Warning! The above post is a pretty big spoiler for scenario 6D, the finale for Crimson Throne. You might mark it as such in the thread title and use spoiler formatting.
I believe that the loot weapon can be treated as an ally when rebuilding your deck, so that's how weaponless characters can take it. Which was intentional, I imagine.
There is a line in the 5D development (and maybe elsewhere?) that suggests that the weapon might be important, but I dismissed it as flavor text and - like you - would not have included it in a 2-character Fumbus/Kess party.
In 6D, I got extremely lucky and a character happened to be holding the weapon when we faced the villain. But it was sheer luck - completely unplanned.
In organized play, you can take loot at any time. In regular games, I *think* that passed-over loot is added to the vault. That would mean Kess/Fumbus would technically have to replay random scenarios until they happened to encounter and acquire the weapon. Which would be pretty silly, and I doubt anyone would be seriously interested in doing that. If I were you, I'd take the weapon retroactively and show Ileosa Ascendant who's boss. :)
I really enjoyed CotCT overall, but from a design perspective I had three problems with it:
Can you do this for Lini next? I wanted to play her with my party soon, but when I tested her in a solo play I wasn't so sure what she's actually good at and how I should use her mechanics.
I used Lini in Dragon's Demand (regular, not organized play). She was Ok. Possibly my least favorite PACG character of all time, in terms of fun, versatility, and power level.
She may be better in OP - or once you hit AD4-6.
Mike Selinker wrote:
As far as I know, you are the only person outside of our office who has reported back playing every scenario in Apocrypha.
I literally just remembered that I was never able to play the Serpents capstone (the ziggurat always eluded me), so Malcolm_Reynolds likely gets first-dibs credit for finishing Apocrypha all the way through. Congrats to Malcolm!
98 scenarios down, 1 to go.
I realize that Apocrypha isn't a Paizo or PACG product, so apologies if this should be moved elsewhere. But Apocrypha does share genetic code with PACG, and more than a few designers dipped their hands in both.
Anyway, if you're curious about the game and its 99 scenarios, resources are available:
Apocrypha: A New Player's Guide (with embedded impressions of each chapter)
If you give Apocrypha a try, good luck! I found it to be a lot of fun.
The spells False Life (Crimson Throne) and Mirror Image (Core) don't mention anything about being played freely - meaning that spellcasters can't play these cards from their hands to prevent combat damage when they fail to defeat a monster with an attack spell.
Just making sure that's the intention, particularly since the pre-Core version of Mirror Image could be played freely.
So based on the last 4 responses, it seems nobody really knows how to handle this but is handling it the way they want to...
The definition of "acquire" in the Core glossary is: Gain a boon and add it to your hand. This actually does make it sound like you get the card automatically, but I'm certain that's not the intention.
I'd have been happier with "successfully acquire" on Dunes and similar cards to prevent misunderstandings, but unfortunately I don't have final editing rights. :)
Vic Wertz wrote:
I'm not completely sure what you mean here... but I see the Core/Curse replacement rules say you may swap cards "in between scenarios." Are you suggesting that some people think that means they have to finish their first scenario before that kicks in?
I've been at least one table where the rule was interpreted this way.
One thing I have been wondering about here, do you still get respect points from honor-tested if you fail a scenario?
Good call. The answer should probably be no, otherwise you'd have a trivial exploit. You could gain an infinite number of RPs by starting a scenario, letting each player encounter a monster, quitting, then restarting the scenario. Etc. In which case you might as well save yourself the trouble and let everyone start with a million RPs.
I'd add that the only scenarios that I failed in the entire CotCT campaign were scenarios 4A and 4D. So this was relevant in my campaign as well.
Finally, I should mention that most of the party's RPs were from being Honor-Tested. There weren't many rolls to defeat banes that were exceeded by 20+. There were a couple, though.
In one scenario I may have forgotten that being Honor-Tested provided RPs - so my RP total may be a tiny bit low.
Keith Richmond wrote:
I... can't think of a reason it wouldn't be, but I may be too close to the material. Can you clarify why it might not be?
Only that there is a barrier in the Lair. So if you encounter the barrier as the first Lair card, for instance, you could immediately close the Lair, banish all non-villain cards, and fight the villain on the very next turn. Wasn't sure whether that was the intention.
For what it's worth, I earned 9 total respect points across 3 characters (Hakon, Quinn, Varian). This was after playing incorrectly for 1.5 scenarios, then trying to remember how many rolls exceeded by 20 instead of just being 20+.
I was able to purchase a single item with 9 points, which was a loot weapon.
Just a quick bump, but assuming yes - location rules also apply to the Lair?
I finished Crimson Throne (great ride), but in retrospect I'm curious about the intended rule for respect points. The rule says:
When you succeed at a check to defeat by 20 or more, gain 1 respect point.
To be clear, if a monster has a check to defeat of 17, my final result has to be 37+ to earn a respect point? Not just a final result of 20 or higher?
By the way, this impacts my choice of Quinn in my upcoming game. While he can do other things, I like the Alchemical aspect of his stuff and not being able to use that in PACS is a big detriment.
In OP, Quinn is also extremely limited in his weapon options due to his need for stealth/acro skills and his lack of weapon proficiency. I'm curious how that will work out long-term. My plan is to use dice-adding poison items to enhance his combat, but we'll see.
In regular play, Quinn has access to solid weapons in Crimson Throne (if he can find them) - and one fantastic loot weapon.
I'm playing Quinn in two different campaigns: an OP campaign and a regular (non-OP) Crimson Throne campaign. The OP campaign is relatively new; we did Fangwood Thieves and We Be Heroes, and now we're starting Season 6. The non-OP CotCT campaign is almost finished (starting AD6).
In the OP campaign (using UE + Rogue decks), I wasn't planning on ever taking his alchemical power feats. In agreement with your statements above, they only work on Core/CT cards acquired in-game or cards substituted from the Core/CT sets (e.g., Noxious Bomb). But Quinn doesn't have the Craft skill or a high Dex, so the combat-focused alchemical items aren't very useful.
Quinn's alchemical powers are quite useful in the regular Crimson Throne campaign. He doesn't have many alchemical cards in my build, but the ones he has work well (Elixir of Healing, Elixir of Focus).
I just completed this scenario. I'm not sure that including the story bane devils matters.
The villain is a devil story bane, but he shouldn't be in the devil pile. He needs to be set aside to be all villainy.
The only other devil story banes are from AD1, and they aren't veterans. So they would have been removed from the vault by AD5.
So I believe there are only 3 devil monsters in the devil pile - all standard monsters.
On the spot, we decided that if the top card of the hourglass is a non-blessing you would find the first blessing and put the other cards back. Seems like our guess was correct.
I agree with Longshot, if you fail to acquire the blessing, it would stay on top based on the current wording.
Dang. We initially lost the scenario (timed out), because we were banishing the blessings if they weren't acquired. We don't have anyone with the divine skill in the party (Hakon is our healer), so we repeatedly failed to acquire the "closing" blessings. Over and over and over...
The fact that checks to acquire blessings are now increased by # made the Dunes closing pretty rough. The Dunes was empty of cards; we just couldn't close it.
The Dunes location from Crimson Throne says the following:
TO CLOSE OR TO GUARD
What happens if the top card of the hourglass isn't a blessing?
Is it: (a) closing/guarding the Dunes automatically fails, (b) you keep flipping hourglass cards until you find a a blessing, then put the other cards back, or (c) something else?
This happened to us yesterday in scenario 4A, which has proxies in the blessings deck.
My guess is that, if Paizo could rewind time, unprint all cards, and start from scratch, they'd do away with the "affecting the situation" rules entirely. The timing rules become much more straightforward if you can only play cards: (a) when cards say that you can play them or (b) if not specified, between steps.
The "affecting" rules seem to do more harm than good, really. They do allow for a handful of fun cardplays in oddball situations, but mostly they cause headaches and lead to long rules threads like this one. :)
Most cards specify when they can be played anyway, and the ones that don't should be relatively easy to modify to fit the above timing rules.
I dunno, maybe this would break the game. But personally I'd be all for eliminating the "affecting the situation" rules. Perhaps in version 3, as suggested above.
It might be easier to issue a FAQ entry about plants. A similar entry was made for Curse of Poisoning, if I remember correctly.
My reasoning: I don't actually know any players who think that the plants work exponentially (including new players). As far as I know, everyone thinks they work like they're supposed to work.
Also, the original wording seems clearer and more intuitive.
Anyway, just my two cents.
This is the FAQ item that refers to characters who start with melee/ranged: link.
But even that I'm not sure of, because presumably pre-Core spells now explicitly require proficiency to recharge...
Discarding/recharging now depends on proficiencies, allowing characters like Hakon and Mother Myrtle to discard/recharge instead of banish their pre-Core spells.
This is from the conversion guide: (emphasis added)
On all spells except those noted below, replace the first “discard“ or “reveal” with “banish” or leave the first “display” alone, then change any kind of discard and/or recharge text to “DURING RECOVERY If proficient, discard this card; you may succeed at (whatever specific check is listed) to recharge it instead.”
Note that the example directly above this statement in the conversion guide is incorrect, however, as it refers to skills instead of proficiencies when recharging (link) .
The trigger argument certainly makes sense.
If I have an ally that lets me examine and then explore, I should randomly determine the proxy's identity when it's examined, then randomly determine it a second time when I explore? Or does the examination lock in its identity?
This would rarely matter, I imagine. But it could matter with someone like Aric/Red Raven, who has the option of encountering a monster when examining. So he might examine the proxy, find it to be a barrier, then actually explore - only to be surprised that it's actually a monster?
Yes, it's perplexing to list a Danger that you may never encounter, but this is done because there are cards in the game (e.g., barriers) that have you encounter the Danger. So it's listed in case you need it.
This is one of the Core mechanics most confusing to newcomers, as there are many questions/comments similar to yours. See, for instance, this post.
As an update: The color differences didn't affect our Core gameplay much. But now that we've moved on to Crimson Throne, the color variation makes a big difference - in particular with the proxies.
The backs of the Core proxies (in my set) are quite dark. The CotCT story banes, on the other hand, are fairly light. It's nearly impossible to seed the location decks secretly, as the position of the villain is always obvious. We've given up, actually, so instead we only use proxies and roll each time we encounter a proxy to determine which card (villain, unique henchman, generic henchman) we actually encounter.
I've contacted customer service to request light-backed proxies, and hopefully all will be remedied.
Anyway, I'd echo the above:
I don't know what Paizo's process for manufacturing or QA is, but I do not specifically believe this is Paizo's fault per se. I do believe that it is Paizo's opportunity to work with their printer to ensure that there is consistency to the shade on the card backs... My hope is that Paizo works with their printer/QA to remediate and prevent this error.
Is there an update on the printer side of things, as far as future sets are concerned? Or reprints of Core and Crimson Throne?
We played this scenario just yesterday and assumed that the Blood Veils were closing henchmen, so a FAQ entry would be nice. :)
So, when looking for intent, I'd try and see how a Proxy issue would resolve in the "old" PACG (i.e. in a Proxy-less environment).
Agreed, this would be ideal. But I don't think it's the case 100% of the time. In the first scenario of season 6, for instance, there is a proxy henchman in each deck that represents different possible Dangers (rolled randomly).
What if you examine this proxy while it's in the location? Do you know the identity of the card? I don't think so, since the identity of the proxy isn't determined until you encounter it - not when you examine it. So this is a case where, if the proxy were a real card, you would know its exact identity when examined. But here, on examination, you only know that the card is a proxy card - not what it represents (yet).
Also, if you fail against the proxy and it's shuffled back in, it could be a different Danger the next time you encounter it - because of the random determination. This wouldn't be possible if the proxy were a specific card.
Interesting - yes, the text for Detect Magic has changed. It used to be limited to your own turn, but now it's not.
As far as I know, exploring is the one thing that you can never do on another player's turn: (p. 6)
You may never explore outside of your explore step.
Encountering happens all the time on other players' turns (avenging, encountering summoned cards, etc.), so that's certainly legal.
The bottom line is that cards with the "do x, then you may explore" template are playable on any turn, but the "explore" instruction is ignored if it isn't your turn - or if you play the card on your turn outside your explore step.
Just a note that the Core scourges aren't curses (are they?), so curse removal doesn't help. Ultimate Wilderness does have Balmberry Bush, which removes scourges - but that's a level 4 card.
For the siege, it would be nice to have a "field medic" removal option for the nastier scourges. Something like:
You may bury 2 (random?) cards to banish a scourge from a local character.
I think this is scenario 5D. :)
Story Banes are monsters or barriers, so my guess is that "Devil monsters" includes Story Bane monsters with the Devil trait.
If true, for clarity's sake, it wouldn't hurt for the setup instructions to say, "Before building the locations, shuffle all Devil monsters from the vault (including Story Banes) facedown into a devil stack."
Like you, I'm not entirely sure what happens to encountered devils. I'm guessing that they're shuffled back into the facedown devil stack, though strictly by the rules (p. 14) they would go back to the vault.
James Sinnett wrote:
I feel as if proxy cards are likely to be something we need longish-term simply because... obviously if I'm swapping my own cards at that point, it's going to interfere with the Vault.
I asked the proxy question a few days ago, for the same exact reason (link).
The players providing the boxes for OP can use proxies instead of the original Core/CotCT cards, but the preference is for the original card to be displayed and proxies to be placed both in your deck and in the vault.
(I'm not entirely sure why box owners can't just put a photocopy of the card in their decks - because it might be doctored? - but that's the response so far.)
More on replacement language in Guide 6.1:
As far as the "replacement" verbiage goes (in the new Guide), here's a quick example about what is confusing.
Say I have an old dull knife and a new sharp knife (recently purchased). The new knife is the replacement. We all agree on that.
But when you say "we need to replace that knife", "that knife" is the old knife, not the new one. So using both "replacement card" and "replace that card" can cause confusion about which card you really mean, because the former refers to the new card and the latter refers to the original card.
Viro Melchior wrote:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Celeste just added the Flame Staff to attempt to help (and it's in her deck list as posted here), and Imrijka has the boots already.
I think Keith is suggesting that you might use the Core/Crimson Throne versions of these cards - if you aren't already.
Flame Staff can now be used repeatedly, and the Boots help with closing.
Vic Wertz wrote:
"...If the replacement card’s level is higher than your tier, you can’t replace that card until you’re allowed to put cards of that level into your deck."
Is the "replacement card" the original card or the new Core/CotCT card?
To me, "replacement card" sounds like the newer Core/CotCT card, but then the phrase "replace that card" suggests the opposite - the original card that is being replaced.
If you do, you can replace the Gem of Physical Prowess (UC Item 2) that you referenced in the Ultimate Combat Add-On Deck Box with the Gem of Physical Prowess (Core Item 1) whenever you want between scenarios, as they have the same name. That allows you to gain it by this point.
For what it's worth, not everyone is playing the "card substitution" rule the same. In some cases, people are playing that the original card has to be in your deck before you can substitute in the Core version - which in this case couldn't occur until AD2.
I like your interpretation better. :)
Viro Melchior wrote:
Honestly, having to swap characters for a reasonably well balanced group to clear a scenario means (to me) that the scenario has critical design flaws.
No argument here. From a design perspective, having duplicate locations is problematic because there's a good chance that certain party builds will be unable to reliably meet the closing requirements. This problem is exacerbated under the one-blessing Core rules, to be sure.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Are people really dying to the siege, though? I mean, nothing forces you to explore and you have enough turns that you don't really need to discard allies or blessings to work through the siege deck.
I don't have a ton of data on the siege scenario, but I can share a few observations:
- The scenario encourages people to team up (location cards are only lost if a bane is undefeated and not avenged), and there are numerous barriers and monsters that affect all local characters (scourges, damage, etc.). No joke, at a neighboring table one player had 4-5 scourges simultaneously. Yikes.
- Certain scourges are rough. For example, if a player becomes Frightened on turn 1 or turn 2, they don't have many options. They could effectively bow out of the siege and never explore, but who wants to do that? Also, it used to be that you could safely end the game by choosing not to explore and running out the blessings deck. If the Wounded scourge is in play, that may not be possible.
Note: It's easier to get rid of scourges in regular (non-OP) games than in OP games, as there are specific cards for doing that (e.g., Balmberry).
- Under the one-blessing limit, barriers can be particularly challenging. And the siege deck has a lot of barriers.
- Under the one-blessing limit, examining/scouting locations is better than ever. I've played the siege scenario 3 times, and our games were partly successful because we always had at least one scouting character (Zadim, Ramexes, etc.). We routinely skipped turns so that the most appropriate character could deal with the upcoming deadly bane. Without that advantage, we might have been in trouble. I'd hope that the siege scenario is survivable without scouting, but I wouldn't know. :)
Anyway, I'm sure that others will chime in with their own experiences. Thanks for listening...
Yes, choose a type and then it's random. The answer is spread out over a few different places in the rulebook.
"New" is defined as coming from the vault. (p. 14 and also Glossary)
However, there's also this critical bit of information from p. 8: (sidebar)
When you draw a card from the vault, unless you are told to draw a specific card, draw a random card of the appropriate type by shuffling the cards you’re drawing from and drawing the top card. If you are told to draw a card of a particular type with some additional requirement (such as “a level 1 monster” or “an Arcane spell”), draw cards of that type until you find a card that fulfills the requirement; put the rest back.
Note: Your reward for 1* (Rumble Road) should have also been random. If not, too late now. :)
I've never really understood how "Taking One For the Team" works - but perhaps you could do that here? Temporarily replace a character with someone else, that is.
Another option would be to skip the scenario for now, do most/all of AD2, and then come back to 5-1E with more feats and better cards.
Not saying either of these are ideal, but they might be decent options.
Only closing a location during your explore step stops you from further exploring. (Page 15 of the Core Set Rulebook, final paragraph under Closing Your Location.) This didn't really change from how it worked before, they just had to modify it for disappearing Locations.
The rules did change a bit, since - under the old rules - if you closed a location you could still explore if you had a way to move to another location. (Ranzak was a close-move-and-explore specialist in one campaign.)
Understandably, the Core rules don't let you explore after closing because of the free move. (Apocrypha does the same thing.) However, in legacy campaigns, locations don't disappear after being closed. So is stopping post-close explorations still necessary? Perhaps so, to prevent infinite move-and-close combos.
And yeah, Tapestry's Tides AD1 (and AD2?) is unforgiving to poison-centric characters. Taking a Scorpion Whip as my first card upgrade in TT wasn't the best move.
It is unfortunate that the one-blessing limit appears to hurt the parties most in need: unbalanced parties (in terms of skills), underpowered parties, parties that aren't matched to their campaigns (no Survival characters in TT), etc.
And while the Avenge strategy is interesting and effective, it may not support the fun side of PACG if it becomes a common workaround for legacy scenarios that are otherwise extremely difficult to beat. Repeatedly failing, and then having your failure Avenged by the "closer" is mostly entertaining for the Avenging character - not necessarily for anyone else. (Unless you're playing solo, in which case it doesn't matter.)
P.S. Under the one-blessing limit, the Blessing of Gozreh is much better than it used to be.
Either way, good luck with Tapestry's Tides. We're just finishing AD3 under the Core rules (early scenarios were under the old rules, though), and I suspect we'll be reporting some scenario failures in AD5 and AD6 - if not sooner.
Vic Wertz wrote:
If your Class Deck contains a boon that has the same name as a boon in the Core Set or in Curse of the Crimson Throne, you may replace the copy in your deck with the new version. Do not take cards from the vault for this—you must bring your own copies. (Short Sword and Shortsword count as the same name for this purpose.
At my "in-person" PACS game night we have three separate tables, and therefore use three boxes. One issue is that the players bringing their boxes can't use the Core/CotCT cards as described above - because the cards are supposed to be available in the vault.
Can we make an exception for the PACS box providers and allow them to proxy the Core/CotCT cards instead of using the actual cards?
It doesn't really matter where it is, but it does matter if the scenario rules still apply, because the scenario allows you to close a location when encountering a barrier. This is very relevant even after the lair is revealed.
If the Lair is in the circle, I believe the Lair's location does matter. Once the Lair is built, after defeating a barrier you examine the top card of each location; then "if the top card of each is a different level than the locations to the left and right of it... you may attempt to close your location."
So if the Lair is in the circle, it is to the left or right of other locations and matters for the closing-after-barrier-defeat rule. (Right?)
Separately, as already mentioned, there's the question of whether I can attempt to close after defeating a barrier when I'm at the Lair itself.