Play PACG Play-by-Post? Feel free to use my custom Deck Handler. An index of my other Deck Handlers can be found here.
BR Dinketry wrote:
We have played this game for 604 days.
We played this game pre-COVID and have finished it post-COVID.
When we started this game, Ric Ocasek, Peter Fonda, and Elijah Cummings were still alive.
When we started this game, Avengers: Endgame was still in the movie theatres.
We started this game when the ACG was still supported by its parent company.
I have enjoyed the privilege of running Season 6 of PACS to its ultimate conclusion on Heroic mode with y'all. As Skizza has pointed out, we didn't lose a single character, nor did we lose a single scenario. I count you all as some of the most stalwart and dependable PbP gamers with which I've had the pleasure to roll dice. Thank you all, humbly and sincerely.
I will need awhile to get your chronicles to you. Alternately, if it pleases the courts, I'd just suggest that I give y'all a final chronicle for this last adventure, replete with the Soul Shard card. Please let me know of your preference.
I'll miss this group. Thanks again.
You're gonna make me cry with this send-off...
This was a great experience, and my greatest regret is that I couldn't give this game the attention and flavour it deserved in its later stages due to my own life commitments.
This was my first completion of a post-Core full-length AP in PACS, and it ticked all of the boxes I could've wanted to see in such. There were some hair-biting victories, some crippling defeats (by banes, not scenarios!) and some lessons learned. I'd like to especially point out that each and every participant played fantastically, and I think each of us showed off the absolute best side to their respective characters.
Thank you to all, and don't be afraid to hit me up on Discord for any reason.
P.S. And no need to rush on my Chronicles, BR (on the rare occasion I would need evidence of completion of this AP I can literally just link to this forum thread).
I'd like to bring up that this is one of the more frequent misplays I see in Core/Curse nowadays - most people intuitively think that defeating Brain Mold would stop the party at that location from being Drained or Poisoned. After all, the Brain Mold is causing those afflictions, and you kill it... plus, why would it get displayed to let you re-fight it if re-fighting it doesn't actually solve the problem it caused?
The RAW is clear, but I would like to again state my support of an errata or FAQ, whether of specific cards or the core rules in general.
According to a Discord post by Keith Richmond, #-2 is indeed meant to be "maximum". Additionally, the chosen card gets added to your deck (which isn't actually stated anywhere in the currently-written reward - it just says to 'choose' a card, not what to do with it).
Keith Richmond, Discord wrote:
Sounds like an error in the text (intent is that you can choose 0, 1, or 2 at level 4) - we'll fix it in 7-3
A reminder that this occurs after rebuilding your deck, so you can use this to tweak the card types comprising your deck (like switching out a weapon for another spell, for example).
I think this thread made the ruling clear, but I would like to point out that it does make the AD4 barrier Brain Mold particularly rough... and oddly designed.
Brain Mold Powers wrote:
Before acting, mark your location with the scourges Drained and Poisoned.
If defeated, banish this barrier and remove the scourges Drained and Poisoned from your location.
If undefeated, display this barrier at your location. While displayed, at this location:
• At the start of your turn, you may encounter this barrier.
• When this location is closed, banish this barrier.
As this thread clarifies, removing the scourges Drained and Poisoned from the location doesn't remove those scourges from anyone at the location. So basically, unless you can ignore BA effects, encountering Brain Mold will "permanently" give every local character two of the rougher scourges, and the barrier provides no way whatsoever to un-do what could be an enormous consequence to a tightly-knit group of characters.
Whilst I think that makes it rougher than most AD4-5 (and some 6) barriers in CotCT, I don't think that's a disaster; just a reminder for parties to keep scourge-removal around, make use of examining locations, and keep some ways to ignore non-monster BA's if possible (which... almost don't actually exist in Core/Curse, which overly focuses on ignoring BA's attached to Monsters).
However, it makes the last power rather unusual for Brain Mold (not useless, but unusual). There seems to be extremely little to be gained by encountering it again, since the people at that location (and thus able to do so) are already individually affected with the scourges, and removing the scourges from the location will not help them in any way. The only corner-case relevance is if you want to remove it before other party members come to the location, or before cleansing scourges of people at the same non-closed location, but that probably won't be all that common in actual play due to a few elements (including the timing at which a character could choose to encounter the displayed Brain Mold anyway).
□ At the start or end of your turn, if another local character has a bane displayed next to their deck or is suffering a scourge, you may display the bane next to your deck or suffer the scourge instead.
I don't actually believe that 'suffering the scourge instead' would explicitly remove the scourge from another player; in fact, I'm not sure it does anything at all. You only 'suffer' the scourge at the moment its applied, which is also the only time comparable post-Core effects take place.
Core Rulebook, Page 21, Scourge section wrote:
Scourge: These cards have lasting negative effects. When a card tells you to suffer a scourge, if that scourge isn’t already displayed, draw it from the vault and display it, then choose a marker design that isn’t already in use and mark it. Then place a corresponding marker next to your character.
While so marked by a scourge, that scourge’s powers apply to you.
If you suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, the scourge has no additional effect; do not add another marker.
If you encounter a scourge in a location, immediately suffer it; the encounter is over.
Some effects cause a scourge to mark a location. If you’re at a location when it is marked, or if you end your turn at a marked location, suffer the corresponding scourge.
Powers that remove scourges remove them only from characters, not locations, unless they specifically say otherwise. When a power removes a scourge, remove the marker from the character or the location as appropriate, and if no characters or locations currently suffer the scourge, you may return it to the box
Core Seelah, Honor Shield Role wrote:
☐ When a local character would suffer a scourge (☐ or damage), you may recharge a card or reveal a Shield armor to suffer it instead.
Core Kyra, Dawnseeker Role wrote:
☐ When a local character would suffer a scourge, you may suffer it instead.
Whilst wordy, the only fix would be something like...
Koren, suggested fix wrote:
□ At the start or end of your turn, if another local character has a bane displayed next to their deck, you may display the bane next to your deck. Additionally, you may remove any number of their scourges and suffer those scourges instead.
I would also indicate, however, that displayable banes do occur in every set (except maybe Core, but certainly in Curse), so the power is fully functional without stretching it into de-scourge territory... which starts to arguably barge into the territory 'weakening' other powers implicitly - for example, by making it largely better than Core Seelah's quoted power by removing the cost, letting it occur twice during his turn, and removing the requirement to be at the right place at the right time.
As a result, I am personally overall against making any such change to Koren, ostensibly so he does not get a role power that outshines actual Core character role powers, and I am in general against any functional change to an older character power that would make it largely stronger than a post-Core character power (if it wasn't already).
However, I am in support of modernizing old powers in general, particularly those that are objectively nonfunctional or almost nonfunctional in a post-Core environment. I also consider rule-of-fun to be in full effect, and so I implicitly support any community consensus on such decisions, whether or not it matches my personal perspective or preference.
Cauterize isn't intended to be non-random, but it's also not been a big enough deal to rise above other considerations, given that there is an inherent cost to asking people to change their cards.
Got an answer for RAI on Cauterize at least. 1 down, 16 to go!
It definitely needs a wording change to match intent, though, because we've gotten rulings before to continue following the instructions on a character power even if the card it interacts with becomes out-of-sight (like Double Chicken Sabre +1 and Quinn).
RAW is clear, "after" means "right after the trigger point", not whenever you feel like getting around to it. So, it can only be played right after you finish your first exploration.
If you gain an additional exploration via some power during your first explore (such as Ranzak, Locked Door, etc.), additional explores must be used immediately or be forfeit. Since that has the "immediately" timing and Wandermeal does not, there is no opportunity to play Wandermeal before using that additional exploration. Should you make use of the additional exploration, the timing window for playing Wandermeal is lost and you cannot play Wandermeal that turn.
The purpose of this thread as I understand it is to clarify whether the intent matches the actual RAW mechanics of the card.
For the sake of opinion, I agree with skizzerz regarding the RAW. It is, in my opinion, a disappointing RAW, though, and one that I would overrule in any home game instantly - particularly any where Ranzak was being played.
Wandermeal, as a card that rewards exploration-heavy characters that make a lot of non-combat checks, is a perfect fit for Ranzak's playstyle, and having a Ranzak player have his own power sabotage one of his boons feels like a textbook example of "feel-bad" - specifically the worst kind of feel bad, which is making a player feel bad because of the character they've picked (where unique 'upsides' become 'downsides' outside of your control). It's possibly made all the worse by the fact that Ranzak's bonus exploration power isn't even optional, and so you can't argue that it adds a layer of strategy by allowing the player to decide whether to explore and lose their chance to display Wandermeal that turn, or display Wandermeal and lose out on an exploration.
I would wholly be in support of rewording of Wandermeal's power; even if was simply "Display. You may not display this card before or during the first exploration of your turn".
Six character party, with the ones I named carrying 15 weapons, the other three having 6 between them (Varian, Kyra, and Sajan, who has the Blackjack weapons), [...]
Ah, yeah; I'd like to apologize for misreading your initial post. Despite re-reading it multiple times I somehow thought you were playing with a Harsk with 5 weapons + 3 other characters, and I skipped over the mention of Hakon and Seelah.
It probably depends somewhat of the wording of the effect in question, but the best RAW answer I can give is "Separately for each check".
"Determine The Difficulty" is a part of "Attempting a Check" in the Core Rulebook (Page 11 & 12), so reasonably it would be determined on each check, rather than per encounter (which are instead detailed from Page 9 & 10).
But for a couple of minor reasons, I can see there being room for debate in some cases; such as if the effect was determined "When you Encounter", or "Before Acting", since those are called out under "Encountering a Card" in the rulebook, not "Attempting a Check".
By my count, there are 21 level 4-6 weapons in the Curse of the Crimson Throne box - remember that Loot cards are shuffled into the vault with other cards of their level now (however, you consistently earn then 'before' they would normally get shuffled in).
So if 4 players had 11 weapons (and lets assume 0 of which were from lower levels), that means there should be 10 remaining in the vault.
For 6B, the locations in that scenario, for a 4 player game using Medium locations (Library/Mountain.Cliff/Cell/Castle/Arsenal) require 0+1+1+1+1+3 == 7 weapons.
In other words, in the situation you presented, there should be more than enough weapons in the vault to create that scenario, and then have at least 4 weapons leftover. Because of this, I would check to make sure...
You've placed loot cards (that aren't in your character decks) into the vault after they are earned or along with their normal level of weapons.
You haven't accidentally removed any Level 4-6 weapons.
You have the full CotCT card list accounted for.
You aren't carring more weapons than your card list allows.
You're not accidentally building Large locations (though you should still have enough - Large locations would only add 2 weapons to this scenario)
Now, in the hypothetical scenario that you run out of cards, the closest thing to an official ruling (such as if you were playing Organized Play) is that you simply do not add cards that do not exist, as per the Limited Resources rule. So some locations would have less cards in them.
A more sensible implementation in home games would be to add some lower level weapons or use another card type, as you did. However, I'd double-check your list of 4-6 weapons compared to the Curse of the Crimson Throne cardlist, because my count shows that you should have had enough weapons, with some to spare.
Incidentally, as far as I know, this is no different to Core Ezren's own power, Fortune Teller (and other boons) aside, which also only cares about the top card of his deck even though his Mystic Diviner role lets him examine 2 cards instead of one.
Core Ezren wrote:
At the start of your turn, you may examine the top card of your deck; if it is a spell, you may draw it. (☐ Then you may recharge the top card of your deck.)
Core Ezren, Mystic Diviner Role wrote:
☐ When you examine the top card of a location or deck, you may examine the top 2 cards instead.
You still can't draw a spell from 'underneath' the top card of your deck, just like you can't use the second examined card to check if Fortune Teller 'worked'.
As long as this thread was bumped, I maintain that my first 2 observations, made in the initial post about 9 months ago, have not been ruled upon.
There is nothing in the rulebook indicating that you don't banish a displayed card when you defeat it - in fact, there's some barriers in the game that are built on this concept, such as the Forbiddance barrier, which is also from Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Forbiddance (Curse Barrier 6) wrote:
If undefeated, display this barrier at your location and move to a random other location. While displayed, at this location:
• At the start of your turn, you may encounter this barrier.
• When you would explore, first move to a random other location.
• When this location is closed, banish this barrier.
The only reason to allow players to encounter it after it's displayed would be if defeating it banished it - so it clearly shows explicit design intent that defeated cards get banished, whether they're displayed or from a location.
As a result, it clearly appears that 'phase 2' of this scenario starts potentially as soon as the first player ends his move step (and encounters the Blood Pig Bout), rendering the clear majority of the scenario rules nullified almost immediately. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping the Blood Pig Bout from being re-displayed immediately in phase 2, causing some rather awkward problems.
Slightly off topic, but in my opinion Teamster is the single best level 0 ally in Core/Curse. It may well be one of the better (not 'best') allies in both boxes at any level, at least for some characters.
Further analysis:
"Recharge to draw a card", with no further cost, consequence or limitation is phenomenal. I could extrapolate on this concept in great detail, making references to other card games (such as competitive MTG deck history), but I'll summarize it as thus...
"Teamster will effectively act as a 'second copy' (sort of) of another card in my deck, as I can always 'cycle' it with something new immediately. That means at worst it's only as bad as the value of an "average" card in my deck - even as my deck gets better at later levels."
However, it can also be used for other purposes, so it's "at least as good at the average card in your deck, plus it does more", so it should always be in the top 50% 'best' boons in your deck unless you have critical need for that Ally slot.
Some other benefits it provides include...
1. The option to recharge another card (very rarely helpful, but it's an option).
2. By recharging it to draw another card, you replace unknown information with some known information (until you shuffle your deck, you know where Teamster is in the deck, therefore removing uncertainty and apparent randomness. Knowledge about deck composition/order is purely beneficial to players).
3. If you simply want/need an additional exploration, you can always choose to use it as one - in fact, it's an exploration with further upside.
4. A scenario or location power/rule might require you to have an ally - like "Banish an ally to close". If there is no such compulsion/rule/power to consider, it's freely replaceable with a new card, so this is just pure upside (whilst it wouldn't be for another Ally, where it's 'taking up space in your deck' and hindering you from drawing a card type that might otherwise be asked for).
More specifically, Teamster is pretty bad for characters highly reliant on using their Ally card slots for specific cards (like Lini and some post-role Varian's), but amazing for characters who would generally just want extra copies of other card types instead of allies, given the choice (like Ezren, Seoni, Quinn, Seelah or Valeros, who generally make better use of specific, non-ally card types).
To play Devil's Advocate against myself:
However... especially in smaller parties, PACG can sometimes demand that each player is capable of dealing with a wide variety of situations. Maybe a scenario rule, location closing requirement, or even a villain really needs you to make a high Dexterity/Acrobatics check, and nobody in the party can roll higher than 1d6 by default.
If every boon in your deck (including allies) have been picked to enhance your versatility, then you can theoretically deal with more issues - at least if you're lucky enough (or cycle your deck fast enough) to draw them at the right time. Having an ally that heals you, an ally that removes scourges, an ally that adds 2d8 to a check against a bane and an ally that adds 1d10 to a check to close is a valid strategy.
...But even then, I don't find my own Devil's Advocacy very compelling, because Teamster is great at helping you cycle to reach the "one or two" boons in your deck you really need to deal with an upcoming problem. Even if everything else in your deck is very specific and designed to enhance your flexibility, Teamster - despite offering almost nothing 'unique' - will still often be one of your better cards.
As an addendum; I fully agree with Longshot11 above. In small (1-2 player parties), using Teamster to recharge a second card becomes way better. Seelah might be really looking to draw Cure to help a fellow party member out, and there just isn't always a way to get rid of unhelpful cards from your hand (in order to draw more during reset) without discarding them.
Clearly, the reason it's relevant to play it is the fact that it will shuffle away otherwise ;)
I believe you're joking, but for the purposes of any less-rules-savvy players reading this thread, I'd just like to clarify that that's not usually how 'relevance' is treated in rulings.
For example, a common new player question of "Can I recharge this card to examine a location, or play my Cure just as I take 10 combat damage, so I don't have to discard it to damage as a part of my hand wipe?". To which the answer is, of course, no. :)
Yes, this is a separate thread, but very closely tied to my previous thread discussing a similar issue with an associated reward. Please see the linked thread to confirm that, in that case, Keith Richmond confirmed that the intuitive RAI was correct; even if the RAW technically prevented the reward from working 99% of the time.
Thanks to my party members, I noticed a similar - if less significant - issue with the previous scenario's reward, however.
Scenario 6-4A Reward text wrote:
For the rest of the Adventure Path, after you use the Base's power to recharge cards, you may move or shuffle your deck.
Note that if you choose to 'move' (usually a much more desirable option, whether to continue exploring another location or to set yourself up to assist local allies or to guard locations) then, RAW, you will immediately forfeit the Supporter you just drew during the exploration which occurs in the same step as the Base's aforementioned power.
Curse of the Crimson Throne Storybook, Base and Supporter rules, emphasis added wrote:
You may play supporters from your hand only while you are at the Base. Once displayed next to your character, you may use their powers regardless of your location. If you move from the Base, shuffle any supporters in your hand into the Base. At the end of each scenario, return all supporters to the vault.
And I'm pretty sure that the Scenario 4A reward text does not give you a timing window to display the Supporter before you use it to move. You are not in-between steps (including exploration steps, since you can't 'delay' an "after you X" power - you have to use it as soon as it's triggered), so you can't just play a card arbitrarily, and playing the Supporter is clearly not relevant to a current check or encounter.
TL;DR: If you wish to use the 4A reward power to move from the Base (likely its main purpose), you will be forced to shuffle away the Supporter you drew before doing so, effectively removing the main motivation to elect to explore the Base in the first place.
So the question is; is this intentional? Is this reward written with the expectation that you would spend an exploration at the Base, get to choose only one of its potentially positive options (the one that is almost certainly the least used among any table I've seen played), and give up the Supporter you drew (and shuffle away the 'known' Supporters atop the Base) just to move? Or is the RAI that you can display the Supporter before moving?
There's quite a number of characters that can take advantage of the fact that Neferekhu is not a weapon. Radovan, Athnul and Zova are at least three other examples.
Both versions of Estra can also make exceptional use of Neferekhu. MM Estra (Ectoplasmist role) can leverage it for powerful Strength checks in combat despite lacking weapons, and gets bonuses to her Diplomacy check against it. OA1 Estra (Spiritual Counselor role) is even more powerful, since she can draw a card every time she passes a Charisma/Diplomacy check, therefore leveraging Neferekhu to draw card after card constantly as long as anyone at her location makes Wisdom or Knowledge checks (including checks to recharge spells).
Neferekhu is one of the most interesting and, at times, broken loot cards ever released, without being obviously so like some late-game Loot cards from specific APs (like the Immortal Dreamstone, Emerald Codex, or Khai-Utef).
Hope you are well. Any chance of posting Fumbus as written?
keen for more of your thoughtful isights
My time for PACG has greatly lessened this year, and unfortunately Keith's following statement means I'd need to make great alterations to even the parts of the review that I've already written, because all of my analysis of one of the two roles of Fumbus is assuming a very, very, very powerful power works in a way that... it apparently shouldn't work.
I can't make promises, but if the opportunity arises I'll consider cleaning up what I've written and posting at least a partial Fumbus review.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Assume that it is not intended or will be fixed if Fumbus's power means that you'd recharge a discarded/buried card you drew. Perhaps change from if not played to if in hand. That has a negative impact on Reveal weapons, but is still pretty great.
That needs a fix, then, because that works contrary to several other rulings which state to follow the instructions of a power regardless of where a card ends up.
A great example is the powers on Simoun and Drelm (Mummy's Mask), which let you draw cards from the box, then banish them at the end of the encounter/after acting. It's been clarified that even if you draw a dagger and shuffle it into your deck in combat, you'll still need to look through your deck to banish it once the encounter ends in such a situation.
This was further clarified in a rules discussion post that asked what happened if you revealed Double Chicken Saber +1, then recharged or reloaded it to a power (I believe the context was Quinn's first power, since Ultimate Equipment is now his 'Class Deck'), and rolled a 1, and it was confirmed that you'd still need to fish it out of your deck and discard it as per its requirement if you roll a 1.
It certainly massively overhauls my opinion on that role of Fumbus, however, and solidly swings my opinion in favor of his other role. I should re-try my testing of Fumbus with this new ruling and see how good I can make his Fumbler role regardless.
Play PACG Play-by-Post? Feel free to use my custom Deck Handler. An index of my other Deck Handlers can be found here.
BR Dinketry wrote:
Hey y’all. I hope you’ve recovered from whatever gaming hangover PaizoConOnline has left you with (if any). I am attending to a family emergency and likely won’t be available for the whole of this upcoming week. Thanks for your understanding. I’ll announce here once I’m back and available.
admittedly unless you closed your location, during your turn and outside of your explore step (which few characters are capable of doing, let alone with even any frequency).
"You may never explore outside of your explore step."
So, yeah, intent is that this power overrides the prohibition on exploring on close, as it requires the close to work and it can never work outside of closing during your explore step. It's possible that someone may want to change the language on it, but since there's literally no other way for it to function (without opening a rules black hole), it's at least clear what to do in the mean time.
Thanks!
Though, there's a few ways to close outside of your exploration step (such as a power that is "Examine and encounter"); so if The Red Raven used his power to encounter and defeat a closing henchman before his exploration step...
He's able to accept the power to move to the Base and explore, either way, right? If you're given an exploration before your exploration step, you just jump to your exploration step and lose your free one - at least that's how I remember it being ruled from Imrijka (WotR)'s power, if she encounters a summoned monster at the start of her turn and wants to leverage that for her exploration.
(That's at least my understanding; if something tells you to explore before you've gotten to your exploration step, you simply jump to your exploration step and give up your free exploration. If I'm wrong I'd like to be sure, since your first quoted sentence suggests I am wrong.)
So actually, your bolded text does not say anything about the rulebook, and the rule about not exploring after closing a location is in the rulebook. So it might not need your clarification.
...huh, I never actually noticed that. But surely that's an oversight, or not describing the complete rules?
If a card telling you that you can overrides the rules that say you can't (since Cards override Rules, as per the Golden Rules), then that means ANY power that lets you explore would override the rulebook statement that prevents you from exploring further. Which would render that rule effectively nonfunctional, because that's the only way to explore past your free exploration anyway.
Just bringing to the designers' attention that Scenario 6-4B: Rock and Steel has an almost entirely nonfunctional reward.
Scenario 6-4B Reward text wrote:
For the rest of the Adventure Path, when you close a location and move to the Base, you may immediately explore it once.
Note that the Core Rulebook forbids this exploration from occurring... admittedly unless you closed your location, during your turn and outside of your explore step (which few characters are capable of doing, let alone with even any frequency).
Core Rulebook, Page 15 wrote:
If a location is closed during your explore step, you may no longer explore.
Core Rulebook, Page 3, The Golden Rules (Emphasis Added) wrote:
If the storybook, cards, or rules are ever in conflict, the storybook overrides the cards, and the cards override the rules. There is one exception to this: When the rulebook uses the word “never” or “always,” nothing can override it. If powers on cards conflict with one another, locations override support cards, support cards override characters, and characters override other card types.
Despite this hierarchy, if the storybook or a card says that you cannot do something and something else says that you can, comply with the one that tells you that you cannot. For example, if you’re at a location that says you cannot move, and the scenario has an effect that would move your character, you do not move.
The Rules As Written here is very clear; you cannot explore the Base after closing a location, even if you have a power that would seem to let you do so. I have no doubt that the single exploration granted by the reward is meant to let you break that restriction (albeit only for that one exploration), but this is objectively not supported in RAW.
Barring a formal errata; do PACS players (and Box Runners) have implicit or explicit permission to play it as it appears to be intended? I'm uncomfortable using my own judgement for RAI (no matter how clear it is) as justification for overruling the RAW for players in a formal, PACS setting.
Proposed Errata/Rewording Solution:
Scenario 6-4B Reward, Proposed Errata wrote:
For the rest of the Adventure Path, when you close a location and move to the Base, you may immediately explore it once; closing your location does not prevent this exploration.
There's probably a more text-efficient way to describe the same effect, but I just used the accepted template for such an effect, lifted from Amiri (Core).
I can guarantee the rules are the same pre-Core and post-Core... but you'll have to forgive me the only quotes I can provide at the moment are from the Core Rulebook. Nevertheless, you should find similar text in your respective base set rulebook somewhere.
Core Rulebook, Page 11, emphasis added wrote:
When a power starts with a checkbox, that checkbox must be checked before any feat inside it. If two or more feats are adjacent, they must be checked in order from left to right.
As listed above, there are two limitations that apply to picking a power feat. First, that a checkbox 'inside of' a power that also requires a checkbox can only be picked if you have checked the initial box (that is, you have the overall power). And second; that if two feats are adjacent, they must be checked from left to the right.
In this case, you cannot gain the Arcane skill until and unless you've already spent a power feat to treat your powers and favored card type as if the word "Poison" were "Arcane", because the former is inside of a power feat that requires a checked box to function in the first place.
(As an aside, the 'multiple instances of damage and armor use' is still a bit of a grey area, especially for Elemental Arachnid, to my recollection. If you have an official post by Vic, Mike or Keith on the topic, I'd love to see it.)
My OPINION on armor and multiple instances of damage:
My opinion has, however, always been to define an individual source of damage as a combination of 3 factors: "the character being affected", "the card/power causing the damage" and "the step it's occurring in". That is, if all three of those are exactly the same, it's clearly the exact same damage source and you can't just keep using armor (unless you have multiple 'freely' armors).
By that definition (which is not supported, but not contradicted, by the RAW, which are vague on the matter), you could not reveal the same armor against the 4 typed damage caused by Elemental Arachnid, because it's all affecting the same character, from the same power, in the same step.
4 different armors is okay, but only because of the Elemental Arachnid's power letting you violate "one card per type per step" restrictions.
Another aside:
And yes, Linxia is one of a couple of characters that makes shields very desirable. Keep in mind that there are some displayable and reveal-able shields that can be used outside of taking damage or combat for some purposes, which will trigger her effect - indeed, displaying a boon counts as playing it.
Before Acting damage would never be part of the check to defeat anyway. Shields are restricted on checks, not encounters. An encounter can have 0, 1, or more checks inside of it. Each is its own separate thing, and what was or wasn’t played in previous checks has no impact on the current one.
Note that this does not apply to Core shields and 2-handed weapons, which both explicitly refer to "this encounter".
It seems like you're referring to Shields from older sets (prior to the Core Set, where armors were largely changed in design to increase their value), so this question is kind of hard to answer without knowing exactly what base set you're referring to.
In brief, I would agree that most older shields are terrible for most characters. Modern (Core/Curse) shields consistently provide more protection at lower levels and often provide some kind of combat or noncombat bonus (like enabling you to reroll dice in combat), at the tradeoff of being unable to be displayed and being unable to reduce all damage dealt to you to 0.
And even then, I consider shields somewhat less desirable, even after they've been explicitly buffed.
carinita wrote:
By the way, I see that Shield of Fire Resistance (and all shields in general) saying
Quote:
If you played a weapon that has the 2-Handed trait on this check, you may not play this card
It kind of indicates you can actually play 2-handed weapons, after using the shield? So, you can block the "before you act" damages with shield, and then proceed to use 2-handed weapon?
That seems correct for pre-Core shields, but post-Core ones are different. Post-Core shields indicate that you can't use a 2-handed weapon after them in the same encounter, and 2-handed weapons in turn say you can't play an off-hand boon (like a shield) after them in that encounter, effectively covering all angles.
Also note that you don't play your Harrow for the +1d4; you just inherently have +1d4 to ALL noncombat Dexterity checks for the first adventure.
It's literally an adventure rule in the Curse of the Crimson Throne storybook; it's always in-effect for Tier 1. Each adventure is themed around a different Harrow suit, and thus a different attribute/skill.
Correct; for all intents and purposes, the encountered card is from your own location, hence why you encounter it "as if it were the top card of your location deck". The limitation is there primarily to avoid summoned banes.
In what sense is “2 Hunter Class Deck cohorts” not telling you about specific cards? That seems pretty specific to me.
I'm not sure I agree, RAW. It certainly doesn't name a Cohort or a card; it tells you to pick from a pool of possibilities.
For example, if your favored card type is a "Sword Weapon", is every Sword Weapon (which is also a pool of cards) "specific" cards that will be taken from your 'initial' class deck even if you use three weaponless Adventure Packs instead?
I certainly agree RAI Witches and Hunters should keep their Cohort choices even if they use an all-Adventure-Pack setup, but I'm not sure the wording of the guide supports that interpretation. Happy to be convinced that it actually does, though.
Also, for reference, these are the actual rules listed in the Card Guild Guide (the OP only listed a paraphrased, non-binding blog post reference to them).
Card Guide Guide v6.1, page 8 wrote:
All of the cards in your character’s Class Deck box must come from your Class Deck, with the following exceptions.
[...]
• If the back of your character card names a card such as a cohort, you may replace that card with any other card that has the same name and type.
• If the back of your character card lists a specific card, that card must be in your deck.
Whilst not immediately relevant to the discussion, the fact that Ukuja clearly doesn't NAME a Cohort means he could not possibly use the WotR version of Leryn, whilst the Hunter CD Adowyn could, as per the first dot point.
RAW, I still don't think "Any two <X card type> from <Y deck>" really fits the bill of "a specific card", though.
Quite a few more ruling questions have been raised to me or by me in various forums/avenues of discussion over the past few months, but I've been refraining from posting most of them to the main forums (or adding them to this thread) until the existing backlog is handled, to avoid making anything harder to follow (or building rules assumptions off non-clarified fundamental rulings).
Can I get an update as to whether any of these rulings or concerns will be resolved or responded to?
(Some extra ruling questions I could raise include some Conversion Guide issues with a few characters, such as Alase, several scenario rules issues (particularly with Season 5), some bane wording oddities (such as Vampire in the Core Set), and Sanctioning Document issues (particularly with Curse of the Crimson Throne).
I see that Fell Viridio and Norge devil forms both can add to a combat check (if not playing a 2-handed weapon). If I have both forms displayed, do they stack on a combat check (for a +3 total) or does that count as playing two cards of the same type and therefore I can only choose one of them to use (+1 or +2)?
Thanks.
You can use them together for a +3 total; in fact, if both are displayed (and the bane isn't immune to Poison or Fire) you must add +3 if you can, because neither effect is optional.
You're correct that you can only play one card of a given type on a check, but you're only playing a displayed card if you choose to perform an action with it, so a static 'passive' effect such as the +1/+2 doesn't count as playing a card. However, using Norge or Fell Viridio's "additionally banish a card" power would count as playing them, so you can't banish a card from both Norge and Fell Viridio on the same check.
Core Rulebook, Page 7, emphasis added wrote:
Anyone can play a card whenever the card allows it. Playing a card means using a power on that card by performing an action with that card that is specified by the card itself. You must do everything the power says when possible. When you play a boon has several powers, you must choose only one of them.
Choosing to activate a power on a character or on a displayed card also counts as playing that card.
And what wildcards are 'beneficial'? At best there are some that are 'one and done' where you make a change at setup and then you don't have to remember it after that.
Impoverished is easily the Wildcard that can most frequently be beneficial, as it gives you more control over your starting hand and lets you 'cut' 3 of the weaker/weakest cards in your deck, leaving you able to cycle/heal only your best cards. The only limiting factor is the "Cards == Health" in PACG, so you're basically gaining efficiency at the cost of risk of character death (or having to limit your discards/buries), but really it depends on your character and party as to whether it's a negative or not.
But certain other Wildcards can be beneficial in specific party compositions or scenarios too, though they're usually very corner cases. As examples...
The Hazardous Wildcard adds barriers, and there's a couple of Core scenarios that reward or even require you to find and defeat barriers for bonuses (including to close locations). Similarly, some scenarios require you to fight monsters or reward you for beating them, making Monstrous a potential positive.
The Ablaze barrier causes Fire damage, but the character Radovan (from the Pathfinder Tales Character Deck) gets to both ignore Fire damage and even get benefits for suffering it, so it makes him more powerful.
Unhallowed, Harrow of Keys and Harrow of Shields can both help the character Talitha (from the Magus Class Deck) bury blessings in situations she otherwise wouldn't (like when playing them for recharge powers or after discarding them to explore), and Talitha actually wants to bury as many blessings as possible as she can recharge from from her buried pile to gain additional bonuses.
Confusing does effectively decrease your hand size, but it also forces you to shuffle your deck each and every turn. Some characters who are highly reliant on recharging cards might actually like this, as it helps them redraw the cards they've recharged fast and frequently. This can help you re-use Cure spells frequently, or even cards that can be recharged to draw extra cards, like Bound Imp, and so it can potentially be more upside than downside for certain deck compositions and characters.
Harrow of Hammers and Harrow of Keys can cause you to discard cards from your deck. For some characters and playstyles, it's preferable to have cards in your discards than your deck, because there's a variety of cards that let you draw from your discards or get more powerful when you have more cards in your discards. A simple example is Hakon (from Curse of the Crimson Throne) who has a very small hand size (making him unlikely to face death in any given scenario) but the ability to draw any card from his discards at the start of his turn by exchanging it with a card of the same type from his hand. Hakon can more precisely gain the right card at the right time if he fills his discards earlier, allowing him to cast a Cure spell every turn quite easily, for example.
I would like to stress that, obviously, most Wildcards are bad in almost all circumstances, by design, unless you're playing such specific characters. But even in the relatively small number of Heroic/Legendary adventures I've played I've noticed surprising upsides from things like Impoverished and Confusing more than once, and Impoverished in particular I usually find myself considering a net positive - at least for the characters I've been playing.
This power of the Real Rabbit Prince promo has me somewhat confused:
The Real Rabbit Prince wrote:
While this card is in your hand or when you play it, treat it as either an ally or a blessing.
First, when some card like a Traitor discards an Ally, can we choose to treat the RRP as blessing and not an ally (either, or) and the other way around (such as "when discarding cards as damage, discard blessings first")?
Absolutely! When you're encountering the Traitor, it's "in your hand", after all, so you as the player gets to choose one or the other at any time.
Jenceslav wrote:
And more importantly, is it supposed to work when rebuilding your deck as well? That is, can it be added to the deck instead of an Ally? The only two similar cards are Bound Imp (which can be considered a Monster card, but that is not in any character's card list) and Serithtial with a different wording that specifically says that it can be treated as an ally during rebuilding.
No; when it's not in your hand and not being played it's clearly a blessing. There doesn't really need to be a rulebook excerpt to support that statement, because the card itself says it only can count as anything other than a blessing when it's in your hand or when it's being played.
During rebuilding it's in neither situation, though for the sake of argument I'll quote the most relevant paragraph on deck rebuilding.
Core Rulebook, Page 17 wrote:
After each scenario, whether you won or lost, you must rebuild your deck. Start by combining your discards with your hand, your deck, your bury pile, and any cards you displayed; you may then trade cards with other characters. Your deck must end up meeting the deck list requirements on your character. You may not keep cards whose level is higher than the most recently played scenario’s #, with the exception of Loot cards (see Loot on page 17).
Note that all cards are in your 'deck' when rebuilding, not in any other zone.
Similarly, since you're playing Hakon, you cannot discard an ally from your hand to draw it from your discards with Hakon's power, because whilst it's in your discards it doesn't have any effect that lets you redefine its card type.
For the sake of discussion, I'd like to respond to some of Longshots points.
Longshot11 wrote:
- post-Core, weapons were mostly nerfed across the board; to compensate, many of them were given cheaper "boost" cost, like recharge or reload
I'm not sure I agree that weapons were mostly nerfed. It probably has to do with which former base set (or Class Deck) you compare to, but I'd say that post-Core weapons are way better on average.
Post-Core weapons consistently have far more or better secondary effects. All 'combat support' effects from any bow or dagger is way, way better than it was before, plus weapons being able to ignore After-Acting, bolster checks against barriers, examine locations, etc.
The average combat results vary somewhat, but even then it seems like the average combat results of post-Core weapons are higher than pre-Core, especially any elemental one (compare Flaming Mace or Frost Longbow post-Core to pre-Core cards). In the high levels, this is even more exaggerated; there's few pre-Core weapons at all, from any set, that can compare to Shocking Sawtooth Sabre, Dancing Dagger or Fury's Trident. At least, once you discount the outlier of Wrath of the Righteous.
With all of that said, I'm also of the opinion that the pre-Core weapons that allowed for 'evade on failure' were generally a bit too strong, for various reasons. Though they were usually a lot lower-level than level 5, admittedly.
Longshot11 wrote:
- the evade in question DOES require Proficiency - so it's already unusable to a lot of characters (*including* the Iconic Monk Sajan himself, who should be the one wanting this weapon, which is... WTF?!??!)
I mean, this is a post-role weapon, and one of Sajan's 2 roles is themed around a weapons focus, and features giving him proficiency with melee/ranged weapons. Furthermore, generally Sajan has 3 possible roles if you're using the Curse of the Crimson Throne box which this boon is from (because there's also the Blackjack Role that comes with the corresponding AP), so actually 2/3 Sajan roles could be proficient with this weapon.
With that said, I agree it's a very relevant restriction on the weapon, because it means characters with few weapon slots and little skill at using them (like Ezren) can't take it for the 'free evade'.
Longshot11 wrote:
- the evade is *furthermore* restricted to non-Villains only, which significantly devalues it
Definetly de-values it, and villains are indeed one of the most important cards to evade... but I think the word 'significantly' is misleading. In scenarios that include a villain (which is far less scenarios than pre-Core) there's almost only one villain per scenario. The likelihood that you're playing a scenario that includes a villain, that you specifically (of all party members) encounter the villain, that you have this specific weapon in hand and you can't consistently defeat the villain (and wish to do so) anyway is, when taken all-together, a pretty rare thing.
Maybe not 'rare', but even if it worked against villains I doubt it'd come up more than once or twice an adventure, at most, unless you're an extremely exploration-heavy character. I wouldn't call that a significant restriction, as a result.
Longshot11 wrote:
- mid-encounter evade *in general* has been (I feel) nerfed when seen in conjunction with both the steeper monster BYA effects and the new Avenge mechanic. Many a time, it seems preferable to just take it on the chin and have a battle-ready mate avenge and kill the monster, than letting it shuffle away randomly (this is subjective and obviously depends on available damage-negation, but it has been my experience)
Agreed in the sense that BA's are more common and vicious than ever, and agreed about Avenging, but disagreed in the sense that summoned monsters (notably dangers) are also more common than ever (except perhaps when compared to WotR), especially from barriers. The prevalence of summoned encounters increases the value of evasion in all of its forms.
Re-looking at the weapon in question, it is absolutely a lot lower in combat-capability than other Curse 5/6 weapons, so there's definitely an opportunity cost by filling a weapon slot with this over something else.
...However, I still feel the cost should at least be a reload to evade, because it still trivially lets you ignore almost every summoned danger/monster without even spending a card from your hand, as many times back-to-back as they turn up, whilst having other benefits and uses.
In part, I feel that way because this is the kind of boon that seems to make a character from the same set feel weak by comparison; Core Merisiel's evasion power (no matter how many power feats you spend on it) is rather restrictive in many ways, whilst any weapon-proficient character can just hold onto this and evade monsters with a simple reveal all day long, whilst also getting the chance to actually defeat them in combat in a risk-free environment if they want.
(Not saying that this weapon obsoletes Merisiel's core power entirely, to clarify, as Merisiel's can be used in a few other ways; just that I do like using iconic character powers to measure the power level of boons, especially outside of combat. If the "Full Pouch" spell was displayed for a full scenario, or was otherwise just revealed on a turn-by-turn basis, then Fumbus would seem worse by comparison, for example.)
I always thought "failing the check" included the consequences of that aka the Combat damage. I can't prove it off the top of my head though so I could be wrong about that.
That's not the case. As a source, see this thread discussing Class Deck Oloch, who has an identical power.
Or rather, more specifically, he was FAQed to have an identical power to Spiked Chain, because as-written he functioned differently. Which conveniently confirms that evading on leaving something undefeated still causes you to take damage (as per the steps of the encounter), but evading on failing a check to defeat skips the damage entirely.
As for the original question; I do feel like it should be discarded, yeah. It seems too oddly powerful that you literally can't suffer damage (besides BA damage) from non-villain monsters by using that weapon, without even needing to spend a card.
The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Wiki is an excellent resource. Whilst transcription errors do occasionally pop up, I don't think I've ever known any of their Class/Ultimate Deck pages to be inaccurate when listing their card contents.
The end of turn does not have "sub-steps" like the Explore step does. OTOH, it *does* have, potentially, multiple checks, so I agree a power that can be used "once per step or check" can be used on each check (since the check is the smallest unit being executed).*
*Maybe this was Yewstance's point, but I didn't get this from his** words.
**Pronoun assumed. Apologies if incorrect. (I should probably already know, but am aging prematurely.)
This was my point, but you're right I had a couple of factual inaccuracies (referring to Recovery as a Step, and referring to the Explore Step rather than the smaller-scope Encounter).
Either way; you and I agree that Mavaro's power can be used once for each check (if relevant), thus allowing his power to be practically used multiple times in a single given step under quite a variety of circumstances, as opposed to Zeroth Hour's statement that he could not do so on an End of Turn check plus a Recovery check.
**Gender is accurate, but I wouldn't have taken offense in any case regardless.
However, since Mavaro's power doesn't apply when something specific happens, he can only use it once per step. This means that for the whole of the end of turn step, he can only use it once. So if he used his power during another end of turn check, he couldn't use it again for recovery (end of turn and recovery are the same step).
I don't agree with this assessment, because you can use a power once per step or check.
For example, if you had a character power that said "Recharge a card to add 1d4 to your check", you could absolutely use it in a single exploration step multiple times - such as for a Before Acting check, a check to defeat, a sequential check to defeat, then an After Acting check.
In the same vein, you can repeatedly use Mavaro's power (as long as it's always relevantly impacting your check, such as by giving you a new, relevant skill) for checks taking place in the same step. For example, you could gain the Perception skill to recharge Mind Thrust, then the Arcane skill to recharge Invisibility, then the Divine skill to recharge Cure, all in the same Recovery Step.
This is no different to Core Ezren buffing more than one of his Recovery checks.
Whilst other characters defeating monsters might let you display it, it will absolutely not give other characters besides yourself any other benefit. See the text I've bolded from the quoted card.
SirEman80 wrote:
"While displayed, add 1 die to your intelligence and wisdom checks while at this location”.
When written on a card, the word "Your" explicitly refers to the character playing, has played, or is encountering the card in question.
If and only if it removed the word "your", then it would apply to anyone's Intelligence/Wisdom checks at the location.
Though an exploration velocity of 3+ is sustainable with various characters, including some post-Core ones. I've played more than a half dozen characters who average 3+ explorations a turn over a scenario, including with post-Core, post-Role Fumbus, and I believe Varian probably can too (especially in CotCT with the added Harrow blessing).
Though you'd only even consider such a velocity if the party size encouraged it, and in a full 6 player party you pretty much never need to worry about running out of cards in your deck.
Also, the mechanics of the Base in CotCT greatly adjust traditional exploration metrics if you assign someone to largely empty it rapidly. Class Deck boons can also make it much easier; it helps that healing is so powerful and easily reuable in PACG.
Lini became a great support but, i just didn't understand about Lini's new exploration mechanics.
Compared to Sajan, who has 7 blessings and 3 allies, knowing that he should bless practically everything he does with two or 3 blessings due to his low skill values, Lini has only 5 allies and 2 blessings.
as I understand it, Lini can no longer recharge animals after using them to explore (with the exception of Droogami).
if she tries to explore, she will be without her animals. So, like Sajan, she drifts to a more selfish side, or uses the power of her allies to help her group, without being able to explore multiple times in one turn.
this mechanics was well explored in the article about Sajan, but was not mentioned in the article about Lini.
Am I correct?
I think there's a lot of unspoken assumptions being made here, and it's kind of hard to tackle this. I'll just try to give my interpretation about "Exploration Mechanics" as a whole, since that's the crux of this thread.
Firstly, unless you're in a 5-6 person party, a character being able to explore 3+ times a turn isn't even that helpful (let alone desirable).
Secondly, there's not really any Core or Curse character who has some kind of unique way of exploring faster (Pre-Role), with the possible exception of Ezren (after he spends a power feat, he can recharge a spell and another card to explore). There's a lot of circumstantial reasons why some characters would explore faster or slower than others, including hand size, ally/blessing counts, capability to take on multiple checks with minimum card expenditures, self-healing abilities (or ability to recharge cards to explore) and even the Diplomacy & Divine skills (which are consistently helpful for acquiring allies and blessings).
With that said, if you're trying to compare just Lini (Core) to just Sajan (Core) in a vacuum, which seems to be the case...
Lini has the Divine skill and thus can heal herself with Cure spells which are multiple times more powerful than most non-Spell methods of healing. That means if Lini heavily discards allies and blessings to explore, and Sajan heavily discards allies and blessings to explore, only Lini will be able to sustain such actions without running out of cards sooner or later.
Additionally, Lini can shuffle her deck easier than almost any other character (since all Core Animal allies have a 'recharge' power, she can use her power with them to shuffle them into her deck) therefore is able to redraw recharged cards (such as a recharged spells like Cure) faster than almost any other character.
Lini has 5 allies in her deck by default; you only need one in hand to have a combat option. Because of her ability to shuffle her own deck, every time you end your turn and reset your hand you will very likely draw at least one more ally. That's a lot of exploration power even if you refuse to spend your last one to explore... and even then, you have attack spells which are better than using animals in combat. Even then, PACG doesn't usually require everyone to spend all of their cards exploring every single turn. (If it did, Hand Size 4 characters would be disastrously bad.)
If you're concerned about running out of animal allies when you're both discarding them to explore and also recharging them to attack, then take more Ally Card Feats. 5 is already a huge number of a single card type to start with; it's 33% of your deck.
Whether she's 'selfish' with her cards or not depends on how you build her (and exploring many times a turn isn't even selfish, anyway), but the fact that she's a spellcaster who can redraw recharged spells quickly, and leverage her Divine skill for both healing and combat, makes her completely distinct from Sajan in almost every way. Additionally, she benefits from every facet of her character being enhanced under a single type of Skill Feat, as she can leverage Wisdom to fight with Animals, with Spells, to recharge Spells as well as enhance the power of Survival-specific Armors and (In Curse of the Crimson Throne) Weapons, which she is the single best post-Core character to use on account of having the highest survival skill of any Core or Curse character.
Additionally, Sajan couldn't bless most of his checks with more than one blessing - he can only do that on Combat and Acrobatics checks.
(If you're trying to compare Lini to an earlier printing of Lini, that's a completely different story to tell. But since there's 3 previous printings of her, you'd need to be more specific. I will agree that this is one of the weaker printings of Lini, but that's true of several Core/Curse characters, which are consistently better balanced than previous examples of their classes.)
... so you can indeed do a lot of thing before trying to close (as long as you do not start another step by exploring again or starting the end of turn for example), like
- Healing
- Moving charcaters around (providing you have the power needed)
- Giving cards (providing you have the power needed)
- Playing buff spells...
...
That really helps ensuring you can close
Skizzerz explained that you couldn't just above, but note that - unless it's immediately relevant to a situation, check or step that you're in - you can generally only play cards and use powers in between steps of a turn anyway, which prevents all of your suggestions. To clarify; this isn't a Core rules change, this has always been the standard timing for playing cards for 'general' purposes, or at least as far back as Skull and Shackles.
For example, you can't process a Start-of-Turn effect (such as from a Scenario power), then play a Cure spell, then process another Start-of-Turn effect (such as from your location) - you have to wait until after the entire phase is over.
I agree with Skizzerz above. It's not much better than Object Reading, but it is better than Object Reading.
Personally I still prefer Object Reading. I'll give up the free shuffle in exchange for being able to stack the top three cards of the deck. Much easier recharge too.
Totally fair! That there's a strategic value in both cards is ideal design IMO; 'strictly better' cards are less interesting to consider and discuss.
I'd like to bump this thread; because some powers and locations fail to work under the assumption that Story Banes are removed from the vault over time, I infer that to mean that that they are not removed from the vault at any point.
So the initial ruling seems to hold firm; the low-level, weak story bane devils remain in the stack. That should probably be added to a FAQ, in my opinion.
EDIT: Additionally, this scenario includes another oversight which has not been given a public ruling. This scenario includes the henchman Ukwar, who has the following power...
Ukwar, Henchman Monster 5 wrote:
If defeated, draw the new Loot weapon Ukwar Axe.
This doesn't inherently work in Sanctioned Play/Organised Play, since you don't get to keep it after the scenario ends, implicitly. However, the Sanctioning Document does cover an almost-identical situation with the loot card (Trifaccia's Mantle) you can earn by defeating the monster Yzahnum the Efreeti, indicating that you add it to all players' chronicle sheets.
I've been directed to apply the same solution to Ukwar and Ukwar's Axe in the past, but there's been no update to the Sanctioning Document or public ruling formalizing that, as far as I can tell.
Other apparent errors/oversights in the Sanctioning Document:
Whilst we're discussing the Sanctioning Document, also note that the "Build the Vault" rules for both Adventure 6 and Adventure 7 are incorrect, and mistakenly copy the Adventure 5 "Build the Vault" rules. Notably, they don't remove the right cards and they don't add in AD6 (or the couple of AD7) cards.
Also the Sanctioning Document does not allow for non-veteran Blessings to be removed from the box - though I believe that is allowed in the regular adventure path - making earning late-game blessing deck upgrades prohibitively difficult for large parties in OP. In a 6 man party in AD5 or AD6, there's a mere 3 blessings in the entire vault that can give you an AD5 or AD6 blessing upgrade (they'd need to match the Harrow suit and you've already taken 6 from the box for the Harrowing) - and only 4 that can give you AD4+ upgrade thanks to a single AD4 blessing - and the quantity of blessings in the vault is higher/more diluted than a traditional set due to the 54 Harrow blessings.
I think it’s pretty safe to infer that discard includes to a recovery pile
Indeed. In practice the best work-around is to always keep 2 Recovery Piles for Alase - one for spells which she plays on a check by a character at Tonbarse's location, and one for all other spells.
As mentioned in my original post, it's a lot less 'obvious' a solution as to the similar power by Lazzero (and the errata for it, as linked above), since his power applies to all spells, whilst Alase applies to certain spells.
I personally have very rarely found the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game that difficult, unless I make adjustments or intentionally play 'weaker' character. Also note that 6 player parties tend to be hardest, whilst 3 player parties is usually where it's easiest - though, as mentioned, Ahmotep is one of the stronger PACG characters out there, and almost certainly the strongest MM character.
With that said, I do recall my runs through the base Mummy's Mask being very straightforward. Most of the scourges aren't particularly harmful (or hard to get rid of), the scenario powers are almost never that tricky, and the boons are *excellent* - just being able to have every party member hold a Blessing of Maat until you need it makes a huge difference in a party, and Ahmotep herself can turn any card into an almost-Blessing-of-Maat anyway.
I do think the Core Set (and Curse of the Crimson Throne) is a bit harder, and better balanced in many areas (less pro-player, but also with a lot more choice elements). In particular, most Core/Curse characters (with a couple of overt exceptions) are weaker than many of their previous printings, presumably in an effort to increase difficulty.
Also, I second that the Season of Plundered Tombs is definitely harder than the base MM game (and almost certainly the hardest Society Adventure Path), though even then I found the difficulty lower than I was led to expect, and even the most unreasonably anti-player scenario rules are surprisingly toothless when compared to the extreme power level that a lot of characters and boons enable in the late-game.
There's varying opinions on that thread shared, and no final consensus. However, I personally believe that RAW doesn't stop Animate Dreams from triggering a summon of Animate Dreams... both because the scenario rule isn't a power, nor a card (it's a storybook rule, which are not covered under the rules for either of those terms), and because Animate Dream - or any other card or power - is doing the summoning.
