ArchSenex

Next question.. is it just the orb, or displayed cards in general? For instance, if you have Lem play an Incendiary cloud, can he then recharge it to power his abilities? If so, then the bug is that displayed cards count as "in hand" for the purpose of abilities.

I also was very confused by this UI at first. I see what they are trying to do, but it isn't obvious the way it is represented. Yeah. One of the devs teased "new graphics around warchanter" so I was EXPECTING something new, and therefore was in "probe mode" if you will, and spent time assuming that things were working and I needed to puzzle them out. However, somebody who wasn't primed that way would find it very confusing. Tutorial tooltips for first time encountering mechanisms are great for this.

Easy, both. Leave the random chests in, but allow me to unlock everything in them for a static price point. That way, you can play randomly, and I can just make a purchase and then enjoy what I bought.

Killing a party only kills the specific scenario. If you reform the party, with the exact same members, you should be at the same progression point. I haven't dont it, but I've heard many people use this workaround for game-breaks. Unless you're saying you've been on this specific encounter for ten hours, but I don't think that's what you mean.

yeah, these kind of bugs are usually resolved by getting the game to redraw the screen, basically (going to vault, changing screens somehow etc.). But since you're mid-act, not sure. I don't even have a clue how your blessing got up there in the first place. Are you in quest or story? You might be able to try starting another story party, disbanding this one, and then re-forming it, which sometimes helps.

Yup, what Nightfind said. The blue button should enable once every character has removed their excess cards. You can continue on if a character is short a card AND the party has none available, but only after you clear out the excess.

There isn't. It is intended to lock other than the active character. The best Obsidian can do is to clarify its wording to 'if a character tries to play...." or somesuch. Yes, they need to change the card to reflect this expanded behavior, otherwise it will always be inconsistent with every other card that is phrased that way. Goblin Pyro, for example, should then do 1 damage if you play a weapon or spell to help, or a blessing.

I think the Chain icon ALWAYS means lock you can get around. If the card is unplayable ever, then there's an icon that looks like a closed lock (locked, as opposed to chained). You get that on un-reducible damage, your shield cards and armor have a locked icon.

I'd actually have to see how the scenario power is worded. If it is "Discard it as damage" then you're right (the first post just said "to combat check" although that's a pretty silly concept, now that I think about it, as lots of cards are discarded to combat checks). I think internally, the game just processes that you have X incoming damage, stores the current amount of damage in a variable Y and shield spells subtract Z from Y, so I see why the game works that way, but you're correct that they would need to subtract Z from X (and therefore Y) instead. Now.. they might just have to adjust the phrasing on the scenario power to include cards discarded to prevent damage, which is probably more their intent.

I'm still trying to figure out why Black Magga has powers and a check to defeat. Is there any way to ever actually encounter her?

Yeah, I ran onto this on another card that prevents you from playing cards if you don't pass a check. This was part of the revisions they put in for Goblin warchanter. There's still the argument about whether or not the warchanter should lock others who want to help, or just the encounterer, but that's a separate discussion. You should be able to try and play the locked cards, and then get your chance.

For #1 I disagree. The methods of "playing" cards are more well-defined in this game. Discarding, revealing, banishing, burying, they are all "playing". There's no "casting" type of action, so as far as the rule state-engine agrees, Discarding a card for it's effect is the same as discarding a card for a cost (damage). Now, for #2, things get weird... because the game probably isn't sure if you're Discarding to cast, or discarding as damage (because you can discard a card for the damage without it's effect). For brevity, the game ALWAYS assumes you are discarding damage absorb spells for their effect, rather than just to discard them as damage. Now, I agree, there's a bug here. One of the pillar rules of the game is "Complete one thing before you start another" which means that you should finish processing the Arcane armor card, and arrive at Banish, before you look at the Scenario powers. So you're correct that, overall, the card should have been banished. If an arcane person had discarded the card for effect, then you should finish the effect, arrive at discard, and then immediately bury it because of the scenario power.

as Longshot11 stated, my understanding of incendiary cloud is that it "effectively" amounted to being able to play another spell with it, so if that's how they chose to interpret it, then it's equivalent and probably a lot easier to add to the app. It was originally played during the non-existent phase where a card has been drawn and the player is choosing to encounter it. So as _Harwin_ is saying, the bug is probably that order matters more than anything else.

Yeah. I haven't futzed too much (I'm not going to break my game just to confirm bugs, after all) but I wouldn't be surprised if the game doesn't check for cards that aren't chest cards, so anything from the base game could be cloned this way. But being able to put 6-12 Haste spells into the vault, while awesome, is probably not a good idea (although it would probably take a ton of work, if at all). I only tried with a basic card, but the short of it is that they need to put upper limits on the vault allowance for the cards that are from the core game, not just the chest cards.

I think there's some confusion. I'm not saying the chest cards should come with the $25 for the base game. Two important things: #1 I think 25 is laughably cheap. If Obsidian had said that the base set was $50, I wouldn't have increased the amount of time before purchasing. Heck, I'd go as high as $100 (as people have said, the base game would have been 160). At no point am I arguing about the money itself. I would have paid the entire 160 to just re-buy the game in digital form because it is awesome. #2 I'm not saying the expansion cards should be free. I think they should charge something like 10-20 dollars for them, and then you get a new 30-50 cards for your set. That's pricier than the physical character expansions, but I don't care, it's not about the money. This isn't about the price or what you get for your money, it's about the fact that part of the game is behind a chance-wall, which is insane in the board game industry. I hate the gold system in part because it makes them free, when they should be pay for, but they should be pay for in static, non-random packs. If people enjoy the game enough to play to get gold to unlock the game, then they should be paying. Instead, because a good chunk of the player base wants something for free, Obsidian had to add a CCG onto the side of an otherwise great game, just to recoup costs from those willing to spend money. In other words, pay players are punished in order to allow another group to play for free.

I've noticed that it's possible to increase the number of copies of cards in the Vault by exploiting the dynamic nature of quest mode, by putting together parties with too many copies of cards. For example: Create a new quest mode party with a spellcaster (Lini for example). Before playing, go into the deck-editor and give her 3 copies of cure (there were 3 in the default vault). Quit out, and go to create a new quest mode party with a spellcaster (Kyra for example). Before playing, go into the deck-editor and give her 3 copies of cure (since the vault resets to 3). Continue doing this as much as you'd like (there's 6 characters that start with spells). Now, start another new party, and put all 6 "experienced" characters into it. Then, go into the deck editor and drag out all copies of cure. You will now have a LOT of copies of cure in your vault (I stopped at 6 because I didn't want to blow out my game's odds). This will carry forward, even to characters made in the future. I tried doing it with Chest cards (Beast skin, in my first attempt) and it took the extra copies of beast skin out of the second character's deck, so the app is enforcing proper limits there.

Stop for a second and think about that statement for a moment though. Why should you need a gambling mini-game as incentive to play your real game? Shouldn't the gameplay of the game itself be incentive to play? We play the physical game, sometimes solo, despite all the extra work in doing so, without gold or incentive because it's a good game. I get that you're trying to weigh pros and cons but if you think about that statement, it's a little weird.

That's an interesting take. Write off the portion of your customer base who is actually paying, in favor of your customer base that isn't giving you any money and expects the game for free. That's probably not a good long term business model, but it would be your hypothetical choice (if you could ever get your investors to sign off on it, but... good luck). Also, assuming that I would never be pleased no matter what they do is also... wow. I literally put exactly what I want them to do, and how they'd get my money if they did it, but I'm guessing you skimmed those parts. Just sell the cards in static packs, exactly like the physical game does. There's no random chance of getting the cards in the physical game, even in the class decks and other "non-base" contexts. I hate CCG's, so there is hate. I hate artificial scarcity, or any scheme that relies on taking advantage of gambling impulses to make more money. I especially hate that every patch so far has come bundled with new cards in the pool available while you can still get the old ones, thus increasing the amount you have to spend to get new cards. They should be released as new treasure chests. I'm sure this will continue on every patch to add more cards to try and collect the whole set while reducing the chances of getting any particular card continually. Every other digital adaptation of a physical game that has expansions did so in a way that was just purchasing a pack, and you get the content. Elder Sign, Star Realms, Ascension. None of these said that you can get more content in CCG-like packs, if you want an expansion, you buy the expansion, just like the physical PACG was sold. I just want to buy the content in the same format, where I don't have to rely on luck to eventually, maybe, but possibly not, get everything.

I just hate the fact that a great game had to be bundled with a CCG. I don't like random chance drawing, and I avoid pretty much all games that are based on it because artificially created rarity is... well, I have no good things to say about it, at the very least. I would much rather buy static expansion packs. On top of it, they just added some new cards to the mix (or fixed the balance on the random number generators, because in just a few packs, I managed to get a ton of cards I'd never seen before) but you can still get the old ones, which means that if they throw a few more in every now and again, some large percentage of any expense is total waste. CCG Rarity schemes are one thing, but CCG Rarity schemes where they can ALSO expand the available card pool while still making you get dupes. With a legendary rate of around some 1%, you have to open 25 or so packs to get one, and then it could be a dupe. If they add a single legendary to the mix, it could take hundreds of packs to be able to be lucky enough to draw it, but it could be even more. I guess this is a great way to get the impatient player who's willing to pay to soak up the extra cost, but it's not going to last, and it just looks like a shameless money grab. Honestly, just let me buy the chest cards for a flat amount, unlock them, and call it a day. Otherwise, like most products of its nature, I won't be sticking around, and I won't be paying to subsidize all those free players. CCG model is unheard of in the Mobile Board-game market. Imagine if Pandemic said you had to buy card packs to get everything available in the game, but you might get the same things a hundred times and they just suck up the money. Or elder sign, you can unlock extra elder ones, but if you want Cthulhu you might get Yig 15 times, oh, but you can recycle him for 2% of what you paid to get him! It doesn't belong in board games, if you wanted to release a CCG, you should have released a CCG.

I did buy the main pack. It doesnt unlock any of the chest cards, which are how they introduced many of the class decks and other content. These cannot be purchased without playing the ccg game, which is an annoying game.

So I want to start by saying I love the game itself, and the digital interpretation is great. It's what I've wanted for years. That said, I utterly hate the gold system and how the game has been monetized. I also want to say that I hate CCG's too. I played them a long time ago, and then stopped when I realized that they're just a giant money sink. When companies like Fantasy Flight started releasing Living Card games, I finally got back into those kind of games, because that's the more honest way of doing it. I'd much, much rather be able to just pay some amount of money, and unlock extra cards. That's the way it is in the physical game, and I think that should have been kept. Rather than having to play gamble with unlocking all the extra cards, I should be able to buy the expansions, whether they are characters, class decks, etc. As an aside, I also feel that paying to unlock cards should be the only option. In an F2P MMO, the free players exist for one purpose, and that's to populate the game world so that the paying players don't stop paying. They solely exist to enrich the game for the people who pay, and to make the game more popular so it will attract more people who will pay. That may sound harsh, and I'm sure there are some people out there that play free games that say there's other reasons, but it's all delusion. There is no company in the world that paid to create a game just so you can play it for free to show off how awesome you are. However, in this game, free players give nothing to paying players. In fact, they steal from them. Every free player that plays the game is stealing money from myself, and others who actually pay to unlock the game, and pay to support it, because the price has to be higher to compensate. Now, I know that there's zero chance that the free option will just vanish and the price will adjust to correct for this, and I know that in the mobile market, people expect games for free (which is a grave that has been dug for many, many years) so I don't expect this to get turned off or anything. However, my original point still stands. Please allow pure-pay options for me to unlock the entire game without having to play the CCG Gamble silliness If the free players want to spend their time grinding out gold to eventually unlock everything, that's between them and Obsidian, but please let me purchase card packs so I can just have everything. Also, allow me to buy them so I can disconnect and still have them! This being constantly online is a giant PITA that came bundled with this F2P Model. Let me buy the game and call it a day.

It also looks like it's counting allies wrong. In 4 Players, there are 3+2+2+1+1+0 Allies from locations, and then 6 from the scenario setup, which should be 15, but the Counter says 18. I'm wondering if that's part of the problem, but not sure. I only have 4 person parties, but does any other combination have the wrong counter?

Whoops, re-read the initial report, I was off.

Also, for those who say the scenario is very difficult, I've never found it so, but I tend to focus on extra explores on pretty much all characters (I generally average 3-4 explores per turn with each character). As a general strategy, go deep, not wide, and focus your characters on a single location. Try to count the number of allies in each location (since you lose the in-game count when she eats, you have to remember/be familiar with the scenario). Clear out location decks, or at least clear out all the allies in the location deck. Magga eats from open locations (and has a hilarious animation when she does so, I laughed my butt off the first time I saw it) so you want to empty locations as fast as possible. Every location you empty is a reduction in her eating speed.

Same. I tied her. BTW for those who aren't sure if you won or lost, expand the scenario effects and it tells you your score (X out of Y, so for me, 9/18). It's really easy to know how many you need, just take the total available and chop it in half, which the devs have done for you. Has anybody checked if there's a pattern that winning without tying lets you keep going, or have people not been keeping track of their end scores?