When your character gets to choose which abilities get impaired, is it okay to choose ones that cannot be reduced further?
Impairment Query
It would depend.
Let's say you had the option of "spend a Clue or impair Lore" with Lore already at -2 (and you have a Clue), then you could choose to impair Lore and nothing would happen.
I don't think there's a rule that states certain skills are not allowed to be impaired, but I'm not certain.
3 hours ago, Matt620 said:It would depend.
Let's say you had the option of "spend a Clue or impair Lore" with Lore already at -2 (and you have a Clue), then you could choose to impair Lore and nothing would happen.
I don't think there's a rule that states certain skills are not allowed to be impaired, but I'm not certain.
The rules for impairment say you cannot choose to impair a skill more than twice or if it will take its modified value below 1
On 6/25/2017 at 11:51 PM, Matt620 said:It would depend.
Let's say you had the option of "spend a Clue or impair Lore" with Lore already at -2 (and you have a Clue), then you could choose to impair Lore and nothing would happen.
I don't think there's a rule that states certain skills are not allowed to be impaired, but I'm not certain.
Are you sure? I thought that if you were given a choice between two bad effects but couldn't do one, that you automatically had to do the other. Like last night I had the Blight that said Discard an ally or Lose 3 health and impair strength and influence, but I had no allies, so I did the bottom and discarded it. Otherwise in situations like that certain cards would have no teeth. I could have just kept "choosing" to discard the ally I didn't have, and it wouldn't have mattered that I was blighted. I could be wrong, though. It's so hard to go back through instruction books to look for answers now that we have so many the expansions.
Raj, I can't remember why exactly, but I know for a fact that the official ruling on the Blights is that you can choose the option that has no effect. It's dumb imo that you can do that, but I know you can. I like the mechanic waaaay better when a loss is forced, but in that case it's not how it works. I was pretty disappointed in blights when I found this out.
There are some tricky issues with specific wordings. I'd have to open the box and look at the blight to be sure. I think it's because the option is presented as a choice.
Otherwise, it would say something like "Discard an ally; if you can't, lose 3 health and impair strength and influence."
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1630880/blight-card-reckoning
Ni
Nikki Valens wrote:
The back of each Blight Condition instructs the investigator to pick one of two options. The investigator is allowed to read both options entirely before choosing which to resolve. Upon choosing an option, she resolves as much of that effect as possible.
No part of either effect is a payment of any kind. As such, there is no restriction to which effect the investigator chooses and no cost associated with being able to flip or discard the Condition. The effects are simply resolved as printed on the card.
No part of either effect is a payment of any kind. As such, there is no restriction to which effect the investigator chooses and no cost associated with being able to flip or discard the Condition. The effects are simply resolved as printed on the card.
Cool, thanks for the clarification on that!
On 6/26/2017 at 2:11 AM, neosmagus said:The rules for impairment say you cannot choose to impair a skill more than twice or if it will take its modified value below 1
One of the prequel cards has you improve two skills and impair the remaining three. (Desperate Measures card mebbe?)
If my character has a (say Strength) starting skill of one, are you saying that I MUST choose to improve the Strength score, rather than saying, "I pick the Strength skill to be impaired, however it can't be reduced any further"?
4 hours ago, Roland Cooke said:One of the prequel cards has you improve two skills and impair the remaining three. (Desperate Measures card mebbe?)
If my character has a (say Strength) starting skill of one, are you saying that I MUST choose to improve the Strength score, rather than saying, "I pick the Strength skill to be impaired, however it can't be reduced any further"?
If I understand the rules as I read correctly, yep. But maybe best asked as an official rules query?
I think an official rule would be good, but the wording implies you don't have to choose that way (in my mind but english is not my first language).
You choose the ones to improve and the others are by default. So you don't choose the ones to impair. Of course in a way you do.
If the wording hade been opposite it would be obvious you couldn't. If the wording had been to choose the ones to impair and improve the others the rule would have been very clear.
On 7/3/2017 at 2:01 AM, StLemon said:I think an official rule would be good, but the wording implies you don't have to choose that way (in my mind but english is not my first language).
You choose the ones to improve and the others are by default. So you don't choose the ones to impair. Of course in a way you do.
If the wording hade been opposite it would be obvious you couldn't. If the wording had been to choose the ones to impair and improve the others the rule would have been very clear.
You are correct. The wording is clear for Drastic Measures at least. Improve two skills first (with the usual restrictions ofc), then impair the remaining three (which may result in one or more of these not being impaired).
On 7-7-2017 at 5:26 AM, Roland Cooke said:You are correct. The wording is clear for Drastic Measures at least. Improve two skills first (with the usual restrictions ofc), then impair the remaining three (which may result in one or more of these not being impaired).
This is the way we play it as well.
This is because, as somebody in a different forum so elegantly put it, the impairing of the three remaining skills is an ' inadvertent consequence of not choosing it '.
Also, as an aside, Lily Chen's ability paired with Drastic Measures is awesome and can make for a combat monster.