| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst I support a rewrite of the Hierarchy, it does remind me of a possible issue I'd like to raise .
The Core Rulebook states the following rule regarding the "Owner" trait.
Some cards have the Owner trait, followed by the name of a character. If your character is the Owner of a card, you—and only you—may treat it as if it is level 0.
There are a very small selection of extremely high-level Owner cards; the best example being the Demonbane Temple Sword +3; a very powerful Weapon 6 from the Monk Class Deck and Owned by Sajan.
If Sajan can treat it as level 0; can't he start with it even in Tier 1? This might or might not conflict with the Card Guild Guide as-written...
Characters can never begin a scenario with any card of a level higher than their tier.
...but if he counts the Demonbane Temple Sword +3 as if it were level 0, then that's not a problem, right? He's just got a level 0 card in his deck, not a level 6...right? It's not as if the Core Rulebook quote above says to treat it as 0 just for deckbuilding; it says he can just always treat it as 0.
Additionally, assuming that he does need to be level 6 to grab it; does he still gain that weapon by using any Weapon Deck Upgrade, without needing to find a Weapon 6 Deck Upgrade?
I suppose I feel the rules aren't crystal-clear when it comes to when you do and don't treat an Owned Card as Level 0, and I'd appreciate that be clarified in the Card Guild Guide.
As I remember, unofficially (as in it was never really a rule in the guide), characters don't have any cards of a level in their "working" class deck box until that Tier. So for the Monk class deck, you don't even see the Demonbane Temple Sword +3 until you are in Tier 6.
I think we do need a clarification here. This is a problem in box play too if you mix the Monk class deck in.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, while it is actually a problem in standard play, it's not a problem under the current Guide. As I've said before, when the current PACS Guide uses older terminology, it's deliberate and specifically in the context of older cards, so it means exactly what it says.
So even though the rulebook says you get to treat the Demonbane Temple Sword +3 as level 0, the Hierarchy grants access to cards by set indicator, not level—after all, it uses "B," and there's no "level B"—so you can't get to that card until the Hierarchy lets you have cards with the set indicator 6 and the Basic trait.
We will need to fix the rule before we officially kill off the Hierarchy, though.
Also, while it is actually a problem in standard play, it's not a problem under the current Guide. As I've said before, when the current PACS Guide uses older terminology, it's deliberate and specifically in the context of older cards, so it means exactly what it says.
So even though the rulebook says you get to treat the Demonbane Temple Sword +3 as level 0, the Hierarchy grants access to cards by set indicator, not level—after all, it uses "B," and there's no "level B"—so you can't get to that card until the Hierarchy lets you have cards with the set indicator 6 and the Basic trait.
We will need to fix the rule before we officially kill off the Hierarchy, though.
I acknowledge that "Level 0" cards don't exist in the Hierarchy, so as-written he can't start with it , but I assume they still exist for Deck Upgrade purposes? As it stands, what rule prevents a PACS Sajan taking a Weapon 0 Deck Upgrade at the end of his first scenario and including the weapon?
Level 0 cards do have some mechanical relevance, even in PACS deckbuilding, because of the Core/Curse replacement rule. If you have a Longbow (Core) in your Class Deck , then presumably you can legally add it to your deck with a Weapon B/C Deck Upgrade, so "0" has some kind of meaning.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right—it's busted in the Deck Upgrade process. Will fix. For now, don't do that. :-)
And yes, there is admittedly a mishmash of level and set indicator going on. Part of the point of removing the Hierarchy is cleaning that up so it'll all just be about level.
Will Building the Vault also remove reference to Basic (and Elite) traited cards?
Will Building the Vault also remove reference to Basic (and Elite) traited cards?
I don’t think this should happen. The existing rules allow box thinning so there is a larger chance of encountering level appropriate cards. Hitting basic banes as an AD5 character is a complete non event. If you have removed the basic and elite banes you are mainly hitting Veteran or higher level cards and they are real threats. Makes the game a lot more enjoyable
I'm of the thought that the owner rule should be "...you (and only you) may treat it as though it is one level lower."
I haven't investigated if it breaks anything to have access to those higher level owned cards a level earlier, though, it's just an idea at this point.
(It still doesn't do anything on the level 0 cards, but oh well?)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We are contemplating this change to the Owner rule for PACS:
In the places in the Guide that tell you to choose a card using the Hierarchy, we would instead say something like “choose from your unused cards that have the lowest level; if an unused card lists your character as the Owner and has a level no higher than your tier, you may choose that card instead.” (This would allow the owner to take the card as an upgrade as soon as they hit the appropriate tier, even if they haven’t earned all the lower-level cards first.)
(In non-PACS play, the rebuilding rules would say "If a card in the vault lists your character as the Owner, you may choose that card regardless of its level.")
Thoughts?
looks good to me
Sounds better than my idea, haha. Largely on account of card feats.
(Should I... not post ideas like that? Does it bother you?)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We are contemplating this change to the Owner rule for PACS:
In the places in the Guide that tell you to choose a card using the Hierarchy, we would instead say something like “choose from your unused cards that have the lowest level; if an unused card lists your character as the Owner and has a level no higher than your tier, you may choose that card instead.” (This would allow the owner to take the card as an upgrade as soon as they hit the appropriate tier, even if they haven’t earned all the lower-level cards first.)
Go ahead and begin using this rule. (Don't apply any changes retroactively, though—just introduce this rule the next time you would use the Hierarchy.)
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
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.)
Is there any example of two boons whose names only differ in spacing?
While there is a "Shortsword" in Core+Curse, there doesn't appear to be a "Short Sword" in the class decks, just a "Short Sword +1".
Presumably that doesn't match (just as "Deathbane Light Crossbow" doesn't match "Deathbane Light Crossbow +1", "Starknife" doesn't match "Starknife +2", and "Warhammer" doesn't match either "Warhammer +1" or "Warhammer +2").
Go ahead and begin using this rule. (Don't apply any changes retroactively, though—just introduce this rule the next time you would use the Hierarchy.)We are contemplating this change to the Owner rule for PACS:
In the places in the Guide that tell you to choose a card using the Hierarchy, we would instead say something like “choose from your unused cards that have the lowest level; if an unused card lists your character as the Owner and has a level no higher than your tier, you may choose that card instead.” (This would allow the owner to take the card as an upgrade as soon as they hit the appropriate tier, even if they haven’t earned all the lower-level cards first.)
To clarify, is the change in Hierarchy (namely removing reference to Basic/Elite cards) in effect now, or just the "Owner" rule?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Additionally, the example given in Appendix 3 (adding "Iconic Heroes" promo cards to your deck) needs to be updated; there would now be no difference between which of these cards Harsk or Agna could select as part of their starting deck.
Go ahead and begin using this rule. (Don't apply any changes retroactively, though—just introduce this rule the next time you would use the Hierarchy.)We are contemplating this change to the Owner rule for PACS:
In the places in the Guide that tell you to choose a card using the Hierarchy, we would instead say something like “choose from your unused cards that have the lowest level; if an unused card lists your character as the Owner and has a level no higher than your tier, you may choose that card instead.” (This would allow the owner to take the card as an upgrade as soon as they hit the appropriate tier, even if they haven’t earned all the lower-level cards first.)
Does this new Hierarchy rule allow initial character decks to be built with non-Basic B cards?
We have a group about to start Season 7, and being able to include non-Basic B's would be handy. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that rule lets you build your starting deck with any level 0 card, no restriction on Basic
Did anything ever come of the proposed updates to the SotRighteous Adv 2 reward? I'm running a table which is nearing the end of Adv 1.
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.
That said, what I'll likely do: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.