Trinia Sabor

Longshot11's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. 1,130 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wkover wrote:


(Allowing the close would defeat the purpose of the Wight rule in the first place

Maybe I'm not following, but why would it?!

From what you describes, sounds like the following would be legal:

- Defeat Zombie Minions
- Look for boon, don't find any, summon Wight
- Defeat Wight
- Attempt to close (due to defeating Wight)
- fail to close
- Attempt to close (due to defeating Zombie Minions)

Note, that sequence would NOT be allowed pre-Core were 'closing henchmen" wanted you to attempt to close 'immediately', but now that restriction has been lifted.
Still, it strikes me as a bit odd if the above sequence is intended as it's not punishing enough for what I have come to expect from PACG, but from what you explain - sounds like a perfectly valid play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
We've said before that "the things you do must directly affect the situation" covers only things that definitely affect the situation, not things that potentially affect the situation.

I'm sorry, Vic, but that's neither an argument I remember being made on this forum (which, granted, is not saying anything), but more importantly - that's not what we're told in the *Rulebook* itself. As far as I can find, the ONLY criteria for relevance (directly affecting the situation) we're given is "the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful". I'm positively baffled that none of the other veterans here seems concerned by the dicrepancy of what (I believe) RAW is telling us versus what *you* are telling us above.

To the contrary, I distinctly remember *official* support on this forum that adding a trait to a check IS legal, even if you're not even guaranteed to use that trait in any way. How is that different to the "potentially" affecting situations you say are illegal?!?

The lack of strong reaction to this "new" directive strongly implies that it is *me* that is missing something crucial where it comes to RAW - so I'll kindly ask any player/designer to point me to the Rulebook text I'm missing/misinterpreting.

As far as intent goes, I strongly disagree with Frencois that Vic's suggestion "makes sense". The idea that I would be allowed to play Cure mid-combat if I have 2 cards in Discards, but not if I have 3, or if I have 0 cards in my Deck, but not if I have 1 is deeply troubling. It's an exception on top of an exception and adds a mind-frolicking level of intuitive-lessness for apparently no (imho) good reason.

Accidentally, I've never brought these particular situations to the forum because - as Yewstance rightly notices- there doesn't seem a particularly strong designer drive to "fix" the 'affecting the situation' criteria and to cement them in a clear and transparent way, and the designers seem content to leave a level of 'nebulousness' to the whole affair (leaving tables to come up with on-the-spot rulings for far-out corner cases) rather than to paint themselves into a corner with any particularly strict and rigid ruling. If anything, each time these issues are brought up, it only seems to further muddy the actual workings of the 'relevance' rules.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Definitely sounds like it should have it.

Then again, aren't you given a choice if/what lower-level *boons* to purge anyway?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:


- "put X on top of your deck" > "recharge X"

Surely you meant "reload X" here? :) I mean, it's not like these words are practically synonyms or anything...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matsu Kurisu wrote:

Is this a change in Core from the old rules?

Under old rules, I had though you couldn't play cards that did not effect the encounter during an encounter e.g. I can play cards to evade, impact checks or reduce damage as they are interacting with the encountered card or its effects but not heal until after the encounter is resolved as healing doesn't interact with the encountered card/effects
Am I wrong? (This happens a lot :-) )

You're not necessarily wrong, and this docen't concern any Core conversion. Even on my table, there's no concensus on my (or Frencois') example legality, but let's take a look at the relevant (heh) rule, as of MM:

"RULES: AFFECTING THE SITUATION
In some situations, you are limited to playing cards or using powers
that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases,
the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for
your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect
the situation.
"

If you take damage - you can't play Healing, as damage affects your hand only and Healing only affects your discards/deck. If you're instructed to discard from deck or bury discards however - these effects are *directly* impacted by Healing, without you needing to *do something else*. So, while perhaps a bit counter-intuitive, this actually seems to fit quite snugly under the current rules as-written.

(One more intuitive way we've found to communicate this is: think of Healing to Deck/Discards manipulation the same way you would think about Reduce Damage powers to Suffer Damage effect - they are, if you will, two different "defenses" that you use to counter two different "attacks", but they run on the same gameplay logic)

I am, of course, open to anyone official chiming in if and why we're doing it wrong.

EDIT: You are, obviously, still under the limitation of "1 card/type/ step or check" - so if you played Holy Strike for your combat check, you can't also play Cure in response to "When suffer damage, discard from your deck instead" (Taking Damage still being part of Attempting the Check). Etc., etc...


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

Pretty much anytime BETWEEN steps.

Otherwise, only if it's "relevant" (it doesn't require you to perform any other action for the Healing spell to affect the situation) - which it will almost *never* be during an encounter.

Paradoxically enough, if a bane says "If you suffer damage, discard from the top of your deck instead" - that seemingly *would* allow you to play Healing (it can prevent you from dying and its shuffle will change the top cards you'll discard - neither of which will require additional action than playing the Healing spell/item/ally). PACG can get weird sometimes :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Now I just have to ask - where are our Kobold HEROES? :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:


So even if it wasn't meant to be,

Well, that would, in fact, mean it's "broken", innit? I'm not going to get into the mathematics of why it's so here, I've ranted enough on the Core's Veterans elsewhere.

Also, I felt the same way you do ("don't fix it") about a great deal of changes (cards or rules-wise) but those were made either way, because other people thought they were broken. I respect you too much, Frencois, to go digging through your post history, but I'm pretty sure you've called for a FAQ or two before, non? So let's just agree to disagree here :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

See title. All other banes' non-combat CtDs appear to be single-veteran.

(bonus question: I'm not playing Quick-Start scenario personally, but in case the Villain is *undefeated* with two un-Guarded locations - wouldn't players need TWO Blessings in the Vault?!?)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I got my Core box, but it was missing two markers (they were punched out of their cards and nowhere to find in the box). I was wandering if anyone else has encountered this issue or did I just draw the single short stick of the lot?

On the practical side, did anyone play a big party and found they needed all 7 tokens from a single design? I'm really loath to bother support over this, but the completionist in me has difficult time reconciling paying that much for an "incomplete product" and it's definitely not something I'll want to have to consider during gameplay :(


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
- winning feats too fast

- said no PACG player I know, ever. Just thought I'd add a diverse opinion ;)

Frencois wrote:
- not enough scenarios / level

Actually, we had similar concerns. However, we realize that the reduced total number of scenarios would make it that much more likely that we'd actually finish an AP in under a year. I strongly suspect that might have been Lone Sharks leading motivation here.

Frencois wrote:
- not being able to use more that 3 power feats or card feats

- wait, what? Are you talking about DD only being 3 adventures long, or am I missing something?

Finally, what is the lower cap that Keith is talking about? Is it that your Role power feat actually counts as your L3 power feat, or is something else? Even so, Card and Skill feat rules in general seem to remain unchanged (at 6 feats each for an AP) - or is some change thereas well??


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

*sigh*

^More reasons why Paizo should put out a FAQ that "suffer a scourge" and "mark a scourge card" ARE the same thing (or, if I'm totally wrong - how and why they *aren't*).

Mike had said (due to changing a location named "Ship" to "Boat") that "We can't have a location with the same name as a card type." - indeed, it's less than intuitive design.

Now, however, there's TWO things called "scourge" in the game! There's a CARD TYPE named "Scourge" and there's also the "SCOURGE MARKER" - which is the "real" Scourge that players suffer and care about - but it not being identified as such WILL continue to be a great source of confusion in the future...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour2 wrote:
Since you couldn't evade the Barghest, the Barghest is defeated (since there is no instead). But before that, a random local character would have to still encounter it, since that happens before the defeat.

I disagree. To me, [it is evaded and a random local character encounters it] is a whole power, that must be applicable in its entirety or not at all; so if evasion is impossible - you also ignore the second encounter. I admit I don't have strict rule support in that, but it's what makes sense to me flavor-wise - the idea is obviously that on 1, the Barghest escapes and another character encounters the SAME Barghest. So if it CAN'T escape (and is therefore defeated)- obviously it can't be encountered again.

There are a few things here however:

- First, Frencois's second option is not correct either - having a character encounter the Barghest on 1 is NOT avenging

- Second, if you roll 1, you CAN'T actually avenge - you DID succeed at all the checks to defeat (see zeroth_hour's second rules quote), it only so happens that the monster's powers save it from you! (and you can only avenge it if it is UNDEFEATED - which evaded explicitly ISN'T ((see zeroth_hour's first rules quote)

- Third, "a card can never cause you to summon a copy of itself" - so the second encounter CANNOT be a summon. However, that's a double-edged sword - as it now makes it possible to run an infinite number of encounters (or, more realistically, at least a very absurd number of them), as the Barghest continues to force itself upon you on a particularly bad string of 1 rolls (which the summon rules specifically aimed to cut off)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ithaqua47 wrote:
Does that go for the entire party? Because the active player would never need to avenge.

It can happen. With Villain powers like "Before acting, a local character summons and encounters X. If X is undefeated, Villain s undefeated" - you may want to sling that summon to another local buddy, but if they fail - you'll probably want to avenge them.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You can display it at any time between the steps of a turn.

During an encounter, you may only display it if you're also going to use one of its powers (i.e. it's "relevant" to whats happening during the encounter).

If it's already displayed, you can use its banish power at ANY time, as long as it's appropriate (i.e. when the target character takes elemental damage).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Wow. Season of the Kobolds? That's the first I'm hearing about this, can we learn a bit more? Is this a regular-sized season, or more like the mini-Season of the Goblins AP?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:
If the before acting/after acting power doesn't specify "each character" then if the person encountering the card ignores it, it has no effect. This is because the person encountering the card is the one actually carrying out those instructions, so if they ignore it, those instructions no longer apply

How would you resolve that if the active player doesn't ignore the Accursed Priests AA (which can potentially affect another character)? Would you allow that character to then play powers to ignore the AA themselves?


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

For the reasons mentioned above, it always made sense to me for "ignore" to be a party-wide effect, or else to at least be able to "freely" play your boons to allow other characters to ignore stuff. our table has discussed implementing either of those as house-rule, but we haven't done so so far, as we don't want to "cheat".

I'll say, each of our players, while encountering Giant Fly, would play a "ignore AA" card to negate that power and wouldn't bat an eye.

For the Accursed Priest, we would allow

A)Active player plays "ignore AA" and that power never fires off (essentially making the ignore party-wide) <<we see that as similar to Merisiel evading a Horde barrier - Meri *could* let the Barrier fire off, and evade her personal summon, but it's a lot better to just evade the barrier itself altogether),
<<and there WILL be some argument here, as the contrary example would be given - shouldn't we by the same token allow the active player to ignore a Dragon's a mass BA damage power for the whole party, with a single card; which was explicitely states as illegal play by the dev, but which has always been - as Yewstance intuits- the play that matches flavor and, more importantly, player expectations, on our table. So, even though we keep playing by the rules, we strongly feel the rules are not "right" in this instance.>>

THEN

B)If active player doesn't ignore AA altogether, Priest's AA fires off: we would select a player to suffer it, then that play may play "ignore AA" to not do so (and this CAN again be the active player himself, in case the distinction matters!); if they do - the Priest's AA is considered satisfied and we wouldn't make another character bury a blessing.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yup. The practicalities of actually doing so are dubious, however.

EDIT: I can see it argued that you can only attempt to close the location you're in AT THE START of your Close Location step, but that's not supported by the rules, way I read it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
GM OfAnything wrote:
Wearing heavy armor is an advantage against ambushers trying to catch you flat-footed.

Not really (realistically, heavy armor would impair your mobility and senses, so it would actually be easier to be caught flat-footed), but if we accept this is true - wouldn't that be true for ALL ambushers? Shouldn't it be reflected in the very card literally named Ambush?

For reference, "ambushing" in PACG has traditionally been reflected with powers like "If you're alone at your location, (nasty stuff happens)" AND/OR "You must succeed at Perception X or (take that, you pesky adventurer!)"


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour2 wrote:

Captain America dual shielding.

I think it's fine.

LOL :D

To be fair, those would probably be considered a pair of Scizores :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

This monster used to have the very sensible, from RP perspective, ability to let you explore again when defeated (i.e. - you use the Lizard's caves as a shortcut to new places).

I guess that was considered too sensible and too pleasant player experience.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
There was a quote from Vic around, to the effect that building a strategy around two shields in PACG makes only slightly more sense than doing the same in real life, so yeah - that's pretty much the official stance.

I think it's certainly a viable strategy for Valeros, more so than such a quote would suggest.

Quote was pre-Core and concerned the viability of then-available characters keeping 2+ shields in their hand to be able to continuously reduce Combat damage.

Even with this Valeros, the exploration capacity point stands, esp. in 6-p games.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
Either way, one of Valeros' role cards all but encourages you to make use of this, but it will fill up an already-small hand size, as mentioned, so it's not without significant downsides. Hardly unreasonably powerful.

There was a quote from Vic around, to the effect that building a strategy around two shields in PACG makes only slightly more sense than doing the same in real life, so yeah - that's pretty much the official stance.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:
The rulebook defines source as a card. So if the same card does multiple instances of damage in a single step,

Genuine question: where do you and Yewstance get that the rules, as currently written, even *care* about steps? Way I see it, if "source" is defined a card (as opposed to powers - and powers are what happens in different steps of the encounter!) - then, if you're allowed "no more than one boon of each type... for the same source" - that's 1 in TOTAL - for all the BA, CtD, AA, Resolve the Encounter and any other step that could be invoked by the same card?!?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
I would argue there's no difference between your first two suggestions. Whether card or power, I struggle to think of a pre-existing bane where the distinction would somehow have a relevant ruling

It would matter in conjunction with skizzer's rulebook quote above:

skizzerz wrote:

"Suffering Damage" on p13 brings us the following quote:

Quote:
Collectively, the party may play no more than one boon of each type to affect damage to the same character from the same source

So if "source" is defined as a CARD as opposed to a power - that means you get a *single* Armor against the entire card - BA, CtD, AA.

We both know that can't be the intent, but it's certainly what the rulebook is telling you right now.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Huh. In my country, the "default" rounding for 0.5+ is UP, so it's pretty clear cut if no "round down" is specified. Guess it might work differently in the US. *shrug*


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:


My reading is that the "one card type per check/step" limitation is meant to apply separately to each instance of damage, with 'each instance' defined as something like [i]"damage from the same source...

Actually, one of the things I want solved in a resolution is an official definition of "source of damage":

- is it a single card?
- is it a single power?
- is it a single instance of "suffer" within the same power (so "Before acting, suffer 1d4 Combat damage, then 1d4 Poison damage" would be TWO sources of damage)

I want to point out something that people (I, certainly) seem to have missed, which actually radically changes the game on damage, RAW - the game currently actually DOES have TWO definitions of "source". However, they are:

Glossary, p.31:
"Source: A thing that makes you suffer damage or a scourge. See Suffering Damage on page 13."
- the definition as a "thing" is so ridiculously nebulous, it's useless.

So, let's see what Suffering Damage, p.13 says:
"When you suffer damage from a source such as a monster or a location..."

So, the current Rulebook, in no uncertain terms specifies that "source of damage" is a CARD - with all the repercussions of not being able to play the same boon types for BA, failed combat and AA damage. I'm willing to bet that's not the INTENT - but there it is.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thank you for this thread, Skizzers. This issue had been a bugbear of mine for ages and I had frankly given up hope that it will be resolved definitely.

Let's hope it get caught in the revisionist wave and this time get fixed :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't argue that you're playing a boon/card.

I do argue that you're playing a POWER (as you would with a Scenario or Location power) - see Skizzers quote above that confirms it being considered a power.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Just to be sure where we're standing:

So, with those "you may" When the Hour, you ARE "playing a power", but you're NOT "playing the card", correct?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
If Curse takes up a row when sleeved, and you have an empty row, then as long as the next AP isn't much larger than Curse, you won't actually have to take Curse out...

I'll hold hope that this is rather a "how to deal with the existing issue currently" tip, rather that that we won't get a better box for the next AP :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:

That sounds super cool and interesting (particularly a 'pure' Harrower style character - maybe another printing of Erasmus?) and I'd totally buy that in a heartbeat, but I'm pretty certain it's never going to get made.

(I can think of heaps of character ideas. For example, he could make his own Harrowing at the start of each Adventure - regardless of the AP - as a special deckbuilding rule, but starts with a 14 card deck list. He could emphasize hourglass scouting and manipulation - swap the hour with a blessing of the same or greater Level in his hand, for example - or have an Occult-Adventures style setup where his specific powers/strengths vary with the checks to acquire listed on the hour.)

That's so cool and it doesn't exist. Now I'm bummed.

(Maybe I'll make a custom character for it way later...)

Someone turn on the Sharksignal quick! I have some (more) money I need to throw their way!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
CoderOfCodes wrote:

I plan to use RotR base set and purchased the entire Season of the Runelords. Looking at the reward for Adventure 3: Into the Mountain. "Each player unlocks the ability to play Shardra from the WotR Character Add-On Deck using the Oracle Class Deck."

What is an appropriate substitution for this if you do not have that Class Deck?

Тhis reward is a bonus for and only concerns Organized Play. If you mean a substitute for OP - there isn't one, as it's a very tightly controlled medium, rules-wise.

If you talk about your own HOME games - you don't need a substitute, you are already granted the reward of a Role card and power feat. As I said the Shardra thing is just *bonus* to that for OP only.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
Just like if you have an armor that says "While displayed, reduce damage suffered by 1" then taking 1 point of damage (and having it reduced to 0) would in no way be 'playing' the armor, because you never manipulated it to indicate it was being played.

This is not a fair comparison, since the armor wording lacks "may" - i.e. it's a permanent effect in play, that you have no choice in applying.

To me, When the Hour falls in the same nebulous category of "effects" as At This Location and During This Scenario (WtH is basically a randomized "During this Turn" scenario effect). There was an old pre-Core extensive discussion on the subject and IIRC it fell on the "they're not *played* powers, but they're powers you *use*, or somesuch). It would be relevant if someone with stronger search-fu then mine menages to find it.

Personally, if I have power that says "When a power would allow you to reroll a die, you may reroll one additional die" - I would rule it legal after applying the First's WtH effect.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Personally, although not that big of a dial, I dislike how they implemented the Scourges. That, as evident by this thread, leave us able to argue about "removing a card" VS "removing a marker". I don't believe that's what Lone Sharks intended - they just did the markers to save on card count (and table space, which is apparently a big concern) - but when they say "remove a Scourge" - they always mean "remove a Scourge marker"; removing the Scourge *card* is just a meta thing that the player do when the card is no longer relevant (affecting no character or location).

As for the "flavor argument" (i.e. what would be "logical" for a Poison, or Entanglement, etc. to work) - I too prefer when game mechanics match flavor, but as Lone Sharks have shown time and again - they'd eschew "logic" for "streamlined gameplay" (and that's good, IMHO)- "Caltrops VS Skeletons" and all that.

Still, the whole "location scourge" thing is more trouble than it's worth, IMHO, and goes against that very same "streamlined gameplay". So, count me in a camp that'd prefer that when location scourge is remove - local character scourges of the same type are also purged; possibly as a general rule.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:
Removing the scourge card, though, would remove the marker.

That's not what RAW says, though.

First, you don't remove the "card" Scourge until there's at least one active target (character or location)

Second, as quoted by Jenceslav, a location scourge marks everyone at the location IN ADDITION to the location itself being marked.

Third, Locked Door instructs you to ONLY remove the scourge from the location, not from the marked players.

I'd prefer if you were right, but that's just not in the rules the way I see it right now.


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

I'm pretty sure the Iomedae trait thing is *primarily* intended for the Bastion, the rest of the options is just bonus.

Otherwise, good catch about that recharge not being "playing the Bastion". So you should definitely be able to reduce any Combat damage by 2xMythic charges.

As for "all damage", there's something funky about that wording up there... The way it's written, sounds like you can only recharge an Iomedae card if you previously reveal the Bastion... but that can't be right.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Huh, odd. Sounds like it would make more sense if defeating the Door unmarks all the characters there, but as-is - you better rush that location into closing.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Slacker2010 wrote:
@Longshot, Im fairly sure there is a ruling that once you commit to making the roll you cannot ignore the effects. So once you attempted the Knowledge check you cannot stop that process.

Well, the whole game is exception based. Especially when it comes to cards that straight up state that you should *ignore* something - they override the general rule that that thing should happen. (Only the word "never" can't be overriden - per the Rulebook)

What you say is true in the sense that, as I mentioned above - you DO incur consequences when you commit to the Knowledge check: if you succeed and you're Shardra - you get to examine; if you fail and you're at the Glassworks - you lose a card. You do NOT have to incur the rest of the AA power, however, if you chose to ignore - and you can ignore it, because there's "relevance" for playing WH at that exact time.

(Strictly speaking, IIRC, the rule you're talking about concerns making a choice, as in "you may succeed at check X or you may discard Y to...". If you chose to attempt the check, but fail, you may not then backsies and chose to discard a card (the more "expensive", but surefire option))

EDIT: Actually, here it is, from the meta rules at the end of Rulebook:
"If a location makes you choose between attempting a check or banishing a card before closing it, you can’t attempt the check and then banish the card if you fail" - though this is not a rule of itself, rather an example for the meta-rule "Choices matter".)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Skizzerz was correct—you reload it in the After Acting step. That "additionally" does not define timing

Whoa, hold the presses! This is actually a pretty heavy statement that... actually makes a lot of sense? I DO admit that's NOT my table's understanding of this wording and wouldn't have played it so, but now that we've been told otherwise - this can't just be left as a by-the-by comment.

First, all of Yewstance's questions are valid and important and merit answer.

Second, if we take Vic's comment about ""additionally" does not define timing" on face value (and I can't see why not, even if it deeply bothers me for clashing with my reading of the rules so far), consider that the following should be true:

- We have an Example Monster: "Combat 20 THEN Combat 25. AA, succeed at Knowledge 9 check or roll 1d4; on a roll of 1, you die."

- I reveal Warhammer for first check. I CAN'T reload it at this point to ignore AA - meaning I risk losing it to damage, but also meaning I get to use it for the second combat
- I reveal a Longsword +3 for the second CtD - I have already satisfied Warhammer's prerequisite for the "additionally" so I don't need to stick with it (I still can't reload it as "ignore AA" is still not "relevant" to the action at hand
- I defeat the monster, AA time! - I can now reload the WH to ignore the AA power in it's entirety but I chose not to!
- I make a Knowledge check and I fail. I can STILL reload WH to ignore AA, but I chose not to.
- I roll 1d4 and I get a 1 - I should die! So NOW I finally decide to reload WH and this stage I ignore the AA power and get on with my life
- Any effects from the AA up to this point still remain (say, Shardra making a Knowledge check at the Glassworks, with the candlestick; or anything caring about me rolling a die - the d4) - exactly as evading with a Whip after a failed combat doesn't DeLoarean the rest of the encounter back to its start

So, did I get all of this right? If not - why? It DOES *feel* somehow wrong to me, but I'm still pretty shocked by this new revelation and I can't find Rules ground to support it - or to oppose it, for that matter. Any Rulebook quotes this or that way are welcome.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The summoned monster totally IS an encounter - that hasn't really changed since RotR. So, yeah, char B *can* avenge.

Not much point in doing so, however, since he WON'T be closing - the To Close applies to Char A and it says "summon and defeat". Did Char A defeat the summon? - No, he did not. Do I wish it worked otherwise? - Yes, I do.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Scripted wrote:
Does this not count as activating a power on the card?

It doesn't count as "playing" it, which is the important part - exactly as per Mork's argument above about Embiggen. The clue you should be looking for is the word "may" (as in "you may...") - which signifies that you must chose to play the power. "Mirror Image" does NOT have it - so it's always in effect when applicable and you MUST apply the effect, even if for some reason you would prefer to take damage.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The only thing that comes to mind is the stated intent not to have more than one copy of a card anymore - so if you want more of this thing, you have to wait for the Full Plate. Granted, that would be a pretty poor excuse for having two identical cards with the same powers (and since I assume Half-Plate has a lower CtA - it actually ends up being *the better* card!).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Note this new rule which was NOT true in pre-Core:

" • Display: ... Displaying a card and immediately activating a power on it counts as playing it once, not twice."

So yeah, displaying and using Embiggen mid-encounter counts as single spell-play, and since it's "freely" - you're allowed to do it (subject to the usual "relevance" clause, as noted by MorkXII)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:
... but not the "if this card matches the hour recharge it instead of discarding" powers of many blessings, because the latter power doesn't require playing the card.

Well, technically, this (just as magic armors's "recharge at end turn") was NOT considered power in pre-Core, but a nebulous "instruction". Unless that has changed in Core, Frencois's quote must be targeting something else.

For example, if we have a hypothetical ally that says "Discard to treat this card as if has the powers of an ally in any character's discrads." and you use it to target Daji (Feiya's pet fox), you would copy its "recharge to" and "discard to" powers, but not the "you may treat this card as if its level is #+1" *instruction*. This is as much true in the old rules as in the new ones, however, so I feel Frencois's quoted rule just obfuscates things rather than making them more clear.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
MorkXII wrote:

The Story Bane Roster card says that if you randomly choose a story bane of a level higher than #, randomly choose a different one.

I would suggest that you would do the same thing if the story bane you rolled isn't available for other reasons,

This is now an official FAQ and edited in the PDF rulebook.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You roll D10 (your Dex die) + 1 (your Wis skill modifier)

(I assume you made a typo and that's your option 2). Otherwise, I don't know where your d10+2 option comes from)

EDIT: Damn ninjas!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
MorkXII wrote:
All of the Harrow blessings are level 1, so the situation ryric suggests is possible.

Oh! My bad. I assumed we keep the old "each AD adds new card types of its tier" system. Soo... there are no AD 2-6 blessings in Curse then?!?

In that case, esp. in a 6-player game, ryric's dilemma seems all but guaranteed, and I'd chalk it up to a very weird oversight. I can't imagine any of my players will be particularly happy to part with the blessings they've earned fair and square for their decks, just to give them up for another player's random draw.

Also, if so, that will create a very weird "invalid deck" situations that fall between the "After the scenario: rebuilding" and before "Building the Vault" for the new adventure. I mean, it seems intuitive that we'd just have to draw a random AD-2 blessing, but still...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:
The AP box should be the default storage solution for AP cards when they are not in use.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'm honestly surprised Paizo/Lone Shark missed a step on that front with Curse, considering they seem to have made all the right calls with the Core box, but I suppose there were quite a lot of other things to juggle on two simultaneous big-box releases. Still, adding a few "card type" dividers to future AP boxes shouldn't be that big of a deal so let's hope we see that rectified in the next AP products.

EDIT: BTW, can anyone let me know if Curse box also allows sleeved storage?

1 to 50 of 1,130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>