| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is intended as a casual thread where we, the players can ask questions about certain flavor or design choices and (maybe? hopefully?) get the designers of the game to come by and tell us about the reasons, if any. Or at least say they don't remember, which I would personally still enjoy hearing. (Because, seriously, the makers of the game regularly post here, which is just cool).
(P.S. If a thread like this is actually a bad idea, for reasons I didn't foresee, let me know that as well, please)
So, here, below, are some of the things my group has encountered in the game that we wanted to ask the designers (I'll add more later if this ends up being popular):
The scenario "Attack on Rickety's Squibs": two points, both related to changes from the AP as written. 1. Why did you choose to use the Sea Devils as the attacker of choice? In the Adventure, it was Giant Wasps attacking, and possibly Setessa as well. 2. The attack occurred during the first part of Raiders of the Fever Sea, before all but maybe the first scenario. Why did you choose to position it third in the adventure?
And one more: There is an Imp ally available in Adventure 3. I don't remember any Imps making an appearance (other than as a smear on the wall), so I was curious why you settled on that as an ally option.
THANKS again for being such an awesome design team and making such an awesome game.
Why is RoTR's Star Knife a Dex/Rng check to acquire, but a Str/Mel check to use?
Why is RoTR's Star Knife a Dex/Rng check to acquire, but a Str/Mel check to use?
Answered here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario "Attack on Rickety's Squibs": two points, both related to changes from the AP as written. 1. Why did you choose to use the Sea Devils as the attacker of choice? In the Adventure, it was Giant Wasps attacking, and possibly Setessa as well. 2. The attack occurred during the first part of Raiders of the Fever Sea, before all but maybe the first scenario. Why did you choose to position it third in the adventure?
Because wasps are boring, because we were using all the nagas in Bizarre Love Triangle, and because foreshadowing the Sea Devil invasion felt better to us. We don't feel like it's our job to replicate what's in the RPG. We feel like it's our job to make awesome material inspired by awesome material.
There is an Imp ally available in Adventure 3. I don't remember any Imps making an appearance (other than as a smear on the wall), so I was curious why you settled on that as an ally option.
Eh. Sometimes you need an Imp.
Soooo... no 4th version Merisiel?
The scenario "Attack on Rickety's Squibs": two points, both related to changes from the AP as written. 1. Why did you choose to use the Sea Devils as the attacker of choice? In the Adventure, it was Giant Wasps attacking, and possibly Setessa as well. 2. The attack occurred during the first part of Raiders of the Fever Sea, before all but maybe the first scenario. Why did you choose to position it third in the adventure?Because wasps are boring, because we were using all the nagas in Bizarre Love Triangle, and because foreshadowing the Sea Devil invasion felt better to us. We don't feel like it's our job to replicate what's in the RPG. We feel like it's our job to make awesome material inspired by awesome material.
There is an Imp ally available in Adventure 3. I don't remember any Imps making an appearance (other than as a smear on the wall), so I was curious why you settled on that as an ally option.Eh. Sometimes you need an Imp.
Fair enough. Thanks!
Soooo... no 4th version Merisiel?
We'll get there.
The scenario "Attack on Rickety's Squibs": two points, both related to changes from the AP as written. 1. Why did you choose to use the Sea Devils as the attacker of choice? In the Adventure, it was Giant Wasps attacking, and possibly Setessa as well. 2. The attack occurred during the first part of Raiders of the Fever Sea, before all but maybe the first scenario. Why did you choose to position it third in the adventure?Because wasps are boring, because we were using all the nagas in Bizarre Love Triangle, and because foreshadowing the Sea Devil invasion felt better to us. We don't feel like it's our job to replicate what's in the RPG. We feel like it's our job to make awesome material inspired by awesome material.
There is an Imp ally available in Adventure 3. I don't remember any Imps making an appearance (other than as a smear on the wall), so I was curious why you settled on that as an ally option.Eh. Sometimes you need an Imp.
So, would it be a safe generalization to say that you consider how the original story translates to the card form, and if the condensed format doesn't tell the story as well, you adjust it until it does (ie making the Sea Devils a bigger part of Adventure 2, or adding Setessa to the Naga Love Triangle). It's a matter of creative license when changing format (the same reason we don't see Tom Bombadil in the LotR movies)
Soooo... no 4th version Merisiel?We'll get there.
4th Merisiel or not, I still trust your judgement that the result will be awesome materiel inspired by awesome material. I just don't want you guys to feel compelled to replicate the RPG iconics to a T. Looking forward to WotR!
So, would it be a safe generalization to say that you consider how the original story translates to the card form, and if the condensed format doesn't tell the story as well, you adjust it until it does (ie making the Sea Devils a bigger part of Adventure 2, or adding Setessa to the Naga Love Triangle). It's a matter of creative license when changing format (the same reason we don't see Tom Bombadil in the LotR movies)
It would. Also, the Bombadil thing just made Gaby rage at the sky a little.
On a similar note, have you seen the latest comic strip from Binky Damage (a.k.a. Gaby and Mike)?
So, would it be a safe generalization to say that you consider how the original story translates to the card form, and if the condensed format doesn't tell the story as well, you adjust it until it does (ie making the Sea Devils a bigger part of Adventure 2, or adding Setessa to the Naga Love Triangle). It's a matter of creative license when changing format (the same reason we don't see Tom Bombadil in the LotR movies)It would. Also, the Bombadil thing just made Gaby rage at the sky a little.
On a similar note, have you seen the latest comic strip from Binky Damage (a.k.a. Gaby and Mike)?
So, it's an entire comic based around Lord of the Rings and Mall puns? You know what, I dig it.
Would love to hear the thinking that went behind designing Tontelizi's Leg Breaker role with the limited number of allies he has. Was it a balance thing?
Would love to hear the thinking that went behind designing Tontelizi's Leg Breaker role with the limited number of allies he has. Was it a balance thing?
This +1. (Actually, like, +3 if you count the times I've asked this before...)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am working up a Class Decks design series, I promise. I'm thinking of calling it, "Ten Reasons Players Want to Nail Tanis to the Wall, or The Well-Earned Revenge of Tontelizi, Siwar, and Tarlin on their Creator."
I am working up a Class Decks design series, I promise. I'm thinking of calling it, "Ten Reasons Players Want to Nail Tanis to the Wall, or The Well-Earned Revenge of Tontelizi, Siwar, and Tarlin on their Creator."
You're alive! Yay! Hope you are feeling better! :)
You're alive! Yay! Hope you are feeling better! :)
Working on it. Yea, the backlog of forum posts is large and unrelenting . . .
The Well-Earned Revenge of Tontelizi, Siwar, and Tarlin on their Creator.
I've been planning to start a group that includes all three of these characters, now I'm just a little bit worried...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am working up a Class Decks design series, I promise. I'm thinking of calling it, "Ten Reasons Players Want to Nail Tanis to the Wall, or The Well-Earned Revenge of Tontelizi, Siwar, and Tarlin on their Creator."
You forgot poor Zarlova and her lack of Arcane. :3
I am working up a Class Decks design series, I promise. I'm thinking of calling it, "Ten Reasons Players Want to Nail Tanis to the Wall, or The Well-Earned Revenge of Tontelizi, Siwar, and Tarlin on their Creator."
Glad you're feeling better!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am working up a Class Decks design series, I promise. I'm thinking of calling it, "Ten Reasons Players Want to Nail Tanis to the Wall, or The Well-Earned Revenge of Tontelizi, Siwar, and Tarlin on their Creator."Glad you're feeling better!
THIS +1!
Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting in this thread for me, Ilpalazo!
+1... We Soooo much depends on Tanis to finally understand how all those nice characters should be played..
But after meeting you in person, it's impossible to want to nail you to the wall.
Also, yay for surviving the month of flu.
Alternate title: "hey, why do Bekah and Flenta get all the cool toys?"
Here's a somewhat more direct question, that I'm not sure the developers can answer, but I'd love to know:
The general word coming out of RotR was 'really fun, but overall too easy.' Skull & Shackles upped the challenge a fair bit, both by upping the difficulty of checks and greatly increasing the variety of checks. What has been the feedback so far from that, and how has that changed plans for WotR? Personally, I've felt it was a bit of an over-correction, but I'm wondering if that's what surveys or focus-groups, or whatever you're using has been saying, too.
On a more light-hearted note, here are a couple easier questions:
At the end of Adventure 2, my group fought off Isabella at Tidewater Rock (I think that's listed as the recommended location in the AP, but I'm not sure), do you think it would be too game-breaking if we swapped one of the current locations for it, or was there a specific reason it wasn't included in the scenario (some balance issue that I'm missing, essentially)?
Also, are there any particular cards that was a real favorite of yours? You loved it from the moment you first made it and really hoped it was going to make the final game and be fun and popular?
|
I feel that the increased difficulty was a change in the right direction, but that some of the new and tougher ideas weren't properly playtested ahead of release. I enjoy a challenge, but there are a couple of scenarios that feel a bit unfair and ultimately not fun to play. I didn't have that experience with any part of Runelords, and I've found myself feeling frustrated more than once with S&S.
I'd love to contribute here, saying that I find the new difficulty enjoyable, but I fear my perspective is too skewed by the fact that my (so-far) only playthrough of S&S is with RotR Lini.
I think some of the difficulty changes make a lot of sense - i.e. Shark Island with Sharks, as opposed to the Guard Tower with Bandits - making the henchman veteran and cannot be evaded maintains the level of challenge.
That said, a few of the Skull & Shackles scenarios have just been no fun to play whatsoever.
- The one with the two locations and the villain who can only be defeated if he's the last card in the deck particularly leaps out at me (Toll of the Bell?) - this scenario might as well have said "shuffle 50 cards in a pile and examine the bottom card of the deck. If it is the villain you win the scenario, if not you my try again twice"
- The one with the three Naga was another example of something incredibly frustrating - having 3 Villains, all with non-combat checks to defeat, even having to funnel them all into one location, I could see as being an interesting new challenge - for us it was ruined by having no Henchmen - that means in a 6-character game, you've got 5 locations which you need to empty entirely (on top of actually needing to defeat the villains when you do find them) - by the time we finally got lucky and completed this one, we were torn between house-ruling to put shipwrecks in as Henchmen, and just quitting Pathfinder altogether.
If they increase the difficulty again for WotR, we probably won't bother with. If they keep it broadly the same and try to avoid the scenarios which rely on dumb luck, then we'll stick with it.
|
I agree that they ramped up the difficulty a bit much for S&S. Maybe playing it with the characters designed for it would work better than the characters for PACG play. PACG characters don't seem to have the right skill sets to be able to accomplish many of the skill checks needed. (Case in point; Craft. Only one PACG character has that for a skill)
While many people enjoy a challenge, many who want to play, play it more casually. Or you have people like me who figure out what the dice average is to see what the max they will roll will be. (Yes my dice luck is horrible)
I hope they scale back WotR somewhere between RotR and S&S
Yes I did mean Class Deck characters.
In that case, there's actually 2 =p (Vika and Zarlova).
It really is an issue. And I know they were trying to keep the character decks neutral, but that hurts in game play with flavor specific skills.
I'm currently playing both Jirelle and Lem from the S&S box as part of my cast of characters and both have the option of Craft. Lem to start and Jirelle as a role upgrade.
|
Being constrained in building a party isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor would it be unique to PACG. Most RPG-like games require a mix of character types or skills to succeed. It could definitely be seen as a weakness of Runelords that you could make it through the game with almost any party combination.
That being said, I think I agree that S&S' difficulty level can be somewhat un-fun, especially when the game throws randomized victory conditions or other challenges (e.g., Storm) at you.
At the designers: Have you guys looked into scaling difficulty very much? Some way to play the game in hard mode or easy mode or whatever? I'd like to hear more on it if you have.
That being said, I think I agree that S&S' difficulty level can be somewhat un-fun, especially when the game throws randomized victory conditions or other challenges (e.g., Storm) at you.
Ugh, Storm. I really feel that should have SOME way to get rid of it. Even something ridiculous, like craft 25 or banishing cards. Just some option where you have control other than taking a specific spell (Control/Animate Weather, whatever it's called).
4-character seems fairly mixed - We've used Seltyiel, Lirianne, Jirelle, and Alahazra, and had reasonable success (aside from Toll of the Bell and Bizarre Love Triangle)
6-character, the time issues of RotR are just magnified tenfold. Without Damiel drugging Ranzak to the eyeballs (Potion of Heroism, Speed, Potion of Flying) so he can clear boon-heavy locations in a few turns, we'd never finish
Ugh, Storm. I really feel that should have SOME way to get rid of it. Even something ridiculous, like craft 25 or banishing cards. Just some option where you have control other than taking a specific spell (Control/Animate Weather, whatever it's called).
Just have a card or character that can move at the end of the turn. With your ship not anchored or wrecked, move to where the storm is, then move at the end of your turn and take everyone with you, leaving the storm behind.
There are quite a few things in S&S that you can gain an advantage on by moving outside of the move step. One RotR party I was in really worked on moving. In S&S it is much more apparent how beneficial this can be. I'd even be tempted to take Levitate in S&S, with so many barrier or locations that do stuff at the start or end of your turn (or both).
4-character seems fairly mixed - We've used Seltyiel, Lirianne, Jirelle, and Alahazra, and had reasonable success (aside from Toll of the Bell and Bizarre Love Triangle)
6-character, the time issues of RotR are just magnified tenfold. Without Damiel drugging Ranzak to the eyeballs (Potion of Heroism, Speed, Potion of Flying) so he can clear boon-heavy locations in a few turns, we'd never finish
I've only gotten very fair in a 4 character party, and we've had fun the whole way. Bizarre Love Triangle took 3 attempts, other than that nothing has take more than 2, and most are still successful on the first try. Press Ganged only took us one attempt, though my sample size of 1 doesn't mean it doesn't involve some amount of luck.
I felt ROTR was usually at a negligible Difficulty level. Whereas with S&S there has often been a sense of accomplishment when we've finished a scenario.
I certainly prefer the latter
The thing with the difficulty that I find I'm most torn on is the variety of checks. There are two major issues here. First, that there are a few specific check types that you see over and over (Survival and Fortitude for S&S). This causes something of a character imbalance for the Adventure, where characters without one or both of those skills, particularly ones with poor dice in the related Skills, are underpowered in the context of that adventure, even though that normally would not be the case. This creates a kind of artificial imbalance, relating to that character restriction that Ron was talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether having a wider distribution of secondary checks is better or worse.
Second, there is an issue of a sense of stagnation occurring. In RotR, which was extremely combat focused, almost every character could expect to focus on their combat stat first (with some exceptions, ie the Paladin going for Divine first), so as the difficulty went up, it felt like you were growing to meet it. With S&S, you have to either build towards one or both of the major secondary checks, or build towards your combat stat (Lini is the only character that can potentially do both, and only then if she goes Casting over Melee). This can create a feeling of falling behind in those other stats. Yeah, your d8 Wisdom was handy against the ships in the base set with 6 difficulty, Alhazhra, but it's still a d8 in Adventure 4 and now you have 10+ DC ships to contend with.
Again, I don't know what the right answer is here. I'm tempted to say give more skill points (something I even said should be done in RotR), but I'm not sure that would make anything better. There becomes a risk of that causing an arms race with the Bane DC's, and we'll end up in an even worse position. Like I said, it is the most challenging part of the Difficulty question. I don't want to necessarily go back to the days of 'lol, just take 4 skill feats in combat,' but I also don't want to feel punished for wanting a better Arcane check and then getting pounded in the face with Fortitude checks for three scenarios strait.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will address the difficulty issue by addressing a different issue: power curves. A power curve is the advancement of card power inflation over the course of a series, in this case an Adventure Path. There are two at work: the character power curve and the adventure power curve. And they are basically independent, though heavily influenced by each other.
RotR's adventure power curve was strongly logarithmic. You will find that playing a B scenario in RotR is about equal to that of a 1 scenario, and then 2 is a little tougher, then 4 is a lot tougher, and then 6 is quite a bit tougher. That is because we undervalued the first three (or, in many cases, much more than three) sessions of the B scenarios. (Many people reported playing the B scenarios dozens of times with the same characters.) The card filtration is significant even after one session. So by the time you hit Attack on Sandpoint, you were quite a bit tougher than than the starting array. But set 1 was not appreciably tougher on you than B was. This meant that the character power curve is more linear than logarithmic, and that is slightly at odds with the adventure power curve.
In S&S, we made the power curve more linear. You will find the set 6 difficulty not appreciably different than in RotR. But sets 1 and 2 are much harder in S&S than they are in RotR. So both curves are fairly linear. However, there's another factor at work, in that difficulty is spread among more types of checks. So the character power curve might be flatter than the adventure power curve. That gives a strong sense that S&S is harder.
You might find a different difficulty curve at work in Wrath. We'll see what you think of that.
I will address the difficulty issue by addressing a different issue: power curves. A power curve is the advancement of card power inflation over the course of a series, in this case an Adventure Path. There are two at work: the character power curve and the adventure power curve. And they are basically independent, though heavily influenced by each other.
RotR's adventure power curve was strongly logarithmic. You will find that playing a B scenario in RotR is about equal to that of a 1 scenario, and then 2 is a little tougher, then 4 is a lot tougher, and then 6 is quite a bit tougher. That is because we undervalued the first three (or, in many cases, much more than three) sessions of the B scenarios. (Many people reported playing the B scenarios dozens of times with the same characters.) The card filtration is significant even after one session. So by the time you hit Attack on Sandpoint, you were quite a bit tougher than than the starting array. But set 1 was not appreciably tougher on you than B was. This meant that the character power curve is more linear than logarithmic, and that is slightly at odds with the adventure power curve.
In S&S, we made the power curve more linear. You will find the set 6 difficulty not appreciably different than in RotR. But sets 1 and 2 are much harder in S&S than they are in RotR. So both curves are fairly linear. However, there's another factor at work, in that difficulty is spread among more types of checks. So the character power curve might be flatter than the adventure power curve. That gives a strong sense that S&S is harder.
You might find a different difficulty curve at work in Wrath. We'll see what you think of that.
This is a wonderful answer, and is both why I love the openness of the design team, and why I started this thread. This shows the kind of effort that you guys go into examining every part of the game, and gives me a lot of encouragement going into WotR.
Based on your description of how the base set scenarios worked, was the uneven play level a contributing factor in going from 3 to 5 scenarios between the two base sets? It seems like that would probably even out the number of sessions each group would play in the base set somewhat, and give a better read of what the character decks would look like for AD1 and forward.
On an entirely unrelated note that just came to me, and now I'm curious: how much creative freedom do you have with the ACG stories? Is there anyone from the RPG team that guides you or gives advice/approval on the changes/summarizations of the story, or do they pretty much let you do what you need with no interference?
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On an entirely unrelated note that just came to me, and now I'm curious: how much creative freedom do you have with the ACG stories? Is there anyone from the RPG team that guides you or gives advice/approval on the changes/summarizations of the story, or do they pretty much let you do what you need with no interference?
I can take that one...
Keep in mind that in each set, chapters 1 through 6 are adapted from an existing RPG Adventure Path, while the B scenarios are not, so the answer for B may not be the same as the answer for 1–6. I'll come back to that later; until then, when I use the term "Adventure Path," I'm talking about the content from 1–6 only.
At Paizo, we have two people acting as lead developers for the RPG Adventure Paths—James Jacobs ran all of the Adventure Paths through Jade Regent, and Rob McCreary and James have alternated APs since then.
One of the first things that happens in the PACG process is that Lone Shark goes through all of the RPG adventures and comes up with a tentative card list. They figure out which encounters will become scenarios, and which villains and henchmen will feature in each, and which monsters and items and other things will fill out the set. At this point, they don't need to know what cards *do*—just that they think they will exist.
Once they have that list, we run it past the lead developer for that AP—James for Rise of the Runelords and Wrath of the Righteous, and Rob for Skull & Shackles. At this point, they're mostly looking to confirm that Lone Shark is hitting all the key story points, and aren't leaving out encounters that are important to the plot (or encounters that were just really popular with RPG players). This is probably the most important thing the RPG developers do for the card game. Once the card list is settled on, those developers will also work with the art team to develop art orders for things that weren't illustrated in the RPG version of the AP, and they'll look at the new art to make sure it's what they wanted. Much later in the process, they'll also look at all the flavor text and make sure it accurately portrays the events, locations, and characters.
But when it comes to story, the RPG developers are focused on the storyline, not on the details of execution. For example, they'll want to make sure that the Free Captain's Regatta appears in chapter 3 of Skull & Shackles, but how the regatta is actually translated into the card game universe is largely up to Lone Shark. They'll want to make sure that Isabella Locke is a villain in chapter 2, but what the powers on her card actually do is Lone Shark's call. (Of course, they'll want to make sure that they've given her appropriate traits, and didn't mistakenly turn her into an Elf Wizard instead of a Human Sorcerer, and that sort of thing.)
For B scenarios, RPG developer involvement varies depending on the source of the story elements. Let's look at the three Rise of the Runelords scenarios for example.
Brigandoom! came almost entirely from Mike. Mike wanted an introductory scenario with bandits, and James suggested that he use Jubrayl Vhiski as the villain—Jubrayl was a completely minor character in the actual AP; he mainly featured in an appendix of local characters. The story for the Poison Pill is similar—Mike came up with the scenario, and James told him who the villain should be. Black Fang's Dungeon, though, was actually an adaptation of an RPG scenario in the Pathfinder RPG Beginner Box, so it was treated much like the rest of Runelords.
Skull & Shackles actually went the other way—we didn't have any story elements sitting around that we wanted to use, so Lone Shark basically made up their own story, and then the RPG team took those concepts as inspiration for the RPG module Plunder & Peril.
For Wrath, our B scenarios were loosely adapted from some Pathfinder Society Scenarios that tied in to Wrath; since John Compton developed those scenarios, he helped us with that process.
|
|
For Wrath, our B scenarios were loosely adapted from some Pathfinder Scenario Scenarios that tied in to Wrath; since John Compton developed those scenarios, he helped us with that process.
Multi-table Siege of the Diamond City PACG special confirmed!! :O
** spoiler omitted **
Multi table PACG scenarios would be awesome, and needs to be done as soon as we have the playerbase!
Mike;
Appreciate your chiming in.We were trying to make you aware, and I do hope you get the power curves to match closer in WotR.
As I said, I'd like the difficulty to be somewhere between the other 2.
Oh, there's no guarantee they will match. That's not always the goal. But it is the goal that whatever the power curves are doing in relation to each other, it will be fun.
Based on your description of how the base set scenarios worked, was the uneven play level a contributing factor in going from 3 to 5 scenarios between the two base sets? It seems like that would probably even out the number of sessions each group would play in the base set somewhat, and give a better read of what the character decks would look like for AD1 and forward.
The strongest factor was the sheer number of times people were playing B scenarios. So more was just better. We did factor the extra scenarios into the power curve, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Wrath, our B scenarios were loosely adapted from some Pathfinder Scenario Scenarios that tied in to Wrath; since John Compton developed those scenarios, he helped us with that process.
FYI, I love the B scenarios in Wrath. I read 25 PFS adventures and then wove together a fun sequence of stories and characters that I think you'll all like.
On an entirely unrelated note that just came to me, and now I'm curious: how much creative freedom do you have with the ACG stories? Is there anyone from the RPG team that guides you or gives advice/approval on the changes/summarizations of the story, or do they pretty much let you do what you need with no interference?I can take that one...
Keep in mind that in each set, chapters 1 through 6 are adapted from an existing RPG Adventure Path, while the B scenarios are not, so the answer for B may not be the same as the answer for 1–6. I'll come back to that later; until then, when I use the term "Adventure Path," I'm talking about the content from 1–6 only.
At Paizo, we have two people acting as lead developers for the RPG Adventure Paths—James Jacobs ran all of the Adventure Paths through Jade Regent, and Rob McCreary and James have alternated APs since then.
One of the first things that happens in the PACG process is that Lone Shark goes through all of the RPG adventures and comes up with a tentative card list. They figure out which encounters will become scenarios, and which villains and henchmen will feature in each, and which monsters and items and other things will fill out the set. At this point, they don't need to know what cards *do*—just that they think they will exist.
Once they have that list, we run it past the lead developer for that AP—James for Rise of the Runelords and Wrath of the Righteous, and Rob for Skull & Shackles. At this point, they're mostly looking to confirm that Lone Shark is hitting all the key story points, and aren't leaving out encounters that are important to the plot (or encounters that were just really popular with RPG players). This is probably the most important thing the RPG developers do for the card game. Once the card list is settled on, those developers will also work with the art team to develop art orders for things that weren't illustrated in the RPG version of the AP, and they'll look at the new art to make sure...
Very cool! Have I mentioned yet how much I love you guys? It's good to hear that there's good communication between both sides. Really looking forward to Wrath.