Shiver Me Timbers, It's Cold in Here!

Tuesday, January 27, 2014

Ahoy, me hearties! It's been a while since I've written something for you scabrous dogs... since last year in fact! (That's my stupid New Year's joke, which is something I will try to refrain from doing for the rest of this blog. No promises, though.) Anyway, I'm super stoked about what's in adventure deck five—it's the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: The Price of Infamy Adventure Deck—so there will be none of my usual blah blah blah at the beginning of this post because the less I write here, the sooner we get to the sweet stuff. Onward to the Obligatory Shark Section!

OSS (Obligatory Shark Section)

I have a confession to make. A long time ago, I told you there was a shark in every adventure. That was maybe not totally true. There is no shark here. However, there is something even better. Something so good it deserves its very own one-time super special deluxe section. Ready?

Do you want to build a Galvo?

I have another confession. I just saw Frozen. No really, not like you, who watched it last week for the fifteenth time. I just saw Frozen FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FOREVER. And by forever I mean, for the first time ever. EVER. So, there's gonna be a little bit of that going on in here. I'm sorry, but I won't stop. Honestly, I probably couldn't even if I wanted to because holy sea cucumber, those songs are catchy. So, on to the Galvo...


Question: Is anything greater than a mass of electric eels that forms a humanoid shape and works together to destroy things it doesn't like?
Answer: No.

The Galvo is my favorite thing in all of Skull & Shackles. Just like the Wendigo is my favorite from Rise of the Runelords (#teamwendigo4evs). But what makes the Galvo so great? Everything. My love of galvos began when I read this line from The Price of Infamy, "There is no true Galvo society." I mean, how do you not love that? Anyway, it just gets better from there. Baby galvos are called "tangles," which is stupid cute. I mean, seriously.

So, what about the actual card? Well, you've got that "before you act" check. Yeah, Galvos sometimes just spring out of the water and attack people, kind of like—SPOILERS!—Azog in the newest Hobbit. Seriously, if you didn't see that Jaws moment coming, well, I'm very disappointed. We have you make a Dexterity or Acrobatics check to see if you can dodge that, or you'll be taking a little bit of damage. ZAP! And of course, there's that swarm power. Galvos are nothing if not persistent. I think they get that from Malvo. Fargo on FX, anyone? (Watch it, seriously, so good. It's also got a Hobbit in it.)

I could talk about Galvos for probably an entire blog but I should move on to some of the other sweet stuff this adventure contains. Anyway, you'll know me at a convention if you see me wearing a Galvo Society shirt. But you can't join because there is no true Galvo Society. I'm the only member.

Other Sweet Stuff

There's a lot to love (and be afraid of) in this adventure. Here are a few more things you should keep your eye out for.


Albatrosses are better than people... just like reindeer!

The good news is, the Albatross allows you to defeat a non-villain bane. The bad news is, it flies away and you have to bury 1d4 cards from the top of your deck. If you don't get why the Albatross does you some harm, you should read "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" which honestly, you should read anyway, because it's amazing. You get 5 Cool Points if you've already read it, and 3 if you read it after reading this.


A man goes to a restaurant and orders albatross soup. He takes one bite and immediately kills himself. Why?

I have to confess, Mike and I really wanted this card in the game because we're really big into puzzles and riddles, not because there is some big part of the Skull & Shackles story centered around albatross soup. [Mike says: Click at your peril.] That doesn't mean this card is something you don't need to take seriously, though. You will banish or bury at least one card when dealing with this. Banishing one of your allies will make this go away, but banishing your friends isn't very nice. They're your friends, so why would you do that? Or, you could just bury the top card of your deck and really hope you don't blow it when you try to make the Constitution or Fortitude check and also hope that the card you bury isn't that one card that you need that would make everything totally groovy, if you had it. If you bury, roll, and lose, even more people will get to decide how they deal with this troubling soup.


Groot + cigar = Kapre. Sort of.

Kapres are basically the cigar-smoking tree-huggers of Skull & Shackles. No, literally, they can meld with trees, which is basically the ninja level of tree-hugging. These guys go around smoking cigars and defending nature. How badass is that? Very. Anyway, if you wander into some Kapre territory, they blow some cigar smoke at you and you get all confounded and wander away, leaving the nature natural. Plus, you can use your Charisma or Diplomacy to befriend the Kapre, but even though the Kapre likes you now, its cigar smoke is still enough to persuade you to just leave the location you're at. If you're not wise and just blunder around ruining the Kapre's territory, it's gonna deal you damage, and if you're smart, you'll get the heck outta Dodge after that. I like the Kapre, and I think you should not fight them and instead be their friends.

Scenario Info

There are some things that are just better when served cold. Ice cream, for one. I'll be honest with you, I pretty much like almost all leftovers cold and unheated. Spaghetti, pad thai, mattar paneer, pretty much anything goes. Unless it's supposed to be crispy, then you gotta heat that in the oven. There's one other thing that is also better cold: revenge. Why all this talk of serving things cold? Well, it just so happens that the name of the scenario I'll be telling you about today is called "Best Served Cold." And it's pretty bonkers.


You best get ready to buckle some swashes. There are some scary things ahead.

Replacing all the allies with monsters isn't really what you want. Less friends, more baddies? NO THANK YOU. Although, it does mean you have better chances of finding a Galvo, which I think is great. And after all I've told you about Galvos, don't you want to meet one? No? Well, you're wrong. Stop being wrong and get with the Galvo program.

We also have three named henchman plus the Erinyes Devils. Let's meet them now, shall we?


This is Luccaria and she doesn't like you.

Luccaria basically isn't interested in dealing with you until she has to. As in, unless there are basically no cards besides her in a location, she's going to do some damage to you and dip out until later. Once you manage to get her to pay attention long enough to fight you, she's going to be real unhappy about any of your Divine spell nonsense. Bury ‘em. And then beat Luccaria, so she goes away forever.


This guy gives me some serious heebie-jeebies.

Gilbrok's a bit of a fixer-upper. Nobody gave him etiquette lessons when he was a kid, so he doesn't know it's rude to stick his tongue out like that. Also, it's seriously icky. If you aren't Swashbuckling when you go after Gilbrok, you won't scare him with your piratical prowess, and you'll have to subtract 1 from each die you roll. Oofda. And then, when you don't defeat him because his freaky-deaky tongue throws you off your game, you'll get to encounter one of these curses.


Curse is pirate for "wah wah."

It's just better if you can beat Gilbrok, so he goes away forever.


This Kipper is very different from the dog in the children's cartoon. Very different.

There's a children's cartoon out there with a dog named Kipper, and it's about this sweet little dog and his friends. This Kipper is not sweet. And you've read about his friends—they're jerks. This Kipper shoots first and doesn't ask questions later. He's doesn't care who you are or where you are. When somebody runs into him, he's just gonna shoot someone. Not cool, dude. Plus, if you don't impress him with your swashbuckliness on your check to defeat, any damage he deals to you is going to be increased by 6. It's probably best for you to avoid Kipper if you can, or just pound him into the ground, so he's gone forever.


Bye bye, blessings!

When we were writing this game months and months ago, we needed to add another power to the Erinyes Devil, and I suggested that perhaps these Divine-hating ladies should banish any of your boons with the Divine trait. And now they do. Oops. #sorrynotsorry. I am sorry that I just used #sorrynotsorry, though. Anyway, watch out for the Erinyes Devils. Hopefully, you can fight them without needing help from your friends. By the way, if I was in your party, I probably wouldn't help you. Those are my blessings, and I worked hard to get them, and I'm not gonna banish them just cause you bumped into an Erinyes Devil. This game is more cooperative for some than it is for others. Anyway, smash the devil, and send her away forever.

You may have notice by now that there are lot of small confessions in this blog. Well, I have one more. When I told you that you should get rid of Luccaria, Gilbrok, Kipper, and the Erinyes Devils, I was maybe sort of not telling you everything. When I said they would go away forever, what I meant was "they will go in a henchman pile, and when you encounter Barnabas Harrigan, each character will have to summon and encounter one of them." That's pretty much the same thing, right?


Ring, ring, ring, ring Barnabasphone!

So, even though those henchman are really awful to fight, it's still probably better to deal with one of them than to have to deal with Barnabas. First, you're going to have to succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 14 check or the checks to defeat him are going to be increased by 6. And you've lost the opportunity to evade him. Then, before any check to defeat him—note: there are 2—you must recharge an armor or 1d4 other cards. And if you were dumb enough to think you could go barging up to Barnabas with a big group of friends, you have to discard those cards instead. Yipes. Then, when you're done with all that and you've made checks to defeat him—which, let's be honest, you probably failed—you have to knock some cards off the blessings deck. Or, if you're swashbuckly, just the top card. Yowza. Like I said earlier, lots to be excited about and lots to be afraid of.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this blog and have been enjoying the game. I know I did. I also have one last confession for you. Best Served Cold might be our revenge against all you who said the game was too easy.

Until next time, you salty sea dogs! I gotta go sing more botched Frozen lyrics to myself.

Gaby Weidling
Adventure Card Game Developer

[Mike says: Seriously, Gabs, let it go.]

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Skull & Shackles
1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Looks awesome. Should be getting to adventure 5 sometime in the next week.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Played Best Served Cold twice and won both times by the absolute slimmest of margins - the first time I think we made a mistake and should've lost, while the second time our victory came down to needing to roll a 1 on a d4 after we beat him because there was only 1 card left in the blessings deck.

Of all the scenarios between S&S and RotRl, this one is the most difficult hands down.

Pathfinder ACG Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gabs wrote:
Ring, ring, ring, ring Barnabasphone!

dies laughing


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Is seeing Frozen mandatory?


Gaby Weidling wrote:
Hopefully, you can fight them without needing help from your friends. By the way, if I was in your party, I probably wouldn't help you. Those are my blessings, and I worked hard to get them, and I'm not gonna banish them just cause you bumped into an Erinyes Devil.

What?

The power from the devil is

Erinyes Devil wrote:
If you play a boon that has the Divine trait, banish it.

It doesn't say "if any character plays a boon...", it says "you". "You" usually means the character encountering the card. For this card, wouldn't only the character encountering the card banish all Divine boons played?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

This was discussed earlier and resulted in this FAQ. Though that doesn't go quite far enough to cover this situation.

But I think the intent, and the way Gaby describes, is awesome. I think the idea that applying powers when they make sense makes me read it that way, though I can see others not reading it that way.

Edit: And that reminded me of this thread about a similar power on a villain. So that seems to apply here. Powers on banes related to playing cards seem to apply to anyone wanting to play those cards unless they are tied to a step of the encounter.


Thanks for the links. That is interesting, but the FAQ applies to a character making a check. I can see how the "you" on a card cam refer to any character making a check against the card, when the power pertains to making a check. But I don't see how "you" refers to any character at the table.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I, like elcoderdude, read it as only the person attempting the check against Erinyes Devil is affected by that paragraph. The way Gaby mentioned blessings makes me think the intention was for everyone.

Can we get a clarification?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Petition to errata the English language to distinguish between the singular and plural and you.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Is seeing Frozen mandatory?

Let's check the FAQ.

Is seeing Frozen mandatory?
Yes. You can't play PACG if you haven't.
Resolution: On page 4 of the Skull & Shackles rulebook, change "Choose Your Character. Each player chooses one character card; this represents the character you’ll be playing in the game." to "Choose Your Character. Each player who has seen Frozen chooses one character card; this represents the character you’ll be playing in the game, because you have seen Frozen."

Note that this FAQ entry was not at all influenced by the fact that I designed the Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom card game.

Sovereign Court

I guess I'm never allowed to play again then. Never seen it,never will.


Kipper probably needs a FAQ entry since 'damage dealt by Kipper is increased by 6' is qualified by something that hasn't had a chance to happen when he deals '1d4 + 1 ranged damage'.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

I don't see any need for that FAQ entry. The before you act damage is over. Now you attempt a check to defeat. If you don't give it the Swashbuckling trait, any future damage from Kipper is increased by 6. Which will only be one possible source of damage: failing the check to defeat Kipper.


I can't wait to start 5 with my S&S group.
I love the *sorta spoilers* new trap henchmen!

Sovereign Court

Is it wrong that I want to see someone fail to defeat both Breath and Eye of Dagon in the same scenario?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Oh, now I'm stuck with the songs from Frozen in my head again.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Petition to errata the English language to distinguish between the singular and plural and you.

I second that.

Now wait just a friggin' moment: Up until now, I've always took 'you/your' on a card to mean the character that encounters it. By the same token that I cant use Masterwork Tools to defeat someone else's barrier (they let you succeed on 'YOUR check), I never considered a Hag (or Karzoug) would make ME go through Arcane/Divine check to cast spells.

Now, if I take Vic's post on Karzoug on face value, what else should follow from it - that I must take Ranged dmg when my friend enocouters a Scout?? Or should every card from now on specify in its text "you (the character that encounters the card)" or "you (any member of the party)" ?

This is ridiculous, and if there is indeed a rule that say when 'you' means 'any player' - I'd be glad if someone can point me to it; if not - Karzoug should get FAQed to say "any player" (if what Vic says was indeed the intent; but then - I guess a lot of other "succeed a check to cast Spells" card should have to be errataed too.

EDIT: As an aside question for Hawkmoon: whatever in Karzoug's text made your consider that it might apply to ANY member of the party, so you ask clarifications in the other thread? I'm interested cause there might be just some small detail in the wording that I'm not getting, and I would've NEVER even given it a second thought. Accidentally, my RotR party has only its last scenario left to play, so that would be useful info indeed...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I for one greatly appreciate the reference to Kipper the Dog. Having 3 young sons, we have seen Frozen, but they aren't obsessed with it. Kipper though, I think I have seen over 100 hours of Kipper, Tiger, Pig and Arnold.

I now have that theme song stuck in my head, which, while maybe not as catchy and lacking as great a beat, is much more descriptive. ("By the way that's a toad, not a frog.")

I wonder if the PACG Kipper has ever met the bleepers...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Petition to errata the English language to distinguish between the singular and plural and you.

Having lived in western Pennsylvania for a few years, I can report that some English dialects do make this distinction.

Longshot11 wrote:
As an aside question for Hawkmoon: whatever in Karzoug's text made your consider that it might apply to ANY member of the party, so you ask clarifications in the other thread? I'm interested cause there might be just some small detail in the wording that I'm not getting, and I would've NEVER even given it a second thought. Accidentally, my RotR party has only its last scenario left to play, so that would be useful info indeed...

I think it was simply that, unlike other "spell resistance" powers for villains, his want associated with "before the encounter." There is a part in the rulebook (or at least the RotR rulebook) that said something like "apply the power on banes when it makes sense to do so". To me, "before the encounter" made sense to apply to just the person going through the encounter when they got to the "before the encounter" step, while Karzoug made sense to apply to anyone trying to play a spell the moment they tried to play such a spell, no matter what part of the encounter that was. In other words, since it wasn't part of the encounter sequence I took it to apply more generally.


Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Petition to errata the English language to distinguish between the singular and plural and you.

"Y'all" ?


MightyJim wrote:
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Petition to errata the English language to distinguish between the singular and plural and you.
"Y'all" ?

"If y'all play a boon with the divine trait, banish it."

See, so much clearer (assuming that is the intent).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Y'all is problematic because "you all" can also be used for emphasis of the fact that the entire group has to do something. These two sentences have slightly different meaning, at least in terms of emphasis and tone:

"If you fail a check, y'all (simple plural 2nd person) must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, you all (emphasized plural 2nd person) must bury a card."

And "y'all all" just won't work. The Pittsburgh English solution is probably the most elegant, while sounding in someways the least elegant. I recommend the "yinz" version over "youns" because it blends better with words that might follow the second person plural.

"If you fail a check, you must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, yinz must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, yinz all must bury a card."


I haven't seen Frozen either. No, the song stuck in my head is BananaPhone.

D:


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Y'all is problematic because "you all" can also be used for emphasis of the fact that the entire group has to do something. These two sentences have slightly different meaning, at least in terms of emphasis and tone:

I know its a subject of some academic debate, but I fall firmly in the camp of y'all being exclusive to the plural.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Y'all is problematic because "you all" can also be used for emphasis of the fact that the entire group has to do something. These two sentences have slightly different meaning, at least in terms of emphasis and tone:

"If you fail a check, y'all (simple plural 2nd person) must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, you all (emphasized plural 2nd person) must bury a card."

And "y'all all" just won't work. The Pittsburgh English solution is probably the most elegant, while sounding in someways the least elegant. I recommend the "yinz" version over "youns" because it blends better with words that might follow the second person plural.

"If you fail a check, you must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, yinz must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, yinz all must bury a card."

The proper terminology here in the south is:

"If you fail a check, y'all must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, all y'all must bury a card."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Y'all is problematic because "you all" can also be used for emphasis of the fact that the entire group has to do something. These two sentences have slightly different meaning, at least in terms of emphasis and tone:

I know its a subject of some academic debate, but I fall firmly in the camp of y'all being exclusive to the plural.

Oh yeah, no I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm just saying that "y'all all", or isaic16's suggestion of "all y'all" seems so much more akward to me then "yinz all". I don't like that "all y'all", while very fun to say, changes from the typical grammar order for such a construction by placing all before the pronoun. That plus yinz has a z in it, which can only be a good thing.


Of course, historically, "you" was used for the plural and/or formal, with "thou" being the singular/familiar option.

So:
"If thou failest a check thou must bury a card" - only the player failing buries
"If thou failest a check, you must bury a card" - everyone buries.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

For those of you familiar with Frozen, be sure to check out the Google Translation version of "Let It Go" as well as the "Honest Trailer" for it on youtube. (Which I will warn that there is at least one part of that Honest Trailer video which some people might find as crude or crass. But I just can't get the words for the Exposition Song out of my head. That plus the insightful list of who the "teams" are in the movie.)


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:

Let's check the FAQ.

Is seeing Frozen mandatory?
Yes. You can't play PACG if you haven't.

Huh. Guess I'll have to watch that then if I want to keep playing. :)


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MightyJim wrote:

Of course, historically, "you" was used for the plural and/or formal, with "thou" being the singular/familiar option.

So:
"If thou failest a check thou must bury a card" - only the player failing buries
"If thou failest a check, you must bury a card" - everyone buries.

Shakespeare's Skulls & Shackles. I love it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
MightyJim wrote:

Of course, historically, "you" was used for the plural and/or formal, with "thou" being the singular/familiar option.

So:
"If thou failest a check thou must bury a card" - only the player failing buries
"If thou failest a check, you must bury a card" - everyone buries.

Shakespeare's Skulls & Shackles. I love it!

Is this a Dagger +1 I see before me?


MightyJim wrote:
Zaister wrote:
MightyJim wrote:

Of course, historically, "you" was used for the plural and/or formal, with "thou" being the singular/familiar option.

So:
"If thou failest a check thou must bury a card" - only the player failing buries
"If thou failest a check, you must bury a card" - everyone buries.

Shakespeare's Skulls & Shackles. I love it!
Is this a Dagger +1 I see before me?

Whenever I hit AP 4 in RotR:

"Oh Resto, oh Resto, wherefore art thou, Resto?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never ever heard anyone use the word 'Yinz', nor do I wish to.

However I can confirm that People in Philly refer to the rest of the state as Penntucky and this Yinz thing seemingly confirms that stance ;)


MightyJim wrote:
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Petition to errata the English language to distinguish between the singular and plural and you.
"Y'all" ?

For now on, just develop the d...ed game in French...

No wait, even us use the plural you in place of the singular you just for politness.
Well, y'all just have to make clear that since it's a pirate game, nobody's polite!

OK fun fact done with, there is a real issue with the wording of this card since - especially for non native-pensylvanianpirate-speaker - we'll never remember. So something like any character using... On this check must... Would be much better.


Orbis Orboros wrote:
MightyJim wrote:
Zaister wrote:
MightyJim wrote:

Of course, historically, "you" was used for the plural and/or formal, with "thou" being the singular/familiar option.

So:
"If thou failest a check thou must bury a card" - only the player failing buries
"If thou failest a check, you must bury a card" - everyone buries.

Shakespeare's Skulls & Shackles. I love it!
Is this a Dagger +1 I see before me?

Whenever I hit AP 4 in RotR:

"Oh Resto, oh Resto, wherefore art thou, Resto?"

A horsechopper, a horsechopper! My kingdom for a horsechopper!


Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
MightyJim wrote:
Zaister wrote:
MightyJim wrote:

Of course, historically, "you" was used for the plural and/or formal, with "thou" being the singular/familiar option.

So:
"If thou failest a check thou must bury a card" - only the player failing buries
"If thou failest a check, you must bury a card" - everyone buries.

Shakespeare's Skulls & Shackles. I love it!
Is this a Dagger +1 I see before me?

Whenever I hit AP 4 in RotR:

"Oh Resto, oh Resto, wherefore art thou, Resto?"

A horsechopper, a horsechopper! My kingdom for a horsechopper!

When a party member dies:

Alas, poor Ranzak! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow... this comment section took a really weird turn while I was gone.

Pathfinder ACG Designer

isaic16 wrote:

The proper terminology here in the south is:

"If you fail a check, y'all must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, all y'all must bury a card."

+1 for Southern upbringing. Am currently pitching "y'all" and "all y'all" to Vic. I'll let you know if I succeed.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Tanis O'Connor wrote:
isaic16 wrote:

The proper terminology here in the south is:

"If you fail a check, y'all must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, all y'all must bury a card."

+1 for Southern upbringing. Am currently pitching "y'all" and "all y'all" to Vic. I'll let you know if I succeed.

Well, I wasn't brought up Southern. I'm originally from SoCal, but been here for 20 years now, so I know the lingo. Mom is from New England, though, so I'll pull out a few of those terms every so often, too. My speech can sometimes end up as something of a melting pot...

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

How about "You" and "Youse"? Mind you(se), you'll need a scouse (Liverpudlian) accent ..

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

Tanis O'Connor wrote:
isaic16 wrote:

The proper terminology here in the south is:

"If you fail a check, y'all must bury a card."

"If you fail a check, all y'all must bury a card."

+1 for Southern upbringing. Am currently pitching "y'all" and "all y'all" to Vic. I'll let you know if I succeed.

Card Guild guide, version 3: "All y'all bring 'em cards o' yourn to th' gamin' hall…"

Pathfinder ACG Designer

I think that's Yosemite Sam English (YSE), not SAmE.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

You people need to lay off "you"—it's a perfectly cromulent word. When referring to more than one person, just make it "you people."

Sovereign Court

Vic Wertz wrote:
You people need to lay off "you"—it's a perfectly cromulent word. When referring to more than one person, just make it "you people."

WHAT DO YOU MEAN "YOU PEOPLE"?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
You people need to lay off "you"—it's a perfectly cromulent word. When referring to more than one person, just make it "you people."
WHAT DO YOU MEAN "YOU PEOPLE"?

What do YOU mean, "you people"?


Mike Selinker wrote:
I don't see any need for that FAQ entry. The before you act damage is over. Now you attempt a check to defeat. If you don't give it the Swashbuckling trait, any future damage from Kipper is increased by 6. Which will only be one possible source of damage: failing the check to defeat Kipper.

The problem is that other villains and henchmen can't be evaluated in the order that text is written on the card and text that doesn't specify when it takes effect is always in effect.

As for second-person pronouns, 'you' is historically plural (thus 'thee' and 'thou' for the singular).

Sovereign Court

mlvanbie wrote:
Mike Selinker wrote:
I don't see any need for that FAQ entry. The before you act damage is over. Now you attempt a check to defeat. If you don't give it the Swashbuckling trait, any future damage from Kipper is increased by 6. Which will only be one possible source of damage: failing the check to defeat Kipper.
The problem is that other villains and henchmen can't be evaluated in the order that text is written on the card and text that doesn't specify when it takes effect is always in effect.

It isn't about the order, it's about the fact that it's physically impossible to have the Swashbuckling trait on a check that doesn't exist yet. You make the check, and then what, go back in time and add 6 damage to the Before You Act?

Well now you took 6 damage before that check and shouldn't have had those cards you made the check with.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

bbKabag wrote:
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
You people need to lay off "you"—it's a perfectly cromulent word. When referring to more than one person, just make it "you people."
WHAT DO YOU MEAN "YOU PEOPLE"?
What do YOU mean, "you people"?

It's Viet Cong. There's no S! It's already plural. You wouldn't say Chineses.


If we bring back thee and thou, the world will be a better place.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
DeanG wrote:
If we bring back thee and thou, the world will be a better place.

Quote all the more awesome for being sung by Elan...

Well... So that thread went places. I guess it's rather hilarious for native English speakers, but I'm still rather confounded about the apparent difference between the card's intent and my understanding of its power. So, could we maybe get some ruling on it, y'all?

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Shiver Me Timbers, It's Cold in Here! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.