Deekow

You starting a topic in no way entitles you to control it. Others feel the related topics to be of value to the conversation, and thus conversation occurred that presented points and opinions beyond your own. Everyone here likely heard your point, it doesn't mean it's the only one that matters. In your last reply, you even went beyond the parameters of your original point. It happens . The most that can ever really be expected in an open forum is to stay on-topic (which tends to have many nuances and relevant topics worth communicating), which I think we've done just fine. This is an open forum, not a controlled debate platform. We're all benefiting from the conversation at hand, even if we don't agree with the points or that they're the only valid points to be made. And for what it's worth, I entirely agree with the sentiment regarding a developer's wishing not always being right... at least not right for everyone. I'm fairly vocal myself in regards to a couple topics, but if the conversation goes in other related directions, then it's still a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I'd rather move forward because rehashing it doesn't benefit anyone. edit: because homonyms.

Well, when you do this one thing with this one card on one location in one scenario, a thing happens. True story. To be honest, this thing that happens actually makes things more difficult for the scenario that it happens in (with 6 players, it may even be somewhat devastating). While I find the idea behind this thing to be amazing; from a game balance perspective, I feel it may be rather frustrating in most normal conditions it would occur in. If developers sign off on it (out of respect, not as part of any NDA), I won't mind whispering details to folks that want to know. I've been told I'm likely the first person ever to discover it though, and that makes me squee with delight, regardless of the circumstances. edit: in further thought, it doesn't make it more difficult per se but I can't really go further into it without spoiling.

You should see my well thought out ideas on 'paper'. I have to plan for intermissions.

Ok, nothing to see here, move along...

I'm going to go with Knee Jerk Reactions for 1000, Alex. Honestly, I really despise my mental image of the auto-cull system that you have. The various parties I play with all REALLY enjoy that feature of the physical game. Like... probably top three features of the game. We even go out of our way to attempt culling specific cards. This probably just prevented me from spending money on the game. I'll still play, I AM having fun, but my excitement over the port just took a cliff dive. I don't expect you'll lose too much money over it from the few of us that may affect, and I do understand the development into a better system to match the physical game is probably not worth the investment involved. But, I was also afraid of something like this and was prepared for that choice. I respect the choice, I don't like the choice. In the interest of being a dutiful tester, though, and providing further input... I would suggest a sliding scale, not a static value. You have culled MANY more cards by the start of AD6 than you have at the end of AD3. Thinking it over some, I'd say about 15% per adventure deck for basics feels about right, and it's be nicer still if it were granular... about 3% per scenario after the first one in AD3. That puts you at 60% of Basics culled by the end of the game, which is extremely light for a party of 6 (we almost had them all each time), but probably generous for a party of 1 (i.e. just right). I'd probably say 5% of Elite cards per scenario after the start of AD5; that's not that many, but there aren't many to being with and ending the game at 50% of Elite cards remaining is probably a good target.

Done and Done.

So... I had a weird thing happen that I'm not 100% sure wasn't intended. If it is intended, it's a pretty big spoiler, so I'd rather send it in whisper first just in case. Who should that go to?

Ah well... I suspect it's well deserved. Still... don't think I've given up! Just keep me distracted with PACG... er... Pathfinder Adventures, and I think you'll be safe.

My first guess here would be to make sure that the armor you're trying to recharge actually has that ability, as not all armor does (but it's always listed in the card text when it does). Otherwise, before end of turn, when you're ready to have the discard phase, press the trash can icon at top of screen to force the discard phase, and select the armor then; it should have the recharge icon and option available. Edit: Also, you usually (always?) need to be proficient with armor as a power.

On an entirely unrelated note, please inform me of any immediate QA positions you need to have filled...

The very last scenario of Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles. I won't go into why due to spoilers, except to say that it's only really broken with Permadeth on. If you'd like, I can PM you more in detail. edit: I haven't finished Wrath, but given the paradigm, I'd say it's safe to say that the final scenario of Wrath would also pose a concern.

Can you click the Gear, choose "Quit" and then choose "Story" from the main menu and start a new game?

You can only replace a basic card if you have an available slot for it. If you banished a BASIC potion, for example, but happened to loot a crowbar in that scenario and no other items were banished or acquired, you're going to replace the potion with the crowbar since you do have an item in your pool to replace it with (the prologue freedom to replace basics at will, notwithstanding). Burying it keeps it in your pool regardless, you just don't get to use it again that scenario. So, if you don't get a new item (or whatever) to replace the banished card, you can replace it with a basic; it's just that that condition isn't guaranteed. Also worth noting is that none of the cards mentioned in this thread are basic

Testing should be objective. Making the same point a second time doesn't make it any stronger. Ultimately, it's just a card for just a game, that you may choose or not to spend money on in the future.

"Holy Diver" is mine... so that my group would sound the tiniest bit less foolish when we yell out "Holy Candle!" as if we were Ronnie James Dio... every... single... time.

To explore the tangent, Augery is self-limiting, though. There are many times it's used and there's no benefit whatsoever or throws you for a loop with planning your location run. It's certainly a great card, but it has limits, and also takes a very precious spell card slot. It's very good, but I don't consider it overpowered at all. It -can- be recharged, which makes it top tier for me, at least early on, but not broken at all. It is fun when it works in your favor at the most opportune moments, though, for sure. Candle is always 100% useful an in a game where it's buried, it should get used 100% of the time, and giving only 1 extra blessing, breaks the normal game flow and provides a distinct advantage over a game that doesn't have it... if you roll closer to a 6 every time, that's just bonkers. There's never a time with the original version that you wouldn't make room for it (unless you were intentionally avoiding using it). That all said, given that the changes to Levitate weren't nearly as profound and it was deemed worthy a rename, I do totally agree that Holy Candle should have been renamed as well.

FWIW, they've said they don't see this problem in the next build anymore. Unfortunately, this is a very normal and necessary part of testing and it's better this has come up now than after launch. Relief is in sight...

Without spoilers, there's a specific reason that if you're playing on Permadeath, the option to forfeit should be disabled (if implemented).

Mike Selinker has called Holy Candle the mistake of Rise of the Runelords. It was overpowered. At least with it being a banish, you can use it as the clutch card it was meant to be, much like Consecrate. If you feel it's useless, don't use it. Personally, Holy Candle actually feels balanced for the first time, and I was glad it was removed altogether from later sets.

That would be a little strange, and may (or may not) present other usability problems. In order for that to work, you'd have to load the ENTIRE set of all cards up to the AD# that you have, remove only the cards in the decks of the characters playing the current scenario, and THEN (presuming they remove cards permanently from the game at AD3+, something that has been conspicuously unaddressed thus far) remove the cards that are permanently gone. It's not impossible, just tends to pose unexpected problems. Negative space development can work, it just gets tricky conceptually to design since you have to think backwards from any given problem. I'd much prefer to see this implemented than the potential crossover of card collections we're presumably going to see as it's currently designed. But... the game launches in a matter of days now, I doubt the card draw engine will be redesigned in that short of time, even if deemed "the best idea evar!"

In testing, it appears that you may have 9 save files per device. From a design standpoint, it seems that most information is saved on the client device, so increases of data storage/management are not going to be part of server-side overhead. Doubling the amount of save files shouldn't cause any significant increase in performance, and the save file size difference (given with our limited testing) does not appear to be significantly impacted on a per save basis. Having ~18 save files should not provide a significant decrease in performance, even on the lowest spec supported devices. Obviously, I don't have the data you do available to assess this, so if I'm wrong, then so be it. The reason I push for more saves is related to the handling of the "box ~ save file" discussion in another thread. If we play with one party, as players, we do not always want them to share the same box. I know MANY PACG purchasers, and you'd be surprised how many purchased a second (or more) copy of any given set just to manage this. Our passion + disposable income = many Paizo children having the financial option of Ivy League education. I can see how the multiple parties, and even multiple versions of the same characters, may be fine, and even largely unnoticed by casual players - admittedly a large portion of your target audience. However, this is also being looked at with a high degree of anticipation and potential scrutiny by those of us that already love the game and will be enabled to play in a much more convenient fashion than we're used to (though, have already come to terms with). There are a great many of the longtime players who also play it as a personal challenge to solo characters through the game. Having this affected by the game states of other parties nullifies this experience. You've already noted that these hardcore experiences are worth considering by including the Permadeath function as being available, but not default (if it were just because it were in the rules, the default would be permadeath on). This would require 11 save files per set for JUST the solo characters, plus the actual parties we might play. I concede that you can't add an infinite amount and there is a point where performance will take a hit that becomes preventative in nature; but I'd be hard pressed to believe it's any number under 20. Then, once you have other base sets, people will want to play through that, and from experience in other games, they won't necessarily be ok with having to delete other saves to play new ones; given that the shared boxes per save won't actually affect cross-base-set games, this will be moot, and a matter of perception, so the max amount of save games won't really need to increase here. Though, there's also the perspective of the amount of data in any one given save having far more of an effect in performance than multiple independent saves will... which actually supports increasing the max amount of saves as expansions are released anyway... TL;DR - 15 saves is a more reasonable amount of saves for more thorough players (which will be a significant portion of your player base); 20 would be even better.

I would surmise it could happen to a player many times. If you always try to take close immediately on starting that turn, you'll never see that you can take other actions before the actual close step. Players who've never played the physical game and/or don't scrub the rules enough to question the process will have no reason to really know any better.

Just tested this exact behavior... in the event you have an empty deck with the option to close, the sequence of events appears to be this: Provide attempt to close - if successful, it automatically bypasses the rest of the turn, and there's nothing indicating it should do so. Exploration step Provide attempt to close (if you skip the first attempt, heal with Kyra, then move on, you do get this chance) So, it appears the initial attempt to close is optional, so I'm not as worried, but step 1 should definitely be removed. It only provides confusion and doesn't do any service to anyone desiring to play the game in intended turn order.

Given that there's an actual step for closing a location during the turn order (aside from having just defeated henchman/villain), it's actually NOT a valid sequence to close first, then heal. Kyra's heal is replacing the first exploration of a turn which, by rules as written, must occur before the attempt to close a location step. This is actually a bug, if there's any attempt here to follow the turn order as written, or an intentional change of rules for the digital medium. The choice to close the location should be just before resetting your hand; the step to use the cure must have already been passed at this point. There's a step for it in the rules as written, just not as its own step in the digital turn order. Unlike other liberties I've seen, this one doesn't make sense... the drive to ensure a player is given a chance, and given a highlighted event to do so, could just as easily happen automatically when the double-red arrow is pushed. This really shouldn't guide the player to that behavior outside the actual rules sequence in any way. That behavior is also going to cause confusion to people likely to play the physical game after having tried this.

One could hope that success with one will drive the other, and every element that keeps its analogue with the other medium improves adoption. It would also help with the keeping clarity once you add other sets later on. It's only a minor thing, but I actually like the concept of "boxes" in this case more than "saves". But then... imagine all the confusion that would ensue with those unfamiliar trying to discover how boxes work differently than saves.... *sigh* disregard.