|
Came across this listing this morning.
I'm wondering if there's a card list for this Season of the Shackles that are on sale now at DrvieThru?
Like number and copies of cards, etc... Thanks.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Onwu Anzu 7
Kraken's Spite 1
Cetaceal 1
Burnt Saffron 1
Impervious 1
Mark of Yunnarius 1
Ravishing Ruby 1
Hu-Hazhong 1
Lightning Elemental 7
Scurvy Zombie 1
Cyclops Savage 1
Mokele-Mbembe 1
Allosaurus 7
Daughter of Imerta 1
Animate Dream 7
Kraken 1
Cryptic Runes 1
Mugslup 1
Brineborn Giant 7
Helm 1
Bow 1
Rigging 1
Crow's Nest 1
Cargo Hold 1
Galley 1
Lost in the Storm 1
Avatar of Dagon 1
Karkinoi 6
Councilor's Ring 6
TOTAL CARDS 69
|
Sad that the Councilor's Ring is $1 instead of $.50 like most cards.I asked DriveThru how most publishers priced regular single cards, and they said $1–2, so I went with the low end.
The only reason I question it is because (as the local coordinator) I'm purchasing the cards to hand out to players that complete the season. So $1 each for a card I'm handing out was a surprise.
EDIT: Thank you for not making it $2!
FWIW, the complete season deck comes with 6 copies of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As we haven't started the season yet, is the deck all one would need for the extra cards? The 6 loots are enough in other words? No reason for extras unless one were to hand them out permanently (we game at my home with the same players).
|
|
As we haven't started the season yet, is the deck all one would need for the extra cards? The 6 loots are enough in other words? No reason for extras unless one were to hand them out permanently (we game at my home with the same players).
Yes, you shouldn't need more than the six if you are only playing with one group and aren't actually handing them out.
I'm going to be giving them away so I am planning on ordering more than 6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As we haven't started the season yet, is the deck all one would need for the extra cards? The 6 loots are enough in other words? No reason for extras unless one were to hand them out permanently (we game at my home with the same players).Yes, you shouldn't need more than the six if you are only playing with one group and aren't actually handing them out.
I'm going to be giving them away so I am planning on ordering more than 6.
Thanks mate. You're always such a big help. We're looking forward to this. Just have to clear deck 6 of shackles! :D
Scurvy Zombie 1
Cryptic Runes 1
For some reason, my copy of Cryptic Runes that was ordered last week as part of the complete set is marked as a deck 6 henchman (instead of deck 3 for the regular Skull & Shackles game).
My Scurvy Zombie is also marked "3" instead of "2".
Indeed… So what sense does that make?
In scenario 0-3C, I had:
Treat the henchman Ruffian as if it is the set 2 henchman Scurvy Zombie.
Playing with 6 characters, instead of having 7 Ruffian placeholders, I now have 6 deck 2 Scurvy Zombies (as instructed on the scenario sheet) and 1 deck 3 Scurvy Zombie (not what is instructed on the scenario sheet). Same thing with Cryptic Runes.
How is this supposed to work with cards that use the adventure deck number in their powers? In Wrath of the Righteous, the adventure deck number of monsters with the Demon trait is important (e.g. when using Demon Hunter's Handbook). It seems to me having different deck numbers for henchman with the same name, in the same scenario, is a new (and disturbing) thing, with far-ranging implications.
I would make the assumption that the PACG staff will cover their bases and make sure that doesn't happen in Wrath when they publish the Wrath OP Deck.
I'm sure they will. What I fear is a Class Deck character somewhere down the line having a power that uses a bane's adventure deck number (I thought Feiya already did, but I played her some time ago: she actually uses a boon's adventure deck number).
|
|
Indeed… So what sense does that make?
In scenario 0-3C, I had:
Treat the henchman Ruffian as if it is the set 2 henchman Scurvy Zombie.Playing with 6 characters, instead of having 7 Ruffian placeholders, I now have 6 deck 2 Scurvy Zombies (as instructed on the scenario sheet) and 1 deck 3 Scurvy Zombie (not what is instructed on the scenario sheet). Same thing with Cryptic Runes.
First of all, the reason for the SotS pack is to eliminate the substitution of proxy cards. So the "Treat the henchman ..." is removed. You now have enough Scurvy Zombies and Cryptic Runes for the (higher) level scenarios. If you would be playing some card in SotS that was Veteran, it would be using the adventure deck number which would be 3 for 0-3C and 6 for 0-6A. It wouldn't be based on those henchman set numbers. (And if they were, you should treat the set 2 zombies as 3 and the runes as 6.)
You know those banes really aren't their lower level cousins. And hopefully the designers will put explicit instructions on the scenarios as such.
This . . . is a good point. Future season decks will keep the adventure deck numbers consistent with the base set numbers, unless there's a given reason. We outsmarted ourselves here a little.
I'm sure they will. What I fear is a Class Deck character somewhere down the line having a power that uses a bane's adventure deck number (I thought Feiya already did, but I played her some time ago: she actually uses a boon's adventure deck number).
The issue I raised above has been taken care of, but I thought I should point out that it is not as hypothetical as I wrote earlier.
Skull & Shackles Lirianne with the Deadeye role uses banes's adventure deck numbers :
When you encounter a bane, you may attempt a Perception check with a difficulty of 5 plus the adventure deck number of the bane, if any, to evade it.
|
|
I'm sure they will. What I fear is a Class Deck character somewhere down the line having a power that uses a bane's adventure deck number (I thought Feiya already did, but I played her some time ago: she actually uses a boon's adventure deck number).The issue I raised above has been taken care of, but I thought I should point out that it is not as hypothetical as I wrote earlier.
Skull & Shackles Lirianne with the Deadeye role uses banes's adventure deck numbers :
When you encounter a bane, you may attempt a Perception check with a difficulty of 5 plus the adventure deck number of the bane, if any, to evade it.
Then the question is whether we should treat the banes as higher levels than on their card?
You should treat them as the adventure deck number of the original card, e.g. Ruffian would be 0, but its checks to defeat would still be modified by its Veteran-ness. (Deadeye Lirianne's good at evading these.)
OK. So in the case of 0-3C, when I read:
Treat the henchman Ruffian as if it is the set 2 henchman Scurvy Zombie.
I would use "2" as the bane's adventure deck number for Lirianne's Deadeye power, not "3", even if they're in an adventure deck 3 scenario, right?
(Theryon and I had a disagreement over that number a few posts above.)
Lirianne cares for the AD# of the bane, not the AD# of the scenario, correct.
In the case of Drivethru cards who have an inappropriate AD#, it's a table call to a certain extent, but the ideal situation would be that they have the correct AD# (ex: 2 for Scurvy Zombie, not 3) and Lirianne make her check against that correct #.
OK. So in the case of 0-3C, when I read:
Treat the henchman Ruffian as if it is the set 2 henchman Scurvy Zombie.I would use "2" as the bane's adventure deck number for Lirianne's Deadeye power, not "3", even if they're in an adventure deck 3 scenario, right?
(Theryon and I had a disagreement over that number a few posts above.)
Yup.