MuffinB's page

I'm staring at the errata and finding the use of "at least" to be very odd. Is it grammatically correct? I think "does not exceed the difficulty by 3 or more" would have been easier to understand.

EDIT: ninja'd

You're right, "at least" is very weird and I think this is what got me confused. When I read it with "by 3 or more" it makes a lot more sense to me.

Anyways, thanks everyone for the quick answer.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Frencois wrote:

The recent FAQ on Shadow of the Sphinx scenario uses the sentence

"If the result of any check to defeat a bane you encounter..."
So we may end up with that kind of FAQ FOR ALL SUCH POWERS.

This seems likely, and probably is a good way to resolve it until we make an official ruling.

Added FAQs for Ring of the Iron Skull (S&S3), Pit Gladiator (WotR4, Paladin, Barbarian), and Glass Boat (MM6).

Shouldn't Alchemical Laboratory's "At that location" also be FAQed?

I know Glass Boat from Mummy's Mask adventure 6 has been errataed, but whether before or after the errata, I'm not sure I understand:

1) when is it that you get to draw a random item; and

2) if you get to draw an item if you don't succeed at all at your check to defeat.

(This has nothing to do with the case of multiple checks, which is covered by the errata and I totally understand.)

Here's the text before and after the errata:

When you encounter a bane, if you do not defeat it by at least 3, draw a random item that has the Alchemical or Liquid trait from the box.

If the result of each check to defeat a bane you encounter does not exceed the difficulty by at least 3, after the encounter, draw a random item that has the Alchemical or Liquid trait from the box.

My understanding is that if a bane has a check to defeat of 15, and I roll 15, 16, 17 or 18, then I would get to draw a random Alchemical/Liquid item from the box. Is that correct?

Then, assuming it is correct, what if I totally fail with a roll of 6, do I also get to draw a random Alchemical/Liquid item from the box? Usually, these sorts of sentencing are when something detrimental happens when you fail to defeat the bane by a certain amount. Now with the Glass Boat being beneficial, I find it odd (and doubt that it is intentionnal) that you could willingly fail a check and then be rewarded with an item...

(Hence, perhaps this is because English is not my first language, but my initial readings of Glass Boat pre-errata was that the "do not defeat it" part was mandatory in order to get the item)

I will raise that "ignoring" something always implies that the power only applies to you.

See the relevant FAQ.

That FAQ was created to cover ignoring a BYA or AYA effect - only you can ignore an effect that a BYA or AYA power would have on you; you cannot protect someone else unless a power explicitly said so (such as "allow a character at your location to ignore a BYA power"). But it does seem to apply here as well, and I support skizzerz's assessment.

Hum... That's enough to convince me that only Damiel can ignore the bane's immunities if the box is checked. However, I do find this very unfortunate and extremely unintuitive.

We are so used to upgrade a power by checking the box after it... But here it seems like two separate things: in the first part you can boost anyone's check by 1d4; in the second part you (and only you) can ignore a bane's immunities during a combat check. What does this have anything to do with the first part?

It might as well just have been this seperate optional power on a line below saying: □ You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to ignore a bane’s immunities on a combat check. If it would have been that way, I believe everything would be obvious and this thread would not exist...

Only Damiel ignores the immunities. When using the 2nd option it becomes “You may recharge a card that has the Alchemical trait to ignore a bane’s immunities for that check.”

Nothing about that mentions other characters.

Well perhaps it's the use of the word "that" that implies another character by refering to "a combat check by a character at your location". Otherwise, I feel the power would be written (□ or to ignore a bane’s immunities for YOUR check) without the need to use the word "that". Otherwise, when rewording the 2nd option like Skizzerz did, there would be no need to keep this "that".

It looks to me that the template "that check" is a bit unusual... Are there other examples of cards or power that use such a "that check"?

So, when my option #1 is chosen, a player stops playing their character and starts playing Arushalae

With all due respect, I don't get why you say a player stops playing their character. This is nowhere in the rules, and on the Tower of the Fourth Sphere it says that "a player may begin playing the character Arueshalae" without any reference to stopping using your previous character. I think it is well known that one player can play two (or more) characters and I think that Tower of the Fourth Sphere accounts for that. Like Skizzers said, Arueshalae can end up being a net +1 character to your party.

With this in mind, I think there is no problem in rebuilding deck at the end of Demon's Redoubt following the usual rules, even if you have a net +1 character in your party. At the beginning of your next scenario, the whole party will have the opportunity to decide how many characters form their party. Do they keep their party with a player playing two characters, or do they leave one character in the box...?

I'm totally with Irgy on this. Nowhere is it mentions that you "swap" an existing character with Arushalae. Perhaps, you will "drop" a character between "The Demon's Redoubt" and your next scenario, but at the time you are rewarded with Arushalae, you don't have to. My read is that she is just added to your existing party, increasing the number of character by one, and she arrives at the "Between Games" step:

Between Games

After each scenario, you must rebuild your character deck. Start by combining your discard pile with your hand, your character deck, any cards you buried under your character card, and any cards you displayed; you may then freely trade cards with other players. Your deck must end up meeting the Cards List requirements on your character card. Loot cards count as cards of their type. For example, if your character’s cards List specifies 3 items, and you keep 1 loot card with the item type when your rebuild your deck, your deck must contain exactly 2 other items.
If you can’t construct a valid deck from the cards your group has available because you don’t have enough of certain cards, choose the extra cards you need from the box, choosing only cards that have the Basic trait.

So, if you were three players playing three characters, you are now tasked with rebuilding four characters (your initial three + Arushalae) according to the existing rules. Since Arushalae has no cards when she arrives, her deck will need to be filled from whatever another character wants to give her, or the scenario reward cards, or the boons nobody wanted. I think that is why Irgy was saying that if you intended to "drop" a character before your next scenario, that character could "freely choose" to trade all his valuable boons to Arushalae and pick up whatever nobody wanted, or even fill in from the box if there is not enough valid card because he gave so many to Arushalae. In the same way, that "soon-to-be-dropped" character could keep some undesired boon, if it would allow Arushalae to get a better boon of the same type from the box.

Re-reading my post, I notice I made a typo in the end (but now it's to late to edit). Of course I meant that "I would play it that the minotaur has doesn't have any nasty effects if you did something else instead of your first exploration, just as I would not let a Blessing of Baphomet add 2 dice if you did something else instead of your first exploration."

Also, I was being a little sarcastic about the "blasphemy"... It's just that Hawkmoon is a lot more often right than wrong :)

Even if I understand that it's almost blasphemy to go against a Hawkmoon's interpretation, I will try to play Devil's advocate on this one.

The FAQ which Hawkmoon refers to specificaly applies to Faceup Cards, and I can see a difference between a faceup barrier and a minotaur. That difference being precisely that, at the begining of the turn, one card is faceup and not the other.

For the purpose of the example, let's say you are Kyra, or a character with card/power allowing them to do something instead of their first exploration. If you find yourself in a location with a faceup barrier before your first exploration, then you already know what your first exploration is going to be. In that case, it would be too easy to "dodge" the barrier by using your card/power to do something else instead of your first exploration, then spending some ressource (like a blessing) to explore past the barrier.

On the other hand, if you are that same Kyra and you start your turn with a facedown minotaur, *usually* you are not aware that you will face a minotaur with nasty effects that trigger on your first exploration. So if you did something else instead of your first exploration while technically not knowing your next encounter will be a minotaur, then spend some ressource to get an additional exploration, I don't see why you would not benefit from your exploration being an additional one.

I understand that after examining cards, you could be aware that the minotaur is to the top facedown card of the location and play accordingly to "dodge" his nasty effects, but I don't see this any different than if the minotaur was the second card from the top and you had examined the top two cards, and then play accordingly to "dodge" his nasty effect.

Also, if the FAQ about faceup barrier was applicable to the minotaur, it would also have to be applicable to other cards, like Blessing of Baphomet. And I think to one point, it would undermine the rule about what "instead" means. In usual instances "instead" would replace all of one thing by another, but then when that "instead" would be about "first exploration", it would only make you forfeit the part about "a free exploration" and not the part about "it being your first exploration". I believe it would lead to more confusion...

As I see it, the FAQ to which Hawkmoon refers to fixes only faceup barriers, and I think that by RAW, it fixes only that. I would play it that the minotaur has nasty effects if you did something else instead of your first exploration, just as I would not let a Blessing of Baphomet add 2 dice if you did something else instead of your first exploration.

I'd also hate to see him play RotR's Into the Eye as part of group. And by "hate" I mean "love".

@JohnF, it depends on your definition of "problem"... Hawkmoon would hate love to see it happen.

I don't think that MuffinB was suggesting that this is how the game should be played. I inferred that it was more of a sarcastic statement born of exasperation at the impact of mandatory Glory Hound action.

That exactly.

Of course, I don't play PACG un-cooperatively and I would never wilingly act in a way that leads to another player's character's death. It just struck me as very odd that Alain Glory Hound could lead to such un-cooperative play.

As for the rest of Brother Tyler's post about how to cooperatively play with Alain Glory Hound, I totally agree that it' a good way to play it, but you could do just the same if the power was optional. I don't get why it should be mandatory, not even from the thematic point of view.

I get the part where Alain would shove Merisiel aside, shout "Let me get that range weapon for you Milady", but clumsily sends it to banishment - the whole without Merisiel ever having to say a word in it. But even thematicaly, I don't get the part where he would always step in to fight a monster, even if he was ill-prepared for if it meant his death. I don't see Alain as that much of an idiot...

I think the thematic is just as well respected with the power being optional: You, as a player, have to opportunity to steal a monster/weapon encounter from someone without them having to say anything to it. You want to play this strategicaly with everyone like Brother Tyler suggests, go ahead. You want to role-play this like I guess Frencois would, and bravely fight a monster Merisiel was planning to evade, knock yourself out - you can also!

I just don't see the "why" of the mandatory part of it, whether mechanicaly or thematicaly.

As written, I agree it's mandatory. Even so, I can't help but think that the power should be:
□ When another character at your location would encounter a monster (□ or a weapon), you may discard (□ or recharge) a card; if you do, you encounter it instead.

Otherwise, I don't see why anyone would pick this power over Alain's other powers. For first, Alain's survival becomes way too liable of the other character's decisions. Imagine if only the first box is checked and not (□ or a weapon), than why wouldn't every other characters go explore at Alain's location? Let's have Alain deal with the bad monster stuff (I don't really care if he dies, it's not my character), while I can get deal with all the good boon stuff! (and the occasionnal barrier...)

Only because nobody else already posted it, here is the actual text of both cards: Animate Dead and Robe of Bones

Knowing a similar problem occured with the Blink Spider and that it was FAQed, I'm sure it was unintentional to lack one Vrykolakas for closing Jaws of Dagon in a 6-player game.

That being said, the FAQ does not give us much insight as to what you should do when you don't have the additionnal Blink Spider from the special pack sent to the distributors... So I think for both the missing Blink Spider and the missing Vrykolakas, proxy seems like the only reasonnable solution...

Throwing my two cents in what seams an issue without clear rules, I think Frencois identied the problem.

Note that if ruled otherwise, it would in fact recreate the MTG stacking that not-this-Mike tries to avoid:

- I evade
-- I move
--- I decide to examine
---- Wow a monster hench, I decide to encounter
----- Wow I defeat it so I decide to close
------ Wow due to closing condition now I can immediately move
------- But then, the process forks...
and I never get to end my turn?

Moreover, the situation could be similar even if only the "examine" part was allowed:

- I evade
-- I move
--- I decide to examine
---- Wow a monster with trigger that makes me encounter it
----- Somehow I evade and move... or I fail to defeat a monster with a power that moves me if undefeated
------ After moving, I decide to examine again...
-------Loop...

Then someone goes: "Wait, didn't your turn ended so time ago?" Nobody can remember/be sure, there were 2 or 3 encounters since then...

So, the real question is whether you should be allowed to examine the card or not. I'd personally say no.

I agree with Hawkmoon.

...it is in the S&S faqs...

Thanks. Either this faq was posted after I updated my cards months and months ago, or I overlooked it back then. Anyways, I have no excuse to not have checked before posting this thread ;)

I'm catching up a group with a solo S&S Merisiel and noticed this yesterday:

When you encounter a monster with the Merfolk trait, draw a random ally from the box and set it aside. If you defeat the monster, put the ally in your hand; if undefeated, banish the ally

I evaded the Sea Devil...

...and wondered if I should leave the ally displayed on my table indefinitely... My wife would surely not appreciate to always have a parrot on our dinning table, but if it's the designers' intent... ;)

I know it's not a big thing but shouldn't the Scenario card be faqed to say if you do not defeat it instead of undefeated?

Well actually the Resolution does not change anything, it says: change "discard [...]" to "discard [...]"

I'm with Longshot on this one. I see no problem in exmining the same card multiple times if it's otherwise legit (whether with Adowyn's power, Zadim's, the item Wayfinder, or any other).

The post with Vic's quote "think bigger, cheater" refers to when you would want to search your deck for a cohort and KNOW that there is no cohort in your deck. In that case, you'd be cheating because you are using a power that should not apply to your situation. Similarly, you would be cheating if you were to use a power that let you examine the top card of a location deck which has no cards. It's really not the same thing when there is a top card to be examined.

I see no reason why something should prevent you from examining again a card that has already been examined, whether recently or 20 turns ago. The power doesn't say "examine a card that has not been examined this turn (or any other moment)" and nowhere in the rules does it say you can't. Why add a restriction? It's well known that cards don't do what they don't say...

Lastly, I know it's not the best argument, but the Obsidian app lets you do it as often as you can...

MuffinB wrote:

Why not just add "Then that player shuffles her deck." at the end of the power?

Because that would make the power much too powerful. The cxards you discard aren't supposed to have a chance to get immediately back on top of your deck.

I don't see how it would be too powerful - the card was already on top of your deck before you used the power anyway...

Why not just add "Then that player shuffles her deck." at the end of the power?

We don't play PACG as a memory game.

I know most people play it as "not a memory game", but I do. Not that I want to exercise my memory skills when playing PACG, but I find it weird to leave card face up on top of decks when they have been examined. To avoid confusion, we only leave face up the cards we're encountering...

Also, I haven't played MM yet, but I think it's a lot less appropriate to leave "trigger" cards face up... Why would you not have to suffer the consequences of not remembering a "trigger" card...

My understanding was that the limitation on cards and powers (can only be played if relevant to the check) was only limited to encounters. For us, you can play a Cure (out of exploration/encounter of course) if there is no cards in the discards of all characters in your location (just to recharge it).

For what it's worth, in the Obsidian App, you can't cast Cure on a character that doesn't have cards in his discard...

... and you can examine the same card over and over, recharging/using whatever card you have that lets you do it...

I know the rules about casting spells and using items per encounter, but I find my Varril with a spell called Divine Fortune which states "Display. While displayed add 1d6 to checks by characters at your location. Discard/Recharge at the start of your turn."

I just pulled a spell, Steal Soul reads "Display this card next to your deck to add 1d4 to your checks while displayed." It stays displayed until the scenario ends.

So would playing Divine Fortune while Steal Soul is already displayed count as using two spells at once? My theory is that Steal Soul is a persistent buff and doesn't count as multi-casting unless I tried to cast both on the same encounter, but I may be suffering from power-hungry bias. o.O

You are not suffering from power-hungry bias. Even better: I don't have the cards in front of me, but if your quoted text is right, you could play a third spell- like a "For your combat check, discard this [spell] to add..." - whilw also getting the two buffs.

If Your Ship Is Anchored

Place the ship card next to the location it is docked at. You will never move it.
If you are at the docked location, you are on the ship. If it also happens to be your turn while you are at that location, you are commanding the ship.
Others can not move with you when you move.

Another detail: When the Scenario says that your ship is anchored somewhere, that place is the starting location of everyone at the beginning of the scenario.

I played solo Harsk. I'm not sure if I would recommand it. Adventures B (Into Worldwound) and 1 (forgot the adventure's name) were quite challenging (i.e. fun!). I think I had to try Scenario B-4 4 or 5 times because it required so many "Magic" check...

But after Adventure 1, you get your Mythic Path (I chose "Champion" as an obvious choice) and things only got easier and eaiser...

Has anyony playing solo had the same experience?

Also (*SPOILERS ALERT*), I switched to another character during Adventure 3. I regret that choice... It ends up being very similar as to what I was playing as Harsk... probably even a lot more easier since I can evade many encounters...

I'm still amazed by the fact that a temporarily closed location, is an open location.

I find this super intuitive!!! ..... . . . . . of course, this was sarcasm.

If they wanted HoF to always go to the Grinder if undefeated, they didn't need to issue any errata.

Are you suggesting that a temporarily-closed location counts as an open location?

My understanding is that a "temporarily-closed location" is not an "open location", and when in thee FAQ it said : "Normally, temporarily closing a location doesn't do anything other than prevent the villain from escaping to that location, but we do want this power to apply when the Grinder is temporarily closed." it meant they wanted the HoF to go to the Grinder even if it was temp-closed...

In the Demondome scenario (4-2), how many Battlebliss locations are you supposed to build at the beginning?

Only 1 per character, or 1 per character + the one listed at the back of the scenario card?

I was playing it solo yesterday and I build only one Battlebliss location. I've played it, and it felt way too easy even with the scenario's "surprise" (not giving spoilers here). Then I wondered if I was supposed to build an "original" Battlebliss location (as usual, using the locations listed at the back of the scenario card), then build additionnal "copies" of Battlebliss equal to the number of characters, as per the "During this scenario"'s text.

My reasonning is that if the intent was to have strictly one Battlebliss location per character, the back of the scenario card should have listed "1-6 - None" for the required locations, and then the front of the scenario card would have told us to built X "copies" of Battlebliss. We would also be neerer the usual number of locations per scenario.

For reference, here's Demondome's text:

Using the deck list from Battlebliss, build a number of Battlebliss locations equal to the number of characters. When 1 of these location decks is empty, close that location; all characters there move, then it ceases to exist. Do not flip the Battlebliss card over.

And it's been errated to:

Using the deck list from Battlebliss, build a number of Battlebliss locations equal to the number of characters. When any of these location decks is empty, that location automatically closes; all characters there move, then it ceases to exist. Do not flip the Battlebliss card over.

I don't think temporarily closing the Grinder is pointless. Let's say you encounter Heart of Fane at another location than the Grinder, it's still usefull to have someone temporarily close the Grinder, because if you manage to defeat Heart of Fane, things go as they usually do, and you would see if there's an open location for the villain to escape. In that case, you'll be happy if someone temp closed the Grinder.

That part has nothing to do with the errata (whatever it is), since Heart of Fane's last power only triggers when he's undefeated.

The way I see it is: When you defeat Heat of Fire, it behaves like any other normal villain. But when you fail to defeat it, the intention was to have it automatically *hide* in the Grinder. i.e. Defeated = normal escape; Undefeated = The Grinder (unless it is banished, then it's a normal escape)

I understand that the errata was meant to see this power in application even if the Grinder was temporarily closed. Thing is that's not what "Resolution" in the FAQ says...

I'm starting AD4 and I'm looking at the errated cards. I feel there's a mistake in the correction made to the villain Heart of the Fane.

If undefeated, and if the location Grinder is open, the villain does not escape; instead, shuffle this card into the Grinder's location deck, and all characters there are moved to a random other location

then it's been corrected to change "is open" by "has not been banished and is not temporarily closed":

Q:Heart of the Fane says "If undefeated, and if the location Grinder is open, the villain does not escape." What if the Grinder is temporarily closed?

A:Normally, temporarily closing a location doesn't do anything other than prevent the villain from escaping to that location, but we do want this power to apply when the Grinder is temporarily closed.

Resolution: On the villain Heart of the Fane, change "if the location Grinder is open" to "if the location Grinder has not been banished and is not temporarily closed".

As I understand it, the correction made to Heart of the Fane should have been: "change "if the location Grinder is open" to "has not been banished" period.

Adding "and is not temporarily closed" to the correction completly defeats the purpose of having "this power to apply when the Grinder is temporarily closed" and is exactly te same thing as saying that the location is open, but it just uses more words...

I've read the whole thing 5 times just to make sure I was not pointing out a mistake in a correction of an error... I hope I'm right....

There's one thing I'd like clarification on regarding Alrys Harnaste in the Crusader's Legacy Scenario:

"...

If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from; if you do, display this card next to your deck. Bla bla bla."

The "if you do" part refers to "if you do attempt to close" or does it refer to "if you do close". i.e.: Do you display Alrys Harnaste next to your deck after you choose to attempt to close a location (regardless if you succeed or not) or do you display him next to your deck only if you succeed at closing.

Also, am I right that you can bypass the "display" part of Alrys Harnaste if you choose not to attempt to close the location after defeating him. In that case I know the location would still be open, but you might have a chance of shuffling Alrys Harnaste in another random open location... (difficulty of checks increased by 2 can be brutal in a solo game with a character who doesn't have Divine as a skill...)

Thank you! Once again, the answer is in the rule book... Yet, it seems that whenever I look for something in the rule book I never find it... Hence this forum!

Banner of Valor says that you display it next to a location [...] then you pick it back up when the location is closed (or something like that, I don't have the card in front of me).

Question: Do you still get to pick it up if you fail the scenario because there's no more blessing to advance in the blessing deck, even though you did not close the location where the banner was displayed?

I know that a similar question has been asked about Padrig and the answer was: "If a card doesn't say when it is un-displayed, un-display it at the end of the scenario". But I find there's a difference with Banner of Valor since it tells you when to un-display it (when the location is closed), but you fail to meet that requirement...

I know it would be a hard blow for a party to lose the Banner of Valor if it was still displayed when a scenario is failed, but maybe it would make you think twice before systematically displaying the Banner when there is not much time left...

FAQ wrote:

Build only the first location. When you close a location, before closing, summon and build the next listed location and shuffle the cards from the previous location into its deck. When you close the final location listed for your number of players, treat the Citadel as the next location; shuffle the villain Soltengrebbe and 1 henchman Brimorak per character into its deck. You win the scenario only when you defeat Soltengrebbe.

When you build the Citadel, you build it according to its list, add in the previous location's cards ("treat the Citadel as the next location") and then add in the villain and henchmen. Shuffle. Rinse.

Do you add a Worldwound Cadre to the Citadel when building it? I would assume yes since it's the scenario's Henchman and since you also added one to every previous location you build before the Citadel - but I'm not sure...

I've just played my first game with a Mythic Path. Since I'm playing a solo Harsk, I was tempted by the 1 card "cure" ability of the Hierophant. But after one game, I think I misread/misplayed that Hierophant Path...

Add your number of mythic charges to your Wisdom or Chrisma check. Then you may expend 1 or more charges. If you do, when you assemble your dice, for each charge expended, replace 1 of your highest non-d20 dice with a d20, and after the check, a character at your location may shuffle 1 card from her discard pile into her deck.

At first, I tought that Mythic Paths allowed you some bonuses to certain skill checks (Wisdom and Charisma in the case of Hierophant) based on your number of charges and that - as a separate thing - you could spend a charge to replace a die with a d20 on whatever check you had to do... Re-reading the card, I feel like the word "Then" implies that the power to replace a die with a d20 only applies when you are doing a type of check mentionned on your Mythic Path card. For instance, if you have the Mythic Hierophant, you could only have a d20 on a Wisdom or Charisma check and not on a Dexterity Ranged Combat check. In the same way, you would only get the "1 card cure benefit" after a Wisdom or Charisma check. Am I right? If so, I will most definitely change my Mythic Path choice (even though rules say I can't, I will ;) Otherwise, Harsk will have a hard time to make good use of his Mythic commitement)

Second question for the Hierophant Path: when it says "a character at your location may shuffle 1 card from her discard pile into her deck" is it a random card from the discard pile (as the usual cure abilities do) or does the character gets to choose which card he gets to shuffle into his deck?

Rebel Song wrote:

But you're INVINCIBLE!

This immediately made me think of that hacker guy in Goldeneye (first Pierce Brosnan as James Bond movie for those of you who aren't familiar) right before a bunch of liquid N2 pours over him freezing him into his victory pose...

Depending on which barrier or bane you hit, it's something like that.

Boris Grishenko!

jduteau wrote:

skizzerz wrote:

The following is left as an exercise for the reader: Can Visionary Shardra's power be used on Combat checks? If yes, does the check remain a Combat check (e.g. Knowledge is swapped out for the implicit Strength or Melee skill), or does it no longer remain a Combat check (e.g. Knowledge is swapped out for Combat itself)? If no, is it because the implicit Strength or Melee is not actually a "listed skill" so the power just doesn't work on Combat checks at all? If you need an example barrier, check out Stringy Fiend in AD5 as that has a Combat check to defeat iirc (and if not, assuredly one of the AD6 armies does).

I'd say:

1) Yes she can use Knowledge on combat checks to defeat a barrier.
2) Yes it is a Combat check. I would argue that she determines that she is doing a Strength or Melee skill for Combat and then uses her power to substitute Knowledge for either of those.

I hadn't thought of using her against these barriers (mainly because it is rare that a barrier would be a Combat like Stingy Fiend) but I can see it working.

Yeah, that's how I would play it too. I just found it a curious corner case when typing out the above -- I was going to give Stringy Fiend as a wacky example in answering the original question due to the seeming non-intuitiveness of the power working on Combat checks (and what the consequences of that were), but then I stepped back and realized that there are alternate interpretations that others may prefer/argue for, so I raised it as a new question instead.

I'd say Shardra can't use her power on Stringy Fiend. Exatly because:

Strength or Melee is not actually a "listed skill" so the power just doesn't work on Combat checks at all

Anyways, it's not like having to do a combat check will catch you off guard if you can't use that power! I don't know about you guys/girls, but when I explore, I'm usually prepared in case I have a combat check to do :)

So, it's no big loss if Shardra can't use her Visionary power on a barrier with a combat check - I'm sure she'll do fine with a regular combat check. No need to add implicit skills to the explicit "listed skills".

Likewise, if you would have checked the (☐ or close a location) part of the power, you wouldn't add any implicit skills to the closing requirements.

But then again, on my WotR adventure I play solo Harsk and I have yet to encounter Stringy Fiend (I'm only at Adv.2's 2nd scenario), so anyone is free to set my opinion aside if they wish :)

Also, why would Melee be implict? The way I see it, Shardra doesn't have the Melee skill, so only her Strengh skill would be implict on a combat check...

AP1 Barrier "Bilious Bottle" reads:

"Display this barrier faceup next to your location. The first time each turn that a character explores this location, each character at that location rolls 1d4:
1. You are dealt 1d4+1 Poison damage.
2. You are dealt 1d4+1 Fire damage.
3. Bury the top card of your deck.
4. Discard a card and banish this barrier."

I have 4 questions:

A) If I encounter the barrier on a second exploration during my turn, should the players at that location roll 1d4 immediately or do I only apply the first part "Display this barrier faceup next to your location." and wait to roll 1d4 on subsequent turns?

B) Does it make a difference if the first time I encounter the barrier it's the first exploration of my turn? (not sure if the power applies since you had already "explored" the location in order to meet the barrier)

C) Let's say the barrier is already faceup at the beginning of my turn and we are three characters at that location. For my first exploration, do I encounter Bilious Bottle or do I encounter the next facedown card?

D) In any event, at some point each characters rolls 1d4. I roll "2", player 2 rolls "1" and player 3 rolls "4". What's the outcome? Does the "You are dealt" specifically refers to me and then I'm deal 1d4+1 Fire damage and 1d4+1 Poison damage or does each player apply the results of their roll to their character? Do I get to banish the barrier even though I'm not the player who rolled 4? Who discards a card for banishing this barrier?

(Is it just me or is this barrier very complicated on top of being one of the most difficult card I've encountered during AP1?)

Can you use the Manual of War to use a power on your role card even if you haven't yet earned your role card? In other words, can you use the Manual of War in Adv.1 to use a power on your role card?

Well, you have to test your new weapon on something. Better another character than yourself. :D

Hahahahah! Card should read: "If you chose to test your new weapon on another player, you gain the trait Demon"

Temptation of Arms has you drawing 3 Weapons and then allowing you to choose 1 and add it to your hand.

Then it says: "If you added 1 to your hand, the barrier is undefeated; a character at your location is dealt 1d4+1 Combat damage."

Is it "a random character at your location" or "a character of your choice at your location" that is dealt 1d4+1 Combat Damage?

In any event, I find it odd that I could choose to add a Weapon to my hand but possibly have another player suffer the damage... Even strangier if I can deliberately choose someone else... That's just nasty for the victim: he suffers damage (and 1d4+1 can be a great deal of it) for a boon he did not even acquire, all while it's not even his turn... Enjoy the game, and enjoy your next turn!

I would have tought that if you choose to "give in" to the temptation you, and only you, should be suffer the consequences...

Ok, so in short:

1) "her" is not a typo.
and
2) Card is discarded from the top of the deck.

If so, why not have Temptation of Lucre specifically say so on the card: "If you added 1 to your hand, the barrier is undefeated; each character discards a card from the top of her deck."

I think it would only make it coherent with all the other cards of the game.

The Temptation of Lucre have you decide whether or not you take an item. If you take one, it says "every other player discards a card from her deck". I dont have the card in front of me, but I'm 100% sure about "a card from her deck" and I just don't get it... Is it a typo where "her" stands for "their", and even if so, shouldn't it be "discards a card from the top of their deck"?

Last Spring, I bought the second Adventure Deck of the Skull and Shackles Base Set (Raiders of the Fever Sea) at a retailer near my place. It's only last Sunday that my friends and I made it far enough in the adventure to open Adventure deck #2. To our suprise, the Adventure Deck had two wrappings of the same cards (the one without the new adventures, villains, henchmen, etc.). I figured this was a packaging mistake...

So now I'm stuck with an Advenutre deck which lacks half of its cards. I sent an email to customer.service@paizo.com earlier this week, but still haven't received an answer. I also went to the retailer where I initially bought the Adventure deck, but without the invoice they can't replace the product... I have no clue where I did put that invoice IF I kept it...

What should I do now?