Psychic Stalker

wkover's page

Organized Play Member. 297 posts (1,270 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Organized Play characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

This came up a few weeks ago on BGG, and it's possible that all/most copies are affected. A sample image: link. (Disclaimer: My copy is affected, but it isn't nearly as bad as the linked image - which may be an artifact of the image lighting.)

I'm really enjoying the new Core, but there do seem to be some odd quality control and/or production issues. A new printing company, perhaps?

Issues include: Creased/stamped tokens, images that are occasionally too dark (to the point where the image is difficult to discern), and the color back issue. And once in a blue moon cards stick together and have to be replaced, but that was true in pre-Core products as well. In the Ultimate decks, in particular.

There's also the 60s acid freakout motif for the tokens, but that's another matter entirely. :P

I honestly don't notice the card back (or any other) issues when actually playing, and I don't sleeve my cards. But it would be better if these issues didn't exist, of course. Especially since the Core cards will be integrated into the Vaults of all future campaigns.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Not only are all those things clearly in a very specific order in End Your Turn, but the Turn Overview on the back of the rulebook and on the reference card on the back of all the Core scourges all say "End your turn—apply end-of-turn effects, do recovery, then reset."

Agree 100%. Not everything on the linked list should be in a FAQ. (Sorry, didn't meant to imply that.) Maybe only 1-2 items, if that. "Easily missed" and "frequently asked" are two very different things, to be sure.

For example, I've learned over the years that the phrase "end-of-turn" is innately confusing. Both new and experienced players get tripped up, and even some OP groups that I've visited have gotten this wrong and do end-of-turn stuff after resetting. And I swear, my own group has to ask each time: Wait, is end-of-turn before resetting, or after?

It's natural to assume that "end of turn" is the very last thing you would do, and it doesn't necessarily occur to people to look it up. Hence the warning in the list.

But yeah, it's clearly stated in the rulebook - multiple times, as you say.

Anyway, thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses. I'll go back to enjoying the game now. And teaching new players. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
!. You just keep going (my group on Saturday had to re-try scenario B twice because we ran out of time, since you only get 30 cards in the hourglass for the whole thing!)

Grenek's ability is powerful in this scenario. Players are only forbidden from moving during their move steps. Grenek's EOT ability gets around that.

Frencois wrote:
I tend to see the Forums as being the "Clarifications" position.

Fair enough. This is something that I've only come to understand recently about the FAQ, as my brain can sometimes be on the denser side. At least the part that processes PACG rules.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I just posted a list of "easily missed rules" for brand new PACG players. It doesn't include the Caravan issue, but it does have other stuff. :)

The post

Don't forget that I generally agree with you. :)

All I'm saying is that new players are having trouble with the Cavaran (which isn't necessarily intuitive in terms of everyday English grammar) and the p. 11 sidebox. This is one of those things that requires a fairly technical and sophisticated understanding of the game, and no doubt new players will keep asking for clarification. That's why I mentioned that it might be included the FAQ - particularly since the location happens to be in one of the first few Core scenarios, which is when players are still learning the basics.

If the official viewpoint is that the FAQ is more of an errata document than a list of commonly asked questions, then IMHO that's unfortunate. But it's completely Paizo's call, of course.

My own FAQ background:

So that you don't think I'm a total loon (too late, I know), I've personally written almost 20 game FAQs. Mostly for wargames, but not all - and some 10-20 pages in length. One thing is that PACG is perhaps now closer to a wargame than anything else, with its long and intricate rulebook and rules logic.

I'm frequently told that certain questions shouldn't be included in a FAQ, because the rulebook logic "clearly" answers the question. But if new players keep asking the same question, it doesn't matter; something about the rulebook is causing widespread trouble. Including the question in the FAQ is (a) useful for new players (and some old) and (b) saves the community the trouble of answering the question on the forums over and over again (e.g., am I a character at my own location?). If players know that the FAQ is available, at least.

It also helps to remember, I think, that the Paizo forum is a comumunity of PACG experts. Not many brand new players post here. They go elsewhere - most often BGG. That's where most of the rules activity occurs.

Jenceslav wrote:
wkover wrote:
For what it's worth, new players on BGG are having this same confusion. So it might be worth adding to the FAQ.
Maybe, but precisely such differences in wording are covered in a side box within the rules on page 11.

Yes, but - depending on how a new player parses the Caravan wording - different bullets in the p. 11 sidebox apply.

The exact wording is: Either succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 5+# check or summon and defeat the danger.

If you parse this as:

Either (succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 5+# check) or (summon and defeat the danger) then the fourth bullet applies [choose an option].

If you parse this as:

(Either succeed at a Wisdom or Perception 5+# check) or (summon and defeat the danger) then the third bullet applies [if you fail, must take consequences].

So the sidebox actually supports both interpretations. It's only because I'm an experienced player that I know that the fourth bullet is correct.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Whipstitch wrote:
Any chance those characters will become Guild legal, maybe using either the Goblins Fight deck or the Goblins Burn deck?

Due to the forward-thinkingness of Paizo, the decks associated with the new goblins are already in the organized play Guide (p. 8).

You can use either the goblin fight/burn decks (as listed in Guide) for the goblins, or you can use the appropriate class decks. E.g., Grenek can use either the Barbarian Class Deck or Goblins Fight!.

Lanx wrote:
swheels wrote:

I don't have the Caravan location in front of me, so I don't know the exact wording, but I interpreted it to be either you can attempt the check or you can summon and defeat the danger. I didn't read the danger as being a consequence.

Which is correct?

To close or guard the location Caravan

you either

succeed at a Wisdom or Perception check

or you

summon the danger.

So, you are correct, the danger is not a consequence.

For what it's worth, new players on BGG are having this same confusion. So it might be worth adding to the FAQ.

Frencois wrote:

However - and that's the case with most armors -, if all powers say things like "When displayed, you MAY reduce damage by 1." - in order for the card to be relevant (i. e. to reduce damage) you would need to play twice that card card during the same damage suffering: first displaying, then activanting the power (deciding to reduce). Because of the "may".

So you cannot display such an armor when you suffer damage. You must have played it before the current check/step in order to activate the damage reduction.

I'm not entirely sure that's true, because of this rule: (p. 7)

Displaying a card and immediately activating a power on it counts as playing it once, not twice.

So displaying and immediately activating an armor only counts as one play.

Characters like Valeros might want to keep Armors in hand for their recharge/reload abilities, so it would be nice to know if blocking damage w/ displayable Armors in hand is legal. I think so, but maybe not?

If you're using one of the new Goblin heroes, I listed their starting decklists in this post.

Have fun!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some folks are using the new Goblin characters in the upcoming Cards Against Gnomanity II. In case they couldn't grab the Free RPG Day booklet, here's the relevant info for those characters:

Starting decks:

Grenek: W:4: Ar:2; I:3; Al:3; B:3 (Favored: Melee Weapon)

Crimsi: W:3: Ar:1; I:5; Al:3; B:3 (Favored: Bow Weapon)

Siathorn w/ Mitzi cohort: W:1: Sp:5; Ar:1; I:1; Al:5; B:2 (Favored: Spell or Animal Ally)

Pizazz: W:1: Sp:4; I:3; Al:4; B:3 (Favored: Spell or Instrument Item)

The booklet itself contains two scenarios. The second scenario is split, with an Act I and Act II.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Images of the goblin characters can be found here.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
If any and all level 0 boons can be used in starting decks in a standard Core/Crimson campaign, shouldn't players be able to do the same in OP with the level 0 cards in their class deck boxes?

To be more clear, I meant that these might be the valid starting cards:

- B cards w/ basic trait (from original class deck)
- Level 0 cards added to class deck from Core

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yewstance wrote:
...if we apply all of the Transition Guide practices here (all old B/C/P cards are Level 0 now, all Level 0 cards are basic) then that means, as I said, that all AD0 cards are now fair starting cards.

If any and all level 0 boons can be used in starting decks in a standard Core/Crimson campaign, shouldn't players be able to do the same in OP with the level 0 cards in their class deck boxes? Otherwise there would be an awkward inconsistency between OP and non-OP games.

For CAGII, as everyone is excited about using the new cards, it might be beneficial to err on the side of whatever puts the most Core cards in the hands of the most players.* It could lead to additional Core sales, if nothing else, and it'll allow the community to test the new cards in the wild. Plus you can always tighten the reins later on.

*Please ignore the fact that fully half of my CAGII starting deck consists of Core cards. More if you let me add an Archer. :)

JohnF wrote:
When a table of players comes across a situation like this there's a risk that my taking the position "those are the PACS rules, so that's how we're going to play it" could cause some players to quit signing up for our games. But that's what I have to do - I don't have any choice in the matter.

As a semi-regular organizer of OP at a local game store, I 100% understand your position. For what it's worth, the Guide also says this:

During a scenario, you may encounter rules questions or card combinations that aren’t easily solved, and it’s important that you keep the game moving along. In these cases, the event coordinator should adjudicate the rules with the goal of ensuring a fun and fair experience for all.

Not every PACG player (or organizer, for that matter) has a full understanding of the PACG rules. Based on my reading of the Paizo forums these past 24 months, I'm not sure anyone does, actually. It was once remarked that you shouldn't need a PhD in Pathfinder to play PACG correctly, but sometimes it does feel that way.

I joined a new OP group about a year ago, and for a while I pointed out rules errors - some of them pretty important. Sometimes they acknowledged the rules misunderstandings, but sometimes their response was, "Well, we've always played it that way. And that's more fun anyway."

So... fair enough. Sometimes fun trumps other stuff. :)

Yeah, just remember that "deck" always means character deck in the new Core. Location decks are just called locations now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really nice job on the conversion guide. Thanks to everyone involved and their hard work.

Yewstance wrote:
I'd love to see a stickied thread under Rules Questions & Gameplay Discussion where feedback to the Conversion Guide collaborated and discussed (rather than in these blog comments, though I recognize it serves a similar purpose), because I think there's still going to have to be more added.


Awesome, thanks.

Can anyone confirm the number of scenarios in Crimson Throne? That number isn't listed above or on the product page, which is why I'm asking.

I was thinking it was 24, but I've seen numbers as low as 16?

In the US, default rounding in normal mathematics is to round up.

In board and card games, however, there is no default. Rounding up/down is often dictated by whatever is most fair in terms of gameplay. So standard mathematical reasoning doesn't necessarily apply.

I should probably include the ending of the story: 5 people wanted to continue playing organized play PACG, but instead we all went home. :(

I played my first game of post-Core OP last night. It was fun (5 players), though we lost.

We had about an hour left before the organizer had to leave, so I suggested - to squeeze in another game - that we play the short version of the same scenario (i.e., using the smaller version of each location). I was surprised to learn that this isn't allowed, however. Sure enough, this is the rule from the new Guide:

The default challenge mode for PACS scenarios is Normal mode, but if all players agree, you may play in Heroic or Legendary mode as defined here...

In other words, playing "below" Normal isn't legal in OP.

I was mostly surprised because of this blog, which recognizes that different groups want different levels of challenge and have different amounts of time available to play.

Anyway, I get that OP has to have standardized play. I was just hoping for a bit more flexibility, I guess - as long as all players agree. Is there any chance a "short" version of the game might be allowed in future OP?

PinkRose wrote:
Is there a primer for PbP PACG?

We all have to start somewhere. :)

More information about PbP PACG (and organized play in general) can be found at the link below. Look in the "resources" section. It's aimed specifically at brand new players. hru-5619

I was looking at the OP class deck database. The new goblins haven't been added yet. Makes sense they would be in the guide...


For CAG2, is it possible to use one of the new Goblin characters for We Be Heroes?

I don't see their names associated with any of the class decks, but I could be looking in the wrong place(s).

cartmanbeck wrote:
If tables of the ACG older seasons don't fill, we'll likely convert these to new Core/Curse adventures instead.

Are the older seasons using the Core rules or the original rules? Just curious.

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.

I'm in an online campaign, and I have a copy of Immolate in my hand. Can I replace it immediately? Should I wait until the start of the next scenario?


Note: We're using the old rules. I can still replace it, or do we have to switch to the new Core rules first?


Translation: wkover is crazy and only his nutty friends are confused about "character at my location" issues.

Could be. I knew it was a mistake to pick this avatar. :)

JennR wrote:


We are playing "Welcome to Belhaim" and have gotten to 1c "The Wizard's Estate". We can't figure out what "Eldritch Story Banes" are? How do we figure out the 'Danger'?

This is befuddling quite a few new players. Here's a relevant thread/post:

Putting the Story Bane Roster on the back of a Wildcard was perhaps not ideal.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matsu Kurisu wrote:
I understand from some discussions that [the Fangwood scenarios] were not designed as intro scenarios and other intro scenarios were coming out

That may be true, but the article above states the opposite:

This collection of 4 scenarios is designed as an introduction to the Core Set and is well-suited as a demo for the game usable anywhere, particularly game stores and conventions.

Matsu Kurisu wrote:
The Loan Shark team are fully aware of the issues and have a plan to have a transition plan in place to handle the issues I raised. They have several different thoughts that they are testing and will release something for August.

Interesting. Thanks for the additional info. Does that mean that the new Guide is being delayed until August?

Various local Meetups have been advertising June PACS sessions with the Fanghorn scenarios, the new Core rules, and old class deck characters. Sounds like that may not be a good idea until these compatibility issues have been resolved - particularly since one of the stated purposes of the Meetups is to recruit new players.

Also, as you state in your other thread, it is certainly strange that they chose a siege scenario (Fanghorn A) to introduce new players to PACS. I'd think you'd want something more "normal" and fun for beginners.

I like questions that I can answer. :)

Looks to be random.

Seems a bit unusual that Core-based PACS events were being run without the new Guide being released. (Or was the Guide released and I missed it?) It's possible that the new Guide fixes some of these issues.

Malk_Content wrote:
There really shouldn't be any debate, it is almost the simplest logical operation I can think of.

There are some wargame designers on BGG who insist that their rulebooks are 100% clear. However, if there are tons of rules threads about their games (and there usually are), then their rulebooks aren't clear. It's what the user thinks (or how the user interprets the rulebook) that matters, not what the designer thinks.

All I'm saying is that this issue will continue to confuse new players - guaranteed - and that it would have been easy to prevent/alleviate this confusion in the rulebook.

As a separate note, I can't believe that one of the Golden Rules is now DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD. That's something a lord tells a serf, or a parent tells a child. DO ONLY WHAT YOU ARE TOLD strikes a better tone, I think.

Anyway, I seem to have gone off on negative tangents. I really am excited about the new version, and I'm eager to play. Should be great fun.

Just to add to the list of confusing things in the rulebook (thread title)...

I'm surprised that the rulebook doesn't clarify the #1 issue that I have to explain to new players: Am I a character at my own location?

In the new terminology, of course, this becomes: Does my own character count as a local character?

The answers to these questions are not obvious (despite people arguing otherwise), and I'm surprised that this question has never been included in any of the previous FAQs. On BGG, I've answered this question probably a dozen times - and with new players I always make a point to tell them because in some cases it wouldn't even occur to them to think that they could be considered a character at their own location.*

Anyway, this would have been an easy fix. The rule could have been written as follows: (p. 6; new text in bold)

Local refers to things at your location (including your own character), while distant refers to things at other locations (including the locations themselves). For example, a local check is a check by a character at your location, while a distant character is a character at any other location.

*A real-life example. If I ask you to go to Times Square and take a picture of anyone there, I would be disappointed if you returned with a photograph of yourself. Yes, you were present in Times Square. But that's obviously not what I intended - I meant someone *else*. There are tons of examples like this from real life, so it's no surprise that new players assume that "someone else" is implicit in the rule.

I'd also add that I've seen at least two threads recently (forget where) where new players have already asked if their characters count as a local character. So we seem to be back where we started with regard to this particular issue.

Great, thanks - except for the fact that many Ultimate Wilderness cards are now less useful. Boo.

I guess I'm wondering why the new rulebook hasn't been released now that there are copies of the Core set out in the wild.

Though if I paste together all the quoted rules sections in all the different threads, I'll have a full page of rules. Only 31 pages to go!

Ysalmari21 wrote:
So, if I'm reading this correctly, when I play Balmberry, I have to choose to bury or banish. If I choose banish, then at the end of my turn I will have a chance to recharge it, but if I fail, it's banished. Burying means I don't have to banish it but I don't get a chance to recharge it. Am I reading this correctly?

Is there a new general rule that buried cards can't be recharged? That affects numerous cards in the Ultimate Wilderness deck.

For instance, Angelstep (Item 2) becomes less interesting until you reach tier 4 - which is when you can automatically get the card back if banished.

I know it's silly to ask, given that the new set is just being released, but what is the release schedule for upcoming Adventure Paths?

Is the plan to release a new expansion/path every X months, where x is 15, 18, ...?

Just wondering.

skizzerz wrote:

My preference would be a universal rule:

- Season 5 and older always use Mummy’s Mask rulebook + most recent Guide
- Season 6+ always use Core rulebook + most recent Guide

I suspect that this is the type of rule that Paizo is trying to avoid, as it creates a steep learning curve - reading and understanding an entirely separate ruleset - for brand new players wanting to play Seasons 1-5. Paizo wants to attract new customers, not drive them away. ;)

We'll have to see what's in the new Guide (looking forward to it), but it would be more novice-friendly to create a handful of rules exceptions for Seasons 1-5. These might include:
- locations don't banish when closed
- all campaigns have an additional AD3 reward: For the rest of the adventure path, all blessings can be played freely
- etc.

Whatever modifications would help players be successful in 1-5 under the new ruleset.

parody wrote:
I'm still not looking forward to switching, mostly due to uncertainty and being in the middle of a campaign. It's a big change, and I'd prefer to wait until starting a new campaign.

According to this post, existing OP campaigns can continue to use the old rules until August 1, after which date they should/must switch to the new Core rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:
...if you are playing an ongoing season/campaign, you can choose to delay the transition of that season/campaign to the Core Set rules until the official start of Season 6 at GenCon (August 1st, 2019). This should allow folks a few months to finish up their campaigns in the old rules if they like.

Thanks for the thorough reply.

We'll finish our face-to-face OP campaign by August 1st, but it's unlikely that the online campaigns started in Outpost II will be finished by then. That will be interesting, as there are some Adventure 5 and 6 scenarios in Tapestry's Tides that struck me as being very difficult to win under the new Core rules.

Yewstance wrote:
I think he'll be unhappy about the "forced acquisition of boons" rule...

I'm not sure that this is the new rule. Per the description above, you have to roll, but you can pretend that you rolled a zero if you want.

It's functionally the same as the old rule, I think.

All-knowing Aviva wrote:
No more analyzing your decisions; just roll! If you want, you can take a result of 0 on any check and move on. However, you still play out the consequence of that 0.

Longshot11 wrote:
Nope. Still not buying "less cleanup" as the reason for banishing locations, but if that's the version y'all want to stick with...

I'm not sure what the hidden agenda might be, but regardless I'm sure there's more than one reason.

I suspect the main reason is that the developers want to encourage party members to stick together to support a greater emphasis on local effects and cooperation. But could banishing locations also save 30 seconds of clean-up? Sure.

As mentioned in other threads, there's also the fact that banishing locations was tested in Apocrypha and seemed to work OK there. Whether it also works OK in PACG remains to be seen. It probably will work fine in the Core and any new campaigns, but we already know it will have wacky effects in certain scenarios in older organized play campaigns. Those scenarios will probably be errataed so that locations don't banish, or something similar.

This blog does have me curious about the new "freely" mechanic. Over the recent blogs, I expected to see more cards making use of this mechanic - blessings, in particular. I haven't seen many yet, though. Or I haven't been paying proper attention, more likely.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This question came up in another thread:

When the new Guide and Core rules are released, ongoing campaigns/seasons will continue under the old rules? In other words, if I'm in the middle of Season of Tapestry's Tides when the new rules are released, I won't have to switch - will I? I can continue under the old rules?

Only players starting brand new campaigns after June 2019 will be affected by the new guide/rules?

Parody wrote:
wkover wrote:
Not sure I'd want to play without Hangouts, really.
At that point you might as well jettison the play-by-post format and just play whenever everyone can get together.

I disagree for about 50 reasons, but rather than go into to those here I'll assume that maybe you didn't get enough sleep and leave it at that. :)

Online PACG has its pros and cons (link here), in my opinion, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Parody wrote:
I'm still not looking forward to switching, mostly due to uncertainty and being in the middle of a campaign. It's a big change, and I'd prefer to wait until starting a new campaign.

I don't think Paizo is expecting anyone in the middle of a campaign/season to switch rules in mid-campaign. Are they? I assume only new campaigns will be affected.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, agree that Hangouts is a huge help in terms of cooperation. The Discussion tab can work for strategy - especially long-term planning - but Hangouts is better for spur-of-the-moment actions and reactions. Not sure I'd want to play without Hangouts, really.

And oddly the lower cooperation level can sometimes be a positive, in that it's much tougher for a single player to take control - the "quarterback" syndrome that can plague co-op games. I've found that players have more freedom to do whatever they want online, which has been interesting and somewhat refreshing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slacker2010 wrote:
This still open? Is it easy to find a group? how often are you expected to check or play your turn?

Outpost 1 is long concluded. In fact, we just finished Outpost II!

However, you can find other online games here: ruiting&page=last

You're expected to post once per day, typically.

More information about online play can be found here: hru-5619

Good luck, and have fun!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sean rabun wrote:
I'm just worried that organized play is going to suffer until Core Class Decks are released (if ever) and that the small player base we've built for organized play won't survive the transitional period where we're using new rules for old cards.

I'm not worried about players surviving the transition - though maybe I should be. I'm more worried about characters surviving the transition.

One thing that's always been fun about PACG is that all characters are playable in the sense that even "bad" (less useful?) characters can pass checks if the party throws enough blessings at them. That's no longer an option under the new Core rules (except for the "freely" rules).

So my concern is that the characters from old class decks will end up being clearly broken up into Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 characters. The Tier 1's will be helpful and playable, the Tier 3's will be unplayable, and the Tier 2's will be somewhere in the middle.

In Season of the Plundered Tombs, for instance, maybe it's only specific characters (or worse, specific combinations of characters) that can actually beat the campaign under the new rules. We won't know until we try out different combinations, though.

And a quick amendment to my statement above:

I'm not worried about losing players in general, but I am a bit worried about losing online PACG players. All the cool stuff that's being added to the new version will make face-to-face play more fun, but at the same time it will make online play more challenging.

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).

I'm worried that most of my online time after the release of the new version will consist of waiting around to see if someone wants to avenge a failed check. :) That wouldn't be particularly fun, but perhaps I'm exaggerating.

So... in my in-person PACG Tapestry's Tides campaign, one of the guys at my table plays Varril. Do we have official word as to whether Varril can use his skill for weapons?

My teammate has always played that Varril can't, and will continue to do so until he hears official word otherwise.

Just noting for the powers that be that 5-P2 needs to be added to the scenario reporting database. Thanks!

1 to 50 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>