We're finishing up a bunch of errata and clarifications, but they're not going into the FAQs officially until after Vic gets back in town after a few weeks. Thus, you should view these rulings as unofficial from a wording viewpoint, and close to official from an intent viewpoint. Note that I'm not going back over the Rise of the Runelords rulebook for these purposes, but I think you can extrapolate as needed for that book.
You may also note that I've reversed myself on occasion. And you should also assume this thread will be completely overwritten by Vic's final rulings. I don't want to hear "Mike and Vic disagree" about anything other than "Mike should be on vacation too."
Anyway, here are some answers. Discuss them in their individual threads rather than here, please. You have two weeks to tear them apart before Vic locks them down.
Skull & Shackles FAQ
Rulebook
Can Oloch avoid Bucket Brigade simply by healing a character instead of his first exploration in a turn and then encountering the next card on his next exploration?
No. If you skip your first exploration, and a barrier with the Task trait tells you that you must encounter it as your first exploration, you can't just move beyond it without encountering it.
Resolution: In the Rules: Faceup Cards section on page 11 of the Skull & Shackles rulebook, change "If such a card tells you that you must encounter it on your first exploration on a turn, then after that exploration, ignore it for the purpose of additional explorations that turn; however, it still counts as the top card of the deck for any other purpose." to "If such a card tells you that you must encounter it on your first exploration on a turn, then you must encounter it the first time you explore that turn. After that exploration, ignore it for the purpose of additional explorations that turn; however, it still counts as the top card of the deck for any other purpose."
Can Darago take a summoned monster into his hand?
No. Summoned cards always go back in the box after being encountered.
Resolution: In the Summoning and Adding Cards section on page 14 of the Skull & Shackles rulebook, change "After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, banish it unless you're instructed otherwise." to "After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, banish it—summoned cards always go back in the box and never go anywhere else."
Can I play more than one loot per check?
Yes. A loot card functions as the other type of boon it is for purposes of whether you can play more than one of each type. So if you have two loot weapons, you can't play both on a check, but if you have a loot weapon and a loot item, you can play both on that check.
Resolution: Under Loot on page 24 of the Skull & Shackles rulebook, change "loot cards behave just like other boons of that type and count as cards of that type." to "loot cards behave just like other boons of that type and count as cards of that type rather than loot when played."
I've noticed a few unusual details about playing spells in the example of play.
We've also noticed a few unusual details, so we've made some quick updates to the example on pages 26 and 27 of the Skull & Shackles rulebook. This looks bigger than it is, but we're only just adjusting some recharge checks and check results.
Resolution: The first change is to Lily's First Turn, where we're replacing two paragraphs:
- First, Seltyiel encounters his copy of the Buccaneer. He has a Force Missile and a Longsword in his hand, so he activates a character power that lets him use both cards. He uses the Force Missile for his combat check, which adds 2d4 to his Arcane skill of d8+3, and recharges the Longsword to add 1d6. Now Sam rolls 1d8+3 + 2d4 + 1d6, but manages a measly 7, which doesn't beat the Buccaneer's difficulty of 8. Sam must now discard 1 card (the difference between the 8 he needed and the 7 he rolled). He discards the ally Quartermaster, and the Buccaneer he summoned is banished. Now he must succeed at an Arcane 6 check or discard the Force Missile instead of recharging it; he beats that handily and puts the card under his deck.
- Next, Alahazra encounters her copy of the Buccaneer. She plays the spell Fear to evade it. Normally, Fear would shuffle an evaded monster into an open location deck, but the summoned monster didn't come from a location deck, so it's banished instead. She recharges Fear.
The second change is on Amber's First Turn, where we make these adjustments:
- Change "2d12+4 + 1d4" to "2d12+4 + 1d6 + 1d4."
- Change "She draws back up to her hand size and ends her turn." to "She recharges Inflict, draws back up to her hand size, and ends her turn."
Card Questions: Skull & Shackles Base Set
Should the die penalty in Ambush apply to all checks against the encountered monster?
Yes.
Resolution: In Ambush's Powers box, change "encounter it, subtracting 1 from each die rolled in your check." to "encounter it, subtracting 1 from each die rolled in any check against it."
(This card also appears in the Character Add-On Deck.)
Card Questions: Skull & Shackles Character Add-On Deck
Can Damiel recharge spells with the Arcane or Divine skill he gains?
Yes.
Resolution: In the Powers section of Damiel's character and both of his roles, change "When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill until the end of the step." to "You gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill while you play or when you would banish a spell that does not have the Attack trait."
Class Decks FAQ
Ranger Deck
Should Arabundi's Mage Hunter role have only 11 power feats?
Nope. He gets 12 like everyone else.
Resolution: On Arabundi's Mage Hunter role, change the last power from " When you play Blessing of the Gods on your non-combat check, you may recharge a random spell from your discard pile." to " When you play Blessing of the Gods (□ or any blessing) on your non-combat check, you may recharge a random spell from your discard pile."
Rogue Deck
The Lesath entry in the FAQ is likely to be amended to become:
If Lesath banishes a displayed monster at the end of his turn, does he then have to display it again?
No, because then it would never get banished. That's no good.
Resolution: On Lesath's character and Sword Dancer role card, change "When you would banish a monster, display it. You may recharge a card to add 1d6 (□+1) to your combat check for each displayed monster. At the end of your turn, banish the displayed monsters." to "When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may display it instead. Before you attempt a combat check, you may recharge a card to add a number of d6 (□+1) equal to your number of displayed monsters. At the end of your turn, banish your displayed monsters."
For his Dervish role card, change it to "When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may display it instead. Before you attempt a combat check, you may recharge a card to add a number of d6 (□+1) (□+2) (□+3) equal to your number of displayed monsters. At the end of your turn, banish your displayed monsters."
Wizard Deck
Can Radillo get an endless loop of Detect Magics going outside of an encounter?
We would prefer if she didn't.
Resolution: On Radillo's card and both her roles, change "After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait, you may examine the bottom card of your deck; if it is a spell (□ or an ally), you may put it on top of your deck (□ or add it to your hand)." to "If you play a spell that has the Arcane trait during an encounter, you may examine the bottom card of your deck; if it is a spell (□ or an ally), you may put it on top of your deck (□ or add it to your hand)."
Thanks for the effort you guys put into this Mike and team. I think some of those we didn't even ask about.
I think some of those we didn't even ask about.
Oh, we're very good at finding errors in our own stuff well after it's printed.
Ahhh, this reminds me of the S&S playtest....
I like the Damiel clarification, but I have a feeling that people will continue to find ways to argue about it.
On a slightly off topic side note, since I don't remember it being mentioned before, will updates to characters' cards be made to the PDF sheets? If so, how often?
I like the Damiel clarification, but I have a feeling that people will continue to find ways to argue about it.
This is why we wait for Vic to finalize things before they get FAQ'd.
Oh, I'm not saying that the current change is likely to be flawed in some way that someone will catch. I'm saying that no matter how it is re-written, some people will probably find some way that the power can be misunderstood at this point, even if it's just in their heads.
The summoned card change has an issue with the Pirate Hunting barrier, as Fayries noted. And perhaps also with the "summon and build" mechanic.
What about just saying "After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, banish it—unless the card that caused you to summon it instructs you otherwise."
That would make the Pirate Hunting barrier still work, as well as the summon and build mechanic, but stop Darago from taking them into his hand. (And still work with the change for Them Ogres Ain't Right for backwards compatibility.)
The summoned card change has an issue with the Pirate Hunting barrier, as Fayries noted. And perhaps also with the "summon and build" mechanic.
What about just saying "After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, banish it—unless the card that caused you to summon it instructs you otherwise."
That would make the Pirate Hunting barrier still work, as well as the summon and build mechanic, but stop Darago from taking them into his hand. (And still work with the change for Them Ogres Ain't Right for backwards compatibility.)
Weirdly, "unless the card that caused you to summon it instructs you otherwise" was in our rules earlier. That may make it back in. Well, assume it is exactly like that until we get an official FAQ entry.
|
The effort you guys put in to improve this game even after its release is really great, and gives me a lot of confidence when I buy it that it will only get better. While it's unrealistic to expect a game with every errant word tidied up, it's nice that this eventually happens anyways.
Hopefully, some day when Skull & Shackles is all out, we'll get another "patch deck" from drive-thru. Maybe?
The effort you guys put in to improve this game even after its release is really great, and gives me a lot of confidence when I buy it that it will only get better. While it's unrealistic to expect a game with every errant word tidied up, it's nice that this eventually happens anyways.
Hopefully, some day when Skull & Shackles is all out, we'll get another "patch deck" from drive-thru. Maybe?
No idea about that, but we are definitely updating the cards as we clarify them in case that becomes an option.
I think some of those we didn't even ask about.Oh, we're very good at finding errors in our own stuff well after it's printed.
OK I stand corrected, the pingpong humoristic game between you two deserves a much better than 10th position in my top 10 list.
This said BIG THANKS for that FAQ.
I like the Radillo piece. It seemed like everyone was trying to make heavy changes to the power in the thread, like changing what actions trigger it, or what actions the power allows you to do. I'm glad the power itself wasn't changed, just when you're allowed to activate it.
We were just trying to find SOME way to make it work. We tossed a LOT of ideas around. And in fact, the final one was one I suggested!
...Sorry, I just find it cool when I manage to do something like that.
---
I'll echo the others, Mike - Thanks for taking the time to hear and address our concerns. The work you guys do is great!
A new one today:
Wizard Deck:
If I run into a henchman with two checks to defeat, and Radillo the Puppet Master is at my location, can she recharge one ally to allow both of us reduce the difficulty of our checks to defeat the henchman?
No. One ally per check.
Resolution: On Radillo's Puppet Master role, change "When any character at your location encounters a monster, you may recharge an ally to reduce the difficulty of the check to defeat the monster by 1 (□ 2) plus the adventure deck number of the recharged ally, if any." to "When any character at your location attempts a check to defeat a monster, you may recharge an ally to reduce the difficulty of that check by 1 (□ 2) plus the adventure deck number of the recharged ally, if any."
Mike, you need to clone yourself and stick a little mini-Mike in the box.
Maybe the other Mike that is not this Mike.
Mike, you need to clone yourself and stick a little mini-Mike in the box.Maybe the other Mike that is not this Mike.
A new (fake) one today:
Promo cards FAQ:
Can I discard a card with a temporay errata to recharge the Not this Mike Ally? Can Not this Mike recharge itself?
No, you stand corrected this clearly wasn't the intention. Hold that thought though (as a non native English speaker I always like this 4-words-sentence since nobody can spell "thought though" right except in a game errata).
Resolution
On the Not this Mike Ally card, change the power to: "Display this card when another character at your location plays a card that was given an official errata while attempting a check. For this step-of-a-check only, you can slightly modify the wording of any power on that card providing it doesn't conflict with any official golden rule. Bury Not this Mike after resolving the other card if any player felt unsecure with your wording. Il you did not bury Not this Mike, you can discard a card that had an official errata to recharge Not this Mike. If you still feel unsecure, ask the Real Mike on the forums. If you manage to get an unofficial errata out of your plea, you may shuffle Not this Mike in your deck, or put it on top of your deck if somehow you get Vic to make that errata official.".
You guys are adorable.
More temporary FAQ entries, as always overruleable by Vic when he returns.
Skull & Shackles Base Set:
Whose combat checks does a Dagger affect?
Just yours.
Resolution: On Dagger, change "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to the combat check." to "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to your combat check."
(This change also affects many Daggers and Dagger-like cards in other sets.)
Can I use the Onyx of Constitution to roll my Constitution die on someone else's non-combat check?
Certainly not.
Resolution: On these cards, change "a non-combat check" to "your non-combat check.": Emerald of Dexterity (also in the Rogue and Ranger decks), Onyx of Constitution, Pearl of Wisdom (also in the Cleric deck), Ruby of Charisma (also in the Bard deck), Sapphire of Intelligence (also in the Wizard deck), Topaz of Strength (also in the Fighter deck).
On Magic Weapon (also in the Wizard deck), change "a combat check" to "any combat check."
Skull & Shackles Adventure 1: The Wormwood Mutiny
Why doesn't the Man's Promise do anything different when wrecked?
It should stop other characters from moving on your turn regardless of why, not just because the ship can't move them.
Resolution: On the back of Man' Promise, change "Other characters may not move with this ship from this location." to "Other characters may not move or be moved from your location."
Skull & Shackles Promo Cards
If I defeat the summoned Riptide Grindylow, does the difficulty of one check against the Owlbeartross or both checks go up by 4? Please say just one.
It's both, I'm afraid.
Resolution: On Owlbeartross, change "If that henchman is defeated, the difficulty of the check to defeat the Owlbeartross is increased by 4." to "If that henchman is defeated, the difficulty of the checks to defeat the Owlbeartross is increased by 4."
Cleric Deck:
Can Tarlin's Noble Scion role recharge a Hireling or Aristocrat when affecting anyone's check?
Yes.
Resolution: On Tarlin's Noble Scion role, change "When you play an ally that has the Hireling or Aristocrat trait on a check, you may recharge it." to "When you play an ally that has the Hireling or Aristocrat trait on any check, you may recharge it."
Fighter Deck:
Can the Adamantine Trident +3 ignore difficulty-increasing powers for any monster encountered by anyone?
No, just monsters you encounter. This power is intended to be part of the power above it, affecting only monsters you are currently attempting a check to defeat against.
Resolution: On Adamantine Trident +3, change "If a monster has a power that increases the difficulty of a combat check, ignore that power." to "If a monster has a power that increases the difficulty of that combat check, ignore that power."
Skull & Shackles Base Set:
Whose combat checks does a Dagger affect?
Just yours.
Resolution: On Dagger, change "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to the combat check." to "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to your combat check."
(This change also affects many Daggers and Dagger-like cards in other sets.)
Oh man. I've got to say I've used a bow + dagger assistance more than once. Kind of sad to see this one go. It also means I'm now wrong over here.
Oh well. Its not like that was a sound strategy anyway.
If you take a look at Dagger +1 in the Bard deck, or Venomous Dagger +2 in the Rogue deck, or Giantbane Dagger +1 in the Sorcerer, Ranger, or Rogue deck, you'll see the "your combat check" wording. It took till we noticed we wrote those cards differently to realize that people were playing the bow/dagger combo because of the stray ambiguous "the." Sometimes you look at something a million times and never see the obvious.
I still think 51d4 is way too low.
Oh Mike on the last line for
Can I use the Onyx of Constitution to roll my Constitution die on someone else's non-combat check?
Says "any". Should be "your", shouldn't it?
Oh Mike on the last line for
Can I use the Onyx of Constitution to roll my Constitution die on someone else's non-combat check?
Says "any". Should be "your", shouldn't it?
Actually, it should be "any" because that line is about the spell "Magic Weapon" which works a lot like Fiery Weapon. You should be able to play it on a check where anyone plays a weapon, not just your own check when playing a weapon.
Can I use the Onyx of Constitution to roll my Constitution die on someone else's non-combat check?
Certainly not.
Resolution:...On Magic Weapon (also in the Wizard deck), change "a combat check" to "any combat check."
So it used to say "When a weapon is played on a combat check, discard this card to add 1d4 and the Magic trait to the check."
Now it would say "When a weapon is played on any combat check, discard this card to add 1d4 and the Magic trait to the check."
I believe this goes along with the fact that they are trying to get away from say "a" check and use "any" check to signify it is more universally applicable. (See Blessing of the Gods.)
The confusing thing is that it is mixed in with the statstone FAQ. I suspect perhaps the Q part got cut out by accident.
Ah, Hawkmoon, rereading it more carefully indicates you're right. But I do think the two FAQs should be separated since Magic Weapon's ruling, while similar, isn't the same as the statstones.
I'm curious, due to the change to daggers -- does Magic Weapon work if a character plays no weapon on their own combat check, but someone shoots a bow their way?
As currently worded it would. And I like that. Odds are the same character won't be playing the bow and the Magic Weapon spell. That is some great teamwork. I like to see those combos, so I hope that stands.
And it also seems like the kind of thing that would be overly complicated and even unnecessary to prohibit.
Andrew, I don't think the dagger change affects Magic Weapon - the errata says "any combat check" instead of "your combat check", so any weapon played on any combat check would count.
I would think of it as imbuing the bow with magic firing at another location.
|
I know how it's currently worded, which is what prompted my question. Dagger used to not say "your" either, mistakes can be made.
I'm not asking if it should only apply to "your" check, but if it should be limited to weapons played to determine the skill of the check "For your combat check". I can understand the logic of imbuing the bow, but logic doesn't always apply, especially when the bow in question is being shot all the way between two separate islands. Logic goes out the window in this game haha.
I have no problem with it working that way, and I hope it does. I just want to make sure that it is actually supposed to.
|
|
Whose combat checks does a Dagger affect?
Just yours.
Resolution: On Dagger, change "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to the combat check." to "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to your combat check."
(This change also affects many Daggers and Dagger-like cards in other sets.)
I hate to ask this and I'm sure you're dreading it, but can a review please be done of all cards for the "your check vs any check" issue? Mike, I know you said you should follow the rule of 'Nobody else can take your turn for you', but precidence has been set in the official FAQ of the dev team correcting some of those wordings.
Obviously, it doesn't matter much in home games. We can just rule that we'll do it right in the future once we realize that rule should apply, but now that we have an OP for PFACG. I'm kinda dreading that person that says 'it's not on the card or in the FAQ'. Also, it does make us feel better that we don't have to try to interpret what was intended versus the wording that was printed on the card.
Again, I feel very sorry about this request. I didn't want to be that guy, but...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to be that guy. We are already that guy, which is prompting FAQ entries like this one.
Alright, separating it out.
Are there any cards where "a check" should be "any check"?
Yes. For example, Magic Weapon.
Resolution: On Magic Weapon (also in the Wizard deck), change "a combat check" to "any combat check." (We'll add to this FAQ entry if more are identified.)
Skull & Shackles Base Set:
Whose combat checks does a Dagger affect?
Just yours.
Resolution: On Dagger, change "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to the combat check." to "When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4 to your combat check."
(This change also affects many Daggers and Dagger-like cards in other sets.)Oh man. I've got to say I've used a bow + dagger assistance more than once. Kind of sad to see this one go. It also means I'm now wrong over here.
Ranzak was (in)famous for his heavy crossbow and dagger assistance in our group. Well, darn. :/
This is a weird instance of something being just fine if you play it the way the designers didn't intend. The FAQ is just letting you know what we intend.
Here's a new one.
Skull & Shackles Rulebook:
What's a ship feat?
Various scenarios and adventures will give you a ship feat, which will allow you to check a box of a particular class of ship on your fleet card.
Resolution: On page 19 of the rulebook, change "Your party may be rewarded with a ship; check off an appropriate ship on the party’s fleet card." to "Your party may be rewarded with a ship feat; check off an appropriate ship on the party’s fleet card. "
Mike, it looks like the Flaming Scimitar +1 in the class decks are Elite, not Magic. I assume they're Magic instead of Elite, correct?
It should definitely have the Magic trait. Unclear about Elite. We will discuss that.
Owlbeartross, if the Riptide Grindylow is evaded by the other character, the combat check on Owlbeartross doesn't go up, right? I imagine it wouldn't because you wouldn't technically be defeating the Riptide Grindylow. Can't remember if the Riptide Grindylow has the "cannot be evaded" text on it or not.
Seoni (Tattooed Mystic role): After you are dealt Acid, Cold, Electricity, or Fire damage, you may draw 1 card ([] 2 cards).
Is this an or in the same way that Meliski's reroll is an or? There may be situations where you would only want to draw 1 card.
Seoni (Tattooed Mystic role): After you are dealt Acid, Cold, Electricity, or Fire damage, you may draw 1 card ([] 2 cards).
Is this an or in the same way that Meliski's reroll is an or? There may be situations where you would only want to draw 1 card.
Pretty sure that if you take the skill feat to draw two cards that you are okay drawing just one. Is that your question?
Yeah, it should be an or.
I think the statsone FAQ and the Tarlin's Noble Scion FAQ never happened. Though I'd argue they aren't really necessary. For the statstones, you don't roll dice on another player's check (at least in the rules you don't) and for Tarlin, "a" and "any" have the same practical outcome. It seems like these are just trying to make things more clear. Which is very nice. But if you decided to not FAQ these, I wouldn't complain.
Also, the Adamantine Trident +3 also appears in Skull and Shackles deck 6.
Noted on Adamantine Trident +3, which we will add to the set 6 FAQ when it goes up.
On the others, there's no guarantee that if I put an entry here, it will appear in the FAQ. That's up to Vic.