brayle's page

I hate to be that guy, but...

There is a grammatical error on Derakni. It says, "Before you act, each character at your location attempts at a wisdom 5 check." The second "at" should probably be removed.

Sorry to hear about that mispack! The Magpie Princess is now in your sidecart to ship next month.

Much appreciated. Thanks!

Hello Paizo people! Unfortunately my latest shipment of the fourth adventure deck for the Pathfinder Adventure Game: Skull and Shackles came shipped with the wrong promo card. Instead of receiving a Magpie Princess, I received another copy of Goblin Weidling. So now I have two Goblin Weidlings and no Magpie Princess :(

Perhaps you could kindly send me a Magpie Princess with January's order? Thanks so much.

Actually the text on the scenario card doesn't even technically establish a win condition at all. In fact, all it does is tell you that you cannot win UNLESS there are enemy ships on the top of each location deck when the blessing deck is empty. It does NOT say that you automatically win when there are enemy ships on top of each location deck when the blessing deck is empty. The word "only" should be removed from the text. Or to make it even clearer:

"If each is an enemy ship, then you immediately win the scenario."

Here comes a boring logic lesson to prove this.

Here is the original text:

"You win the scenario only if each is an enemy ship."

The problem is that it says "only if". "Only if" establishes a necessary condition rather than a sufficient condition. Compare these:

"There is a fire in the house ONLY IF there is oxygen in the house."
"There is a fire in the house IF there is oxygen in the house."

The first is true, the second is false. The first sentence says that oxygen is NECESSARY for a fire (which is true), and the second sentence says that oxygen is SUFFICIENT for a fire (which is false--you also need fuel and a heat source).

So, the text on the card establishes that having all enemy ships on top of the location decks is NECESSARY for winning the scenario, but it does not say that having all enemy ships on top of the location decks is SUFFICIENT for winning the scenario. Presumably, the intention was to say that having all enemy ships on top of each location deck when the blessing deck is empty is BOTH NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT, since it seems that the intention is to say that this condition is ONE WAY to win (it is a sufficient condition), AND you cannot win without it (it is a necessary condition).

If that was the intention, then the scenario card should say:

"You win the scenario IF AND ONLY IF each is an enemy ship."

But only logicians would appreciate wording like that. Fortunately, since there is no villain in the scenario, the only other possible way to win is automatically ruled out. Therefore, the text need only supply a sufficient condition for winning, like so:

"You win the scenario IF each is an enemy ship."

Or to put it more colloquially (conditionals are usually easier to understand if the antecedent--the "if" part--comes before the consequent--the "then" part):

"If each is an enemy ship, then you immediately win the scenario."

Why not just:

"When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill *for all powers listed on that spell*"?

All I've done is replace "until the end of the step" with the bits between the *s. Since recharge checks are now listed as powers, I don't see why this wouldn't work just fine and capture the original intent (as far as I understand it).

So the FAQ should probably say, "Summoned cards get banished and never anything else."

Additionally, I would like the see the phrase, "unless you're instructed otherwise" completely removed from that section of the rule book. It has caused me no small amount of grief in the past.

I'm in the boat of it not being a card, and only clarifying it as a spell so that you don't play another spell with it (which, even with the rule quote above, I don't automatically see as meaning it counts as a card play)

I just don't see how this could be right. The rules only restrict you from playing two spell CARDS on the same check, not from playing two spells. So, unless Seoni's power is considered playing a card, there is no reason that she could not play another spell on the check. She can just say, "Well, the rule is that I cannot play two spell CARDS, but I have yet to actually play a spell CARD, so even though I have used my power, which counts as a spell, I can still play a spell CARD now." That just can't be right.

Here is another way to think about it that makes it seem like Seoni's power has to be understood to be playing a card:

According to the rules, "Each player may play no more than 1 CARD of each type during each step" of an encounter (Page 10, revised rules, emphasis mine). Obviously, if Seoni's player tried to use her power and then tried to play another spell card on the same check (Guidance, for example), everyone would balk. Why? Because Seoni's player has already played a spell CARD on the check, and you can only play one CARD of each type per check. If Seoni's power did not count as playing a spell CARD, then the restriction that the power counts as playing a spell will not have the desired effect of preventing her from using another spell CARD on the check.

I can honestly say I won't be surprised with either answer being correct. The one thing that has me on the "it counts as a card" side of the fence is that in this game a spell is defined as a type of card. So there is a PACG specific meaning of what a spell is. That leads me to conclude that when something I the game says you have played a spell, it means a card by definition of what a spell is.

But like I said, I won't be shocked to be wrong.

I'm with you, Hawkmoon. Consider the wording on some items: "You may play another item on this check." How can you play an item without playing an item CARD? The only things that can be played are cards; therefore, whenever you play SOMETHING, you play A CARD.

Right, but it specifically says what to do on that card. If there are no overriding instructions, then they go back to the box.

I think the hangup is that you are using henchmen-cards in a non-henchmen capacity. If there is a clarification in the rules already that "summoned" henchmen are NOT henchmen, that should be all that is needed.

But ask yourself, "Why does it specifically say what to do with Zombie minions FROM A LOCATION DECK on the 'Undead Uprising' card?" If summoned monsters ALWAYS-NO-EXCEPTIONS-NO-MATTER-WHAT-ALWAYS go back to the box after the encounter, there would be no need for that wording. There are only two options for monsters: (1) summoned and (2) from a location deck. So if we are to understand that there can never, ever, ever, ever be an exception to the "summoned monsters go back to the box after the encounter" rule, the wording is redundant. The fact that it is there, leads one to think that maybe there can be an exception to the rule, and since the "Them Ogres Ain't Right" card does not make clear that summoned henchmen should still go back to the box, it leaves the door open for interpreting that card as expressing an exception to the rule. A simple FAQ/Errata could easily fix this. We have so many now, one more won't hurt.

Magabeus wrote:

I think it needs an errata as cards override book. I had a hard time on my first try with both a skelton horde and a skinsaw ritual in the first few encounters.

Right. The question is: Does the scenario card provide an exception to the rule that all summoned cards are returned to the box? Scenario cards are supposed to be able to overrule the rule book, so the answer is not obvious.

Also, the scenario card "Undead Uprising" establishes a precedent, since it reads "When you defeat a Zombie Minion henchman FROM A LOCATION DECK,..." This tends to give one the impression that there may indeed be exceptions to the rule that summoned monsters go back to the box.

I think it needs an errata as cards override book. I had a hard time on my first try with both a skelton horde and a skinsaw ritual in the first few encounters.

Right. The question is: Does the scenario card provide an exception to the rule that all summoned cards are returned to the box? Scenario cards are supposed to be able to overrule the rule book, so the answer is not obvious.

I would love to see an official FAQ/Errata to the "Them Ogres Ain't Right" scenario card so that others do not make the same mistake as I did by thinking that any old defeated henchmen should join the stack and not just the ones from location decks: perhaps just adding "If you defeat a henchman FROM A LOCATION DECK,..." would be helpful. Thanks.

Just a little feedback on the updated FAQ: the rewrite for the "reset your hand" phase seems slightly erroneous to me. It says, "You may not play cards during this step," but that can't be right, because then the power on many magic armors that allow you to recharge the armor "when you rest your hand" could never be used. This action would definitely count as playing the card, since it is using a power on the card. Perhaps these armor cards should say "Before you reset your hand" or something like that.