Trinia Sabor

Longshot11's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. 1,218 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, sorry. I should've said "SOME experienced players" (which is my observation), and "too high price" was a bit of an over-statement (which, in our case, would be more true for single blessings and banished locations). We WILL get used to it, I suppose, but only because the "we should play it *right*" sentiment outdoes the "we should play it *fun*" in this regard - however, there's a definite built up frustration in MY tables (as I said, we see no benefit from this change and having to re-adjust to it).

On the difficulty side, I think I provided examples where Recovery makes the game *objectively* more difficult - *especially* for 6-player (which, again, adds to my group frustration, as again there's the feeling that *our* playstyle gets the short end of the stick). I'd be glad if someone points out to a repercussion we missed that makes the game also objectively easier, to compensate for that (and not just "easier to learn" or "clearer to understand").

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Slacker2010 wrote:
Recovery has bothered us the most. We feel it slows the game down more than the old rules. ... This creates a dead-time we are noticing. Assuming we don't adopt recovery rules, what issues would we run into?

I hear you, man. I have one of those tables that really hates the new "recovery" and thinks it's a major step back, that only serves to artificially jack up the difficulty; we don't do this thing where somebody's rolling their dice, while someone else is acting on the table, so we can't see any of the supposed benefits either.

"Simplification" IS an indisputable consequence, but while it's good for new players (I suppose), it came to too high a price for experienced players. Many people on my table still try to recharge their spells mid-encounter, just for the sheer habit of it, and the confusion and take-backs are really annoying and slowing us down, rather than the other way around.

The "exploits" skizzers mentioned seem to be a non-issue to me, as they're usually fixed on card level, and I can't recall any popping in MM at all.

While Yewstance advises to stick with recovery because it "will be the norm", this is no good argument to stick with a bad rule (our table, for instance, threw perma-death right out the gate way back in RotR) if its killing your fun, and I get the impression you ask about the impact if you actually home-rule this. So here are a few things:

- Healing is better: you can heal your important spells that you failed to recharge mid-turn, as opposed to having to wait for the next turn - and then maybe even draw them again at reset

- Risk management is better: depending on if you recharge or not a spell, you know exactly how much "life" you got left mid-turn, so you can decide if you want to push yourself further. With Recovery, you can't know how much cards will be in your deck until the end of your turn (and remember, the last healing opportunity would be BEFORE recovery - so your life might very well come to depend on if you recharge or not!)

- Caster deck management is better: especially with all the new recharge cards and powers, it really makes a difference if you recharge a Cure/combat spell at the start of your turn, and then "push it up" with 2-3 more recharged cards (allies, items, etc..) in the course of your turn, as opposed to having all your spells stacked on the bottom of your deck in "per-turn" clusters. Also, powers that shuffle and let you draw make it that much more likely you're going to see spells recharged mid-turn sooner.

- the only "issues" you may run in, that I can think of, are some powers that target "during Recovery", but I'm pretty sure you should be able to ad hoc these (mostly by equating them with "when you attempt to recharge X...")

So, in essence, you'd be making your game objectively easier if you wing it old school, so your choice would probably come down to where the balance lies for you between having fun and any "hardcore" impulses.

Happy adventuring, one way or the other! :)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wkover wrote:
Frencois wrote:
There is no reason to make them « freely » playable IMHO.
For what it's worth, I'm just trying to suss out whether the omission of "freely" was accidental or deliberate. I'm fine with whatever the powers at be decide.

Like Frencois, I'm convinced that the answer to this depends on the pending resolution he mentioned in his first post (i.e if damage reduction is treated as its own instance where card type limitations are concerned) - and historically, that's enough of a reason for devs not to rush with an answer. Of course, even if that's made into a rule, "freely" would still have an impact - as it would allow you to play TWO damage-reduction spells on the same damage.

Pending an official answer, I think you're pretty safe playing Mirror Image even if a spell was played on combat (which, as you note, WAS allowed pre-Core), but NOT playing Mirror Image AND and another damage reduction spell on the same damage (which was NOT allowed even in pre-Core).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:
Off the top of my head I can't remember such a card. (I've a vague feeling I've seen it, though.

I don't believe you have. As you say - given current rules and card layout design - Lone Sharks simply have NO way to indicate something like that. To achieve OP's Option C, they would have to use the monster's power section, with something like:

"While acting, after you attempt a Combat check against this card, attempt a Combat X check; suffer damage as if you attempt a check to defeat. If you fail this check, this card is undefeated."

This would be quite cumbersome and unneeded. Also, Lone Shark on the whole DOESN'S want to spare you any checks to defeat, so I can't imagine them doing it. Monsters requiring 2 checks to defeat are generally "bosses" and I imagine the reason they have an alternative second (or first) check is there more for mechanical, not thematical reasons: the second check should allow casters a chance to win the encounter, even if they don't have a second combat spell on hand.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Oh, gee, if only *someone* had pointed out that issue during playtest...

wkover wrote:
Warning! The above post is a pretty big spoiler for scenario 6D, the finale for Crimson Throne.

To be honest, I don't think that spoiling a BUG should count as spoiler. OP doesn't mention any particulars about the story development, and only mentions the name of the card involved in said bug.

EDIT: And, to actually add a constructive suggestion for what a "tight", non-spoilery design might've been, that players in OP's situation could use as a "homemade FAQ":

Curse 6D FAQ:
At the end of During This Scenario add:
"When a Story Bane is evaded, a character may banish a weapon in their hand or discards and replace it with a weapon of their choice from the Vault."

There are several possible wordings to the same effect, which spread on a scale between "exploitable" and "spoilery". The above is possibly the most exploitable, but also the least spoilery. I think.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Keith said wrote:
Some locations lend themselves more to a market trip than others.

Keith, could please provide a little insight on the changes to Academy in particular?

IMHO, this location has been horrendously redesigned to a point where it loses any thematic cohesion and goes against its supposed "flavor". RotR Academy used to be the best (and one of maybe three) "shopping stop" for Casters, with 5 spells in its location, and would often be left open to explore even after henchman is defeated. The new "academy" is instead a "danger high" location with friggin SIX banes inside - i.e. a "close on sight" location - and to add insult to injury it sees the number of spells inside reduced to a measly 2 - about on par with a bunch of other locations that aren't inherently very "magical" or, well, "academical". Sure, if you had called it "CURSED Academy" or something, I would have no issue with it, but as is - this a more homicidal learning institution than friggin' Hogwards!!

One possible explanation I can see is that you actually wanted to "buff" the extra exploration mechanic, but even still - why didn't you just buff the number of Items (which makes sense, but is actually reduced to 0!!) or other boons, instead of making the "academy" as dangerous a Dungeon?!?

The other explanation is that this got swept in the whole "Make. Game. Harder!!" momentum, but to my table the almost seamless fusion between mechanics and *theme* has always been one of the biggest draws of PACG and when an arbitrary rebalance trumps the flavor of a card to such a ridiculous extent - that pill gets a bit too bitter.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well... he fails combat and discards cards as damage?

Keep in mind, he ONLY recharges weapons (instead of discarding), when he *plays them for the weapon's own power*! If any sort of damage knocks that weapon into discards - it stays there.

(That said, dying with Valeros in RotR is really very unlikely, as opposed to failing a scenario because his small hand was getting clogged with weapons and armor, and he couldn't explore fast enough so you failed the timer)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:

The restriction is twofold:
1. If you have previously played a weapon or Attack spell on the check, you are not allowed to play Spiked Gauntlets.

Sorry if my non-native English is misleading me, but where do you get that? "You may not play" to me definitely means "now or in the future", and does not at all concern if and what have I played in the past. Is the use you suggest a valid use of the phrase?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks for the detailed breakdown. Much obliged :)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The card in my box has printed Level 4; the downloadable list of Curse cards (and the card's own positioning in the package wrap) however seem to indicate it should be Level 3. So, which is it?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ill Tidings:
"Encounter the top card of the hourglass. If you fail a check against it, banish it... Otherwise, this barrier is defeated."

What would happen if the top Hourglass in NOT in fact a Blessing? What if it's, say, a scenario bane - do you just get to banish the nasty card from your hourglass?

Also, what if I DO succeed in my encounter? Do I get to draw the Blessing or do I have to return it back to the Hourglass? When I encounter a boon - RAW logic dictates I should draw it; on the other hand - I'm *specifically* instructed that I should banish it if I fail the CtA - which should be implicit in the failed boon encounter anyway, so it makes me think there's something fishy going on here...

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

"On your combat check, reveal to add 1 and the Melee and Piercing traits; you may additionally reload to add 1d4. You may not play weapons or Attack spells on this check."

The above limitation makes no sense, as by the time I play SG (during Modify Your Check step), I already can HAVE played Weapon or Spell during Determine Your Skill step, and potentially even in the Modify Your Check step, just before the Gauntlet...

.., which is a completely fine omission to me, as it makes zero sense for Spiked Gauntlet to block me (does the YOU there also block other characters??) from playing FREELY weapons and spells.

In my head-cannon, the wording here should be something like "You may not play this card if you have played a weapon or Attack spell on the check." (which would block these during Determine Your Skill step, but allow Freely weapons and Attack spells to be played *after* the Gauntlet) - but I seek confirmation of intent here.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
fuji6100 wrote:

We also use a vault mechanic where each player is allowed to save 1 card aside in a "vault" and then when rebuilding their deck, they can use that card in rebuilding as they wish. It also allows some experimentation with less used cards since you can feel safe swapping them in for a test run without losing another card permanently.

I just want to underscore this as one of the main reasons why I think some greater flexibility in deck rebuilding is long overdue.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Tall Knife said wrote:
Instead of your first exploration of your turn, discard to examine the top # cards of your location. Encounter 1 non-villain monster you find; it is defeated. If you do not find a non-villain monster, reload this card instead. Then shuffle all remaining examined cards into the location and end your turn.
Rulebook said wrote:
If the scenario lists a henchman with the word “closing,” you may attempt to close your location after defeating that henchman from that location.

So, I pull out a closing Henchman with tall knife and defeat it. I believe attempting to close because of that was part of the encounter in pre-Core (with the closing opportunity specifically spelled out on the henchman card) but seems much less clear post-Core, where nothing in the quote above indicates timing. Both the "closing henchman" closing opportunity and the Tall Knife's "end your turn" use only "then" as any timing indicator.

Also, note this quote in conjunction with Tall Knife's "it's defeated" power:

Rulebook said wrote:
During the encounter, effects might cause the card you’re encountering to be acquired, defeated, or undefeated. This does not end the encounter unless the effect specifically says it does.

This specifically indicates that Tall Knife doesn't end the encounter by itself, which leaves several possibilities:

- A) the closing attempt is NOT a part of the encounter (WHY?) but the Tall Knife's "end your urn" power IS part of the encounter (WHY?) - then Tall Knife seems a bit at odds with itself due to:

Rulebook said wrote:
If you are forced to end your turn before an encounter ends, shuffle the encountered card back into its location, or if it was summoned, it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.

So either that's an indication that "end your turn" is NOT part of the encounter, or else the Tall Knife is supposed to "trump" the Rulebook and ignore the "not defeated" instruction. HOWEVER, the latter would also mean that you lose you Henchman closing - note that the post-Core text (quoted above) does NOT instruct you that you can "immediately attempt to close" upon Henchman defeat; so by the time you get this opportunity (after the encounter), it is too late as you have already ended your turn (during the encounter)

- B) the closing attempt is NOT a part of the encounter (WHY?) AND the Tall Knife's "end your urn" power IS NOT part of the encounter (WHY?): this would mean you can chose the order of these effects (or would it? Why not?) so you close, then move (under the new closing rules), then end your turn (due to Tall Knife).

- C) the closing attempt IS part of the encounter (WHY?) but the Tall Knife's "end your urn" power IS NOT part of the encounter (WHY?) - this reading would seem to fall afoul of:

Rulebook said wrote:
If you move during an encounter, any effects that would happen after the encounter do not happen

So you would close, move and then ignore Tall Knife's end your turn. Or would the *card* Tall Knife TRUMP the *Rulebook* rule? - but that would seem to render the quoted rule pretty much useless in all occurrences...

Also, given both effects are only timed with a "Then..." - what makes the one trigger IN the encounter and the other - AFTER the encounter?!?

- D) the closing attempt IS part of the encounter (WHY?) AND the Tall Knife's "end your urn" power IS ALSO part of the encounter (WHY?). - this runs into the same issue as A)

So, basically, what's the timing, encounter-wise, of Tall Knife's "then end your turn" (and I supposed, the closing henchmen's "attempt to close"). And why would they be different (if so)?

I feel a bit silly as I'm sure I should have the answer for this one, but my mind is currently drawing a blank.

Thanks for your input in advance.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

See title.

Arguments for having Craft CtA are:
- item is Alchemical Liquid
- item has in fact a Craft check to recharge

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

When rebuilding, each character may banish 1 boon; any that do may search the vault for a boon with a maximum level of the most recently played scenario’s # minus 2 (minimum 0).

It was cut for a few reasons:

It would add complexity and time to the end of scenarios, as traders did in Mummy’s Mask.

Traders in MM were on a whole other level, complexity -wise. You had different cards (Traders) for different boons, different cost (adding cost-benefit analysis), specific level of boons you could trade in, specific level of boons you could trade for (oddly enough)...

While we loved Tarders due to lack of anything better, we really did find their implementation pretty cumbersome. The Market proposition above, however, seems as simple as it can get!

Keith wrote:
There was concern around removing some of the loot chase, ... in terms of reduced difficulty

Oh, I think you would've been fine. What with the most heavy mechanical changes (single boon per type per check, banishable locations) being geared towards making the game MORE difficult and all.

(Also, with only 4 scenarios per Adventure, the likelyhood of acquiring just the right boon for *you* is now further reduced - and I can only imagine it's worse for smaller parties)

Keith wrote:

We just didn’t have space in the storybook for more mechanics.

I know the Rulebooks get more packed with each iteration, but... really? It's literally one more sentence in the Rebuild section, not a whole new paragraph?!?

The above being said, the suggested Market is a little over-simplified for my taste. While it's probably the best decision for PACG (if ever included), I'll just share the homebre option we experimented with:
At end of scenario, if the party wants to "buy" a boon of particular level (say, L3 boon at the end of AD5 scenario) - it must "pay" for each such boon with a number of boons which total its level (in this example, say 1 L2 boon and 1 L1 boon). And, of course, Basics are L0 (so useless for trade).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'd love to see more blogs like that.

I'm one of those disgruntled players who thinks the omission of Market in Core was really NOT the right decision for game (and have felt so about its lack ever since RotR) for pretty much all the reasons Keith has provided - so at least it's good to know devs have their ear to the ground, and at least somewhat comforting to know the arguments behind "controversial" decisions like that.

A few thinks I'd like to add:

Keith wrote:

one of the most exciting things for many players is the loot chase: seeing that dream boon that perfectly complements your character, waiting to luck into it, throwing the kitchen sink at acquiring it, and victoriously adding it to your deck.

While the above is true (though by no means sufficient argument for *me* to omit Market), there's also a flip side to this coin: all the banes and "boons" that can make you randomly banish a card you have strived and waited to obtain. Imagine you finally get that dreamy Greataxe, then happily explore, eager to try it on a monster... and stumbling upon a Cannibal haunt or something. Half our MM party carried a bunch of those crappy "allies" to the end, just to insure against a random banishing of boons.

So, if "thrill of the chase" is a solid enough argument for devs to omit Market, I'd like to see them sticking to their guns and also not arbitrarily throw in stuff that messes with players' hard-earned decks.
(I'm aware this "deck disruption" actually has proponents on this forum, so the inclusion of Market as *option* seems like a good compromise to satisfy both groups. Also, I don't have issue with Location and Scenario powers that may prompt card banishment - as long as this is something you could build your tactic around avoiding - like, you *know* you have to acquire and hold on to a crappy boon before attempting to close a Village House, etc..).

Keith wrote:
you can give up boons until you think you’re likely to need them. Know that you’re heading into a few scenarios full of undead? Go buy a Deathbane weapon.

That's another feature that my tables felt would really emulate the RPG experience and why people have argued for the inclusion of at least some sort of "side deck" ever since RotR. I admit both Market and Stash might be overkill, but if Market absolutely *never* makes it into PACG as an option - I feel this might be an acceptable alternative.

TLDR: Please consider adding Market and/or some form of Stash at least as *options* in the Play it Your Way. Given all the concessions made for the "hardcore crowd" (difficulties, wildcards, big locations), my group of players feels really undeserved in having *our way of playing* legitimized.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matsu Kurisu wrote:
I would say highest only not stacking

Technically, he should have both Acro:Dex+2 AND Acro Dex:+3. Though, I can't think of an example where applying the lower skill would be beneficial...

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dulcee wrote:
So revealing a displayed card does the exact same thing as drawing a displayed card (which is the word used on many armors)?

Well, technically, these cards would still interact with any "When you reveal..." powers, but I would call the impact -let alone the *benefit*- of this questionable at best.

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


Third Eye errated wrote:
Display. While Displayed On your Perception check, you may draw to add 1d10.


It's this.

I remember comment from a dev or Vic that "display: ..reveal" was *supposed* to be understood to just put the displayed card back in your hand. I remember it because it made zero sense to me as: A) it's much more clear to just say draw; and B) Because "reveal" has a specific definition in the Rulebook that contradicts what is supposed to happen.

My intuitive logic for "reveal a displayed card" would indeed be to just reveal it and then return it to the displayed area.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Asif Kazmi wrote:
(and either "B" or "C" players would choose to encounter the second)?

Did you mean "COULD choose"? Because that's it - any of the "local character" A, B and C can choose to encounter the summon (in fact, if A is a "warrior", and B & C are "casters" - it would often be the case that A would still choose to encounter both of the Wolf Packs)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Jenceslav wrote:

It depends on "when" you reload the bane - is it during Resolve the Encounter step? Do all other steps after that apply?

I don't believe it's during the encounter, as - to my understanding- shuffling only happens after any potential After Acting is also resolved. As such, Harsk would NOT topdeck an undefeated Giant Fly ("After acting, shuffle this card into a random other location") even if was the appropriate monster type - as Harsk's power is supposed to replace the "undefeated shuffle" - and not any other for of shuffle (i.e. by the tyme you should "normally" shuffle the undefeated Giant Fly - it's already shuffled somewhere else, so you have an 'impossible instruction")

By the same token, I'm not completely sure about your (and mine - hence this thread) reasoning on Villains, as the "escape shuffle" can be perceived as REPLACING the "undefeated shuffle", as opposed to just UPGRADING the "undefeated shuffle".
The timing is the same however, imho, so definitely you do NOT reload a Villain before Check If Escape. Harsk's power is meant to REPLACE the "undefeated shuffle" - question is if it ALSO replaces Escape - or else it doesn't apply at all.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

"When a local character fails to defeat a story bane or an Aberration, Dragon, or Giant monster, you may reload it into its location instead of shuffling it "

How would the above power interact with undefeated villains and escaping? Would Harsk's power override escaping and just put the villain on top of his location? Why?

Would it matter if this happens in the last location remaining (so the villain is *technically* escaping, but for practical purposes he is just being shuffled in a pre-determined location)? Why?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:

If the designers had wanted Valeros to be able to avenge any encounter, they would have given him a power such as "You may avenge distant enconters."

For confirmation, compare with Blackjack's power:

" You may avenge an encounter with a bane at any location by discarding a card."

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The power that grants you the encounter opportunity ONLY says "If it (the TOP card) had the Magic trait..."

So no matter how many other examines you're granted by other powers - you're only ever concerned if the TOP card has the Magic (and so you can encounter it), nothing else.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Keith Richmond wrote:
That said, sometimes giving someone else who really needs a shuffle the heal is still a good call. Staff of Minor Healing feels _great_ (in fact, there are many who played Rise of the Runelords who thought it was the best card ever then, nevermind with the change to healing), but because it takes up a card slot in your deck and hand, it's not nearly as strong in terms of raw effectiveness at making you have a successful turn and scenario as it sometimes feels. Especially for big groups.

Pre-Core SoMH was indeed considered on our 6-player tables to be one of the most useless cards ever printed .

On the other hand, I'll be the first to admit that POST-Core SoMH is probably among the best entry level items! The added shuffle alone can be priceless in 6-player, where some characters rarely can get a second use out of a recharged powerful card (exacerbated Post-Core by the "one of a kind" card policy), and the ability to knock out two of the annoying Scourges is just icing on the utility cake! Oh, and it now comes with a sexy new "local" area of effect! Way to go from zero to hero in a single revision!

For all the grief it gives me, one thing I *love* about Core is that the amount of "dead" filler cards is now almost non-existent. I fully expect our party to keep SoMH into AD6 even if/when we acquire SoGH as well.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I groaned when I saw that title, but I'm glad to see it's more of clickbate, rather than a "game still too easy complaint" :D

And, yeah, kudos to your party! There's no kill like an overkill! :D

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

"really powerful"? "insane combos"?!?

... I realize now that we might be -quite literally- be playing different games :)

As someone who almost exclusively plays 6-player games, my experience is:

- I would *extremely generously* guesstimate that healing actually was of *any* importance in about 10% of our games. Tops.
And I would assume this is *not* an uncommon experience, at least in 6-p, given how designers have endeavored to make the game more and more punishing with every each iteration of the game

- In those games where it actually healing matters - the *only* way to leverage a healing card more than once is to actually shuffle it. In 6-p, you only have 6 hand draws per character, so it's *extremely* unlikely to see a recharged card twice (bar any pretty much at-will-recharge-oriented characters like Adowyn or Zadim). Even with shuffles, a healing card would only see play 2 or 3 times on average, which -split between 6 characters- is a far cry from "insane combo".

My point is, a card or a mechanic may have very different "weight" depending on party size or composition in PACG. Which, granted, is nothing new - but is all the more reason not make any spontaneous changes before considering their impact across all possible modes of play :)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Jenceslav wrote:

but unfortunately the rulebook is pretty clear:

How is that unfortunate?!

And I'm not sure what exactly rubs OP the wrong way about designer intent:

- Yes, if Kyra heals *herself* (which means she can't also heal another character) - she get's a "free" shuffle of her healing card- which is obviously in line with cards like the (PRESENT IN CORE) Staff of Minor Healing!

- If Kyra heals ANYONE else - she still has her healing card on the bottom of her deck

Is anyone assuming that when designers wrote "recharge to heal local characters" - they DIDN'T anticipate that Kyra would be shuffling the card on self heal ?!? That would always be the result - even by old rules (where it would be worded "recharge a card to allow a character at your location to shuffle a card from their discard pile into their deck"), so I 'm really not seeing the argument how the designers "missed" their intent by somehow not taking into account the "new" rules.

Actually, the "new" rules (about discarded cards not healing themselves) DOESN'T really change anything - it only accounts for the revised Recharge => Recovery mechanics. In "old rules", you would "discard" (but actually "set aside until resolved") a Cure, THEN you would heal 1d4+1 cards from discards, THEN you would attempt the Cure's Recharge check (resolving if it will recharge or be "for reals" discarded).
So bottomline you would never self-heal a Cure by old rules, and the "new rule" has nothing to do with "recharge to heal" cards.
Yes, that means "recharge to heal" cards are a bit more powerful, but I suspect that's a trade-off designer made with both eyes open, in favor of a simpler and more consistent verbiage (and also, when compared with all the other nerfs and "improvements" we got with Core - this doesn't even begin to compensate)

EDIT: I *assume* OP's argument about intent *might* be that if the discarded (higher cost) healing card should be excluded from shuffle - then the recharged (lower cost) card should also be excluded. But this argument doesn't hold water neither from balance perspective, nor when compared with the Curse Staff of Greater Healing - which just *reveals* for its similar effect.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
eddiephlash wrote:

Having both played Athnul, and having an Athnul at a table that I am currently running makes me think that this card should be allowed to be played freely. Thoughts?

I get that you're asking not how things should be by current RAW, but if the card should be changed as a whole, right?

I say you're right, and let's examine:

- The Belt *only* asks the you have not played Attack spells. So, the limitation here is more on "thematic" grounds

- The Belt clearly assumes you're doing archetypal Monk battle - bare hands or possibly a (Acrobatics/Monk) Weapon

- Weapons usually have a way of adding a second die to your check; furthermore, as of late, they also usually have some secondary ability or perk (at higher tiers)

- Amulets, on the other hand - or at least the ones I've seen- only add a die and a trait

Bottomline, from a balance perspective, if the Belt should allow you to use the (much more) powerful Weapons in your combat, it should follow that it allow the less powerful (but still Monk-themed) Amulets.
(Though, I admit, the above doesn't reflect that for some Monks carrying a weapon would require a Card feat, and that they can usually carry a bunch of amulets <which, however, from my XP, is NOT a common Monk build>)

So, IMHO, house-rule the Belt away and enjoy it with your Amulets.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour2 wrote:

I believe RotR Merisiel's Thief role may also have a similar power (it's meant to mimic Use Magic Device skill):

"You may use Charisma in place of any skill on any check to recharge an armor, item, or weapon with the Magic trait."

I don't think it works on Items for sure; not sure if it works on anything at this point.

Look at Meri's Charisma. Look at the *items*, **armors (!)** and **weapons (!!!)** with a "check to recharge" in RotR. This power NEVER worked .

(though, as an obvious artifact from earlier design, it offers a curious insight into Lone Shark's initial intent that weapons and armors use the same recharge checks as a spell or item... which the Armors have gone a full circle and returned to, in a manner)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:
I seriously believe the solution to this is to stop calling steps of a turn "steps" though and call them something else like "phases."

Vehemently agree here. Calling two different things the same name was asking for trouble ever since RotR (it just didn't matter *that* much back then).

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I can't speak about intent, but playing Lini's power (by displaying an ally) is very definitely NOT playing an ally on the check.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Tomael92 wrote:
but if that is the case, why does it say not to suffer damage as usual? Shouldn't it just say not to suffer damage at all, and replace it with the discarding effect?

Yes, that is indeed misleading, and intentionally didn't mention it so we don't go deeper into the rabbit hole, but basically, way I see it:

- The devs actually meant "do not suffer damage (as you would usually do), as opposed to "do not suffer the usual amount of damage from your hand (but suffer this other amount of damage from your deck instead)

- I do not have a proof of the above, and a Dev may very well state that the opposite was the intent (that those 1d4 cards from top of deck ARE damage) - but this would require a FAQ I believe

- I'm mostly going by previous wording templates here - which make me confident that if a damage was suffered (in *any* form!) - then the power would feature *somewhere* in its wording "You suffer damage" - i.e. it would affirm that some damage IS suffered in whatever shape or form

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
etien wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
There are currently no plans to reprint any products for this line. (Doesn't mean it can't happen—but it's not on the immediate horizon.)
Hmm, does this means that the reboot isnt selling?

I wouldn't know, but I'd say it seems more likely in the span of 4 Base Sets they managed to narrow down and pinpoint their expected number of sold units. And even though a "reboot" is likely to lose some old players, it's just as likely to pick some new ones along, I'd wager.

Bottomline, if the Core would need reprinting - that would mean Paizo weren't doing their job very well; or, that Core was breakaway hit, far above any estimates from the 4 Base sets before it would suggest (which it most likely isn't, and that's ok).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Tomael92 wrote:
I think it applies to Unseen Sentinel also, but I don't see why you would be unable to use an armor to prevent it. The wording on the card suggests that you are still suffering damage so it should probably be preventable, right?

No. You're thinking about powers to tune of "When X deal damage to you, discard it from the top of your deck." - here, you would indeed be able to play armor, as the Monsters' power only *converts* the damage you *actually* suffer into deck discards.

However, note the Sentinel's wording: It *literally* says that you do not suffer damage - the "discard 1d4 from top" completely replaces the damage dealing process - and since those 1d4 cards do NOT depend on *actually* suffering any damage or not - there's no point (and is therefore illegal) to play a card to prevent the damage.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Paul Grogan wrote:

Also, I had a rules question in the game about the blessing that allows you to discard a card to reroll a 1 or 2. Can I use this power more than once in a turn?


I assume, if you ask about this one in particular, that you dont use the other "When the Hour" powers only once/turn. Is there anything about this one that makes you think different?!?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Sorry, but I just have to state my disappointment that the title of this thread didn't segue into "...walk into a bar" joke :(

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:

Let's get two examples from the list from Vic:

Ezren/Spell Sage (MMB) wrote:
While you play or when you would banish a spell, you may recharge a spell to gain the Divine skill equal to your Intelligence skill (□+2).
Emil/Poisoner (HV2) wrote:
You gain the skill Melee equal to your Ranged skill.

To try and reiterate my issue with Vic's suggestion, both of those examples would actually make sense to me to state:

" gain the skill Divine: Intelligence (□+2)"
(So Ezren is making a Divine Intelligence check; if opposite was intended, it should've been "gain Divine: dX (□+2))


"You gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +2"
(So Emil is obviously NOT making a Ranged check, but also obviously is using DEX as his "base" skill; if opposite was intended, it should've been "gain Melee: dX+2)

Given that in both cases the "equal to" skill is clearly defined/define-able, neither of them actually necessitates the "equal to" language and that wording only introduces more questions than clarity. Also, personally - on consistency grounds- I'm very heavily opposed to the game granting you "sub-skills" without an attached "base skill" - because that's not the way the game itself trains you to think (and do note this is, to me, VERY different than a character just attempting a "base-less" sub-skill check with d4 because they lack the corresponding sub-skill)! I'm not sure if any character besides Mavaro actually runs afoul of this, which to me signifies it's Mavaro himself that needs to be "fixed" (in addition to care being taken with future character skill-gain wordings), rather than another cornercase "exception on top exception" being added to the rulebook.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
redeux wrote:

There is the "Iconic Heroes" Pathfinder Battle sets by Wizkids that has all of the iconics except for our newest iconic Fumbus. And then Varian isn't an iconic so he wouldn't be in one of those sets.

I don't follow Paizo's "regular" miniatures line, but I'm almost positive Varian must have appeared in it as a pre-painted figure, although with some generic name (say, "Elf Sorcerer" or something), so locating the individual miniature to buy might prove difficult.

If you're not above getting your hands dirty with paint, this could also be an option:

As for Fumbus, you may want to keep an eye on this:

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Added Arueshalae's Fallen role.

Even though the Resolution correctly quotes the power, the Q for some reason insinuates that Aru's power only works on "local character" (which would also include herself).

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thank you, guys, for the data :) I admit to being one of those "completionists" and for me that also means getting those Supporter Feats maxed. I can now rest easy, however, that my game won't be much derailed by trying to grind up the necessary points :)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm sorry for the slight off-topic, but given how Core has been retooled *specifically* against overkilling check - is there some test data or at least speculative math - how many Respect Points would players be expected to average in AD4?

The list of AD4 rewards you can "shop" with RP is enourmous, but given the steep price (5RP per item) I dont expect anything beyond 2-3 items is realistic, and even that seems pushing it a bit.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
(Though, really, it's not 'breaking' anything, because Alahazra's Tempest role never added the Charisma trait to your Arcane combat check prior to that 2019 FAQ.)

I've never seen a person pre-FAQ playing Alahazra's Arcane as a NON-Charisma check.

We here all do love getting hung up on technicalities, but there's a point where enough is enough and you have to wing PACG on common sense rather than RAW. It should be obvious that Alahazra (et al) are intended to add the "primary" skill as trait to their check.

So perhaps a distinction can be drawn, and - while Vic's suggested FAQ may remain as is for stuff where either the gained skills are indeterminate (Mavaro),- characters like Alahazra may be reworded as "Gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +2". (I never understood and so never liked the inclusion of the expression "equal to" for such determinate skills; but it doesn't makes sense to me to fix some characters by breaking others )

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It means that you add a die to the check (and yeah, some other effects may care if the check is "blessed by Deity X", I suppose)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wkover wrote:
The fact that checks to acquire blessings are now increased by # made the Dunes closing pretty rough. The Dunes was empty of cards; we just couldn't close it.

Don't get me started on the lick of sense it makes that now friggin' CLERICS struggle to acquire Blessings and it's almost impossible for anyone else... >:(

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Jenceslav wrote:

3) if you fail to acquire the blessing, then it seems it is banished (returned to the vault) - rulebook, p. 10, Resolve the Encounter.

I agree on the rest of the points, but I'm not sure about this one. After all, nothing tells you to *encounter* the top blessing (in contrast with a "summon and acquire new blessing" instruction, where the Summoned Cards rule explicitly tells you to encounter the summoned card). RAW, nothing seems to tell you what to do with when attempting to acquire outside of an encounter, so it can be judgement-called either way.

(I do agree intent is probably "encounter and acquire" though; and it can't say "summon" because summoned cards come from the box)

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
(so not all move cards have to say "You cannot play during an encounter", for example).

Agh, I really don't know why you keep beating that drum, Yewstance. All move cards DO NOT HAVE to say "you cannot play during an encounter" - you just saw that a lot of them do and made it a "rule" in your head. Moving during an encounter IS a valid power niche - as testified by a bunch of characters with powers revolving around it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
I won't be able to make any new FAQ entries this week, but we'll change Orange War Paint to "when you would bury a card from your hand."

This is a terrible fix, as the card seems fairly obvious in its intent to help with "bury from top of your deck" powers (which are a very Barbarian-y thing) and it's a ridiculous nerf if its only purpose is to avoid Grenek's offending power. Please consider expanding it to "when you would bury a card from your hand or deck" at least.

1 to 50 of 1,218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>