Jenceslav's page

37 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Vic Wertz wrote:
It's actually the ENTIRE Season of the Kobolds. A short season for short monsters, I guess.

We need a Season of Sea Dragons (or possibly Oriental Dragons) then :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
This came up a few weeks ago on BGG, and it's possible that all/most copies are affected. A sample image: link. (Disclaimer: My copy is affected, but it isn't nearly as bad as the linked image - which may be an artifact of the image lighting.)

My copy of Core has similar problems, but mainly on the front side:

a) Cards of different levels and the same type often have different shade of colour - e.g. dark blue and purplish blue on spells.
b) A few cards have a tiny splotch of red on the back, my Shortbow also has a large red splotch.
c) Some cards (Armor of one level, I think) have very thin font of the powers.
Nothing of the above (with exception of Shortbow, but I can live with that) affects the gameplay in any way and so far, I've enjoyed the game a lot.

Just a funny story to close - while playing DD 1C, we had to close Chambers, which proved to be really difficult. It turns out that a Ghoul, Homunculus henchman and few other cards were there, but our party unsuccessfully chased a Racoon all over the place instead. We met it at least 7 times due to Chambers' power, sometimes three times in a row (with different players shuffling). Pesky pet with huge Survival check difficulty - and the ghoul and homunculus were probably laughing at us.


During our first playthrough of Dragon's Demand 2B scenario (A Piece of the Auction), the interaction between the location Plaza and Scenario rules became somewhat unclear:

Storybook wrote:
When you encounter a boon from a location, before acting, succeed at … If you acquire the boon, put it into a winnings pile
Plaza wrote:
When you would encounter a boon, draw a new one of the same type, encounter 1 and banish the other

If any boon is flipped over at the start of the exploration, another one is drawn from the box. But the scenario power states that the boon has to be encountered from a location. Does it mean that if the original boon is banished as we like the other one better, the scenario power does not trigger as the boon did not come from a location? That seems really harsh, if that is true. And what would become with such boon - would it go directly into character's hand if acquired and to the box if it wasn't acquired?

Can anyone shine a little bit of (wall of) light on this? Thank you

As a side note, we forgot to put the non-acquired boons to a hoard pile, which only a second reading through the text (now) revealed. Ugh, I have to read more carefully. Still, with Seelah and her Diplomacy + upgraded "Crusade" ability (reacharge top card if it's armor or blessing to aid local checks) along with Ezren's Magic-trait 1d4 shenanigans, we acquired so many boons it was OK. We even had to throw away a Keen Rapier as we had too many nice magic weapons for both of us, counting Wyrmsmite.


wkover wrote:

The exact wording is: Either succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 5+# check or summon and defeat the danger.

If you parse this as:

Either (succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 5+# check) or (summon and defeat the danger) then the fourth bullet applies [choose an option].

If you parse this as:

(Either succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 5+# check) or (summon and defeat the danger) then the third bullet applies [if you fail, must take consequences].

So the sidebox actually supports both interpretations. It's only because I'm an experienced player that I know that the fourth bullet is correct.

I am not sure it supports both interpretations:

Rulebook wrote:

• If you are instructed to succeed at a check or do a thing, you must attempt the check; if you fail, you must do that thing.

• If you are instructed to either attempt a check or do something else, choose one of those options.

There is either … or clause (emphasized in the rulebook), so the fourth bullet on p. 11 (second in the list above) applies. You cannot interpret it as the third bullet (first in the list above), as that one doesn't have "either"...

But I think I maybe see where is the problem for you - "either attempt a check" should be "either succeed at a check" in the rulebook if my understanding is correct. I don't know about any instruction that lets you attempt a check without checking if you succeeded or not (which the 4th bullet seems to imply).


wkover wrote:
For what it's worth, new players on BGG are having this same confusion. So it might be worth adding to the FAQ.

Maybe, but precisely such differences in wording are covered in a side box within the rules on page 11. Maybe it's worth pointing that out, but PACG FAQ is more like an errata than true FAQ.


Sathar wrote:
Specifically, Dazed says that if you did not suffer this Scourge this turn you may remove it at the end of your turn. If a character already has a marker on Dazed and suffers a new Dazed on their turn, can they still remove it at the end of turn or is the Dazed in effect extended an additional turn?

To my understanding, the character is already marked, so they cannot receive additional marker or suffer the scourge, becoming un-Dazed(TM) at the end of this turn. At least that's how I played it, believing that the "ignore" statements cover this. But let's wait if there is official answer or some rules-expert fans clarify this.

Rulebook wrote:

If you are instructed to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction.


If you suffer a scourge that you already have a marker for, the scourge has no additional effect; do not add another marker.

Hmm, can be probably interpreted both ways.


Great blog and explanation what was behind the changes, Chad. I fully support and applaud the Recovery conversion rules - e.g. S&S Damiel and his Potions of Healing were broken :) - and expansion of the Proficiency. I am not sold on the Light Armor proficiency, but it might be OK.
What about old Armors that have powers "Banish to reduce damage to 0. If proficient, you may bury intead"? Shouldn't it mean this power is still in effect, but useable only by characters with Heavy Armor proficiency? The conversion page says that all the characters are considered proficient with Light Armor, but that increases such cards' power for that characters quite significantly.

S&S Damiel has now proficiency in Spells and changed recovery powers, which is nice, but what if he plays e.g. Force Missile (Arcane Attack)? Under old rules, he was supposed to banish it; now, he has the option to just discard it? It is a spell, so he is proficient, and would at most discard it. He can't recover it easily (check with Arcane = 1d4; not Craft as it is Attack spell), but that option is there. Is that truly the intent of this change, to allow him to play Attack spells and not lose them? I would guess that proficiency with "Non-Attack Spells" is now allowed rules-wise and it would be in line with his previous powers.

And once again with S&S - Letter of Marquee (loot), which works only on closed locations, is not covered in the Conversion FAQ. Should it work similarly to Safe Haven (e.g. choose a location, shuffle n boons of that type in; encountering Monster does not make sense for the LoM)? It would be sad to have Loot that is an item with no powers.


guystyle wrote:

Well yesterday there was the first play with my friends and I've got a little confused..

I thought that to play Season of RotR, all I needed was just Base Set. So I played only with Base Set and Burnt Offerings expansion. But I think to play Season, it has to be Organized Play, which requires a Class Deck for each players!

Is that right?

I believe that I and my friends purchased all the expansions for RotR, and a Character Deck. With these "infrastructure", is that still possible to play Season games? Or do I have to stick with legacy rules, and home game only?

Somehow it feels like I need to play OP for now.. not sure if that is really necessary though.

Please help me out!!

I think you can play Season or Runelords even without Class decks, it will just be unofficial. Within my limited knowledge, there is nothing that stops you from doing that if you have the Base set. Consider though that further adventures might need higher number Adventure decks than just Burnt Offerings. EDIT: so you have them - have to read carefully next time :)

I plan to eventually play through the Season of Shackles (solo or with friends) with my S&S characters...


1) While the Holy Symbol item has Divine trait, the corresponding Spellbook doesn't have Arcane trait. Is there any reason to break the symmetry? Spellbook has only powers helping with Arcane checks, so it is not an "empty spellbook" and probably should have Arcane.

2) Bound Imp may be played as an Ally or as a Monster? That is really something strange. Apart from some Class deck characters that like to have Monster cards in hand and circumventing any "when you play an ally" effects, what are the possible uses of that? As the Bound Imp just draws cards, it is probably not meant to sidestep the "1 card of a type played on 1 check/step". Any insights from the community? :)


Keith Richmond wrote:

You understood it correctly, that it works as written. In the case of "Locked Door" it's probably better to think of it as a series of locked doors (and rooms and corridors) that make it hard to proceed. It entangling the location stops you from escaping, perhaps driving you further into other parts of the location.

We did test the idea that a scourge on a location simply applies to all characters at that location, without marking them. It's pretty solid for some scourges, like Entangled and Frightened, but it gets really weird for several scourges where you can just leave to no longer be scourged then jump back later.

Thank you very much, Keith, for the confirmation about the Scourges - it makes sense for e.g. Poisoned Scourge on a location to mark the characters. But what about defeating the Locked Door by another character, while the previous one is still Entangled? Do you plan to change the Locked Door card to remove Entangled for local characters (on defeat) along with de-Entangling the location or keep it this way?


Ben Kercheval wrote:

I didn't quite get the success you did with your cards. I don't use all clear perfect fit sleeves. My Rise of the Runelords set card backs weren't uniformly colored so I needed sleeves with opaque backs. I use the BCW Matte Deck Guards for all my cards that aren't double-sided and use clear sleeves for my double-sided cards and character/role cards.

...

Well, some of my Core cards have slightly different border colouration (dark red vs. red; similar shade difference for the front border, so I have dark purple spells and dark blue spells of different levels - printer inconsistency?) and at least one of them even has small bright red splotch on the border, but the difference is too small to notice during the game. And why would I cheat in this game played for fun? :-D

I think that your sleeves are too thick (and also add some more lateral dimensions). I do not know how e.g. normal clear sleeves (Ultra Pro?) would fit (they have a lot of "wiggle" room and are few milimeters taller), but the opaque sleeves are even larger.
This is what I meant that the storage of sleeved cards is not for everyone, as you may want to have other, looser sleeves for some reason such as having other editions in them.
However, if you don't mind the extra work (and expense), you may sleeve the Curse cards in PerfectSize sleeves upside down (as intended), store them in the Curse box and when needed, put them into the opaque-back sleeves (again, as intended).


Brother Tyler wrote:

Assuming that the RAW backs up the opposite argument (i.e., I'm wrong), but my RAI argument is correct, then I would suggest that the Locked Door card needs to be amended so that the third power says something like:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location and remove Entangled markers from affected characters; you may explore.

I would put it more like:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location and all local characters; you may explore.

The precedent is already there with Basilisk, which upon defeat removes Entangled and Dazed (which happened earlier). But that is based on the interpretation that:

Scourge on a location causes the characters to gain the same marker (suffer a scourge, not only "Scourge power applies to you") when initially marked + at the end of turn.
We should wait for an official statement :)


The Confusion spell in the Core lacks an Attack trait, which was errata-ed into Skull&Shackles and was probably printed in other instances of Confusion in the Class Decks.
S&S FAQ entry on Confusion
And I am confused. Is this a new revision of the Confusion (with its broadened functionality), or is it an oversight? Does it apply for the older Confusion spells as well? If not, then we might be confused playing different Confusions.
So much Confusion, in every sentence :)


Brother Tyler wrote:

Check the last power on the card:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location; you may explore.
By this, I interpret that none of the characters remain Entangled because that scourge is removed when the barrier is defeated.

Well, the scourge is removed from that location only…

If I understand it right, characters suffer the scourge Entangled when they are at a location while it is being marked by the scourge. I am not a native speaker:
Rulebook wrote:
Some effects cause a scourge to mark a location. If you’re at a location when it is marked, or if you end your turn at a marked location, suffer the corresponding scourge.

By "when", I thought the meaning was temporal (at the time), otherwise it would be "if", right?

And suffering a scourge means:
Rulebook wrote:
When a card tells you to suffer a scourge, … Then place a corresponding marker next to your character. While so marked by a scourge, that scourge’s powers apply to you.

So, if the character gets marked with Entangled as he/she/it is at the location, the defeating of the barrier would not remove it from the character.

At least two high-level banes (e.g. Basilisk) specifically remove Scourges of the same type that the bane caused earlier. So it is not unreasonable to do it in this case as well, but the card does not say so.

EDIT: And one other example: If you are at a Posioned location, you become Poisoned, right? If you move outside the location, you are still Poisoned - if I got the meaning of the rules correctly.


I just wanted to ask about timing / rules about the Locked Door barrier from Core (lvl 1). If the following situation has some problems rules-wise, correct me please.
So character #1 does not defeat the barrier, the location gets marked with Entangled and (per rules for Scourges), all local characters suffer the scourge, receiving identical marker. The barrier gets reloaded into the location. Character #2 arrives to this location, explores, encounters and defeats this barrier. #2 does not suffer the scourge, as he/she/it wasn't at the location at end of turn while it was marked, right? The location becomes unmarked, but all the characters suffering from Entangled are affected by that scourge still.

So, by following rules - all the former characters are still Entangled, but #2 is not and can leave after #2 smashed / lockpicked the doors. From RPG point of view that does not make sense, but the game apparently has no way of knowing if the characters were entangled from another source before. So I wanted to be sure if understood it correctly.
Thank you!


skizzerz wrote:


I use Dragon Shields with opaque backs for most cards (and perfect fit clear sleeves for cards that don't get shuffled into anything). They're wider and thicker than inner fits/perfect fits. Plus, I needed to organize the box somehow instead of throwing the cards in loose, and that takes up extra space as well.

Can you take a picture of how you got them all to fit into the Curse box? How does moving the box around fare once they're all inside (i.e. if you carry the box with you for a while in a backpack or something, will all the cards get mixed together or will things remain organized?)

I've never had a problem with PerfectSize shuffling, even though it is not the intended use. Once, another card got into the sleeved card's open part and pushing on it tore a side of the sleeve apart. Improper shuffling :)

I put the photo of my Curse box here to BGG:
My storage
All cards are in the plastic bags; unfortunately you can fit only ~45-50 in one and I had just 10. Ideally, I would like to have them bagged based on adventure level and at much lower packing (~35-40 per bag).
I stored the empty cardboard holders (from markers, pawns; both Core and Curse), but removed them for the photo.
The little space on the side is "wasted" - you can turn the rightmost stacks 90° and they will again fit inside. Just a different shape of a free space :)


skizzerz wrote:

The Curse of the Crimson Throne box is not large enough to fit the fully-sleeved set, unfortunately. That makes the box pretty much useless for me.

Skizzerz, based on your post I was a little afraid that my cards will not fit inside while sleeved, but surprisingly enough, they did. The designers made a very good job in most aspects. Maybe different sleeves? I used just PerfectSize sleeves as with all my card games. I put Locations and characters into the Core box, but even if they were in the Curse box, all would fit. I have 3×2 stacks now (each but the last consists of two plastic bags from the sleeves), with the last one almost empty. Did you use normal clear sleeves for your cards? I suppose this is not an option for many people who sleeved their older cards in normal sleeves, but it's best to inform the "new" players that it can really fit inside somehow ;)


Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:

Having sleeved every card of the Core, Curse, and promo sets I can attest that there are in fact 996 cards in total (440/550/6 as advertised).

I can also support this - I'm left with 4 empty sleeves now, after just having sleeved all Core+Curse+Promo cards. Did not check card list, though :) No card is there twice except for many blessings (gods of Core, Sands in Curse), so I am confident it is OK :)


Keith Richmond wrote:
Yep, Cultists are intended to be scary in terms of killing the hourglass, but very occasionally tempting ;)

Thank you, Keith, for the confirmation it is working as intended. I just thought it was counter-intuitive that failing to defeat would have positive consequences, which is very rare - and shuffling into the character's discards seemed even weirder to me. Why shuffle it if discards is open information and I do not know a card that concerns with the card's positions. Yewstance probably does if there is such power/card :)

Thank you once again


I have one question about the Story Bane 1 Cultist. Its power says: "If undefeated, examine the top # cards of the hourglass; if any are blessings, shuffle them into your discards".
Shouldn't that be "hourglass discards" instead of your = character's discards? The RoTR_Cultist shuffled the blessing into the location when undefeated, this is different.


Brother Tyler wrote:
Out of curiosity, is there any consideration of converting the first four APs into storybooks using the Core Set format/rules? There probably wouldn't be a huge call for print versions (though I would buy them if they were ever available), but there would probably be some demand for downloadable pdfs.

Well, there already is something of a kind, made by extremely talented fans (Autoduelist & co.):

https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/106306/rise-runelords-adventure-guide-v1 7
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/107542/skull-shackles-adventure-guide-v1 03
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1476441/autoduelists-wrath-righteous-adven ture-guide
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/141835/mummys-mask-adventure-guide-v101

It might not be official, but serves the same purpose, I think. RotR story presented there is different from the story of the Obsidian game, but whatever. Both are very nice.


Frencois wrote:

Hi to all the veterans. Just started to read the new rules and all seems clear (or at least I suppose until proven guilty that I got it right), except for one point:

Core Set Rulebook P.23 under 'Powers' wrote:
If a card tells you that you may treat it as if it has the same powers as another boon, include only powers that require you to play the card.

I don't think I understand that sentence (especially as for me "including" a power isn't a thing and because a power "required" to play a card isn't much more clear either). Can someone explain and give a precise example?

Pretty sure if Mike and others added that sentence it's because it's important at some point, but it's fuzzy for me (but it's maybe my limited use of English).

I am no rules expert, but it seems like the powers that require you to play the card mean any "playing" keywords in the paragraph(s) that should be copied: display, reveal, recharge, reload, shuffle, discard, bury, banish. Static abilities like *instructions* are probably not meant to be copied. They probably added it for some important reason, who knows which. Vic certainly does! :)


wkover wrote:

Just to add to the list of confusing things in the rulebook (thread title)...

I'm surprised that the rulebook doesn't clarify the #1 issue that I have to explain to new players: Am I a character at my own location?

In the new terminology, of course, this becomes: Does my own character count as a local character?

The answers to these questions are not obvious (despite people arguing otherwise), and I'm surprised that this question has never been included in any of the previous FAQs.

That may be confusing, but old rules say "character at your location", meaning also your character. While reading, I found one card that says "random other local character" just after doing something to your character. Thus, your character is probably local to him/herself (is there a character that is "it" so we do not discriminate the neuters? :-D). But your idea of explicitly saying that in the rulebook is great - at the cost of 4 words it solves the issue.


Slowly going through Core cards, I generally really like what I see there. For example, white rectangle for then in "<check> THEN <check>" really helps! A few boons in S&S had two checks and it can be easily overlooked and mistaken for OR. But I found several confusing things:

1) Fire Bolt has no Fire Trait
2) Do I understand correctly that you can display an armor at any time even if you are not dealt damage? E.g. Chain Mail: "Display. While displayed: You may ..." If that is true, you can have as many armors displayed as you want, right? Apart from not being able to play them all at once, nothing prevents you from doing that - based on my reading of the rules. So, many fighter characters can now free their hands of armor (not Helms and Shields, of course).
3) Some of my cards have slightly different shade of the top side - e.g. lvl 0 spells are purplish, while lvl 1 spells more bluish. I found it rather cool (level indicator), but now I am not so sure as the other cards do not have this distinction.
4) Wand of Flame / Wand of Enervation - so many keywords. Bury / Banish. If you banish => recovery, and are proficient, discard; if you succeed at check, recharge. Huh, such versatility in outcome.
5) Giant Fly (1) - "After acting, shuffle this monster into a random other location". Nooooo, you cannot get rid of this annoying fly. When there is no other location, it is impossible and that power is ignored, so you CAN get rid of the fly, right?
6) Red Trigger band on an orange Monster (Termite Swarm) is rather hard to notice. Nice and visible on Barriers, though.


Thank you, Vic, for explanation. I would guess it would be vice versa to keep the successful player on his/her toes. The difference between these two variants is especially remarkable at higher adventures.


Yewstance wrote:
Just as an aside; there are a LOT more compatibility issues beyond these. I can name dozens of character powers that fail to work, boons that fail to work, scenarios that are unwinnable with banished closed locations, or just massive difficulty spikes (and very occasional difficulty drops) caused by banishing closed locations (which seems to be responsible for the vast majority of compatibility issues).

Yewstance, I cannot compare to you in the knowledge of PACG (my first-hand experience is only with RotR and S&S), but the point wasn't that these boons fail to work correctly. Just that they do not have any powers in Core. You are told to ignore the powers dealing with closed locations, so in fact these have empty power section and are just a Loot hitpoint and a spell hitpoint :)

S&S Alahazra-Tempest is somewhat affected, true, but it's one minor power and nothing that cannot be changed in errata (like gains Arcane during recovery). Easy
And taking S&S Jirelle-Pirate Queen as an example, principally you are right that move powers are little weaker, but in this case, you want her ship-moving ability not for closing, but for evading those locations "at the start of yourn turn, do something nasty. At least that's my own use of her ability :)
Other than that, everything you said makes sense (even though I do not feel as strongly about mixing pre-Core and Core+)


Vic Wertz wrote:
They're both "you may" instructions, so you may do whichever one you prefer.

Thank you very much for answering, Vic, but in my limited understanding there are two inconsistencies and I don't know which one you answered :-D

Issue 1) You may transfer character who finished DD OR character who even started playing DD - that's based on two "you may" in different storybooks

Issue 2) One option tells you that # in Curse is 3 for adventures 1-3 and the second one that # in Curse is adventure number + adventure level in DD (i.e. up to #=10 in the 7th bonus adventure/scenario). These variants seem mutually exclusive to me and neither of them has the sentence "you may"

If you, however, meant that choosing of the options in Issue 1 (if the hero even completed DD) forces the hero to follow the corresponding options in Issue 2, then I do not understand the intent. The character who didn't finish adventure 3 in DD and is used for Curse goes through #=4,5,6,7,8,9(,10) + has to take 3 wildcards, whereas the character who finished DD adventure path and is supposedly stronger goes through #=3,3,3,4,5,6(,7) and no wildcards?
Sorry, I just don't understand :)


I believe these will be covered by the card-specific rule changes in the near future, but maybe it's best to list them here.

Let's start with Light Armor proficiency ending - noooooooooooo! :) Joking. So there is no Light Armor Proficiency anymore, so some characters will be influenced a lot. What about playing Lini in the RotR with new rules? You play with the same rewards, so you get 3 power feats before you get your role, right? Lini has four boxes, out of which one is Light Armor Proficiency. So all the RotR Linis will lose their slight uniqueness and all will be the same regarding the power section? I'm sad, less variability. *hums Little boxes, on the hillside …*

Second, closed locations are no more, and we should ignore the powers interacting with closed powers. Pan to a close view on the Letter of Marque and Safe Harbor from Skull&Shackles. First adds a type of boon to a closed location, the second makes a closed location temporary place of healing. Both have no other power - so in the new ruling they would become almost useless. Granted, I saw both cards as boons comparable in useability to the old_Blast_Stone (well, Damiel can use it better than everyone else, so it's not exactly useless).


Reading the first two pages of storybooks for the Dragon's Demand (Core) and Curse of the Crimson Throne (Curse of the Crimson Throne, duh), I noticed something strange regarding if you want to play Curse after Dragon's Demand.
Dragon's Demand Adventure Path reward: "You may play another Adventure Path starting with adventure 1. … and treat # as 3 during adventures 1,2,3"
Curse of the Crimson Throne: "You may … or bring in characters who have started Dragon's Demand Adventure Path first. If the latter, you should add one wildcard for every adventure in the Dragon's Demands that the characters have completed; also, increase # by the # of the last scenario you completed, and treat encountered banes' level as higher by that same #"

OK, there are some inconsistencies between rulebooks as written. DDAP reward allows you to play other APs - but Curse allows to play even if you did not finish DDAP. OK, that's a tangle, but suppose Curse allows that and other APs may not - and what is not forbidden, is allowed. So we let it slide.
Wildcards? Yay, some difficulty for the experienced heroes so they are not bored by too-easy banes!
But here's the crucial point - DD says: Curse_# = 3 during 1,2,3. Curse says: Curse_# = Adventure number + # of the last scenario you completed in DD (not adventure????). I do not think these statements can be both true - will the # be 4 in the first adventure or 3? #=5 or 3, #=6 or 3, #=7 or 4 in the subsequent adventures?
Storybook > cards, but when two Storybook contradict? *confused*


Hello PonSquared, I wondered the same, but I believe it is limited to the Dragon's Demand and Curse works similarly to what you would expect.
It threw me off as well when I read my shiny new Core yesterday (Yay!!! :) ). First I thought - huh, a new rule, I guess? And then it was missing in the rule changes text at the end of the rulebook.

So, the way I understand it, you build up the Vault with all 0,1,2,3 boons in the Core (?except several Loot cards? - back to that in a while). This is reinforced by the statement that you should add level 2 Banes at the start of the Path of the Dragon and similarly on the third (and last adventure) for level 3 Banes.
What prevents you from having Level 3 cards in the deck while playing Adventure 1? In the rulebook, in the "Rebuilding" section (p. 17) it is written that you may not keep any boon having level higher than your [b]last played[b] scenario #. So, you have them just for a while at lower levels. It also means that replaying lower scenarios has the potential to easily lose any higher level items from your deck.

Loot (at the same page) has some problems for Dragon's Demand. I am very happy that you may find the Loot cards during gameplay later and that they are not available only once. However, consider the lvl 2 ally Riding Allosaurus (huh, even weirder than Baby Triceratops). You get it as a reward for scenario 1B - OK, that is fine, Loot cards have "level #+1" (p. 17). English is not my first language, so pardon me, if I'm wrong, but that statement is unclear. The intent is surely that "loot cards count as if they had level 1 lower than what is printed" (so you keep it if you earned it, and can find it 1 adventure later), but it can be more easily construed as "their level is 1 higher than printed" or "their level is always 1 higher than the current adventure level - that is the meaning of #". They should be stored along with cards for Future Adventures.
Back to Dragon's Demand: you should mix all the cards into the Vault, right? Including the four Loot cards. So if you encounter Riding Allosaurus in scenario 1*, you can keep it per rules on p. 17 (if we use their probable intent). Storybook trumps cards, cards trump rules (p. 1). I intend to play with those cards as if they should be added along with Banes of the same printed level.


Everything is really very nice and you did a lot of great work, but nooooooo, I see changes in Blast Stone! The least useful item I've met - except for Anchor, of course - is now forever ruined. </irony>
Yeah, OK, it was useful in Damiel's hands - sort of, as it is Alchemical.

Based on changes in the old buddies like Light Crossbow, Throwing Axe and Sage, the conversion rules for the older Adventure Path cards will be even more extensive than I expected. Well, it is surely in the interest of good playthrough - waiting eagerly till it hits the stores.


Very interesting goblin adventure and adventurers. On the bard, Pizzaz (pun intended), there is one instruction that made me smile. You have to whistle a tune and recharge a card to use ?his? second power. So the player has to whistle a tune, otherwise it won't work? Thematic for a bard! It reminds me of funny Magic the Gathering editions - such as Blacker Lotus and Ashnod's Coupon cards.


Master_Grabnar wrote:
Does anyone else have any suggestions? I only have the SnS characters and the character add-on for the set, so they'd have to be two of those characters. I don't have any class decks, and I don't feel like running goblins for this playthrough. Sorry, Yewstance.

You do not need character add-ons to properly use Ranzak. He is a promo card, and if you don't mind that you won't have his character token card, you can play with him using his character sheet. That sheet is even included in the Skull&Shackles character sheets.

I personally play Skull & Shackles only with the character sheets cut to the minimal size + token cards, and my power / character cards remain in the box.

I like Jirelle as a character, she is perfectly suited for survival (pun intended) in this AP. Group her with a magic-user (Arcane/Divine) - Alahazra, Lem or maaaaaaybe Seltyiel - and focus on her Wisdom. With Lem or Damiel, Jirelle is competing for Finesse/Dexterity-based weapons, which is not ideal. Maybe Oloch would be fine companion to Jirelle as well.


Regarding the sleeves, I use KMC Perfect Size, they are tight and don't fold around the card edges as larger sleeves do. So far, only 1 sleeve got destroyed by shuffling (Shackles up to the endo of AD3), so they are rather durable from my POV.

As to the characters - apart from Merisiel, none of them are exceptional fighters. You can probably play Seelah focusing on melee, but I would rather play Valeros or Amiri. Sajan is ... weird and I have no experience with him in the physical game. His ability to recharge blessings is fine if you stack him with items, allies and whatever that can be recharged. That way, you can get to the blessings fast. Otherwise, he seems even worse combat-wise than Lini at the start of the Adventure path. If you prune his deck down only to blessings (and some Amulet of fists, maybe) by discarding, you can fight rather nicely with N×1d10 dies (Dex-based combat, Erastil likes!), but any before-or-after-you-act damage is terrible.

(Disclaimer: I finished physical RotR using Lini - my character, Harsk, Seoni; in the start, we had Valeros as well)


I have played so far only up to start of AD3 with Jirelle, Lirianne, Alahazra and Damiel, but tried the first two scenarios also with a different group (Damiel, Feiya, Merisiel, Jirelle, Lem). I believe that some scenarios are harder (AD B-2 Rum Punch and the AD 2-3 The Toll of the Bell were finished with great luck at the last possible turn). Rum Punch ended that way in both playthroughs :) Sometimes, the insanely hard scenario becomes easier due to randomness (Henchman in the first turn, for example), but "easy" scenario can also turn into impossible.
But I don't believe that the amount of heroes is much of an issue (even though it increases card count from 50 to 60), but maybe the party composition is. Or you have to find the proper boons to suit the party. So far, my experience is that Damiel and Alahazra are outstanding in combat, Jirelle is close behind due to her rerolling power. Oloch and Feyia seemed to me a little too situational with their abilities but I believe they may be great, once you find one of the correct playstyle...
So, hold on and it may improve.


Ysalmari21 wrote:
... I loved how different it was, and it may have been my favorite scenario from a gameplay perspective, but I didn't know why anything was happening. I love that there is more story, and I would like a focus of the way stories are written to be explaining why the rules have thematic significance. I don't just want a cutscene, I want something that gives me context to the locations, the scenario rules, and the villains.

Well, sometimes it may be hard to explain why something was made this way, as there is the requirement for gameplay. OK, so you cannot evade Sharks, but why? Because they scent your blood in the water. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not. From my point of view, the background story is very important. That is what I love at the bug-ridden app for Runelords - the story and goofy situations like Lini rhyming with/against the goblins.

Do you know the great Adventure Guide written by Kittenhoarder and Autoduelist (available on BGG)? A lot of story (fan-made, but great) there. That is the small piece that was missing in the great tapestry (pun intended) of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ahoy, sailor!
Royster has some friends to recharge even in the B deck. And the ability to recharge his liege Lady, who might have been a card discarded due to damage, is not bad, but underpowered at first.
Aristocrats:
B: Heartbreak Hinsin
2: (loot) Lady Agasta Smithee
4: Audessa Reyquio, Lady Cerise Bloodmourn
5: Arronax Endymion

Royster's ability is only reveal (and errataed to be only once per turn, for obvious reasons), so it really isn't bad, once you have a proper target ;)
I wish you calm waters!