The Market proposition above, however, seems as simple as it can get!
I completely agree with this assessment. I can't imagine NOT implementing the Market because you thought it added too much complexity. It doesn't add any complexity. Rebuilding a deck is something that players already need to know how to do between scenarios if they are ever short on cards. Banishing a card is of course something players already know. I don't see how the Market introduces anything that every player wouldn't already know.
In fact, this is something that NEEDED to be implemented on day 1, especially if you're making strides to make the card game mimic the RPG more. One of the most annoying aspects of the game is losing a card that took so long to get, just to never get it back because it never comes up in the locations again. For example, I gave Merisiel a spell card feat once so she could carry a utility spell around. (Actually I wanted her to carry a Cure spell, but Kyra was understandably not willing to give it up, and for some reason you guys decided to make only one of each card - but that's a different complaint!) The problem is she only got one use out of it, and at the end of the scenario was forced to take an arcane attack spell because it was something we had acquired, and nobody else wanted to take it. So Merisiel now had a completely dead card in her deck!
In fact, as Longshot11 stated, the Market concept might even be TOO simplistic. I like his idea of swapping out an equivalent level of boons for the one wanted. When I played Seoni, I kept finding attack spells which I didn't really need. I wanted utility spells (which could double as an attack spell using her power if I needed one). I would have loved to swap one of those spells out for a Charm Person, something I didn't acquire throughout the entire adventure! Yeah it's fun to run into that ideal card in the locations and throw everything at acquiring it, but when that card is now 2+ levels behind you, it's not quite as exciting anymore.
This is actually on par with WizKids' quality lately if you look at their Heroclix line. Granted they look slightly better in hand because of how small they are, but they will be nowhere near the quality of the first few Pathfinder Battles sets. WizKids seems to go through cycles, where one year they will have the money to pay for excellent quality sculpts and paint jobs, then as the money dwindles away they are forced to cut costs, and the miniatures start looking like they were painted by a team of middle school children.
Please clarify. If you're playing a pre-Core scenario with post-Core rules, location handling is the same as it was pre-Core (i.e. the location isn't removed and characters don't automatically move to a new location). So characters like Amiri, who were always intended to be able to move to a new location and continue exploring, would still be able to do so with the proposed addendum that you made.
I'm not seeing how that's stronger than before. Unless you're stating that it makes the power stronger than it is with the current conversion rules, then yes. But that's because the current rules make the power far weaker than it was previously (which is the crux of the original post).
Okay, so I was really confused and had to look at Amiri's card (I haven't played her yet) to understand why there would be a rule that stated you can't move after closing a location (since it's what you're supposed to do anyway). Then I realized both of you misquoted the power and typed "moving" instead of "exploring" LOL!
I agree with Yewstance here. Adding the power "closing your location does not prevent you from exploring" instead of replacing the original power seems to be seems to be the most elegant solution. But I disagree that it makes the power stronger. For pre-Core rules, there was nothing preventing characters from exploring again after closing a location anyway, so it doesn't give those characters anything they couldn't already do.
Well that's an easy one. "Summon and defeat" is specifically defined in the rules:
If the location says "SUMMON and acquire", then there wouldn't be a problem since that's also defined. But it just says "acquire".
Also, those in the boat that this makes the location too easy, there have been locations in the past that said to close the location automatically.
So based on the last 4 responses, it seems nobody really knows how to handle this but is handling it the way they want to...
It doesn't say "summon and acquire". Just "acquire".
Only exceptions are clearly explained in the rules.
Rulebooks aren't the only source of exceptions. Cards make exceptions to the rules all the time.
Note that if acquire didn't mean succeeding at the check to acquire (as you propose), the first sentence of the above quote would be meaningless. It spells "a power that allows you to automatically acquire a card" not "a power that allows you to automatically succeed at a/all check to acquire a card".
Why would it be meaningless? It's referencing POWERS that let you automatically acquire, not location card effects. The word "acquire" by itself means to put into your hand. Hence "check to acquire".
it is implied
This is the best answer out of the past four, but unfortunately I am playing with a RAW group. They're not much into RAI. And I can't really blame them. This game goes through leaps and bounds to make sure everything is well defined in the rulebook with an extensive FAQ to cover mistakes and other ambiguous situations. But nowhere is "acquire a card" by itself given specific instructions, but "summon and acquire" is.
Can you quote exactly where the rules say "acquire = make the check to acquire"? I did a search in the pdf rules and found nothing that stated that.
The only thing even close is the phrase "encounter and acquire", which of course means to make the check because that's what you do when you encounter something. Simplying acquiring something means to put it in your hand though. Hence "check to ACQUIRE"... check to put it into your hand.
I'm not trying to be contrary here for the sake of being contrary. I legitimately would like some official evidence that states this is the way it's meant to be played, not just the gut reaction of other players. The other gamers I play with (and I also for that matter) won't be satisfied with a simple, well this guy on the forums says so...
Apologies for bringing this thread up nearly a month since the last post, but I happened to be reading through it and noticed some people mentioning "failing" to acquire the top blessing.
There's no check, right? The Dunes says to just acquire the top blessing, so it just goes straight into your hand. How is anyone failing to acquire it?
edit: Okay, I see. Some people feel there should be an "Encounter and" before the acquire.
Not just you. I very much prefer her old look and happily backed the kickstarter of her statue which will be displayed in my home.
Having said that though, I don't hate this new look. As an alternate universe Seoni, she still looks great. But I feel that she (and nearly all the other iconics for that matter) looks better in her original artwork.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Nobody says "Gee, I wish I would fail more checks" but people _do_ say that they want more illusion of danger, challenge, less sameness, and a vast variety of things that actually translate as "I wish I thought I might fail more checks, even if I don't actually."
I'm curious of the sample size you used to reach the inference that this is what most players want. There's a notable difference between an illusion of danger that requires gambling with using bonuses to ensure passing one particular check at the risk of not having those bonuses on a possibly more important future check and an illusion of danger that relies on making checks more random.
Granted there is a sense of satisfaction at passing that last difficult to achieve check with only one turn left and the odds not quite in your favor, this should be an exceptional case not the norm and is quite simply achieved by increasing the difficulty of the final villain. It's something you already do to great effect. And you've already solved the problem of trivializing that final check by limiting the number of blessings that can be played on it.
Sam Phelan wrote:
I just checked, and it's showing in my downloads now. Thank you!
I ordered Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild #5-4: Rise From the Wreckage PDF back in December, but the PDF still isn't able to be downloaded by me. Other members have reported being able to download their copy last month, so I'm curious the order still shows as Pending for me.
When I click on the order, it says the PDF is currently not available, then immediately under that it says it's in my downloads (which it is not). Please help correct this.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Well considering it's been officially pronounced Kie-ra for around a decade, it's not easy to suddenly change the way you pronounce her name based on a decision made a month ago.
I sent them an email as you suggested several days ago, but I still haven't heard anything back from them. Not that I'm in any major hurry. There are plenty of other board games I'm still in the middle of, so I'm not sure when my group will get back to playing PACG.
Still, do you have an idea of how long they usually take to respond? I did pay for the PDF, so if it's an error on their end, I would like to be able to download it. If it's just not released yet, then I'll just keep waiting.
I really like a lot of the changes being made. There are a couple questionable ones (like the location banishing), but I can't say whether that's good or bad without some context in how new cards will interact with that.
The one thing I wish the team would stop spending its energy on is trying to make this game backwards compatible. There are enough changes being made that likely HUNDREDS of cards will need to receive errata.
In my opinion (and I'm not sure how unpopular an opinion it would be), instead of generating a mountain of errata to fix the old cards, new versions of the old cards should be reprinted for use in the new "edition". This would give a chance to revisit the old class decks and bring them up to the current power level of cards. Those original seven class decks especially need some updating. I would much prefer to have a new version of the class deck to buy (with some all new characters included) to constantly referencing errata. It would also allow the cards to match the new style and save a bit of frustration for those of us with OCD. And it shouldn't require too much effort since many of the cards can be reused with minor adjustments to fit the new rules.
I'm in agreement with others that she looks far too frail. I don't agree that muscled barbarians are a "cliché". It's a natural result of constantly lifting and swinging around heavy objects their entire life. In Amiri's case, it's an extremely heavy and unwieldy object. You're bound to develop muscles in a career such as hers. She has a natural 18 STR before raging. For a human that means she's going to be muscular.
In my personal opinion - of all the artwork I've seen, I prefer the originals in nearly every single case.
Ideally, this is what I would have liked to see the game evolve towards as well. I've lost count of the number of times I've mistakenly misplayed a card because I was reading it too quickly and missed a word towards the end of the paragraph of instructions. Magic: the Gathering also started out with rather verbose instructions, but they quickly moved to a more concise and consistent format which greatly improved card readability.
Although given that the RPG has a similar problem, I don't anticipate the game moving in this direction. It would be nice to at least keep it under consideration, though.
Hopefully you enjoy it as much as I do! I've played WotR Seoni with Pathfinder Tales and Ultimate Magic 4 or 5 times now, and I haven't gotten tired of it.
Brother Tyler wrote:
can we still expect to see all of the classes getting a class/character deck?
I'm still hoping for a Swashbuckler, one of my favorite classes to play in the RPG. Until then it'd be nice if they relaxed the restrictions a bit. For example, you're allowed to use Jirelle with the Rogue class deck, but I'd really like to use her with the Pathfinder Tales character deck. I'm fighting the rules stickler in me to just do it anyway for my home game. From the transitive property, since rogues can use the Pathfinder Tales deck and Jirelle can use the Rogue Class deck, Jirelle should be able to use the Pathfinder Tales deck lol.
The same with Seoni. It bugs me that every version of Seoni can use the Pathfinder Tales deck except Sorcerer Class deck Seoni. But I'm hoping the new Core Set Seoni will rectify that by becoming my new favorite Seoni - a mix between Wrath and Sorcerer Class deck. I love Wrath's ability to reuse a spell repeatedly (by not recharging it); but the d6 strength, d4 dexterity and use of armor are a bit off from the character.
Anyhow, I'm super excited about the new Core and Adventure Path as well. These months can't go by quickly enough!
I picked one of these up and so far, I am impressed. I haven't loaded it with cards yet, but I am excited to do so. I plan to use it to hold class decks. A quick test shows that the ultra pro deck boxes (such as this) will fit in the top two slots.
Do the PACG deck boxes fit though? It doesn't look like it, and I don't want to risk buying a chest it they won't fit. I like the fact that they can hold my PSACG deck including the class deck and ultimate deck, all neatly divided. I have a separate box for each character, so it'd be nice to have an official case to carry them in plus my dice, but I get the feeling this chest isn't it.
Yeah, even though it still hasn't been put into the official card errata, we've been playing it as such. Our Zova player was also abusing the heck out of it. He seemed to always have it in his hand any time we encountered any before/after encounter monsters. It trivialized so many encounters that required making a certain check to play spells/weapons or that caused automatic damage. I was actually having less fun because I would have cards in my deck specifically to help me in those situations, and he would just Cloud Puff away every time. (And with Zova's ability to cycle through her deck so easily, it never took long for Cloud Puff to come back.)
After changing Cloud Puff to only affecting his own location, the game seemed to return to normal.
As I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to have something like this. An entire party tracker would be really nice for my group that meets and plays fairly regularly. It wouldn't have to be too fancy. A way to have a quick list of each card name, type, AD#, and where it came from would be very handy. A nice visual interface is a bonus, but frankly anything is better than my current spreadsheet.
James McKendrew wrote:
We need an app like the one for Apocrypha that lets you track your decks (though it'd need to be expanded to track removed-from-game cards) online.
I can't believe there still isn't something like this, even fan-made. For most other games I play that require deckbuilding, I've easily found apps to keep track of multiple decks. I haven't been able to find anything for PACG. It wasn't a big deal prior to Ultimate decks, but now I have several society campaigns going on simultaneously (which as Brother Tyler mentioned will also cause a problem in the future APs), and although I like to play different character classes in each, sometimes I end up using the same Ultimate Deck.
Currently, I'm using a spreadsheet to keep track of my decks, but it would save quite a bit of time if there was an app out there. (And unfortunately I don't have any app coding skills to make one myself.)
If memory serves, seized ships don't carry over to the next scenario. They're only valid for the scenario in which they have been seized.
Yeah as someone already mentioned, you can use seized ships at the start of any scenario.
The Dominator specifically says it cannot be seized.
Well, I wasn't sure what the ship name was. I guessed that one, but it clearly wasn't it since that ship doesn't reduce structural damage by 2. It was Mistmourn.
In Tapestry's Tides thus far (halfway through 5-2), we've repaired our ship ~5-6 times. We often prefer to wreck the ship instead of taking 3-5 structural damage - which happened to us more than once.
It helps that we're using Jirelle and have seized the ship that reduces structural damage by an additional 2 (Dominator was it?). So at most, we've only had to discard 1 card so far, and Lirianne is usually carrying an extra pistol in her hand that she doesn't need which she happily discards so that she can recharge it the next time she encounters a monster.
I'm envious you are already playing 5-2. I'm still waiting for it to show up in the store to download. I was told it was supposed to come out yesterday, but it's still unavailable.
We have yet to use this reward. Not a single person in our group thinks getting a basic boon shuffled into a deck is better than potentially getting those elusive 1 (and hopefully soon 2 - where are you 5-2?) deck upgrades.
Also I agree that some of the S&S mechanics were kinda underplayed. We've gone through S&S, Season of the Shackles, and now Tapestry's Tides and have never had to repair a ship. I think that discarding cards to prevent structural damage shouldn't have been a thing. It would have made things a bit more interesting to have to force players to repair the ship. Of course the penalty should have been a little lessened then - perhaps a d6 roll at the start of each turn to determine if a plundered card was lost.
Like Yewstance, I don't want to agree with the Guide in this situation (and others) either, but I have this odd inability to deviate from the rules as written. Once I tried to get my 6-player group to deviate away from the 30-card blessing deck to a 42-card blessing deck because I felt that some scenarios were not balanced with 6 players in mind. (In a 4-player game, each player gets at least 7 turns; but in a 6-player they only get 5 turns. And in some of those "close all locations" scenarios with can get challenging). But it didn't sit well with me after a few sessions, and I insisted we go back to 30 cards.
However, since I avoided addressing the OP - I want to like Athnul. I've always been a fan of the weaponless martial arts types in various games (mostly on digital platforms). I've tried using Athnul about half a dozen times in various adventure paths. My biggest problem with her is that I get bored after several scenarios. I felt very little sense of progression with her, and felt a bit envious when other players were getting a fancy new weapon or spell; and once I upgraded to the item or ally I wanted, I would often get nothing at all.
I always get excited when looking at her role card and imagining all the ways I can utilize her to help my party, but in practice I have never even made it to her role card once without getting bored and switching over to another character.
How would I address this? "Spells". Kinda like how Reiko in the Ultimate Equipment deck can use spells that can be recharged by Ninjas, I think having Monk "spells" could have been interesting. I'm sure they could have added a single spell in Ultimate Equipment that could be recharged by monks to give Athnul something interesting to use. But they probably didn't want to spend time on a single card that would have really only have benefited a single character in the entire game.
Three months late on this response (I haven't checked the ACG forums in a long time due to lack of new material), but it seems like a couple people in this thread are doing this wrong. And I could have sworn there was a discussion on this before, but I found nothing from a search.
Athnul can't put AD3 Cure in her deck pre-role*. The adventure card guild rules specifically say you can't have a card in your deck higher than your tier. So choosing spell as a card feat prior to tier 3 isn't legal because you can't make a legal deck (unless you use an Ultimate deck in combination with her).
* Unless of course your tier 3 scenario offers a card feat as a reward (which I can't recall any that do) or after receiving your card feat at tier 3, you choose not to level up to tier 4.
I just opened up my Ultimate Wilderness, and I was quite surprised by the number of Alchemical cards. I'll have to let our Damiel player know, so he can decide between Equipment and Wilderness.
Also, it's funny how I was just saying how there are no Desna cards to support Arushaelae, and Wilderness has 2. Not a whole lot, but it's something to think about. And there are several ranged weapons for her to choose from as well. Intrigue is probably still a better option, but Wilderness wouldn't be wasted on her.
I actually didn't know either and had to dig around for an answer. Keith posted the relevant information here:
edit: Of course rereading it, the boon only allowed use of her in Season of the Righteous, so she can't even be used in the other adventures (unless there was a later addendum). I'm really hoping there's a new official way to play her soon, but like you, I'm not really holding my breath.
EDIT: I'm also a little surprised that Tyler didn't mention using Ultimate Magic with Arueshalae, when it's got quite a bit of Diplomacy-matters...
Sorry for the additional post quoting your message, but the site was acting up for me, and it kept crashing when I tried to edit the message.
I was curious about this, so I decided to pull out my Ultimate Magic deck to see if I'd enjoy using it with Arueshalae. Aside from the Codex of Conversations you mentioned, I wasn't able to find any other cards that utilized her Diplomacy. Maybe my eyes are tired and I'm completely overlooking them, but it seems like Intrigue might be a better fit if you're looking for Diplomacy-related cards. I'll take a look at it again later after I've rested my eyes. :)
Sorry to take away that skill feat, but I was just finishing up a spreadsheet I was working on for quick reference to characters I have an interest in playing and which add-on decks I wanted to use with them. I noticed that Tyler doesn't have Channa-Ti listed anywhere in the above lists. I'm pretty certain he'd go with "Wilderness", but nevertheless she's not up there. ;)
Actually you do. The boon that allows you to play her specifically says you also use her Owner cards when you reach the adventure level.
To be fair, only 1 of Arueshalae's roles makes any reference to the Desna trait, and it only references it once, in a single power that can actually be used with any blessing.
I'm not sure what you mean by her Owner cards having a very narrow purpose. I used them quite a bit in WotR, and I would make use of them a lot in OP if I had more Desna cards to work with them. (Well maybe not the staff so much, but the bracers and bow would still be useful in any OP adventure if she had some Blessings of the Starsong.)
Sadly, I haven't been able to play her in "official" games yet, so I'm very much looking forward to her becoming openly available.
Tyler Beck wrote:
Sadly, I was hoping that meant there would be some Desna cards in Ultimate Intrigue and disappointed to find none. This currently is the biggest hurdle in making full use of Arueshalae's cards. There are Desna blessings available while playing Wrath of the Righteous, but in a PFSACG setting, they're nonexistent (aside from the extremely slim chance of temporarily acquiring one in Season of the Righteous).
Tyler Beck wrote:
Rogue Arueshalae Intrigue
Okay I'm really late coming back to this party, but thanks for the list! It helps my friend and I plan in advance which characters to use for future parties since we each only have one of each Ultimate deck.
I'm a bit confused about one thing. In your first post you put Arueshalae - Combat. Then 3 days later you posted Arueshalae again but put Intrigue. Which one would you recommend more? (I guess I can determine for myself in a couple weeks once Intrigue arrives, but I was curious why you changed your mind.)
So with the efforts to make "sword & board" more viable, will the requirements to use lay on hands be made more explicit? I know a couple GMs who say you can't use it if your hands are currently preoccupied (e.g. holding a weapon and a shield). This caused some players to come up with creative ways to drop and retrieve their weapon, or to just use a 2h weapon (which was often better anyway). But now that it costs actions to do this, it becomes even harder to use LoH in the middle of battle.
Thematically, S&B paladins have always been more appealing to me, and I'm hoping to them become more viable. The blog even mentions a case of a paladin using LoH on himself and raising a shield for even more AC. I'm hoping this is all doable without also dropping his sword.