I will be there all three days.
I haven't done Season 4 or 5 yet (Faction's Favor or Tapestry's Tides) if people wanted to do organized play.
Or I'd be fine with just picking up a base set and playing it.
Characters from two different groups
Group #1: Game club - 3 player game
Group #2: Game store - 4 player game
I have used the original broken token insert, and am currently using the go7gaming artist case insert for WotR.
Because of the issues listed with the fit/lanes with the BT version, I've liked the artist case version a LOT. I think that has more to do with the artist case and the "hard support" as opposed to the more flexible 'box' (rather than an a a BT vs go7 question).
Has anyone published a full deck list for Wrath and the various AP decks yet?
I noticed in deck 3, that I received only 101 cards, and don't have any of the Blessing of Starsong. But I can't tell everything that I am missing.
Looking at other decks, other numbers seem off (haven't done a full accounting yet), but I only have 4 Blessing of Nethys from deck 2 - but had 6 Blessing of Deskari in deck 1.
Is that normal?
I can't find a complete list of cards - but I am apparently missing 9 cards from my latest adventure deck as it only held 101 cards.
I received no Blessings of Starsong, and no Loot items (looks like 5 cards there, so 4 blessings?)
This has made me look back at the other decks and I notice some other oddities -- I have yet to do a full count.
For instance I only have 4 Blessing of Nethys from Deck 2, while I have 6 Blessing of Deskari from deck 1.
Can you please provide a full list of cards including card counts so that I can verify what I am missing or not missing?
This isn't anything tricky or new to the set - just an observation.
Demons are not particularly subtle -- specifically, there are no 'traps' in the standard sense of needing to disable them. Barriers (so far) are all about temptations and decisions or facing hordes.
This seems to be backed up by the fact that none of the WotR characters have Disable as a skill (suggesting there will be no use of that skill in the set).
I got into a discussion with a member of my group about picking characters for WotR - and he liked Shardra for a power that I don't think made sense.
So now I'm wondering who is right on the power.
Shardra's Visionary role wrote:
He asserted that that meant that if you take the "__ or a character at your location" option, that Shardra takes over the action and Shardra rolls the defeat/close check using her Knowledge.
I had a problem with this as it seems to break the rule that "you cannot take someone else's turn".
The counterpoint he gave is that other similar powers were stated as "When you (or a character at your location)..., THAT character may use THEIR ..." -- and since this was a different phrasing, that the power clearly allows Shardra to make the check rather than the 'active character' (similar to defeating a bane with multiple checks).
We came up with three possible interpretations - and I'd like to know which is correct/intended.
1. This is an editing mistake, and should be phrased as "that character can use their knowledge skill"
My character from 4-player group (with Lem, Merisiel and Damiel)
Character Name: Feiya
Card Feats: spell +3, Item +1, Ally +2, Blessing +2
I'm not sure I actually see any ambiguity in the 'before' cases Vic - but there is nothing wrong with trying to be more precise.
The primary issue I see with what you are proposing is that it is now enforcing an order to the encounter which was not present before, as has already been mentioned. Namely that the person who encountered the original card MUST be the last to encounter the card.
Perhaps that is intentional, but it is not part of the 'problem' you describe.
One thought I had might be to use something a secondary card for these? Similar to 'loot' but for banes.
Before you act, succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 10 check to reduce the difficulty to defeat Bronze Bell by 4.
And I think you can make this work how you want with evasion.
I believe it would also allow you to handle the varying 'banish' conditions.
And it also avoids the dual loop I mentioned of the 'original' card is not a summon, which currently causes the encountering player to face the barrier twice (once for the original card, and once for the copy that is 'summoned' the first time another player 'summons' the card).
It might be a bit complicated to add another card type, but it would be similar to how LOOT is also a weapon/spell/item/etc. This new type would also be trap/henchmen/etc.
Frencois - true.But in the case of these cards though, that would still mean that the person who encountered the original card would have to defeat the card TWICE.
Once for the original card (which was NOT summoned),
That definitely does not seem to be the intent of these changes.
I'll echo Hawkmoon's statements for the most part.
I have the BT inserts for both RotR and S&S.
For Wrath, I've gone with go7Gaming's insert for the artist case (rather than the PACG specific solution. I really like the construction on this one. It seems a bit sturdier than BT's, and removing the pieces of the insert from the sprews was actually a lot easier/required less finishing/sanding than BT's did.
I've been storing my S&S decks in it that I haven't been needing for where I am in my OP group, and so far I've been liking this solution a lot! Is it better? I won't know until I actually have a full AP in it and have used it some. The artist case certainly is heavier!
I played Seelah in RotR and never regretted it! She was definitely my favorite character of the group.
The new Seelah is definitely looking strong - esp some of the tricks with the role cards.
i.e. Inheritor's blade with an armor that 'reveals' to reduce damage = "Oh look, the villain does damage to EVERYONE? Reveal..reveal..reveal..reveal. There we go all taken care of."
or for Wardstone Sentry - the d8 against any Demon/Undead (by the time you have a role, most of her weapons should be magic anyway), or the Charisma +2/4 for any before you act check.
This is almost making me want to play Seelah again, even though I had my eyes on some of the new characters. Guess I'll have to wait until I get to see everyone :D
I'd like to request that the items in my sidecart that are available be shipped (specifically the Strategy and Iconic Heroes sets #1 and #2).
I also have a question about Order #3525485 --
That villain is properly crazy - I really hope he's like Hirgenzosk or the Sandpoint Devil, rather than being a thing you HAVE to defeat to complete the scenario.
Not familiar with the AP, but my guess is that he will be recurring throughout the AP. Probably will be the 'big bad' at the end of AP 6 which you do have to face.
Earlier might be more like the sea serpent (forgetting the name) from the Flood scenario in RotR where he just sits around and causes something to happen in a scenario - but that defeating the scenario does not involve direct conflict with him.
I don't disagree at all Hawkmoon.
As I said - I just have an issue with the 'shorthand' because I think it does leave some room for questions that the longer phrasing of "succeed at a check to defeat" makes absolutely clear.
(i.e. that the check DOES happen, that if multiple checks are required - it only succeeds at ONE of the checks, etc).
And it's only 5 additional words - it's not like it takes a paragraph to explain it.
That's if you read it that Thieves Tools would be played at the point, Hawkmoon.
Again playing devil's advocate here -
Again - Vic has stated it is synonymous and therefore I agree with your interpretation that yes Damiel would get to examine the top card.
I just think that there are enough real situations in the game that a question could come up, that it wouldn't hurt to put it in the official FAQ.
Nod Orbis - and I see where Vic is coming from.
I'm just not sure I agree with the idea of 'shorthand'. I understand there is limited space on the card, but from a pure linguistic standpoint -- there are differences here.
i.e. Suppose it's a character that has an ability of "when you succeed at a [SKILL] check, draw a card" and the barrier has a check to defeat of type [SKILL]
Does the power trigger or not?
For the "succeed at your check to defeat" - the answer is obviously Yes.
For the first though, an argument could be made that the card was defeated without a check -- it was defeated by the played boon. In which case the power isn't triggered.
Just to be clear - I'm not meaning to dispute Vic's statement that it IS shorthand. Rather just his conclusion that this isn't worth clarifying in the FAQ/Errata.
Theryon - That's not the only distinction to be made in those phrasings.
While we have not encountered one yet - there is every possibility of Paizo eventually creating a barrier (a Villain Barrier??) which would require multiple checks to defeat.
In which case - the "Reveal this card to defeat a barrier" would effectively handle BOTH checks, while the second phrasing would only help/handle one of the checks.
I'm pretty sure you are allowed to use multiple powers in the same step.
From P10 of S&S Rule book under encountering a card: wrote:
Not sure how relevant that discussion is since that talks more about the possible conflict between Lini and Location, than the possible synergy of two powers on a single card.
Golden Rule clearly wouldn't apply here - because both effects are from the character card.
Nearest thing to a related discussion I can find is probably here. But I don't see any dev answer in that thread, just a lot of speculation there as well.
This does not seem appropriate to me (and excessive even if it is).
If shipping has to be charged, then I would rather have the replacement put into my sidecart and just added when Wrath comes out.
I don't see why it would need to replace the existing cards Tanis.
It might mean it would need the box to be a little wider, and that probably has some cost, but I wouldn't think a 'card list' would need to replace existing cards.
But the PDF list is fine - as I said, I just looked at the date from October, and thought it wasn't being updated. That's why I wanted it in the box.
Thanks Hawkmoon.I knew of those resources, but hadn't looked at them since their initial release because the page said they hadn't been updated since 10/30/14.
So I didn't think they had the new deck lists in them.
But still - would it be that hard/expensive to include this in the decks (like one oversized card in the box that listed it all?)
It happens Tanis - no problem there.
Hmm.. any chance of perhaps creating a "checklist card" that gets included with each deck that would make it easier to verify this.
I caught the blessing because it's so "standard" to have 5 of anything other than Gods. But it would be kind of impossible to know if I should have 1 or 2 copies of a given spell for instance.
My thought would be to use the "standard" rules for adding cards to your deck when you don't have enough cards to rebuild your deck -- namely that you can pull cards from two decks lower.
i.e. so if you add someone in Deck 1, they can only pull "basic" cards still
I think that way the player is still "behind the curve" for where your group probably would be, but if you add someone at a later deck (ie deck 4 or 5 when you've probably banished a good deal of basic cards) there is adequate equipment to make a starting deck, and to have the character not be completely overwhelmed.
My character from a 4 (originally 5) player group
Character Name: Feiya
Vic Wertz wrote:
That's exactly what my group did with S&S after I realized the way the deck lists were developed. In fact, I had pulled EVERY characters deck list (except for BoGs, and Ranzak) so people could have the basic deck ready and see what they wanted to improve.
It worked well for us (probably better than doing the "here's the X deck, grab whatever you want" and passing the deck around.)
Thanks for the link Orbis- I looked for similar questions but hadn't found that thread.
So it basically is what I thought for scenario 1.
Scenario 2 was where I was less certain - where the weapon only allows a reroll of a single die similar to Jirelle's own power.
It's sort of a question of what does "must take the second result" mean.
Does it mean the result of the check, or the result of the die?
Based on Vic's comment - it's for the check not the die (which was NOT my original interpretation, but it was something I considered).
I have my own opinion on this, but I don't know if it is the CORRECT opinion or not, so I wanted to see what other people are thinking.
The question is how does Jirelle's reroll ability interact (if at all) with a weapon that also allows a reroll?
Are both of these powers usable, or does one prohibit the other from being used?
Similarly if she uses the whip ability first to reroll all the dice, can she still use her ability on that reroll - or are the dice 'frozen'?
How do these interact?
Actually the majority of companies will send an email when the shipping label is printed (as part of an automated process). It is not uncommon for this to happen late in a day, and to not have it actually picked up/leave the warehouse until the next day or two.
This is why you'll often get tracking information, but when you try to use it you'll get "tracking number does not exist" for the first day or two.
I agree the "within a week" is a bit unusual - but I dare say almost no company generates is email based on it physically leaving the warehouse.
Personally, I'd like to see different heroes reprinted, if any.
But I'm sure they'll still have a character option for the 'core' classes (i.e. a "Fighter", a "Rogue", a "Healer", an "Arcane" etc).
I'd like to see them pull some of the characters from the class decks into the main sets - although I don't know if that counts as a "reprint" when they've not been in the main sets yet.
But the crow doesn't get the item on its own - it adds to the character making a check (i.e. the crow sees the item and points it out to the character) - not like it picks it up and carries it back from another location.
I do like the idea of the barrier check help though -- i.e. trapped chest, no problem it gnaws through; some kind of blade/explosive trap and it chews through a trigger or other important part, etc.
Orbis Orboros wrote:
I missed that entirely! I was still thinking about the idea of doing this against any check by another player.
I think I still have an issue with the idea of a rat grabbing a heavy suit of armor, or an ally though. I still think a restricted boon type of Item, but usable on any check would make more sense.