Forced to Banish Cards

[LaSpeakeasi]

Who during development thought this is a good idea in a COLLECTIBLE CARD GAME? It's obvious not in the tabletop rules (you can't force your player to tear up a card they bought, can you?) why is it okay to force digital players to lose a card?

 

There's even more guarantee that you may win a scenario after banishing a card. If you failed to win the scenario after vanishing them, you basically lost a card for nothing. And sometime you don't get a choice at all (cannibal haunts), don't have a spare card in hand? You're SOL. Better forfeit and restart.

 

It defeats the purpose of the game, and discourages players to, well, play since you may getter of farming a scenario worse-off than you started out.

 

So many of the games' rules seems to serve no purpose other than to punish the player for playing. Such a shameful, cynical, transparent attempt to get people to pay up.

[Ethics Gradient]

The banishing mechanism works the same way as it does in tabletop.  Cards are never lost permanently nor torn up.  If they aren't in your hand, or character decks, they simply "return to the box."

 

Sometimes fortune smiles on you and a cool card is revealed in a location deck.  Other times, situations force you to make a painful choice on which card gets thrown out of your hand.

[Jenceslav]

Who during development thought this is a good idea in a COLLECTIBLE CARD GAME? It's obvious not in the tabletop rules (you can't force your player to tear up a card they bought, can you?) why is it okay to force digital players to lose a card?

 

There's even more guarantee that you may win a scenario after banishing a card. If you failed to win the scenario after vanishing them, you basically lost a card for nothing. And sometime you don't get a choice at all (cannibal haunts), don't have a spare card in hand? You're SOL. Better forfeit and restart.

 

It defeats the purpose of the game, and discourages players to, well, play since you may getter of farming a scenario worse-off than you started out.

 

So many of the games' rules seems to serve no purpose other than to punish the player for playing. Such a shameful, cynical, transparent attempt to get people to pay up.

I want to chime in as well. Like Ethics Gradient explained in your other post, this game is a VERY faithful representation of the card game. There are some differences that are sometimes infuriating (like not having the option to outright banish the boon instead of forced roll - I am looking at you, Burglar, Giant Weasel and especially, the Vault of Greed location), but otherwise are purely cosmetical. Holy candle (banish instead of bury), Stride instead of Levitation and some others are such examples.

In NO way is the Pathfinder card game a collectible card game like Magic the Gathering (or Tragic the Garnering for Fallout 2 fans). Instead, the cards are always "in the box" and you have the chance of encountering them, nothing more and nothing less. Please read the rules for the card game or watch the tutorial videos.

 

Banishing a card is usually a very bad thing, but it works exactly as intended, returning the card to the pool / box / Collection. So while I grumble that I have to do it, I plan for the possibility. But it is still in the Collection - and you can encounter it again, later. It would be much worse if you lost the card completely (from the Collection), but that is not happening unless a bug causes that.

[deny_conformity]

 

Who during development thought this is a good idea in a COLLECTIBLE CARD GAME? It's obvious not in the tabletop rules (you can't force your player to tear up a card they bought, can you?) why is it okay to force digital players to lose a card?

 

There's even more guarantee that you may win a scenario after banishing a card. If you failed to win the scenario after vanishing them, you basically lost a card for nothing. And sometime you don't get a choice at all (cannibal haunts), don't have a spare card in hand? You're SOL. Better forfeit and restart.

 

It defeats the purpose of the game, and discourages players to, well, play since you may getter of farming a scenario worse-off than you started out.

 

So many of the games' rules seems to serve no purpose other than to punish the player for playing. Such a shameful, cynical, transparent attempt to get people to pay up.

I want to chime in as well. Like Ethics Gradient explained in your other post, this game is a VERY faithful representation of the card game. There are some differences that are sometimes infuriating (like not having the option to outright banish the boon instead of forced roll - I am looking at you, Burglar, Giant Weasel and especially, the Vault of Greed location), but otherwise are purely cosmetical. Holy candle (banish instead of bury), Stride instead of Levitation and some others are such examples.

In NO way is the Pathfinder card game a collectible card game like Magic the Gathering (or Tragic the Garnering for Fallout 2 fans). Instead, the cards are always "in the box" and you have the chance of encountering them, nothing more and nothing less. Please read the rules for the card game or watch the tutorial videos.

 

Banishing a card is usually a very bad thing, but it works exactly as intended, returning the card to the pool / box / Collection. So while I grumble that I have to do it, I plan for the possibility. But it is still in the Collection - and you can encounter it again, later. It would be much worse if you lost the card completely (from the Collection), but that is not happening unless a bug causes that.

 

With regards to banishing boons instead of rolling, in the rule book (quoted from Mummy's Mask rule book): "If it is a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if you choose not to acquire it, it counts as failing to acquire it." So while you can choose to fail the check you'd still face the penalty from Burglar/Giant Weasel. I remember a few cards in Skull and Shackles / Wrath of the Righteous that were banes calling themselves boons...

[Ethics Gradient]

With regards to banishing boons instead of rolling, in the rule book (quoted from Mummy's Mask rule book): "If it is a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if you choose not to acquire it, it counts as failing to acquire it." So while you can choose to fail the check you'd still face the penalty from Burglar/Giant Weasel. I remember a few cards in Skull and Shackles / Wrath of the Righteous that were banes calling themselves boons...

 

Burglar/Scarni Thief/Charmed Red Dragon, yes.  You would still be subject to the "If you fail to acquire this card" power regardless if you rolled the check or not

 

Giant Weasel says "If you fail the check to acquire this card".  If you choose not to attempt the check, that card should just get banished to the box without consequence.  However..., that text is probably in error, as the tabletop card has wording similar to the cards above.

 

Additionally, there are a couple location and wildcard powers that do differentiate between "fail to acquire a boon" and "fail a check to acquire a boon".

 

But yeah.  The debate is all just academic since we can't pass on boon rolls anyway.

[Jenceslav]

With regards to banishing boons instead of rolling, in the rule book (quoted from Mummy's Mask rule book): "If it is a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if you choose not to acquire it, it counts as failing to acquire it." So while you can choose to fail the check you'd still face the penalty from Burglar/Giant Weasel. I remember a few cards in Skull and Shackles / Wrath of the Righteous that were banes calling themselves boons...

 

Thank you very much for correcting me I read the RotR rulebook some time ago and then skimmed the other rulebooks, because they are the same.    Only the borders with New Rules caught my attention. So, the Burglar and Weasel should force you to bury a card even if you do not take the check, but the Vault of Greed (ugh) or Shimmering Veils of Pride are strongly affected by not being able to NOT take a check

[danadlumen]

YES. THIS IS F*CKING BULLSH*T. AND IT'S ANNOYING AS F*CK.

[Ethics Gradient]

YES. THIS IS ******* ********. AND IT'S ANNOYING AS ****.

 

Is there a particular issue you are having with banishing cards?  Nothing has changed in the game in that regard.  If you were playing earlier, it should still all behave the same way.

 

The only real difference now is that when you banish cards after a scenario, you have the option to hold onto a few in the Stash or "sell them back" to the card pool for a handful of gold.  No cards are lost permanently, but you do score some extra gold that you wouldn't have seen prior to the recent update.

[LaSpeakeasi]

 

YES. THIS IS ******* ********. AND IT'S ANNOYING AS ****.

 

Is there a particular issue you are having with banishing cards? Nothing has changed in the game in that regard. If you were playing earlier, it should still all behave the same way.

 

The only real difference now is that when you banish cards after a scenario, you have the option to hold onto a few in the Stash or "sell them back" to the card pool for a handful of gold. No cards are lost permanently, but you do score some extra gold that you wouldn't have seen prior to the recent update.

Banishing cards should never be an feature in a game that is entirely focused on collecting cards. I got the Greed Sword loot card. And was forced to banish it after failing a 98% check. And now it's gone forever. You don't get a loot card unless you start a new campaign and finish it almost all the way til the end. As far as I'm concerned I've lost it forever. And my hard work went down the drain.

 

If you buy a physical card that comes in a set. You have it and it's yours. Nothing prevents you from having a banished card in your deck. Call it cheating, but I can do whatever I want with cards I've paid for.

 

You force players to lose a card they've paid for with either real money or hours of hard work, with no real promise of ever getting it back save more hours of grinding. How's that fair or fun?

Edited September 12, 2017 by LaSpeakeasi

[Bullwinkle]

If you buy a physical card that comes in a set. You have it and it's yours. Nothing prevents you from having a banished card in your deck. Call it cheating, but I can do whatever I want with cards I've paid for.

 

You force players to lose a card they've paid for with either real money or hours of hard work, with no real promise of ever getting it back save more hours of grinding. How's that fair or fun?

 

Banishing cards should never be an feature in a game that is entirely focused on collecting cards. I got the Greed Sword loot card. And was forced to banish it after failing a 98% check. And now it's gone forever. You don't get a loot card unless you start a new campaign and finish it almost all the way til the end. As far as I'm concerned I've lost it forever. And my hard work went down the drain.

Then perhaps you should acknowledge that this game is not for you and move on, because these posts are wasting your time. And ours.

 

Whatever you want this game to be, it's explicitly stated that it is intended as a faithful-as-possible digital adaptation of Paizo's tabletop card game. In that game, cards get banished--even legendary cards you want to keep--and dice fail rolls--even rolls with a 99% chance of success. It's frustrating. I know. Many a time have I cursed my iPad. But THAT IS THE GAME. Obsidian will never get rid of banishing, and they will never eliminate unlucky rolls. If a bug steals your Sword of Greed, well, you have every right to be annoyed. But the rules? Come on.

 

When it's your game box, you certainly may do as you please. (Though I think you might find most players balking at such outright cheating as you're proposing; what's the point of playing if you can't ever lose?) But it is simply impossible for Obsidian to account for or offer every possible kind of modification to the rules every player may want. They've already offered a huge set of cheats with the stash, runes, and charms. If you demand more, well, the physical game is always an option. Perhaps you should make it your option.

[LaSpeakeasi]

because these posts are wasting your time. And ours..

Funny you should say that. Because these posts are the only posts that are even being made around here other than the endless bug complaints. The forum is pretty much a ghost town otherwise. Don't pretend you have anything better to waste your time on.

[Jenceslav]

 

because these posts are wasting your time. And ours..

Funny you should say that. Because these posts are the only posts that are even being made around here other than the endless bug complaints. The forum is pretty much a ghost town otherwise. Don't pretend you have anything better to waste your time on.

 

 

Well, the bug reports (not really complaints unless it's a game-breaking thing) have the redeeming quality of helping to SOLVE something. In some of your posts, you state your opinions on this game that may be slightly biased (that is OK, everyone has bias), but then demand change of the rules of the game itself. That is not in Obsidian's or developers' hands. That is governed by Paizo (original RPG card game) and they won't change rules just because it is convenient to someone. So, in effect, such posts won't achieve anything - and that is what I think Bullwinkle meant. Just imagine how long it took me to write these sentences

[Hannibal_PJV]

Yep, opinions Are opinions, but rules Are rules for some reason the game developers in Paizo did deside to make them so that They Are today, so there is reasons to them from the game developers perspective.

I think that we all want to have less bugs, because... But I think that most players Also hope that the digital app fellows the official tabletop rules as closely as possible. And Obsidian has done guite good job in that. Most thing that I don't personally like in app Are things that Obsidian has done differently than in original game, but that is just my own personal opinion

So e of the changes Are even better that original game, so I have to give credits to Obsidian developers. It is hard to change something that so Many has learned to like. And even sometimes better the original.

[Bullwinkle]

So, in effect, such posts won't achieve anything - and that is what I think Bullwinkle meant.

That's the nice way of putting it.