Small Demon

Shnik's page

Organized Play Member. 39 posts (319 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One interesting thing to note in the new Guide, the following updated sentence (p.8):

-You can replace your character with any character of the
same class, along with a matching role card.

In the previous guide this was limited to characters from the Base sets and Character add-on decks.

This means you can now use, for example, Varian from the Pathfinder Tales deck with the Hell's Vengeance 2 deck. So many more possibilities!

The Pathfinder Tales deck can now be used with a whopping 28 characters!

4 people marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
Nope. Still not buying "less cleanup" as the reason for banishing locations, but if that's the version y'all want to stick with...
But could banishing locations also save 30 seconds of clean-up? Sure.

Saving 30 seconds of clean-up... by spending 30 more seconds of in-game time doing it. That's rather funny, I mean:

Blog wrote:
Another thing making the game faster: recovery banishing locations. By having this step at the end of your turn game, you don't need to interrupt your turn game (i.e., the game flow)

Am I the only one who finds this kind of... contradictory? "Interrupting your game to make recharge checks? Absolutely inefficient, let's make a new rule about that! Interrupting your game to banish locations? So efficient, let's make a new rule about that!"

Also, I'm really not seeing what's better about "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to take 0 (which is a failure)" rather than "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to not roll and count it as a failure". You still "take the time to decide" between taking 0 or rolling the dice...

Don't get me wrong, I liked the blog post as a whole, informative and interesting, and I'm sure that games with the new Core will be overall faster than the previous sets; but it shows how you can turn anything into a positive by putting the right spin on it, even contradictory statements and non-changes...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding win-loss ratio in coop games: to me, there's a HUGE difference between a one-off game and a campaign game.

For one-off games, like Pandemic, Spirit Island, and The Mind, having a low success rate is all right, and can even be a feature. I play these games for the challenge first and foremost*.

But for campaign games, like Gloomhaven, Sword & Sorcery, and PACG, my main reason to play is to experience the story and character progression. I don't want to have to replay every scenario two or three times to win it, especially since playing a complete campaign is already a big time investment, and having to replay scenario feels like a waste of time. I'm completely fine with having a success rate of 100% (or almost) for campaign games.

Regardless of the type of game, I still want my choices to matter: to me, no game can justify a turn 2 loss due to randomness with no player agency!

*Obviously, the actual first and foremost reason to play coop games in general is for the camaraderie and fun!

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
We don't know how much space a scenario takes up.

Actually, yes we do.

Mike mentions that each scenario is a two-page spread. So, for Core, if the pictured scenario 0 really starts on page 6, that would mean a maximum of 9 scenarios for the 24-page storybook. For Curse, if the first scenario is on page 2, that's a maximum of 23 scenarios for the 48-page storybook.

I'll have to admit, being used to 30+ scenario APs, this (seemingly?) low number of scenarios has me a bit worried. Still, I'm reserving final judgment until I get the actual products/ official confirmation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but notice that a lot of cards previewed in this blog use the names and images of existing cards, but they all have different powers to the original in some way. How does that fit with the previously-mentioned design policy that cards with differing powers should be uniquely named? Will it be possible for players to have two cards in hand with the same name but differing powers, or will there be errata released for a lot of older cards to bring them in line with the Core version?

I feel the latter could be problematic for Organized Play? (-"A Wisdom check, I'll play my Sage to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Sage can't do that anymore." -"In that case, I'll play my Teamster to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Teamster doesn't do that anymore either. Didn't you bring and read the mandatory 250-page errata along with your 110-card Class Deck?")

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5-P2 is now available to the public.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Available here!

Half-price on all Adventure Paths and Class decks up to and including Mummy's Mask.

The shipping still kills it for me, sadly...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

4-7 is now available.

However, the price is kind of unexpected... 5$ for what I believe to be only two scenarios? Especially since previous capstones were free promos.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also 5-P1, which goes right after 5-3.

The Paizo page description says it's an AD3 scenario, but it's actually AD4.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.

So, Winds of Vengeance, Fire Shield, Chalice of Ozem, and Sphere of Fire could all be displayed and used immediately. Since the Brutalized Flesh Golem requires a recharge, it could not.

Another example would be the Hunter Class Deck Cohort, Pygmy Ankylosaur, which has both of these powers:

-While displayed, you may reduce all damage dealt to you by 1.
-While displayed, you may put this card on top of your deck to reduce all damage dealt to you by 4, or to 0 if you have a role card.

So we would allow a player to display and use the first power in response to taking damage, but not the second power.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Card layout-wise, I really feel the "hour" and the "traits" locations on the cards should have been switched. Now, when holding a hand of cards, the traits will be mostly hidden.

Also seems like there's more "unused" space on the card. I hope the size of the text in the Powers box won't be smaller than on the current cards.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Available now! 5-1-Threads-Unravel

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Selinker wrote:

To FAQ my own question about the FAQ:

By my question I mean: What other card(s) will get a new FAQ entry because the concept of flipping over a card has been defined in the rulebook now?

What about WotR Seelah's Wardstone Sentry power, "When another character encounters a monster that has the Cultist or Demon trait, you may immediately move to his location."? Should that be changed to "flip over", or can you temp close your location then move to the villain's location if it has one of those two traits?