Some confusing things


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Slowly going through Core cards, I generally really like what I see there. For example, white rectangle for then in "<check> THEN <check>" really helps! A few boons in S&S had two checks and it can be easily overlooked and mistaken for OR. But I found several confusing things:

1) Fire Bolt has no Fire Trait
2) Do I understand correctly that you can display an armor at any time even if you are not dealt damage? E.g. Chain Mail: "Display. While displayed: You may ..." If that is true, you can have as many armors displayed as you want, right? Apart from not being able to play them all at once, nothing prevents you from doing that - based on my reading of the rules. So, many fighter characters can now free their hands of armor (not Helms and Shields, of course).
3) Some of my cards have slightly different shade of the top side - e.g. lvl 0 spells are purplish, while lvl 1 spells more bluish. I found it rather cool (level indicator), but now I am not so sure as the other cards do not have this distinction.
4) Wand of Flame / Wand of Enervation - so many keywords. Bury / Banish. If you banish => recovery, and are proficient, discard; if you succeed at check, recharge. Huh, such versatility in outcome.
5) Giant Fly (1) - "After acting, shuffle this monster into a random other location". Nooooo, you cannot get rid of this annoying fly. When there is no other location, it is impossible and that power is ignored, so you CAN get rid of the fly, right?
6) Red Trigger band on an orange Monster (Termite Swarm) is rather hard to notice. Nice and visible on Barriers, though.


On 2, you can display it at the same time you can play any other normal power. So you wouldn't be able to do it in the middle of an encounter if you weren't dealt the relevant damage, for example, since you can only play cards that pertain to that part of the encounter when you're in an encounter. And you're correct that there is no limit to the number of armors you can have displayed.

You're right on 5. Here's an old thread on effectively the same card.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Can confirm on 2 - feel free to display them if you're not in an encounter. This was also seen in various armors in Ultimate Combat, and is largely a new design approach intended to make armors, well, better. As a general rule of thumb, in almost any Base Set (though less so in Mummy's Mask), Armor Card Feats were the least-picked Card Feat from almost any character (even ones with armor-oriented powers), partially because you only really want to have 1 in hand at most at any given time.

This new design direction gives Armor far more valuable uses, in particular without hindering the already-small Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian hand sizes as much. I love it!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

2) You can have as many armors displayed as you want, but you can only then use one of them to reduce damage from a single instance of damage. (If you are dealt 4 Combat damage and you have Hide Armor and Leather Armor displayed, you can't recharge both of them to reduce it to two damage). Choosing to activate a power on a displayed card counts as playing it, and you can only play one card of a type on a check/step (unless one has the freely power).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

1) Looks like Fire Bolt is missing the Attack trait as well.


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.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well you should have said "anyone else" there. Which is how the card game handles it (by stating "another local".) There really shouldn't be any debate, it is almost the simplest logical operation I can think of.

Local = Things at your location.
Am I local = Obviously, you are a thing at your location.

If you weren't local, then you aren't at your location which is an obvious unsolvable paradox.


wkover wrote:

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.

That may be confusing, but old rules say "character at your location", meaning also your character. While reading, I found one card that says "random other local character" just after doing something to your character. Thus, your character is probably local to him/herself (is there a character that is "it" so we do not discriminate the neuters? :-D). But your idea of explicitly saying that in the rulebook is great - at the cost of 4 words it solves the issue.


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.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Added Fire Bolt's missing traits to FAQ.


Ha!

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. :)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Some confusing things All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.