|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
To be even more specific, when you subscribe to one of our product lines, you have the choice between starting with either the currently released volume or the next upcoming volume. So if you want to start with the first volume of Strange Aeons, which is Pathfinder AP #109, you can start your subscription anytime in the two-month window after #108 has shipped (which should be late July 2016) and before #110 ships (which should be late September 2016).
Are you by any chance reading "mortality" as "morality"? I think he wants to be immortal, not amoral....
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Unfortunately, the internet is forever: years from now, there will be people who still believe that the currently released images are exactly representative of the product.
Reposting from here:
Rumors of the death of print have been greatly exaggerated.
It is true that our digital sales as a percentage of total sales are increasing year over year.
However, some portion of that increase is because the number of products available digitally only ever goes up, and because the number of available print products increases more slowly than the number of available digital products.
That last bit may not be obvious, but think of it this way: Let's say that in a given period, we release 100 new products in both print and PDF, but 15 older products go out of print during that same period. For that period, then, the total number of digital products available went up by 100, but the total number of print products available went up by just 85.
So even if there were no customers actively abandoning print in favor of digital, digital sales as a percentage of total sales would still be likely to increase year over year.
Yet even with that in mind, the increase is much slower than you might think.
Print isn't going anywhere soon, and isn't likely to become anything less than a majority of our business in the foreseeable future.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
It´s not important anymore for me (because i already ordered one) but for some people that want to order a case and the BAR mini with it it would be cool to see an actual photo or at least to get more information about it.
I'm very glad that the details of the bar haven't been made public yet, because WizKids brought a few new ideas on that topic to last week's meeting. They have to look into a few things, so it'll probably be a little while before we can tell you more, but I think it's going to be worth the wait.
But that's ameliorated by the fact that Voter A (or Voter B) isn't likely to be comparing those exact two items against each other repeatedly—instead, when he does see repeats, he's comparing each of them against different opponents. In the system we're using, that's building a more complete chain of his preferences, and that's actually valuable data.
For example, Voter A tells us he prefers Item 1 to Item 2, and he prefers Item 1 to Item 3, and he prefers Item 4 to Item 1. With our system, if every voter did exactly the same thing, Item 4 would win, Item 1 would come in second, and Items 2 and 3 would tie for third. The fact that Item 1 has been seen three times more often does not give an advantage to Item 1—but it *does* give us a more accurate picture of what the relative opinions of all of the items are. This is what we WANT.
In a system that just credits wins, you'd have a different winner. You'd have 66% of the votes for item 1, 33% of the votes for item 4, and no votes for items 2 or 3. Under a system like that, the fact that Item 1 had been seen more than the others would be a very big deal indeed.
w w 379 wrote:
Mike,if you're using "straw man" in terms of the fallacy, I can speak only for myself to say that I'm not asking for intent only to be able strike down your answer. I asked for intent because I genuinely enjoy your game, and I want to know what your vision was when you guys wrote it because you guys have vision.
We generally avoid talking about intent here for a number of reasons. If you look in the Pathfinder RPG rules forums, you will see many many MANY arguments about "RAW" (rules as written) vs. "RAI" (rules as intended), and a lot of them are horrific firefights that I personally wish didn't exist. Intent can be important, but sometimes intent needs to evolve or to be discarded.
When Mike and I are hashing out solutions to a problem, "intent" does come up now and then, but is usually a pretty minor factor. In the PACG, if the intent for a card is inconsistent with other cards in a way that can't easily be explained, intent goes out the window. If the intent is something we can't communicate clearly in the limited space we have, it goes. If it just plain breaks the game, it goes. And there are other reasons too.
We know full well that if we communicate intent before we have a finished ruling, there will be people who latch on to the intent and never let go, and then we'll have RAW vs. RAI threads here too.
(Also, sometimes, when we consider intent, nobody can even remember what the actual intent was, usually because the card evolved enough during the design process to be sufficiently separated from the intent.)
I've been waiting for somebody to ask this question since the day Wrath came out—I'm quite surprised it took this long. The answer has always been "yes, you can," (though recent and pending rulings have made adjustments to exactly *how* you can...)
This FAQ says "If a power allows you to automatically defeat or acquire a card, you may use it instead of attempting the check."
In that sentence, "instead of" tells you that in the step in which you would normally attempt the check, you are instead checking to see if you have a mythic charge.
And since we're still in an encounter, this bit from "Encountering a Card" still applies: "Players may only play cards or use powers that relate to each step (or relate to cards played or powers used in that step)." Playing Blessing of Ascension to get a mythic charge certainly relates to checking to see if you have one, so regardless of which Mythic Path you have, you can do it.
Allow for Abstractions. Sometimes the story you imagine can get in the way of playing the game. Despite their aquatic nature, Bunyips can be encountered in the Manor House. Caltrop Bead works against Skeletons, even if they don’t have flesh on their feet. Don’t force the cards to fit your story; let the cards tell you their stories.
I don't know if they're going to stick to any sort of order when releasing them once we finish the CRB classes - maybe roughly the order or RPG release?
Nope. There's no huge list going deep into the future. We do them in batches of 3 or 4, and usually, we decide what the next batch is just shortly before the designers are ready to work on them. We factor in obvious things like what we're doing with Adventure Paths and OP (for example, Paladin was the top of the list for new decks because of Wrath) and less obvious things like making sure we space out basic character types (we don't want a bunch of focused spellcasters all in a row, for example). But we also factor in whether or not the designers already have a bunch of ideas sitting around for a particular class, or whether a class might benefit from mechanics that we plan to introduce in a future Adventure Path, or just whether the designers are particularly keen on working up a particular class.
Which is to say, I think we'll keep surprising you.
Blog post says "And let's not forget that every demon they defeat (including Vellexia) has a 1 in 6 chance of summoning Shamira." but the rules indicate otherwise. Vellexia is never defeated, if she would be defeated she's evaded instead. That means she never triggers the 1 in 6 chance to summon Shamira. Which is actually correct so I know how to play it when I finally end up getting my AD4?
The blog is incorrect. Removing "(including Vellexia)."
So basically, until Lucas's death, there CAN'T be a 1080/24p, 7.1 DTS HD MA Blu-Ray of the ORIGINAL original trilogy (and even then, it will require a deal between 20th Century Fox and Disney).
I can't remark either way regarding the veracity of your general statement... but if you want the ORIGINAL original trilogy, you can't have a 7.1 soundtrack. The closest thing would be the original 70mm 6-track mixes, which had 3 front channels (left, center, right), a single surround channel, and a pair of low-frequency-effects tracks. (In modern terms, they were "4.2" mixes.) You want split surrounds and differentiation between rear and side, that won't happen without somebody making additional creative decisions well outside the scope of the original production.
Pizza Lord wrote:
The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).
Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.
I have previously said:
The Pathfinder ACG actually began when Lone Shark brought the game that would become Apocrypha to us, saying (more or less) "We're working on this game that we know isn't quite right for you, but we think we can make a game *like* it for Pathfinder that you will love."
..to which I will add that it was always clear that Lone Shark was going to continue to develop that game. But in no way is it PACG 2.0—PACG and Apocrypha are separate branches on the same family tree.
I have also previously said:
When it comes to competition, I believe that Magic: The Gathering actually benefited quite a bit from the existence of other trading card games. By itself, M:TG was a successful game, but it couldn't be the cornerstone of a genre until there were other TCG/CCGs. This is why we didn't trademark "Adventure Card Game"—I'd love it if, in a few years, there are a handful of ACGs in existence, giving weight to our game.
Robert Jordan wrote:
Vic, from a different view point I agree that C is the winning option for how to handle things. The issue is that the updates aren't just hitting PFS, they're going to the source material instead of a PFS reference document. Some of my players will buy the PDF or a more recent physical copy than the source I have on my shelf. That causes conflict at tables outside of PFS, where it really shouldn't. PFS is it's own strange beast with it's own esoteric rules and adjustments and that is perfectly fine, when it flows out and begins to twist the rest of the game it becomes a problem.
Following that logic, you would prefer we were selling new players the exact same Core Rulebook that we introduced several years ago, complete with all the problems that we've identified and fixed in the years since? I'm not a fan of that plan.
Words like "editions" and "versions" mean different things to different people.
Officially, Call of Cthulhu has had 7 editions, though the rules themselves changed very little between the first 6, so some people would say there have been just 2. Yet others say there have actually been *18*.
When it comes to PACG, where the content gets completely replaced every year, and sections of rule are added, removed, and rewritten, there's really no point in that kind of naming/numbering scheme.
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...
There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)
Jester David wrote:
Plan A: We ignore the problems, refuse to answer questions that people keep asking, and force people in PFS to deal with balance issues. A lot of the audience is unhappy, but hey, you're happy.
Plan B: We fix the problems and you are forced to incorporate them into your home game. A lot of the audience is pleased, but you aren't.
Plan C: We fix the problems, and so long as you're not playing in Pathfinder Society, you ignore all of these changes. (Or just the ones you want to ignore, if that makes you happier.) Yet everybody who values them can have them, so everybody's happy!
We have decided not to go with Plan A. *I* certainly think Plan C is the best, but it turns out that if you really want to pick Plan B, I can't stop you.
Le Petite Mort wrote:
Rather than tracking everyone's 'seen list' in a centralized database, you assign to every account a list variable. Every item you see is added to this list. Whenever the page is bringing up the next set of items, it quickly iterates through your own personal list to check if the items present have been seen by you before or not. With 800 entries, iterating through the list twice even without any intelligent/efficient searching algorithms and assuming you had already seen 99% of them, would take < 1 second.
Thing is, if you've already seen A and told us you like it more than B, you haven't necessarily told us you like it more than C, and that's a pretty valuable comparison to be had. Now, we *could* do what you say to make sure that we don't show you A vs B when you've already seen A vs B... but that's a lot of crunching for something that doesn't come up that often... and there's also a chance that you will actually give us a different answer, which is statistically useful as well.
Because they're a full set of 7 RPG dice, and if we put them in the PACG section, some people would be confused about why they all have a d10 numbered in tens, and why the RotR and Wrath sets have a d20.
Why are those not in the game box, but generic boring blue ones?
Because it would make our $60 game a $70 game.
Tanis O'Connor wrote:
I'm really excited about the...
Do you really want to click this?:
How you like them spoiler tags now?