|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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]:
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 <a href="/products/btpy98no/">Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Guide to Organized Play</a> as soon as you get a chance to learn everything you need to know about running and playing in a PFSACG event.
I can't speak for service bureaus that print one-shot PDFs for customers, but on a professional level, all printers, including PoD printers, require you to provide files made specifically for them, taking into account their particular printer's requirements for things like trim, bleed, creep, dot gain, total ink coverage, and the like.
We don't know the answer yet; if I picked one, there's a 50% chance I'll have to reverse it. I will say that I don't think anyone thinks it's too powerful if you scale up the veterans, though.
The scenario they're talking about is called On the Horizon—it's a sort of "preseason" PFSACG scenario that you can play before you select a Class Deck, since it uses regular S&S characters. Retailers in the PFSACG program received it as a PDF download earlier this week. (We will eventually make it available for general download.)
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.
In our situation I had Merisiel and my friend had Harsk. If I would have failed the check she would then be by herself and Harsk would have stayed there. Would she then be able to use her recharge for a 1D6 and would Harsk be able to help with her check now that she is away or is the combat still at his location?
Well, Merisiel seems pretty clear: "If you are the only character at your location [do her thing]. Her power cares where she is, not where the card she's encountering is.
Unfortunately, Harsk says he adds "to a combat check at another location." After RotR came out, I realized that *checks* shouldn't be at locations, *characters* should, and whenever I caught those sort of things, I'd expand them to (in this example) "to a combat check by a character at another location." So that's how I'd rule that one.
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning Vic. After all, things like "7", or "2" are symbols. It's not as if I'm suggesting some Race-for-the-Galaxy type use of symbols, all I'm suggesting is that in this particular instance, if the check to defeat were listed as something like "9+A" rather than having listed as just 9 which a POWER to increase the difficulty by "A" then the original question wouldn't have existed, as it would have been clear that the veteran power is always active (it would also save card space, and presumably printing costs).
(re: That last sentence: Cards cost the same no matter what's printed on them.)
If you're going to argue that "7" is a symbol, we're going to be talking past each other, so I need you to step back on that and stick with the definition of "symbol" that I know you know is what I'm talking about: things like the "tap" or "mana" symbols on Magic cards.
In games, I think symbols work best when the entire universe of symbols is in heavy use, meaning you usually see *all* of them several times per game, which reinforces you mapping them to whatever it is that they're a symbol for. As the use of any particular symbol decreases, the odds that you'll need to look it up in the rulebook increase, and that stops the fun. (I would also argue that it makes the game harder to learn for many people.) This is why many games that do use symbols, such as Magic: The Gathering, usually don't use symbols for less common concepts such as "flying," "first strike," or "trample," which is pretty similar to the concept you're asking about.
If the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game encompassed a small set of frequently used concepts, symbols would make sense, but we are very much the opposite of that game—we have a large set of infrequently used concepts, and that argues for avoiding symbols.
There is a middle position to the "symbols/no symbols" philosophy, though, which is that you can take a specific category of commonly used things and convert them to symbols, like Magic: The Gathering does for activation costs. On one hand, they're not creating symbols for "flying," but on the other hand, they're not spelling out "Spend two blue mana and tap this card to do a thing," which would be more like what we're doing.
If we were that kind of game, the appropriate design space for symbols would be replacing common card actions like "reveal," "display," "discard," and so on... but that actually limits what you can do in that design space. Using words rather than symbols gives us the flexibility to do things like this:
•Discard this card to...
This flexibility is really hard to implement with symbols, at least without turning the game into something that looks more like a 747 flight simulator.
So we're not a game that uses symbols. (You might point out the set symbol on the upper left corner of every card is a symbol, and you'd be right, but it has no actual use in gameplay, so it's beside the point. You might also point out that color-coding the card types is a sort of symbol, but it's also an irrelevant one, because it's merely an aid that backs up the card type that's still spelled out in words on every card.)
Interestingly, the prototype of the Obsidian PACG app *does* use symbols for card types, but the fact that they have to put a user interface on top of our mechanics gives them different requirements where these things make sense. But even then, it's just UI, and the text boxes on the cards are text.
This is actually a much more important rule than it may seem. It's possible for you to seize a ship that may be required by a later scenario, and if you're using it as "your ship," you're going to have a problem.
For example, you add all of the ships from Adventure Deck 1 to the box when you begin that adventure, which means it's possible that something could* allow you to seize the ship Man's Promise in Press Ganged!, the first scenario of that adventure. But it very clearly can't be your ship in the next scenario, Cat & Mouse, which has you encountering the Man's Promise all over the place. But when you complete that scenario, you get a Class 1 ship feat, so *then* you can take the Man's Promise as your ship...
*In practice, Press Ganged! doesn't actually allow you any opportunities to seize ships, but there will be other situations like this illustration later. Let's just say there's more than one reason that there are some ships higher than Class 0 in the Base Set...
Andrew K is correct that the demo is not primarily a PFSACG tool—it's primarily a demo for Skull & Shackles. We needed it to use only cards from the Skull & Shackles Base Set, so that limited our choices to 7 characters. From those, we wanted to provide a mix of characters that debuted in S&S (because they're new!) and characters that were returning from RotR (so that if you'd played one before, you'd see that they're a bit different in the new set).
It's actually impossible to give you a 4-player demo that uses only characters from the S&S Base Set that are *also* currently legal characters in PFSACG Org Play—Lem, Merisiel, and Valeros are the only 3 that fit that description.
Johnny Chronicle wrote:
On page 2, under "Setup," the last bullet point went missing. It said:
• Set aside 1 Hammerhead Shark henchman (which may be summoned by the location Shark Island) and the ally Sailor (which is the reward for closing the location Lonely Island).
We'll put that back in and fix the card count (only 2 sharks in the threat stack is correct).
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.
Jorgenfist does *not* say "If a monster with the Giant trait is defeated, roll 1d6. On a 1, the monster is undefeated." It says "If you *would* defeat a monster with the Giant trait, roll 1d6. On a 1, the monster is undefeated."
We use "would" when we're talking about things that don't actually happen or, in this case, *may* not actually happen. (See this post for more on that.) He is neither defeated nor undefeated until you roll the die; if you roll a 1, he was never defeated, so the banishing part of Disintegrate never comes into play.
So if Hirgenzosk was in a location deck and you encountered him and played Disintegrate and rolled above a 30, he'd still be undefeated. But Disintegrate would kick in and let you banish him instead of shuffling him back into the location deck.
Nope. Disintegrate says "If you defeat a non-villain monster when playing this spell, banish that monster, even if it would otherwise be undefeated," but Hirgenzosk says "If Hirgenzosk would be defeated, he is undefeated," not "If Hirgenzosk is defeated, he is undefeated."
We use "would" when we're talking about things that don't actually happen. Take Greater Luckstone from RotR: "If you would fail a check by 2 or less, you may bury this card to succeed." Clearly, when you play that card, you don't fail and then succeed—you simply succeed. That's the power of would.
Since Hirgenzosk is never *actually* defeated, Disintegrate doesn't get to banish him.
If you want more fun with this concept, consider disintegrating Jorgenfist Stone Giant in Jorgenfist.
You defeat him with Disintegrate, and:
A doesn't actually contradict B or C, so the golden rule is never invoked—instead, we just have Schroedinger's cat in a box, and the encounter cannot resolve until you do A. If you roll a 1, B and C no longer apply, so that's easy. And if you don't roll a 1, well, B and C don't contradict either, so you do them both, and the order doesn't matter. Meaning he's banished.
These are the kinds of discussions that your rules questions make us have on a regular basis.
Thehigher cause wrote:
Ironically, every person who takes that stance actually delays the publication of the second printing... and if enough people were to do that, there would *be* no second printing.
What you have there is a registration issue. Occasionally one or more of the 4 color printing plates doesn’t line up correctly with the others. (In your case, it was the cyan plate.) Sometimes it’s because the plate shifts, which usually means it happens on several consecutive sheets (which would mean several consecutive decks), but more commonly, it’s just because the paper moved a fraction of an inch when it shouldn’t have. In registration errors, it's fairly common for one corner of the sheet to be perfectly in registration, and the opposite corner to be out of registration, which is why it's noticeable on some cards but not others. (This isn't just a card thing—it can happen whenever you print with multiple plates.)
Sharaya will get you fixed up.
S&S Rulebook wrote:
The latter sentence was put in place because in S&S, there is actually a way that a loot card can be yanked out of your hand and shoved into a location deck, so we had to tell you how you can get it back. (We chose something easy because when that thing happens, you're already in a bad situation: you will lose that loot permanently if you don't manage to encounter it before the end of the scenario.)
But that doesn't play nicely with Cintra's house rule suggestion, as it means loot that somebody has passed up would now be the easiest thing to acquire in the game (along with Blessing of the Gods), and it really shouldn't be.
What we mean is this:
If you have a character promo card, you can use it right away. If you have a ship promo card, as soon as you have checked off any ships of the same class on your fleet card, you may treat the promo card as if it has been checked off as well (see Place Your Party’s Ship on page 7). You shouldn’t add other promo cards to the game until you begin the first chapter of the Adventure Path.
Retailers didn't need to sign up for the OP program to get the pack—indeed, the whole point of the pack was to tell them they *can* sign up! They *should* have just gotten them along with their July shipment of Paizo products from their distributor.
I'll ask our sales team to investigate the situation with the two stores in IL.