From tonight's group:
1) Is Dismissal really supposed to be Attack spell? We know the presence of Balazar on the art is no guarantee, however, it sounds like the spells is dealing with portals and the connective tissue between the Planes, not like something that would actually 'attack' a monster (we assumed the Arcane+2d8 is just a metaphor for how hard it is to Dismiss a particular demon, not an actual damage being dealt to him)
2) The Deranki (??) minion and the Locust Demon appear to be basically the same creature. Shouldn't the Deranki (Derakhi? whatever...) also have the Vermin trait?
1) Probably yes in the same vein that Fear is an Attack spell. Not every offensive spell needs to cause damage, they can do other things like status effects or shunting them back off to their home plane instead. Also, I don't recall, but I seem to remember Dismissal being a terrible spell because it only works on Outsiders and banes lose the Outsider trait if you're in a location with the Abyssal trait (which for a few adventures/scenarios is every location). Could just be bad memory, but I don't think I ever used that spell.
2) Looking at the actual WotR modules, Derakni is a CE Large outsider (chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar). It is indeed the same as a Locust Demon though:
Also known as locust demons, deraknis are horse-sized demons with scorpion tails, insectoid bodies, and almost humanoid faces.
In that regard, it is my opinion that Locust Demon should not have the Vermin trait, rather than Derakni gaining it, as vermin is its own creature type separate from outsider.
2) Looking at the actual WotR modules, Derakni is a CE Large outsider (chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar). It is indeed the same as a Locust Demon though:
Also known as locust demons, deraknis are horse-sized demons with scorpion tails, insectoid bodies, and almost humanoid faces.In that regard, it is my opinion that Locust Demon should not have the Vermin trait, rather than Derakni gaining it, as vermin is its own creature type separate from outsider.
Yeah, I did find that trait odd, as I understand Vermin to be non-sentient parasites and insects (Rats are defined as Animals), and the Derakni at least LOOKS sentient...
OTOH, as far as PACG errata is concerned, there are dozens of omitted traits, a handful of mistaken ones, but I don't believe we've ever had an EXTRA trait being mistakenly added. After all, it's a lot more difficult to unintentionally put something more on the card, rather than just cut it during a copy-paste procedure. And since, its been established that PACG is its own creature, that don't necessarily follow the RPG counterpart, I though maybe the designers just went "Oh, what the Abyss, it's half-insect anyway, we want it to be affected by the Bug-Spray of Dismissal +3 card...". (also, the Locust Demons was presumably designed AFTER the Derakni henchman, so I should think it was the most up-to-date vision for this creature)
In that regard, the Warmonger Wasp is also a Vermin, even though it appears to be for all intents and purposes a machine. If I can use Swarmlord's Jar against a flying robot, just because it happens to be in the shape of an insect - it makes all the more sense to use it against a creature that IS basically a deformed insect.
banes lose the Outsider trait if you're in a location with the Abyssal trait
Pardon the threadjack, please, but on what page of the rulebook is that stated? I remembered it being the case, but when I went to verify it for the rest of the table, I couldn't find the rule.
That would explain it. Thank you!
It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.
It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.
I did not think this rule applied to Season of the Righteous, for that reason.
Chief Technical Officer
|
It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.
Hmm. I just had a look, and it's there on adventures 1, 4, 5, and 6, but seems to have mysteriously dropped off 2 and 3. I noticed a few other small differences on the AP cards among adventures, so I'll get those standardized. In the meantime, the best version is the one accompanying Adventure 6.
It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.Hmm. I just had a look, and it's there on adventures 1, 4, 5, and 6, but seems to have mysteriously dropped off 2 and 3. I noticed a few other small differences on the AP cards among adventures, so I'll get those standardized. In the meantime, the best version is the one accompanying Adventure 6.)
Now that the threadjack is answered, any ruling on the Vermin trait?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.Hmm. I just had a look, and it's there on adventures 1, 4, 5, and 6, but seems to have mysteriously dropped off 2 and 3. I noticed a few other small differences on the AP cards among adventures, so I'll get those standardized. In the meantime, the best version is the one accompanying Adventure 6.
Update: we have decided to move the text "In locations that have the Abyssal trait, ignore the Outsider trait on banes" from the Adventure Path card to the Adventure 4 card.
|
Update: we have decided to move the text "In locations that have the Abyssal trait, ignore the Outsider trait on banes" from the Adventure Path card to the Adventure 4 card.It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.Hmm. I just had a look, and it's there on adventures 1, 4, 5, and 6, but seems to have mysteriously dropped off 2 and 3. I noticed a few other small differences on the AP cards among adventures, so I'll get those standardized. In the meantime, the best version is the one accompanying Adventure 6.
Just for SotRi, right? Not the box set?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Just for SotRi, right? Not the box set?Update: we have decided to move the text "In locations that have the Abyssal trait, ignore the Outsider trait on banes" from the Adventure Path card to the Adventure 4 card.It's on the AP card, but technically it's not on the Season of the Righteous AP card. That may need to be corrected.Hmm. I just had a look, and it's there on adventures 1, 4, 5, and 6, but seems to have mysteriously dropped off 2 and 3. I noticed a few other small differences on the AP cards among adventures, so I'll get those standardized. In the meantime, the best version is the one accompanying Adventure 6.
Correct.
What is going on thematically with them losing the outsider trait? They're in their home realm, so they can't be banished?
A new batch just arrived, fresh from the game table:
1) Starsong Bow (or smth.) discards to add to combat check at another location "d4 + the number of Desna trait cards in your hand". The bow itself has the Desna trait. Is it counted or not?
- One school of thought is: you activate the power from your hand, hence, by the time the Bow reaches the table - its 'd4 + X' bonus has been set (the bow therefore counts)
- the opposition claims that "you must pay the price (the discard) before you determine the effect", i.e. you don't count the Desna cards in your hand until you discard the bow
2)Drake Rider is monster with two combat check, and Traits that go something like
"Demon
Outsider
AND
Dragon"
There were a few cards like this before, including a Goblin/Gecko combo and an Ogre family way back in RotR, but I don't recall it to matter until now. So, we had a player fighting the Drake Rider with Demonsbane Crossbow ("If the bane has the Demone trait, add another 1d8"). Now, tecnically, the "bane" is the *card* - it has the Demon trait printed and its doesn't just get erased or anything - so the xbow should apply the bonus to both checks. However, none of us could come up with a good reason why the traits would be formulated as "X AND Y", unless the idea is that for each of the two check, we only take into accounted the corresponding traits and treat the other traits as if they don't exist.
Can we get some official stance on that?
3) Adowin has a role power that goes like "When you examine the top card of a deck, you may examine an additional card"
Let's say I examine the top TWO cards of a location (with a Spyglass, for example) - does the above power actually let me see THREE cards in total, or is the "additional card" the same "second from the top" card that I have already examined?
Thanks in advance for casting some Sagacity on us.
|
1) The Starbow doesn't count. It is no longer in your hand once you play the card for its power.
2) It has both sets of traits. It was answered a while back with Ripnugget and Tanglefoot.
3) "When you examine the top of a location deck, you may recharge a card to examine an additional card."
You examine an additional card. If you examine two, you get a third. You examine three, you get a fourth.
1) Do things in the order listed on the card. You are told to discard before adding the die, so you discard before adding the die. See the "Finish One Thing Before You Start Something Else" rule on the back of the rulebook.
I have nothing to add to Theryon's answers for 2 and 3; both are correct.
2) It has both sets of traits. It was answered a while back with Ripnugget and Tanglefoot.
Do you have a link handy? I found a couple of threads that discuss the issue, but none of them have an official ruling. It's odd, at the very least I would expect some FAQ for it... But as of WotR, cards are still being printed with dual Traits like that, and I can't imagine there isn't a reason why they do it. Some might say it's just "flavor", but my general impression is that if Vic an co. have to chose between flavor and clarity - flavor goes out the window...
It's not "flavor," per se. It's clarity of purpose. With Thurl and Inhaz you want to know which one is Thurl and which is Inhaz. So we tell you.
But if we were to say that traits only applied to one half the card, then things start to fall apart quickly. That Drake Rider that's so clearly a Demon on top and a Dragon on the bottom now needs to say this.
On the check against the Dragon, the Drake Rider is immune to the Electricity trait; on the check against the Rider, the Drake Rider is immune to the Poison trait. If you succeed at an Intelligence or Knowledge 12 check before attempting the check against the Dragon, or if you do not succeed at that check but your check against the Rider has the Force or Ranged trait, add 5 to your checks to defeat the Rider.
If you fail the check to defeat the Rider, you may reroll the dice; take the new result. If you do, the Rider deals 1d4 Combat damage to you, then the Dragon deals 1d4 Electricity damage to you.
I would not call that an improvement, but YMMV.
It's not "flavor," per se. It's clarity of purpose. With Thurl and Inhaz you want to know which one is Thurl and which is Inhaz. So we tell you.
But if we were to say that traits only applied to one half the card, then things start to fall apart quickly. That Drake Rider that's so clearly a Demon on top and a Dragon on the bottom now needs to say this.
I would not call that an improvement, but YMMV.On the check against the Dragon, the Drake Rider is immune to the Electricity trait; on the check against the Rider, the Drake Rider is immune to the Poison trait. If you succeed at an Intelligence or Knowledge 12 check before attempting the check against the Dragon, or if you do not succeed at that check but your check against the Rider has the Force or Ranged trait, add 5 to your checks to defeat the Rider.
If you fail the check to defeat the Rider, you may reroll the dice; take the new result. If you do, the Rider deals 1d4 Combat damage to you, then the Dragon deals 1d4 Electricity damage to you.
Well, I didn't imagine the divide going quite so far, I was just wondering if a general Rulebook-type rule was envisioned at some point (such as "During your check to defeat a cards with multiple sets of traits, treat that card as having only the traits corresponding to the associated check") that fell by the side of the road, but the "X and Y traits" template stuck.
At any rate, thanks for the response, Mike. Now we can take it as officially set in stone that the 'and' division is purely cosmetic. Demonbane Crossbow in your face, Drake-dragon thingie!