If you defeat Iesha (I actually just encountered her with Kyra, that was nice) and the deck you pick does not have the Skinsaw Man - are you supposed to reshuffle it or just let the cards remain in the same order?
The card talks about reshuffling but it seems like it's only in relation to after you've found the Skinsaw Man, it doesn't really say anything like "If you didn't find the Skinsaw Man, then do X". However in general, usually when you look through a deck you reshuffle. I know "cards do what they say" but I'm still having trouble with this one. Thoughts?
If defeated, choose a location deck and search it for the villain The Skinsaw Man. If you find him, set him aside; shuffle the rest of the deck and put him on either the top or bottom of that deck.
I think the semicolon indicates you shuffle. To me that reads like the part about finding him and shuffling aren't as connected as they would be with a comma.
Though it could be clearer, since it does say after shuffling the location to place him on top or bottom, without clarifying that you must have found him to do that.
I'd also add that the fact you get to decide if he goes back on top or bottom seems to lend credence to this. What you get from finding him is more than knowing which location he is (i.e. its not exam a location and than shuffle it), you get to know exactly where he is. But you don't get to know exactly where the other cards are, just what they are. So it wouldn't make sense to me that if you didn't find him you know more about the location deck than if you did find him.
So that's my take on it.
The part of the sentence on the right side of the semicolon is still talking about the Skinsaw Man (whether to put him on the top or the bottom) so it definitely reads to me like that entire sentence is still talking about what to do if you found him.
I agree with your second point that knowing the entire deck order if you don't find him but not knowing if you do find him doesn't really make sense.
The part of the sentence on the right side of the semicolon is still talking about the Skinsaw Man (whether to put him on the top or the bottom) so it definitely reads to me like that entire sentence is still talking about what to do if you found him.
I agree with your second point that knowing the entire deck order if you don't find him but not knowing if you do find him doesn't really make sense.
I agree. It does say "rest" of the deck and talks about putting him back. Its kind of like the Closing a Location instructions from the rulebook.
If you succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement, search through the location deck, take out the villain if it is there, and banish the rest of the cards.
This also uses the word "rest" of the cards, but clearly rest means "non-villain" and does not mean that the banishment action isn't performed if the villain wasn't there. Likewise "rest" on Iesha Foxglove I would take to mean non-Skinsaw-Man cards and not that the shuffle action isn't performed if he isn't there.
Chief Technical Officer
|
You shuffle even if you don't find the Skinsaw Man because the rules for searching say so:
Sometimes a card allows you to search a deck and choose any card of a particular type; that means you may look at every card in the deck and choose any card of that type. Unless instructed otherwise, shuffle the deck afterwards.
---
If defeated, choose a location deck and search it for the villain The Skinsaw Man. If you find him, set him aside; shuffle the rest of the deck and put him on either the top or bottom of that deck...To me that reads like the part about finding him and shuffling aren't as connected as they would be with a comma.
The point of the semicolon is that it *is* connected. If we wanted to disconnect it, it would be two separate sentences. The instruction is connected to finding the Skinsaw Man, and it has to be stated because it's a special case of shuffling: you're leaving him out of the shuffle.
Ah. I didn't connect Iesha with that rule because of the word "type" in the rule. Though after further consideration Iesha does say "villain" before "Skinsaw Man" so it is clearly about a type.
Awesome, thanks Vic. Sometimes it's hard to keep all the rules spinning in my head at once ;)
And fortunately (or not depending on how you look at it) I failed the roll to acquire the Haste spell that I left at the top of that deck, and won the game before exploring further so it didn't really matter!
No, the rulebook says that any failed check against a Monster results in damage. "If you fail to defeat a monster, you are dealt damage." You only don't take damage if the card says so - like the Siren.
No, the rulebook says that any failed check against a Monster results in damage. "If you fail to defeat a monster, you are dealt damage." You only don't take damage if the card says so - like the Siren.
The Siren doesn't say you don't take damage. The loss of allies is in addition to the damage you take for failing to defeat the Siren, not instead of.
No, the rulebook says that any failed check against a Monster results in damage. "If you fail to defeat a monster, you are dealt damage." You only don't take damage if the card says so - like the Siren.The Siren doesn't say you don't take damage. The loss of allies is in addition to the damage you take for failing to defeat the Siren, not instead of.
Sorry, was going off of memory and obviously didn't remember that it doesn't say "If undefeated, the Siren does no damage. Instead..." I think the Corrupted Crusader from WotR is like that.