Profil de sgbeal

Utilisateur

Nombre de message : 61

Créé : 2017-07-23 17:59:57

Dernière visite : 2024-08-21 13:11:22

Interpreting white Action icons with a Mastery icon on their left side

Posté 2019-06-15 09:00:50

#21

i have come across white action icons with Mastery icons to their left:

i see two different interpretations for those:

1) The action automatically provides/includes Mastery at the given level.

2) The action cannot be attempted unless at least that many levels of Mastery are provided by a character attempting the action.

Which interpretation is correct?

Multiple Mastery effects: use highest one or add them together?

Posté 2019-06-13 19:17:02

#22

Thank you very much for the citation and translation :).

Multiple Mastery effects: use highest one or add them together?

Posté 2019-06-12 17:37:38

#23

The rules for Mastery don't address this: when using multiple Mastery effects in a single Action, are the Mastery levels added together or is only the highest one applied?

(FWIW, i assume only the highest is used.)

Logically adjacent vs physically adjacent Terrain: seeking pedantic definition of "adjacent"

Posté 2019-06-10 22:59:22

#24

i'm looking for the pedantic definition of "adjacent" as it regards to Terrain cards. Specifically, i'm using weather effects for the first time, and they rely, in part, in that definition. The definition is normally clear, but there are cases where we need to distinguish between "physical adjacency" and "logical adjacency":

In that photo, the top and bottom cards are logically adjacent but not physically. This is important not just for weather effects, but also for purposes of removing the Paranoid state. It's also not clear whether the distance between those two cards is 1 or 2 (i don't think that actually matters for any case i can think of, but the answer would still be interesting to know).

Opinions are welcomed, but citations for an official ruling are better :).

Interpreting "Each involved character takes X & {-Y durability pips}"

Posté 2019-01-11 14:09:24

#25

Arnaud a écrit :

Translated!

Thank you very much!

Interpreting "Each involved character takes X & {-Y durability pips}"

Posté 2019-01-10 16:48:28

#26

Firebird a écrit :

A french player asked the same question recently and the author answer him : here

Is there any chance a French speaker could translate that answer from Bruno for us here? i don't speak a word of French and don't trust automated translation tools.

Interpreting "Each involved character takes X & {-Y durability pips}"

Posté 2017-09-25 13:43:39

#27

Ping... is there an official statement on which of the interpretations listed in the first post is the valid one for the case of "... and {-X pips}"? The interpretation which seems most appropriate (#3) contradicts the rulebook (page 17).

[RESOLVED with the status "silly question"] Using abilities of "one or more" Items in an Inventory stack

Posté 2017-09-08 14:40:10 - Edité 2017-09-08 15:01:08

#28

EDIT: resolved: the word "enables" in the quoted rule clarifies usage of items as being optional.

Page 21 says:

Using an item enables the player to freely choose to apply some or all of the effects of one or more Item cards it consists of.

Should that really be "any number" (i.e. "zero or more"), or is a player required to use an ability from at least one card in an activated Inventory item? The word "some" may be interpreted as both "one or more" (common usage) or "zero or more" (dictionary definition of "unspecified number").

This question came up over on BGG:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/26861533#26861533

Fully Leveled Up Exploit [Lovecraft]

Posté 2017-09-08 09:26:11 - Edité 2017-09-08 09:26:33

#29

BrunoS a écrit :

I guess we'll have to replace a "will" keyword on card "Wild imagination"...

Since the discard holder is optional (the setup rules say to use it "if you have it"), might it not make sense to simply deprecate the use of its effects, rather than modifying cards (reducing the number of Will cards we have to use with keyword-specific effects)?

FWIW, i don't use the discard holder's effects because Praying has punished me far too often and never rewarded me, so i see no benefit in its use other than for an exploit like the one described in this thread.

A0857 (#360) just kicked me in the testicles

Posté 2017-09-05 22:10:57 - Edité 2017-09-05 22:21:54

#30

Kornetmuse a écrit :

I think this is a "language issue". I mean in french the trap is perfect, they don't mention "arid" because deserted and desert are the same word in french. So the trap is harder to set in english i guess.

So, yes, the hint text is downright wrong in English.

Seagulls don't live in arid places.

This is a bug. If indeed the place with seagulls is the "correct"/intended place for the seed then the seed's English hint text is a downright lie.

Kornetmuse a écrit :

Now you've learned and you won't do it again.

The lesson this teaches the player is that time-intensive side quests lead only to doom and destruction, making them completely unattractive.

A0857 (#360) just kicked me in the testicles

Posté 2017-09-05 21:41:32

#31

i consider the current hint text on this seed to be a bug. Seagulls do not live in

arid

places, but a

desert

is an

arid

place.

A0857 (#360) just kicked me in the testicles

Posté 2017-09-05 20:03:48

#32

Firebird a écrit :

One of the places has
a necropolis (with dead people inside)
and is a cross-junction between several path.
The other place is
a dead end with no building
. Just some seagulls.
Knowing that, the seconde place match better.

i disagree. First, the dictionary definition of

"deserted"

counts only people, and

corpses

are not "people". Secondly, if there are seagulls then that location cannot be

arid

(because seagulls live only near large bodies of water), and the hint specifically says

someplace "arid"

Firebird a écrit :

You should be amused by this subtle trap. I was (because I also make the mistake) !

i spent two full hours working towards that specific spot only to use that item, and when i got there it told me that the hint was, in effect, lying to me. i am not the slighted bit amused.

A0857 (#360) just kicked me in the testicles

Posté 2017-09-05 18:32:46

#33

Kornetmuse a écrit :

It's not because there is a match (as perfect as it seems to be) that this is the only/good/better solution...

The solution revealed on BGG by other players is in no way a better match for the given flavor/hint text.

The given text is not merely a "good" match, it's a perfect, 100% unambiguous match. That's what pisses me off about this.

A0857 (#360) just kicked me in the testicles

Posté 2017-09-03 22:35:09 - Edité 2017-09-03 22:35:54

#34

Unisus a écrit :

Maybe
the necropolis makes it less deserted than desired - the outcome seems to prove this
.

Ignoring the

"desert"/"deserted"

pun

(DESERTed)

altogether (though it's yet another reason which this location is a better possible match for the given hint text than any other place can possibly be), the dictionary definition of

"deserted"

"(of a place) empty of people"

, which is a classic hallmark of a

necropolis

.

If the result of the card makes it

less deserted

, the player should not get kicked in the balls for not knowing that in advance - the hint is followed based on what the player knows in advance, and the given hint is a 100% perfect, unambiguous match (and the pun seems to be there to make it a 150% match).

If this were a case where a player needs to expend only 5 or 10 minutes of effort before getting kicked in the balls, i wouldn't be all that upset about it, but it's a case of the hint text telling the player unambiguously where to go and what to do, and then, after the player spends 2 hours getting there and doing it, the game kicks the player in the balls and laughs at him. That's downright evil, and not in a "ha, ha, we got you!" kind of way. It undermines the player's trust in all future hints provided by the game. Every single hint, from this point on, will be viewed as unreliable.

Search results reveal spoilers!

Posté 2017-09-03 00:27:07 - Edité 2017-09-03 18:30:33

#35

i just discovered that the forum post snippets shown by this site's search engine apparently reveal text hidden in spoiler tags.

e.g., searching for A0857 reveals a post i just made, and the snippet shown in the search engine reveals text which i carefully spoiler-protected in that post.

A0857 (#360) just kicked me in the testicles

Posté 2017-09-03 00:17:21 - Edité 2017-09-03 01:02:47

#36

For the first time ever, i feel that 7C has maliciously lied to me, kicked me in the testicles, and laughed at me.

Full details are in this BGG thread:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1841684/

And i'll summarize here:

card A0857 (#360), otherwise known as the

Mysterious Seed

, tells the user to

plant the seed someplace "truly arid and deserted" which has a symbol matching the one on card 360

.

Card #

281

is a 100% perfect, unambiguous match for those instructions, so i

planted the seed there

, but that results (after "waiting" via saving and loading the game) in a card which tells me that i

planted the seed in the wrong place, and then places a horrible monster which blocks off my access to that section of the map

.

Two users on BGG suggest that there is another location (near where i started my session this evening) which is also a match, but it cannot possibly be a better match for

"arid and deserted" than a necropolis in the desert

. Grrrrrr!!!

Interpreting "Each involved character takes X & {-Y durability pips}"

Posté 2017-09-01 14:22:12

#37

Firebird a écrit :

My point of view is a weak argument, but if your example is about a climb action , I think the best interpretation is :
3) "Each involved character takes a {XXX} card and each involved character takes {-2 pips} (applied only to their own Inventory)."
Because each character who has failed climbing should suffer the consequences of the fall.

My instinct is to interpret it the same way you do, but that interpretation conflicts with the rulebook's description (page 17), which says that "pip damage" is applied across the affected players, distributed as the players like. The example given on page 17 also conflicts with this interpretation, but that example only includes pip damage, and not the phrase "each player takes ... AND {pip damage}".

Interpreting "Each involved character takes X & {-Y durability pips}"

Posté 2017-09-01 02:54:12

#38

BrunoS a écrit :

Hi,
"&" and "and" have the same meaning here.

"&" is mostly used when it applies to different effects such as "takes a {XXX} card & {-2 durability pips}" where "and" usually applies for the same effet "take card XXX and card YYY".

Great, thank you :).

Which of the multiple interpretations of "each character takes XXX &/and -Y pips" listed in the top post is correct?

Is it legal to choose to fail even when free benefits would cover the cost of success?

Posté 2017-08-31 13:00:53

#39

Firebird a écrit :

Ping statistics for BrunoS : Packets : Sent = a lot, Receive = a few, Lost = none but KS2 in approch !

Great answer :).

Is it legal to choose to fail even when free benefits would cover the cost of success?

Posté 2017-08-30 14:33:15

#40

Ping. A reminder to Firebird to please ask Bruno whether effects provided by cards which say "The following effect applies as long as you have this in hand" are voluntary or mandatory.

There's an FAQ entry for this thread's main question now, but it doesn't address that specific corner case.

Profil de sgbeal

Dernières discussions