Scenario 3-5B: Guardians of Ruin - Sometimes Unwinnable?

[Yewstance]

Hey all. The illustrious EmpTyger brought to my attention that, as-written, this scenario is entirely unwinnable if you have a Rolling Sphere shuffled into the Siege Deck (which doesn't even seem that unlikely a situation to turn up!).

The culprit is this scenario power, which is in effect in addition to the standard Defensive Stance rules. In fact, this is the only real thing setting it apart from any other given "Siege" scenario, besides the specific locations and story banes.

Scenario 3-5B, Scenario Rule wrote:

When you would shuffle a bane into a location deck, shuffle it into the siege deck instead.

Rolling Sphere would always be shuffled back into the Siege Deck, so finishing off the Siege Deck should be entirely impossible, except in the very unusual circumstance that you have a method of forcibly banishing a barrier (basically nonexistent in OP) or a method of forcibly drawing it (almost nonexistent as well, though there's a couple of characters that can do so).

There's also other cards in PACG history which would render this scenario unwinnable - like Mist Horror - but you normally won't find them in the Mummy's Mask box.

Opinion on the scenario rule in question:

To also ask a question and share an opinion, could someone explain to me what the scenario rule is supposed to add to the scenario? There's a very small number of MM banes that are affected, yes - like Burning Child - but none of the Story Banes/Henchmen in the scenario are affected in the slightest, so it's honestly pretty unlikely to ever matter (Defensive Stance rules already cover displayed and undefeated banes being shuffled back in!).

It doesn't appear to have any theme, any relevance, or any importance from a mechanical or story perspective. It's just a line of text to make it technically different to any other Siege scenario (in the smallest, most insignificant way possible, that happens to also render the scenario potentially unwinnable).

[Keith Richmond]

This scenario rule got added after testing due to interactions with the location Vizier's Hill adding barriers to your location. Its intended scope was more limited, but was broadened for simplicity, to this unfortunate result. We'll get that fixed.

If you happen to play that scenario any time soon, please change that line to:
“When you would shuffle a barrier into the Vizier's Hill location deck, instead shuffle it into the siege deck.”