Red Dragon

Firedale2002's page

258 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Cards with the same name are supposed to be the same within the same AP. It might change across APs.

I believe it was mentioned somewhere in a different thread that the adventure paths may have different reliance for whatever reason on the basic/elite traits. They may want some cards able to be removed earlier/later than the were in previous adventure paths.

So if Glibness has Basic in WotR, then it should be Basic in WotR, even if it was Elite in RotR and S&S.

I'll see if I can find a link to the other thread.

Edit: I can't seem to find the thread in question that I seem to be remembering. I may be misremembering, so take what I said above as my opinion instead of fact. I swear I read it before, but I'm unable to provide proof at this time; I apologize.


The rules don't pointedly say that 'the players that chose to attempt to temporarily close their locations may do so in any order they wish.'

The "Characters may attempt" part still remains as a 'may;' even if a character wished to try to close and then things changed, the 'may' is still there, so it still remains a choice at that character's point in the order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hfm wrote:
Archaeon wrote:
...

...

You win (or lose) the scenario. Everyone (that survives) must then rebuild their deck, and they can place any extra cards they CANNOT carry into a common pool.
...

I wanted to preemptively add those fixes for the sake of the person inquiring about deck rebuilding, because you do so whether you win or lose, not just when you win.


Xexyz wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:


2. You're succeeding at the check, but it doesn't have the required traits, so it's not defeated.
But you're still allowed to gather your dice pool and all that entails, right? So Damiel can still use his power to add a d6 + the fire trait to the check - thus meeting the fire trait requirement for permanent defeat - before he plays the PotO, right?

With the wording of the rules as they stand currently, when you add traits to a check, you are adding traits to the check itself, not just the dice that may be added by cards that add traits (though, if something becomes immune to a trait that gave dice, only those dice are removed from the pool).

If the PotO outright 'defeated' something, I'd normally say that it was defeated entirely by the potion, so no traits that were added to the check matter.

However, PotO states that the check is still taking place, it is simply insuring that you succeed at the check, so any traits that were added to the check by cards or abilities should still be in place.

You're not succeeding at the check by any certain number (so things that rely on that don't kick in), but the check has the traits, and it was a successful check attempt.


Based on the new rule proposition that Vic has mentioned elsewhere concerning the adjustment of cards ( LINKY ), I believe the order of things would be as follows:

1: Banish the potion for its effect
2: Recharge Tankard for its effect
3: Go find the potion that was banished and recharge it (per the effect of the Tankard)

You can't do the effect of using the Tankard unless you've recharged it, so it has to be recharged first before you even start considering the effect whatsoever.

1: Get speeding ticket
2: Go to court to plead your case that you shouldn't get speeding ticket
3: Get speeding ticket rescinded.

Gotta go to court before the speeding ticket goes poof, the speeding ticket doesn't go poof until you're done at court.


When encountering the Enemy Ship henchman, you have to follow the Encountering a Card steps, in order, and you can only use character/card abilities that apply specifically to that step.

The first step is to apply any "When you encounter" effects of the card. The ability in question doesn't specifically say you can use it at this time, and by the rules, that means it can't be used then.

Next is the Evasion step. Again, the ability in question doesn't say you can use it to evade.

Next is to apply any "Before you act" effects of the card. Again, the ability doesn't say it's usable at this time, so it's not.

Next would be the "Attempt the Check" step, and this is normally when you'd be able to use the ability to defeat a barrier.

However, as the Enemy Ship card doesn't have a check to defeat, you have to use this part of the rules: "If a card’s check section says “None,” look at the card’s powers
and immediately do whatever it says there."

The 'immediately' doesn't leave room for any use of abilities, as it happens at that instant.


Would this text fix it all?

▢ If you are on a ship at the end of your (▢ or the current player's) turn, the current player may move.

So, if it's your turn, you're the current player, and you can move at the end of it.

If it's not your turn and the second box is checked, since the character commanding the ship is the current player, then that player may move, but if that player decides not to, then that's the end of it (since you're not the current player, you can't move).

(also, should it be 'on an unanchored ship'? The reason being, if a ship is anchored, it's possible that you might be on that ship, however, the current player may not be, thus, not actually commanding that ship. Though, unanchored apparently isn't an actual word... go figure.) If that's the intent of that ability, then that's definitely one of the ways it can be worded. If that split movement thing (you here on ship, current player over there not on ship) isn't intended, though, then maybe use the following possible rewordings?

▢ At the end of your (▢ or another player's) turn, if you are on a ship, the player commanding the ship may move.
▢ If you are on a ship at the end of your (▢ or another player's) turn, the player commanding the ship may move.

Both of those work because the player commanding the ship is always the player whose turn it currently is, anyway. However, anchored ships will work differently than above (as mentioned in the unanchored bit).
If the ship isn't anchored, then all's well, and if it is anchored, then the current player must be at that location, too, since if your ship is anchored, you are only commanding it if you're at the location it's anchored at.


Vic Wertz wrote:

...

...lotsaquotes...
...

Those examples are not the same. In those cases, the question is really "If I do one now, can I do the other later?" And the answer to that question is yes. We used "or" on that card, because you *may* do the other later, but you do not *have* to do the other later. If we had used "and," you would be *required* to do the other later.

In this case, the question is really "Can I do both at the same time?" And the answer is no. We used "or" because you must do one or the other; if we'd used "and," you would be required to do both.

I wasn't talking about using just 'and'; I was talking about using 'and/or'. I understand that the situation and abilities of the cards aren't the same, however, in those links, you're using 'or' to mean 'and/or' as in you could do it now, you could do it later, or you could do it both now and later. That would be "Now and/or later" making one, the other, or both possible.

In this instance, though, you're using 'or' again, and it means one, the other, but not both.

You've now used one word, "or", a word that people's experience is tied to its use for one way or the other for the most part, to describe multiple situations with two different meanings.

In language context, if I say "Choose A or B" then a person would naturally pick one or the other and never even assume that both was an option. In programming, "A or B" is a statement of something that's already happened and compared to it, if A happened, it's good, if B happened, it's good, if A and B happened, it's still good, so all of those are options.

My common sense tells me that or means or, not and/or, so it works for this forum topic here in which you say choose one or the other but not both, but just like the second link I posted, there, it didn't work, because or wasn't used as an or, it was used as an and/or, and until that point, I would have been playing the card wrong, because I assumed, based on my knowledge of language, that or was exclusive, not inclusive.

If 'and/or' is the intended uses for those other situations, then it really should be worded as such. Just like before when using 'encounter' to mean two different things in-game, using one word for multiple different meanings can get confusing quickly and lead to these kinds of questions.

If PACG consistently used 'or' to actually mean 'or' as in "one or the other but not both", and used and/or to mean "one, the other, or both", it certainly wouldn't hurt and would reduce questions related to 'is it inclusive or exclusive this time?'.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

...

Butch_Brune wrote:
...

One character gets to move per use of the power. If we wanted you *and* another character to move, we'd have said "and." If we wanted you to have the choice, we'd have said "and/or" (or more likely, constructed the power differently). "That character" refers to the character that moved.

Would this be clearer as two powers? Absolutely. But we have to work within the constraints of the card, and that wouldn't fit.

Sadly, this comes up because there's other cards where 'or' was used as "and/or," yet that wording wasn't used.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi10?Lem-Virtuoso-discard-exchange
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1181088/seelah-supplemental-card-power/ page/1 (note that in this one, I said mostly what Vic said (that they'd use and/or if it was intended), but then struck through it because of Mike's response below which was in disagreement with that)


The only one I can answer outright is for #3.

Paizo has several "Iconic Character"s that are the names they use in examples in their RPG books. These characters are pretty much the epitome of the classes they represent, and as such, those characters tend to be the 'recycled' ones you seem to be talking about.

Please note that in S&S, the characters weren't recycled from RotR, their names and base class information was the same, but their abilities, as well as associated roles and role abilities were not recycled. They were different functional characters.

That being said, just as S&S introduced some 'new characters,' it's very probable that WotR will, as well.


Preston Poulter wrote:
I didn't think so, but I could not find anything in the rulebook which would stop it.
S&S Rules v1 wrote:

PLAYING A SCENARIO

...
YOUR TURN
...
Explore: You may explore your location once each turn without
playing a card that allows you to explore; this must be your first
exploration for the turn.
You may never explore on another player’s
turn.
When you explore, flip over the top card of your current location
deck. If it’s a boon, you may attempt to acquire it; if you don’t, banish
it. If it’s a bane, you must try to defeat it (see Encountering a Card on
page 10). Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn, and
there is no limit to the number of times you can explore.

...


The Character Add-on deck can be added to the set with minimal dilution, as it was included in the planning by the designers to be added if it was available, and they recommend adding it even if you're not playing with 5-6 people. (This can also prepare the game for those 'just in case' games where you might have extra people come)

Concerning the Class Decks mentioned by the other posters, the designers have said that you should only add cards from a class deck if you're using a character from that class deck.

If you buy the rogue and cleric decks but you're only using a character from the rogue deck, you wouldn't put any of the cards from the cleric deck into the box. If you're not playing a character from the rogue class deck at all, then you wouldn't add those cards, either.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Looks like the images are watermarked. That is part of the standard download process and was something that came up with the community use cards. I'm assuming that might be the case here.

I'm hopeful that that's the case and the watermark will be removed from this one.


The final version of the RotR rules isn't the final version of the rules, so I'm not sure that it'd be viable for them to offer a printed version of the rulebook, as the rules keep getting updated and added to.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Now that people have actual DriveThru cards in hand (or soon will), I'm going to say something that you're going to find hard to believe, but I think people will back me up.

When I put a 1st printing card into a 2nd printing deck, I can find the 1st printing card without much effort. It's about half a millimeter longer than the 2nd printing card.

When I put a DriveThru card into a 2nd printing deck, it's difficult to pick out. They seem to be very close to the same size.

So far, so good. Here's the weird part:

When I put a DriveThru card into a 1st printing deck, it's difficult to pick out. The DriveThru card is just a *hair* shorter, but it's much harder to spot than the difference between the 1st printing and 2nd printing—you really have to look hard for it.

If that's the case that it's much closer to the 1st printing cards than the 2nd printing card size that people are worried about, you should definitely add that to the descriptions as well.

I know I was looking forward more to the PDFs because of the card size difference (bothered by the size of 2nd in my 1st), but if it's pretty much not noticeable (as opposed to the quite noticeable of 2nd printing), I think people would be more apt to purchase the decks.

They'd also possibly be more willing to purchase the custom cards if they know they'll fit better with the first printing.


Tanis O'Connor wrote:
We'll post them all, so I assume they will be the correct size for their printings. I Am Not A Graphic Designer, though.

Thank you for the quick response.


Tanis wrote:
The PDF downloads of the errata decks (for self-printing or bathing in or whatever) will be up next week.

Awesome!

Will the PDFs be 1st printing size or 2nd printing size?


Xexyz wrote:
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Glad to see this is coming around. Here's hoping the size difference of the cards doesn't keep the first editions updates from being usable without sleeves.
Wait, the errata'd cards are a different size?

Yes, the cards use the size of the second printing of RotR, so they're slightly shorter than the cards in the first printing.

It seems to me that the only printer anywhere in the world that actually used that slightly larger card size was the original one. The rest don't have a die that size and would need to fabricate one, which is a considerable cost.


It seems that the part that some people are finding questionable is that it's not just the card design that's being transferred over; it's the artwork that was placed on the card, too.

If someone designs an awesome dragon picture and they decide to place it on a card, then that awesome dragon artwork is now property of Paizo, whereas, only the card design should be property of Paizo, and the dragon artwork should be noted that it was licensed (for free) to Paizo by the agreement that the user uploaded and placed said dragon on the card.

The card design (text, values, etc) are perfectly fine to be owned by Paizo. Any original art, on the other hand, shouldn't.

It'd be quite easy for Paizo to adjust the agreement for the card creator to state that if you use original art, you're choosing to freely license it to them for an unlimited amount of time specifically for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game and agree that you will not be compensated for the license, but you retain ownership of the actual artwork.

I'm sure Paizo has a legal team that could help with that wording, but I do feel it should apply specifically and only to the PACG and not to just allow it to be a blanket statement for use of the artwork on whatever product they desire.

Then, everyone would be happy. If people make an awesome card, Paizo has the rights to reprint the text however they see fit; if someone uses awesome original artwork, Paizo can still even choose to use that card if they so desire, but the artwork holder is still the artwork holder, and they agreed that Paizo could use that artwork under those terms.

The other part that people seem to be a bit upset about is the thought that Paizo is making money off of the cards. If the above would happen, then nobody would have reason to be upset.

If you use the service to spread your own cards and artwork, you agree to it, otherwise, just don't use the service. It's really that simple.

The person that mentioned the statement in the original post is perfectly within all rights and privileges to decide not to use the service on whatever grounds they desire.


You seem to be reading the rules differently than they're intended.

Combat checks aren't 'replaced' by anything. To make a combat check, by default, you use either the Strength skill or the Melee skill. Other cards allow you to use those or others. It is still a Combat check, but it also becomes a check with the relevant traits and skills.

A Combat Check made by someone the Strength skill would be a Combat Strength Check, otherwise known as both a Combat Check and a Strength Check.

Many of the ranged weapons say "for your combat check" roll your Dexterity or Ranged. If Dexterity is chosen or the Ranged skill is based on the Dexterity die for that character, then that would be a Combat Dexterity check (in addition to any other traits added by the card), and if Ranged is chosen, and that character's Ranged Skill is based on Dexterity, then it'd be a Combat Ranged Dexterity Check plus whatever traits get added.

Combat is considered a skill by the rules, however it is the only skill that is never used directly. It is always made using another skill.

There's no need for the rules to say anything about 'don't use a d4' because the rules say if you don't use any cards when making a combat check, that you MUST use your Strength or Melee skill. It's not optional.

"Most monsters and some barriers call for a combat check. Weapons
and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell
you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; if you aren’t
playing one of those cards, you must use your Strength or Melee skill.
"


As an addendum and adjustment to Hawkmoon's answer above, I'd like to add that some characters may gain spell card slots without having the requisite Divine or Arcane skill to keep the spells after use.

If a character has a spell card slot in their deck, they may keep spell cards as normal, whether they have the ability or not to cause them to be recharged upon use.

I just mention this because the OP stated "I'm imagining the intent of this statement is to allow anyone who makes the check to acquire it the ability to use it once. But not keep it after the encounter when rebuilding their deck. Sound about right?"

This is incorrect. If a character has a spell slot, that character can keep a spell if there is a spell to keep at the end of the scenario. If there's no spell to keep, they go to the box to find a card as normal to fill that spell card slot.

The banishing bit is only when the spell is used, not for keeping it after the scenario.


ryric wrote:
Hmm, what about with Lady Agasta? She reveals to let you recharge any number of cards, so the reveal and recharge are part of the same power, and she is a card, so I've been playing that you can reveal and recharge her all as part of one power. Sometimes I use it as an "evade" by recharging my whole hand so I can't take combat damage.

What exactly is Lady Agasta's text? If it's only a "Reveal to recharge any number of cards", then you can't use it during an encounter, since it has no direct connection with the encounter's steps.

Also, if that's the text, the reveal power lets you recharge cards, it's not using two different powers on the same card. It also doesn't let you use the recharge abilities of the other cards, you are simply recharging them because of the first power.


Mike Selinker wrote:
Wakrob wrote:
Yeah, like creatures with mental powers that detect you scrying on them and strike back psychicly!
I wouldn't rule it out.

"When [this bane] is examined it cannot be encountered. If [this bane] is examined, the examining character immediately takes 1d4 psychic damage and then [this bane] is immediately shuffled into a random location deck."


Based on an answer Mike gave when discussing removing Blessings of the Gods and maybe not having enough blessings to build the blessing deck, I'll give you this answer:

If you do not have enough armor cards to build all of the decks, then some decks will just not have enough armor cards.

The order you choose to make the decks is up to you, but if you know you don't have enough cards (or find out afterward when trying to make the decks), then remove the armor cards from the decks and then try dealing out one to each deck in turn until all the armor is used up while making sure to put no more than the armor allowed by a location in that location's deck.

Also, just an aside to make sure, when removing cards, you are just removing cards that have the proper trait, and not removing all cards that are from the base box, right?


DeanG wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:
...stuff...

Skull and Shackle rulebook clearly pictures blessings discard pile on page 5 and clearly states there's a blessings discard pile on page 8 under Advance the Blessings Deck.

Thanks Mike and team for review.

The picture also shows the Character Deck and Discard Pile, as well as a multitude of other play areas and piles; what's your point?

I totally agree that the blessing discard pile is supposed to be used for blessing discards, but that's not in the rules anywhere. It's simply named "Blessings Discard Pile", and the only direct reference of it in the entirety of the rules doesn't even use the word 'discard' for placing cards into it.

The only reference of "Discard" in the entirety of the rules says that the card goes into the character's discard pile.

If there was a direct set of rules for these terms outside of playing cards, like recharge, etc, then the Sacred Spring question that started this thread would most likely have never come up, because the rules would have covered where said recharged cards go.

My interpretation of the rules, as read, word for word, IE: Rules as Written, that all discards, regardless of where they come from, go into the character discard pile wouldn't even be valid, lol.

However, right now, that's actually the only 'correct' interpretation, because all others are outside the word of the rules, which leads to some interesting situations.

All of this coming up really brought to light just how hard it is for someone to write rules. I can only imagine how many iterations of the rules there were before the game was even playtested, let alone between playtesting and going to print. It reminds me of the "Why do all the dice go 1-faces except the d10, which goes from 0-9 and why would we even roll it if we can get a 0!?!?" question. I'm amazed Mike and Vic and the rest of the team have hair left!

Assumptions go a long way towards making things intuitive, but not everyone has the same past experience to draw those assumptions on, so sometimes people end up playing differently because their experiences are different.

Oh, and the translations! The translations just wiggle things around even more, sometimes. There's plenty of forum threads over at BGG asking about rule clarifications because they didn't make sense, only to find out that the translation totally changed how it works. That's a whole different can of worms all on its own.


Because there's no definition of Recharge outside of that in the rulebook, could people not also interpret Sacred Spring as the following?

When Permanently Closed: On closing, you may banish a card to recharge 1d6 random cards from the blessings discard pile to the blessing deck. At the start of your turn, you may recharge a card to recharge a card from your discard pile to your character deck.

It's different from the interpretation above, but still makes perfect sense to me because it mentions two different discard piles.

Outside of the literal interpretation as posed by Pyrocat, it can be interpreted almost however you -want- it to be. Pyrocat's wording follows the rules as written, and so is (technically and currently) correct. Joshua Birk 898, currently, by the rules, yep, when you discard a card from the blessing deck, it's supposed to go to your character discard pile. Do most people play that way? Most likely not, but by the rules currently, they're playing wrong.

I'm 99.99% sure that that's not as intended, but by the rules, it is what it is. That's why I feel the definitions need to be clarified for what they are and how they work for each section. People are playing the game under assumptions that aren't in the rules, and different people sometimes assume different things, sometimes leading to drastically different options and results.

It's been whipped into us that the cards and rules do what they say and don't do what they don't say.

The rules do not say that discarded cards from the blessing deck go into the discard pile. The rules do say that discarded cards go into your character's discard pile.
The rules do not say that cards recharged from the blessing discard pile go into the blessing deck. The rules do say that recharged cards go into your character deck.

I'm pretty sure that's not as intended, and so it needs to be remedied. If it's not remedied, then it means it's as intended, and we've all been playing wrong.


Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

Recharge is already defined in the book:

Rules wrote:
Recharge: Put it facedown at the bottom of your character deck.

So the cards go under your character deck.

Pretty much, what the spring does is it takes away time (removes blessings from the blessing deck) but 'heals' the character using it (puts cards into the character deck). Think of it as the person spending a bit of time soaking in the springs to get rejuvenated.

Discard is already defined in the book as well.

"Discard: Put it into your discard pile—a stack of faceup cards next
to your deck."

Are you seriously telling me that if you are told to discard a card from the blessing deck, you discard it into your own discard pile?
...

My apologies, you're quite correct in that I was assuming something in the rules based on pure definition. I was partly asleep at that point and that's one of the things that didn't occur to me. The other is that you're not 'playing' the card that's being recharged by the spring, which is what that section in the rules is about.

"When you play a card, it will usually require you to take one of the following actions."

I don't have the card, and my thoughts were based on what was mentioned as the text on the card, but that information appears incorrect now, too, as it's recharged from the Blessing Discard pile.

So either the Sacred Spring heals your character or actually gives your party more time depending on where it's recharged to (which still needs to be determined).

As a matter of fact, you also made me notice a point that nobody seems to have noticed before. Discarding isn't properly defined in the book, because the only mention of what Discarding is is in the play a card section mentioned above. The only reference to the Blessing Discard Pile doesn't even use the word "Discard," but instead simply says "Flip the top card from the blessing deck faceup onto the top of the blessing discard pile."

So in truth, with the current rules, if a card says to "discard a card from the blessing deck," by the rules as written, that card is supposed to go into YOUR (the character's) discard pile. I don't think this is as intended, and everyone else has been assuming that when you discard from the blessing deck, it goes to the blessing discard. However, that's not actually in the rules. Recharging to the Blessing Deck isn't in the rules, either, thus leading to this question about the Spring. The only mention of Recharge is that it goes into your Character Deck.

The Structural Damage section of the rules doesn't even mention the Blessings Discard pile, but instead simply says "discard a number of cards from the blessings deck equal to the amount of damage successfully dealt to the ship."

Even Holy Candle specifically references what it's working with; it shuffles into the Blessing Deck from the Blessing Discard pile, and it specifically uses both terms for that.

In the rules, the only time the Blessings Discard pile is even referenced (other than the picture of layout and a sidebar to keep track of whose turn it is) is in the Example of Play and the Advance the Blessing Deck section under the Your Turn heading (which uses the text above).

It seems we've all been playing the game based on a pure assumption that isn't even in the rules, and that should definitely be remedied.

EDIT: Nefrubyr did notice it earlier and I didn't notice Nefrubyr's notice of it when I was reading the posts.

EDIT: Upon further reading, every mention of Banish in the rules is based purely on the definition of it in the Playing Cards section. Nowhere in the rules along with Banish does it actually mention returning it to the box other than that section.

All references to the terms in the Playing Cards section are based purely on that section and nowhere else. So unless a card specifically says it goes somewhere else when you Reveal, Display, Discard, Recharge, Bury, or Draw, it ends up somewhere in your character play area (hand, deck, discard, or character card).

This definitely doesn't seem as intended, but by the rules, is correct.

The rules do specifically state that "If you are instructed to play, reveal, display, discard, recharge, bury, banish, or otherwise manipulate a card, that card must come from your hand unless otherwise specified." However, it doesn't specify where those cards go if those actions don't occur from your hand, so it still defaults to back into your character area.

*sits can of fishing bait in the middle of the room*


Recharge is already defined in the book:

Rules wrote:
Recharge: Put it facedown at the bottom of your character deck.

So the cards go under your character deck.

Pretty much, what the spring does is it takes away time (removes blessings from the blessing deck) but 'heals' the character using it (puts cards into the character deck). Think of it as the person spending a bit of time soaking in the springs to get rejuvenated.


The issue lies in that the 'roll' is the total of all dice modifiers, whereas, the die/dice are just the dice.

I think what the OP is asking is whether it's the individual dice that count towards it, as in 2d6 needing both dice to be odd numbers to be considered 'odd' or if the total of the roll needs to be 'odd'. Getting both numbers to be odd is harder (1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 of the time) as opposed to just the total (1/2 of the time).


There's no choice because there's no obvious thought process for having the choice. Burying is more beneficial than banishing (except in the case of forcing card removal).

If you want to get rid of the armor, then simply find something better and don't keep it, and then later on, should you encounter it again, choose not to attempt to acquire it, and poof, it's banished.

If you want to work the system and cheese it, give the armor to someone that isn't proficient and let them use it when they take damage, but that's kinda against the grain of the game.


Your wording of "once per turn" doesn't quite fit with what seems to be the intent.

What if, during two different explores on the same turn, you encountered two different banes that did ship damage.

I believe the intent is that damage from each one is increased by 1, so it'd be 2 extra damage (one for each bane). However, if you applied a once per turn effect like what you're talking about, not only would that increase in damage be reduced to 1, but you'd also have to remember for your entire turn so you'd know if you already encountered something that dealt damage to your ship (which is against the process already apparent in the game and many posts by the designers).


Maybe adjust it to "any characters" that way, it's intuitive that regardless of the number of characters there, it's only ever increased by 1?

"A" character normally applies per character for most other effects, but "any" is just a check to see if there's one or more.


"You" always refers to either the person playing a card or the person dealing with a card.

Whenever a character starts a turn at a location with Storm, its text is relevant, so the "You" refers to the character starting his/her turn at that location.

It isn't encountered directly once it's face-up, and its effect is always in play, so there's no need for the text "characters at this location encounter..."


It sounds like for some versions of the game, it'd almost be worth paying the extra import fees to buy the English version of the game just to make sure you can translate the cards yourself as opposed to getting the version that was translated professionally.

Some mistakes can be caused by a meaning "lost in translation", like the words for armor and weapon being changed to just 'equipment' so there ends up not being a distinction in that version of the game between the two.

However, to have Cure put cards directly into your hand instead of your deck is a complete change in the card itself and two different play areas of the game.

If I had an issue like that in translation, I'd end up checking every single card to see if there's another that I might not have noticed that may be completely changing how I play the game. I'd be paranoid about it.


If you do not play a card that adds the Melee trait and you choose to make a Strength check instead of a Melee check for a Combat check, then the Combat check is a Combat/Strength check only, and any cards that can only modify a Melee check cannot be used, since it is not a Melee check.

If the Master-at-arms can only modify a Melee check, then it cannot be played in this instance.


While there isn't specifically a restriction directly with the spell, most deities don't take kindly to their clerics using opposed-alignment spells.

I'm not well versed in Pathfinder, but based on the wording here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/summonMonster.html , since the spell counts as the type if the creature summoned has an alignment or an elemental type, then in the question posted above, the spell would be considered a Lawful Good.

If you're not a cleric or cleric-type class that relies on a Deity's power, then you're probably fine. Otherwise, I'd expect a few days/weeks of repentance until I got my ability to use spells back.


Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Mike Selinker wrote:
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
If it was Torag's wish for us dwarves to celebrate Christmas, he'd have made us ELVES.
Win.
Do dwarves do anything else?
Complain that human-crafted beer tastes like moose urine. What else is there?

I think the real question is... why did dwarves drink moose urine in the first place to even be able to compare it?!


I'd wait until Paizo asks for reports for them (if they do).

The data collection was something they asked for in RotR.

Without them asking, if someone reports a character in a thread, then others will probably start reporting characters in that thread and creating a multitude of others because they 'didn't know' or 'didn't search' to know it existed.

So, I'd just wait until Paizo asks for it.


greysector wrote:

I assumed that "recharge this armor when you reset your hand" would recharge a buried set of armor.

Thoughts?

You can only recharge a card from your hand unless an effect specifically says otherwise. Recharging, discarding, displaying, etc, all work that way; it must be in your hand to do so unless otherwise specifically stated.

The armors in question say you may recharge them when you reset your hand, so the recharged cards have to be in your hand to recharge, nowhere else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While statistically, the 'next card' can be any one of the cards left in the deck, physically, that's not the case. The next card is the next card and not any of the other cards in the deck.

Mathematically, it doesn't make much of a difference at all, that is unless it has an influence on other possibilities.

For example: what if, during said game, you all ended up losing or having characters die because the 'final blessing' didn't match one someone was playing, thus disallowing them from recharging it as opposed to discarding it, and that caused someone to die, whereas if it would have matched the card you originally took from the bottom, that wouldn't have happened. You effectively caused that death!

Granted, there's lots that could happen between now and then, but sometimes, the slightest change of fate can bring about a big change of events.

Schrodinger Card! The result doesn't matter until it matters!

So, while your friend didn't exactly choose the best argument to make, it -technically- was against the rules, as the rules say to flip the top card and you didn't do that.

That being said, when I deal out cards, I don't always deal clockwise. Sometimes I change it up just to make things a little more random (and because I've met people that 'neglect' to shuffle well intentionally).

So, yep, what you did was against the rules. Did it matter a lot? Most likely not. Was it life threatening and should you be thrown in prison for 10 years without chance of parole? Nope.

Should you do it again? Only if you thought the argument your friend had was entertaining to everyone involved and it won't cause a rift the size of the Pacific Ocean to form between you; otherwise, you probably want to just draw from the top.

--

Concerning the boss comment above, probability relies on randomness. There technically isn't anything random about flipping a coin; the definition of random is what it is only because we don't fully understand all of the influences and variables involved.

You should have told a boss that scientist created a machine that could flip a coin and 100% of the time it'd know exactly what it would come up as. It's still a coin flip, and probability of it landing heads or tails is still there, however, all of the variables are determined beforehand. It's still random, but it's not random ^^

You could have let your boss think about that one for a while :P


Based on the exact card wording, there's only one decision the game makes, and that's the decision to win or not.

If, after you move, there are no blessings in the blessings deck (which will be true the entire final turn of the game), then you check the top card of each location. If they're all ships, you win.

Otherwise, your turn continues as normal, but your chance to win is now passed. You can complete your turn, but as it is the final round and you have no other way to win (it seems like there is no villain in this scenario), and when it is the next person's turn to go, there's no blessing to flip, so it's a loss immediately.


What is the actual text of the card, in quote form?

Based on your wording as posted here "When the blessing deck is empty" happens immediately upon flipping the last blessing, and that's when you'd check for victory.

"While the blessing deck is empty" means that you'd be able to check for victory any time during the final turn.

Also, based on your wording, the limit of victory only kicks in for changing during that time, meaning if you defeat any villains earlier than the last turn, you can win that way, too, as the 'when/if' says.

So, the actual rules text on the card would be quite helpful. Sadly, I don't have S&S yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let us say you come upon a monster bane card that deals one force damage before the encounter and one fire damage after the encounter.

Let us also say you only have 1 card in your character deck and no characters currently have a Cure spell handy.

Would you rather have an attack spell in your hand at that time so you can defeat her? Or would you rather have an evade spell in your hand so you can avoid her?

These types of special situations are why having an evade card in your deck is useful. Having attack spells out the hiney can be useful for defeating things, but there are times when having utility spells can be useful, too.


As strange as it sounds, this is one instance where the rules can cause a little hiccup in the situation.

The rules do state that "Summoned cards cannot cause other cards to be summoned."

So, by the rules, any additional summons caused by a summoned card are completely and totally ignored, since "cannot" overrules all.

The initial intent of it was to stop infinite summons, such as encountering a bane, and the scenario rules saying when someone encounters that bane, everyone summons and encounters that bane, which would then cause everyone to summon and encounter that bane, which would then cause everyone to summon and encounter that bane, which would then cause everyone to summon and encounter that bane, etc, etc.

So, I think the OP did play it the way it's 'intended' to be played, even if the rules say not to.

I think Goblin Weidling is that way, too. As the poster above said, pretty much the only normal way to encounter it is to have it summoned, and because it's summoned, its "before you act" summon ability wouldn't trigger, by the rules.

Just for reference:

S&S Rules V1 wrote:

Summoning and Adding Cards

Sometimes you will be told to summon cards or to add cards
to a deck. When this happens, retrieve the cards from the box.
However, if you’re told to summon a card that’s already in play, just
imagine you have another copy of that card for the new encounter;
this summoned copy ceases to exist at the end of the encounter.
Summoned cards cannot cause other cards to be summoned.
...

It may be able to be read as "Summoned cards cannot trigger abilities of other cards that cause cards to be summoned," depending on your interpretation of "cannot cause," which would allow its own abilities to be triggered (and I think that's the intent of the rule).

As always, though, I could be wrong.


Andrew Klein wrote:
Also, you seem to have found your way to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game forums by mistake. I believe that by decree of our resident PACG guru Hawkmoon, you are now legally obligated to try out the game under punishment of character death. Don't worry, he's probably right behind me posting something similar and less threatening...

LOL, you made me actually laugh when I read that. Well done!


The first step of encountering a card with multiple-choice checks to defeat (this includes things such as Dexterity/Acrobatics 9) is to choose which check you're making.

If a card's check to defeat says Dexterity/Acrobatics 9 or Disable 6, then your first step is to choose whether you're going to attempt to make the Dexterity 9, the Acrobatics 9, or the Disable 6.

This is what decides the things from then on.

Even if you don't have Acrobatics or Disable, you can still choose to attempt that check. That is covered by the "...; you may choose any of the listed skills for your check." bit.

The "Even If" part is there to reinforce that, because you may come across something that simply has a check to defeat of "Disable 4," which most characters do not have, and instead of saying "well, okay, I don't have it, so I auto-fail," it's reminding you that even if you don't have a skill, you can still choose to make that check.

If you read the Ally in question, it says that it adds a certain amount of dice to your check, not your skill. If you choose to make a Disable check and have an ally that adds to your Disable check, then that ally can be used, whether your character has the disable skill listed on the character card or not, as long as you are making a Disable check.

If you happen to find an ally that adds to your Disable skill (I don't know that there are any for the following reason), and you don't have the Disable skill, then that ally is useless to you, as you don't have the skill for it to add to.

If you can actually find an ally that actually adds bonuses to a skill itself as opposed to adding to a skill check, that might be something to discuss with Mike/Vic/Etc.


The promos are intended to be inserted as soon as you get them or Adventure 1, as the FAQ states:

FAQ wrote:

When can I add promo cards to the box?

Anytime after you begin Chapter 1 of the Adventure Path.

The FAQ doesn't say to put them in with each adventure released with, especially since some of them didn't have an adventure release at all.

There's no need to remember which one you got them with, you simply put them all in at the start if you already have them.


You are correct. The blessings only add dice to a check.

Cure's 'curing' die roll is not a check, so things that modify checks cannot be used to modify it.


Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
T-0: No cards left in the blessings deck. The next player starts her turn, which begins with "Advance the blessings deck." She goes to flip that last card in the deck, but there isn't one there, so she resets her hand and ends her turn; the scenario ends and the party loses.

Why?

So you potentially penalize the person after the last turn of the game? I guess I'm not seeing the reason why this would happen. If she goes to flip the blessing card and there is none, why doesn't she get an actual turn if she's going to take the consequences of taking a turn? Why wouldn't someone be able to cast a Cure on her so that she doesn't die?

This is a potential deal-breaker when helping someone on the very last turn of the game.

Someone could have used Cure on the previous turn. Why didn't they use it then?

As far as why don't they get their entire turn: it's because the rules say so. The game is over and they have to reset their hand. That's that. The party failed to achieve victory and that last person failed to heed the warning of the gods that their blessings were running out.

The player knew the end of the game was near and knew what the consequences would be if they played everything and didn't have enough cards to draw it back, so why should they NOT be penalized?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel that you're getting stuck on trying to adjust the rules for your benefit.

As the rules state, flipping a blessing is part of your turn, and is, in fact, the very first thing you do on your turn. So your turn has begun.

As the FAQ states, if you must flip a card and cannot, then the current character goes to the end of the turn and deals with resetting.

During resetting, if the character doesn't have enough cards in their character deck to draw back to their hand, they die.

This happens regardless of whether the previous character died or not. The two deaths are independent.

It is not up to the rules to change to keep your characters alive, but up to your characters to try to play in such a way as to stay alive.

If you see bad things in the future, such as a blessing deck about to run out, it's probably best to prepare for that instead of playing every card in your hand in hopes that you can win the scenario, but if you choose to do that, that was your choice, and you must face the consequences, good or bad, for choosing to do so. Bad rolls happen; good rolls happen; randomness happens.

I'm pretty sure if your party won the scenario by doing that, there wouldn't be any complaint at all, but if the party lost and ended up with two character deaths because they pushed hard and failed, then DOWN WITH THE RULES!

Theryon Stormrune wrote:

...

I'd hold back or not discard everything for that last attempt if I knew I had to reset my hand potentially after the scenario was failed.

That's exactly what you SHOULD do in that situation if you feel that the extra push might not be enough to win. If it's not guaranteed, then hold back, otherwise, you're chancing death, you know you're chancing death, and you're choosing to chance death, and if death happens, then it's on you. Accept the death and say it was a hero's death, fighting to the last breath in an attempt to save the world.

1 to 50 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>