Jump to content
  • 0

Luckstone vs 2-combat Villain


Maelwys

Question

Here's the setup:

Sajan was in the Woods, fighting again Barl Breakbones (last scenario of Adventure 3). Normal difficulty.

 

Sajan used a bunch of powers (his Unarmed Strike (L2/Magic)), and Amulet of Mighty Fists, and recharging a blessing. Lem also helped out from the nearby Shimmerglens, firing in an Incendiary Cloud and his Short Bow +1 for the extra dice. So far so good.

 

1st problem - After I rolled the dice my total score was 1 below where it had to be (I rolled a 16, I needed a 17 to beat the first combat check). It then prompted me to play (bury) the Luckstone to succeed at that check, because I'd only failed by one. Is it supposed to do that? I thought since I'd already played an Item in that combat (the Amulet, above) I shouldn't be allowed to use a second Item (the Luckstone, here) to affect the same check?

 

2nd problem (and this is the bigger one) - When I then buried the Luckstone to succeed at the check, it showed that I'd defeated Barl. I didn't have all locations closed yet, so I didn't win the scenario, but it did close that location and move him to another one to be shuffled in. But I'd never had to roll the second Combat check against him. So apparently when you use a Luckstone to succeed, it auto-succeeds at all checks on that card at once, even when there are multiple steps needed?

 

Finally, a suggestion...

In a future release, can we get an "action log" option (on the Gears menu, under Vault, perhaps?). Just a plaintext log of all the cards that were played, all the actions that were taken, rolls that were made, etc. It would be REALLY helpful for this kind of debugging, to save us from trying to remember every single card played in a situation like this. ;-)

 

Thanks, loving the game!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

1) I'm not sure about how this should work. On the one hand - you're right about it breaking the "one card per type per check" limit. On the other - maybe the second Luckstone ability is treated as "triggered" , so it's always allowed when the trigger condition occurs (even then, in the card game, I would probably rule it as illegal play, as it says "may" , i.e. you're given a choice to *play* the card, you're not just following a triggered instruction)

 

2) This seems completely in line with this bug, and my working theory on it:

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/87310-barl-gimmeabreakbones-beating-his-fortitude-check-defeats-him-outright/

 

3) This would be a great idea. Not in as much as would benefit from it as player, but it would seem we do a great deal of QA testing on the game (I'm not knocking Obsidian's own QAs, I realize the complexity and volume of the project), and indeed it would be easier for us to report correctly what and when went wrong, which in turn would make it easier to pin down and fix the issue.

You can use the 'Mark Solved' button beneath a post that answers your topic or confirms it's not a bug.

The time that devs don't have to spend on the forum is a time they can spend on fixing the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

1) I'm not sure about how this should work. On the one hand - you're right about it breaking the "one card per type per check" limit. On the other - maybe the second Luckstone ability is treated as "triggered" , so it's always allowed when the trigger condition occurs (even then, in the card game, I would probably rule it as illegal play, as it says "may" , i.e. you're given a choice to *play* the card, you're not just following a triggered instruction)

 

2) This seems completely in line with this bug, and my working theory on it:

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/87310-barl-gimmeabreakbones-beating-his-fortitude-check-defeats-him-outright/

 

3) This would be a great idea. Not in as much as would benefit from it as player, but it would seem we do a great deal of QA testing on the game (I'm not knocking Obsidian's own QAs, I realize the complexity and volume of the project), and indeed it would be easier for us to report correctly what and when went wrong, which in turn would make it easier to pin down and fix the issue.

 

1/ Yeah, I wasn't positive either, but figured that I should at least mention it.

 

2/ Yep, sounds like it. So I guess it's not just the Luckstone, but any "auto-succeed" cards that only look at the card as a whole (for pass/fail) when you trigger them, instead of counting the separate checks individually as they should.

 

3/ Yeah, exactly. And I've done 5 years of software QA in the past, and have no problem helping out with this kind of thing now. If it helps make a better game, we all win, and I'm happy to help out. I just tend to have a poor memory, and trying to remember every single card that I hap-hazardly tossed into a combat when it suddenly becomes important a few minutes later (as I uncover a weird bug) can be a struggle. I know that I've skipped on reporting bugs before, because I couldn't remember all of the important details, and I hate to file incomplete bug reports. So if we had access to a simple game log, that'd be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

 

3/ Yeah, exactly. And I've done 5 years of software QA in the past, and have no problem helping out with this kind of thing now...

I hear you. I also did a year as a QA before moving to game design, and I agree that I've passed on reporting some bugs, because the lack of details I can provide is - wait for it...- bugging me.

You can use the 'Mark Solved' button beneath a post that answers your topic or confirms it's not a bug.

The time that devs don't have to spend on the forum is a time they can spend on fixing the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...