jsciv's page

My card got authorized for the Character Add-On today and NOT another Base Game, so that's good. But the display is still really off: it's showing what got authorized today (Add-On and promos) but ALSO still showing a September shipment with everything in it (base, add-on, promos, and AP2). I'm having a little faith here, but I figured that anyone else who sees it might want to know that it looks like there's still weirdness in the subscription displays.

I am still hoping that they'll ship the Add-On early since I'd like to get playing, but we're getting to the point where I'm also beginning to wonder if the Add-On will even make it before we're supposed to get AP2...

My base set just arrived. Now the question is: Do I start playing now, or do I wait for the Character Add On Deck to arrive next month, first?

I know that I'm waiting for the Add-On deck. My dilemma is more about what I should do if the Add-On becomes available significantly before the subscription delivery is scheduled...

Got a shipping mail this morning. Tracking still reports the "label has been created" message that you get before they scan it into the UPS system. Also still have a second copy of the base game threatening to be charged on 9/4.

No emails today beyond the "should have gotten another email" email here. But if I look at My Subscriptions, the promo card has been removed from the pending August order (I think it's the one that's now listed as "sidecart" in September), and I still have the second copy of S&S Base listed in the September shipment.

Got an email saying I should have got another email.

Yeah I got the email saying I should have gotten another email as well. At least I can see that the Add-On has been moved to September so there's that. Though what I'd REALLY like is to get the Add-On as soon as it's available, regardless of the subscription's regular shipping window: with one AP per month it's going to be hard not to fall behind if I can't start playing with my final crew until AP2 comes out, and the thing most likely to make me cancel my subscription will be me falling behind.

Did you subscribe to the bundled set? I had and was in that boat as well - no email, base in Aug and Sep... My promos had moved into the sidecart but the base + add-on was sitting as pending/backordered without moving. I spoke with CS and there's some issues with the bundled set that's causing it not to update, so my order had to be manually untangled.

I just subscribed to PACG from Rise of the Runelords AP2 and I have whatever that turned into for S&S. I don't know if that means I have a bundled set or what. I got an email on 8/5 about the shipping and about authorizing my card (which never got charged). And if I look at the page now I see S&S base and one promo card "currently pending," and S&S base, S&S Character Add-On, AP2, and a promo with a "payment method authorized" date of 9/4 and a "should ship by" date of 9/26.

Feeling a bit forgotten here with no email contact since the 5th and the subscription page still showing S&S Base Game in both August and September. It's good to know that things are happening, but in the future it'd also be nice to get an email directly explaining the problem, or at least updating the expected ship date.

Just some feedback for the future...

I'm definitely on the "a card is a physical thing and if you're not playing that thing then you're not playing a card" side of this one.

I think the real question is the design intent of the power. Either it's "we want it to count as a spell with traits when you define the die you're using so that you can play other things to boost that spell," or it's "we meant to say that you're counted as playing a card." Both options are okay with me on a local sense (our Seoni will deal with it when she gets there).

Until we get a ruling, if our Seoni gets there I'll just use my preferred interpretation and not count it as a card. But as others have said, I can live with it either way depending on the design intent.

"Ranged Combat damage" is a useful term, and it means exactly what it says. We use it a bunch in Runelords and in Skull & Shackles. That said, it may create confusion, because it suggests that damage types can stack, when in general they do not. It may be worth clarifying in the future.

If you have rulebook space, yeah, a sidebar on traits and types would probably do a lot to help people out.

Jsciv, I guess I'm just not sure where your fundamental issue with "saying otherwise" is. If I said "I'll give you oranges every day unless I say otherwise." and then said "Today all the fruit I'm giving you are apples." You probably wouldn't say "ah ah ah, but are SOME of the apples also part orange?" Would you say it even if a hybrid apple-orange fruit existed? I didn't say I was giving you hybrid apple-orange fruit.

You qualified the English language in your example by saying, "all the fruit I'm giving you..." To my reading (because I did not understand the intent behind damage types) the analogy would be you saying to me, "today I'm giving you apples." The question would still exist: are you giving me apples in addition to the oranges, or instead of?

Because Mike has chimed in and the whole "types of damage" thing has been enumerated it's clear now, and that's all I wanted: clarification of an imprecision in the English language that left ambiguity.

And no, I didn't miss Mike's post: you'll note that my comments were all made BEFORE it.

Henchman in AP3 does Electric damage pre-encounter.

There are a number of monsters that do some type of damage before or after the encounter, which I think is pretty clearly not part of the combat damage. Gogmurt is the only (currently known) case where the type of the damage is changed during the combat check itself. That's kind of why I wanted to know the official take on it: not so much for Gogmurt himself but for future banes that I'm sure we'll see in 4, 5, and 6 that do the same. :)

Is Gogmurt's card a case of a card specifying otherwise about which kind of damage to take? If yes, then its a case of applying this this rule.

.......

Short of that, I don't think you'll be convinced unless a higher power intervenes. (Meaning Mike or Vic or Chad or some other recognized authority.)

But, I do want to say, I hope you enjoy playing this game as much as I do. Don't let anyone spoil your enjoyment of it, including me. Its too much fun to let that happen.

Happy adventuring, and hopefully you will just defeat Gogmurt and this will not be an issue.

We both agree on where the disconnect is: is the card a case of "saying otherwise"?

Yes, totally enjoying it. In two hours my A group (Merisiel, Harsk, and me as Lini) will be finishing off the final Hook Mountain scenario and we've been having an absolute blast. As someone with a background in game design I want this question answered because I want to understand the system. Very rare corner cases like this don't diminish my enjoyment in any way.

And yeah, both A and B groups got around this problem by smashing Gogmurt. :)

Look: you're saying over and over that Gogmurt's card "clearly" says otherwise. It clearly does NOT say otherwise. That's why both of us have to go to the rules to make INFERENCES about what it means.

Your assumption is that not having "in addition to combat" is equal to "replacing combat". It says NEITHER, which is why the problem exists.

The thread you link to is largely about Gogmurt. His damage is not combat damage, even when you fail the check against him. His card basically says replace combat damage with fire damage instead when taking damage. So cards that only reduce combat damage are useless against him.

I'm glad to be proven wrong if that's the case: the sticking point is that the card DOESN'T say replace combat with fire, it just says it's fire and lets the reader intuit the "replace" part. That's kind of the point I was making on BGG and that I'd love to have clarified here. I really, honestly, truly am not trolling: I just don't see why you are so sure that the "replace" is implied.