The Steam version of this software was a buggy and unplayable pile of crap, though I did end up downloading the game off of the Desert Owl website. That works. Let's talk about the game itself.
PoxNora is a deliciously complex game that has been made more accessible by the ability to pick up cards from the core sets just for playing. It's easily the crunchiest game I've ever played, and I typically find my turns running out because I'm READING the six or seven abilities each character has.
This is a GOOD thing.
Currently, however, the game is critically flawed from bad rules language and hard counter design. Here are some examples.
1 - There is a race of squid people (think mind flayers) who fling passive psychic damage across the map. Though this psychic damage is ranged, abilities that reduce damage from creatures of a small size do not reduce, abilities that counterattack when an ally is shot at range are not triggered, yet abilities that amplify psychic damage function properly. I spent an hour fighting these "damage every turn" pings, ended up beating them, but still understood nothing about them beyond "they have a range of 6 and do damage to me". It was frustrating and the 50-60 words about them on the tooltip was nowhere near enough.
2 - Block and dodge state one range, but show another. This is seen all over the place.
3 - Some maps hard counter certain decks, and map selection is totally random. Do you not have a fast flyer and the other guy does? Awesome, you have a disadvantage on round 0. There are two maps that will utterly crush you in this manner, and it's simply not fun to have to design decks around them because they, like certain OP cards, MIGHT show up. In a game with as little RNG as PoxNora, the fact that the game can be decided before the first card play by the MAP selection is a slap in the face.
4 - Hard counters. If something is OP, they're more likely to make an OP response than nerf it. (Summons and summons-killing) This reduces variety and player interaction considerably.
5 - Inconsistent rules. Let's say you magic up an enemy to be unable to attack for a turn. If it's an archer with rain of arrows, that works. If it's a pirate tortoise who can call in an AoE artillery barrage, it doesn't. What makes cannonballs so different from arrows? I'm not sure, but the rules certainly treat gunpowder as "not an attack".
If you can get around these sorts of issues, and the resulting barrier to entry, the game's quite fun. I won two newbie tournaments in a row, and felt I was doing quite well. That being said, the bad design kept coming back to smack me on the head once, maybe twice a day, and it seems every time I ended up losing, it was because the game did something contrary to what the cards said they were going to do, like the aforementioned turtle pirate artillery barrage. As I design games for a living, this really, really upset me, and leads me to believe that there's really not somebody proofreading their work.
And, honestly, who wants to support somebody who builds something that complex, then ignores proper documentation?