|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
We try not to unfairly complete with the retailers that sell our products. Many retailers already resent that we sell things directly. If we guaranteed that subscribers received product *early*, that would be a *huge* problem.
Our goal is for most US subscribers to receive their subscription product within a couple days of the street date. That's a goal, and not a guarantee, but we do hit it for most people most of the time.
We don't actually have to *think* about those specs—printers usually provide a pre-made setting file that we use when we output a print-ready PDF for them. (For all I know, they set the dot gain at 0 these days.) But it does mean that we can't just take the file we made to target an offset press in China and send it to a PoD printer in the US. At best, you need a new setting file, and at worst, you need to adjust your page sizes and bleeds.
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Vic, does that mean that the set following will be coming after GenCon?
We are hoping to be on an April/October cycle now. The impact on the OP schedule is yet to be determined (but I will say, as I'm important as Gen Con is, keep in mind that, ultimately, it's just one weekend out of 52 each year).
Please, please, please don't introduce people to the PACG by throwing them into the deep end of organized play. And please don't ask us to weaken what we need org play to be by asking us to make every scenario playable by newbies. Neither of those things is helpful. PFSACG play is designed for experienced players, and that's not changing. For new players, there are four really good ways to get people into the game: On the Horizon, the shortened demo, and the first full scenario of either Rise of the Runelords or Skull & Shackles. If you are using anything else to teach new players the game, you are doing them and us a disservice.
Yes to both of those. Yeah, I haven't told you anything you don't intuitively know—you just haven't parsed it down to the molecule like I've had to do.
So just for clarity, because Alahazra's "At the end of the turn" power is during a specific step, she can only use it once per turn. And because her "recharge a card to examine" power can be used at any appropriate time, including in between steps, as long as that's when you're doing it, you can use it as many times as you have cards to recharge.
Once you're in the explore step, you're in an encounter, and when that encounter ends, you are no longer in an explore step. So the only cards you can play during an exploration are the ones that relate to the steps of that encounter.
But—and I realize that this is not clearly stated anywhere, and needs to be—you can play cards and use powers without limit in between the steps of a turn (but not in between the steps of an encounter—the rules *do* clearly say that bit).
You typically play cards like Augury are *before* you explore, not *during your exploration*. (You know, just like you always have been doing!)
Class Decks have always been thought of as much as an accessory to the main set as the key to making Org Play work.
That said, I would eventually like to have several dozen Class Decks, and I would not recommend anyone dump all of them into the same Base Set. I'd suggest limiting the number of Class Decks you add to match the number of players you have, but that's just me.
For what it's worth, we have several different ways to mess with victory conditions.
First, it's important to note that the rules only tell you how to win where there is one villain; they say you must corner and defeat him to win.
When there is only one villain, but we want to override the bit about cornering and defeating him, we say "You win the scenario only when <you meet criteria>."
When the number of villains is not 1, the rules don't actually tell you how to win, so we use the phrase "To win the scenario, <meet criteria>."
If we want to add another way to win that you could use in addition to the usual way to win, we would say "In addition to cornering and defeating the villain, you can win the scenario if <you meet criteria>. "
If we want to add an extra requirement to the usual requirement, we would say "In addition to cornering and defeating the villain, you must <meet criteria> to win the scenario."
The understood you is the confusing part not because the understood you is confusing but because its not consistent. Sometimes its a real you and sometimes its an understood you.
Just remember that the cards are talking to you, and the instructions they give are intended only for you, unless they say otherwise.
To use your examples from before:
Alehouse is telling you that you may recharge an ally.
Coastline is telling you that each character may recharge a card.
Lonely Island wrote:
Lonely Island is telling you to draw a random ally.
Tempest Cay wrote:
Tempest Cay is telling you to move to another location.
So, I'd say this: If the player making the check isn't going to bury a card, then you can't play it during the check. If they are, then you can play it. It applies because it relates to the skill you are playing. Sort of like what Vic said over here. So in my view, when played during a check it isn't optional. You ask the player, do you want to bury a card for an extra d10 (or whatever it is)? If they do, you can play Rage. If they don't you can't.
•You can play it (and cards like it) outside of an encounter. Then, if the applicable check comes up, you can trigger the effect.
•You can't play it in response to encountering a bane, because once the encounter begins, you can only play cards that relate to the encounter steps, and unless you're going to power it up (see the bullet below), it doesn't relate to any steps.
•You can play it when you play cards and use powers that affect the check if the recipient *is* going to power it up, because it then relates to the "Attempting the Check" step.
•You can't play it if the recipient *is not* going to power it up, because it wouldn't relate to attempting the check.
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Putting more Divine Attack spells in the box is *changing the balance of the game*, no matter what else you're doing to balance that out. How the designers limit the card pool is a *big* part of what they do.
I'me very frustrated that you've been probably the single most vocal person on the boards when it comes to bashing parts of the game, calling out cards that you would never use, bragging about how nothing is a challenge, complaining about some cards being overpowered... and after all this it turns out you're using a nonstandard play environment. Of *course* you wouldn't use some cards when you're giving yourself better choices that other players don't have. Of *course* some cards are going to be broken when you have more of them than we intended. Of *course* you're never going to worry about defeating any monsters when you do things like giving your Divine casters more Attack spells than we put in the game.
I feel like every critical post you've ever made should come with a disclaimer: "Note: I'm playing a different game than everyone else."
In addition to "travel distance", I'm going to go with ""the bureaucracy associated with customs and duties" (because even if none apply, they still have to verify and record that none apply) and with "converting things from a delivery system run by one entity to a delivery system run by another entity". Bundles of parcels need to be unbundled, regrouped, and rebundled. And everything has to be accounted for, not just for tracking purposes, but for the purposes of determining who gets paid how much for handling it. And another big factor is "the amount of stuff handled at the same time but with higher priority shipping rates." This, perhaps more than anything else, is likely to be the cause of stuff sitting around for a while without being acted on.
I've confirmed that pawns for the remaining iconics, including those from the Advanced Class Guide, are indeed in the Inner Sea Pawn Box. So that takes care of Alahazra, Jirelle, Lirianne, Seltyiel, Damiel, Feiya & Oloch.
I've also passed on a request for the remaining non-iconic Class Deck characters to Erik, who decides this sort of thing. (No promises!)
Mike Selinker wrote:
Removed 1 FAQ entry today.
This whole adventure card guild thing is very frustrating to read about as a store owner. We still haven't heard anything about how to get involved and the local venture captain is unresponsive.
In July, along with your regular Paizo product shipment from your distributor, you *should* have received a packet announcing the Adventure Card Guild telling you how to get involved...
...but whether you got it or not, the main thing to do is sign your store up on our Retailer Locator and make sure you check the box that asks if you're interested in Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Organized Play.
NOG the Demoralizer wrote:
Hey Vic, bundling opportunity... (I am in sales, I always look for bundling opportunities) I personally am starting to collect the Q-workshop dice line every other week when I go down to my FLGS for PFS night. Maybe slap the PFACG logo sticker on some of the Pathfinder Dice sets and market them for sale with the core sets as they come out.
Marketing the Q-Workshop dice to PACG players isn't in the cards—people would ask what the extra two dice are for!
Unfortunately, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Class Decks, which are required for playing in the Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Organized Play program, have been delayed yet again, and the new retail release date for the Class Decks will be October 1. As a result, the Adventure Card Guild retail launch is delayed to the same date. Additionally, delays with Adventure Deck 2 have caused it, and all future Skull & Shackles decks, to be delayed by a month, so we'll be spacing out releases a bit differently than we had previously planned.
The first adventure in Season of the Shackles consists of 6 separate scenarios, while future adventures will be composed of 4 scenarios each. Here's the current release schedule [pardon the formatting]:
October 1: Adventure 1 Scenarios 1–4
Retailers who are in the PFSACG program and PFS Venture-Officers should already have access to the PDF for the special preview scenario, Pathfinder Adventure Card Guild Scenario 0-0A: On the Horizon, which does not require Class Decks, so may be played at any time.
If you haven't already done so, make sure you download the Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Guide to Organized Play as soon as you get a chance to learn everything you need to know about running and playing in a PFSACG event.
We have a large warehouse with multiple "proper" docks—that's not the issue here. The main issue is optimizing throughput, so we split things into two groups—a "label run", which covers all of the shipments that many people have in common, and a "pick and pack" run, which involves all of the unusual orders that don't benefit from bulk processing. So in one part of the warehouse we have workers assembling the latter group package by package, while in another part of the warehouse we have machines cranking out thousands and thousands of labels while workers pack thousands and thousands of identical boxes or envelopes, place labels on them, and put them into shipping bins for those trucks. Labels come out far faster than boxes can be packed—it takes a day or two to generate the labels, but it takes many days to process them, meaning a package could actually take a few days to leave the building after the system has processed the shipment, so we provide a wide shipping window to cover that range. It's a worst-case estimate—most packages will actually leave the building well before that window closes.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Crowdsourcing development and editing come with their own problems. Yes, you will probably catch and fix more mistakes, but the in-house effort spent to find each issue will be significantly higher. Let me give you a small-scale example:
Whenever we prepare to reprint a book, we have somebody—usually Jason—scan the FAQ queue and go through the main discussion threads for that product looking for things that need to be fixed. This is a process that might take a few days. Then, he and his team work on solving those problems if they haven't already been solved. During this process, they will also be investigating problem reports that are actually false positives; for example, somebody might have complained that a number in a stat block is wrong, but when we redo the math, we often find that we were right in the first place. This might take another few days. At the end of it, we have a list of changes that then go through editing, layout, and proofing, meaning more people spending more days. And the end result of that work gets summed up in an errata doc that's usually less than a page or two. In short, many man-hours of effort that result in maybe a dozen little changes.
Now image that we do that as an open call. Our days would turn into weeks, and maybe our errata doc would grow from a dozen items to two dozen, with each of the additional items very likely being far less noticeable than the previous dozen. It's the law of diminishing returns.
And crowdsourcing still won't catch everything. We're in our 6th printing of the Core Rulebook now, and in each printing, we've made corrections in response to our community identifying problems, which is a pretty similar effect to the crowdsourcing you describe. An amazingly high number of people have been using that book every day—it's referenced far more that any other book players use, for sure—yet we're *still* finding problems that nobody pointed out in the first five years the book was out.
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
"Symbols vs. words" is a big philosophical deal, and we have elected to go for words in our version of this game.
Yes, but the entire reason this resolution was required in the first place is that there is something about this scenario rule that confused many people into thinking that their hand size COULD exceed the normal limit in this scenario, and the way this resolution is worded does nothing to address this.
Yes—the thing that confused people into thinking that their hand size could exceed the normal limit is because we specifically *told them* it was equal to a number that could be greater than their hand size. We're not telling them that anymore, and nothing else is.
Would putting more words on the card make it a belt-and-suspenders surety? Yep. But we don't have room for that.