Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Network57

Threads of Fate

Recommended Posts

The Devil's in the details, I hadn't realized Arcane Research was limited to upgrading a spell.

In answer to you @Donel, the minimum 1XP cost is for adding cards to your deck.  Upgrading has its own rule set:

Quote

RR page 5:

"When purchasing a higher level version of a card with the same title, the investigator may choose to “upgrade” that card by paying only the difference in experience (to a minimum of 1) between the two cards and removing the lower level version of the card from his or her deck."

So, it could go either way.  I think that the minimum cost is 1XP, and then the effects of Arcane Research is added.  However, you raise a really good case.

In defense of my preferred ruling, I would offer Adaptable as a case where the card supersedes the Spending XP rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It specifically says upgrade, so I assume it's for that specifically. I also assume that there's going to be some caveat that permanents can't be included with starting decks since they are lvl 0 cards. I think you could reduce the cost to 0 if you were upgrading from a lvl 0 spell to a lvl 1 spell. or a lvl 1 to a lvl 2. 

That's just my interpretation though.

Edited by Soakman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Duciris said:

The Devil's in the details, I hadn't realized Arcane Research was limited to upgrading a spell.

In answer to you @Donel, the minimum 1XP cost is for adding cards to your deck.  Upgrading has its own rule set:

So, it could go either way.  I think that the minimum cost is 1XP, and then the effects of Arcane Research is added.  However, you raise a really good case.

In defense of my preferred ruling, I would offer Adaptable as a case where the card supersedes the Spending XP rules.

To be fair though, you don't 'upgrade' cards when swapping out cards with adaptable, so the technical limitation in the upgrade rules wouldn't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 5: When purchasing a higher level version of a card with the same title, the investigator may choose to “upgrade” that card by paying only the difference in experience (to a minimum of 1) between the two cards and removing the lower level version of the card from his or her deck.

Upgrading is only when you're replacing a lower level card with a higher one.  I do think the minimum 1 cost will still apply though, as nothing in Arcane Research explicitly overrides it.  At least at the moment we don't have any spells where it matters, though.

On a more general note, is it just me or is the quality on these articles actually getting worse?  That's a tough bar to be sure, but they literally just copy-pasted the text of the card in multiple places.  I'm long past expecting any meaningful insight from FFG's announcement articles but come on, is it too much to ask that these things be done by someone who knows a little more about the game than the intern's dog?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the possible upgrades are:

  • Blinding Light 0 --> 2
  • Rite of Seeking 0 --> 4
  • Scrying 0 --> 3
  • Shrivelling 0 --> 3 --> 5
  • Ward of Protection 0 --> 2 --> 5

I guess the upgrade of the Archaic Glyphs doesn't work because the level 0 isn't a Spell, even if the Level 3 versions are Spells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Astrophil84 said:

So the possible upgrades are:

  • Blinding Light 0 --> 2
  • Rite of Seeking 0 --> 4
  • Scrying 0 --> 3
  • Shrivelling 0 --> 3 --> 5
  • Ward of Protection 0 --> 2 --> 5

I guess the upgrade of the Archaic Glyphs doesn't work because the level 0 isn't a Spell, even if the Level 3 versions are Spells.

Yeah, just because of the limited targets for the permanent, I'm not sure how valuable the card is. It LOOKS great on paper, but unless you are running more than a couple of these particular spells, a trauma is a hefty cost to save 1 or 2 experience. Particularly in the class that you can just run Delve too Deep.

I know that I don't always take Scrying, blinding light, or upgraded ward of protections. And if you are running a half-mystic like Sefina, you're going to get limited use for upgrading cards like shriveling that you might want to upgrade in increments (she can only use up to lvl 2 spells anyway.

Edited by Soakman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm most intrigued by the mention of the "Vengeance X" enemy keyword on the story Ally pictured in the article. I haven't played Path to Carcosa, but as far as I know this is a new rule. Perhaps it will be something that penalizes you when the monster is killed, encouraging you to evade the enemy instead of fight it? I've always believed that the main reason killing enemies is generally preferred to evading them is because many enemies have harmful effects while they remain on the board (Whippoorwill, Wizard of the Order, Hunters, etc). A mechanic that challenges that conventional wisdom would be most welcome.

Edited by Covered in Weasels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soakman said:

unless you are running more than a couple of these particular spells, a trauma is a hefty cost to save 1 or 2 experience.

I think it's more than that.  Even if you just assume upgraded Rite of Seeking and Shriveling, you can potentially get 6 XP out of those.  Shriveling alone will let you get the L5 for 3 XP if you're willing to take the slow road.

The one per scenario is going to be a bigger limitation than the range of things to spend it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Covered in Weasels said:

I'm most intrigued my the mention of the "Vengeance X" enemy keyword on the story Ally pictured in the article. I haven't played Path to Carcosa, but as far as I know this is a new rule. Perhaps it will be something that penalizes you when the monster is killed, encouraging you to evade the enemy instead of fight it? I've always believed that the main reason killing enemies is generally preferred to evading them is because many enemies have harmful effects while they remain on the board (Whippoorwill, Wizard of the Order, Hunters, etc). A mechanic that challenges that conventional wisdom would be most welcome.

I think it's for enemies that aren't defeated. That if they're in play with the scenario ends, you get fewer XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Soakman said:

Yeah, just because of the limited targets for the permanent, I'm not sure how valuable the card is. It LOOKS great on paper, but unless you are running more than a couple of these particular spells, a trauma is a hefty cost to save 1 or 2 experience. Particularly in the class that you can just run Delve too Deep.

I know that I don't always take Scrying, blinding light, or upgraded ward of protections. And if you are running a half-mystic like Sefina, you're going to get limited use for upgrading cards like shriveling that you might want to upgrade in increments (she can only use up to lvl 2 spells anyway.

Well ask it this way, would you be willing to take mental trauma on a 8 or 9 Sanity investigator if it gave you 7 xp.  In general, I would say yes.  Thats about +25% xp for a campaign.  Throw in some side scenarios and the numbers change.

Now its not that simple, you need to have a solid upgrade plan that ensures you have enough XP to upgrade one spell each time.  I mean you could do Shriveling, Shriveling, RoS, RoS, Shriveling, Shriveling and still upgrade one of your wards of protection to l2.  To be clear this changes a 19xp investment into a 13 xp investment.  I could do a lot with those extra 7 xp over the course of a campaign.  Recharge looks pretty good in this case or heck I am one xp short of 2 grotesque statues.

Also, Delve to Deep AND Arcane Research can really add some serious dividends.  Just make sure Yorrick is on your team and Jenny brings her medallion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jobu said:

Well ask it this way, would you be willing to take mental trauma on a 8 or 9 Sanity investigator if it gave you 7 xp.  In general, I would say yes.  Thats about +25% xp for a campaign.  Throw in some side scenarios and the numbers change.

Now its not that simple, you need to have a solid upgrade plan that ensures you have enough XP to upgrade one spell each time.  I mean you could do Shriveling, Shriveling, RoS, RoS, Shriveling, Shriveling and still upgrade one of your wards of protection to l2.  To be clear this changes a 19xp investment into a 13 xp investment.  I could do a lot with those extra 7 xp over the course of a campaign.  Recharge looks pretty good in this case or heck I am one xp short of 2 grotesque statues.

Also, Delve to Deep AND Arcane Research can really add some serious dividends.  Just make sure Yorrick is on your team and Jenny brings her medallion.

I'm not saying it's bad, just that there are quite a few limitations. I can't imagine a mystic that wouldn't take upgraded shriveling, for example, but if for some reason these cards are not what you want, it may not be worth the investment. For instance if you are running a combat light resource cheap deck and prefer to take Song of the Dead. It only has one version of the spell, so it's not an upgrade and wouldn't benefit. 

Still a fun card to play around with though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmed

 

Greetings,


Arcane Research reads “After each scenario of a campaign, reduce the experience cost of the firstSpell card you upgrade before the next scenario by 1.”


In order to gain the experience discount from Arcane Research, you must be upgrading a card with the Spell trait. You would not get the experience discount if you are purchasing a newSpell, nor would you get the discount if you are upgrading a card that does not have the Spell trait (even if that card would upgrade into a card with the Spell trait). Additionally, the minimum experience cost for upgrading any card is always 1 (see “Experience”, RR page 5), so you would need to be paying 2 or more experience in order for the discount to apply.


Cheers,

------------------------------------------------

Matthew Newman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about ruuning 2 of the Arcane Research cards. They aren't exceptional so I assume we can. That has even fewer targets than running just 1 though. Might be doable though if you plan it just right

Edited by Donel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

Now we need to know if you can include a Permanent at the beginning of a campaign, thus avoiding the cost of "purchasing" it.

You can. (Apart from there being nothing to prevent it in the rules for Permanents, Matt confirms it in the same email response that provided the above, which someone helpfully posted to the FB group).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

You can. (Apart from there being nothing to prevent it in the rules for Permanents, Matt confirms it in the same email response that provided the above, which someone helpfully posted to the FB group).

 

I would think that is why there is a tade-off for both mentioned. In the one case, it is a trauma, and for the other seeker card it is the random factor of what your 2 identically named cards are going to be/do. 

Fair enough; just wondering if they will be staple cards for classes since they don't take a card slot being permanent and all. Kinda not sure I want to see cards that are so prevalent and don't have prominent enough trade-offs to be optional. They almost seem like an auto-include at first glance... I'm on the fence about them. They sure are interesting as an addition though. 

Edited by Soakman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

You can. (Apart from there being nothing to prevent it in the rules for Permanents, Matt confirms it in the same email response that provided the above, which someone helpfully posted to the FB group).

 

 

1 hour ago, Soakman said:

I would think that is why there is a tade-off for both mentioned. In the one case, it is a trauma, and for the other seeker card it is the random factor of what your 2 identically named cards are going to be/do. 

Fair enough; just wondering if they will be staple cards for classes since they don't take a card slot being permanent and all. Kinda not sure I want to see cards that are so prevalent and don't have prominent enough trade-offs that they don't seem optional. I'm on the fence about them. They sure are interesting as an addition though. 

Maybe there's something in the email I'm missing (I'm not on FB).  But if you can take the card at the beginning, you're not purchasing it, right?  So you don't take the penalty?  So everyone who can take this card can just be assumed to have it (except the ones who would have to give up a slot for it -- Norman and most of the Dunwich crew) and the penalty is moot?

Edited by CSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CSerpent said:

 

Maybe there's something in the email I'm missing (I'm not on FB).  But if you can take the card at the beginning, you're not purchasing it, right?  So you don't take the penalty?  So everyone who can take this card can just be assumed to have it and the penalty is moot?

I have to believe you take the penalty even if you start with it.  Otherwise, why write anything about a cost at all?  Everyone would just take it at start and thats boring.

2 hours ago, CSerpent said:

Now we need to know if you can include a Permanent at the beginning of a campaign, thus avoiding the cost of "purchasing" it.

 

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

You can. (Apart from there being nothing to prevent it in the rules for Permanents, Matt confirms it in the same email response that provided the above, which someone helpfully posted to the FB group).

 

Can you confirm that again Buhallin?  Seems weird for reasons I stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

You can. (Apart from there being nothing to prevent it in the rules for Permanents, Matt confirms it in the same email response that provided the above, which someone helpfully posted to the FB group).

 

Where are you seeing that you can add zero level permanent cards to your deck at the start of the game in that email?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The permanent keyword doesn't say anything about not being able to be included at the start in the first place. But I think you should still have to pay for the mental trauma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...