Before you act, Warchanter vs Sinspawn

[Brainwave]

Both the Goblin Warchanter (as has been discussed in other threads) and the Wrathful Sinspawn text have before you act rolls. The Warchanter makes everyone roll as per that other thread but the Sinspawn does not.

 

Maybe there's a reason why there should be a difference but I don't see it.

[ArchSenex]

That same argument applies to LOTS of cards.  Why doesn't every character recharge encountering a Bandit?  It's so weird that people say that "you applies to all players" for the warchanter, but nowhere else.  Everywhere else in the game, the cards specifically refer to "all players" if "all players" are supposed to be affected.

 

The warchanter's power should either be changed to "Before you act, all characters must make a wisdom 8 check.  Any character that fails may not play spells with the attack trait or weapons" or it should be changed to be in line with all other cards (where You = The character encountering the card / reading the card).

[Brainwave]

That same argument applies to LOTS of cards.  Why doesn't every character recharge encountering a Bandit?  It's so weird that people say that "you applies to all players" for the warchanter, but nowhere else.  Everywhere else in the game, the cards specifically refer to "all players" if "all players" are supposed to be affected.

 

The warchanter's power should either be changed to "Before you act, all characters must make a wisdom 8 check.  Any character that fails may not play spells with the attack trait or weapons" or it should be changed to be in line with all other cards (where You = The character encountering the card / reading the card).

Couldn't agree more, after so much response about the Warchanter supposedly playing as intended, I wanted to bring up a specific counter example with fairly identical text. But yeah, there's definitely others as well.

[ArchSenex]

Cross-Posting info:

 

I did a little digging, and it turns out that the card is just phrased horribly.

 

According to the clarification, "You" refers to whoever has encountered a triggering condition.  So when a card says "Before you encounter Bob, roll X" since the encountering is the trigger, it's clear.

 

Goblin Warchanter has TWO major issues.  #1, it doesn't list the trigger, and #2 it doesn't list any expiration.  It should read "Before the encounter, each player rolls..." to be consistent with pretty much every card, so that the roll becomes the trigger condition.  Also, it should say may not play on that check, rather than effectively implying forever.

 

There are other cards that are poorly phrased too, like Wrathful Sinspawn, which is "Before the encounter, succeed..." which ALSO has no explicit trigger.  It should be "Before you encounter" which is how it behaves.  Basically, each triggering condition should be required to list who is being referred to, and that sets the scope of "you" for the effect.  However, a lot of cards don't.

 

I would use the fact that most cards explicitly say "all players" to say that the interpretation should still be only the encounterer unless the text is changed.  The "You" clarification seems ham-handed and creates more problems than it resolved (it was in the Skull and Shackles clarification, so it might also come up more in that set... which makes me worry (I haven't played S&S))

[zeroth_hour]

Wrathful Sinspawn doesn't have a "you" in it (other than "Before you act", but that's a step keyword)

 

Bandit is the same, it also only has the "before you act" keyword.

 

You could complain about the "you" applying to something like the Ghoul ("If undefeated, reset your hand and end your turn"), but the rules specifically say they only apply to anyone who does that thing (and only the person who encountered it could defeat it or undefeat it) or Pidget ("Before or after you act, you may banish a weapon that has the Slashing trait to banish Pidget").

 

"Before you act" is so natural-sounding that it tended to cause problems like people interpreting Seelah's ability in Wrath of the Righteous to apply to all checks in an encounter.  Keith Richmond, who is one of the developers on the physical card game, had suggested something to make the step explicitly called out as a step (like capitalization of Before You Act).

 

If you really feel passionate about it though, there's a thread talking about this rule here.  I don't think Obsidian is likely able to resolve this given that this is a rule in the physical card game.

[Brainwave]

If you're saying that what matters is the second "you" in the Warchanter's text, not the "you" in "Before you act" then I still don't see how that matters.

 

The Sinspawn also has that except instead of the word "you" it's "your" and your is just the second person possessive version of... You.

 

Basically, there's no difference that I can see. They both use a slightly different tense of the same word to describe who is affected by that card text. If the "you" on the Warchanter means all players then the "your" on the Sinspawn should mean the same.

[zeroth_hour]

I apologize for not being clear.  If you read the thread I linked to, there's a definition of what "you" represents in those contexts:

 

"Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing."

 

The reason Warchanter forces it out of all characters was because of UI simplicity, I guess?  Otherwise it would only force the check if you wanted to play a weapon or spell into the check.
 

Sinspawn's before you act check only applies to the person who encounters it because nobody else can encounter it.  Bandit's is the same.  (So's Pidget and Ghoul's etc)

 

This will start to matter a lot in AD3 where there's a lot of checks for people who want to play spells against certain monsters.

[Kgk4569]

For the Sinspawn, only the encountering character has their checks increased by 1. Whereas Warchanter applies to every character attempting to assist in that combat.

 

Due to issues with the logic, every character has to roll for Warnchanter

[judgemonroe]

For the Sinspawn, only the encountering character has their checks increased by 1. Whereas Warchanter applies to every character attempting to assist in that combat.

 

Due to issues with the logic, every character has to roll for Warnchanter

 

This is true -- the Warchanter is attempting to prevent everyone who might assist in the check from using attack spells or weapons, and it's done by having all characters make a wisdom check.

 

At the very least, the Warchanter's description should change from "you" to "all characters" to better communicate what is happening.

 

Potential assists that are blocked by a failed wisdom check include Ranged weapons. I thought that spells like Corrosive and Lightning Splash would also be prohibited, but these do not have the Attack trait.

[Brainwave]

I apologize for not being clear.  If you read the thread I linked to, there's a definition of what "you" represents in those contexts:

 

"Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing."

 

The reason Warchanter forces it out of all characters was because of UI simplicity, I guess?  Otherwise it would only force the check if you wanted to play a weapon or spell into the check.

 

Sinspawn's before you act check only applies to the person who encounters it because nobody else can encounter it.  Bandit's is the same.  (So's Pidget and Ghoul's etc)

 

This will start to matter a lot in AD3 where there's a lot of checks for people who want to play spells against certain monsters.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I still don't really see the difference.

 

Warchanter - "Before you act, succeed at a wisdom 8 check or you may not play spells with the attack trait or weapons."

 

Sinspawn - "Before you act, succeed at a wisdom 6 check or the difficulty of your checks is increased by 1 for the rest of the turn."

 

To respond briefly to the other replies - I'm not interested in what's perceived as the original intent of the cards. I'm interested in how the cards should work based on the rules of the game. Whether or not the original intent of the Sinspawn was for every character to roll or not is irrelevant. What I'm saying is based on the ruling that the use of "you" on a card like the Warchanter applies to all characters (and yes I've read the linked post) that then the use of the word "your" on the Sinspawn card means the same thing.

[Kgk4569]

Other than recharging spells, only the active character is making checks that turn.

[Brainwave]

Other than recharging spells, only the active character is making checks that turn.

Nope. What about the skeleton horde barrier (or the scenario power that makes everyone encounter an ancient skeleton when a henchman is encountered). Or even better, there's a villain that makes someone at that location encounter a Sinspawn before combat. What if a different person fights the Sinspawn than the person going to fight the villain? Those are just two examples that have happened to me personally, I'm sure there's other ways on top of that where other characters could be making different checks on that same turn.

 

And honestly, it doesn't matter. You don't just ignore a rule that affects a certain card because it mostly doesn't matter. Either the rule applies to that card or it doesn't, period. And I don't see any reason why the "you" rule wouldn't apply to both cards.

[zeroth_hour]

And I don't see any reason why the "you" rule wouldn't apply to both cards.

 

 

I think that's problem I have here... I don't understand your reasoning about why it applies to both cards, and the only assertions you've made in this regard amount to "the situations in both cases are the same", but haven't really described how they are.

 

Are you saying they're the same because "you may not play spells that have the Attack trait or weapons" applies to whomever plays an Attack spell or weapon, and "the difficulty of your checks is increased by 1 for the rest of the turn" applies to everyone who makes checks?

 

My opinion is that active versus passive voice matters here (the rule uses active voice and so does the Warchanter, but the Sinspawn uses passive voice).  To short-circuit this a bit, I'll ask for clarification in the Paizo thread.

[ArchSenex]

They're the same, because they're written the same.  In both cases, they say before the encounter, make a check, or X applies to you, which is the same in both cases.  Other than that, I'm failing to see how people see them as different.

 

People assume that the warchanter means "If you wish to A, then make a check" but it's not written that way, at all.  If it WAS written better, then it would work.  "Before playing a card with X or Y this encounter, a player must succeed at" would work, or "Before you encounter Goblin Warchanter, all players must make a check..." would also work out really well.

 

The short of it is they shouldn't propose a confusing rule about "you" when you = encounterer in pretty much every case, and cards like Harpy, which is almost identical, bother to say "All Characters."  It would be better to just errata the cards that are confusing to be consistent, than to make a rule that actually makes the general assumption wrong.

[Longshot11]

 

 

The short of it is they shouldn't propose a confusing rule about "you" when you = encounterer in pretty much every case, and cards like Harpy, which is almost identical, bother to say "All Characters."  It would be better to just errata the cards that are confusing to be consistent, than to make a rule that actually makes the general assumption wrong.

Thank you for this. I was feeling crazy or daft for seeing this as the most natural fix, in place of the travesty that was made of the word 'you'. Of course, the fact English language somehow up and decided to stop distinguishing between singular and plural 'you' doesn't help any...

[ArchSenex]

 

The short of it is they shouldn't propose a confusing rule about "you" when you = encounterer in pretty much every case, and cards like Harpy, which is almost identical, bother to say "All Characters."  It would be better to just errata the cards that are confusing to be consistent, than to make a rule that actually makes the general assumption wrong.

 

Thank you for this. I was feeling crazy or daft for seeing this as the most natural fix, in place of the travesty that was made of the word 'you'. Of course, the fact English language somehow up and decided to stop distinguishing between singular and plural 'you' doesn't help any...

 

Yes, "before ya'all act..." would also work.

 

And now I will hear every card with a southern drawl.

[zeroth_hour]

This should provide a bit of insight on when/why Paizo decides to errata cards.

 

On the other hand, it's quite easy to errata Pathfinder Adventures.

Edited May 16, 2016 by zeroth_hour

[Brainwave]

 

The short of it is they shouldn't propose a confusing rule about "you" when you = encounterer in pretty much every case, and cards like Harpy, which is almost identical, bother to say "All Characters."  It would be better to just errata the cards that are confusing to be consistent, than to make a rule that actually makes the general assumption wrong.

 

Thank you for this. I was feeling crazy or daft for seeing this as the most natural fix, in place of the travesty that was made of the word 'you'. Of course, the fact English language somehow up and decided to stop distinguishing between singular and plural 'you' doesn't help any...

I'm just going to close by saying I agree with this so much. I've seen the thread about why Paizo chooses to errata a card before and it makes me want to pull out my hair. I mean I'm slightly curious how a game company makes decisions but as a player of this game I'm much more interested in the nuts and bolts of the decisions themselves and that those rules decisions are consistent and make the game rules easier to follow, not harder. Whether you agree with me or not or think I'm a crazy person on this issue, I definitely agree that the whole situation would have been better if the "you" = all characters had never happened. And, it amazes me as a person who's played other card games, that ruling that "you" means anything more than the active player seemed like a good idea.

[Feywood]

 

Other than recharging spells, only the active character is making checks that turn.

Nope. What about the skeleton horde barrier (or the scenario power that makes everyone encounter an ancient skeleton when a henchman is encountered). Or even better, there's a villain that makes someone at that location encounter a Sinspawn before combat. What if a different person fights the Sinspawn than the person going to fight the villain? Those are just two examples that have happened to me personally, I'm sure there's other ways on top of that where other characters could be making different checks on that same turn.

 

And honestly, it doesn't matter. You don't just ignore a rule that affects a certain card because it mostly doesn't matter. Either the rule applies to that card or it doesn't, period. And I don't see any reason why the "you" rule wouldn't apply to both cards.

 

 

The Warchanter affects everybody attempting to contribute an attack spell or a weapon to that encounter, while the Sinspawn affects only those making the actual check roll against it, which only one character can do, so even if you took the wording on the Sinspawn card to mean "every character", that card could still only affect the single character dealing with it directly via the actual check roll.

 

As for your other examples:

 

A) The Skeleton Horde barrier deals one bane to each character to deal with, so they each make their own individual check roll there.

 

B) With Erylium, the summoned Sinspawn's -1 effect only affects the person making the check against that creature, not everybody at that location, so if character 1 encounters Erylium and character 2 is chosen to fight the summoned Sinspawn, only character 2 will suffer the turn-long check penalty if they fail the wisdom roll. This was confirmed by testing that particular encounter in the Trouble in Sandpoint scenario.

 

The anomaly here is the Warchanter. Either its text should be changed to reflect the fact that its ability affects each character trying to assist the character making the check, because nothing about its current incarnation indicates that this is the case at all, or its functionality should be changed so that it only affects the specific character making the check roll against it.

 

I can't think of another monster that affects each character (either at that location, or in general) and doesn't use the specific term "each character" in its ability description.

[Brainwave]

I think "you", meaning every person who's arguing with me about this (see what I did there) are just assuming what you think the Sinspawn is supposed to do or assuming what you think the original intent of the card is, instead of looking at the text on the card and realizing that no matter how ridiculous it might sound, that if "you" means every character, then every character needs to roll on the Sinspawn because the wording is almost the same as on the Warchanter. If what you were trying to say above was that the you = all character ruling on the Warchanter is stupid and should be changed and the card errated instead, then I agree with you. But right now, you = all characters is the rule. I'm honestly tired of arguing for this, so I'm going to stop.

 

The other examples I gave above, which you would realize if you read the linked post, were to show the guy that claimed that other characters would only have to make recharge checks on someone else's turn (as some kind of counter argument for how the card should work) that there are clearly other kinds of checks you make on other characters turns.

[codepoetz]

I understand the confusion because this is a very complex card and the rules are not entirely clear. I can tell you that the current implementation of the Warchanter is incorrect, mostly because it's one of the most difficult cards in the game for us to implement. Any characters who want to play a weapon or an attack spell must first succeed at a check. This means that we have to temporarily pause the action, remember which cards, dice, and powers are in play, erase them all, and start a completely new check. After resolving that new check, we have to magically return all the dice, cards, and powers to how it was before. It took us some time to figure out that bit of magic, but you should see a proper Warchanter soon. As a bonus, the extra development time gave us a chance to add some very fancy new visual effects to the Warchanter!

[Feywood]

I think "you", meaning every person who's arguing with me about this (see what I did there) are just assuming what you think the Sinspawn is supposed to do or assuming what you think the original intent of the card is, instead of looking at the text on the card and realizing that no matter how ridiculous it might sound, that if "you" means every character, then every character needs to roll on the Sinspawn because the wording is almost the same as on the Warchanter. If what you were trying to say above was that the you = all character ruling on the Warchanter is stupid and should be changed and the card errated instead, then I agree with you. But right now, you = all characters is the rule. I'm honestly tired of arguing for this, so I'm going to stop.

 

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out that the only card that doesn't play by the rules in the current set is the Warchanter; every other monster that affects each character clearly states "each character" in its description. Either the Warchanter card needs to be changed to clearly state "each character", or its functionality in the app needs to be changed.

 

I don't know why you think the functionality of every other card that says "you" should be changed to match the Warchanter, when that particular card is clearly the odd one out. "You = all characters" is clearly not the rule, because only one card works that way without also including "each character" in its description.

 

The Enchanter doesn't hit everybody in the location before and after the encounter; the Sneak doesn't potentially steal a card from everybody; the Scout doesn't hit everyone in the location pre-combat; Jubrayl Vhiski doesn't make each player recharge two cards, and all those cards say "you".

 

The other examples I gave above, which you would realize if you read the linked post, were to show the guy that claimed that other characters would only have to make recharge checks on someone else's turn (as some kind of counter argument for how the card should work) that there are clearly other kinds of checks you make on other characters turns.

 

No, he said "Other than recharging spells, only the active character is making checks that turn." This is correct; if a character has to deal with a summoned monster (e.g. an Ancient Skeleton or boss's summoned henchman), they become the active character while they're making their check; they have full use of their hand and abilities as they would in any other encounter, and they make the check roll.

 

Being the active character doesn't mean that it is that character's own normal turn.

 

Other characters can make a check to recharge their own spells off-turn, or contribute to the active character's check with dice via, for example, spells, blessings or ranged shots, but they can never make another character's actual check roll for them. Discarding/recharging a card and rolling a die to add damage to another character's attack isn't a check.

[ArchSenex]

 

I don't know why you think the functionality of every other card that says "you" should be changed to match the Warchanter, when that particular card is clearly the odd one out. "You = all characters" is clearly not the rule, because only one card works that way without also including "each character" in its description.

 

The Enchanter doesn't hit everybody in the location before and after the encounter; the Sneak doesn't potentially steal a card from everybody; the Scout doesn't hit everyone in the location pre-combat; Jubrayl Vhiski doesn't make each player recharge two cards, and all those cards say "you".

 

The argument here is "IF The warchanter functions this way, THEN you have to change every other card to be consistent."  Nobody who is saying to change the other cards thinks the Warchanter should work that way.  The problem is that people in this thread and others are trying to say that both the warchanter and other cards are different in execution, despite having the same set of rules, and the same phrasing.  All we're trying to do is request constency, but because some people still insist that the warchanter affects all characters, we have a logical disjoint.

 

In essence, what we're saying is this:  We've been presented with two statements.  1+1 = 2 (Sinspawn), and 1+1 = 3 (Warchanter).  For the vast majority of people, they assume the first one, which is how the sinspawn behaves, and how we expect it to behave.  However, because of a rules interpretation around "You" we have been told that the second is true, the rules interpret that the Warchanter does not behave how it is written, but instead behaves (closer) to how it's implemented in the game.  What we're saying is that, for consistency, if 1+1 = 3 is a known fact, then 1+1 Must equal three in all cases.

 

The point, as has been mentioned many times, is that rather than adding in some silly, silly rule about "You" that breaks more cards than it fixes, the Warchanter should be re-phrased to function however it's supposed to function.  Until it is, no amount of rules interpretation will change the fact that we have a logical inconsistency.  

 

That's ultimately what myself, Brainwave, and others are trying to point out.  We have a logical inconsistency, nothing more.  If 1+1 DOES equal 3 in this universe, I can live with that, but then it must ALWAYS be 3, and thus consistent.  It can't be one way sometimes, and another way sometime, without another factor (for instance, 1+1+ X = 2, 1+ 1+ Y = 3).  However, there's no X or Y present in Sinspawn vs Warchanter to establish that difference to justify the logic change.

 

 

 

I understand the confusion because this is a very complex card and the rules are not entirely clear. I can tell you that the current implementation of the Warchanter is incorrect, mostly because it's one of the most difficult cards in the game for us to implement. Any characters who want to play a weapon or an attack spell must first succeed at a check. This means that we have to temporarily pause the action, remember which cards, dice, and powers are in play, erase them all, and start a completely new check. After resolving that new check, we have to magically return all the dice, cards, and powers to how it was before. It took us some time to figure out that bit of magic, but you should see a proper Warchanter soon. As a bonus, the extra development time gave us a chance to add some very fancy new visual effects to the Warchanter!

 

The question I have is this.... If the Actor needs to roll to make this work, then it's fine, but if ANY OTHER CHARACTER needs to roll to make this work, then it's still inconsistent.  I actually don't see how this should be any different than any other pre-combat check.  Many banes have "before encounter make a check or your check to defeat is increased by X" and it's handled by just making the check, applying a modifier, and then popping the modifier off after the encounter.  This card, as worded, should be identical, scope to just the acting character, and de-scope at the end of the encounter.

 

 

Overall, that's all we're arguing is that things should be consistent, we can't just assume that words mean one thing on one card, and another thing on other cards.

 

 

 

Edit: Adding cards broken down to be even more formula.  All three of these SHOULD follow  the same pattern.  When (First Group) (Make Second Check) (Price of Failure)

 

Nothing establishes who the actor is, it's implied in every case, so it should imply the same.

 

 

(Before the encounter) (succeed at a Wisdom or perception 6 check) or bury 1 random card from your hand

(Before the encounter) (succeed at a Wisdom 8 check) or you may not play spells with the attack trait or weapons

(Before the encounter) (succeed at a Wisdom 6 check) or the difficulty of your checks is increased by 1 for the rest of the turn

Edited May 17, 2016 by ArchSenex

[Feywood]

 

 

I don't know why you think the functionality of every other card that says "you" should be changed to match the Warchanter, when that particular card is clearly the odd one out. "You = all characters" is clearly not the rule, because only one card works that way without also including "each character" in its description.

 

The Enchanter doesn't hit everybody in the location before and after the encounter; the Sneak doesn't potentially steal a card from everybody; the Scout doesn't hit everyone in the location pre-combat; Jubrayl Vhiski doesn't make each player recharge two cards, and all those cards say "you".

 

The argument here is "IF The warchanter functions this way, THEN you have to change every other card to be consistent."  Nobody who is saying to change the other cards thinks the Warchanter should work that way.  The problem is that people in this thread and others are trying to say that both the warchanter and other cards are different in execution, despite having the same set of rules, and the same phrasing.  All we're trying to do is request constency, but because some people still insist that the warchanter affects all characters, we have a logical disjoint.

 

That's not at all a logical argument, though, because there are many, many cards that all use the same phrasing ("Before you act..."), and not one of these affects every character in the way the Warchanter does. It's not just the Warchanter versus the Sinspawn, it's the Warchanter versus the Sinspawn and every other card in the game that disagrees with the Warchanter's specific functionality.

 

Why on Earth would you even begin trying to argue that every one of these other cards should be changed to match a single card that acts in an anomalous manner, when the logical — and realistic — position is that the lone anomalous card is the one that should be changed (either in text or functionality, and we know from the horse's mouth that the functionality is intended)?

 

Surely, by far the simplest and most appropriate solution is just to add a clause referencing "each character" to the Warchanter's card, just as it appears on every other card that affects each character.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Feywood

[ArchSenex]

 

Surely, by far the simplest and most appropriate solution is just to add a clause referencing "each character" to the Warchanter's card, just as it appears on every other card that affects each character.

 

Agreed, which is why we're pushing for that one.  The whole discussion is about supporting how the Warchanter is what is wrong BECAUSE all those other identical cards work the way we expect, so either it's behavior needs to be changed to be consistent, or the phrasing needs to update to match the behavior.

[Feywood]

 

 

Surely, by far the simplest and most appropriate solution is just to add a clause referencing "each character" to the Warchanter's card, just as it appears on every other card that affects each character.

 

Agreed, which is why we're pushing for that one.  The whole discussion is about supporting how the Warchanter is what is wrong BECAUSE all those other identical cards work the way we expect, so either it's behavior needs to be changed to be consistent, or the phrasing needs to update to match the behavior.

 

Absolutely. I trust Obsidian will make the functionality clear on the card text while they're revamping it with its new special effects, because it really is unintuitive and goes against established card behaviour.

 

I guess the best way to counter any arguments against clarifying the card itself is to put it this way: if you encountered this Warchanter card in the physical game without the app's rules enforcement, why would you think for even a moment that you had to roll for each character? Nothing on the card itself indicates you should.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Feywood