Rise of the Runelords FAQ


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Updated example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Updated example.
Updated example of play wrote:
Edwin banishes it

I say this with only friendly humor in mind: You accidentally added a person named Edwin. I know you can really get into being your character, but it seems Edward and Ezren really merged into on there.

Thanks so much Vic.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Updated example.
Updated example of play wrote:
Edwin banishes it

I say this with only friendly humor in mind: You accidentally added a person named Edwin. I know you can really get into being your character, but it seems Edward and Ezren really merged into on there.

Thanks so much Vic.

Thank you!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

The big Encountering a Card rewrite gained one new clause, italicized below:

Evade the card (optional). If you have a power or card that lets you evade the card you’re encountering, you may immediately shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

This entry gained a sentence:

"Traits also determine the type of check; for example, if you're making a combat check and you played a weapon that added the Ranged trait, it counts as a Ranged combat check."


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.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

This is a case where the card is specifically overriding the rule—it's fine!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

The entry on resetting your hand got an update.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

The metarules got an update. A few new examples have been sprinkled throughout, and things got generally tightened up. The biggest change is the addition of "Allow for Abstractions."


For the Speed spell, the FAQ entry that adds Divine elements to the powers has inconsistent language. Specifically the word "either" is missing.

FAQ wrote:
The last sentence in the Powers section should read "If you do not have the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card."

On all other spells with both Arcane and Divine traits, this power reads: "If you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card."


Eelario wrote:

For the Speed spell, the FAQ entry that adds Divine elements to the powers has inconsistent language. Specifically the word "either" is missing.

FAQ wrote:
The last sentence in the Powers section should read "If you do not have the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card."
On all other spells with both Arcane and Divine traits, this power reads: "If you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card."

There is no difference in meaning either way...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I've removed the entry with the following resolution:

On the B & C spell Sanctuary, change "location deck" to "location deck, if it came from one".

(Other updates have removed the need for that text.)

I also added Sling to this question.


Clarification please (and just to be sure)

In the FAQ it states

Vic Wertz wrote:

Earlier in the turn, I cast Strength on my character, and now I'm making a check. If I play Blessing of Pharasma, can I add 2 dice to the check?

No—the spell must be played as part of the current check for Blessing of Pharasma to add 2 dice.

Resolution: On the blessing Blessing of Pharasma, in the second power, replace "to add 2 dice to a check when playing a spell" with "to add 2 dice to a check if a spell was played during that check."

What if strength is played DURING the current check, would Blessing of Pharasma offer 2 dice?


Troymk1 wrote:

Clarification please (and just to be sure)

In the FAQ it states

Vic Wertz wrote:

Earlier in the turn, I cast Strength on my character, and now I'm making a check. If I play Blessing of Pharasma, can I add 2 dice to the check?

No—the spell must be played as part of the current check for Blessing of Pharasma to add 2 dice.

Resolution: On the blessing Blessing of Pharasma, in the second power, replace "to add 2 dice to a check when playing a spell" with "to add 2 dice to a check if a spell was played during that check."

What if strength is played DURING the current check, would Blessing of Pharasma offer 2 dice?

According to the resolution, yes.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I added one item today. (I also neglected to post here after I added a couple items about two weeks ago.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I added an item last night, and another today. (Both are fairly minor, and encompass rulings that had already been made on the messageboards a while ago.)


Is there any way we could get the link colors changed so that the most recent updates are linked in red, as opposed to the oldest? Also, the two shades of blue links are way too similar to make it easy to tell them apart.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
csouth154 wrote:
Is there any way we could get the link colors changed so that the most recent updates are linked in red, as opposed to the oldest? Also, the two shades of blue links are way too similar to make it easy to tell them apart.

The most recent updates do show as red for me, for whatever setting I've chosen (day, week, month). And what two shades of blue are you refering to? The only other shade of blue I see besides the links for this FAQ are the ones for "Other FAQs".

Could it be something with your browser?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I wonder if you have custom style sheets or browser display settings overriding our settings. There are pretty much just three text colors on that page—red for recent links and recent headers, purplish-blue for older links, and black for everything else.


That's odd. I never, to my knowledge adjusted any setting or anything. Mine has items updated in the past month linked in red; day and week are linked in extremely similar shades of blue...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Ah—I see. If you click the word "day", "month", or "week", that determines which entries are highlighted in red. The other links will be in purple/blue—and links you have visited (where "visited" is defined by your browser, not by us) may be a different color than those you haven't.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Ah—I see. If you click the word "day", "month", or "week", that determines which entries are highlighted in red. The other links will be in purple/blue—and links you have visited (where "visited" is defined by your browser, not by us) may be a different color than those you haven't.

Oooohh. Thanks!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Three entries today.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Also, we updated the rulebook PDF—it's the same text as the last version, but we've fixed some of the bookmarks.


I think the wording on the infinite belt loop ruling (see what I did there?) needs some adjustment. Currently, this ruling would make it against the rules to reveal a card to play it, then reveal the same card to activate a power on another card.

I think changing the word "reveal" in the resolution to "play" would fix the problem; either that, or making the distinction between "reveal to play" and "reveal to pay".


Hi Vic; on page 11 of the rulebook, the page reference for Recharge is printed as "16", it should be "15".

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

csouth154 wrote:

I think the wording on the infinite belt loop ruling (see what I did there?) needs some adjustment. Currently, this ruling would make it against the rules to reveal a card to play it, then reveal the same card to activate a power on another card.

I think changing the word "reveal" in the resolution to "play" would fix the problem; either that, or making the distinction between "reveal to play" and "reveal to pay".

I've adjusted this to "You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step."


Vic Wertz wrote:
csouth154 wrote:

I think the wording on the infinite belt loop ruling (see what I did there?) needs some adjustment. Currently, this ruling would make it against the rules to reveal a card to play it, then reveal the same card to activate a power on another card.

I think changing the word "reveal" in the resolution to "play" would fix the problem; either that, or making the distinction between "reveal to play" and "reveal to pay".

I've adjusted this to "You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step."

Awesome. Thanks, Vic!


Hi Vic, could you please increment the FAQ page date? It is still stuck at the 24th Feb. Many thanks!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Fixed. Thanks!


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.

Sovereign Court

That doesn't need an errata, the rulebook covers that already. Summoned cards always go back to the box, period. No exceptions.


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.


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.


brayle wrote:
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.


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.


motrax wrote:

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.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

One addition today. (We'd actually made the ruling a while ago, but neglected to add it to the FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

One (especially sad one) today.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

One today... but the day is still young!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

One today.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Make that two.


can i play speed even if im not attempting a dex check
since it does not specify


mr Dragan wrote:

can i play speed even if im not attempting a dex check

since it does not specify

Yeah, you can play it anytime OUTSIDE of an encounter or during any step or check of an encounter when it would have a direct effect.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Two today: here and here.


I printed off the revised rule book that is up to date to the January 4th errata posts. I'd like to update my manual with all the errata that were made after January 4th as well. Is there any way I can get a list of those errata to bring my rule book up to date? Pouring over the manual trying to figure out which errata are not included is very time consuming. Are the errata posts date stamped somehow?


I don't think there has even been any errata for the rules since the newest version. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You can just look through this thread for all Vic's posts since the updated rulebook and follow the link to read the item that was updated. Most of them have been cards, though Ezren's "draw a spell if you play a spell" power and how it relates to the check was changed. And it was clarified that when you die, your cards are buried.

EDIT: There are a couple of posts where Vic doesn't give a link. Later tonight I'll figure them out for you.


Thanks. I'm finding myself asking rules questions about the game that have already been addressed in the FAQ but have not yet made it to a rules update.pdf. Though I have read all the FAQs, I generally prefer to refer to my rules hard copy while playing. If the answer to my conundrum isn't there, I'm lost, asking redundant questions and wasting everybody's time. I asked a question about revealing the Magic Shield multiple times if you have the light armors proficiency. I was referred to the FAQ and low and behold, that particular resolution was in the FAQ but not printed in the rules update.


At the top of the FAQ/Errata, there's a little selector that lets you click Last Day/Week/Month and it will highlight those additions within that time frame.

That being said, it has been more than one month since the last Rulesbook update was posted, so you may not find that as useful.

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Rise of the Runelords FAQ All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.