The_Napier's page

According to the dictionaries I checked (Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster), it's mey-guh s/ ma·gus - that's the "may-gus" option.

I know, I know, being all pedantic and technical is a buzz-kill.

I might go with m'goose, just to spite the dictionaries

No strategy in character selection at all; literally whatever people would like to play. We've just always worked on the basis of 'we'll probably make it work in the long run'!

Thankfully, I've got a friend who will carry as many Cures as he has spell slots and one who might possibly build a deck with only melee weapons if given the choice, and it generally does just seem to work out...

Sajan / Ezren / Seelah / Valeros / Harsk

Alahazra / Jirelle / Merisiel / Oloch / Damiel

Adowyn / Enora (now Arueshalae) / Seelah / Crowe / Balazar

The only way I can really wrap my head around it is if the order of the whole 'trading between players' and the 'one Trade each with a Trader' was quite fluid, and I'm not certain it's supposed to be. Say every character was going to the same Trader, are they really supposed to have arranged all their cards beforehand? And I'm even more confused if all the 'spare' cards were supposed to be back in the box, because then - as Brainwave said - you're going to end up with gaps that need filling from the box, which seems completely counterintuitive

One of the things that convinces me it's definitely not supposed to be a fluid part of the trading between players phase is because of the 'if multiple characters go to the same trader, randomly choose the order they Trade in' rule

(therefore I still don't actually get it)

If I could divert this away from dead characters (which is hopefully an issue I never have to face, although so nearly was at the very end of our last session - two lives dependent on one successful roll...) and also raise my concerns about the order trading around cards and going to Traders

That's my take on it as well, however I think that section of the rules could use some cleaning up to make it more clear that it's all technically "legal."

I like your point by point breakdown above. The only part I still wonder about from the way it's probably intended to play is whether you're supposed to get rid of excess cards (back to the box) before trading (thus making the trades more difficult (at least initially we have so many excess cards that there's really no "cost" to these trades, we've got plenty of junk to throw at the traders for the couple of cards we might want) as you would end up short cards and needing to take some basics after trading (vs having excess cards available to choose from still). I *think* that your way is probably correct but I'm not 100% sure.

The only way I can really wrap my head around it is if the order of the whole 'trading between players' and the 'one Trade each with a Trader' was quite fluid, and I'm not certain it's supposed to be. Say every character was going to the same Trader, are they really supposed to have arranged all their cards beforehand? And I'm even more confused if all the 'spare' cards were supposed to be back in the box, because then - as Brainwave said - you're going to end up with gaps that need filling from the box, which seems completely counterintuitive

Citing the Wrath rulebook because it's online (waiting for the MM one):

Wrath rulebook p.11 wrote:

If a card refers to a check against another card, that refers to any check required by that card, whether it’s a check to defeat, a check to acquire, a check to recharge, or any other check.

this is what I should have done.thank you

Yup, absolutely. 'Against' isn't as aggressive as it sounds...

Longshot11 wrote:

Still, seems weird that a check against a bane that invokes Trait X, does not in itself invoke Trait X..

I simplified it to myself like this:

I am hitting a dragon, which breathes fire, with a sword
Is the dragon fiery? - yes he is, he breathes fire
Is my action of hitting the dragon fiery - no it is not

I am hitting a fire elemental, which is made of fire, with a sword
Is the elemental fiery? - yes he is
Is my action of hitting the elemental fiery - yes it is, he is on fire

and then

I am hitting a skeleton with a fire sword
Is the skeleton fiery? - nope
Is my action of hitting the skeleton fiery - yup

Still, seems weird that a check against a bane that invokes Trait X, does not in itself invoke Trait X..

I simplified it to myself like this:

I am hitting a dragon, which breathes fire, with a sword
Is the dragon fiery? - yes he is, he breathes fire
Is my action of hitting the dragon fiery - no it is not

I am hitting a fire elemental, which is made of fire, with a sword
Is the elemental fiery? - yes he is
Is my action of hitting the elemental fiery - yes it is, he is on fire

Work Lunch Crew: The old lady, the little girl, MacGyver, and the orcish priest of merchants. (Estra, Yoon, Mavaro, Drelm).

Having looked through the characters last night for the first time, this is the exact shortlist for who I thought I might play. Although I suppose I should give some consideration to the other four players are picking...

Longshot11 wrote:

I don't have my set yet (curse you, international deliveries!)

This wait makes me so sad, every AP. Especially the time where the 'this parcel is trapped at customs' message went AWOL

Still, subscribing is the easiest way, and I am, to my core, deeply deeply lazy

'this parcel is trapped at customs' message received! MM en route!

I don't have my set yet (curse you, international deliveries!)

This wait makes me so sad, every AP. Especially the time where the 'this parcel is trapped at customs' message went AWOL

Still, subscribing is the easiest way, and I am, to my core, deeply deeply lazy

Longshot11 wrote:

Traders! Tell us about the traders! Or...anything, at this point, really!

Traders:

** spoiler omitted **

This is probably covered in the rulebook, but humour me as my set wings its merry slow way across the Atlantic:

There's a slightly scary phrase hidden there:

Grazzle's role card said wrote:

...during this examination you may ignore any powers on the examined card

I've not yet seen any cards that do trigger when examined, have I?

While looking for something else completely, I accidentally stumbled upon this old post of mine. I feel I may have been rightly scared

I'm afraid you've stumbled into the ACG forum. I've flagged your post for movement, but why not have a look around while you're here? It's a mighty fine game...

I'm in Europe; we're not allowed tracking numbers

You have to destroy them! Yes, it feels utterly wrong, but it's all part of the game. I genuinely think you lose something if you don't do it.

On a related note, the USPS website tells me my copy of SeaFall left Heathrow this morning en route for delivery :D

October will also feature at least the gen con promo, as Vic explains.

four promos!

First World Bard wrote:

Joshua Birk 898 wrote:

Longshot11 wrote:

In particular, I'll point a finger to the Agash henchmen. In a typical 6-player game, this gives you the unique opportunity to trash 7 player turns, just for playing a hero like Alahazra.

It doesn't just discard a blessing, it discards a blessing AND replaces it with a sandstorm card. That doesn't cause you to miss a turn (unless you know something about the sandstorm card that I dont), instead it throws an obstacle in your way.

It's also possible that the Agash henchman is a one-off henchman, and not a henchman that is in up to 7 locations. In this case, you might even get away with only having one Sandstorm villain in the box. If for some reason you Trigger the Agash a second time while the Sandstorm is in the deck, you ignore the impossible thing and just discard the blessing. Who knows, maybe you'd get lucky and discard the Sandstorm.

The scenario listed says to replace 4 blessings with sandstorm villains. So there have to be at least 4...

Technically it doesn't - it says to replace four blessings with the villain Sandstorm. Which quite possibly means, as I interpreted it, put four fewer blessings in and put in the Sandstorm (not four Sandstorms) instead

I also have questions, but they can wait, because I love this. Everything looks amazing

Briefly thought the flavour text on the Curse of Poisoning began "Lol!"

We got through it with a team of five, although only on about the fifth attempt, and even that took a rather remarkable series of rolls on the villain fight

I thought the concept was really good, but the execution did turn out to be brutal

I do it. But I'm very lazy, so it's largely easy. My main objection isn't the price, which stings a little, but the effort of paying customs

EDIT: customs only on the base sets - everything else comes in under the limit

magus, druid, cleric, and occultist in the add-on deck

There's a slightly scary phrase hidden there:

...during this examination you may ignore any powers on the examined card

I've not yet seen any cards that do trigger when examined, have I?

Love AD in the mail day ... Like mini Christmas ..

It's today! Which is glorious, as I move offices next week and coming back here to pick this box up would've been a pain

(We still haven't started Wrath, so this puts us only 25 scenarios behind...)

While I don't know the number of sets I have, I do know that they include the S&S, Wrath, and Mummy's Mask sets

I think 3) was about the 'anyone doing something as part of a check needs to succeed at the necessary rolls themselves' thing, which might actually have been FAQd anyway.

Thanks all

I have three questions. At least two of them are probably answerable with 'you are being stupid', but let me ask anyway:

1)

I'm not sure this was ever really possible before or even if it is possible now, but...

WotR Rulebook p11 wrote:

You can never automatically succeed at a combat check.

Where on earth does it say that? I swear I've read the page half a dozen times now. Do I have a messed-up rulebook?

2)

We're in process of modifying that rule a little. It'll likely be something like "Cards or powers that allow you to automatically succeed at checks do not apply to combat checks unless they specifically say they can do that against banes or specific types of banes." But, y'know, written by Vic.

Was there ever a final version of this? I'd like to explain it to my players when we - finally - start Wrath but (no offence Mike) I'm still not sure I 100% understand it in this format. I know there's this FAQ entry, but that doesn't mention combat

and the slightly-less-related 3) I've got it into my head that Mike/Vic clarified (as in, didn't FAQ) two rules in the past few weeks. One of the ones I'm thinking of is the 'filling gaps in decks with loot' rule, but for the life of me I can't remember the other one. Any ideas...?

Absolutely you do. Focus on the 'may' (in terms of intention) rather than the 'then' (which is for timing)

I think dying during an encounter is quite rare anyway

;)

This sounds legal to me, too, but maybe not so productive. In most cases when you don't actually defeat the bane, it gets shuffled back into the location deck, so eventually you'll need to fight something, or the blessings deck will run out before you complete your scenario.

Except Ekkie shuffles it into a random location deck, so - especially in larger groups where there are more location decks to scatter these cards between - she certainly should be able to rummage through one at least one location, ignoring what she doesn't fancy until she finds a henchman / villain to kill

I would ask - although this may well be answered tomorrow - if, assuming there is no new player to start as Rue (as I know we won't have), whether the 'abandoned' character should have their deck broken up?

And I assume Rue is considered to have completed all the previous scenarios, for the sake of future rewards?

Then it makes sense that you have multiple henchmen...

The more players (and therefore the more locations to have been ploughed through before reaching the Citadel), the greater the probability of hitting a henchman and clearing out that deck. Makes perfect sense

Alternatives include:

• making some of the B scenarios optional, without cutting out the feat rewards.
  
• Using some of the B scenarios to introduce the story of the AP.
  
• Using some of the B scenarios to "level up" the characters.
  
• Using some the B scenarios to introduce the background/setting of the AP.
  
• Designing some of the B scenarios to be "full speed, full difficulty, fully-replayable" scenarios.

I mainly vote for option four - introducing the world of the AP, without actually the story itself. Cover what the characters were doing before the story began.

Give people (beginners and experienced players) the opportunity to work out some of how their character plays before actually getting into the higher-pressure environment of the storyline. Let them upgrade their deck a little with cards, and probably the current single feat.

Show off both the basic concepts of the game as a whole, and introduce some of the new concepts of the set in particular, in as simple a way as possible

Feel free to talk about wine any time! I live in the middle of Oregon wine country and usually have a bottle open when I'm playing, coincidentally, I also live in the middle of Oregon beer country, so on those occasions I don't have wine I have a bottle of beer.

Drinking is a deeply significant part of our Pathfinder sessions. Although I never see Oregon beer in the UK, which is a real shame

We've shorted the blessing deck more than once, although strangely never put too many in

Related rather than on-topic, but I've lost count of how many times two members of our group have questioned me when I assure them that there's supposed to be 30. I'm not got round to asking whether they think I'm high or low, but the frequency of the cries of 'Really?' and 'Are you sure?' is pretty silly.

Maybe we should drink less when we play...

The email actually says three items, but only lists one. I did a LOL.

It's code for "promo card(s)"!

I know that! But it was delightfully unexpected in a formal order confirmation

:D

Oh, I pray Ekkie arrives before we start Wrath. I'm becoming more and more obsessed with the idea. She's going to shred everything. By which I mean, hide everything I don't want to deal with.

Dave Riley wrote:

By my calculations a half-hafling would actually be a three-quartersling.

It cannot work that way, because then every time two halflings multiplied they would have a quarterling.

And generation-by-generation the species would tend to zero

I was going to start a new thread, but I might semi-hijack this one.

If I'm doing something with a random element and a choice element, can I choose what order I do them, by which I mean:

Can I choose which card to Vulture after I determine where it's going?

Can Poodlekiller Ekkie choose whether to shuffle in or topdeck an evaded card after determining what location deck it's headed for?

My guess is no to both, sadly, but I thought I'd ask in hope

I'd go with "examine" mostly because shuffling the deck have lot bigger chance of ending up being beneficial to players [despite banishing boons] then just returning cards back in order they were... and I can't see bridge collapsing being beneficial to players.

I guess knowing what the Boon:Bane ratio at the location might help figuring out what the intent behind the card text is.

I have to admit, I worked on the same 'unlikely to help players' idea and came up with the exact opposite assumption - returning cards in order means players know exactly what's coming and when

Umm, you know you're in the card game forum? Which is cool. Your idea could make a pretty cool item for the current Adventure Path, I think.

sounds Corrupted to me

It could just be a new card altogether.

"When permanently closed: On closing, you may remove from the game 1 "Radiance" in your hand to draw the loot "Awakened Radiance."

I wondered that

Pokemon, then ;)

Second Hint

Paul Peterson wrote:

In the adventure path, Radiance is just a simple sword that you find early on, but as you perform brave deeds, more of its abilities unlock, and it grows along with the characters. You'll see more about how we are doing this in a really cool way in adventure...

I've thought about this occasionally ever since Paul first wrote it. I expected it to be explained when I read Radiance and it wasn't, which it was has been so intriguing...

Youre not being nitpicky. Thanks for this. Felt like having multiple d20s with Blessings was strong.

Lets say,though, I have as final pool: 1d10+2d8

Can I then expand two charges for 2d20+d8?

very much so. Assemble dice pool; expend one or more charges; for each charge, replace your highest non-d20 die with a d20

"In certain scenarios, the players get a new support card type: the troop card. In adventure deck 2, your troops are the Knights of Kenabres..."

THERE'S MORE TROOPS SOMEWHERE

:D

She's delightful in single-player. Evade anything you don't fancy dealing with (where allowed, which it largely is), and odds are it ends up in another deck, meaning you can reduce locations - or one at least - into boons plus villain / henchman. Hurrah.

Pegged it as awesome on my first scan through the cards when I opened the box. To the extent that I nearly posted a thread similar to this.