Irgy's page

Is it:
For each charge expended (... may shuffle 1 card)
or
(For each charge expaneded ... ) ... may shuffle 1 card

i.e. if I spend six charges do I shuffle 6 cards or 1 card?

As far as I can tell the wording is 100% ambiguous. My original, natural reading was the first (i.e. 6 charges), but the powers on other mythic abilities don't make sense to be per charge so I then wonder about this one.

Discard this card to ignore any effect that would move you to a random location

Can you determine the random location before deciding to use the book?

I'm leaning towards no but it's not clear to me why either way.

Chief Sull says "The difficulty of the check to acquire Chief Sull is equal to the highest difficulty to acquire a random item from the box"

Pauper's Thighbone says "Check to acquire: Banish an item“

So, um, what do we do? Is it difficulty 0, difficulty impossible, or banish an item? My gut says difficulty impossible but I'd really like that thighbone...

Steal Soul requires someone at your location (such as yourself) to defeat a monster which is "not immune to the attack trait" before you can play it. Some monsters have the text "you may not play spells with the attack trait" - sometimes with a check to fail first or sometimes just outright. That's different from an immunity, so I can happily steal their soul, yes?

Pretty sure the answer is technically yes, but not sure if I should feel guilty about it or not.

Can I just confirm that Kyra's ability to recharge a spell for an attack-spell-like effect against demons and undead does not actually count as "playing a spell"? So for example against a cambion I don't need to make a check first to use the ability.

I'm asking mostly whether this is "as intended", since I'm on-board with the idea that according to RAW if nothing says it's playing a spell then it isn't playing a spell. It just seems most similar powers (e.g. the sorcerers) say they count as playing-a-thing.

I can see that the carry-on golem has its own errata that would block this ability regardless. Although of course you can't use the ability in the first place anyway, because it's clearly just a soulless animation of dead flesh, as (obviously) entirely distinct from being "undead".

This FAQ entry:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1he#v5748eaic9v84

says to "search" the blessings deck for blessings when the villain is undefeated. Technically this then means you get to look at the blessings, which in turn means you know which blessings they are and may often have a clue to where the villain is (or at least isn't) when you encounter either the same or different blessings in a location deck.

My interpretation of the situation is this:
* Technically you can now look at the blessings all the time even if you know the blessings deck only contains blessings.
* The "intent" is that you shouldn't look at the blessings in either case.
* The intent isn't worth the amount of wording which would be required to fix it.
* If I want to follow the intent I should carry on not looking at the blessings.
* If I really want to follow the intent, then in the cases where there's other things in the blessings deck I should follow some sort of complicated process to ensure I still don't know which blessings they are (e.g. by shuffling the blessings I find into the box and taking random blessings out of the box).

Is this right?

Between three different cards, the Haunts are referred to as being:
"In front of you"
"In front of all players"
"In front of characters"
"Next to your character card"

More seriously though, assuming these are all the same place, it's still not clear to me how the scenario power interacts with the text on the Haunts themselves. Do you follow the scenario instructions before, after or instead of following the Haunt text?

I think the right interpretation is this:
1. First you encounter the Haunt, which means putting it next to your character card. This is because you should "finish one thing before you start another", so the encounter happens before the "when you encounter"

2. Then you should attempt to close the location. This is because the closing the location text on the Haunt uses the word "immediately", while the scenario text does not. The check will be harder than usual because of the Haunt.

3. Then you arrange yourself in such a way that the Haunt is both in front of you and next to your character card. This is because I'm assuming all these different places aren't meant to be different. The important thing is the Haunts still add 1 to the difficulty of all your checks, irrespective of having been told to put them somewhere else.

4. Then you count the number of Haunts that you can see around the table, including your own, roll d6, add the numbers together and compare it to 5.

5. Finally, you might then encounter Iesha. If you're Kyra you can then read all the other text on the card, but otherwise you just roll some dice and hope not to lose your whole hand.

Does this look right? I searched for other threads about this, but the only thing that was ever confirmed was not to pull d6 additional Haunts out of the box. Some asked the question but never got a confirmed response and none seemed to put the entire sequence together.

So, I tried to find a discussion on this but couldn't, which surprises me.

According to the rules, you can fill in blank spots in your deck with cards up to two adventure decks lower than the current scenario. Also according to the rules though, if anyone in your entire party has a card which has the appropriate type to go in your deck, you have to use that card, no matter how close to completely worthless it is. This comes up whenever you have to banish a card, gain a card feat, or to some extent just whenever you reach a new adventure deck and the value of "2 less than the current" ticks up.

However, the rules, as far as I understand, also allow the following:
* Re-playing already defeated scenarios.
* Locations (and other effects, but locations reliably exist) which let you banish cards.
* Preserving changes to your deck even if you lose the scenario.

The end result is I'm forced to choose between three things which I absolutely hate:
1. Play suboptimally - by hanging on to bad cards I don't want even though I know I could get rid of them.
2. Waste time - by setting up scenarios I've already won and don't plan to win this time just to banish a bad card.
3. Feel guilty - by just pretending to have done the above and getting rid of the card(s) I don't want.

I'll just to elaborate on the "play suboptimally" option, which might otherwise be the lesser of those three evils. It results in some very weird, and immersion-breaking choices and behaviour. Some examples; wizard/priest-types giving spells to warrior-types for the "power" to banish them after use, seeking out potions for their ability to banish an item (i.e. themselves) from your deck, deliberately declining every attempt to acquire cards of a particular type, scuttling your ship to banish plunder of a particular type (I got burned once by not realising I needed to do this one), seeing any effects that banish a card as an upside rather than a penalty.

To me, the whole situation just seems awkward. What approach does everyone else take (my impression is (1))? We did (3) most of the way through RotR but later switched to (1), mostly because we were finding the game too easy. If I was to change things to get rid of the awkwardness, I would do one of the following (from most to least preferred)
A) Make it so that you can just get rid of cards you don't want whenever you like (removing the guilt from (3), or equivalently removing the time wasting from (2)). Adjust the game difficulty (to harder) in other ways accordingly. Main down side is there's less excitement exploring since only the two most recent boxes contain any cards you might want.
B) Remove the rule that lets you take cards from the box entirely (thus removing the suboptimality of (1)). This might even involve having to start the next scenario with less than a full deck of cards. Or a softer version would be to just always limit it to basics. It's harsh, but I'd still prefer it to the current set of choices.
c) Close the loophole somehow. There's a lot of options, but I think they all come with costs to other aspects of the game.

Hi, here's a few somewhat unrelated questions which I've built up over time, and which I haven't found or figured out an answer to yet.

1) I'd like confirmation on my understanding of the interaction between cards like Poison Cloud and Blizzard etc., with different cards that make it difficult or impossible to play them through different means.
1A) Karzoug Statue is immune to the attack trait. My understanding is that you can use a cloud which was played earlier (although this is somewhat difficult to set up in that particular scenario) but not play a new one when you encounter him. It doesn't matter if you're the encountering player or another player.
B) Karzoug the Claimer says "before attempting to play a spell [do stuff]". I think this applies to anyone who tries to play a cloud in reaction to the encounter, but again has no impact on one in play from a previous encounter that turn?
C) Some cards that I can't remember say "[before you act] make a [check] or you cannot play spells". My understanding is that these on the other hand do not prevent anyone from playing clouds, because the cloud is played before that check is even made. I also believe that against these cards, people who play other support spells like "Fiery Weapon" are not affected in any way (don't have to make the check and can use the spell even if the encountering player fails it). I also think a second player helping with one of two checks to defeat is unaffected by the "before you act" check.

2) Isawyn the Diva says you can't play cards with the attack trait or weapons if you fail a certain check. I auto-failed the check (d4 for an 11), then used a Buckler Gun. Was this legit? It's an armour not a weapon, but it says it "counts as playing a weapon". The apparent purpose of saying that is to allow you to play another armour (and to not allow another weapon I guess, though as far as I can tell that's never relevant). But does this extend to not being able to play it in the first place? My interpretation was that I'm playing an armour which counts as a weapon. From a technical perspective it doesn't "count as playing a weapon" until I play it to activate that text, by which time I've already played it so it's too late to tell me I can't. Am I just being too much of a lawyer here?

3) The Pirate Council has an alternative method of defeat, by banishing some plunder cards. It doesn't say random, so does that mean you can choose the cards? I know the plunder pile is face down, but for instance you might remember that for the bottom card we rolled armour, the second card weapon and the top card spell. If you want weapons the most, can you choose for instance to give away the top and bottom card (armour and spell) but keep the middle (weapon)?

Hi, just a question on what dice qualify as being "for this weapon" when using the Dogslicer - "If any d6 rolled for this weapon is a 1..." (emphasis mine). In other words, which d6 can I upgrade the 1s to 3s on? Is it:
A) Just the 1d6 the weapon gives you and the extra 1d6 you may get from discarding the weapon.
B) As above plus the "strength or melee" die you roll, if it happens to be a d6 (e.g. as Ezren), since the weapon is the card telling you to roll that die so it is still "for the weapon".
C) Any d6 you roll on the combat check for any reason, since you're using the weapon for the combat check so any dice you roll for that check are by extension for the weapon. So you might for instance have dice added from blessings, a Toxic Cloud active and use the Fiery Weapon spell, rolling many, many d6.

My inner lawyer thinks (B) seems more correct since the card could have said "for this check" instead of "for this weapon". On the other hand I expect the intention was (C), which is how I've been playing it so far, on the principle that the game does not generally have any concept of which dice came from which effect and having to roll the dice separately would be a nuisance.