NB Posts : 61
Created :
Last visit :
Firebird wrote:
A version 1.9 is now online... A0663 - deck_adventure_card 199 : Front

It seems that the changes to A0663 were left out of both the "notice" file and the PDF with the printable card replacements. A0436 is in both.
Posted - Moved
Firebird wrote:
Could you please give us where you read this typo ?
(And I will create a new topic : 1 per error)

i no longer have the card numbers readily available, but here's a photo of the top parts of each card:

Posted - Edited - Moved
Moderator : This is a new topic created from another one.

Similarly, there are two spellings of "shleep": a "Flock of shleep" and "Shleap wool"
ogeert wrote:
This is true if you see a card_pick WITHOUT the little card_if_available icon.

That explains it. The "otherwise" applies to whether the number has a card_if_available, and not to the "if the card is not available" part. My wife and i both spent several minutes pondering that rule and both of us parsed the "otherwise" as applying to the "if the card is not available" condition.

Thank you for the clarification!
Posted - Edited
Rulebook page 17:

If no card with that number is available:

When the numbox of the card you must take is followed by a (green diamond), it means you need not do anything if the card is not available in the Adventure Deck. Otherwise, you must immediately return all the cards in the Past and then take the newly available card.

This says, to me, that if i'm told to grab card X, and card X is not in the box, i must immediately return all cards from the Past and try again.

If that's not the intended meaning then i am extremely confused about how to interpret it. If it is the intended meaning then there is an exploit for
maxing out to 99 hp at the Inn of the Red Spiggy
by applying the "Otherwise" part of that rule:
we can draw 1 card to encounter the inn, gain 4 HP, spend 1 of them on Recovery and add the rest to our HP total, then use the "if no card with that number is available" rule to recover the Inn and repeat this endlessly.
This post on BoardGameGeek points out that the formulation of OR/AND on card A0220 is ambiguous:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3265752 (arguably very light spoilers, but also arguably not)

In that thread, we're in disagreement about the intended order of interpretation.
BrunoS wrote:
Hope that helps

That resolves it, thank you :).
That's a closely-related question, but subtly different. In that thread you said:

"You" (in any sentence of the game) refers only to the active player.

That doesn't seem correct for the case of effects like the ones provided by the skills mentioned in the top post of this thread. "You", in these contexts, seems to refers to the character who has the card in their inventory, regardless of whether they're the active character? According to page 11, the active character is not the one who activates/uses items: each character uses items only from their own inventory. What's not clear, however, is whether the "your cards" in those contexts specifically limits the character to using effects of cards in their own inventory, or whether they may apply those effects to cards in other participating characters' inventories.
Some items, e.g.
Bird Call (A0138)
Advanced Skill, have features worded like:

"You may use cards that have the following icon..."

Does "you" in such cases specifically mean only the character that is using the card which has that text, or does it apply to any character which is taking part in the action?

e.g. in the case of
Bird Call
Advanced Skill, can the Music effects of any participating character's cards be used, or just those belonging to the character who has
Bird Call
Advanced Skill in their inventory?

The a closely-related question applies to the
Protective cover (A0143)
Advanced Skill (which says:
Whenever you are to lower the durability of an Item, you may lower the durability of this item instead.
): does its effect protect only items in the inventory of the character who has that card in their inventory, or those of any participating character?
Firebird wrote:
You say :
This card's effect is applied during Step 3 (Result) of Action Resolution

This is not exactly the case : only the part ":icon_succes_7:" must be applied during Step 3.
As you can read in Step 2, effects are also applied in this step (-X:card_blue: for exemple).

Step 2 explicitly specifies only cost-modifying effects. Quoting page 11:

Each player involved in the action may apply the effects of one or more cards from their hand, of one or more Item cards from their inventory used during step 1 (Item), of one or more Permanent event cards attached to the Terrain card their figure is standing on, and/or of one or more Quest item cards, in order to decrease the number of cards to be drawn

(Emphasis added.)

Step 3 says:

Each player involved in the action may apply the effects of one or more cards from their hand, of one or more Item cards from their inventory used during step 1 (Item), of one or more Permanent event cards attached to the Terrain card their figure is standing on, and/or of one or more Quest item cards, in order to obtain additional successes

(Emphasis added.)

Bird Call ostensibly allows us to use the effects of other cards in the corresponding steps, depending on whether they're cost-reduction effects or Success-generating effects. Its own other-card-modifying effect, however, is not really covered by any of the action resolution timing rules, which leaves me even less certain of its interpretation than i was initially.

Firebird wrote:
And I think that you can find other types of effects that relate to other steps (although the rule is not explicit about this).
So, in my opinion, the effect "you may use cards that have the following icon (:action_condition::action_play_music:)" should be applied during Step 1, as a rule modifier allowing another icon than hunting, but without changing the rule on the cost of durability.

i can't say for sure :/. The timing of when exactly we activate the card-modifying effect of Bird Call is effectively undefined. i'm ashamed that that disturbs me as much as it does, but that's just how i'm built.
Posted - Edited
This is a re-formulation of a post over on BGG, re-posted here with the hope that we'll get an official answer for this...

Bird Call Advanced Skill (A0138) has a :action_condition: hunting icon which says:

:icon_succes_7: and/or you may use cards that have the following icon (brown Music).

This card's effect is applied during Step 3 (Result) of Action Resolution, whereas Items are "used" in Step 1. That timing implies that Bird Call's effect does not
reduce the durability of cards with the Music modifier which Bird Call "hijacks"
. However, Bird Call's use of the phrase
"may use cards"
is the same as the word
in Step 1's rules ("Lower the durability of each item you use by 1"), which implies that
durability of items activated by Bird Call is reduced because they are "used"

What is the correct official interpretation:

Durability of items triggered by Bird Call ARE NOT reduced.

Durability of items triggered by Bird Call ARE reduced.


Edit: the question, upon closer examination, really boils down to:

At what step(s) of Action Resolution may an Action Modifier :action_condition: be applied if it is neither an Energy modifier :card_blue: nor a Success modifier :icon_succes: :icon_succes_7:?

An answer to that question would, i believe, resolve my uncertainty about this particular card. There appears to be no explicit rules which allow for any type of Action Modifier which is not either an Energy modifier or a Success modifier.
Several cards say "you may take the following action only if you have X", where X is typically something like "a card with keyword Z in your hand."

What's not clear to me is whether all involved characters are required to have X, or if only the active character for that action is required to have X.

In other words: does such a condition prohibit characters from assisting the active character unless each of them meets requirement X?

More generally, my understanding is that only the active character for an action "takes" the action, and any other characters may "assist" in (but do not "take") the action. Is that correct or do all involved characters "take" the action?
Posted - Edited
The card says to
discard all elixirs "you have in hand,"
but the card in question
can only ever be in your inventory, not in hand

Edit: just checked the card.
It does not have that keyword itself.
Posted - Edited
Before i go resolving B0992, i'm trying to confirm whether the intent reflects what it actually says:

Eating action, no energy, zero successes: Discard all cards with the keyword elixir you have in hand. Take a 503 card. Banish this.

As written, "all cards..." can mean 0 cards. In my 50+ hours on the Continent, i don't recall ever having seen a card with the given keyword.

My assumption is that the card it asks me to take will say something like:

If you discarded 0 elixir cards, do X. If you discarded 1 elixir card, do Y. ...

no, it doesn't.

But before i go turn over that card, i'd like to know if the intent is that it's legal to use that card when a character has 0 of the thing it mentions.

(FWIW, i would like to wait before using it, but the per-character card limit for a 4-character game is downright punishing and i need to free up inventory space.)

dill wrote:
There are 3 card layouts available right now
- basic where you fold the cards (3 cards per page, fronts and backs)

Now i feel silly for having overlooked that option and assembling them the hard way :/. Oh, well.
i know this is a bit late, but just wanted to post a couple pics of an assembled Lost & Found set:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gNVjf1vaTcBCKtWu7 (no spoilers)

i had those printed up at a copy shop last winter but only just got around to completing their construction. Each card is in a thin docsmagic-brand sleeve along with a 75x75mm piece of index card to add a bit of stability. Though i cannot yet comment on their play quality, i'm utterly flabbergasted at their design quality and am looking forward to including them in my next session.

@Dill, one comment, for the off chance that you ever undertake such a task again: having the front and back of the cards on the same sheet of paper, side by side, would have reduced the amount of cutting by (if my math is correct) 1/8th and allowed us to simply fold them in half to get the front/back together. It also would have reduced the odds of a mismatch in matching up the fronts/backs (i mismatched the left/right columns of one sheet, but thankfully caught it in a double-check of the whole deck after it had been assembled).

Thank you for this expansion, Dill!
WithCheese wrote:
Does the second-most card in the stack automatically get the die placed on it and become the new top card for the combined item?

FWIW, i have yet to see a real citation in this thread, but: way back when i asked that same question and the designer responded with yes, the next card becomes the top one. i don't recall if that was in this forum or BGG, though, and don't have a link to the citation, only my memory of the designer answering it for me.
The corrected PDF is now available for download in the Resources==>Errata section of the site.
JackSpirio wrote:
but if you could add them, there would be the need for a rule.

Mastery has literally only a single sentence devoted to it in the rules, and that one sentence does not cover all of the possible/reasonable interpretations of how they should be applied. Another example of ambiguity which "really should" have been clarified with one more sentence in the rules, can be found in https://the7thcontinent.seriouspoulp.com/en/forum/topic/4312/.
Yes, it's "pretty clear", but it's not 100% unambiguous.