Yesterday I received this :-In the next week or so, we're expecting to ship Pathfinder Adventure Card Game?Promo Card: Dance with Squealy Nord, the next product of your subscription.
cool but probably means I wont receive it before Christmas / New Year.
I read you were trying to co-ordinate release date so that US subscribers get theirs at the same time as it arrives in stores. I expected mine to bringing its way and arriving 5-10 days later (but xmas post will probably add to that) it took around that time last time.
I am surprised that Infinity games (IGUK) is offering it as in stock before mine has and probably most other subscribers have even shipped. Have they broken an agreement and offered it early?
Thanks for the updated rules. PACG is now officially coing off the shelf.
It is so much easier to start the rules afresh rather than having to refer and cross reference the FAQ.
It would be really great if you ammended the FAQ to remove all the rules related changes or split it into three sections :-
Section 1 - FAQ
Section 2 - Rules errata Digital edition (post 12 Nov Update)
Section 3 - Rule errata Physical edition (pre 12 Nov Update)
I hesitate to suggest a FAQ entry for the new rules
Under Explore ..... You may explore your location once per turn. Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn; if, during a single exploration, multiple effects each give you an....
Why say you may explore yur location once per turn and immediatly follow it whith examples that contradict this, Unless I am mis reading the Exploer rules.
My Understanding is :-
1. As per the first sentance "You may explore your location once each turn without playing a card that allows you to explore; this must be your first exploration for the turn"
2. During an exploration if you trigger effects that allow you to explore again , at the end of the current exploration you explore once more only.
3. You may play cards e.g. Blessings of the Gods that can be discarded to explore again.
This means that you could explore as per 1 above whic could trigger 2 to be followed by 3 which again could trigger 2 and again followed by 3...
Am I wrong ?
From my experience there is generally an option to explore twice and often to explore more that that , I do agree it is not practical to explore more than twice. However it is confusing to state in the main rules as a single sentance "You may explore your loation once per turn."
Perhaps this sentance should have been left out as it has no rule impact on the section.
Mine arrived yesterday as well.
It actully cost about 17.5% less than UK, I saved about $4.
Ideally I would like it early but its not a biggie. I guess they are timing it so that the distributors and shops can synchronise availability.
They should be a priority and it will take longer and more labour to send to subscribers.
At least we have that option and with a reasonable discount.
@h4ppy , hopefully it will arrive this month.
On your comment about add a die , I would haply go for renaming it determine which skill die you are using.
I disagree with your use of boost as this could cause confuion with adding a bonus to a die.
I think it is already quite clear that any powers or boons that add a die do so by adding a die of the type (dx), determined at the end of the action :- Determine which Die You’re Using.
Thankyou that post is 90% of what I have been waiting for, there are some other changes in the pipeline but Vic's rule updates make the fundemental rules sequence and the process they each follow , IMO , clear and unambiguous.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Nothing is immune to Magic.
Fantastic , IMO your last take rulebook changes are clear and unambigous.
Before the second take included "even" and differentiated between Phase , Step and Actions (the latter realy helped) as well as deleting the sentance "You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill. " I was still confused.
Its a shame that damage is not a seperate step and an introduction to new players will have to point out the danger of using a spell to add 1 to a check when you could use a spell to counter 2 or more/all damage, which may be more mportant than defeating the bane, which may inflict damage if defeated. Maybe this should be added as advice in the rulebook or FAQ.
Of course nothing is immune to magic only applies if a card doesn't override it.
As for players playing multiple characters it would be easy to add a sentance somewhere in the rules "If a player isplaying multiple characters then treat each character as though it is controlled by a seperate player."
Actually this update has helped me a lot and I will definitely be taking PACG off the shelf and onto the table. Thanks Vic and Mike,
@Happy thanks I will take a look. I am still waiting for the tidy up. I hav lost track of all the changes, apart from those in the FAQ. I was asked last game night about it and I had to be honet and say we played quite a lot wrong and I wsn't to cler on how some of the fundemental rules should be played. We have character sheets ready to go and one of the guys will be happy to buy a game for the club nights. The odd card mistake wont be a big issue but we don't want to invest club time and then find we have been playing it wrong.
Interestingly I saw a new session posted by a first time player and he said he had o rules issues , I decided not to point him to your FAQ , that is how I felt until I checked in here and found out how wrong I was.
@Mike and thanks again, I am still waiting , sorry for the push , I have left it two weeks and decided to pop in after the subject was brought up at club night.
@Mike , On a lot of the posts your answers have stated that a decision is pending as you alude to above.
Whilst I (and hopefully others) am waiting for the updated rule book and/or these answers being posted to thet FAQ, could you please list those rules that are under consideration for revision or clarification?
I haven't been making notes but I trust you have a list gleaned from here.
I know they include aspects of Playing a card and when exactly an encounter ends and thus limiting when damage prevention can be played are amongst them.
There are losts of fan based answers which didn't stop when you said you need to (paraphrasing here) do due diligence before issuing an official response. I don't always agree with the fan interpretations and often find them confusing, which in at least one case you agreed that was the case.
I had hoped it would be released by now as I would like to start playing the game before the October Release.
I thought you were Mike and it will be so much easier to play with it arrives and i dont have towork out when is any not any , a die a die and a die a skill and a trait added to a skill , when can I use a card or not use a card ...etc
This is to create a bookmark so I know when its available.
Every time I read the forum the game seems to change and I don't want all the wrong stuff and arguments in my head. Also there are a few on the forums who are quite rude to anyone asking simple questions even obvious newcommers. I think you handle it very well but I have met things to do than having to effectively pay to be insulted e.g. buy game , try to understand it and get insulted for it. This is not aimed at Paizo or yourself.
Maybe you could email subscribers when its available.
You can make any posts , I just want the spirit of the request honoured but that may not be possible.
I haven't been keeping a record of which items have Mike's or Vic's response as something similar to we are working on it and will have an answer. I think its at least 6 and some of the issues are for me fundemental to the playing of the game or the strategy of playing the game.
some are in response to my questions and other to yours so I know you re aware of them.
To answer your question it is more a placeholder for the release of a new rulebook and PoD cards.
I have given up trying to keep up with the changes many are game changers.
When the FAQ was mainly for clarification and only a few impacted the rules it wasn't to bad but now it appears that way but really a lot of the FAQ's are more than clarification and they change the meaning of the rules.
How many times have we seen the comment "you are playing it that way because you are playing the rules as read" which is how I want to play a game.
I am waiting for a version that merges the rules part of the FAQ and Rules and provides general guidance for interpreting the cars , bearing in mind cards override rules. the FAQ shuold be in IMO for further clarification.
I am not looking for every detail but some things are fundemental and you should not have to provide an unofficial timing guide it should be a basic part of the rules book , so the one on the back needs updating. I appreciate your effort , I think in some ways it is to detailed but that just shows how much is required to interpret things from the rules. Its lie a second rulebook.
The last straw for me was including damage reduction within the encounter check. How could I miss that if I had read it that way initially great no issue but now every game I played was wrong (to me its like cheating) and all I achieved invalidated and I didnt even learn the game or its strategies, so much I played wrong.
I put in time like many others to give it a chance but for everyone who did there is maybe 50 or a hunderd that have given up or will be hacked off when someone points out that they are playing wrong.
I know they meant well but IMO their playtest developent appears to have been narrow and they didnt grab enough contributors outside of their groups and within their target audience. I saw no reuests tat I can recall on BGG or CSW or in any of their preview videos or demos. The latter came across as though it had been really well thought through and polished well that has been proven wrong. 80% their yes much better than a lot of other games but then they aren't a little company and this is not their first game.
I haven't givn up but the more i am reminded of it the more peeved I am at wasting so much precious time over the last month +. Here I am throwing more good time after bad. There are so many good games out there now and I am off to play one, between parental, domestic and social commitments.
I posted this elsewhere and the realised why not create the thread I suggested.
It would be really great if this was just left for Paizo to respond to rather than used for some as q target to flame. I am happy to wait although the longer it is the more chance I will cancel my subscription. The only reason I haven't is I thinker s a very good game here just for now anew for me its too messy. I am sure others felt the same and some may even think its part of its charm.
What I would like is one thread to RSS that I can monitor to see progress on this , until then for me it is wasting my time checking posts on the forum and a bit disconcerting seeing even more issues adding to the list.
This one threw me and there are now about half a dozen card and main rules that are under due consideration according to Mike.
If this was the only game I played it wouldn't be too bad. I am really waiting for this all to be cleared up there is a lot of cross reference with the faq for rules and cards. Its not that I cant manage this I do at work but it breaks the theme and for me is no longer fun.
What is needed is an updated digital rules and cards , followed by POD cards ASAP. Then I will relearn the rules, I hope it happens soon or I may cancel my preorder/subscription. So shelved for now. Please don't criticize me for my choice of how I spend my leisure time. I could create an update my self but as a single dad with a technical job (Engineer + Regulation + Compliance) my free time is limited. The game is less finished then I thought , one or two fundamental rules changes and maybe some general card rules would have been OK. This is now well beyond that so until then I will wait.
What I would like is one thread to RSS that I can monitor to see progress on this , until then for me it is wasting my time checking posts on the forum and q bit disconcerting seeing even more issues adding to the list.
Good news but from the FAQ :-
Thanks Mike, really glad my input is useful.
and @cartmanbeck I am not asking for anything "RIGHT NOW" you seem to be putting words in my mouth.
I am waiting and hoping it will stabilise soon , I havn't put a time limit on it and I don't recall pressuring anyone for answers the odd hint or reminder.
It is my choice to wait and you don't need to understand why but as you have sort of asked :- I have had a go at playing it and I got a lot wrong ,since then there have been at least 5 major changes and a dozen minor ones and Mike is considering some more, that change the game quite a lot. We want to play as a campaign and not develop our characters on shifting sands.
Actually in this case I think the opposite is in play and perhaps trying to see how it could fit in with the rules.
The spirit of this situation would indicate you cannot use the animal ally.
If you look at the response to a lot of my points especially when care has been taken to answer the actual issue I am raising e,g, the one on default die that the second sentence is confusing. Which was my original point and not the issue as described in the first sentence which everyone focussed on.
Many of my questions have resulted in A FAQ entry but far more have FAQ entries that have surprised many of the major contributors.
I feel wording is important to clear understanding. In this case the rule is clear but the common sense says its wrong for this situation.
At this point in time I have given up trying to play the game correctly or at all. I just want an updated FAQ with the 3-4 things Mike has indicated are in progress and thn it would be great if an updated rulebook was available.
Some advice given to me on how to play has been overturned and so much has changed it is hard to work put what is even intended let alone correct.
Why is it any less reasonable for you or someone else to make a point based on common sense or implied words than for me to comment on the words as written.
My first post on this thread quoted the rules. I had not noticed it had been reworded in the FAQ I just wish we had one source an updated rulebook without the need to constantly cross reference the FAQ(which is needed and aI am glad its there) and this forum to keep up with the latest changes.
I bought the game to play it and every weekend I hope that enough has been sorted so that I can re introduce it at Monday night sessions. remember for every poster there is probably hundreds of others with the same issues. I see the same questions raised on BGG and when it was played on club night. I know others have said this on here and BGG but it is awkward when you have to keep explaining that despite the rulebook the game should be played this way because I saw it on a forum which may then contradict how a previous card ws played.
You are activating its animal trait to enable a power.
We probably need a FAQ entry / clarification that using a card as payment does not count as playing a card unless a specific card trait is required.
"when a card is used to pay the cost for a different power then the 'payment' card is considered blank (and cannot be recharged) and no element on the card , including a trait, can be used."
The wrongness is self evident.
If someone from Paizo gives me permission I will put it on BGG , with recommendations to check the FAQ on here and a link to it.
Ending a Scenario, Adventure, or Adventure Path If, at any point, you need to advance the blessings deck but there are no cards remaining in it, the scenario ends immediately, and your party of adventurers loses. You also lose if all of the characters are dead at the same time (see Dying on page 13). You do not earn the reward on the scenario card, and if you’re playing an adventure, you didn’t complete that scenario, and you’ll need to try again.
Not completing and failing mean the same thing but if you win the scenario and one character is still standing then you have completed it.
You may use the same character again but that character may not receive any of the rewards or non basic cards gained during the scenario it dies in.
You can of course point out your noble sacrifice so that she could win.
Many of that cards can be played to give an extra explore location, allies and blessings. Also with 6 characters you can block more locations once the villain is discovered. It requires a different strategy which could be double team some characters and focus them on closing locations. Use a character who can evade and explore to locate the villains location, then ignore it whilst closing the rest and moving the most suitable character to that location. With six characters you should always have one with a high value in each skill, with less you may need to burn time to meet certain challenges.
I believe it is balanced by player count.
You carry out one check completely before other. If you can still retain the card in your hand between checks it can be used in both checks.
If it is recharged or discarded in the first check and you have a power that can reclaim it then this power can be used between checks.
So yes as long as the glaive is not discarded.
In the rule book and the FAQ their are numerous references that classify revealing a card as one the actions that come under playing a card.
Playing a card means activating a card’s power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing the card. When a card has multiple powers, you must choose one of them
I realise that the card reveal is a sub action of Lini's power but discarding is almost always a sub action of something and it is in the same list.
On that basis and to he consistent I would say no As revealing the card is playing the ally. The whole point of Gogmurt is that it neutralizes animals.
Mike Selinker wrote:
That was my question to a certain point.
From how it has been clarified The rule
If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4.
Should be read "Your character may use a skill required for a check even if he doesn't possess it, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4.
I had originally thought it had meant you could only use a default die skill, if you didn't have a listed skill on your character card that was one of those required by the check.
now the 2nd sentence is muddying the waters.
You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.
Seems to imply that this is restricted and you can only use the default die of d4 when you have a boon that gives your character the skill you don't have.
Why else would this sentence be needed as the first sentence always lets you use a skill you don't have even when you have one you could use.
"only" is an instruction and if it is changed to even then why have the sentence unless my original undrrstanding of the first sentence was correct.
I do hope this is not some other implied wording I should have imagined and inserted. The sentence starts with "If" the key restriction is "doesn't have" now the clarification has been to add Even in front of it. Saying I should have implied it is a bit of a stretch but i do accept the solution. (Hopefully this will be added to the FAQ)
If I go for for an allergy test and I am told "If the results don't show any of the signs listed here you may eat these foods" If I was going to imply anything before the if it would be Only and not Even. Granted both could be used but why have the test if even would be implied , I dont need it. So a simple you can eat any of these foods or in this case you may always use a d4 default die for a skill required for a check.
@Fromper in your post when you detailed 5 or 6 points I recall I posted I agree but you should change die roll to check. The When to play die thread.
@H4ppy now you know why I said I would shelve it until all these points were cleared up.
@Chad / Mike , I didn't literally mean a healing just a way to define them as post damage actions as opposed to avoid damage (Armour).
Now if Mike would just clarify the thread on default die. I may already to take it off the shelf.
I can see the choices and a parallel between do I use a two handed weapon or do I use a one handed one and a shield.
I think damage reduction allies and spells could be seen as healers post the damage and so it would be far easier to add a post damage step where they can be played following normal one per type rules. Less errata and in the spirit of your intention.
I include allies, items are not independent, whereas an ally will act by type with little direction, so 1 can attack and the other can protect the character without obstructing each other.
This is totally the opposite to how I understood the rule. I understood healing/damage reduction could occur after the encounter.
I will be quite interested in the final ruling. I am also concerned that we seem to be collating more and more exceptions.
Seems there is hardly a rule I have played correctly..:(
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
I have been playing it that way and it seems so has H4ppy.
Wouldn't it be simpler to treat healing or damage reduction as post the combat / encounter check. I realise armour being a separate type is not an issue , making exception for damage reducing spells, items , allies may be far more effort than just ending the check as suggested.
I have actually created a PDF based on Questions and Just resolution , I would be happy to pass it on.
I am not being offensive in fact some of the comments aimed at me recently , I need lessons in grammar, obtuse , rules lawyer , I have taken as offensive. All because I did not understand the whole missing implied words.
I admit I have no Rpg gaming experience and the background to my thinking was that there is GM or DM to resolve interpretations. No offense was meant.
I have been involved as a player , developer and a fair share of rules proofing in all the other aspects of gaming you mention except Larping or party games. I am working with a couple of companies at the moment. I have seen some great rules and some abysmal rules. You can see me credited in everything from Combat Commander to Sergeants in Miniatures.
I can honestly say I have never come across the whole implied words that posters here seem to take as normal. I may have wrongly put this down to being a rpg practice. I can't see how "Without even or only it reads as said. I am really not sure if this is a common thing among rpg gamers that they seem to think it is ok to add words to change the meaning of a rule." is offensive but if you find it so then you seem to be saying that it is wrong otherwise it would not be offensive.
Also I am not asking for a ruling on every variation.
Just a couple of major rules the Playing a card section which Vic has just cleared up in his FAQ and the default die use which once cleared up should be quite straightforward.
I doubt if the issues I have had amount to more than a few sentences worth of changing , most of which Vic has agreed with needed clarifying.
I alos appreciate other gamers input and again I am used to this where it points to the rules to answer the questions. I am not so used to a number of different interpretations based on if you add this word here then the designer meant x. As Vic has posted it isn't always that simple. I really don't understand why if I don't agree then I must be wrong or obtuse or don't understand grammar.
I do see their point but often see others as well.
I believe until a game is played as the designer intended how can you understand the impact of "house rules" etc. Personally I don't enjoy making it up as I go along.
I am also used to the judgement being made by the games designers , play testing normally sorts out the ambiguities or as in this case the early days post release.
I only have seen a few real game changers most of which have been addressed and this one falls into that category.
I am not sure if you are saying I shouldn't ask for clarification or I should accept what other gamers say even if it still is not clear or I should work it out myself.
Even with even it can still be misinterpreted as only if you don't have a listed skill, in the context of choosing between even and only it is clear but as a standalone statement it is not.
I quoted have read Vic's post , all I am asking is :-
If you wish make a check with a skill you do not possess then your die will be a default of d4.
This statement is not linked to having any of the skills listed on the check.
If this is the case wouldn't the following be clearer :-
You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your character card only if another card gives your character that skill.
I appreciate MIke and Vic's reply's. The second sentence of the rule seems to suggest you can only use the skill if you have a Boon bestowing the skill. Which seems to be the question asked by the op.
So is the default d4 die dependent on having such a card?
Without even or only it reads as said. I am really not sure if this is a common thing among rpg gamers that they seem to think it is ok to add words to change the meaning of a rule.
I really don't see how we are expected to remember wicch implied word to add where.
I am sure there has been posts from both Mike and Vic that interpret this both ways,
Rules should be written that are not open to this sort of duel implied meaning. If they slip through then net then that is what errata and a FAQ is for.
If you read my post my question was does this interpretation only apply to allies.
A clearer wording would be ... If you do not have a listed skill ...
IMO any implies you have to use a skill you possess before you get the default die. Which makes sense because you would naturally choose to skills you have. I can even see how an Ally would be an exception.
I think it is reasonable to ask if this clarification applies to all boon's and if it can be added to the fAQ.
I do believe you as indicated by my statement above :-" have just looked at the post and maybe this just applies to an Ally which is the case here."
If this is the case why wasn't this caught in the recent FAQ upgrade.
I have just looked at the post and maybe this just applies to an Ally which is the case here.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I have not read every post on here and should not have to, I tend to focus on things that catch my eye or I need to clarify.
This is a fairly strong contradiction of the rule.
If your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check
and ... only if he does not have wisdom listed as a skill.
The "default" skill can only be used if you have no other skill available for the check. In this case he could not add the die as he has Wisdom d8.
Rulebook page 11 :
I don't disagree with you, its just your easy way of thinking about it isn't everyone else's and certainly not mine.
Its not the half the cards that have you or yours etc on its the other half that only have "a" on.
I just don't want to have to examine the grammatical construct of every card that isn't explicit. From other forums I also know others feel the same as me. Is this just something RPG players accept, this just reinforces that they are not for me.
I cannot see why my suggestion to change the play a card rule is not acceptable, its clear and does not require a reconstruction of every sentence on the cards.
Oh and I am not convinced your statement above is true "Cards that change die rolls (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location."
I would accept that Cards that impact a check (add a bonus, give more dice, change the target number, etc) can be played to help any character at any location but that is not in doubt as it is quite clear from the rulebook.
I realise there is a strong group that think this is all obvious but there are also others that don't.
From Vic's post I believe he recognises this and is happy to clarify individual cards.
This game is attempting to bridge the gap between genres and maybe if you want to encourage this some posters could be more easy going and stop using slightly insulting terms such as "Rules lawyer" because we want a good rule set and to play the game as intended.
We also don't need grammar lessons especially when it centred around language that was never in doubt and as Vic pointed out it was who benefits from the action that I and others were asking about.
Over on the BGG games can live or die by their rules and where PACG is nowhere near the LOTR Dice Building Game fiasco, I believe Paizo may need to accept that part of its target audience wants a more structured defined rule book. To be fair part from a few cards which are in the FAQ it the Play Cards rule section that needs tidying up, specifically when you can play cards that have no restrictions, to benefit others actions.
I would also like to see some designers notes on how the co-op is meant to be co-operative. Apart from some basic planning on this character would be better at that location or paired with a certain character, the newly clarified rules mean passing chards is more important than playing them , however this is extremely costly in terms of time and lost actions.
yes h4ppy as has been stated this is the source of all the inconsistency.
If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time, with the exception that during each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited.
Tome of knowledge requires changing / FAQ entry then so do any following its path and contradicting the above rule.
Basically anything that allows you to circumvent a check is an exception to the above role and can only be played by the active player.
If a card in your hand does not specify when it can be played, you can generally play it at any time with the following exceptions
1. To circumvent a check or close a location you have to be the active player carrying out a Defeat, Disable, Evade or Close action.
2. During each step of attempting a check, you may only perform specific actions, so your ability to play cards may be limited.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Thank you Vic
That is basically what I have been trying to say I had no issue with who can play and activate it and I think almost everyone understood the implied you in this context. Which is why it didn't need spelling out in a grammar lesson.
I was basically trying to decide when it made sense for anyone to benefit from the power when the card did not indicate and inline with Playing cards in the rule book. I never understood why people thought I could not understand who played the card when every example I made was about who benefited.
Vic has already sorted the Intention behind Tome of knowledge.
So this brings us back to some of the original issue which is who benefits.
As the above examples show when the power states you,yours at a location or any its normally quite clear. Just because "you" pay the cost does not always mean "you" benefit.
It is other cases and I can see why this may need a few more FAQ entries.
If the card has a power to evade, close or defeat then "you" must be the active player and the player playing the card to benefit from it.
Blessing of the Gods when compared to the others seems no different oin structure from Thieves tools 2nd power so all this implied you and your is not helping me, only the explicit statement of either Blessing of the Gods 2nd power can be used to benefit anybody or when evading, closing, defeating only you can play cards to help yourself.
Therefore a non active player , unless specifically noted on a card, cannot discard a card to meet the active players closing, evade or defeat requirement.
This seems to mean that only time you can play a card for someone else to benefit is during a check , unless the card clearly states it.
So all the cards can only be played by the holder for an action to be carried out by the holder unless the card states otherwise.
Which is a lot different than the rule as stated under playing cards which allows a card to be played at any time if it does not have restrictions, apart from during a check when a strict sequence need to be followed.
The implied "you" makes a nonsense of Blessings of the gods which allows "you" to play a card to add a die to another's check.
I would much prefer a straight forward statement than all this implied stuff as I still feel it could imply something else.
But that is different from discard this card to explore a location.
In your examples "your" is the implied you.
This is not an english essay it is a set of game rules and I could see no reason why discard/recharge/banish a card to explore a location could not be done by one player to aid another. This is a fantasy game and we already have cards working over distance to aid checks.
My screen name was given to me years ago basically as I had done a mathematical analysis of astrological calculations based on sideral calendar (winding back time to show 4000 year old constellations and mapping current dates against them) This gave fix positions as a reference. The data showed that the constellations were just a backdrop against a time line which measured collated data. The stars were just place holders. Interesting side effect when you worked out someone's astrological data and plotted it in 3 it comes out as a double helix.
I was just saying we should have started a new thread .. so thanks
3. Cards that prevent a die roll, such as those that automatically evade or defeat a bane or automatically acquire a boon, can only be played by the character encountering that bane or boon, unless they specifically say otherwise.
3. Cards that circumvent a check, such as those that automatically evade or defeat a bane or automatically acquire a boon, can only be played by the character encountering that bane or boon, unless they specifically say otherwise.
I am not sure about rule 2 though.
and 4. Cards that effect a check
I wish we had just opened another thread rather than tacked it on to this one.
I do have an issue when inserting an implied anything especially an implied "you" now Mike and Vic both used this term.
As I have stated before I have never played a RPG game before. The nearest I have come to it is Magic Realm, Mage Knight (boardgame) some computer games and maybe Hero Quest.
So I am not used to rules being decided on the spot etc.
This game seems to be aimed at gamers that aren't looking for an RPG gme and all its DM/GM etc. Which means we wont be used to those sort of rule sets.