Small Demon

Shnik's page

Organized Play Member. 39 posts (296 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS


Brother Tyler wrote:
I suppose the "by Deity X" means that the check gets the X trait.

Yup. That's in the Core rulebook on page 12, "Rules: Bless" section:

If a power blesses by a deity, or if a card used to bless has the Deity trait, add the deity’s name as a trait to the check. For example, if a check is “blessed by Sarenrae” or is blessed by a card that has the trait “Deity: Sarenrae,” add the Sarenrae trait to the check.


A little fix needed: in the PDF, Pizazz's Whistleblower role lists his proficiencies as "Weapon" instead of "Arcane Divine Instrument".


For Adventures 6 & 7, the "Build the Vault" section states: "Start with all level 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 cards". Shouldn't that include level 6 cards as well (and possibly level 7 for Adventure 7)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One interesting thing to note in the new Guide, the following updated sentence (p.8):

-You can replace your character with any character of the
same class, along with a matching role card.

In the previous guide this was limited to characters from the Base sets and Character add-on decks.

This means you can now use, for example, Varian from the Pathfinder Tales deck with the Hell's Vengeance 2 deck. So many more possibilities!

The Pathfinder Tales deck can now be used with a whopping 28 characters!


Matsu Kurisu wrote:
Shnik wrote:
Matsu Kurisu wrote:
The key issue is the limit of only one card per type per check across the table rather than per player with you hand being old cards caused huge game play issues as a majority of the cards in hand were now dead on other players turns and we couldn't support well.
Can you elaborate on this? From all my plays, the vast majority of times two or more players played a card of the same type on the same check, it was a blessing. Were players sitting on hands filled with blessings that couldn't all be played at the same time? What cards were "dead" on other players' turns because of that rule change?

Most new cards have templates of

Ally / Item- top power is local check not personal only
Attack spells - arcance +Xd or +Xd to others check
Ranged weapons - support power is freely

So there is a lot more options to support

Well, sure, the new Core is made to have more interactions/ support between players; but, apart from multiple Blessings on the same check, how are the Class decks worse now than they were in pre-Core OP?

As for the Ranged Weapons, the new rulebook says that any "old" Weapon or Spell which adds to a check can be played freely, so you can still play your old Longbow, Strength Spell, or Aid on combat checks that are already using Weapons or Spells.


Matsu Kurisu wrote:
The key issue is the limit of only one card per type per check across the table rather than per player with you hand being old cards caused huge game play issues as a majority of the cards in hand were now dead on other players turns and we couldn't support well.

Can you elaborate on this? From all my plays, the vast majority of times two or more players played a card of the same type on the same check, it was a blessing. Were players sitting on hands filled with blessings that couldn't all be played at the same time? What cards were "dead" on other players' turns because of that rule change?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
Nope. Still not buying "less cleanup" as the reason for banishing locations, but if that's the version y'all want to stick with...
But could banishing locations also save 30 seconds of clean-up? Sure.

Saving 30 seconds of clean-up... by spending 30 more seconds of in-game time doing it. That's rather funny, I mean:

Blog wrote:
Another thing making the game faster: recovery banishing locations. By having this step at the end of your turn game, you don't need to interrupt your turn game (i.e., the game flow)

Am I the only one who finds this kind of... contradictory? "Interrupting your game to make recharge checks? Absolutely inefficient, let's make a new rule about that! Interrupting your game to banish locations? So efficient, let's make a new rule about that!"

Also, I'm really not seeing what's better about "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to take 0 (which is a failure)" rather than "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to not roll and count it as a failure". You still "take the time to decide" between taking 0 or rolling the dice...

Don't get me wrong, I liked the blog post as a whole, informative and interesting, and I'm sure that games with the new Core will be overall faster than the previous sets; but it shows how you can turn anything into a positive by putting the right spin on it, even contradictory statements and non-changes...


Vic Wertz wrote:

I will poke our store manager on the WotR/MM promos.

Sorry to bring this up again, but any update regarding these promos?

I believe combined shipping on both these and Core+ might make it worth my while to order directly from Paizo.

Thanks!


Upon reading that Core+ gave you your role card earlier, I was excited to think that meant "more post-role power feats"; but now I'm realizing it simply means "less total power feats". For every previous AP and Season, you'd gain a minimum of 7 power feats, 3 pre-role and 4+ post-role. Now, with the hard cap of 6 power feats in Adventure Level 6, getting your role at end of 2/ start of 3 simply means 2 pre-role feats and 4 post-role feats.

As someone who loves power feats, that's kind of disappointing. Unless future paths will regularly have adventures going up to levels 7+?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding win-loss ratio in coop games: to me, there's a HUGE difference between a one-off game and a campaign game.

For one-off games, like Pandemic, Spirit Island, and The Mind, having a low success rate is all right, and can even be a feature. I play these games for the challenge first and foremost*.

But for campaign games, like Gloomhaven, Sword & Sorcery, and PACG, my main reason to play is to experience the story and character progression. I don't want to have to replay every scenario two or three times to win it, especially since playing a complete campaign is already a big time investment, and having to replay scenario feels like a waste of time. I'm completely fine with having a success rate of 100% (or almost) for campaign games.

Regardless of the type of game, I still want my choices to matter: to me, no game can justify a turn 2 loss due to randomness with no player agency!

*Obviously, the actual first and foremost reason to play coop games in general is for the camaraderie and fun!


A few other improvements:
-Season of the Righteous has an extra 0-4A Skill feat listed, surely a leftover from Season of the Shackles copy-paste.
-Season of Plundered Tombs is missing the Extra Feats section.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
We don't know how much space a scenario takes up.

Actually, yes we do.

Mike mentions that each scenario is a two-page spread. So, for Core, if the pictured scenario 0 really starts on page 6, that would mean a maximum of 9 scenarios for the 24-page storybook. For Curse, if the first scenario is on page 2, that's a maximum of 23 scenarios for the 48-page storybook.

I'll have to admit, being used to 30+ scenario APs, this (seemingly?) low number of scenarios has me a bit worried. Still, I'm reserving final judgment until I get the actual products/ official confirmation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but notice that a lot of cards previewed in this blog use the names and images of existing cards, but they all have different powers to the original in some way. How does that fit with the previously-mentioned design policy that cards with differing powers should be uniquely named? Will it be possible for players to have two cards in hand with the same name but differing powers, or will there be errata released for a lot of older cards to bring them in line with the Core version?

I feel the latter could be problematic for Organized Play? (-"A Wisdom check, I'll play my Sage to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Sage can't do that anymore." -"In that case, I'll play my Teamster to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Teamster doesn't do that anymore either. Didn't you bring and read the mandatory 250-page errata along with your 110-card Class Deck?")


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5-P2 is now available to the public.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Available here!

Half-price on all Adventure Paths and Class decks up to and including Mummy's Mask.

The shipping still kills it for me, sadly...


For people wondering about shipping costs:

Instead of using the Subscription product (which only shows "Cheapest possible"), add the actual item to your cart. Both the Core and Curse sets can be added to your cart from the Preorder tab on this page. Then, if you click on Checkout and go to the Shipping tab, it will list the actual shipping costs.

For reference, here in Canada, the Core set costs 29$ in shipping, while CotCT costs 26$ - so, Curse is still a lot more expensive than the single 110-card decks from previous sets. (But also, less expensive than 6 separate 110-card decks.)


Frencois wrote:
Dark Forest wrote:
At This Location: When you explore, examine the top 2 cards. Shuffle 1 into the deck, and encounter the other.

Note that the interestning thing is that, the way we read it RAW, if there is only 1 card in the deck when you explore, it reads

Dark Forest with one card wrote:
At This Location: When you explore, examine the top card. Shuffle it into the deck.

, since the rest of the sentence AFTER the comma is impossible.

Which could be understood as you cannot explore the last card.

Well, if you want to get technical... :¬P

The card doesn't say "When you would explore, examine the top 2 cards instead. {etc}".

So, by RAW, it would actually be the opposite that happens: when there are two or more cards in the location, you examine & encounter one from the location power, then ALSO get your regular encounter from exploration; when there is only one card left in the location, you examine it (no free encounter) then get your regular encounter from exploration!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

4-7 is now available.

However, the price is kind of unexpected... 5$ for what I believe to be only two scenarios? Especially since previous capstones were free promos.


skizzerz wrote:

Winds of vengeance:

It’s ambiguous whether or not “you may” is implicit for the full list, and I’d argue it is not. If we treat the list as one instruction the choosing to use the power means you’re required to do all 3 of those things, which doesn’t make any sense. If instead we treat each list element as a separate instruction, then the only optional one is moving. If “you may” was intended to be on each element separately, they would have just written it that way in my opinion or at the very least made the separator between the 2nd and 3rd power an “or” (to imply you choose one of the three things) instead of an “and” (to imply all are in effect); the existing cards are usually very verbose and explicit about such things.

Really? It seems quite clear to me that all three abilities are optional, and that the meaning of the card is:

-you may move at the end of your turn
AND
-you may add 1d8 to your combat checks
AND
-you may reduce Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Range combat damage dealt to you by 4

You mention that they should have written "or" instead of "and" to indicate this, but to me that would have been more confusing; in that case, would you only be allowed to do a single one of those three things per casting of the spell? It would have been unclear if, after using the spell to add to your combat checks, you could also use it to prevent damage or move.

I also believe that, if the designers wanted only the move to be optional, they would have written the power this way instead:

"While displayed, add 1d8 to your combat checks, reduce Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Range combat damage dealt to you by 4, and you may move at the end of your turn."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.

So, Winds of Vengeance, Fire Shield, Chalice of Ozem, and Sphere of Fire could all be displayed and used immediately. Since the Brutalized Flesh Golem requires a recharge, it could not.

Another example would be the Hunter Class Deck Cohort, Pygmy Ankylosaur, which has both of these powers:

-While displayed, you may reduce all damage dealt to you by 1.
-While displayed, you may put this card on top of your deck to reduce all damage dealt to you by 4, or to 0 if you have a role card.

So we would allow a player to display and use the first power in response to taking damage, but not the second power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Card layout-wise, I really feel the "hour" and the "traits" locations on the cards should have been switched. Now, when holding a hand of cards, the traits will be mostly hidden.

Also seems like there's more "unused" space on the card. I hope the size of the text in the Powers box won't be smaller than on the current cards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Available now!

http://paizo.com/products/btpya22e?Pathfinder-Society-Adventure-Card-Guild- 5-1-Threads-Unravel


Hi all!

Nok-Nok the Godthief here, ready to play!

American East Coast, just to have even more time zones in there...

So... How do I set up/ use an alias for this game, like TColMaster and Dinketry have?


Race Dorsey wrote:
I'm unsure when Season 5 Adventure Deck 1 will be available. We played it at Gen Con but the reporting option for these scenarios hasn't gone up yet either. Between that and the product not being up on the site I am guessing it isn't intended to be released quite yet. Or someone needs to flip a switch somewhere.

Strangely, Adventure 1 was listed on the site for a day or two last week, but has since been removed.


You're also missing all the Lems from the OA1 list.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Version 5.1 of the Guide clarifies this by being explicit in the one other place you might think to apply it:

• If your character is not from an Ultimate Add-On Deck, you may add the cards from any 1 Ultimate Add-On Deck.
• If your character is from an Ultimate Add-On Deck, you may add the cards from any 1 Class Deck or Character Deck (but not a Character Add-On Deck, another Ultimate Add-On Deck, or any other type of deck).

Is version 5.1 available anywhere online? The current version for the PDF on this site is still 5.0.

Thanks!


Brother Tyler wrote:
For those of you that don't pop into the blogs on a daily basis, the blog entry for the Ultimate Equipment Add-On Deck, including the iconic ninja, Reiko, hit the street (it's not appearing here in the PACG forums - yet).

It's actually listed in the Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild forum:

http://paizo.com/community/forums/organizedPlay/pfsacg


Back when the RotR and S&S promos were made available for sale here on paizo.com, the WotR promos had also been added soon after before being quickly removed less than a day later.

Are there any plans for the WotR promo cards to be sold on paizo.com at some point in the future?


elcoderdude wrote:
Shnik, you raise interesting points. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that if I can ignore BYA powers, I can ignore the BYA power of a bane I encounter, but I cannot ignore the effects I would suffer due to the BYA powers of banes encountered by other characters.

Actually, what I was trying to say (though it might not have been apparent) was:

I don't know.

I could see it going both ways.

It's more of whether:
A) you can ignore the whole BYA power that would apply to you, even though consequences of the BYA power of "other characters" could apply to you; or
B) you ignore any "consequences" of BYA powers that would affect you, even though consequences of "your" BYA power could apply to another character.

(Or, C) both A and B, though that seems inconsistent to me.)

With my #5 example, I was more trying to go for a "every character must either discard a card or choose another character to bury a card".

So, say:
#6: BYA, each character must discard a card and also select another character at their location to bury a card.

With 1 Ignore character and 1 non-ignore character at that location, I'd see the following possibilities:
A) Ignore buries a card, non-Ignore discards a card (only non-Ignore's "power" happens, and Ignore is affected by it);
B) non-Ignore discards a card and buries a card (the power happens for both characters, but Ignore isn't affected);
C) non-Ignore discards a card, nobody buries anything (the best of both A & B).

Without a ruling, I'd probably use option A for my games, since that seems the simplest way to play it, but that's just me.

Going back to the original topic of Corrupted cards and traits...

Using BoMoloch for all examples.

For Emil, "ignore the trait on cards", I'd would play it that it affects the character who played the card:

-Emil plays the Blessing, "does the card have the Corrupted trait?", no, the power doesn't happen and no discard happens.
-Someone else plays the Blessing on Emil, "does the card have the Corrupted trait?", yes, so the power happens and Emil discards. The fact that he ignores the trait doesn't affect the power played by another character.

As for Zelhara, "ignore the power that happens if a boon has the Corrupted trait", I see that one as being a lot more like "ignore BYA powers", with the same possibilities:

A) Ignore the power itself, so if she plays the card, no effect, if the card is played on her by another character, she still suffers the consequences (has to discard a card);
B) Ignore the effects of the power on her, so if she plays the card on another player, the consequences (discard a card) still happens to that character, but if the Blessing is played on Zelhara she doesn't have to discard;
C) The best of both A & B, so no discard whether Zelhara plays it on anyone or it is played on her.

Again, no idea which would be the correct interpretation.

So, maybe not that helpful, then, but at least I think those are the only three options?


elcoderdude wrote:

Irgy, I'm glad to see another active rules lawyer on the boards. (I just hope we don't frustrate the less detail-oriented players like cartmanbeck.)

Irgy wrote:

What I'd compare it to is this. Imagine a BYA power that said "Before you act, each character at your location deals damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the attack trait in their hand to another random character at their location". You have a power to ignore BYA powers, the other character at your location does not. Who takes damage?

Well the "only applies to you" part means someone takes damage rather than no-one, and it's important to be clear about that. But I would argue that you are the one who takes damage, because they are the one who can't ignore the BYA power and they deal damage to you.

Rewriting to be a better fit for PACG (because PACG characters never deal damage -- banes do):

Hypothetical BYA power wrote:
Before you act, for each character at your location, a random other character at the location takes an amount of damage equal to the number of weapons and spells with the Attack trait in the hand of the first character.

Say I have a power to ignore BYA powers, and another character at my location encounters this bane. I'd process this as:

1. Start with my character as the "each character". Say I'm holding 2 weapons. The BYA says the other character suffers 2 damage. This happens. My character in no way affected by this -- I'm just being counted as "a character". It would be the other character that would have to ignore the BYA power to avoid this.
2. Consider the other character as the "each character". Say they're holding 2 Attack spells. The BYA says I suffer 2 damage. But I ignore BYA powers. So I don't. (The alternative is: if the BYA was "every character suffers 2 damage", then I would ignore the damage, but because the damage is based on a character's hand, I don't? That doesn't make...

In your hypothetical BYA power above, I'd say if you encounter it and can ignore BYA powers, it does nothing; if you're not encountering it, you might be damaged even if you can ignore BYA powers. To me, it's a single power which happens to you and might affect other characters, and not a power that happens to every character at the location.

You seem to be using "ignore BYA powers" as "ignore the consequences of BYA powers".

In the following BYA power, would you have to take the Dexterity check and only ignore the damage, or do you ignore the check itself?

Check and damage BYA power #1 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or you are dealt 1 Electricity damage.

My reading would be that you ignore the power itself, so no check. Now let's compare with different variations on the power:

#2-Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.
#3-Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random other character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

Again, to me, an ignore BYA power would mean that you simply wouldn't take the check at all, even if the damage might be dealt to another character.

And now, if we add just a bit more complexity:

#4-Before you act, every character at your location must succeed at a Dexterity 6 check or a random character at your location is dealt 1 Electricity damage.

At that point, it still seems to me that you don't take the check if you can ignore BYA powers, but might take damage from other characters at your location failing said check.

So, for which of these powers do you have to take the check? For #4, do you ignore the check AND damage you'd receive from other characters failing the check?

What about the following power:

#5-Before you act, each character at your location may discard a card, otherwise a random other character at your location must bury a card.

If there are two characters at the location, does that mean the power can have no effect? The Ignore character doesn't have to discard because he ignores the power, AND he doesn't have to bury a card after the non-Ignore character chooses not to discard a card?


Two questions about powers on these characters:

1) Zelhara's "When a power happens if a boon has the Corrupted trait, ignore that power".

How would that work with, say, the Hangman's Noose, a weapon that seems pretty much made for her? Since a power is a complete paragraph, the Noose has only one power. So she could either ignore the whole thing (making it pointless to play the weapon) or none of it (making her character power pointless in this case)?

2)Emil's "When you play a card that has the Poison trait, you may ignore that trait and immunities to it."

Should that be "you may ignore that trait OR immunities to it"? As it stands, it seems like if you play a weapon with the Poison trait against a monster which is immune to it, you'd ignore the immunity, but at the same time you wouldn't have the Poison trait on your check anymore anyways?


elcoderdude wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:

On a different note, this is yet another instance I see that people assume they can play a weapon, and THEN apply Varril's power. Doesn't this contradict the rule below, or am I missing something?

Rulebook wrote:
Some cards allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of check, or to use one skill instead of another. You may play only 1 such card or use only 1 such power to determine which skill you’re using.

(Granted, this will never be an issue with my understanding of Varril's power - he would always default to bare-handed Strength/Melee for his combat, then CHANGE that to Divine.

However, if his power said "You may use Divine for your Dexterity check" - he would not be able to play a Bow, and then the power on his combat check)

We covered that in this thread, which references this post by Vic.

Basically, Vic wants to finesse the replace-Combat-with-skill language to make it clear that powers like Varril's can be used after you choose Strength or Melee for your barehanded Combat check, as well as after you choose a weapon for your Combat check.

Yeah, no, I'm still not buying that.

That Varril can use his power after selecting Strength or Melee for his combat check, sure, absolutely. However, this part of your sentence: "as well as after you choose a weapon for your Combat check", is not supported or even hinted at in anything Vic wrote, as well as going directly against the rules:

MM Rulebook p.11 wrote:
Some cards allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of check, or to use one skill instead of another. (These cards generally say things like “For your combat check, use your Strength or Melee skill,” or “Use your Strength skill instead of your Diplomacy skill.”) You may play only 1 such card or use only 1 such power to determine which skill you’re using.

Which part of Varril's power makes you think that it allows you to circumvent the part in bold?


Longshot11 wrote:
SimonB wrote:
I don't *think* that combat is a special skill because i *know* there is no such think in Pathfinder ACG such thing as combat *skill*.
I'm really rooting for this in the resolution. I'd be mighty peeved if all of a sudden 'combat' is declared to be some kind of special and unique "skill", while any other form of resolution seem, in my head, to be much more intuitive and practical.

Well, the rulebook does state that combat checks are an exception, and they have their own way of determining the skill you use (which isn't "combat"):

MM rulebook, p.11 wrote:
Most monsters and some barriers call for a combat check. Weapons and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; if you aren’t playing one of those cards, you must use your Strength or Melee skill.

So, for Varril, he'd have a combat check -> not using a card? Use your Strength skill, which he can replace by his Divine skill with his power. Still a combat check, since that isn't a skill that got replaced, no matter how you read it. (Whether it's still a Strength check is up in the air...)


skizzerz wrote:

If Vic's post didn't exist, I'd be in the "Hawkmoon school" as well (as I stated on the first page of this thread), because by RAW that interpretation is the only really logical one. If you're replacing a thing, the original thing never happens. This is the case when you do things like recharge instead of banish. Why is it not the case when you use Divine instead of Dexterity?

Vic's post on WotR Kyra contradicts that line of logic, and attempting to reconcile what the rulebook says with that post is what is making this less clear than it should be.

So... Why does everyone refer to that one post by Vic, and not the one he made just a few posts lower in the same thread?

Vic Wertz wrote:
The context of the question I was replying to was "should [we] take Kyra's power as 'instead of'." So when I said "It's not changing the type of check," I meant that "the new skill is not replacing the required skill, it's adding to it." There are powers that explicitly replace the original skill, but Kyra's power (and standard weapon powers) don't do that. So when I said "So if it's a combat check, it's still a combat check—and it now also has the Divine, Wisdom, Attack, and Magic traits," that means it's a Combat check, a Divine check, a Wisdom check, an Attack check, and a Magic check.

That seems to pretty clearly state that Kyra's power and Varril's "instead of" power don't work the same way, and that "instead of" powers do in fact replace the required/ original skill.


James McKendrew wrote:
Star Knives from RotR were similarly odd...

True enough! Though I'd posit that RotR had more of those kinds of oddities than the games that came afterwards...

Still, if anything, the difference in checks to acquire for what is basically the same weapon with a +1 to combat checks and the Fire trait is highly inconsistent. As soon as I saw the Fire Kukri +1's checks to acquire, I thought "That can't be right" and came online to see if any mention was made; that's usually not a good thing in a game.

Actually, looking at it more; the regular Kukris have the Finesse trait, which the Fire Kukri +1 doesn't have. That's also inconsistent and probably an error, one way or the other. I don't really care which way the ruling goes, but I can't believe that those discrepancies were intentional. And if they were, an official mention saying so would be appreciated.


Yes, Kukris are Knives, and have the usual Knife power; and yes, Knives have usually been Dex/Ranged daggers. However, the Fire Kukri +1 specifically isn't a Ranged weapon, and has nothing related to Dex in its powers, so I still think it shouldn't have those checks to acquire.

...Or do you believe that regular Kukris should have Dexterity and Ranged added to their Checks to acquire?


The Fire Kukri +1 lists "Strength Melee Dexterity Ranged" for its check to acquire. However, it's a pure Melee weapon like the regular Kukris, which only list "Strength Melee" for their checks to acquire.

I'm guessing the Fire Kukri +1 should also only list "Strength Melee" as its check to acquire?


Evanax wrote:
- He destruct every bane (for combat - he uses all weapons as divine concluding 2d8 + 8 + @ while AD 3)

Actually, I'm not sure that's possible with his power.

MM rulebook p.11 wrote:
Some cards allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of check, or to use one skill instead of another. (These cards generally say things like “For your combat check, use your Strength or Melee skill,” or “Use your Strength skill instead of your Diplomacy skill.”) You may play only 1 such card or use only 1 such power to determine which skill you’re using.

(This is also in the RotR rulebook, p.11, but less explicit.)

Since both a weapon and his power determine the skill you're using, you couldn't use both on the same check. That would make Varril very versatile for most checks, but rather weak in combat (either a weapon + his D6 Strength or Dex, a combat spell, for which he has few slots available, or his unmodified Divine skill using his power), balancing out a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Selinker wrote:

To FAQ my own question about the FAQ:

By my question I mean: What other card(s) will get a new FAQ entry because the concept of flipping over a card has been defined in the rulebook now?

What about WotR Seelah's Wardstone Sentry power, "When another character encounters a monster that has the Cultist or Demon trait, you may immediately move to his location."? Should that be changed to "flip over", or can you temp close your location then move to the villain's location if it has one of those two traits?