Sawtooth Sabre VS Armies


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


The Sawtooth Sabre says:

"If you succeed at your first check to defeat a bane that requires sequential checks to defeat, the difficulty of checks to defeat during this encounter is decreased by 5"

Now, checks against armies are by their very nature "sequential" and they're most definitely NOT "alternative".

Still would you say beating a Combat 40 with Allain's Sawtooth Sabre will drop Adowyin's Acrobatic 23 check down to 18? Rules support pro and con?


I'd say yes.

It clearly isn't intended to apply to only your own checks. In a more common "X THEN Y" kinds of situation (which the rulebook specifically calls a sequential check), it is obvious that you playing Sawtooth Sabre on X lowers the difficulty of Y no matter who attempts it.

Armies are just written the way they are because the normal check to defeat box can't accommodate what it is trying to do.


Hah. Thanks! That was my reasoning as well, but then this weapon becomes ridiculously good against Armies. I'm not sure it completely makes thematic sense (the idea is that you bleed out a singular monster, weakening it for a follow-up, I suppose - and how can you bleed out an *army*?!) , but I can't help but think it says "bane", and not "monster" for a purpose...


I agree with Hawkmoon as far as whether it's intended to work on other people's checks generally.

But, for armies, I would argue that the fact that you can do the checks in any order conflicts with the concept of "sequential". A sequence has an order, army checks can be reordered. I'd also ask why else they would use the word "sequential", when they could have used the word "multiple" (a word that has been used before) in its place, unless they were specifically trying to exclude cards such as armies.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Sawtooth Sabre VS Armies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion