Skull & Shackles FAQ


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

1 to 50 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

The S&S FAQ has been created.

Edit:

This is not a rules discussion thread. Please keep this thread for updates and commentary about the FAQ itself, not about the gameplay issues that are or are not described in the FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Added one entry today.


Should Lini's Aquamancer role power to put a defeated monster in your hand be limited to cards from location decks only? Otherwise she would be putting summoned monsters into her hand...

Sovereign Court

csouth154 wrote:
Should Lini's Aquamancer role power to put a defeated monster in your hand be limited to cards from location decks only? Otherwise she would be putting summoned monsters into her hand...

Not to sound rude, but what's the problem?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Andrew K wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Should Lini's Aquamancer role power to put a defeated monster in your hand be limited to cards from location decks only? Otherwise she would be putting summoned monsters into her hand...
Not to sound rude, but what's the problem?

Summoned cards are supposed to be banished unless the summoning effect says otherwise, as I recall. If I'm not remembering wrong, that would mean that with rules as written, she cannot gain summoned monsters. I suspect many players will think that she would. I think that's what csouth meant: the power should either explicitly disallow gaining summoned cards or explicitly allow it


That is what the power says though: "When you would defeat a monster and banish it"... doesn't say anything about where the monster came from. So, with the rules as written, I don't see why she wouldn't add a summoned one to her hand.


Andrew K wrote:
Not to sound rude, but what's the problem?

The problem is this whole discussion on Them Ogre's ain't Right and summoned henchmen, and that Lini's Aquamancer power seems like it should be subject to the same rules as that scenario's power.


The rule itself should read "summoned cards can never be placed anywhere but back in the box; this is not subject to the golden rule". I understand what Vic was trying to say in the other thread,and it makes complete sense, but they are wanting the rule to still say "After evading or resolving all checks against a summoned card, banish it." This is problematic because, following the golden rule, Lini's Aquamancer power still trumps that.

Sovereign Court

Is it only unless the summoning effect tells you otherwise? If so, then the rules already tell you that her Aquamancer power won't let you take them.


Except that the golden rule states that when a card and the rule book conflict, the card wins out. To me, this is clearly the character and rule book conflicting.

To be honest, I am not arguing that this isn't fair or the way it should work. If Vik says that you return summoned monsters back to the box no matter what, I have no problem doing that and will run my games as such. This just seems like a subject that will be brought up many times on the forums because of the wording.


Well, given that one of Vic's replies to that forum is the following, I think it's pretty clear:

"Summoned cards never go anywhere other than back in the box. Ever. I will see if I can figure out what was behind "banish it unless you’re instructed otherwise."

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're instructed otherwise.


OK, thanks! So it seems the answer, then, is that it DOES indeed apply to summoned monsters.


Thanks Mike, good to know.

For clarity's sake, I'm assuming this works with Lesath from the Rogue class deck as well?

"When you would banish a monster, display it..."

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

Yup!


Awesome, thanks!


Mike Selinker wrote:
You're instructed otherwise.

Ok, that directly contradicts Vic's statement of "ever". I wish you guys agreed on this.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sounds like Aquamancer Lini should hang out at Shark Island and tame all the sharks until there are none left to summon. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deekow wrote:
Mike Selinker wrote:
You're instructed otherwise.
Ok, that directly contradicts Vic's statement of "ever". I wish you guys agreed on this.

That's kinda why the FAQ is there, to overrule a previous decision and document it. The FAQ isn't just one person's opinion. I'm sure Mike, Tanis, Vic and others discuss the point and put it into the FAQ for clarification going forward.


I kind of see where Deekow is coming from. One of the scenarios in AP4, for instance, says to shuffle undefeated Henchmen into the location deck. This clearly doesn't apply to summoned henchmen, even though it's telling you to do something other than banish them. But Lini and Darago get to tame summoned Henchmen just because?

I'm fine with the two being different. I'd just like to see something saying why other than "because we said so."


Orbis Orboros wrote:

I kind of see where Deekow is coming from. One of the scenarios in AP4, for instance, says to shuffle undefeated Henchmen into the location deck. This clearly doesn't apply to summoned henchmen, even though it's telling you to do something other than banish them. But Lini and Darago get to tame summoned Henchmen just because?

I'm fine with the two being different. I'd just like to see something saying why other than "because we said so."

Just for curiosity, how does the scenario in AP4 clearly state that its not for summoned henchmen?

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

All right, we'll discuss this again. Hang loose.


Isn't something being in the rules/FAQ basically the same as "because we said so" in written form? ;)

Also bear in mind that Vic's comment about summoned cards never going anywhere but the box was over 6 months ago; there's been a lot of time for discussion on that point, introduction of new powers, and revised rules.

EDIT: I've moved my point about what the rules say over to the other thread, specifically here.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

We've got two threads going on about this simultaneously. Since this thread is really supposed to be about updates to the FAQ (and is thus in the General Discussion section), I kindly suggest we move our discussion to the other thread, which can be found here.

Plus that way Mike doesn't have to post things twice.


I just want to add real quick that I totally screwed up what I was typing. What I meant to say was that the scenario shuffles the henchmen back if you don't close the location, not if they're undefeated. Major derp moment.

The scenario is The Ancient Library, RotR AP4S5.

EDIT: And no, it does not say anything about summons at all.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Folks,

I do not want this to become a rules discussion thread. Please keep this thread for updates and commentary about the FAQ itself, not about the gameplay issues that are or are not described in the FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Added one item today.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It looks like Throwing Axe has the pre-RotR errata word "instead" as opposed to "additionally". That isn't a huge one, but thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Sovereign Court

The clarification Mike gave on Damiel, that his power recharges alchemicals *from his hand*.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Quick question: I thought that it was a general rule that you shouldn't utilize promo cards until you start Adventure 1 (with Ranzak being an exception since he's a character). However, the FAQ seems to imply that you can use Goblin Weidling from the beginning of the game, pre-Adventure 1. Is it intended for Goblin Weidling to also be an exception like Ranzak?

Edit: Sorry, should have checked the rules first. "If you have a ship promo card, as soon as you have checked off any ships of the same class on your fleet card, you may treat the promo card as if it has been checked off as well."

But still, you shouldn't be Encountering the Goblin Weidling just because it's part of your fleet, right?

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please see Vic's note above. If you have a question, post it in another thread.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Sorry about that, Mike. I misunderstood/misremembered Vic's statement.

Promo ship discussion here.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Added one item to the FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

And two more.


Are the player cards from both games inter-changeable?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
tim Kelly wrote:
Are the player cards from both games inter-changeable?

Hi tim. This thread is really for discussing the FAQ itself, and not for asking new questions. But don't feel bad about it.

As to your question, yes, you can take a character card from RotR and use it in S&S and vice versa. You must use the role card that came with the character card you use (i.e. you can use the RotR Valeros character card and the S&S role card).

And the same thing is true for a class deck character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ahh, my mistake. Thanks much for the answer though. Was a bit confused.


Regarding the resolution for maximum hand size in Press Ganged: the way the new resolution is worded does not make it clear at all that hand size can never exceed your normal hand size, which, as I understand, is the intention. It currently says that hand size cannot exceed the size of the bane pile. This does nothing to limit maximum hand size to what it would normally be...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

"Each character's hand size cannot be greater than the number of cards in the bane pile" gives nothing to indicate your hand size in that scenario could exceed your stated hand size in the first place.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's sort of a roundabout way to word it. I would just go with "Your handsize is equal to the number of cards in the bane pile, to a maximum of the hand size listed on your character card." or something like that. While the faq wording is unambiguous, I had to do a double take to make sure I was understanding it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think if you were able to read that card without prior knowledge of the more ambiguous wording there wouldn't even be a question. It's tough to divorce yourself from assessing it that way once you know it's wrong. But fewer words are always going to win, right? The card only has so much space. Even if the card is just an imaginary thing you look up online, it might not always be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dave Riley wrote:

I think if you were able to read that card without prior knowledge of the more ambiguous wording there wouldn't even be a question. It's tough to divorce yourself from assessing it that way once you know it's wrong. But fewer words are always going to win, right? The card only has so much space. Even if the card is just an imaginary thing you look up online, it might not always be.

I have a group that hasn't seen either wording yet. I'll ask them what they think it means.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

Guys, this thread is not for answering questions; it's about the FAQ itself. Take it outside, please.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:
Guys, this thread is not for answering questions; it's about the FAQ itself. Take it outside, please.

This is a direct response to an faq update though. I thought conversations like that were supposed to go in this thread while questions about whether there's an error or not have their own threads?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

See post 1: "This is not a rules discussion thread. Please keep this thread for updates and commentary about the FAQ itself, not about the gameplay issues that are or are not described in the FAQ."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Added two today.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Make that three.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

One today.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The update for the Ancient Mariner seems to already be on my Ancient Mariner.

Or am I missing something?

1 to 50 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Skull & Shackles FAQ All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.