Playing as Ranzak, who has the power "When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (☐3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location", does drawing a card from the vault trigger his ability?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zeragamba wrote: Playing as Ranzak, who has the power "When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (☐3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location", does drawing a card from the vault trigger his ability? No. "Acquire" is a game term in which you succeed a boon's check to acquire (or other requirements to acquire it if the check to acquire says "see below"). Getting boons by other means don't count as acquiring for game purposes.
Whipstitch wrote: Zeragamba wrote: Playing as Ranzak, who has the power "When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (☐3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location", does drawing a card from the vault trigger his ability? No. "Acquire" is a game term in which you succeed a boon's check to acquire (or other requirements to acquire it if the check to acquire says "see below"). Getting boons by other means don't count as acquiring for game purposes. One of my fellow players is a self-described "grammer nazi" and points out that the word "Gain" in the acquire definition is not defined. They are also looking for a ruling for the Core Set as well, not from older editions. Because Draw is a card from (effectively) any location to your hand, that has overlap with acquire.
Regarding the OP, you could share this post from the guy who designed the game.
That post is referenced in this post in which two of the most trusted community advisors spell out what counts as "acquiring" a card.
What acquire means didn't change with the revised rules. This is why nothing in the online or Core Set Rulebook conversion guides reference any changes in this regard.
Unfortunately, players like the one you describe are rarely satisfied, so I wish you luck.
Whipstitch wrote: Regarding the OP, you could share this post from the guy who designed the game.
That post is referenced in this post in which two of the most trusted community advisors spell out what counts as "acquiring" a card.
What acquire means didn't change with the revised rules. This is why nothing in the online or Core Set Rulebook conversion guides reference any changes in this regard.
Unfortunately, players like the one you describe are rarely satisfied, so I wish you luck.
Ya, it's going to be impossible then.
They've stated that they're not going to use any ruling from anyone unless it's an offical ruling made after 2018. Dispite me giving them Chad Brown's 2013 comment, Mike Selinker's 2013 comment, and Vic Wertz's 2017 comment
Are you that desperate for players?
If it was my game, and I was the box runner, I'd tell them, "Accept my ruling or find another game." If I wasn't, I'd walk. That kind of player sucks the life out of a game.
Whipstitch wrote: Are you that desperate for players?
If it was my game, and I was the box runner, I'd tell them, "Accept my ruling or find another game." If I wasn't, I'd walk. That kind of player sucks the life out of a game.
We've been playing through all of the sets, and have been for a year now (Started with S&S, Played WotR, and now went back to Runelord with the Core Rules) We have a third player who is playing as Ranzak and this is where the Draw/Acquire issue has arrisen.
Ranzak is already broken. I question anyone who'd argue he needed to be more broken.
Whipstitch wrote: Ranzak is already broken. I question anyone who'd argue he needed to be more broken. Hence why I'm trying to reign it in by trying to prove draw is not acquire.
At this point, it's boiled down to needing a ruling from God, or at least a direct offical ruling from Paizo. Espcially since they are more or less ignoring that "if isn't called something then it isn't that thing" guideline because gain is undefined, and that they do not follow the idea that PFCG is a keyword based game.
That's quite the racket. "I'll only accept an official ruling from Paizo. What's that? Paizo doesn't support the game anymore? Aw, gee."
I feel sorry for you.
Well, looks like the third player was able to break the stalemate and resolve the situation.
Zeragamba wrote: Well, looks like the third player was able to break the stalemate and resolve the situation. Great!
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion
|
