Press Ganged clarification


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


So in the scenario press ganged, your hand size is equal to the number of banes you've defeated. This is supposed to cap at the character's normal hand size, right, because there are a total of 17 banes in the one location, and since it's the Fog Bank, you have no way of rearranging them, and you can't even beat the villain until all of the henchmen are defeated.

If there's no cap, it looks like your hand size would get so big that you'd die just by getting defeating 16 banes, which seems really odd.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, we wondered the same thing and ruled it maxed at normal hand size, but I would like to hear the official ruling.

Sovereign Court

Is anyone really going to be defeating that many banes? The group as a whole, maybe, but each individual player? Doubtful.


How many banes are there in solo play? Is there anything to prevent a player from not exploring or evading banes when her hand size starts to get uncomfortably large, assuming there are other players to push ahead?


Andrew K wrote:
Is anyone really going to be defeating that many banes? The group as a whole, maybe, but each individual player? Doubtful.

If you are a single character solo player?

I do remember that the rules for the scenario during the playtest said that you maxed out at your normal hand size. I don't have my copy of the final game yet, but if that line isn't there anymore, maybe it got deleted by accident?


Andrew K wrote:
Is anyone really going to be defeating that many banes? The group as a whole, maybe, but each individual player? Doubtful.

Yes, same number of banes regardless of players. It happening isn't doubtful, it would have happened the three times I tried this scenario if it weren't for me ruling it went up to max hand size.


Would someone mind posting the wording from the scenario? Thanks.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Would someone mind posting the wording from the scenario? Thanks.

I don't have the wording, but you're welcome. XD


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Would someone mind posting the wording from the scenario? Thanks.

Here is the text:

Pressed Gang wrote:
Deal 1 random henchman into a bane pile. Shuffle the other henchmen and the villain into the location deck, and add 5 random barriers from the box. Each character 's hand size is equal to the number of cards in the bane pile. When you defeat a bane, add it to the bane pile. The Fog Bank cannot be closed. When you would defeat Master Scourge, he is undefeated unless all 6 henchmen are in the bane pile.


I believe, based on the wording, that there is no limit; nothing in the game's rules says "A character's max hand size cannot exceed the hand size on that character's card". So the longer the scenario goes on and the more banes are defeated and sent to the bane pile, the deadlier it gets, since the characters' hand sizes will continue increasing, thus requiring more cards to be drawn upon hand reset.

I do see an issue with the scenario wording, though. Cannot overrides can and cards override the rules.

So, without using the common sense override, since The Fog Bank can never be closed, it is always open, even if you do manage to defeat the villain there. So when you do manage to get rid of all the henchmen, even if you defeat the villain, the location remains open, and since there's an open location, the villain can escape there upon being defeated.

So you cannot actually win this scenario (again, without overriding the rules with common sense), since the villain will always have a place to escape to.

Sovereign Court

Yea definitely getting a common sense vibe on finishing the scenario.

The OP said equal to number of banes you've defeated, so I thought it actually meant each character tracked their own (we all know wording is important in this game). Even without that, it sounds to me like you need a healer, or things are gonna get reaaaaaally tight. If the playtest limited it to your hand size, and now it doesn't, I'm more inclined to believe it was intentional than a mistake.

Grand Lodge

Not exactly true, Firedale. There is only one location. Once the other six henchmen are defeated and then Master Scourge is defeated, he has no where else to go. Therefore the scenario ends. Fog Bank does not close because that is the only location. But once you meet the conditions to defeat Master Scourge AND defeat him, the rules state that if there are no other locations open for the villain to escape to, the villain is defeated.

Grand Lodge

The scenario starts with 1 bane (random henchman) in the bane pile. 5 Henchmen plus 5 barriers plus Master Scourge in the location deck, Fog Bank.

That means everyone's starting hand size is 1. At the end of your turn, your hand size needs to be the same number as the number of banes.

You cannot defeat MS until you encounter and defeat the other five henchmen.

The key is to somehow evade the barriers so they get shuffled back into the location deck; reorder the deck to encounter the henchmen then MS. But somehow not letting too many barriers get over to the bane pile. Your hand size will be at least six when encountering Master Scourge.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You hand size is not intended to exceed your character's printed hand size. We will address in a FAQ.


Vic Wertz wrote:
You hand size is not intended to exceed your character's printed hand size. We will address in a FAQ.

Thanks muchly for the FAQ addressing. You all do an awesome job on keeping up with issues and figuring them out; we the gamers appreciate it!

Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Not exactly true, Firedale. There is only one location. Once the other six henchmen are defeated and then Master Scourge is defeated, he has no where else to go. Therefore the scenario ends. Fog Bank does not close because that is the only location. But once you meet the conditions to defeat Master Scourge AND defeat him, the rules state that if there are no other locations open for the villain to escape to, the villain is defeated.

That's part of what I mean, lol.

As far as the rules, they don't actually say other:
"Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes. If any locations are
not closed, the villain escapes. If you defeated the villain, count
the number of open locations, subtract 1, and retrieve that number
of random blessings from the box. Shuffle the villain in with those
blessings, then deal 1 card to each open location and shuffle those
location decks. If the villain is undefeated, do the same thing, but
retrieve the blessings from the blessings deck instead of from the
box. (Note that if you did not defeat the villain, there is always at
least one open location: the one in which it was just encountered.)"

It simply says "If any locations are not closed," not "If any other locations are not closed," since the check for escape is the step after you encounter the villain. So whether you win or lose, you check to see if the villain escapes, and in this instance, even if you defeat the villain, the location doesn't close, since it says it cannot close.

As I mentioned, this one takes a bit of common sense to understand what you're supposed to do, I just wanted to point out how it can be read and interpreted (even though that's not the intent). I highly doubt the team would intentionally make a scenario that cannot actually be won.

The only reason I even point it out is to assist in clarification and writing for future cards/adventures/paths. I just found it kinda funny that it could be interpreted that way.

Grand Lodge

Yes, it need clarification since the previous paragraph states: If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain’s Location. But the card overrules the rulebook (as we've been told). So technically, Fog Bank is not closed yet the villain cannot escape to anywhere but the "unclosed" Fog Bank.


Vic Wertz wrote:
You hand size is not intended to exceed your character's printed hand size. We will address in a FAQ.

Thank you Vic. Makes this scenario much more possible :P

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Vic Wertz wrote:
You hand size is not intended to exceed your character's printed hand size. We will address in a FAQ.

Added to FAQ.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I determined by playing this scenario with a solo Jirelle that Hull Breach is her Kryptonite. It'll probably get easier as I go and start acquiring BoAbadar, Tools, and the like but with a nearly starting deck d4 vs a difficulty of 8 is just rough. Especially when you only have a 1-2 card hand.


ryric wrote:
I determined by playing this scenario with a solo Jirelle that Hull Breach is her Kryptonite. It'll probably get easier as I go and start acquiring BoAbadar, Tools, and the like but with a nearly starting deck d4 vs a difficulty of 8 is just rough. Especially when you only have a 1-2 card hand.

Ugh, I was in a similar situation, but with two players. First card was pirate hunting, and we got the Wormwood (which is kind of funny since we're supposed to be on the Wormwood story-wise). Neither of us could make the check naturally, so we had to keep discarding until we got a blessing that added 2 dice. Tried that and failed with an unlucky roll, and just couldn't end up beating the scenario.

Only one I've failed so far.


Isn't there a rule somewhere that says something about replacing banes if the check is just too difficult for your small party? To specifically cover these situations?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Orbis Orboros wrote:
Isn't there a rule somewhere that says something about replacing banes if the check is just too difficult for your small party? To specifically cover these situations?

That rule exists, but I tend to reserve it for a check that is literally impossible, not just difficult. It's possible to get a blessing and get an 8 on 2d4. Plus you don't actually have to beat that barrier to get through the scenario, it doesn't "stick" to the top.

There was a location in Runelords that needed a 12 Int check to close that I managed to fairly do with Merisiel's d4 Int and +2 to close locations. Took me many tries but just trading it out would have felt like playing easy mode. The scenario became less about the villain and more about getting my BoGozreh as often as possible :)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Orbis Orboros wrote:
Isn't there a rule somewhere that says something about replacing banes if the check is just too difficult for your small party? To specifically cover these situations?

It's in the Advice for Solo Play sidebar:

Some cards are particularly difficult in solo play. If you’re
playing Feiya by herself, and you’re hit by a Drowning Spikes
Trap, you might be caught on the spikes until you drown. When
you encounter a card your character just can’t deal with, remove
it from the game and replace it with another card of the same
type that roughly matches its power level but isn’t quite so
impossible to overcome.

So note that A) it only addresses solo play; and B) it says "can't deal with," not "has a hard time dealing with."

That said, if a particular bane is making your game unfun, remove it!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
That said, if a particular bane is making your game unfun, remove it!

Many Enchanter cards were burned that day.


Disagree. As has been discussed, encountering an Enchanter with a RoP in hand is its own specific kind of fun.

As S&S is shaking out, my new nemesis is the Giant Crab. Not really on the Enchanter's power level, but that guy keeps showing up for me.


As someone with twice as many enchanters (by design) as most, I fully understand the joy of Ring of Protection during an encounter with the Enchanter.

I haven't spoiled any non-boons from my S&S box yet and I'm waiting to play until I get the character add-on, so IDK what the Giant Crab does.


Let's just say....

Spoiler:
"When you play the Game of Crabs, you win or you die." Just kidding. :)

Grand Lodge

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but I'm having problems wrapping my head around this scenario.

Here is my understanding, but I appreciate correction for anything I'm misunderstanding...

1/There is only 1 location regardless of # of players: the Fogbank (this may seem obvious, but there is a Guild scenario which uses multiple Shark Islands)

2/ When setting up, you build the deck as normal, then add 5 Barriers, the Villain, and all of the listed Henchmen (less 1 which goes into the Bane pile) regardless of the number of players.

3/ Any defeated Banes go into the Bane pile, regardless of card text.

4/ You win the Scenario by defeating the Villain after you have defeated all of the Henchmen.

Is that correct? I left out the already clarified bit about hand size.


Scribbling Rambler wrote:


1/There is only 1 location regardless of # of players: the Fogbank (this may seem obvious, but there is a Guild scenario which uses multiple Shark Islands)

Yep

Quote:
2/ When setting up, you build the deck as normal, then add 5 Barriers, the Villain, and all of the listed Henchmen (less 1 which goes into the Bane pile) regardless of the number of players.

Yep

Quote:
3/ Any defeated Banes go into the Bane pile, regardless of card text.

Yep

Quote:

4/ You win the Scenario by defeating the Villain after you have defeated all of the Henchmen.

Is that correct? I left out the already clarified bit about hand size.

You got it.


Glad I found this - was desperately trying to figure out how to win with a 15-card deck and a hand size of 16


Regarding the resolution for maximum hand size in Press Ganged: the way the new resolution is worded does not make it clear at all that hand size can never exceed your normal hand size, which, as I understand, is the intention. It currently says that hand size cannot exceed the size of the bane pile. This does nothing to limit maximum hand size to what it would normally be. Now, there is usually no question that hand size is limited to what is stated on your character card, but given the rule for this particular scenario, and the incorrect interpretation that made this resolution necessary in the first place, I think it should be clarified. Just my two cents...

Sovereign Court

I guess they could clarify it, but the scenario never says you ignore your normal max hand size in the FAQ version. Think of it this way

6 banes in the pile
Character max hand size of 4

This means you can't have more than 6, and you can't have more than 4.

Just because something says you can't pass 6, doesn't automatically mean you can have 5 or 6, because the game is already telling you you can't pass 4 either.


Andrew K wrote:

I guess they could clarify it, but the scenario never says you ignore your normal max hand size in the FAQ version. Think of it this way

6 banes in the pile
Character max hand size of 4

This means you can't have more than 6, and you can't have more than 4.

Just because something says you can't pass 6, doesn't automatically mean you can have 5 or 6, because the game is already telling you you can't pass 4 either.

Yes, but the entire reason this resolution was required in the first place is that there is something about this scenario rule that confused many people into thinking that their hand size COULD exceed the normal limit in this scenario, and the way this resolution is worded does nothing to address this.


Might I humbly suggest: "Hand size in this scenario is limited to the number of cards in the bane pile, but may not exceed your normal hand size."

Or

"Hand size in this scenario is limited to the number of cards in the bane pile, or your maximum hand size, whichever is smaller."

...or something to that effect.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
csouth154 wrote:
Yes, but the entire reason this resolution was required in the first place is that there is something about this scenario rule that confused many people into thinking that their hand size COULD exceed the normal limit in this scenario, and the way this resolution is worded does nothing to address this.

Yes—the thing that confused people into thinking that their hand size could exceed the normal limit is because we specifically *told them* it was equal to a number that could be greater than their hand size. We're not telling them that anymore, and nothing else is.

Would putting more words on the card make it a belt-and-suspenders surety? Yep. But we don't have room for that.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Would putting more words on the card make it a belt-and-suspenders surety? Yep. But we don't have room for that.

You may have not room on the card itself, but you do have room in the FAQ, which currently reads:

Quote:
Resolution: On the scenario Press Ganged!, change the sentence "Each character’s hand size is equal to the number of cards in the bane pile" to "Each character's hand size cannot be greater than the number of cards in the bane pile."

It's very confusing that a FAQ isn't enough in itself, you also have to read this read in order to understand what the FAQ *ought* to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still don't understand why people feel the FAQ for it needs to be rewritten.

Your hand size cannot be higher than the number of cards in the bane deck.

So your hand size is either your hand size or the number of cards in the bane deck, whichever is lower. That's the correct way to do it and that's also what the FAQ says.


Firedale2002 wrote:

I still don't understand why people feel the FAQ for it needs to be rewritten.

Your hand size cannot be higher than the number of cards in the bane deck.

So your hand size is either your hand size or the number of cards in the bane deck, whichever is lower. That's the correct way to do it and that's also what the FAQ says.

I feel the source of confusion could be the fact that it's he book that says your hand size can't be higher than what's printed on your card, but a scenario card now says that it can't be higher than the bane pile. We know that cards effectively rewrite the book when they are in play, so I could easily see this leading people to believe that the scenario card is what says how to determine max hand size in all ways....and the scenario (resolution) still says nothing about obeying the max hand size on the character cards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't say that your hand size can be bigger than what's on your card (anymore). It just says it can't be bigger than the bane pile. There is no conflict. Both rules apply.


Well, I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. It's not a big deal, but I would bet that some are still going to be misled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
csouth154 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

I still don't understand why people feel the FAQ for it needs to be rewritten.

Your hand size cannot be higher than the number of cards in the bane deck.

So your hand size is either your hand size or the number of cards in the bane deck, whichever is lower. That's the correct way to do it and that's also what the FAQ says.

I feel the source of confusion could be the fact that it's he book that says your hand size can't be higher than what's printed on your card, but a scenario card now says that it can't be higher than the bane pile. We know that cards effectively rewrite the book when they are in play, so I could easily see this leading people to believe that the scenario card is what says how to determine max hand size in all ways....and the scenario (resolution) still says nothing about obeying the max hand size on the character cards.

If people still choose to read more into what the rules and the cards don't say, then I'm not sure any amount of additional clarification would help that much more.

The rules say you cannot have more cards in your hand after you reset than your hand size. The scenario now says your hand size can be no larger than the bane pile. Therefore, the scenario limits your hand size to the amount of cards in the bane pile if it's less than the hand size on your character, and then the rules already limit your hand size to your hand size on the character.

If people decide to add rules that aren't there, that's not really Paizo's fault, their errata fixed it already. There is no place in the rules or the scenario now that says your hand size can exceed the hand size printed on your character card, so why should you be able to exceed the hand size printed on your character card?

The rules also don't say to go shopping and buy a million cans of refried beans, but if people somehow add that rule on their own, it's not the rulebook's fault.


For me there is a difference between errata and an FAQ. The errata for the card is fine as written, no need to add more to the card.

However, there is no harm and in fact actual benefit in additional information in the FAQ that explains that the "Your hand size cannot be higher than the number of cards in the bane deck." does not increase your hand size beyond the hand size on your character card.


Vic Wertz wrote:
You hand size is not intended to exceed your character's printed hand size. We will address in a FAQ.

My gaming group played this scenario yesterday and I ruled the confusion about that hand size thing that it does not change the fact about the limit. Afterwards we talked about scenario and how easy it was for us and I had second thoughts about my ruling but happy to see that I was correct. Seltyiel, Lirianne and Jirelle had fun time clashing swords and pointing guns in the face of the henchmen and Master Scourge.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Press Ganged clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion