We're doing up a new iteration of the online Runelords rulebook. Is there anything we've missed in the FAQ? I'm specifically looking for rule and card issues that have been brought up in threads and not addressed to folks' satisfaction. I'm specifically NOT looking for conceptual changes to the game, just clarifications that have not been addressed in the FAQ. Doesn't matter how minor, but please please please check the FAQ before you post a reply to this request.
Special bonus points if you provide a link to a thread here or on another site that deals with any issue you think we need to address. Anyway, let me know.
Mike
I think clarifying "ranged combat damage" as a type of combat damage would be helpful. Though I think you are aware of that.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1103823/ranged-combat-damage
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qk8m?Can-damage-be-two-types-at-once#17
I'd also say that if you could find a way to add to "evade" in the encounter a card sequence to clarify that the sequence ends at that point and none of the other steps of the sequence happen, that would be helpful.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qjsl?Cant-evade-a-card-before-encountering-it
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1101547/encounters
But I think you know that one too.
If you are required to summon a henchman and you defeat it, are you able to attempt to close the location you are at?
No. Summoned cards are not considered at the location.This one threw us for a while as we followed the card's direction as per the Golden Rule.
Not exactly a rulebook change but I would echo a post from another topic that suggested just removing the line about being able to close the location immediately from henchmen cards themselves. Make it a rule in the rulebook that defeating a henchman that comes from a location deck allows you to immediately close a location (which might even already be there) and then you don't need the henchmen card to say anything *unless* it's an exception to that rule.
Chief Technical Officer
|
If you are required to summon a henchman and you defeat it, are you able to attempt to close the location you are at?
No. Summoned cards are not considered at the location.This one threw us for a while as we followed the card's direction as per the Golden Rule.
That one's already in the FAQ.
I also think you might want to clarify the whole point about dying when you are required to draw a card and can't means that if you can't draw back to your hand size when resetting your hand, you die. The rules are there as is, but oft misunderstood.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi0w?Recharging-Spell-Card-for-Seoni-and-Other s
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi47?Infinite-card-loop-with-Ezren
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qfvw?Beginner-question-about-dying
I don't think there's anything in the FAQ about rolling separately when a card triggers multiple instantiations of the same effect which requires a die to be rolled (e.g. "the difficulty to defeat goblins is increased by 1d4" means to roll separately for each goblin encountered).
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q3wi?Goblin-difficulty-increase#8
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1103665/each-character-is-dealt
If a card describes a die roll that affects multiple characters (for example, if it says that each character at a location takes 1d4 damage), roll separately for each character.
If a card describes a die roll that affects multiple characters (for example, if it says that each character at a location takes 1d4 damage), roll separately for each character.
Ahh, I forgot this was in the rulebook. It's one of those questions that comes up a lot, though.
To be really nit-picky, that line from the rulebook only covers die rolls that affect multiple characters, not multiple encounters (e.g. increase the difficulty of all goblins by 1d4). Granted, it's not hard to extrapolate from the quoted rule to figure out what to do in this case, but it's technically not covered by the rule.
Well, I would have said
Rules: Randomizing Cards
Whenever you are instructed to choose random cards, shuffle the cards you’re drawing from and draw from the top.
But I see that it would not be smart to pick up all the locations. We tend to roll a die.
I still think the wording on Junk Beach could be better. From your post on the thread, here, you said that acquire doesn't equal draw, and only the words matter. But from what I can find, "acquire" is never defined as coming from the location deck. So, how is drawing a card from the box and adding it to your hand not "acquiring" it, thus triggering the "at this location" effect?
Looking at the newest rulebook, on page 16, under Loot: it says "They are automatically acquired, and so have no check to acquire." And "apart from the way loot cards are acquired, they behave just like other boons..."
As such, "acquire" currently is not defined as just coming from the location deck, since cards can also be "acquired" as rewards, coming directly from the box.
I think it would make more sense to either define/clarify "acquire" as either coming from the location deck or as a reward from a scenario, such as loot, or say "when you acquire an item from the location deck" on the actual Junk Beach card.
The sequence if "acquire an item" and "draw an item from the box" are identical is:
Acquire an item from the location deck.
Then banish it to acquire an item from the box.
Then banish it to acquire an item from the box.
Then banish it to acquire an item from the box.
And so on until you have the exact item you want.
We clearly don't want that. So, noted.
There is nothing in the FAQ to reflect the ruling in this thread
Something to say that a location deck is not considered to be empty if a card from the location is on the Medusa Mask.
In your ruling you mention "phased out", this is currently not a defined term.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
...from what I can find, "acquire" is never defined as coming from the location deck. So, how is drawing a card from the box and adding it to your hand not "acquiring" it, thus triggering the "at this location" effect?
Looking at the newest rulebook, on page 16, under Loot: it says "They are automatically acquired, and so have no check to acquire." And "apart from the way loot cards are acquired, they behave just like other boons..."
As such, "acquire" currently is not defined as just coming from the location deck, since cards can also be "acquired" as rewards, coming directly from the box.
Just because loot goes from the box to your deck and counts as being acquired, that does not mean that *all* cards that go from the box to your deck are acquired. Similarly, just because most cards that are acquired come from location decks, that doesn't mean that all cards that come to your deck from a location deck are necessarily acquired. The source of the card is completely irrelevant to the definition of "acquire."
Cards are acquired if you succeed at the check to acquire them, or if they are loot; nothing else in the rules uses the term "acquire." For instance, the rules about adding cards (see Summoning and Adding Cards) do not use the word "acquired," so whether you're told to add a card, whether it's from the box, from a location deck, or from anywhere else, it does not count as being acquired. (Individual cards, of course, trump the rules; for example, Blessing of the Gods is acquired when you encounter it because it tells you so.)
See page 22: If It Isn’t Called Something, It Isn’t That Thing.
FYI, I made a similar post to this effect on BoardGameGeek.
|
Mike and company, fantastic game! My boys and I love it. I subscribed. We've played it extensively, and I think the rulebook needs a play example for monster immunities to certain traits that more clearly shows that these immunities work against not just combat checks, but evade and perhaps other things? It's the one thing that after all the times we've played that eluded my thinking. Also the term location deck needs clarification so that a deck still exists even when their are no cards in it (Here Comes the Flood). Very excited for the long term. Also do you like the fan generated optional map explorations? I've yet to try it, but looks cool.
I think that the new rulebook should clarify recharging since it requires actions to have memory, contrary to the usual intent in the game. I believe that we should have
Play cards on a check
Take combat damage from a combat check if applicable
Play cards that mitigate damage
Recharge any spells played
This matters for Lini since combat damage may cause her to lose an animal, making her fail to recharge (or similarly with intelligence-increasing items).
I previously asked for Potion of Ghostly Form to be given errata since everyone in my group read it differently than Mike clarified it. (Apparently you can't use it for an extra explore if a barrier wasn't encountered.)
We're doing up a new iteration of the online Runelords rulebook. Is there anything we've missed in the FAQ? I'm specifically looking for rule and card issues that have been brought up in threads and not addressed to folks' satisfaction. I'm specifically NOT looking for conceptual changes to the game, just clarifications that have not been addressed in the FAQ. Doesn't matter how minor, but please please please check the FAQ before you post a reply to this request.
Special bonus points if you provide a link to a thread here or on another site that deals with any issue you think we need to address. Anyway, let me know.
Mike
Can you help me as well. My iPad does not download your PDF files and you are the only site this is happening on... Any reason why?
Thanks
Bamber Loizou an avid Pathfinder card game player ..... Brilliant !
Its actually packaged in a zip file. I don't own an iPad, but does the iPad not like zip file?
Cards are acquired if you succeed at the check to acquire them, or if they are loot.
This is the definition of acquire that I feel needs to be stated somewhere in the rulebook. The dictionary definition of acquire is "to come into possession or ownership of," so any addition of cards to your deck would count. Since you're using the word to mean a specific instance in the game, rather than the standard dictionary definition, I think it should be stated somewhere to avoid confusion.
I understand that it is inferred from the rules as they are now, so if you and Mike deem that sufficient, I acquiesce to your better judgment.
With respect to what Polyphemus wrote, I feel that game keywords should be bolded in future adventure paths. It might decrease the amount of errata on inconsistent wording and it makes sure that new players know they are seeing a game term.
You will find that the rulebook becomes a veritable ocean of boldface in that case.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is what we refer to as a "highly templated game." (Most card games with this level of complexity are.) This means that the vast majority of the words you find on the cards are game terms, as are the majority of the repeated nouns and verbs in the rulebook. To give you an example, I'm going to pull a card literally at random and bold the game terms for you.
Enfeeble
Spell 1
Magic
Arcane
Attack
Mental
Check to Acquire Intelligence Arcane 6
Powers
Discard this card to evade a monster; return it to the top of the deck.
If you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card.
Recharge
Succeed at an Arcane 8 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it.
If you pick a dictionary usage in place of the game's usage for any of those terms, you will probably get it wrong. (You might do okay with the word "card.")
The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is what we refer to as a "highly templated game." (Most card games with this level of complexity are.) This means that the vast majority of the words you find on the cards are game terms, as are the majority of the repeated nouns and verbs in the rulebook. To give you an example, I'm going to pull a card literally at random and bold the game terms for you.
Enfeeble
Spell 1
Magic Arcane Attack Mental
Check to Acquire Intelligence Arcane 6
Powers
Discard this card to evade a monster; return it to the top of the deck.
If you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card.
Recharge
Succeed at an Arcane 8 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it.If you pick a dictionary usage in place of the game's usage for any of those terms, you will probably get it wrong. (You might do okay with the word "card.")
I just realized I shouldn't have been discarding my odd or amusing friend who I often play with. And I definitely shouldn't have been trying to recharge him. He is going to be so angry when I tell him about this ruling. Lets agree to call it a "ruling" so he isn't quite so angry with me. (Sorry for that momentary derailment, I could not resist.)
The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is what we refer to as a "highly templated game." (Most card games with this level of complexity are.) This means that the vast majority of the words you find on the cards are game terms, as are the majority of the repeated nouns and verbs in the rulebook. To give you an example, I'm going to pull a card literally at random and bold the game terms for you.
Enfeeble
Spell 1
Magic Arcane Attack Mental
Check to Acquire Intelligence Arcane 6
Powers
Discard this card to evade a monster; return it to the top of the deck.
If you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card.
Recharge
Succeed at an Arcane 8 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it.If you pick a dictionary usage in place of the game's usage for any of those terms, you will probably get it wrong. (You might do okay with the word "card.")
(Thanks for the amusing example.)
This is really the problem. When almost everything is special then it is hard for you (the developers) to be consistent between cards, not accidentally use a special term and so forth. Terms that are essential fall through the cracks.
I intended bolding of terms like
discard, recharge, banish etc. as card-playing verbs
evade, explore, encounter
'your check', 'a check', 'combat check'
If something has an entire section in the rules then marking it as special makes sure that people play it correctly and focus on the card mechanics. Conversely, if you haven't given something a section in the rules then you need to spell out the details in the text.
Attributes usually get a distinctive font in games that use them. From this card, 'monster' is a good example -- do we mean the deck, an attribute on cards, do villains and henchmen count?
Skills are capitalized, so they already have their own rendering.
Enfeeble Spell 1
Magic Arcane Attack Mental
Check to Acquire Intelligence Arcane 6
Powers
Discard this card to evade a monster; return it to the top of the deck.
If you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card.
Recharge
Succeed at an Arcane 8 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it.
I decided to bold 'return' due to the summoned monster problem.
Format that I prefer:
Enfeeble Spell 1
Magic Arcane Attack Mental
Check to Acquire Intelligence Arcane 6When you encounter a monster:
Discard this card to evade it; return it to the top of the deck.Arcane 8: Recharge instead of discarding.
If you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card.
Introducing a new way to play cards:
Enfeeble Spell 1
Magic Arcane Attack Mental
Check to Acquire Intelligence Arcane 6When you encounter a monster:
Cast this card at Arcane 8 to evade it; return it to the top of the deck.
Cast would have the usual discard/banish/recharge logic built in. Exceptions could be written out on the few cards where they apply.
I'm sorry for the digression on the topic of things to do now, but I feel that cards could be simpler with fewer FAQs and more people playing the game the way that you intended. (Imagine an anthropological expedition to find a lost tribe, playing the game while completely cut off from online discussion....)
If you pick a dictionary usage in place of the game's usage for any of those terms, you will probably get it wrong. (You might do okay with the word "card.")
This is exactly my point. You are using words as game terms, which mean something different than anything you'll find in the dictionary. As such, these game terms need to be defined somewhere in the rulebook. You do this for most game terms already, such as page 10 of the rulebook, which has Reveal, Display, Discard, Recharge, Bury and Banish in bold and defined. All I'm saying is that doing the same for the game term "acquire" would help avoid confusion.
And again, I understand that it is inferred in the rulebook the way it is now, rather than being explicitly stated, and if you deem that sufficient, then I'll have to be satisfied with your ruling on the matter.
Agree with this - I'd pass on the bolded words but a glossary at the end of the rulebook would be nice.
There is nothing in the FAQ to reflect the ruling in this thread
Something to say that a location deck is not considered to be empty if a card from the location is on the Medusa Mask.
In your ruling you mention "phased out", this is currently not a defined term.
Medusa Mask has been addressed.
"Phased out" should never be a defined term. Forget I ever said that.
Garrison
"If you encounter a monster other than villain or henchman, each character at this location must summon and encounter that monster"
Shouldn't this read "If you encounter a monster other than villain or henchman, each other character at this location must summon and encounter that monster"?
Noted. The idea is that each character encounters it once.
Hi Mike,
We struggle on what can other players do while it's someone else turn. The new rules make it quite clear for cards you can play when not during your turn(i. e. it's written on the card), but it's not clear for non card related stuff.
Typical example : Character A's turn. Characters A and B are at a certain location. Character A has just defeated an henchman. Can character B try to close the location immediately ? Can both of them try independently ? Not fully clear in the rules.
Classic case : the check to close is say wisdom based. A fighter (to kill the henchman) and a cleric (to close the location) move to the location. If the fighter kills the henchman and has no chance (say she has a d6 on wisdom skill and check target is 8) on the closing check, what happens?
Maybe it's just English not being my native langage but I don't really see the answer in the rules.
Thanks for the help.
We struggle on what can other players do while it's someone else turn. The new rules make it quite clear for cards you can play when not during your turn(i. e. it's written on the card), but it's not clear for non card related stuff.
Typical example : Character A's turn. Characters A and B are at a certain location. Character A has just defeated an henchman. Can character B try to close the location immediately ? Can both of them try independently ? Not fully clear in the rules.
The henchman's card says that you may attempt to close the location, not anyone at the same location (even if they succeeded at one of the henchman's checks to defeat).
No One Else Can Take Your Turn for You. Whenever you encounter a card or make 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 Sajan encounters a monster, Merisiel can’t evade it for him. If Kyra encounters a Goblin, Seoni can’t attempt the check to defeat it. If Valeros encounters a Spyglass, Harsk can’t attempt the check to acquire it. If Ezren defeats a henchman at the Sandpoint Cathedral, Seelah can’t discard a blessing to close the location. If the game tells you to do something, you have to do it.
What can you do on another player's turn? Might be worth a list:
* play a card
* use a power
* if the current player is in a combat with multiple checks at the same location, you may attempt one or more of them (but the current player must complete one of them)
* temporarily close a location when fighting a villain
* receive a card from the current player
* be the victim of effects that apply to people at the same location as the current player
Any effect that gives you an explore is explicitly disallowed.
Determine Which Die You’re Using.
Cards that require a check specify the skill or skills you can use to attempt the check.
:
Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check
with a different one; as part of this action, you may play only 1 card
or use only 1 power that changes the skill you are going to use.
I think that this section should be 'Determine Which Skill You're Using'. The whole section just talks about skills, except in the case of cards that just tell you which die to use. Lini's shapeshifting power changes the die but not the skill, yet it probably:
* isn't intended to be part of the one card/power limitation
* it should be used in a later step
The henchman's card says that you may attempt to close the location, not anyone at the same location (even if they succeeded at one of the henchman's checks to defeat).
Agreed that was our reading although it pushes to a surprising way of playing : A certain character encountering an henchman may on purpose attempt to fail his check because he would have no chance (or very little) to close a location and it would be better for the group to reshuffle the henchman in the location deck and having someone else encountering it. Was it really the intention ?
Well, you must attempt to defeat a bane if you don't evade it. From the Encountering a Card sequence:
Attempt the Check. If the card is a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if it’s a bane, you must try to defeat it (see Attempting a Check, below). If a bane’s Check to Defeat section says “None,” look at the bane’s powers, and immediately do whatever it says there.
But you don't have to try very hard. You could just roll your strength die (even opting to not use melee). But you will be taking damage, so it better be worth it, or you better have a card to deal with that damage. So given the trade off, I think that is intentional.
Agreed that was our reading although it pushes to a surprising way of playing : A certain character encountering an henchman may on purpose attempt to fail his check because he would have no chance (or very little) to close a location and it would be better for the group to reshuffle the henchman in the location deck and having someone else encountering it. Was it really the intention ?
Failing has a penalty, although it might be a small one if you've got armour. There are two main strategies that you are expected to follow:
* only send people to locations that they can close, or
* use cards/powers that let you keep the henchman on top of the of the deck (Web, Ilsoari Gandethus, Detect X, Augury/Scrying, Merisiel's power with keeping things on top of the deck, Medusa Mask, etc.)
There are two main strategies that you are expected to follow:
Those are good suggestions. You can also just use one of the other ways to close a location; it's what we generally do.
Without getting too far from the thread topic, it's important in the game that `you' be the hero on `your' turn, like the RPG concept of "spotlight time". Sometimes that means that your need to do X and your party member best at doing X won't line up; that's where the fun comes in. :-)
This is a general guideline for the game, and it's an important one; Without it, many co-op games fall quickly into a very common problem that goes by many names (the squad leader problem, the quarterback problem, the Pandemic problem, etc). At heart, the issue is this: if a one player with a strong personality, strategy, or opinion can tell everyone what to do, they will tend to do so; at that point, there's really only one person playing the game, while the others watch. This isn't always terrible, and the leader often has a great time, but it usually is a fun-killer for everyone else. The principle "You take your turn" doesn't stop that form happening, but it encourages people to take agency for the things that happen on their turns - which sometimes means saying "I got this.", and sometimes means asking for help (More help. A lot more help! Please?).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
What can you do on another player's turn? Might be worth a list...
Giving you a list of things you can do means that you are limited to that list. Our design scope is potentially broader than that, which is why we give you the answer we do: You can do anything as long as nothing tells you that you can't.
That is, the game's answer to "can I do a thing?" is "yes, unless something says no." A list would change the answer to "no, unless this list says yes." That's a change to the fundamental perspective that we're just not interested in.
Was it your intention that rolling a 1 or 2 after rolling to defeat Caizarlu Zeren should cancel any persistent (displayed) effects that were played during the previous check, or would those still provide their effects until the end of the turn?
What do you think? How would you change the relevant sentence(s) in each case?
Well, I THINK you did NOT intend for duration spells played during a check to be canceled by a 1 or 2 result on the after-roll d6. I posted the question to get confirmation of that intention.
I just have a feeling that the text on his card is meant to reinforce the fact that you must attempt a whole new check and not just rewind and do a "do-over" of the previous one; but the wording you chose implies that even duration spells would be canceled by a 1 or a 2.
Am I correct? Or did you actually mean for duration spells played during a check to lose their effects immediately and not be applied to subsequent checks to defeat him during the same encounter?
Work with me here a little bit, while I talk about the wording of the power.
When you attempt a check to defeat Caizarlu Zerren, after you make the roll, roll 1d6. on a 1 or 2, start the check over. Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check.
Do you think that this wording conveys that intent? If not, how would you change the sentence to convey that idea? There are a couple points at play here; in particular, do you think that "duration spells" played earlier that the check should be treated the same or differently by the power than if they were played during the check?
Thanks!
What can you do on another player's turn? Might be worth a list...Giving you a list of things you can do means that you are limited to that list. Our design scope is potentially broader than that, which is why we give you the answer we do: You can do anything as long as nothing tells you that you can't.
That is, the game's answer to "can I do a thing?" is "yes, unless something says no." A list would change the answer to "no, unless this list says yes." That's a change to the fundamental perspective that we're just not interested in.
I can't believe I didn't know this. We've been playing wrong this entire time D:
Is Guidance supposed to be as terrible as it is? Even for a basic card there's little to no reason to have it in a deck.