If a monster has an effect that increases the difficulty of this check, ignore that effect.
I'd say, no. Blancher cares about whether the monster has a power the increases the difficulty, not the scenario. If the power isn't written on the monster, Blancher can't negate it.
Agree with Hawkmoon. AFAIK, the 'Veteran Bonus' is specifically the adventure deck number of the current scenario. That d20 adds to the difficulty of the monster, not the amount of the Veteran Bonus.
Agree with Hawkmoon. AFAIK, the 'Veteran Bonus' is specifically the adventure deck number of the current scenario.
Not necessarily - it could be double or triple that number, but more essentially - I think it's rather a trait that signifies a Card's effect increases overtime. If they made a card like some of the WotR cohorts that has only "If you have a role card, then..." power - that would probably also have the Veteran trait.
So, Veteran is just a trait; there is no 'veteran bonus'. And even if it was, it would only add to the check to defeat, so it wouldn' matter if the d20 is added directly to the difficulty of the check, or first to the 'veteran bonus' and then to the check : it would still be an "effect that increases the difficulty"
That d20 adds to the difficulty of the monster, not the amount of the Veteran Bonus.
Precisely for this reason, I'm rather inclined to disagree with Hawkmoon: the Blanchard simply states that you should ignore any 'EFFECTS' (and that word may be the core of the problem, as in my mind it's "any effect that applies to the monster", not "any power written on the monster card") that increase the monster difficulty; it doesn't seem to care where these effect originate from.
Essentially, the solution comes down to the meaning of "monster has an effect", which is an unusual wording AFAIK.
I agree with Hawkmoon. The card doesn't say "any effect", it says "If a monster has an effect". I'd say that rules out scenario and location effects as fair game.
