All asked.
We all know what happens with "anything 2.0", it's NEVER downward compatible.
As far as I seen it, Mummies will be PACG 1.4 and that much better this way :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing it involves lots of Promos and some extra PREMIUM components.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Myfly: master of the clickbait.
Clearly they are taking a bid from anime and we will wear playmats on special bracers and the monsters and our characters will show up as holograms.
Mummies will be 1.4...
... And of course if there may be sometime a 2.0 version, the ideas for this enhancement will be about 2 years before the actual release date. So it COULD BE that these ideas NOW come up in Mike's head... Just asking...
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...
|
It could be that the ideas are in Mike's head, but it's so unlikely that I'm going to say I guarantee they aren't. There is literally no logical reason to even consider PACG 2.0 at this time. MTG wasn't exactly a rare occurance, it's very rare for new editions of games to come out.
Also, if you think Mummy's would be 1.4, I'm not sure versioning works the way you think it does...
Just spinning some ideas...
2.0 idea originates from the Apocrypha release in KS. See, if soon there will be a 2.0 version of a product, companies try to spread the current product/system in various editions as much as possible to make the last profit out of it (milking). This is the reason that Apocrypha comes up IMO, ... Several editions of the game concept are now avaialable. Of course they are not the same, but similar enough.
IMO, if PACG does not want to evolve into a 2.0 version, Paizo would have forbidden the Apocrypha system, right? It would have stayed as an exclusive game system. If someone loves the PACG system, but not the current theme of the adv path, the gamer switches to APO where he may like the theme much more. Will he return to PACG? So two PACG/APO lines keep the gamers together, but also waters down the PACG fan numbers, right? The watering process will cost some fans, drop in fan numbers leads to cutbacks in sale numbers, which will start the decline.... At some point 2.0 is necessary to get the lost fans back in line... That is how the world turns.
Just my belly feelings...
What do you think?
|
I think you're really confused about versioning as well as how Apocrypha fits into all this.
It doesn't. Apocrypha has card game mechanics which were utilized in PACG. It's already there. Apocrypha didn't come after PACG, it came before.
So as I read what you've written, I think a lot of this is not very accurate and you're basing it on assumptions that really aren't true.
Also, if you look at the first sentence of Apocrypha, "A card game and roleplaying game in one box", I'm pretty sure Paizo has an Roleplaying game. And I don't think they are interested in mixing the RPG and the ACG.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...
There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)
|
|
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)
But Vic, those are editions and not versions. I wouldn't consider Origins v17.0 but I would consider that Magic has gone through some major revisioning about timing.
And I wouldn't consider Wrath of the Righteous version 1.2 of PACG. The mechanics are still fairly consistent since the start of the game. Some additional mechanics have been added but the base is the same.
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)
Wow, we got a *big* MTG fan here...
17th edition in how many years? Now please break this down to PACG =)) ... Well, very soon we got a versioning ahead :-))
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Words like "editions" and "versions" mean different things to different people.
Officially, Call of Cthulhu has had 7 editions, though the rules themselves changed very little between the first 6, so some people would say there have been just 2. Yet others say there have actually been *18*.
When it comes to PACG, where the content gets completely replaced every year, and sections of rule are added, removed, and rewritten, there's really no point in that kind of naming/numbering scheme.
Vic has stated in the past that Paizo does not own a trademark on "Adventure Card Game", strongly implying that they view that as a genre of games which any game designer can work in without asking Paizo or Lone Shark for permission. If you wanted to design your own ACG and use a few of the larger concepts from PACG, you would probably be fine, just like how Arctic Scavengers and Dominion (both Deck Building games) share some concepts (such as purchasing cards, having the same starting deck every game, using all of the cards in your hand each round). Depending on how many concepts are reused between Apocrypha and PACG and which specific concepts they are, Paizo may not have been able to stop them even if they wanted to. Of course, since Lone Shark and Paizo clearly have a close working relationship, it would be truly shocking to find out that Paizo had any issue with it or that Mike hadn't at least mentioned it before the KS launched.
tl;dr: Paizo likely couldn't do anything to stop Apocrypha unless it was literally a 1:1 reskin of PACG, and Lone Shark's relationship with Paizo means that would be highly unlikely.
|
My view of "editions" and "versions" mean that they aren't backwards compatible. For example. D&D has had it's original version, AD&D, 3rd edition, 3.5 edition, 4th edition and now D&D Next. While each one has similarities to it's previous versions, the only one that I know played nice with each other was 3.0 and 3.5.
I imagine PACG will get better over time and new unique rules will be introduced as time goes along as well. If you were to take the Pathfinder RPG for example, starting with just the Core Rulebook, it will look extremely different when comparing it to the Advanced Class Guide., but it's still compatible with each other. Each one will have similar traits to the previous adventure paths, but it's still recognizable as the same game.
@nondeskript - I saw a banner at GenCon for another company using the "Adventure Card Game" wording as well. Warhammer Quest: The Adventure Card Game. I think it's encouraging to see other developers trying out the game style and I think it speaks loudly at how good PACG is of a game.
Paizo would have forbidden the Apocrypha system, right?What makes you think Paizo even has that power?
Come you dont know that...
PACG has now the D20 but APO not... This is big power =)))
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you wanted to design your own ACG
Promos, the Adventure Card Game!
Paizo would have forbidden the Apocrypha system, right?What makes you think Paizo even has that power?Come you dont know that...
PACG has now the D20 but APO not... This is big power =)))
By that measure, Kenzer & Company are the winners by a long shot with their d10,000 in Hackmaster (used to resolve where on the body a critical hit landed, to adjust crit effects accordingly).
Still think we need hologram PACG
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)Wow, we got a *big* MTG fan here...
17th edition in how many years? Now please break this down to PACG =)) ... Well, very soon we got a versioning ahead :-))
From Vic's Profile:
Was one of the earliest employees of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; worked as Director of Computing Resources and Manager of Project Coordination; coordinated Magic: The Gathering releases from Alpha to The Dark; suggested name "Magic: The Gathering"
I'd say he is more than just a fan. Though his knowledge of games he hasn't been involved with also seems extensive.
Skull & Shackles came out quite some time ago.
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vic has stated in the past that Paizo does not own a trademark on "Adventure Card Game", strongly implying that they view that as a genre of games which any game designer can work in without asking Paizo or Lone Shark for permission. If you wanted to design your own ACG and use a few of the larger concepts from PACG, you would probably be fine, just like how Arctic Scavengers and Dominion (both Deck Building games) share some concepts (such as purchasing cards, having the same starting deck every game, using all of the cards in your hand each round). Depending on how many concepts are reused between Apocrypha and PACG and which specific concepts they are, Paizo may not have been able to stop them even if they wanted to. Of course, since Lone Shark and Paizo clearly have a close working relationship, it would be truly shocking to find out that Paizo had any issue with it or that Mike hadn't at least mentioned it before the KS launched.
tl;dr: Paizo likely couldn't do anything to stop Apocrypha unless it was literally a 1:1 reskin of PACG, and Lone Shark's relationship with Paizo means that would be highly unlikely.
I have previously said:
The Pathfinder ACG actually began when Lone Shark brought the game that would become Apocrypha to us, saying (more or less) "We're working on this game that we know isn't quite right for you, but we think we can make a game *like* it for Pathfinder that you will love."
..to which I will add that it was always clear that Lone Shark was going to continue to develop that game. But in no way is it PACG 2.0—PACG and Apocrypha are separate branches on the same family tree.
I have also previously said:
When it comes to competition, I believe that Magic: The Gathering actually benefited quite a bit from the existence of other trading card games. By itself, M:TG was a successful game, but it couldn't be the cornerstone of a genre until there were other TCG/CCGs. This is why we didn't trademark "Adventure Card Game"—I'd love it if, in a few years, there are a handful of ACGs in existence, giving weight to our game.
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!
How do you even arrive at "1.4"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!How do you even arrive at "1.4"?
1.0 = Rise of the Runelords
1.1 = Skull & Shackles1.2 = Promo Collection
1.5 = Errata Set
1.98 = Wrath of the Righteous
1.4 = Mummy's Mask
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!How do you even arrive at "1.4"?
I can only assume something like:
1.0 Rise of the Runelords
1.1 Rise of the Runelords 2nd printing
1.2 Skull and Shackles
1.3 Wrath of the Righteous
1.4 Mummies.
But as Vic points out, those numbers are kind of meaningless since none of the base sets/adventure paths were designed to be mixed. They are more like different games that share mechanics than expansions for each other.
|
|
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!How do you even arrive at "1.4"?1.0 = Rise of the Runelords
1.1 = Skull & Shackles
1.2 = Promo Collection
1.5 = Errata Set
1.98 = Wrath of the Righteous
1.4 = Mummy's Mask
As much as that sounds like something that might actually be the reasoning, I'm going with "MyFly for some reason calls Runelords 1.1"
Also, if you're gonna lie about getting an early product, you should uhh... you know... make it a product that at least isn't still being made. If you really did get something labeled as Mummy's Mask PACG, then you've been had. HAD I TELL YOU!
I think it's curious how Myfly got a PACG v1.4 from China, went they aren't being printed there anymore. Some sort of Sino-wormhole?
Cheap Chinese knock-offs probably.
It's the new Roadfinder Adventure Card Game: Mommy's Mask.
Where can I buy this? It sounds almost as awesome as the idea is ridiculous :D
Still think we need hologram PACG
Yes please!
I'd like to go on record as saying that I'd love some foil/hologram promo cards for PACG. And that I'd probably try Roadfinder Adventure Card Game: Mommy's Mask.
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!How do you even arrive at "1.4"?1.0 = Rise of the Runelords
1.1 = Skull & Shackles
1.2 = Promo Collection
1.5 = Errata Set
1.98 = Wrath of the Righteous
1.4 = Mummy's MaskThis is quite possibly the most amusing thing I've seen all week. Bravo. *clap* *clap* *clap*
I think you forgot 1.106 = Premium Plunder Die
I know - I am famous and got a few stalkers around =)))
Yeaah, but where are my PREMIUM PLAYMATS?
|
|
Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!How do you even arrive at "1.4"?1.0 = Rise of the Runelords
1.1 = Skull & Shackles
1.2 = Promo Collection
1.5 = Errata Set
1.98 = Wrath of the Righteous
1.4 = Mummy's MaskThis is quite possibly the most amusing thing I've seen all week. Bravo. *clap* *clap* *clap*
I think you forgot 1.106 = Premium Plunder Die
I know - I am famous and got a few stalkers around =)))
Yeaah, but where are my PREMIUM PLAYMATS?
The versioning number was too low on those to note. We left it off the list.
The versioning number was too low on those to note. We left it off the list.Yesterday I received the v1.4 Mummies PACG from a Chinese distributor. Awesome. Great job Mike!How do you even arrive at "1.4"?1.0 = Rise of the Runelords
1.1 = Skull & Shackles
1.2 = Promo Collection
1.5 = Errata Set
1.98 = Wrath of the Righteous
1.4 = Mummy's MaskThis is quite possibly the most amusing thing I've seen all week. Bravo. *clap* *clap* *clap*
I think you forgot 1.106 = Premium Plunder Die
I know - I am famous and got a few stalkers around =)))
Yeaah, but where are my PREMIUM PLAYMATS?
Wrong guess. The premium playmats are 1.x1 for all adv paths including the class decks =) which are still missing...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just spinning some preposterous ideas...
Fixed that for you.
My team owns the adventure card game mechanic. Paizo owns the Pathfinder universe. We thought these were awesome things to put together. One of those two parties can't tell the other what else they can do with their creation. We support each other in all our efforts.
You want to spin another narrative, go right ahead. But know that it's entirely fictional.
Just spinning some preposterous ideas...Fixed that for you.
My team owns the adventure card game mechanic. Paizo owns the Pathfinder universe. We thought these were awesome things to put together. One of those two parties can't tell the other what else they can do with their creation. We support each other in all our efforts.
You want to spin another narrative, go right ahead. But know that it's entirely fictional.
Lonesharks ACG mechanic + Pathfinder universe = Awesome!
What does it mean when you say you "own" the mechanic?
There will be other ACG released soon such as Warhammer... Doesnt these interfer with your "owner rights"?
Just wondering...