Sathar's page

Our group is a little behind WoodManZX's, we're currently at 6B (which we've failed once) with Valeros the Drunk*, Kyra and Harsk. It's been challenging but not too overwhelming.

First, our little tweak (more to simplify the randomness): Instead of "3 wildcards" we use the current Adventure's Harrow WC (like above), plus one random WC from the other 12, plus Large location decks. None of us particularly like/enjoy wildcards, though reprinting the cards on larger (4"x6") stock with coins to mark the active ones means we're a little less likely to say "Oh, we forgot the wildcard was in effect."

Overall, although the game balance is not as tight as the base game, it's still playable. We do enjoy having all of the extra feats (plus the bonus feat reward from our first CoCT playthough). In DD and vanilla CoCT, the number of feats often felt stingy. In Wrath there were tons of "extra" feats, and even the other 3 boxes threw in a few extra here and there. That said, there is definitely a feeling that the difficulty is ramping up faster than our "power" level. You really start feeling it around deck 4 or 5, and by deck 6 it's pretty stiff. The +# Veteran checks are no joke, and we cringe at those +## double-veterans (and the occasional +###) -- regularly seeing difficulties in the 30s on trash side-encounters. Every now and then it does work in our favor, holding on to otherwise underwelming low-level Veteran boons that suddenly add +9 or more to a static (or even veteran) check.

So while there are certainly more hilariously out-of-depth moments (let's see, I have 1d4 needing to roll a 23 -- oh, wait, I get +1d4 for the Harrow suit! Anyone want to help?), we're still having fun. The last few scenarios are going to be a bit of a struggle, but we'll get there.

* -- While Drunken Master Valeros is a lot of fun to play ("Why won't you stay there and guard that location?!?"), I am amused that many of the "liquids" in his deck are things Valeros probably shouldn't be drinking, mostly paints and poisons with the occasional bomb.

Related question:

When you leave the base, you shuffle any Supporters in your hand back into the location. Is that "simultaneous" with the bury, i.e. could you bury a Supporter (in hand) instead of shuffling it and burying one of your own cards?

Having played Valeros the Besotted, I can confirm at least how I played it.

1) Longshot is right you cannot consider The Base when rolling randomly to go to another location. So you never end at the Base using that power.<snip>

IMHO

Interesting, my party will appreciate that interpretation. I was considering whether the FAQ clarification would apply:

Resolution: On page 4 of the storybook, replace the paragraph that begins "When a scenario lists the Base" with the following.

When a scenario lists the Base, set it out with the other locations as usual. When you build the locations, shuffle all of your rallied supporters into the Base; do not add story banes to it. The Base cannot be closed while it has cards in it, and can never have cards in it other than supporters. Characters may start at the Base and can move to and from it normally. It counts as a location only for exploring, examining, and moving; it does not count as a location when counting locations or determining if villains can escape to it. If all other locations are closed, or the Base has neither cards in it nor characters at it, the Base closes automatically. (A simplified version of these rules appears on the Base as a reminder; these are the complete rules.)

Since the base counts as a location for moving, wouldn't it be eligible when moving to a random location? Valeros is not a Villain and his power does not direct to count locations, though admittedly that is often necessary to "move to a random other location".

Not to derail the Glade discussion, but I have another one with Valeros the Besotted:

When you move during your move step, you may move to a random other location; if you do, heal a card, then draw a card.

Mostly straight-forward given the prior discussion. A few corner-cases:

a) Obviously, if there is only a single location I forego using this power, as there is no "other location" I can move to;

b) When there's two locations, however, I "randomly" roll my imaginary d1 and move to the valid other location, triggering the rest of the power;

c) A little fuzzier but much more common, I have a legal move but no cards in my discard pile, so I move randomly, ignore the heal as an impossible command, but still draw a card because that is both possible and mandatory.

(c) feels a little iffy when I do it, since you could theoretically argue that he cannot use the power in the first place if he has no cards to heal, or that the draw is separated by a comma and thus requires the heal to be valid, but to say that the power requires Val to be wounded (have discards) to be used seems overly restrictive.

Post-script: One of my party members hates me every time I "waste" a turn randomly moving to the Base, even though Val is never shy about playing those Supporters on her.

This does remind me of those darned Sihedron rings back in RotR. I even remember peaking ahead at the adventure and scenario cards to see if we needed to hang on to them for some reason, didn't find anything, and then had the Oh, crap moment when we hit the deck 6 barrier that was basically a perpetual party wipe without them.

Rafał Kruczek wrote:

By this "separate moment" logic you could use shield/offhand with two-handed-weapon.

As far as I can imagine, this is exactly why Vic is struggling with giving a final ruling about limitation on playing cards at certain times.

This is just not simple.

Actually, I think this is already covered as almost all two-handers and off-handers exclude playing the other type for the remainder of the encounter, not the step/check (Archer's Shield deliberately breaks this rule).

Silly question: Does it actually say anywhere that you cannot have more than one Role card? I'm not advocating that we should, just that this may be something which we all assumed must be true but isn't actually in the rules anywhere.

For example, what happens in the "Extended Campaign" where you play DD first, gain a Role card there, and then carry your character over to CoCT? I assume that when you are rewarded with a Role card then most characters simply ignore the reward (since they already have a Role), though one player may replace (not add to) their existing Role with the Blackjack (what happens to any Feat points spent on the old Role?). I'm not sure that this is actually spelled out as being correct anywhere.

Thanks for all the input, we've changed our game to comport with everything discussed.

FWIW, I first noted the "issue" with the healing staves, Kyra just seemed to be a better example because she does it (almost) every turn on her own. A lot of this was just my pre-Core preconceptions poking through, but when spelled out it all makes sense.

In no small part it seems like deck shuffles in general are coming up much more often, which really affects how many of the characters play (especially, though by no means limited to, casters). I just wanted to be sure we weren't overdoing/abusing this by shuffling cards we shouldn't. I played Seoni on the first DD playthrough, and it felt like she was able to get Embiggen into her hand almost every single turn.

Yes, RAW are "clear", but I'm not sure that was the designers' intent, especially based on the Discard case and prior game-play guidelines.

When a power heals you, shuffle the specified number [...] from your discards into your deck. If you're discarding a card to heal yourself, exclude that card [...].

So, I'm a little unclear what we're supposed to be doing when a heal is triggered by an action other than discarding.

Pre-core, some "healing" caused your deck to shuffle, others would just recharge the "healed" cards. Core standardizes this so that all "Healing" effects trigger a deck shuffle.

Pre-core, if a power instructed you "Recharge this card to recharge a card from your discards" it was pretty clear that first you recharged the healing card, then the healed card, and now these two cards would be on the bottom of your deck.

Post-core, doing the same thing would result in first recharging the "Healing" card, then shuffling the healed card in, resulting in the Healing card being effectively shuffled and not recharged. This may be the intended result, but it seems to be at odds with the way the discarded card in the rule inset is specifically excluded from the heal.

There are a few powers that cause this to come up. The most obvious is Kyra's end of turn heal. We've been making her shuffle in her healed card and then recharge the card she used to heal, but that feels like it conflicts with RAW.

The second option allows you to have up to 9 skill feats eventually instead of 6 (the bonus 7th adventure does not give you hero points) and the same for cards and powers.

We haven't tried this yet, but don't forget that if you already played through CoCT once before, the Reward for CoCT 7A says

When you replay this Adventure Path, each character starts with a feat of each type and your maximum number of each type of feat is equal to the # of the last scenario you completed + 1

So for us we're thinking:

Play DD starting with Adventure 1, #=1, feat cap =1

Finish DD Ad 3, #=3, feat cap =3

Start CoCT 1, #=3+1=4, feat cap = (last #=3)+1=4, gain 7A Reward feats #4*

After CoCT 1A, cap = #+1 = 4+1 = 5

Last cap increase is CoCT 6, #=6+3=9, feat cap is now 9+1=10

* - I suppose you could parse the reward to mean that since you are starting the CoCT AP with 3 feats already from DD, maybe you don't get feat #4 for free since it doesn't say "starts with an extra feat of each type" though that sounds overly nitpicky. Still, the cap would still be +1 and there is an "extra" hero point in each Adventure, so you could eventually make up the difference.

Much to my party's chagrin, when the wording is ambiguous I tend to take the least favorable interpretation (well, most of the time), so I'll probably keep doing c) until Vic tells me to stop even though my party thinks I'm crazy.

So far, the "worst" that has happened was one case of turning a partial roll of "4" into "24", which was pretty powerful for the price of losing 4 cards. My deck had enough at the time to spare, but I do wince now when Blackjack Valerian asks me, "Would you like another d4?"

Addendum:

If any die shows a 1 or 2, count it as 0

Does this "conflict" with Ashbringer's power, in which case the Golden Rules would mean 1 counts as 0, or do these simultaneous events resolve in player-chosen order, so 1 counts as 6, which is not 1 or 2 so does not become 0?

We played the latter, but seeing them side-by-side I'm thinking maybe the Cliff should play through. It could even be worse if a 1 counts as 6 is negated, but the fun of "discard the top card of your deck" isn't (the "die shows a 1" so you discard, but it "counts as 0").

For your combat check, reveal [...] If any die rolled on this check shows 1, count it as a 3 or [...] 6, then discard the top card of your deck.

I use Ashbringer and roll a fistful of dice. I get x 1's (let's assume x > 1), do I:

a) Count a single 1 as a 3/6 and discard the top card of my deck (apply the power once)

b) Count "x" 1's as "x" 3/6's and discard the top card of my deck (apply the change to all applicable dice and pay the "price" once)

c) Count "x" 1's as "x" 3/6's and discard the top "x" cards of my deck (apply the power in full once per occurrence of "1")

I've been reading this as c), but it could definitely be dangerous as this appears to be a mandatory effect, and could easily be fatal especially if you're rolling a lot of dice.

Last call!

Is the issue of taking damage still being dealt with separately, or is it meant to be covered in this proposal?

e.g.: BYA Dragon breaths fire, everybody suffers 1d4 damage. My buddy standing next to me is burnt to only medium-well because he is wearing scraps of hide, so now I can't play my plus infinity Shield of Dragon Resistance*. One "step" or two?

* -- yes, yes, I know, don't try to literalize it, and I'm ignoring the Freely cases as not relevant, but salient point: same BYA you play an Armor on yours can/can't I play an Armor on mine?

Thank you, Vic, I glad we read that right.

wkover, we double-checked after building the lair, but no where did it say to stop doing the encounter/reload step or that the barrier/close rule didn't apply to the lair, so we did indeed do both.

Add me to the list of people who spent an embarrassing amount of time searching every possible deck for a Squealing Pig, though I figured it out eventually.

Also for us, the phrasing of that entire paragraph about defeating a barrier was bothersome, particularly because of an inconveniently placed period.

When you defeat a barrier, you may examine the top card[...]; if the top card is a different level [...], add the location Lair and shuffle [...] [Period]. If the Lair is already built, you may attempt [...]

The last part is a separate sentence, so it was unclear to us how much of the previous sentence to skip/ignore. It's part of the When you defeat a barrier paragraph, so the last sentence can't exist in a vacuum, it clearly depends on defeating a barrier. We weren't sure if the design intent was

a) When you defeat a barrier... If the Lair is already built, you may attempt to close...

or

b) When you defeat a barrrier, you may examine the top card of each location; if each is a different level... If the Lair is already built you may attempt...

We did a), but I'm not convinced that was right. In fact, reading this thread I think it wasn't. Still, it feels like it would make more sense if it were 3 sentences with the punctuation a bit clearer.

I feel like I'm 16 again trying to write code that does what I think it does :)

Ugh, it looks like this one might be thornier than it seems. Contrary to BT's point, in Core the Evasion Effects step is after the When You Encounter step, so RAW you would draw a boon from the location, draw a matching boon from the box, banish one/encounter the other, THEN evade (or not) THEN ("Before Acting") roll the Cha/Dip/Per check.

edit: I was going to clarify my point, but skizzerz maganged to ninja me with a better summary.

When it was asked a while back, it was suggested that you're welcome to flip coins instead of rolling, but the official answer is stick with the d4s.

That's the way I read it, though our player who kept summoning the same Danger every turn that he couldn't beat and would re-daze him wasn't happy with me.

That's my issue:

On one hand it's like Ignore where the new instance of Dazed has no effect on the character whatsoever (though the Scourge instructions never use the actual keyword "Ignore")

On the other hand it's like damage -- If you're instructed to suffer 2 points of damage but have no cards in your hand, you don't do anything but you have still "taken" 2 points of damage.

Apologies if this was answered already, I thought it came up but couldn't find it and the Locked Door thread doesn't quite answer it.

If you suffer a scourge that you already have marked you do not add a marker and there is no additional effect, but does it still count as suffering a/the Scourge?

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

Single sleeved (ultra pro matte), for when CoCT is not in use (right now while we're working through DD), I got all of the CoCT cards to fit pretty much exactly in one of these:

Ultimate Guard Arkhive 400+ XenoSkin

I figure one of those for each new AP should work out if they are all of a similar card count.

Hrmmm, so what you're (skizzerz) saying is that because the Power on Arueshalae's character/role card is worded, "When the cohort..." that means that she does not have to actively use the Power, but it simply occurs.

By extension, I've been playing Alain and I've generally ruled that she could not use her Gift on me when I use Alain's solo combat power because she would be forbidden from "Using a Power" on my check. In actuality, I would be able to take advantage of the Gift if it is already displayed in front of Alain (because the effect occurs passively), though she would still be restricted from Displaying the Gift on me if it isn't already there.

We're nearing the end of our second WotR playthrough, but last night I had the sinking realization that be may have been playing the Gift wrong this whole time:

When we first met Arueshalae and learned of the Gift, I suspect that we conflated the Power on the cohort card and her Power that activates it. As a result, we routinely wait until we're deep in a check assembling dice, before weighing in on whether or not she needs to play the Gift for that little extra kick on a tough check, or to have a chance when we get caught flat footed by a surprise check on a weak skill.

It finally dawned on me, though, that it really is two separate powers:

On AG: "Display this card next to another character's deck and put a marker on 1 of the traits below. [...]"

On Arueshalae: "When the cohort Arueshalae's Gift is displayed [...] add 1d4 to his checks [...]"

While the second Power can unquestionably be played during a check in progress which it can affect (that's its whole point), the first Power (displaying the Cohort) technically does not affect a check in progress unless Arueshalae subsequently uses her Power. This appears to violate the rule that you cannot play Powers that require somebody to "Do something else" in order to affect the check.

Does that mean that Arueshalae's Gift needs to be played in advance before an Encounter, or is this an "exception" like when Balazar discards a spell during a fight to pull and play a monster (which feels like it breaks the same rule, but has explicitly been stated to be a valid play)?

So then, does this prove that Hawkmoon269 is actually a rogue AI loose in the PaizoNet?

Thanks, Longshot, that was my concern. When I replay something (or even the first time through), I'm always looking for off-the-beaten-path color-outside-the-lines opportunities, though the rest of my party certainly doesn't feel that way :)

Also, we just finished MM which scales quite differently (struggle to just make a much lower check without going over), so maybe I'm forgetting just how critical those secondary skill Path boosts are.

Thanks!

It's remarkably challenging to use a modern search engine to find just the word "or" :)

We just finished Wrath Adventure 1 and I could use a little free advice for Alain.

Party is Alain, Balazar, Imjirka, Harsk. Balazar is going Mythic Marshal. It's our second time through Wrath so we've been around the block, but I'm not used to playing a pure combat "one-trick pony" like Alain -- we just finished MM where Mavaro was the ultimate jack-of-all-trades.

I'm torn between going Marshal or Guardian with Alain.

I was leaning towards Guardian to give some party diversity (we already have a Marshal), and figuring that Alain already has a decent, though not Mythic, Charisma/Diplomacy on his own. Meanwhile, being able to boost/pump his fair Con gets him past some checks, including Armor acquires, that he would otherwise struggle with (granted he has Harsk and a soon-to-be Eidolomancer to retrieve his armors for him).

A review of the Messageboards seems to strongly favor Marshal, however. Aside from the obvious synergy with Alain's base skills, it also opens up the Mythic Marshal Two-step for us (which still feels a little cheaty, but clearly has its fans).

Thoughts?

BTW, I'm planning on going Lancer, but not committed.

Sorry for the necro of the necro...

I'm pretty sure "or" was defined somewhere but I forgot the final ruling.

When Alain's power is upgraded to "weapons or allies or items" is he limited to only one of the three categories, or can he do any amount of each (exclusive or inclusive "or")?

This is a Public Service Bump. It appears that we have unleashed Paradox:

But Poison Spiked Pit Trap is dealing damage twice during the same step, so if you want to use armor to stop each of those, you'll need to have something that lets you break the "no more than one card of any given type on a step" rule.

So yeah, if you have an armor you can reveal to reduce damage, you can reveal it once each time you take damage, even if you take damage multiple times during a step, check, or encounter.

I humbly suggest that visitors from the future refer to this thread which at this time appears to be the most likely location for a resolution to manifest.

Thank you.

That sounds like a fair reading. There are so many little phrases and clarifications buried on these boards it's easy to lose track of a few.*

* - Didn't I see somewhere in another thread Vic hinting that soon the Paizo Store will be offering a kitchen table for sale?

No disrespect intended, but doesn't the word "Otherwise" negate the rest of that sentence, or are you saying that "to reduce damage dealt to you" does not qualify as "say[ing] it may be used when something happens?"

Edit:

I'm not so much arguing your conclusion, but rather the chain of rules that leads us there. Sadly, though I didn't want to drag Mike or Vic into this, I did realize at the outset that ultimately it boils down to one of them admitting that either,

a. The Elemental Arachnid's power was intentionally phrased so as to permit one piece of armor (like the SCA) to block all of the damage, or

b. The intent was specifically to prevent using one armor card from blocking all of the damage

Either one seems, to me, equally valid by RAW quoted thus far, though admittedly not equally likely.

Malcolm_Reynolds posted his answer while I was typing my addendum, and I admit that the end result may be that he is right, however.

"If a power says it may be used when something happens, you may use it it every time that that happens."

SCA's power says, "Reveal this card to reduce damage... by 1."

Therefore, taking damage happens, I can use SCA's power, taking damage happens (again), I can use SCA's power (again). Normally I would be limited by playing a card type once per step, however the Monster's power has temporarily suspended this rule.

And I'll bump your necro:

The beastie you're referring to (I think, it's actually AD4 but we didn't see it until 5) is the Elemental Arachnid. My Mavaro stumbled into one of these last night. A quick look-up of the Poison Spike Pit reassured us that we were reading it right, I think...

For reference:

"... You may play any number of armors during this encounter.

Before you act, you are dealt 1 Acid damage, then 1 Cold damage, then 1 Electricity damage, than 1 Fire damage." oof.

By a complete fluke of timing and random acquisition, this happened while I actually had 4 armors and one or two damage-reducing items in hand, so I was able to play 4 unique cards (3 armor and 1 item) to get past this (at the location where taking damage once meant a curse). Thanks to the Djinn Favor Amulet, I even netted one card of healing for the encounter.

Question: does the monster power mean that I could have played the same armor multiple times, or do they still have to be different cards? It would have been much easier to Reveal my Silken Ceremonial Armor ("Reveal to reduce damage... by 1") four times. Also, I didn't have a plan for the undefeated damage (1d4 of each flavor), but luckily I didn't need one :)

Edit:

I suppose that algorithmically what I'm asking is --

"If a card is played when something happens, it can be played whenever that happens" + "You can play multiple armors during this encounter (which overrides playing 1 card of each type per step or check)" + "Cards don't have memories"

Therefore --

I take 1 damage, I play 1 armor (SCA is Revealed and returned to my hand). Same step, I take 1 damage, SCA does not remember that I have already played it in this step, monster's rule let's me play armor even though I already did so in this step, I Reveal SCA to reduce damage. Repeat...

At issue in the case of Find Traps is that there is no Attempt the Check step* if Mavaro does not already have the Divine skill displayed. Spells usually say something like "If you do not have the Divine skill, banish this card."

That said, I'm still not convinced that Mavaro can't use his power to interrupt the process to give himself the skill which is relevant to the situation (not banishing the spell).

* -- Not sure if it's what you meant, but I suppose that there is indeed an Attempt the Check step during the check to defeat the barrier that Find Traps was originally played on. It's a big stretch, but maybe Mavaro could use his power during that step, i.e. I just played a Divine spell but I don't have the Divine skill and my power affects how the spell card will be resolved. This does violate skizzerz's definition of a valid interrupt, however, though I'm not sure if that's an opinion or a rulebook citing.

Several Allies have a Check to Acquire of Combat. Can Mavaro Display one of these to gain the (otherwise nonexistent) "Combat" skill? Can the Combat skill then be used to make a check of the type "Combat"?

This has been a very illuminating discussion to date. I have a closely related question, which I'm not sure may deserve its own thread:

Can Mavaro recharge spells et al. that require a skill he doesn't have, but can immediately get?

Combat spells are easy. Generally he will have already displayed an Arcane/Divine card by the time recharging comes around.

Utility spells like Cure or Find Traps are on much shakier ground, especially when played off-turn. Since these say "... if you do not have the [Arcane/Divine] skill, banish it;" does that mean that Mavaro must already have an Arcane/Divine card displayed, or can he display one at this moment because it "applies to the current situation"?

Contrast, e.g., a wand: "After playing this card, you may succeed at an Arcane 8 check..." Read literally, no Arcane skill required, so I can absolutely use my Arcane 1d4 and display something to kick it up to 1d10+x.

I realize that I'm joining this thread quite late, but just a few amateur thoughts, mainly regarding Stormbringer:

1) Mainly cosmetic, but thematically Stormbringer should probably have the Corrupted trait, though the thought of redeeming Stormbringer is laughable.

2) Pretty much anyone not Elric or another Imrryrean prince really doesn't want to be near Stormbringer. Perhaps,

After playing Stormbringer, if the check does not invoke the Melnibonean trait bury [discard?] a card.

3) On a related note, the tragedy of Elric is reflected by just how dependent he is on Stormbringer, despite the high cost he knows the blade demands. Your banish an ally on explore is a good start, but maybe it should be even more severe. I was thinking something like:

After you succeed at a combat check that invokes the Black Blade trait banish a random ally, otherwise a random other character at your location is dealt Combat* damage equal to the number of Spells and Blessings** in your hand plus one.

* - Could also be Force, or even Mental/irreducible, but that might be overkill

** - Alternatively just Blessings + 1, though bear in mind that when Elric is at his peak is when he is most dangerous to friend and foe alike

I can't speak to the impact on game balance, but these suggestions would definitely knock Elric down a peg or two in terms of being "overpowered".

Please do let us know how playtesting turns out.

Thanks. I do remember a warning from a past life about casting Summon Dimensional Shambler without first learning Control Dimensional Shambler.....

Do Triggers fire when examining cards in your character deck? I can't find anything to say they don't, but it does feel... odd.

Last session, my Mavaro used his Helpful Haversack (an eternal source of my endless Googling) and Examined his Whatchmacallit of Ra. Its Trigger was irrelevant as I had no Ra blessings in my hand, but if I did would I have been able to add it to my hand for free? The card says to "acquire this card" but one of my colleagues claimed that I cannot "acquire" a card which I already "own".

I just picked up a Skeletal Hyena as well (Trigger: "reveal an animal to acquire"), which will generate more or less the same question.

Assuming the Triggers work normally, is there any consensus whether having and examining Triggers in your deck is generally (un)desirable? I saw one suggestion in another thread implying no, but there wasn't any discussion.

Agreed. We lost count of how many times Adowyn took advantage of the "fact" that Leryn is neither an Ally or even a Boon as well.

Hello, World. Long time reader, first time poster -- this board (and the community at BGG as well) has been an immeasurable boon as we worked through ROTR, S&S and most recently WOTR.

So, here's an "easy" first question:

WOTR Adventure 6, despite looking, feeling and tasting like a Book the Cohort Lexicon of Paradox is a Support card, not a Boon. This means that it cannot be used to trigger any of Enora's powers that require a "boon that has the Book trait," correct?

By Scenario 6, Adowyn was getting increasingly annoyed with me for making her lug the book around, since "My Terraform makes it a bit redundant for me." Side note, GeekDad on his blog appears to have played this wrong.