes".
Hmm. The intent for Drelm and Simoun is likely to banish the card regardless of where it is. In terms of rules, we have two rules that apply here:
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).
If you are instructed to play, reveal, display, reload, discard, recharge, bury, banish, or otherwise manipulate a card, that card must come from your hand unless you are activating a power on a displayed card, in which case you activate it with the displayed card instead.
In the first quote, we are told that we follow all instructions on the card we play, no matter where it is. This isn't super relevant for character powers since the character card is always available to be looked at.
In the second quote, we're told that an instruction to recharge/banish/etc. a card means that the card must come from our hand unless we're activating a power on a displayed card. Note, however, the wording here. This quote refers to cases where you are instructed to do things with an unspecified card (due to the use of an indefinite article). It notably does not apply if you are instructed to perform an action with a specific card -- if it did, all sorts of things would break, such as trigger barriers that banish themselves if examined.
So, Drelm and Simoun both specify a card to banish. Therefore, you banish that card wherever it happens to be, finding it if necessary. This aligns with Vic's ruling.
Fumbus also tells you to recharge a specific card. As such, RAW it falls in line with the above two powers and you would recharge it from wherever it happens to be, finding it if necessary. If this is not intended, then Fumbus would need an FAQ to specify that the card is recharged from his hand only.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Skizzerz is right: the key to the "out of sight" rule is that it applies to cards you play. The reason it exists is to tell you that once you start executing a power, you need to finish it, even if the power itself isn't visible anymore.
We first recognized this as a result of this discussion, though it didn't actually mention the card that put us over the edge, which is the Wrath weapon Blackaxe:
For your combat check, recharge this card to use your Strength or Melee skill + 1d12 plus the scenario’s adventure deck number. If proficient with weapons, you may additionally discard this card to add your Strength die and the Acid trait. If the bane has the Plant or Vermin trait, add an additional 1d12. If this card has the Corrupted trait, after the encounter, roll 1d8; on a 1, banish this card, then summon and encounter the henchman Fiendish Tree.
At the time the bolded bit happens, Blackaxe is either at the bottom of your deck or in your discards. Once we recognized this, we realized that there are, in fact, quite a lot of cards that go somewhere where you might not be able to read them before you finish doing what they say. So this rule makes sure that "I can't see it anymore" is not an excuse for not doing it.
The character powers you're talking about don't have this problem—the text that's telling you what to do remains fully visible, so this rule does not apply to them.
So because the card that would be manipulated is not the card being played, recharging it from a non-hand zone (unless explicitly stated in the power) is an impossible instruction and should be ignored. So Fumbus cannot recharge a card from his discards because he didn't play it with the quoted power.
Shouldn't Simoun or Drelm be FAQed, then? By that logic, if they discard, recharge or otherwise remove their drawn item/armor/weapon/knife from their hand, then they get to keep it forever.
I think Vic was weighing in that the "out of sight" rule isn't relevant to this discussion without speaking one way or the other about the actual question posed by the thread -- possibly because it'd require more research or speaking with Mike and Keith about design intent.
Although, it does make me more confident that the answer I stated is correct. Blackaxe says "banish this card". Barriers in locations instruct you to banish them sometimes as well. It's understood in the Blackaxe case that you banish it even if it's in your discards or deck from the clarifications posted on the forums. In the barriers-in-locations case, nobody even second-guesses the fact that, yes, you do banish the barrier even though it isn't in your hand.
The only way for both of those to work within the framework of the second rule I quoted is for that rule to only apply to generic or unspecified cards. We need that rule to tell us that damage is discarded from our hand, or that the cards we need to recharge to close Garden of Symmetry comes from our hand, or that the spell we discard to fuel Staff cards comes from our hand, or a myriad other things. But, in all of those cases, it doesn't tell you to discard or otherwise manipulate a specific card, it's always just "a card" or "a Spell" or the like.
If we're told to do something with a specific card, we do it with that card, no matter where that card currently is. So, Simoun and Drelm banish the card no matter where it currently is. Fumbus recharges that card no matter where it currently is.
Well that makes Fumbus' power incredibly good. I'll take +1d4+1d6 to all of my checks (plus adding information about my deck) for the low cost of a single Poisoned Scourge (which is basically just -1 hand size).