8 replies to this topic

[Lucifer Hex]

I read on the last post that there had been demands for an expansion of the Stash. I had a thought and wanted to share it. A limited sideboard is one of the hallmarks of the game, and important for balance purposes. My proposal is:

 

Each party gets its own Sideboard (renamed from 'Stash' to 'Sideboard.' Those sideboards are unique to that party and that campaign.

 

A new tab, "Trove," is created, and at any point between adventures, players may move a card (like the Robe of Runes, or Amulet of Mighty Fists) from their party sideboard to the Trove. Trove becomes the mechanic for trading cards across parties, while the sideboard remains for those situational cards that you may not want in your deck full time.

 

Thoughts on my thoughts?

[Hannibal_PJV]

It depends on if you like the stash or not. Those who likes it most likely want to see enhanced version of it.
Some like me, who does not like it, seems it as one more source to bugs and time wasted instead of making new contents and debug other bugs.
All in all it depends a lot on how much it would take time from the devs to implement it.

[Lucifer Hex]

I think for people who aren't accustomed to CCGs/LCGs and board games in general will find the inability to hold on to a sideboard anathema. I think having a hybrid to restrict power leveling and for those people who want a sideboard, have one for each party. I know that would be my thing, but I also concede that it has all of the issues you independently raised.

[Irgy]

Making it party specific isn't an enhancement or balance, it's just flat-out the way it should have always worked in the first place. None of the problems the stash is supposed to be solving require it to be account-global. Making it global introduces a whole lot of issues and abuses while also not enabling anything that people ought to be doing in the first place.

 

Being able to farm AD6 cards for characters in an AD1 party is ridiculous. What's annoying me at the moment though is that I can't keep a separate stash for two different parties even if I want to. I've got one party in the goblin campaign, and went to play another party elsewhere, and all my goblin campaign stash cards are there. So now if I don't want to be swapping cards between entirely unrelated parties I have to either not use the stash at all anywhere, or manually remember which cards belong to which party and just hope I don't get forced to take another party's cards if I don't have enough of a certain type.

 

I'm not such a purist that I don't want to try out the new features at all, but when the way they work doesn't make any sense, and you can't ignore the issues without deliberately and forcibly disabling the feature everywhere (in this case by always selling all your cards and never stashing any), then I'm not left with a lot of choice.

[Lucifer Hex]

I really think in a case like this that having "no stash" isn't the right answer, because it is a board game requirement that doesn't translate well into the digital space. That said, I equally agree that the current implementation isn't the best. Better than having none at all though. And I will raise my hand and say "Yes, I have given my spare Shock Great Sword +2 to Amiri, who I find borderline unusable. She really needs a rework (that I don't expect her to get).

[DrDior]

I disagree with further constraining the stash.  I think it is important to expand it. 

 

Expanding the stash will make the game more appealing to new players.  They may have never seen the tabletop game, and are more interested in an unrestricted way of playing the game.  

 

Thus, more new players means more revenue.  And that means more content.

[Ripe]

It depends on if you like the stash or not. Those who likes it most likely want to see enhanced version of it.
Some like me, who does not like it, seems it as one more source to bugs and time wasted instead of making new contents and debug other bugs.
All in all it depends a lot on how much it would take time from the devs to implement it.

Yup, sometimes I have a feeling development would go much smoother and with a lot less bugs if they decided to follow the tabletop guidelines: no party members change during adventure, no repeating completed scenarios, no saving individual characters (only complete parties)

[Ethics Gradient]

Yup, sometimes I have a feeling development would go much smoother and with a lot less bugs if they decided to follow the tabletop guidelines: no party members change during adventure, no repeating completed scenarios, no saving individual characters (only complete parties)

Actually, just about all of those things are permissible under tabletop rules.  It is just that set-up is such a pain that people rarely seem to want to replay scenarios when they can just keep pushing on ahead.
 
The rulebook honestly doesn't have as much to say about what happens "between" games, but the two rules do apply.

You must ...  complete [a scenario] successfully before you can attempt the next scenario.
...
You may not earn the reward from a given scenario, adventure, or Adventure Path more than once unless the reward specifically tells you otherwise.

When asked to clarify, the creators have replied that it is perfectly okay to replay scenarios.  If you're leveling up a new adventurer, or want to grind for cards, the only restriction is that a character (not the party or the player) cannot receive scenario rewards more than once.

 

As far as splitting and combining parties, Class Decks were partly designed to facility organized play and make it easier to swap characters in and out of games.

 

All the things you listed are technically "rules legal", but just cumbersome to exploit in tabletop.  The app just makes it really easy to experiment with the rules and find ways to power-level characters without the threat of permadeath.

 

Optional permadeath is probably the biggest change that allows for rules shenanigans.  You might be a little more hesitant to replay "Here Comes the Flood" over and over again to collect allies if there was a chance that one of those Nightbelly Boas could kill off your AD6 Ezren.

[Hannibal_PJV]

Good arguments!
Yep, the rules does not prevent any of those, but They definitely cause some extra bugs and weird situation where Computer is out of its leaque and real people can/could compromise and keep on going