Something Wicked Arrives Soon!

Thursday, October 17, 2013

With the release of The Skinsaw Murders fast approaching, Paizo has once again let me peel back the curtain a little to show off the new Adventure Deck. Since last time, we all have a great deal more experience with the game, and some of you have even started to speculate on what you might see in the second Adventure.

Those of you familiar with the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path—or who've pored over the box for The Skinsaw Murders—know that there's going to be some creepy undead action ahead, perfect for an October release. Keeping with that theme, we'll jump right in with a little Undead Uprising. During this scenario, the restless dead keep rising all around Sandpoint until the adventurers manage to defeat a most unfriendly chap that we'll meet in a moment.

Our goal here is to create an ever-rising wave of undead all around town, combined with a sense of urgency without overwhelming the party. Adding henchmen to locations helps keep the undead presence high while making it more likely that the adventurers will close the locations before time runs out.

While the adventurers are probably in good shape to deal with a simple farmer or shopkeeper risen as a zombie, there are more menacing threats lurking in the dark places of Sandpoint, including these vile fellows:

Hiding ghouls inside the numerous scarecrows that dot the farms and fields outside of Sandpoint? Genius! Experienced Pathfinder players already know what a tremendous pain ghouls can be, and we think we've lived up to that promise here. In addition to the typical undead immunity to mental and poison effects, losing a fight with a ghoul scarecrow doesn't just hurt you; it also leaves you paralyzed for a short time. In PACG terms, in addition to taking damage from the Ghoul, you'll lose the ability to explore any further that turn.

What might be causing these undead uprisings, anyway? By the end of The Skinsaw Murders, you'll no doubt figure that out, but along the way, you might run into a particularly gruesome example of evil afoot, a Skinsaw Ritual.

During these macabre events, several cultists attempt to carve and mutilate the heroes as part of a grisly offering that hurts everyone present, including the cultists. If you've encountered cultists before, you already know how they advance the villain's plot—unless you can stop them.

Not all the news is bad, of course. Now that the adventurers have proved themselves heroes, the people of Sandpoint lend a hand, as best they can. For example, the noted sage Brodert Quink can be very useful, especially if called upon at just the right time.

Some characters will be able to call upon Brodert's sagacity more than once, but any of the adventurers can put the sage to good use. Changing the order of cards in a location deck is a very powerful ability, and Brodert can give you a peek at part of location deck that's otherwise very hard to see.

With the help of the estimable sage, you might find one of the new items, spells, blessings, armor, allies, or weapons added for the adventure. One especially thematic example is the Scythe +1:

In trained hands, this weapon can make quick work of any Ghosts or Spectres that might have plagued you in Burnt Offerings. As a "high crit" weapon, the scythe can land some devastating blows, adding as much as 16 to a combat check!

Speaking of devastating, let's take a peek at the troublemaker behind the uprising, and see what new tricks our villains have learned. Unsurprisingly, there's a necromancer behind it all (at least for now), and Caizarlu Zerren doesn't disappoint.

In addition to being constantly surrounded by a cadre of mindless undead, Zerren has picked up one of the favored tricks of the heroes: a mirror image effect! To top it off, the foul necromancer deals poison damage, neatly bypassing many forms of protection. All in all, we're hoping that Caizarlu is someone that you'll love to hate, and he's just the first of many. You'll also encounter ghosts, ghouls, ghasts, haunts, strange abominations, and more ghouls (more ghouls!) as you unravel the riddle of The Skinsaw Murders.

Thanks for playing!

Chad Brown
Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Pathfinder Adventure Path Rise of the Runelords
1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I clearly need to make a plan with respect to acquiring this game.

Silver Crusade

Nice! Can't wait to get this deck.


This game is epic


Skinsaw Ritual is brutal! Also, looking forward to beating Caizarlu (probably mutiple times lol)

Silver Crusade

Just noticed that the reward for this scenario is a power feat, which is sweet. I'm wondering what the progression rate of feats is over the long run. The first adventure deck had one of each feat type as rewards. I'm curious if that will be the standard for every adventure deck.

Also, there are a lot of named henchmen here. 1-2 character groups won't see the Zombie Minions. And the Ghoul Scarecrow shown isn't used in this scenario.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Mr. Zerrin there messes up the whole "It's the villain, so I'll spend all my cards and roll a 40, scenario over!" strategy.

Silver Crusade

ryric wrote:
Mr. Zerrin there messes up the whole "It's the villain, so I'll spend all my cards and roll a 40, scenario over!" strategy.

Yeah, but so do those villains who require two combat checks from the previous adventure deck. Things that make you prepare for two fights whenever you explore make the strategy a little tougher. Now, you can't even share your two fights with a friend - the same character has to take on Zerrin twice, if necessary.


If you rolled to defeat Zerren and had to start over, do you have to again roll to defeat him and also again roll 1d6 to see if you start over again (and possibly again and again and...)? Or is it supposed to limit it to one "do over"?


jhunterj wrote:
If you rolled to defeat Zerren and had to start over, do you have to again roll to defeat him and also again roll 1d6 to see if you start over again (and possibly again and again and...)? Or is it supposed to limit it to one "do over"?

Seems like it should be EVERY time you attempt to defeat him, not just the first. That would also be in line with his flavor of having a "mirror image" effect. That guy scares me.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Fromper wrote:
Also, there are a lot of named henchmen here. 1-2 character groups won't see the Zombie Minions.

Don't worry—Caizarlu will make sure they face one or two.


OK, quick rules question now that we've seen Quink. Do the cards you look at have to stay on the bottom, or can they be placed on top? (I assume they stay at the bottom, but I'm sure it'll be asked.) :)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

The rules regarding "examining" cards include putting them back where they came from, meaning the bottom of the deck in this case.


His card says to put them back which would be the bottom of the deck not the top.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Developer

Fromper wrote:
And the Ghoul Scarecrow shown isn't used in this scenario.

Yeah, I didn't want to only show cards from the first scenario. If you guys would rather have a deeper look into one scenario (or a broader look across the whole adventure), I'd love to hear that.

Thanks!

Silver Crusade

magi210 wrote:
OK, quick rules question now that we've seen Quink. Do the cards you look at have to stay on the bottom, or can they be placed on top? (I assume they stay at the bottom, but I'm sure it'll be asked.) :)

I'd read "put them back" as "put them back where you found them", ie the bottom.

Edit: Well, I got ninja'd on that one, didn't I?


Vic Wertz wrote:
The rules regarding "examining" cards include putting them back where they came from, meaning the bottom of the deck in this case.

As expected. Thanks for the quick reply.


Chad Brown wrote:
Fromper wrote:
And the Ghoul Scarecrow shown isn't used in this scenario.

Yeah, I didn't want to only show cards from the first scenario. If you guys would rather have a deeper look into one scenario (or a broader look across the whole adventure), I'd love to hear that.

Thanks!

I, for one, would be super excited in any of the enw cards you want to show us!

Silver Crusade

Chad Brown wrote:
Fromper wrote:
And the Ghoul Scarecrow shown isn't used in this scenario.

Yeah, I didn't want to only show cards from the first scenario. If you guys would rather have a deeper look into one scenario (or a broader look across the whole adventure), I'd love to hear that.

Thanks!

Whatever you want to show us is cool. It just struck me as odd that you were focusing on one scenario with the scenario and villain cards, but showed us a henchman that doesn't go with it.


Thanks Chad for the peak. This kind of stuff is why I visit this website everyday.


Wow, Caizarlu seems like he can drain you resources really fast.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Also, there are a lot of named henchmen here. 1-2 character groups won't see the Zombie Minions.
Don't worry—Caizarlu will make sure they face one or two.

Since they are Summoned rather than appearing in the location deck, they don't get shuffled back into other open locations. Even in a 4 player game there are only two Zombie henchmen it seems, making the effect of spawning continuous zombies a rarity?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

We don't want to throw *too* many at you, because they are henchmen, and that means the ones that come back from the dead do give you more opportunities to close locations...


Ghould Scarecrow seems pretty "Meh"...

A combat check of 11 during the AP2 is frankly not something I would be afraid off, considering we encounter a lot of 12-15 check since AP0.

Sure he is good looking, but that is just another canon fodder. Especially with the added vulnerability of the undead trait.

Brodert Quink : not too bad, not to good. At least you can discard him for the free explore. But when you put the 3 cards back in any order... from the bottom or the top of the location deck ?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
jhunterj wrote:
If you rolled to defeat Zerren and had to start over, do you have to again roll to defeat him and also again roll 1d6 to see if you start over again (and possibly again and again and...)? Or is it supposed to limit it to one "do over"?
Seems like it should be EVERY time you attempt to defeat him, not just the first. That would also be in line with his flavor of having a "mirror image" effect. That guy scares me.

Actually, I disagree with that. If you follow the ruling with the Giant Hermit Crab it would be one and done.


Nathaniel Gousset wrote:

Ghould Scarecrow seems pretty "Meh"...

A combat check of 11 during the AP2 is frankly not something I would be afraid off, considering we encounter a lot of 12-15 check since AP0.

Sure he is good looking, but that is just another canon fodder. Especially with the added vulnerability of the undead trait.

Brodert Quink : not too bad, not to good. At least you can discard him for the free explore. But when you put the 3 cards back in any order... from the bottom or the top of the location deck ?

Well, since the Scarecrow is tied to another scenario, the Scenario card could boost Scarecrows substantially to make them a threat. Though I do feel they are kind of weak as it is.


TClifford wrote:
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
jhunterj wrote:
If you rolled to defeat Zerren and had to start over, do you have to again roll to defeat him and also again roll 1d6 to see if you start over again (and possibly again and again and...)? Or is it supposed to limit it to one "do over"?
Seems like it should be EVERY time you attempt to defeat him, not just the first. That would also be in line with his flavor of having a "mirror image" effect. That guy scares me.
Actually, I disagree with that. If you follow the ruling with the Giant Hermit Crab it would be one and done.

That's a good point. I'll have to double check the wording on the two cards to see if I agree or not ;)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

TClifford wrote:
Actually, I disagree with that. If you follow the ruling with the Giant Hermit Crab it would be one and done.

Yeah I've been wondering that too. The Crab sets a precedent, but this villain is a lot less scary without the possibility of an "infini-chain."

There could be a clarification that "chance to repeat fight" is not the same as "auto repeat fight." I don't have the cards in front of me, does the Crab also count as a new fight, i.e. all your spent cards are gone for no effect?


ryric wrote:
TClifford wrote:
Actually, I disagree with that. If you follow the ruling with the Giant Hermit Crab it would be one and done.

Yeah I've been wondering that too. The Crab sets a precedent, but this villain is a lot less scary without the possibility of an "infini-chain."

There could be a clarification that "chance to repeat fight" is not the same as "auto repeat fight." I don't have the cards in front of me, does the Crab also count as a new fight, i.e. all your spent cards are gone for no effect?

The wording on the giant hermit crab is, "If the Giant Hermit Crab would be defeated, reroll the dice and use the new result."

Caizarlu's text is "When you attempt a check to defeat Caizarlu Zerren, after you make the roll, roll 1d6. On a 1 or 2, start the check over. Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check."

I think we may need an official ruling here, especially sine the literal wording of the crab is not consistent with how its supposed to be played. From the literal wording on Caizarlu, I would say that you roll the 1d6 after the check, no matter how many previous times you've made the check previously.

One other thing I just noticed is that this villain can actually be forgiving... if you FAIL the check and then roll a 1 or 2 on the 1d6, you get a second chance without the consequences, or so it seems to suggest.


Per Mike's comment in another thread:

Mike Selinker wrote:

The sentence in the rulebook:

Each power may be used no more than once per check.
is meant to apply to everything in the game. So technically, the Crab can't use its power more than once.

That said, I can see the point here, and we may take steps to clarify it. Thanks, everyone.

Mike

I think that TClifford is probably right... the villain would not be able to use his power more than once, so you'd only roll that 1d6 one time, after the initial check (apparently whether you win or lose the check). Since you're "restarting" the check rather than starting a new check, the power should only apply once.

Silver Crusade

Captain Bulldozer wrote:

Per Mike's comment in another thread:

Mike Selinker wrote:

The sentence in the rulebook:

Each power may be used no more than once per check.
is meant to apply to everything in the game. So technically, the Crab can't use its power more than once.

That said, I can see the point here, and we may take steps to clarify it. Thanks, everyone.

Mike

I think that TClifford is probably right... the villain would not be able to use his power more than once, so you'd only roll that 1d6 one time, after the initial check (apparently whether you win or lose the check). Since you're "restarting" the check rather than starting a new check, the power should only apply once.

I disagree. The crab's power is limited because powers can only be used once per check. The villain specifically says to start the check over, meaning that it's a new check, so all cards/powers can be played again.


Well the new villain power does say "start the check over" , so I think they really intend a "infini-check" possibility.

As written, I think that you can start over even if you failed the check (on a 1 or 2), thematically, you missed your attack on a morror image... s#cks to be you.


Alsi, on a side note, I really think I should level-up Kyra for this one...


The wording "Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check" makes me think that each attempt should be treated as an entirely separate check, not a continuation of the same. In this case, the "once per check" would allow him to use this power for the first and any subsequent checks. Otherwise, you would not be able to re-use weapons, blessings, etc.

What's not clear is whether you would still take damage on a 1 or 2 if you failed. I'm assuming this roll takes place after damage?

Or does "After you make the roll" really mean "If Zerren would be defeated" ("make" meaning "succeed") in this case?


Flat the Impaler wrote:

The wording "Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check" makes me think that each attempt should be treated as an entirely separate check, not a continuation of the same. In this case, the "once per check" would allow him to use this power for the first and any subsequent checks. Otherwise, you would not be able to re-use weapons, blessings, etc.

What's not clear is whether you would still take damage on a 1 or 2 if you failed. I'm assuming this roll takes place after damage?

Or does "After you make the roll" really mean "If Zerren would be defeated" ("make" meaning "succeed") in this case?

Damage is the last part of resolving a check, meaning that if you were to take damage, the check would be over. As such, it seems to me that you wouldn't take damage. This may not be what was intended with the card though. I think we could use an official ruling on both of these issues really.


Fromper wrote:
Captain Bulldozer wrote:

Per Mike's comment in another thread:

Mike Selinker wrote:

The sentence in the rulebook:

Each power may be used no more than once per check.
is meant to apply to everything in the game. So technically, the Crab can't use its power more than once.

That said, I can see the point here, and we may take steps to clarify it. Thanks, everyone.

Mike

I think that TClifford is probably right... the villain would not be able to use his power more than once, so you'd only roll that 1d6 one time, after the initial check (apparently whether you win or lose the check). Since you're "restarting" the check rather than starting a new check, the power should only apply once.
I disagree. The crab's power is limited because powers can only be used once per check. The villain specifically says to start the check over, meaning that it's a new check, so all cards/powers can be played again.

Wouldn't "starting the check over" mean that it constitutes the same check? If it were a new check, the bit about not counting any other cards played would be redundant, since things like weapons/blessings/etc. don't normally carry over between checks.


To me they said that to differentiate from other cards that allow/force re-rolls.

This isn't a re-roll, you make a whole new check, using different cards (or the same if you wish/can)


I think the intent is to start a 'new' check without completing the Take Damage action.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To answer your question Captain, no. Since we have a similar ruling on the Giant Hermit Crab, I say one and done. I'm not saying I am right. Just basing it on previous discussions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is a tricky and dangerous card.

I belive that what it is saying is:

1) Encounter a Zombie Minion.

2) Make a check to Defeat either Combat 14 or Arcane 10.

3) After making the check, roll a d6.

3a) if the result is 3-6, keep the results of the original roll.

3b) if the result is 1-2, start the check again (return to step 2). All cards previously invested to modify the check which were discarded, revealed or buried have been lost. New cards must be invested to modify the new check.

4) Resolve the encounter as appropriate.

What is not clear is if the 1 card of each type per player limit per check is reset for the new check. I would guess that the answer is yes but if not it will make defeating this villain considerably harder.

The other thing that is not crear is if you resolve any recharge checks before you start the check again or once the combat is finally resolved.

Ouch, poison damage on top of everything else.


The phrase "start over" is virtually never used for a completely new action; just sayin. When you "start over" with an explanation, you are explaining the same thing, but making another attempt. When you "start over" in a relationship, you are making a second/third/etc attempt at that relationship (not beginning a new one entirely). When you "start over" in life, you are not gaining an additional life. When you "start over" in a video game, you are not playing a different game, just taking a second/third/etc. pass at the same game you've already attempted.

Each of the examples above mean either literally or metaphorically (usually metaphorically) replacing that which came before with a new attempt.

As such, it really would be a very strange wording to use if it is meant to constitute an entirely new check. I therefor maintain that it would have to be the "same" check, made from the beginning, but without any cards you would have wasted on your previous attempt per the phrasing of the card. As such, the ruling passed down for the Hermit crab would seem to apply here.


@TClifford, with the Giant Hermit Crab you simply re-roll all the dice you accumulated for your first check. Now with Caizarlu it says "Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check." With your interpretation could you not reveal the same weapon you intended to use for the initial check?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Captain Bulldozer wrote:

The phrase "start over" is virtually never used for a completely new action; just sayin. When you "start over" with an explanation, you are explaining the same thing, but making another attempt. When you "start over" in a relationship, you are making a second/third/etc attempt at that relationship (not beginning a new one entirely). When you "start over" in life, you are not gaining an additional life. When you "start over" in a video game, you are not playing a different game, just taking a second/third/etc. pass at the same game you've already attempted.

Each of the examples above mean either literally or metaphorically (usually metaphorically) replacing that which came before with a new attempt.

As such, it really would be a very strange wording to use if it is meant to constitute an entirely new check. I therefor maintain that it would have to be the "same" check, made from the beginning, but without any cards you would have wasted on your previous attempt per the phrasing of the card. As such, the ruling passed down for the Hermit crab would seem to apply here.

I see your point about “start the check over” but the card does go on to further say “Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check.”

The words previous and new seem to indicate two separate checks; the original and a new check.


1970Zombie wrote:

This is a tricky and dangerous card.

I belive that what it is saying is:

1) Encounter a Zombie Minion.

2) Make a check to Defeat either Combat 14 or Arcane 10.

3) After making the check, roll a d6.

3a) if the result is 3-6, keep the results of the original roll.

3b) if the result is 1-2, start the check again (return to step 2). All cards previously invested to modify the check which were discarded, revealed or buried have been lost. New cards must be invested to modify the new check.

4) Resolve the encounter as appropriate.

What is not clear is if the 1 card of each type per player limit per check is reset for the new check. I would guess that the answer is yes but if not it will make defeating this villain considerably harder.

The other thing that is not crear is if you resolve any recharge checks before you start the check again or once the combat is finally resolved.

Ouch, poison damage on top of everything else.

I *mostly* agree with this. One place I disagree is that, revealed cards should stay in your hand, as per normal. As such, they MAY be eligible to be used again. You also raise some excellent additional questions.

About the 1 of each type per check limit: since you're restarting the check, the card should not remember what other cards you had played in any previous attempt, meaning you should still be able to play a revealed weapon, or a spell if you played one before (assuming you have a different one to play).

The bit about recharge checks is a puzzler. I *think* the way it would work (since there are no nested checks) is that after your step 4, you'd then have the chance to make any recharge checks for cards you had played in the most recent incarnation of the check (and I *think* the first attempt if you had to restart as well). Really, I think the bit about recharge checks should be nested, even if other checks are not, but that's not what the designers say. I can't see the recharge issue being a very big deal here, since it wouldn't affect any damage you'd have to take, and you'd still get to recharge things before having to draw cards.


1970Zombie wrote:

I see your point about “start the check over” but the card does go on to further say “Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check.”

The words previous and new seem to indicate two separate checks; the original and a new check.

Yeah, I think its not very good wording. (Man I wish I had playtested this game!) The thing is, though, if it is really a new check, there is still no reason to mention that cards for the previous check won't affect it (as this is the default case). I think the usage of "previous check" and "new check" are intended only to clarify which roll is being described.

If I'm interpreting it correctly, it would seem that the wording should have been something more like,
"on a 1 or 2, start the check over. You are not allowed to use any card which was discarded, buried, banished or recharged for the previous attempt in the second attempt."

You can understand why they would go with a shorter wording, though in this case is does cause significant confusion.

So, as I see it there card has two possibilities:
1) You could, if you continue to roll a 1 or 2, have to make LOTS (meaning more than 2) checks to defeat this villain. If "restarting" constituted a "new" check, then his power would apply in the new check as well, potentially creating an infinite chain of checks (though its not likely that would happen, the probability of even 3 checks is 1 in 9, whereas the probability of 4 checks is 1 in 81.)

OR

2) You would need to make a maximum of 2 rolls against him (win or lose), where if you lose the first roll and roll a 1 or 2 on the 1d6, you would not take damage unless you also fail the second roll. Revealed cards could be reused, but discarded/potentially recharged/buried/banished cards could not be reused for the second roll.

I still think #2 is the most consistent with the wording, but I'd really love a designer to provide some guidance here!


"Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check." I assume then that powers used on on the previous check DO affect the new check? Certainly you couldn't use the same power again (Lini, Amiri, or Merisiel for double bonus die); therefore, if there is a memory of your powers then there would certainly be a memory of what cards have been played?

Scarab Sages

Am I the only one here that isn't confused by the villain's card and finds the instructions very straightforward? I really think you guys are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calthaer wrote:
Am I the only one here that isn't confused by the villain's card and finds the instructions very straightforward? I really think you guys are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

Do you care to share your clarity?


Drunkenping wrote:
"Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check." I assume then that powers used on on the previous check DO affect the new check? Certainly you couldn't use the same power again (Lini, Amiri, or Merisiel for double bonus die); therefore, if there is a memory of your powers then there would certainly be a memory of what cards have been played?

I don't think it depends on the interpretation. If it is indeed the same check, but a different roll with fewer possible cards to play, than you certainly couldn't use a power twice. If it is a NEW check, then any and all powers could be used once on that check. In either case, you'd expect to not be able to double up on a power.

Silver Crusade

1970Zombie wrote:
Calthaer wrote:
Am I the only one here that isn't confused by the villain's card and finds the instructions very straightforward? I really think you guys are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.
Do you care to share your clarity?

I tend to agree with Calthaer - this is definitely one of those cases of people making a mountain out of a molehill. The card specifically calls the re-do a "new check", which should be enough to answer every question.

Because it's a new check, everything can be used again, but anything used last time doesn't count. This includes the villain's power to call for a re-do, so this can lead to multiple do-overs, unlike the giant crab.


Fromper wrote:
Because it's a new check, everything can be used again, but anything used last time doesn't count. This includes the villain's power to call for a re-do, so this can lead to multiple do-overs, unlike the giant crab.

But it doesn't say "on a roll of 1 or 2, start a new check", it says "on a roll of 1 or 2, start the check over", and therein lies the confusion.

Is it the same check (in which case the "once per check" rule would apply to any card previously played into it, including the villain's power) or is it new check altogether (in which case all card types/player are again open, including the villain's power)?

The "start the check over" and "previous check"/"new check" verbiage seem contradictory.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Something Wicked Arrives Soon! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.