Search Posts
That's what I'm saying though, does it really need an official OK? To me, Organized Play basically says "follow the rules of PACG, additions and exceptions are in the guide". Adding something that isn't already OK in PACG (like a shirt reroll) would need a specific OK to be allowed, because it isn't already acceptable to use in PACG. However, something that already is allowed in PACG (the mat discard / draw) would need to be specified that it is NOT OK to use, because it is already allowed in the game.
Actually Theryon, I'm not entirely sure the discard for a draw wouldn't be allowed. That one seems more to me like a "The rule is there, it works unless specified otherwise". I don't know anyone that actually owns one so it hasn't come up, but I don't think it quite falls under the same category as things like a shirt reroll.
Yup. It has it's quirks (avoiding playing a scenario where a certain character build might just be borderline screwed), but it's a good way to make sure that you can make up for any holes in the party. With people being able to play their character in multiple parties, the last thing you want is 4 people coming to play and all saying "My character is Wu Shen..."
Also, you seem to have found your way to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game forums by mistake. I believe that by decree of our resident PACG guru Hawkmoon, you are now legally obligated to try out the game under punishment of character death. Don't worry, he's probably right behind me posting something similar and less threatening...
You don't want all the characters in a class deck to be similar, or you're going to end up with everyone having basically the same builds. That's no fun. Having unique characters in the class decks is the right move, like Flenta and Wrathack. Them being there isn't the problem. Them being there with too many other characters that have their own desired cards is.
Torren, the link Strickhouser gave you has the counts of each card. The link he gave isn't to the decklist you print out to track for your characters. It's a basic list of everything in the base set, character add-ons, and all adventure decks. It includes a count of how many of each card there are, right down to including character tokens and role cards.
Vic made a point in the S&S FAQ thread when someone asked about applying rulebook errata to previous sets. Always use the latest rulebook, and just ignore what doesn't even apply. No ships? Ignore ship info. No plunder? Ignore plunder rules. Even the rules about die vs skill can be found in the S&S rules. A sidebar explains the change, so you know that that rule (die doesn't add bonuses, skills do) doesn't apply to Runelords.
I think Theryon and Frencois hit the two major pieces perfectly. It's way too massive of a change to the entire way the game plays, and even thematically, it doesn't work. If a change were ever to happen (I hope it doesn't), I wouldn't mind seeing your idea, except you bury the amount of cards you weren't able to draw. 6 hand size, 4 in your hand, no deck at the end of your turn? Bury 2 cards. Next turn, 2 in hand? Bury 4. Can't? Dead.
The rules were updated with S&S, you no longer need to have the trained skill to recharged a card. Valeros can make Arcane recharge checks, Seoni can make Knowledge recharge checks, etc. Just remember that spells are still special, because you banish them and the recharge replaces discarding, not banishing. Another thing to keep in mind is she only recharges cards that can actually be recharged. It doesn't say she automatically recharges them, she automatically succeeds her checks to recharge. If there is no recharge option, there is no check to automatically succeed and she doesn't get to use her power.
Yes, we can only assume, but why go straight to something with no precedent when there is a much more obvious answer that makes sense? It isn't in your deck. Where else will it be? Back in the box and out of your deck? Could be, we know cards don't stay in our deck forever. Limbo-land? This has never existed before, so I'm going to go with the answer that makes sense and does something we frequently do anyways -- lose a card from our deck.
It says you replace it with the Loot. I see no reason the original card would go anywhere but back to the box. It's in your deck, or it isn't. The game doesn't use "limbo" zones. A card is used or not. Not sure why you would automatically assume you do something the game has never set a precedent for doing.
Personally, I cringe at even the thought of storing games anywhere besides an official container. I currently have the overwhelming urge to stone you all. Especially at the thought of something as generic as a TCG storage box with "makeshift" dividers for a game that has a box of its own. This horrifies me.
I think making actions that aren't during any turn is even worse. It just needs to excluded, we don't need to add more parts to the game. Really, here's the biggest problem. When your character dies in OP, you do to. So now, we're saying if you cooperate and get unlucky, your fellow players have the right to murder you. I feel like that defense won't hold up in court. I want my murder defenses to hold up in court you guys.
Half the point of saying he's undefeated is so that the blessings do come from the deck, so using them from box is completely against the intent of the scenario and wouldn't work. I was thinking you couldn't perm close either without the villain, so yes, burn through one deck until it is closed. You may find him once, twice, maybe even three times. Maybe more if you're unlucky enough. However, that's the strategy for this one. Focus fire in one place, and you'll have maybe 3 or 4 lost turns tops from him being undefeated (unless you are just absurdly unlucky.
If everyone had to reset their hands after the blessings ran out and you fail, I'd support that. That at least makes sense and can be explained. "You lost, so you all take a hit and potentially die, be careful!" as opposed to "You lost, player X is going to take a hit and die because they helped player Y. Player Z and player W have no penalty for helping though, because X drew the short straw".
I think my recommendation for Amaryllis in another thread would work fine here. It fits the new EOT, and doesn't allow any loopholes for Oloch.
Playing cooperatively can already kill you. If you burned all your cards on a villain check on the next to last turn, the check fails, and you are the next player, you can die (assuming nobody has a cure handy). This really isn't significantly different. Sometimes you have to take risk and live with the consequences. Why do you guys think you should you be able to use all your resources regardless of consequences at the end of the game, when that applies to no other part of the game? Outside of this though, you have a turn to try and make up for any consequences of not having the cards you just played last turn. Part of it too is that it never worked this way before, and it's quite a huge change.
1) Yes 2) I don't think a card exists that lets you reorder face up cards, but yes, if the card says so. If you're talking about things like Scrying, those don't affect the face up cards, so no. 3) Yes. However, that's only if the card says it replaces your first explore. If it simply says "at the start of your turn", then it doesn't use an explore. 4) Correct. Only rearrange when a new face up card is added.
No, you can't play Cure during the reset your hand step. If something forces you to reset your hand and end your turn, you are done playing cards until after the next player has flipped their blessing, unless a card specifies being used at the end of your turn. I definitely feel like this shouldn't be how the start of turn flip works. I agree with it for powers and effects, but feel like the FAQ should specify those and exempt the SOT flip. It really does seem wrong that people would be discouraged from helping on a final turn fight, just because it may kill them at the end of their next turn that they effectively don't even get to take. Rare or not, that shouldn't happen. The ultimatum of "Guaranteed loss, or guaranteed death if another player rolls poorly" should never exist in my opinion. At least, not if the death is the result of you playing cooperatively. Tell me the options are cooperate and lose, or don't and die, I'm ok with that as a rare scenario. You shouldn't have to choose between losing because you didn't play cooperatively, or dying because you did. |
