Borissimo

I sure have! And boy were those happy times. Two huge outstanding bugs: 1) If the ending to Here Comes the Flood is triggered by Black Magga munching the last card or by the blessings deck running out, your party can't advance to the next scenario (despite seeing a victory screen). 2) When selecting cards from the vault between scenarios in AD3, you're only able to pick basics. This one is murderous! You're supposed to be able to grab any card from the base set, C-deck, and AD1, and not being able to do this really messed up both of my campaigns.

I'm gonna look at the fact that A) there's 1 week left in June, B) we've heard nothing, C) this game's track record with release dates over the past two years is a solid D-, and venture forth a guess of "no" in response to your question. Not that I mind! AD3 was released with some unforgivable bugs, the two most glaring of which still haven't been fixed, so if Obsidian wants to take 1-3 extra weeks to make AD4 rock solid, I'm glad they're doing it!

This won't work -- the digital game does not permanently remove any cards from the box. Instead, a % of basics are chosen at random and temporarily removed for the duration of each scenario.

"Ill Memories" sums up my experience trying to beat this scenario on Heroic rather nicely.

And just for funsies, here's a totally different opinion. The "best" party size, to me, depends on what you mean by "best." Best size for gaining gold quickly? 2 (or 1, if you're okay with doing the same exact scenario over and over) Best size for first learning the game? 2 Best size if you're an experienced player who wants a challege? 6 Best size to level up quickly in Quest Mode? Assuming you don't lose much, 6 -- as others have noted, more characters means more experience per scenario So for most definitions of "best," the best party size is 2 or 6, though I don't disagree with all the posters saying 4. Four is indeed the best size if you want to have a variety of characters without ramping up the difficulty too much. I did something similar -- I picked my favorite 6 characters for my "dream team" playthrough and then did a "rejects" playthrough with the remaining 5. My rejects actually had an easier time than my dream team, and I realized it was because playing with 5 is really just a lot easier than playing with 6. Compared to a party of 6, a party of 5 has an extra turn per character and one fewer location to close. That's huge!

The devs have teased several times that new and interesting things are still to come (like dice skins), which is another reason not to spend your gold on chests (at least not all of it). I'm holding onto mine in case the dice skins and whatnot are purchaseable with gold. And even if they're not, I wouldn't buy chests until we get confirmation from Obsidian that all of the treasure cards (especially the legendary ones) have been implemented. Given that it would currently take literally thousands of chests to get every card, I wouldn't be surprised if Obsidian tweaked the drop percents at some point too. Another good reason to wait.

I have to confess that I'm a little worried about how this game is doing. The partnership between Obsidian and Paizo was announced in August 2014, so by the time the game is finished (I agree with Hannibal that it is not, strictly speaking, at the moment complete), it will have been in development for over 2 years. That's a long time to pay developers' salaries if the game isn't a big seller. I wonder if putting out the game for mobile first is part of a long-term strategy. Perhaps Obsidian used the mobile platform as a kind of proving ground for the game, so that when it comes out on Steam -- to an audience that is not only much bigger but also much more interested in this type of game than is its mobile counterpart -- it will be a lot more polished and successful than it would have been had it been released for Steam to start. At the end of the day, poor sales and reviews on mobile won't matter if this game is a smash hit on Steam in 2017. Popping up on Steam's front page with a "very positive" tag for user reviews could utterly make this game and pave the way for all of the base sets. One piece of feedback that I hope Obsidian heeds is the widespread desire for a better tutorial. I was very honored to have my rules explanation video stickied in the general forum, but not everyone wants to watch 42 minutes of rules explanation before starting a game. I think that a comprehensive, interactive game manual is essential for this game to not immediately put off players who aren't pre-existing experts of the game.

Each character starts with 4 power feat boxes and gets 3 before the role cards arrive, so there's actually not that much variety in power feat selection for the first three adventures. Characters like Ezren get only two options (+2 hand and +1 recharge or +1 hand and +2 recharge?). In addition, a few characters get screwed by being forced to take a crummy power feat. Lem and Lini are both forced into weapon or armor proficiency, both which have their uses but are grotesquely inferior to what the shorties could pick up on their role cards. Sajan is forced to add magic to his fists, which again, has its uses, but is nowhere near as good as his role card power feats. All three of these characters are among the strongest in the set, so I like to think of this as a low-key nerf to dampen their over-powered-ness.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I don't think multiplayer will be implemented until after AD6 is finished and the whole game is released on Steam. Making multiplayer while the game is tablet-only seems like a poor business decision to me. So ... probably not anywhere close to "soon," not even Soon .

Great job getting out these fixes! So it looks like the biggest bugs remaining are: - Here Comes the Flood won't let you progress if you don't explore the last card - Deck-building doesn't let you pull non-basics (some people have claimed it works, but for me, neither weapons nor items nor blessings nor spells ever let me take anything but basics) - Wand of enervation screws everything up if played after other bonuses Looking forward to picking up those missing Deck 1 boons and playing AD 4 in July, perhaps?

This is a really interesting case of a seemingly meaningless distinction in physical play creating a huge headache for programmers for digital implementation. If the wand added 2d4 or 1d4 + 4 to the check, it would work just like any other bonus card and implementing it would be utterly trivial. Instead, the wand reduces the difficulty of the check, which means it has to break the usual flow of things -- the dice for the wand have to be rolled separately from, and before, all of the other dice. If I were programming this wand, I'd probably make a voodoo doll of Mike Selinker and stuff it full of pins. The difference between adding to a check and reducing the difficulty of a check is almost never relevant, yet it changes the card implementation from "absolutely trivial" to "utter nightmare." I wonder if, as a stopgap measure, Obsidian will simply make this wand a 2d4 or 1d4 + 4 bonus (instead of a value reduction) for a while just to avoid wasting programmer-hours implementing a mostly pointless distinction that most players would never even notice or care about anyway.

I have a feeling this one might be confirmation bias. When you find the same monster again, it sticks in your memory; when you don't, you take it for granted. If you've already explored 4-5 cards out of the deck, the odds of finding the monster (in the general store as Meri, for instance) 4 times in a row are 1/125 or 1/216, which is small but will definitely happen to everybody at some point. In one of my videos, I failed a roll that I had only something like a 1/700+ chance of failing -- that stuff will happen! Edit: I just realized my post may look as though I'm dismissing everyone's claims. I promise I'm not! It's just that human brains are so bad at estimating true probability that game developers are unlikely to ever do anything in matters such as these based on anecdotal evidence alone. There may well be a bug with the shuffler in some instances, but to convince the devs, you'll need hard numbers. I remember back when Hearthstone first came out, someone proved that a card with a 50% chance effect was only triggering 25% of the time by tracking several hundred instances and doing a chi-squared analysis. You'd think that if something was happening half as often as it should be, it would be uncovered as a bug right away, but despite everyone's anecdotal complaints about the card, the devs didn't do anything until the hard numbers came in. And unfortunately, the devs were absolutely right in how they handled the issue -- there are so many false complaints about shufflers and randomness in online games that as a dev you kind of just have to ignore them all until you're presented with something more convincing than human intuition.

The problem with "sending multiple low-charisma people to take out the village house" is that Black Magga eats between everyone's turns. Even if you clear the village house on turn 2, Black Magga still had two chances to eat there. That's two too many, in my view, and I certainly don't want to give her any extra opportunities.

For me it's the Satyr. Every time I encounter that stupid thing and its stupid Acrobatics 9 irreducible damage check, it makes me wish I hadn't bought the C-deck. I'd happily inflict digital disintegration upon Lem's Deathbane Light Crossbow if it meant never having to see the Satyr again!

Aha, we have a strategic difference of opinion here. I stand by my original advice. If you send someone who's bad at diplomacy, they'll need to recharge cards to pick up allies, which means they'll either explore less or have to give up their weapons. Seoni, by contrast, can auto-acquire a good chunk of allies and spend every single ally and blessing in her hand to get as much of the location explored as possible in a single turn. The more turns you take to clear the Village House, the more opportuntities you give Black Magga to munch the Village House, and the greater the odds that you'll miss 1-2 allies from that location -- which has a snowballing effect in making the rest of that scenario just that much more difficult.

To add to what the others said above: Put your largest-hand, best-diplomacy heroes at the front of the turn order and have them piledrive the Village House. There are 3 guaranteed allies here, and probably 4. Then try the Dam and the Waterfront, which have at least 2 and probably 3 allies in them. (In any given location, you can get lucky and find 2-3 extra allies or unlucky and find 0 extra allies.) If things go well, you'll get the allies you need by the time you're done piledriving those locations. If not, explore the remaining locations as fast as possible and hope to get the 1-2 more allies you need before Magga feasts upon them all. Here's a long link to my recorded 6-player party beating the scenario on normal. You don't have to watch it all, but I'd suggest checking out the first couple of minutes where I explain how the decks are formed and how to count the number of allies you will need. I end up getting lucky in my win, but then again, you do need to get a little lucky in this scenario regardless. If Magga eats 4 cards in the Village House on the first two rounds, you'll probably lose unless the rest of the scenario goes really swimmingly for you. Good luck!

In my game, Weapons, Items, Spells, and Blessings offer only basics. (I haven't had the opportunity to test allies and armors yet.) I wish we could figure out why some people have this feature working and some don't!

Human minds are bad at estimating probability, so I always argue against claims that "the shuffler is broken" in online games. That said ... I think there might be a real issue here. Finding the villain on top of the location after he escapes is no big deal. This is just confirmation bias. When it happens, it stands out in your mind; when it doesn't happen, you take it for granted. There's a 1/11 chance the villain ends up on top in his new home, so it's going to happen all the time. Evading the same card 3 times in a row is a bit more suspicious. After you evade it once, the odds that it'll come back to the top twice in a row are 1/100. This is big enough that it should happen to every player eventually -- about as unlikely as rolling 2 on 2d10, which'll happen. Still, if mulitple people are experiencing it regularly, that is suspicious. The Augury thing is what's really weird. Do you just "feel" like it happens "all the time," or does it literally happen every time? If you Augury a full deck and leave a Henchman on top, then the odds of seeing the same 2 cards behind the henchman after you Augury again are 2/9 * 1/8 = 1/36. This is the same as rolling snake eyes on 2d6. Not that weird if it happens more than once, but certainly a bug if it's happening every time.

@Archangelrey: There is a bug that prevents advancement if Black Magga eats the last card (or if the blessings run out). Try beating the scenario and ensuring that the final card is explored by someone in your party. At the start of the scenario, count the number of allies in the location decks and add X, where X is the number of locations. For example, in a 6-player game, there are 10 allies among the locations to start with and 8 locations, for a total of 18 allies in the scenario. You need to acquire at least as many allies as Magga eats, so if you acquire 9, you know you've won. Then it's just a matter of making sure you explore the final card to avoid the dreaded bug described above.

I've beaten it on normal with a 6-player party and on heroic with a 5-player party. Both times, one of my characters encountered the last card -- the first time, by accident; the second, because I made sure to do it after seeing the comments in this thread!

For my playstyle, there are only two characters in the game with any real decisions for their first four skill feats: Kyra and Lem. Everybody else maxes combat stat first. The reasons for this: Runelords is very combat-heavy. Even Valeros will miss some checks after his strength is maxed. And if you don't max his strength, then every time you miss a combat check by 1 or 2 you'll wish you had. This is clear if you look at the numbers: Assume a big weapon, like Bastard Sword + 1. Recharging that, a +4 strength Valeros rolls 3d10 + 8. There are monsters (not henchmen or villains, just monsters) in deck 3 with checks of 15. 15 - 8 = 7. Have you ever failed to roll 7 on 3d10? I sure have! If you leave strength at +1 or +2, now you need to get 9 or 10 on 3d10. Sure, you'll make that most of the time. But you'll make it even more of the time with a maxed out strength, and I just don't see +2 in charisma ever beeing worth as much as fewer missed combat checks. Making your checks is imperative in a large party. Even my max-strength Amiri accepts sniper support from Harsk a good deal of the time. Yes, she was probably going to make those checks anyway. But "probably" isn't good enough when the price of failure is a wasted turn in a game that gives you too few turns to begin with. Kyra and Lem are special because they have to choose whether to be blasters or weapon masters. This is one of the most strategically complex and difficult choices of the entire game, and I won't go into it fully here. In broad strokes, though: either you go with a weapon and accept putting points in an inferior stat to allow yourself to carry support/utility spells, or you go the blaster route and accept inconsistency and a lack of utility slots in exchange for a better stat boost and higher combat checks.

I am honestly baffled at all the hate in this thread. Not angry, not annoyed -- just honestly and truly baffled. There is a game called the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. It can be played solo, but it's a real pain with all the shuffling and setup. So Obsidian decided to make a digital version to take all the hassle out of playing solo. A lot of people were excited about this. The game came out and cost $25. For $25, you get everything an owner of the physical card game would get (more, actually, if you count the promos, which must be bought separately), only in digital form. You download the game. You pay $25 (for what in physical form would cost $160 MSRP, by the way). You play as much as you want, offine or online. End of story! If anyone is annoyed about this, I just honestly do not understand why. Thanks to Obsidian, you can get $160 worth of game for $25 and in a more convenient format. Except actually, if you're willing to play the game a lot, you can get $160 worth of game for less than $25, or even for free. I do not mean to insult anyone in this thread. I've seen some of you post elsewhere and I respect some of your opinions. But on this particular issue, if I were a game developer, I would utterly dismiss all of your feedback. The complaints I'm seeing here are so out of whack with the facts and so beyond the pale of rationality that I would feel I have no reasonablle choice except to write you off as customers who are never going to be pleased no matter what I do.

Alas, the card states that the force damage cannot be prevented, so I'm afraid you're in for a rude surprise following this tactic. In a live game, I tried keeping this card for Ezren. I figured Ezren didn't want to keep the weapon in his hand anyway and 2d8 + 6 is way better than what most backup weapons can provide. And even then ... I never wanted to discard a card to use it. And when i did need to use the weapon (because I lacked a combat spell), I felt awful needing to discard a card. In the end, I realized I had made a huge mistake. My verdict: the card is a trap. Ditch it!

How many legendary placeholders are there?

I've seen the argument before that there's "no such thing as merging parties," and unless I'm missing something (which is possible!), it just seems factually untrue. If I make a save file in which I play Kyra solo and a save file in which I play Merisiel solo, the game DOES allow me to combine those two characters into one group at any time I wish. If I put Kyra into Merisiel's party, then we use Merisiel's box; if I put Merisiel into Kyra's party, then we use Kyra's box. So yes, the game does have to track an instance of the box for every character!