elcoderdude's page

Greetings, old friends. I was staring at this Magic: The Gathering card, which is a preview from the February 2023 set "Phyrexia: All Will Be One", and I was thinking, "Haven't they used this 'Corrupted' mechanic before?"
Magic:The Gathering card: The Seedcore
...and finally I realized what I remembering was Wrath.

THANK YOU, MR. RICHMOND!

I imagine that was difficult to post. I very much appreciate that you did so. (My apologies for being the gadfly who pulled you into this thread.) Knowing a little more about what went on helps me process the loss of the future of PACG. I hope it does the same for others.

You have my sympathy for the hardship you have endured, as do all the folks at Lone Shark. Thank you for all you have done to bring us some of the most enjoyable gaming experiences of our lives.

...the lack of an explanation is out of character for everyone involved.

The problem is, everyone is not necessarily involved: Lisa Stevens, Vic Wertz step back from active roles

My concern is that the lack of explanation is part of a new norm. I am hoping to be proven wrong.

Earlier this year Paizo ended the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game product line. The only public indication of this decision was a single sentence at the beginning of this blog post by Organized Play Manager Tonya Woldridge:

As we continue winding down our Pathfinder Adventure Card Game program, we’ve decided to end it with a bang!

That head-scratch-inducing line implies the product line's termination had been mentioned elsewhere. (It hadn't.) The fact that the Organized Play Manager posted this in the PACS forum led many to believe that only PACG Organized Play is scheduled for termination, not PACG itself. (In fact, both are).

PaizoCon just came and went with nary a mention of the card game's demise, AFAIK. Now - I know Paizo is an RPG company. But Paizo's near-total lack of communication about this decision disregards three facts:
(1) Loyal card games fans have spent $800 to $1000, or more, on Paizo. MRSP for the complete sets is $820; organized play decks and PDFs push that higher.
(2) Many card game players are long-time Pathfinder RPG players. When an RPG player accidently posts in the card game forum, nearly always a card game player is well-versed enough to answer the RPG question. And, despite having very few friends, even I know more than one five-star Pathfinder GM who plays the card game.
(3) Many non-RPG-playing card game players have now started playing the Pathfinder RPG. Myself included. The first RPG purchases I made in my adult life were for Pathfinder, because I first played the card game.

Paizo's non-communication about the card game's demise conveys a very non-Paizo-like disrespect for customers which is reminiscent of Another RPG Company Which Will Not Be Named.* Dear Paizo: can't you do better?
(*Wizards of the Coast. There. I said it.)

Well, the official news is out and the game is 'dead'...

To be clear: the end announced here is the end of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Society, not necessarily the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. (Or, at least, it's unclear.)

It's a loss, to be sure, but I'm still not certain if we've lost both, or just the former.

UPDATE: I'm sure y'all are familiar with stage 1 in Kubler-Ross's five stages of grieving. (Denial - it's not a river in Egypt.) That was me seeing this 15 minutes ago. The online VC Tyler Beck states unambiguously in the blog comments that this is the end of PACG, not just PACGS.
As wkover aptly also commented, the blog post is the "strangest, most out-of-the-blue backdoor eulogy that I've ever seen." I really wonder exactly what went down inside Paizo.

My wild guess is COVID-19 caused a sharp downturn in Paizo's profits (like so many companies), forcing Lisa & Co. to axe the least profitable products.

There's something marvelously ironic about Hawkmoon making one of his rarer-than-a-blue-moon errors responding to a question about Aspect of the Hawk...

Try the official Seasons...

More about that here: https://paizo.com/pacs

In particular, scenario PDFs can be purchased here (but mind, only the latest were written for the Core Set):
https://paizo.com/store/pacg/pacs

(Note: Paizo's site is wonky at the moment - I kept retrying and the pages did load)

+1 to Malcolm. 18 is too much (in the example in which the check as a difficulty of 15).
I'm staring at the errata and finding the use of "at least" to be very odd. Is it grammatically correct? I think "does not exceed the difficulty by 3 or more" would have been easier to understand.
EDIT: ninja'd

Peakhope on boardgamegeek.com posed this interesting question:
The Mummy's Mask scenario 5E, "Tef-Naju's Bastion", says:

At the end of your turn, you may bury the top card of your deck to move.

At the end of your turn, if the location Five-Pointed Sun is unoccupied, add a monster from the box to the top of that location deck.

The (much beloved) location Five-Pointed Sun says:

AT THIS LOCATION

When you end your turn at this location, each character is dealt 1d4 Cold damage.

Peakhope is playing the Inquisitor Class Deck character Varril and has taken this Knight of the Rose role power feat:

At the end of your turn, if you are the only character at your location, you may move.

Peakhope asked, If Varril is alone at another location at the end of his turn, can he apply the end-of-turn effects in this order:

+1 to Parody.

Suffer Damage, If Necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, you suffer an amount of damage equal to the difference between the difficulty and the result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage.

Even when a Monster's Check to Defeat is a non-combat check, you suffer Combat damage if you roll less then the check's difficulty.

Note, however - this is only for banes with the type "Monster". You do not automatically suffer damage when you fail to defeat a Barrier - each Barrier tells you exactly what are the consequences of failure.

You are right: you've played both of those examples incorrectly.

Re Deathtrap: The cited Ring of the Godless power is nearly useless for a character who already has Divine: Wisdom+3 as a skill. When this character recharges the Ring, the effect is it *reduces* their modifier (it changes their Divine skill from "Wisdom+3" to "Wisdom+2"). As Scripted said, the card is not per se a buff.
I am assuming the character encountering the MDT is Drelm, and he has taken the power feat allowing him to use the cited power against a Trap (because the MDT is not an Obstacle, but it is a Trap.) If so: The way Drelm should defeat the MDT is to use his Disable skill against the Disable 5 Check To Defeat. He then would roll his Disable skill plus his Divine skill; assuming no skill feats, this would be d8+2+d8+3, which is 2d8+5. (Drelm is also a barrier-buster). Recharging the Ring of the Godless would make his check *worse* (at 2d8+4).

See the Skill rulebook text I cited on your other thread.

Whenever Simoun attempts a Check To Defeat against a bane with the type Barrier, Simoun adds her Perception skill, which is Intelligence + 2. Any check. It could be a Wisdom check. As long as it is a check to defeat a barrier, Simoun adds this. Before Simoun gets an Intelligence skill feat, she would add d8+2. After she gets an Intelligence skill feat, she would add d8+3. And so on.

So in your example of a Disable check to defeat to a barrier, she rolls d12+1+d8+2, assuming she has no relevant skill feats. Simoun's a barrier-buster.

FYI Every since the second PACG set (Skull&Shackles), the term "skill" always means both the die AND the modifier. See here:

RULES: SKILLS, DICE, AND MODIFIERS

If your character card says “Strength d10,” and the “+1” box next to that has been checked, your Strength skill is d10+1, and your Strength die is d10. (The “+1” is called a “modifier.”) If your character card also says “Melee: Strength +3,” your Melee skill is d10+4, your Melee die is d10, and the Melee modifier is +4.

This is exciting! I've been trying to figure out the free version first, because our group wants to play Seasons 5 and 6. Is there a guide to using this system anywhere online? I've figured out most things, but am stuck on a few things (like how to move characters).

Not sure if this helps, but it helped me (maybe because I am a complete noob with TTS): Shut Up & Sit Down's Matt Lees demonstrates Tabletop Simulator fundamentals:

PACG "Play-by-post" (so-called) actually works rather well. I haven't looked around to see if there are active campaigns, but the place for it here begins with:

https://paizo.com/community/forums/campaigns

(Note that is a forum for ALL online campaigns, so most are RPG.)
Some of us have a database or other tool we use to track a virtual box. OR an industrious person could try to run an actual box (although this poses problems, I would think, in requiring simultaneous online presence). Unfortunately, I am in no position to run a game myself (I am traveling overseas, if you can believe it. Hope I make it home.)

No group I've ever played with accepted casting a healing spell during an encounter, even if an effect affected a character's deck or discard pile (say, losing to a RotR Siren). But then again, I don't recall the question being asked.
My understanding of what's relevant to a step of an encounter would not allow the exceptions Longshot advocates. For example: when Enora encounters a Carrion Golem (whose BYA discards the top card of her deck), we would not have permitted Cure. But OTOH Vic says in that situation Cure IS legal if-and-only-if Enora would be killed by the card discard. I'm finding this hairsplitting a bit counter-intuitive.

+1 to wkover.
Be very mindful, however, of this:

No One Else Can Take Your Turn for You. When you encounter a card or attempt a check, you—and only you—must resolve it. No other character can evade it, defeat it, acquire it, close it, decide what to do with it, or fail at doing any of those things. ...If the game tells you to do something, you have to do it.

For instance, on your character's combat check, no other player can play a card that determines the skill of a combat check ("For your combat check...").

My short answer is: The relevant step is not the Explore step - the relevant step is the step of the encounter (if the check is not made in an encounter, then it is the check itself that matters, not the step).

My longer answer is: look to the Core Set rulebook as a guide. Note this passage:

Encountering a Card

During each step... Each character may play any number of cards, but collectively, the party may play no more than one of each type of boon...

Here the Core Set has moved the previous set's restriction from applying to each character to applying to the party as a whole, but the consistent rule is: the restriction applies to steps of an encounter - not other steps. (IMHO)

So, to answer the Exhausted question: Yes. If you can only use one boon on a step, the relevant step here is "Attempt the Check" - in the example, the check to defeat. If you use a boon on the combat check, you can't use a boon to reduce damage suffered on the check.

(I was just looking at this here in in this somewhat epic thread.)

Vic Wertz wrote:

Reroll powers only ever affect checks. The Glossary entry for Reroll says "Roll the dice again on a check. See Roll the Dice on page 12." Roll the Dice, which appears under Attempting a Check, says "Powers that allow or require you to reroll dice happen now." (The Hero Points sidebar also explicitly limits its rerolls to checks: "During a scenario, you can spend 1 hero point to reroll the dice on your check (see Roll the Dice on page 12).")

I suspect that this power should have been worded "reroll all dice showing 1 and 2," meaning you must reroll all dice that show either 1 or 2, but I will verify design intent.

Unrelated to the above discussion, but could we get "on a check" added to the accessory reroll wording on page 11 of the PACS guide? I've completely missed that "reroll" powers only work on checks, and I'm positive that other people have as well. Looking at page 31 of the Core rulebook makes that obvious, but it's easy to overlook that definition.

+1. I've played numerous seasons of Organized Play, and *every* player I've played with has believed (as I have) that a Paizo shirt/mat/etc reroll could be used for any die rolled in the game (and have played that way).

...usually required one to review the FAQ/errata with a hawk-sharp eye.

Nice. I see what you did there.

USA*. To be specific, I'm in Massachusetts.

*Possibly this was apparent by the fact that I'm so provincial I assumed everyone would know what country I'm in without bothering to mention it...

Blackjack looks really cool. The Tarot-like Harrows intrigue me. I'm excited to play this set.

+1 to all Keith's accolades in this thread. I've had the honor to play with Keith via PBP and in person, and I've been impressed by his professionalism, his thoroughness, his keen eye for good game design, and his courtesy for his fellow players. Lone Shark is in good hands.

PS Keith, does this mean you'll be deserting the East Coast for the Rainy City? (Say it ain't so!)

wkover wrote:

Ironically, online PACG currently works well because there isn't a ton of teamwork. Players take their own individual turns, and that's that. There are two things that the current asynchronous PACG system doesn't handle very well: cooperation (particularly party actions that require precise timing) and gameplay interruptions (e.g., out-of-turn actions).

For whatever it's worth, this is why I stopped doing the forum play-by-post. It's no fun to play when you (effectively) can't work together; I might as well just play by myself and do a Scenario in an hour instead of a week.

Just to offer a counterview: I've played >100 scenarios of PBP PACG. I find that a party *can* work together - it's just markedly different from the tabletop experience.

For example: in my last few outings, we used a Google Hangout to aid us in discussing strategy & tactics (I do realize we could instead just use the Discussion tab in the Campaign). Major decisions (villain takedown, and the like) were made by consensus (or, more accurately, consensus-of-those-who-chimed-in.)

I sympathize with Parody's disappointment, but IME the PBP cooperation level is significant, albeit less than IRL.

elcoderdude wrote:

wkover wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Existing class decks work just fine. You don’t have to make changes to existing characters’ decks, or adjust their feats; all you have to do is replace any die bumps they currently have with the same number of hero points.

I'm really looking forward to the new edition, but I find this statement a bit... optimistic?

+1.

We need a basic translation from old terminology to new terminology, as well as (I think) some general errata. The one that comes immediately to mind is that all discard-this-weapon-to-add-x-to-distant-combat-check cards should be understood to have the term 'freely'. (Shouldn't they? Or should such cards only aid casters and unarmed martials?)

I'm thinking if you are taking a pre core character into post core the recommendation would be to build them with core and set cards when possible. Which isn't a big departure from how it was before, as I think that was the official recommendation for taking characters between sets, so they would have cards more appropriate to that sets challenges.

To clarify: I am speaking primarily about Class Decks (as I think wkover was as well). If they are not to become completely obsolete, we need to know how to use them in the new world.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Existing class decks work just fine. You don’t have to make changes to existing characters’ decks, or adjust their feats; all you have to do is replace any die bumps they currently have with the same number of hero points.

I'm really looking forward to the new edition, but I find this statement a bit... optimistic?

+1.

We need a basic translation from old terminology to new terminology, as well as (I think) some general errata. The one that comes immediately to mind is that all discard-this-weapon-to-add-x-to-distant-combat-check cards should be understood to have the term 'freely'. (Shouldn't they? Or should such cards only aid casters and unarmed martials?)

Adventure Path Reward:
I can choose a character to whose deck I can add the Councilor's Ring (after the original season 0 I used DriveThru Cards to print a slew of these, so I actually have a physical copy.)
Not sure which character to give that to, as I don't have my class decks with me, except Celeste's.

Upgrade:
Dropping ally Grognul, adding Pathfinder Tales Ally 5 Nightwalker Isra. Just in case Celeste sails again.

Thanks to one an all for this game. Big thanks to Ryan for running the box (and to all of us for adjusting so well to his long absences :). I'm stepping away from PBP for a bit, so I'm not sure when I'll be back in the fray. But it is a REALLY exciting time for PACG - I can't recall ever being as excited about a new set. I put in my preorder today at my FLGS. Can't wait for this to hit the table.

See you around the campus :)

Card layout is not good.

I'm trying to withhold judgement until I get the set in my hands, but of all the changes I've seen, this seems the least felicitous. At the very least, it's extremely jarring to old-time PACG players like myself.

I have to wonder if the main driver of the new layout is simply reducing the need for scads of high-quality art.

Who's replacing all the wonderful elegance and amazing play of PACG 1e with this parade of bad stuff for 2e?

You haven't posted much on this forum, so you might not realize: this level of hostility is dramatically out of line with the tenor of PACG forums. (Kind of like... favoriting your own post.) And also a completely unwarranted judgement of the entire Core Set on the basis of this one quibble, IMHO.

Better to sit at a spot and let the clock run out than to risk character (and feat) losses.

Many PACG gameplaying groups meet once or twice a month for an evening. The opportunity cost of letting the clock run out is quite considerable for these groups, IME, and for that reason they often push the envelope of safety (at least, the ones I am acquainted with do).

It feels like this was done because they realized they oopsied on limiting characters being able to help each other as much as they used to.

Scratching my head about this one. Last week you posted in the thread for the blog post about teamwork in the new set. The addition of the avenge mechanic alone increases the ability to cooperate by an order of magnitude. And as MorkXII points out, a number of character powers and cards previewed so far enable assisting other characters. On the basis of what we've seen - and we haven't seen all that much - the criticism that characters are now *more* limited in helping each other seems wildly premature.

FWIW, I think the reroll mechanic is extension of the popular Paizo-boon rerolls and die bumps long used in Organized Play.

It seems absolutely ludicrous to me that you’re not calling this ACG Second Edition. Every single thing about it screams that it’s something new.

Reposting Mike's extensive take on this, so he needn't repeat himself:

I agree the changes are myriad. But there is also continuity, which might currently be obscured by our focus on blog posts about what is new.

+1 to being excited to get this to the table.

The English is ambiguous.
The clearest reading is that it is the monsters who are at the Mist Horn location; when a monster at that location deals damage to anyone, reduce it by 3.
An alternative reading is the damage is being dealt at the Mist Horn's location; if a monster anywhere dealt the damage, reduce it by 3. That's a bit forced, though.
I'd play (A) and not (B).

So, for example, that means WotR Imrijka could defeat a henchman, use her explore power to explore again (if she rolls a 4+), then attempt to close the location if the henchman allows after this exploration?

Or when Warchief Bekah fails a check to defeat a barrier, she can explore again before resolving the effects of failing to defeat the barrier?

As Yewstance says, "Finish one thing before you start another is" is too broad for consistent application. Your examples concern powers which grant additional explorations. These *do* fall under "Finish one thing before you start another", because starting an exploration in the middle of an encounter is antithetical to the game. You gain an exploration during your encounter, but you can only use the exploration after the encounter. Because the close attempt must occur 'immediately', it happens first.

Powers which grant additional explorations aren't good comparisons to powers that affect the discard pile while recharging spells. Here are some Mummy's Mask 'when' powers:

When you play a card that has the Fire (□ or Poison) and Attack traits on any check, add 1d8.

When you are dealt (□ or a character at your location is dealt) a type of damage, you may reveal a card that has a trait matching that type to reduce that damage by 2 (□ 3).

When you fail a combat check that has the Attack trait, you may bury (□ or discard) a card to reroll the dice; take the new result.

When you are dealt Acid, Cold, Electricity, or Fire damage, you may reveal a card that has a trait matching that type to reduce the damage by 3.

Should we say that Yoon (for example) should 'finish' suffering the damage, and so discard cards, *before* reducing the damage by 3?

Radillo comes to mind:

When you play a spell that has the Arcane trait during an encounter, you may examine the bottom card of your deck; if it is a spell (□ or an ally), you may put it on top of your deck (□ or add it to your hand).

Does Radillo add the card to her hand during the check for which she played the spell (potentially drawing an ally she can then use on the check)? In the (unresolved) thread asking this question, Hawkmoon actually answered both 'Yes' and 'No'. But I'd say 'ol Hawk was right the first time: Radillo examines and draws the moment she plays the spell, while RotR Ezren (for comparison) examines and draws after the check.

I gave Radovan the all-clear to close DJ B.

I'm with family celebrating my birthday, so I may not post till 7-8 pm, or perhaps even the AM.

Modifying previous post:
I was thrown off by the phrase "intentionally fail to acquire".
I get the point, but to be clear I would phrase that as:
"I choose not to attempt to acquire X, which counts as failing"
Carry on.

Albatross Soup

Barrier 5
Traits: Task
To Defeat: Constitution Fortitude 15
Banish an ally to evade and banish this barrier.
Before the encounter, bury the top card of your deck.
If undefeated, leave this barrier faceup on the location deck; characters at this location encounter this barrier as their first exploration each turn.

Hmmm.

Put me in the camp that doesn't want side-quests or one-off scenarios - for me the number one most attractive aspect of PACG, and the one thing PACG does better than any other similar game ATM, is character development over time. Embedding the character in a campaign is part of what makes that work for me.

I'm really excited about PACG 2.0. Many flaws in the earlier (beloved) product have been identified and addressed - it remains to be seen how well, but I'm eager to experience it.

And, speaking for myself, there will never be enough characters. (No, >100 is not enough :)

Managing one's hand:
I had hoped a creator/modifier of the tools we're using would post, but, not seeing that, here's something. Cartmanbeck (who I'm nominating for Volunteer of the Year) originally coded a Google Sheets hand manager, which others then modified. Here's two version:

Here's a June 2018 version from Yewstance

Here's a July 2018 version from Zalarian

I suggest you copy one or both, then explore to understand how it works (unhiding columns can help). Then delete that copy (because you've almost certainly broken it beyond repair) and make a new copy for use.

Note: If you have questions about the handler, please DM me - please do not post questions to this thread.

Note: In general, do NOT use Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V to move cards around. Google Sheets becomes wildly confused about links. Ctrl-C/Shift-Ctrl-V works fine (because it just pastes the value).

In a pinch, it's possible to post your turn using just a smartphone (with the Google Sheets app), although I find it painful.

+1 to Matsu's helpful answers.

My two cents more:

1) I'd be considered a newb who has forgotten (and just reread) all the rules. Friendly groups?

A hallmark of the Paizo PACG forums, IMO, is a welcoming and forgiving spirit. If you're unsure of the rules, just ask. All of us get a rule wrong now and then. The boxrunner & your fellow party members will help you work things out. (Google Hangouts can really facilitate this.)

2) I'm literally mute. I'll happily type in real-time to anyone (I see Hangouts are used), but I don't speak.

I've lost track of how many online scenarios I've played. A wild guess is between seventy and ninety (including playtesting). I've never once spoken to someone I'm playing with online (in person, video, or audio)*.

3) What's the turns-per-day-per-player requirements?

The table can decide, as Matsu says. IMHO you should be able to consistently post within 24 hours of the end of the turn of the player before you (sooner, if possible). It's true your party will understand occasional needs for a longer delay, and sometimes you'll really have no choice but to to wait for the boxrunner to update the scenario. I'm just suggesting a general practice.

*With the exception of Keith Richmond, but First World Bard introduced me to him before I started playing online.

+1 skizzerz in regard to 'or' meaning 'and/or'.
This was settled WAY back in RotR with Selah's scouting power.

Posted in Gameplay and Google Hangout, but, redundantly here: wkover, you need to roll for the potential H shuffle on your first three card encounters. (The last one's irrelevant.)

Mega-turn, Radovan.
Just one thing: you need to roll for Hirgenzosk three times. (You encountered three cards prior to the villain.) A 1 shuffles H into your deck, potentially changing everything. (Especially if you then encounter him - even if you evade him, that burns an explore.)

<OUT OF TURN>
Forgot plunder for closing Atoll A:
Plunder: 1d6 ⇒ 3 Armor

Two Becalmeds on top of a location deck is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen while playing an S&S PACG game.

Thanks for the 'In advance' qualifier, Mr. Resident Nit-Picker* (else I would have taken more umbrage).

Yes, I spoke with insufficient nuance. I meant Paizo in the past intentionally avoided a proliferation of keywords for PACG, and instead attempted to explain in English when possible, given the severe space constraints imposed by the amount of text that fits on the game's cards. In comparison to, say, Magic: The Gathering, Rise of the Runelords had far fewer keywords. And, as you agree, the PACG keyword pendulum has now swung the MTG direction. (And, as I think you note, I was not saying this is a problem.)

*Meant as a term of endearment. Really.

The thing is, PACG is a campaign. Some rules do 'bridge' scenarios - for example, you can't just change your deck any way you like between scenarios.

That said - I acknowledge there's been guidance saying we *should* replay scenarios we won: in particular, if a player's character dies, one of the sanctioned methods to include a replacement character is for the entire party to replay the past scenarios, so the replacement character can catch up on feats & boons (or so I thought). (Characters which already received rewards would not receive them again.)

We're left with a problematic statement from Vic, which maybe I interpreted too authoritatively. I'd appreciate official input on this.

Actually you caught me at a chatty moment... as you said you were hospital-bound, I went with it. I hope I contributed less to your boredom than I detracted. :)

"elcoderdude wrote:

*I mean this mostly positively, this time.

As opposed to other times? You wound me, elcordude! :)

Not intentionally! You've been doing yeoman's work, good Yewstance.

+1 to redeux. I'm a bit surprised that a rules lawyer* like Yewstance is arguing you can disregard the extremely straightforward rule that you can't start a scenario with a card in your deck that has a higher adventure deck number than your current tier.

I don't think an argument along the lines of "I am able to take a feat of this type, and this is the lowest AD card in my class deck of that type, so I must be able to put it in my deck in Guild play" holds any water. Paizo would have made Cure a B card in the Monk deck if they wanted Monks to take it before they reached tier 3. (How would Paizo otherwise indicate the spell shouldn't be taken prior to Tier 3? The card feat mechanism has no 'delay this feat until such-a-such a point' feature.)

*I mean this mostly positively, this time.

Are you certain you are using the correct locations?

I am looking at the original PDF, so it may have since been revised, but my version of PathfinderAdventureCardGuildAdventure1-6TheLastCrusadePDF.zip uses "Abyssal River", not "Abyssal Rift", for scenario 1-6A Champions of the Horn.

Tossing my two cents on two points of disagreement:

+1 to Yewstance concerning Vic's ruling about Varril's skill replacement and similar powers.
Calling it an "official ruling" would be a tad strong, but "official conclusion" is not. It's clearly guidance (where we had nearly none before). I can't see how anyone can argue they are able to use Varril's replacement power when using a weapon, for example.

+1 to Yewstance (again) concerning whether you can redeem cards in Guild Play if you haven't added them to your deck yet. The rules are clear that you cannot.

Looking at the scenario now, it's possible our best boon-collection strategy *is* to win quickly, because we've a 12-card plunder stack that is likely to decrease as we have more Aquatic fights. Just saying.

Let's strategize, whether we are boon farming or not:

We don't want Tempest Cay and Raker Shoals occupied at the same time. It was FAQed that the Tempest Cay location power affects all structural damage incurred everywhere (for example, it makes Raker Shoals' SOT power inflict 2 structural damage).

I forget: do we have anyone that can avoid SOT effects? There's two nasty ones here.

Celeste will start at Floating Shipyard, but on my 1st turn move to Tempest Cay and try to close it quickly (my Knowledge is d8+3).

I'm not sure if your wording is exactly the solution that is needed, but I concur with your point.

The decision to advance a tier can only be made in a narrow window of time -- basically, in the resolution of a scenario (in my understanding). You can't just decide in the middle of the fifth scenario "Oh, I'll go up a tier right now", for example.

?
Race Dorsey is not changing the sequence order per se in the given example.
Instead, the example replaces the dice which are not being rerolled with the value from the first roll. And rerolls the only die being rerolled. (A product reroll rerolls a die, not all the dice rolled.)