| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh these 3 look fun. Espesh Ramexes.
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're welcome.
What does it say about me (us?) that I didn't need to click the link to know what it was going to lead to, and that it was already in my head from my first reading of the blog's title?
The link is slightly broken though. And I do not get the reference,
Just now: the pitborn pretender Ramexes challenges the Iconics for the title Best Character Ever!
And for those special moments in your life - namely, its last ones- healing doesn't get any better than Grazzle!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The link is slightly broken though. And I do not get the reference,
It's a lyric in the song that this corrected link leads to.
"Magic and mystery,
Are part of their history,"...
What does it say about me (us?) that I didn't need to click the link to know what it was going to lead to, and that it was already in my head from my first reading of the blog's title?
That we are excellent people?
I think I'm going to really enjoy how Grazzle plays.
I think he's really fun, but he is very easy to accidentally kill.
Grazzle's my favorite for the artwork, but Ramexes is my favorite for the mechanics. I'm okay having tough decisions like that :)
One of the few class decks I like all the characters! :)
I just love how Grazzle doesn't have to be in the same location to heal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tanis, I have heard a bit about the whole "why no Augury" thing.
I'm going to be amused at seeing the decklist for the Oracle now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like S&S Alahazra so I was looking forward to the Oracle deck. After getting to mess with it last month at Con of the North, though, I was a bit disappointed. The two new characters just don't do anything for me, so I may end up passing on it.
The new term "invokes" got a mixed reaction after one of the other members of our regular group and I guessed its meaning. (In our minds "invoke" doesn't evoke its definition.) Something new to get used to.
Just now: the pitborn pretender Ramexes challenges the Iconics for the title Best Character Ever!
And for those special moments in your life - namely, its last ones- healing doesn't get any better than Grazzle!
Yooooooo. Ramexes looks a little one note compared to the characters I'm used to playing, but it's a <i>real good</i> note! Just reading over his role card, I'm suddenly doing a lot less dithering about what character I'll try out in Season of the Righteous.
I'm curious about the wording of Grazzle's healing ability. I'm assuming this tangent I'm going off on is wrong, but what's the mechanic of his (+1 card) checkbox? Would that allow him to discard zero cards and still heal someone for one card? (I assume no--I feel like here have been other semi-similar instances of this, but I'm drawing a blank for examples).
For that matter, I'm reading it like the additional card comes after you multiply, because the sentence doesn't seem to imply it's part of the total before you multiply. However, if that were the case, I would expect the power to read "twice the number of cards you discarded ([] plus one)" The odd position of the power box is what's tripping me up, but even with that being said, I can't find any way to put the power as it currently stands into any equation but "1+(2X)" So I'm curious about other people's opinions.
(In our minds "invoke" doesn't evoke its definition.)
A+++++++++++++++++++ :D
|
I actually think I liked Alahazra's S&S roles better than the class deck ones. The class deck Alahazra (as well as the other two) seem highly dependent on having cards in-hand to trigger card-examination powers - e.g., Spyglass or Augury.
But then, there's no Augury in the deck...wonder if Scrying makes an appearance. Somehow I get the idea that the designers might be trying to get rid of those cards, just like Holy Candle shall never be seen again. It's become part of the PACG equivalent of MtG's "Power Nine."
what's the mechanic of his (+1 card) checkbox? Would that allow him to discard zero cards and still heal someone for one card? (I assume no--I feel like here have been other semi-similar instances of this, but I'm drawing a blank for examples).
Тhe way it's written - yeah, 0 discard for 1 heal sounds correct. It's probably NOT the intention, but considering it's once per turn, doesn't sound that much OP (though it is admittedly strong ability in low-player-count games).
Тhe way it's written - yeah, 0 discard for 1 heal sounds correct. It's probably NOT the intention, but considering it's once per turn, doesn't sound that much OP (though it is admittedly strong ability in low-player-count games).
What's tripping me up is I feel like there's examples of optional effects with similar wordings, and this is probably a case of "not paying a cost means you don't activate a reward," but I'm not finding any of the ones that are on the tip of my tongue.
Either way, yeah, it's not the craziest power on the block, and it's looks like it'd be one of the most useful start-of-turn heals either way... only consideration being how many Cures you'd feel obligated to stack in your deck in case you were the sole healer and had the misfortune of discarding your only Cure. Then again, as Seelah convert, I enjoy the mild card-counting some characters in PF require.
Both Ramexes and Grazzle seem super fun either way! And, down as much as I am with scouting, it's 1000% an Oracle for me in our next PF run. <3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm going to really enjoy how Grazzle plays.I think he's really fun, but he is very easy to accidentally kill.
Physician, Cure thyself, then heal the rest of the party while the Cure is on the bottom of your deck.
I'm very excited to get my hands on this deck! I will admit that I'm a little sad to see there won't be Augury/Scry as I was really looking forward to a 4 card peak with CD Alahazra. Oh well, I'm sure there will be plenty of other ways of looking into the future with allies/items and the various character powers. Also will be very exciting when they come up as potential spells to grab from the location stacks. Also maybe I can convince a friendly cleric to hand me the spell during OP...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, the post miss the PACG tag. I almost missed it because of that.
Sorry about that! Should be there now :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Invokes" is explained on the rules card:
A check invokes a trait if it has or is against a card that has that trait.
A bane invokes a trait if it has that trait or deals only damage of the type that matches that trait.
(This is not the first time that new mechanics have come into play before they were introduced in a new rulebook. Ranzak introduced plunder before the Skull & Shackles rulebook did, and the Iconic Heroes cards introduced the Owner mechanic before the Wrath of the Righteous rulebook did.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm curious about the wording of Grazzle's healing ability. I'm assuming this tangent I'm going off on is wrong, but what's the mechanic of his (+1 card) checkbox? Would that allow him to discard zero cards and still heal someone for one card? (I assume no--I feel like here have been other semi-similar instances of this, but I'm drawing a blank for examples).
We're still finalizing the wording on this addition to the Mummy's Mask rulebook:
When something refers to "any number" of cards, that number must be at least 1.
A bane invokes a trait if it has that trait or deals only damage of the type that matches that trait.
So if a bane x does not have the Poison trait, but it has the power "All damage done by x is Poison damage", then it invokes the Poison trait.
If a bane does not have the Acid trait, but does 1d4 BYA Acid damage and deals Combat damage normally for a failed check, it does not invoke the Acid trait. Correct? (I would have thought it did.)
There's a slightly scary phrase hidden there:
...during this examination you may ignore any powers on the examined card
I've not yet seen any cards that do trigger when examined, have I?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a least one in Wrath. It's a late-adventure-deck monster that makes you bury any cards used to examine it.
There's a least one in Wrath. It's a late-adventure-deck monster that makes you bury any cards used to examine it.
Any Boons, so you wouldn't have to bury any cohorts that you used to scout it or your character/role card if you used a power on that to scout it.
Leryn says "Woof."
(translation: "What's up. d('.')b")
Tanis, I have heard a bit about the whole "why no Augury" thing.
I'm going to be amused at seeing the decklist for the Oracle now.
Can't wait to see the drooling charming pleading eyes of my oracle-daughter when someone else encounters Augury.
Anyone that didn't play the Charity "it's pretty it's mine" character during the beta-testing of Whacked in 2002 (one of the very first Xbox games) just can't imagine what she will look like.
I am really excited about this deck! I think my wife and I will be fighting over who gets to play an oracle in our next new adventure path.
(She once collected all the spyglasses in RotR just within her own character deck.)
"Invokes" is explained on the rules card:
A check invokes a trait if it has or is against a card that has that trait.
A bane invokes a trait if it has that trait or deals only damage of the type that matches that trait.(This is not the first time that new mechanics have come into play before they were introduced in a new rulebook. Ranzak introduced plunder before the Skull & Shackles rulebook did, and the Iconic Heroes cards introduced the Owner mechanic before the Wrath of the Righteous rulebook did.)
Yes, but Alahazra's card says it's a check that invokes a trait - so does that mean a check invokes a trait if the card that produced the check invokes it?
|
A check invokes a trait if it has or is against a card that has that trait.Yes, but Alahazra's card says it's a check that invokes a trait - so does that mean a check invokes a trait if the card that produced the check invokes it?
If the card the check is against (bane or boon) has the trait, then the check invokes the trait. Also, if the check HAS that trait (usually from cards played to affect the check which apply their own traits, or as specified in powers, for example), it invokes the trait.
(Not trying to sound condescending. I think lots of people are going to have a similar question, so I figured more explicit lingo is better.)
Also, SQUEEEEEEEEEE Shipment e-mail!!!
I was really hoping that "invokes" would be reevaluated and reconsidered, but here it comes. I'm not a fan, personally. I think it needlessly complicates things just for the sake of freeing up a few characters on the word count.
It's playtested well enough; I suspect the confusion will mostly be dispelled or at least as clear as the entire full sentence could possibly be after a few sessions of using it.
And saving a couple lines of text on a card is _amazing_.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just got my deck in the mail today and it looks to be a really good deck. The spell selection is FANTASTIC, a lot of the new items are really interesting, and the two new blessings really make me eager for Mummy's Mask. My Monday group just finished up WotR this week and plan on going through Season of the Shackles next. I think I'm gonna try Grazzle; I think his healing power is really neat and his skills seem tailor-made for S&S.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, hello new blessings. So, when's Mummy's Mask going to be out? I want to recharge Blessing of Osiris now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having just played a spellcasting Cleric with the Cleric deck (WotR Kyra), I am pleased with the selection of Attack spells in the Oracle deck.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having just played a spellcasting Cleric with the Cleric deck (WotR Kyra), I am pleased with the selection of Attack spells in the Oracle deck.
This makes me happy. I was concerned that Ramexes seems weapon focused but only starts with two, but if there are attack spells, he can make do for awhile.
This makes me happy. I was concerned that Ramexes seems weapon focused but only starts with two, but if there are attack spells, he can make do for awhile.
I think given his power, recharge a divine card to add 1d8 plus the fire trait, that you should be able to sit with one weapon in hand and when needed add a little demon fire to make the check. Helps that his favored card type is weapon, so that should be pretty easy to accomplish. Opens up those spell slots for utilities. Fortunately there are a number of pretty good utility spells as well.
