Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We still have a couple of things to work out before we issue Guide 6.2, but you may immediately make changes posted in this thread.
On page 8, the first paragraph of Build the Vault should read:
Starting with Season 6, each adventure includes rules for building the vault. In earlier seasons, each adventure lists the products that adventure requires. To build the vault for a scenario in one of those adventures, start by adding all of the cards from the listed products to the vault, then remove all Basic and Elite banes whose level is at least three lower than the # of the adventure, and you may remove any non-blessing boons that fit that criteria. For example, if you’re setting up a scenario in adventure 5, you’ll remove all Basic and Elite banes of levels 0 (that is, B, P, and C), 1, and 2, and you may remove any non-blessing Basic or Elite boons of those levels. If you don’t have time to remove those cards in advance, you can remove them as you find them—when you come across one, just replace it with another card of the same type from the vault. Ignore any instructions on the Adventure Path card related to banishing Basic and Elite cards.
(Changed sentences are in bold.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The last bullet under Modifying Your Class Deck should read:
• If your Class Deck box contains boons that have the same name as boons in the Core Set or the Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path, in between scenarios, you may replace these boons with the Core or Curse versions. (Card names must match exactly, though differences in spacing such as Short Sword and Shortsword are allowed.) Do not take cards from the vault for this—you must bring your own copies. If the level of the Core or Curse card is higher than your tier, you can’t replace that card until you’re allowed to put cards of that level into your deck.
Thanks, Vic!
|
Has the Season of the Righteous reward for Adventure 2 been addressed yet or will it be addressed in guide 6.2? Sorry for bothering on it but my husband and I wanted to play it and see if we can beat it with the new rules for fun. =)
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has the Season of the Righteous reward for Adventure 2 been addressed yet or will it be addressed in guide 6.2? Sorry for bothering on it but my husband and I wanted to play it and see if we can beat it with the new rules for fun. =)
** spoiler omitted **
For this one, I'd like to suggest that a special rule for Season of the RIghteous be created. Something like this:
When playing any scenario during Season of the Righteous, you gain temporary bonuses to your skills corresponding to each medal you earned on the troop Knights of Kenabres.
Or something like that. SotRighteous characters really REALLY need those bonuses, I think.
Has the Season of the Righteous reward for Adventure 2 been addressed yet or will it be addressed in guide 6.2? Sorry for bothering on it but my husband and I wanted to play it and see if we can beat it with the new rules for fun. =)
Sorry, I tested out a couple options and didn't like the results from those, so I put it on the backburner for a couple weeks to percolate while I worked on some other more timely things.
One of these two:
For the rest of the Adventure Path, if you have an unchecked skill feat in any skill corresponding to a medal gained on the troop Knights of Kenabres (as noted on your Chronicle sheet), you may treat one skill feat as checked.
For the rest of the Adventure Path, when you fail a check using a skill corresponding to a medal gained on the troop Knights of Kenabres (as noted on your Chronicle sheet), you may cross out that medal to reroll any number of dice on the check.
If folks have strong opinions on those, let me know. One is passive, but largely replicates the effect inside the campaign, and the other requires more memory, but could save your bacon a couple times.
Re: Tyler Ninja
Nah, SotR characters are fine. At least as far as the impact of this reward goes. It's mostly just "some day a couple stats you don't really use gets a +1" (cause you max out your actually used stats)
|
|
Re: Tyler Ninja
Nah, SotR characters are fine. At least as far as the impact of this reward goes. It's mostly just "some day a couple stats you don't really use gets a +1" (cause you max out your actually used stats)
I like to play jack-of-all-trades characters and DON'T max out a couple stats. I like to spread the skill points around. I don't think it can be assumed that stats a character doesn't use alot would be the only ones affected....
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I like to play jack-of-all-trades characters and DON'T max out a couple stats. I like to spread the skill points around. I don't think it can be assumed that stats a character doesn't use alot would be the only ones affected....
Re: Tyler Ninja
Nah, SotR characters are fine. At least as far as the impact of this reward goes. It's mostly just "some day a couple stats you don't really use gets a +1" (cause you max out your actually used stats)
Agreed :)
Agreed :)I like to play jack-of-all-trades characters and DON'T max out a couple stats. I like to spread the skill points around. I don't think it can be assumed that stats a character doesn't use alot would be the only ones affected....
Re: Tyler Ninja
Nah, SotR characters are fine. At least as far as the impact of this reward goes. It's mostly just "some day a couple stats you don't really use gets a +1" (cause you max out your actually used stats)
Agreed in principle. My current SotR Ukuja, for example, is a Mythic Heirophant. Wisdom is his core skill, used in combat (Survival weapons) and spellcasting both, however...
He has Dexterity-based skills (further modified by his cohort), has a Constitution-based skill (from one of his more potent Cohorts), and Mythic Heirophant is adding his Mythic Charges to his 1d4 Charisma. The extra +1 skill feat in Charisma is particularly relevant since his dice is so small, and he generally either autopasses checks to acquire allies due to his high static modifiers or is unable to pass (without expending charges).
I do, however, see where Keith is coming from that the smattering of +1s is rather... low-impact in a set where you get Mythic Paths and the difficulty of the hard checks are so high. But it still feels really bad as a player to have 3 skill feats stripped off of me (as has been done), perhaps because I've been conditioned to see feat rewards as among the most valuable of rewards that can be given out in any PACG adventure.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I like the first option, which replicates the existing effect perfectly.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has the Season of the Righteous reward for Adventure 2 been addressed yet or will it be addressed in guide 6.2?
If it isn't obvious from Keith's response, that will be dealt with by changing the reward itself, not the Guide.
The only discussion that's currently pending for 6.2 is a possible adjustment to how rewards that give you random draws are handled.
Is there anything else we should be considering?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there anything else we should be considering?
With the possibility of exchanging Core cards and thus the possibility of having Level 0 cards in the starting deck, can we streamline the hierarchy a bit?
(This will also be a problem with future class deck like products)
The new example for Taking One for The Team in 6.1 mentions "advancing to Tier 7" (top of page 8), which isn't a thing.
With the possibility of exchanging Core cards and thus the possibility of having Level 0 cards in the starting deck, can we streamline the hierarchy a bit?Can you provide specific suggestions?
I think removing the Basic requirement is enough. The Basic trait doesn't exist post-Core, and honestly having a 0 deck upgrade (due to lacking 1s in the pool) is a mediocre consolation prize in my experience anyway, so the proposal:
"When this guide tells you to choose cards from your Class
Deck box using the Hierarchy, first set aside all of the cards
that are already in use as part of your deck, then choose from
your unused cards starting at the top of this list and working
your way down until you have chosen enough cards.
1. Use cards that have the set indicator B and the Basic trait.
1. Use any level 0 cards
2. that have the set indicator B without the Basic trait.
3. Use cards that have the set indicator 1 and the Basic trait.
2. Use any level 1 cards
4. that have the set indicator 1 without the Basic trait.
etc.
..."
There could be a concern about blessings, and the wording above can be simplified further, but people I teach OP to already have a lot of things to remember even when they've played the game before - I would rather them not have to be like "is it B or Basic or what?" and just be like "0, or if there's a letter on the top right corner that's also a 0."
Hmm. At the moment it feels like B non-basics provide a useful upgrade option for older class decks (when you acquire a level 0 boon), and many of the B non-basic cards would be level 1 if translated.
So, characters would start stronger and get fewer upgrades. New characters would also require reading more cards to choose your options. After a few sessions, it'd largely shake out, though.
I feel ambivalent on that one.
|
|
I agree that it would be a little easier when teaching new people but we have been teaching them about B,C,P and basic since the game came out so I personally don't think it makes much difference. I agree with Keith as well that changing this would make us start stronger with fewer upgrades. There are also a number of cards in the class decks that would probably end up "dead" as no one would want to take them unless required to as well. As it currently is, I still feel excited to get a 0 card upgrade my first few sessions. Not as excited as a 1 of course, but it doesn't feel like we won nothing if we only got 0s for the first couple of games.
For Guide 6.2 can there be some clarification on whether or not you can replace a B basic card with a Core/Curse 1 card for the first scenario? There has been some question/confusion on that.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
For Guide 6.2 can there be some clarification on whether or not you can replace a B basic card with a Core/Curse 1 card for the first scenario? There has been some question/confusion on that.
I'm not completely sure what you mean here... but I see the Core/Curse replacement rules say you may swap cards "in between scenarios." Are you suggesting that some people think that means they have to finish their first scenario before that kicks in? If so, that's not the intent; we just don't want people swapping cards during play. (And really, that's true for all of the deck adjustments allowed by that section of the Guide.) Will adjust.
If you meant something else, can you be specific?
For Guide 6.2 can there be some clarification on whether or not you can replace a B basic card with a Core/Curse 1 card for the first scenario? There has been some question/confusion on that.I'm not completely sure what you mean here... but I see the Core/Curse replacement rules say you may swap cards "in between scenarios." Are you suggesting that some people think that means they have to finish their first scenario before that kicks in? If so, that's not the intent; we just don't want people swapping cards during play. (And really, that's true for all of the deck adjustments allowed by that section of the Guide.) Will adjust.
If you meant something else, can you be specific?
The question that I think was being asked (because I've seen the question asked on multiple tables) is whether you can really "cheat" in level 1 Core/Curse cards into your starting deck because their pre-Core equivalent is Basic.
A great example of this is the Standard Bearer ally, but it's not the only example. A lot of players seem to find it unintuitive - or think that they're somehow cheating - if they replace a basic pre-Core card with a Level 1 post-Core card in their very starting deck.
I'm not completely sure what you mean here... but I see the Core/Curse replacement rules say you may swap cards "in between scenarios." Are you suggesting that some people think that means they have to finish their first scenario before that kicks in?
I've been at least one table where the rule was interpreted this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...many of the B non-basic cards would be level 1 if translated.I agree with that. If we were to change something to simplify the Hierarchy, I'd suggest treating Basic Bs as 0 and non-Basic Bs as 1, then just going Levels 0 through 6.
Simplicity is always beautiful.
|
|
For Guide 6.2 can there be some clarification on whether or not you can replace a B basic card with a Core/Curse 1 card for the first scenario? There has been some question/confusion on that.I'm not completely sure what you mean here... but I see the Core/Curse replacement rules say you may swap cards "in between scenarios." Are you suggesting that some people think that means they have to finish their first scenario before that kicks in? If so, that's not the intent; we just don't want people swapping cards during play. (And really, that's true for all of the deck adjustments allowed by that section of the Guide.) Will adjust.
If you meant something else, can you be specific?
The question that I think was being asked (because I've seen the question asked on multiple tables) is whether you can really "cheat" in level 1 Core/Curse cards into your starting deck because their pre-Core equivalent is Basic.
A great example of this is the Standard Bearer ally, but it's not the only example. A lot of players seem to find it unintuitive - or think that they're somehow cheating - if they replace a basic pre-Core card with a Level 1 post-Core card in their very starting deck.
Yewstance stated what I meant. I've played a couple PbP games now where it was interpreted that we could switch out for level 0 boons but not level 1 boons until we have completed the first scenario. Standard Bearer is usually the one we can't take until we have played one scenario.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Ah. The new wording says "If the level of the Core or Curse card is higher than your tier, you can’t replace that card until you’re allowed to put cards of that level into your deck." So yes, you can do that. If you think it needs to be clearer still, please suggest a wording. (However, please note that I can't add more than a few words to that column without causing a minor cascade of text flow issues.)
|
|
Ah. The new wording says "If the level of the Core or Curse card is higher than your tier, you can’t replace that card until you’re allowed to put cards of that level into your deck." So yes, you can do that. If you think it needs to be clearer still, please suggest a wording. (However, please note that I can't add more than a few words to that column without causing a minor cascade of text flow issues.)
You cannot use a Core/Curse card as a replacement until your tier is equal to or higher than the level of that card. For example when starting at Tier 1 you can take replacement cards of levels 0 or 1.
Would that be too long? If it is perhaps instead it could just be left as written and include an core/curse replacement card in the example? I think that would clear things up pretty handily if there is room for it in the column/page.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—St. Paul
|
I had printed those reporting sheets from the guide, and if you're able to I think they could use some spacing adjustments.
Mainly, there doesn't need to be so much space to write the tier number, but there could definitely be more space to write the character numbers. With new players at 7 numbers, plus 4 for the card game character number, it can need a lot of room with the smaller height available.
In addition, shifting over the top part where you write the scenario name would be nice too. Some of the fields/checkboxes don't need as much space as the more variable entries on the reporting sheet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there should be a rule that rallied supporters are AP specific and cannot be rallied into a different AP. Much like Loot has "When setting up any scenario in that adventure path," verbiage.
Say you are playing Sanctioned Curse, you cannot then use those ralliied Curse supporters while playing scenarios from season 6. Only supporters rallied during season 6 would be eligible to use during season 6 and same would need to apply to Curse.
Here I was thinking that the wording that Supporters weren't AP-specific was conscious and intentional. Incidentally, it was actually raised to me by Dinketry initially; I didn't discover it.
Personally, I think it's neat that you can use both sets of Supporters simultaneously.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think there should be a rule that rallied supporters are AP specific and cannot be rallied into a different AP. Much like Loot has "When setting up any scenario in that adventure path," verbiage.
Say you are playing Sanctioned Curse, you cannot then use those ralliied Curse supporters while playing scenarios from season 6. Only supporters rallied during season 6 would be eligible to use during season 6 and same would need to apply to Curse.
It looks as though Season 6 is already assuming that supporters were AP specific. Note that the storybooks contain explicit directions for proxying the Season 6 supporters with named Core+Curse supporters; that would be impossible if some character in the party had access to one or more of the named supporters.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Another reason to think supporters must be AP-specific:
If a character who has earned access to one or more supporters in Year of Rotting Ruin plays in a scenario in Curse of the Crimson Throne there's no guarantee that the game box would even contain those supporters.
(And, presumably, the same sort of thing will happen once a new Adventure Path is released - you can't depend on the game box containing anything other than the cards called for in the Adventure Path you are playing)
|
|
Another reason to think supporters must be AP-specific:
If a character who has earned access to one or more supporters in Year of Rotting Ruin plays in a scenario in Curse of the Crimson Throne there's no guarantee that the game box would even contain those supporters.
(And, presumably, the same sort of thing will happen once a new Adventure Path is released - you can't depend on the game box containing anything other than the cards called for in the Adventure Path you are playing)
Not to mention season 6-2 has supporters that are proxied with other supporters from CotC.
It's fairly clear to me that this is nothing but a rules gap and there is 0% intention that supporters were intended to be used cross-AP's.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace the following:
Removing Cards from Play
When you come across a boon that requires you to remove it from the game to activate its power, exchange it with a random boon of the same type from the vault.
With the following:
Removing Cards from the Game
When you would remove a card from the game, instead banish it.
Just noticed a typo in Guide 6.1. On page 10 the example reads "maximum number of sklll feats increases to 5." -- should be "skill"
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Some scenarios from Season 5 and earlier include skill feats, power feats, and card feats as part of their rewards. Receiving such a reward permanently increases your maximum number of feats of that type to your Tier + 1, then you gain a feat of that type. Further rewards of feats of the same type give you a hero point that you may immediately spend on a feat of that type, but the maximum number of feats of that type is not further increased.
For example, if your Tier 3 character earns a reward that includes 2 skill feats, the first skill feat rewarded increases their maximum number of skill feats to 4 and they gain a skill feat. The second skill feat rewarded grants them a hero point; if they have not already reached the maximum, they may immediately spend it on a skill feat. Because the character’s maximum number of skill feats has permanently increased to their Tier + 1, when they reach Tier 4, their maximum number of skill feats increases to 5.
This will be revised to cover feats earned from things other than scenario rewards. It will therefore be moved out of "After the Scenario" into a new section called "Gaining Specific Feats," and the first paragraph will be amended to this:
When playing adventures published prior to season 6, it’s possible for characters to specifically gain skill feats, power feats, and card feats rather than hero points. The first time you specifically gain each of these types of feat, increase your maximum number of feats of that type to your Tier + 1 before gaining that feat. The second time you would specifically gain the same type of feat, you instead get a hero point that you may immediately spend on a feat of that type, but the maximum number of feats of that type is not further increased.
... What happens after the second time?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
There's one more big change in the works for 6.2, and then I think it'll be ready to issue... but it's kind of a big deal, so I want to run it past you all first. Unlike the other changes announced in this thread, this one is not effective immediately.
We are simplifying the Hierarchy to card level alone, with no consideration of the Basic trait.
More precisely, the Hierarchy only needed a name and a sidebar because it’s complicated and because it’s needed in several different places; I intend to actually delete the Hierarchy and rewrite each of the sentences that currently refer to it with a simple instruction along the lines of “choose from your unused cards that have the lowest level.”
We'll talk about how we transition to that later... any other thoughts on it for now?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm definitely in favour of this change (in fact the first time I built a new character for PACS play using the new Core set I thought characters would be built using the rules from the Core Rulebook - I'd assumed the Hierarchy was going away).
It does mean that acquiring Level 0 cards is practically useless as far as earning deck upgrades is concerned - you can now start with any Level 0 you want in your deck; you only need a Level 0 upgrade if you've changed your mind and want to replace one of your current cards.
Starting characters are a bit stronger, but IMO that's a Good Thing - under the new rules it's a little too easy for old-style characters to die at low levels (especially if you're waiting for that Level 0 upgrade to get the Weapon or Spell or Item you need).
I still think characters should at least start with Basics in their deck, so that lvl 0 upgrades aren't totally useless, but otherwise the heirarchy can go away.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The Core game doesn't have the concept of Basics. Introducing a whole new trait solely for the purpose of making starting characters built using a class/character deck weaker than they already are (because class deck characters and boons generally don't have the powers that the corresponding Core ones do to assist others) seems at best unnecessary.
Agree with the proposed changes. Should focus on the Core world i.e. AD0, 1 etc rather than the initial B, C etc
Sounds good to me, as long as the new wording continues to be clear that starting higher tier characters or filling empty slots with higher tier characters can still choose higher-level cards.
Getting rid of Basic in the Guide is only a positive change imo.