Forums

This question is about card A0630 to be specific, card number 179 which is gold with gold flag. It has a mandatory action depicted which has a pre-text that says Now, events leading up to how this particular card is revealed is there is a terrain card that has a permanent event card (186) that has an optional action It is not a group action. But the result of this optional action is to take a [green] 179, which the conclusion of that card is to banish it and take a[nother] 179, which is the gold one I am referring to in this post.

In effect what is happening is that Now I get if multiple characters chose to be involved in the first action, that all of those should be required to do the mandatory subsequent action, but I don't understand if one person did it alone, why all should have to do the subsequent action. It makes no sense at all. What would make more sense is if the mandatory action said something like Else if #A0630 is deemed "correct" then 186 should state something similar as a pre-text to the action, like

Curious if this has been looked at yet? Usually it gets marked confirmed or no error.

Serious Poulp check all topics in this part of the forum, particularly before the reprint.
But they maybe forgot to update the title (I do if I'm sure, but not here) or gave you more information ?

I may be wrong, and I don't have the game with me right now to check, but from what you describe, there is no problem in my opinion. As you got the 179 as a consequence of an action, "all involved" means all characters which were involved in the action that led to this consequence. I don't see how others even could get involved.

Yes, I'm not saying it is necessarily an error, but it is an ambiguous situation where if you apply the rules as written it should be interpretted differently than it seems the intent of the game would indicate. The cards are missing the needed clarifying words like "previous" that would help, since cards override the rules where there is conflict between the two.

Any time an action concludes that leads to a new action, you are done with the former, and the new action begins. It's not nested within the previous results step. Therefore, if the new action is a mandatory action that has the red border designating that "all players on the terrain card must get involved in" (according to the rulebook), and if this sequence of cards intends otherwise, it should state so. In other words "all involved" is precisely the question. Rule book says that means "all on the terrain card" are involved, and this card does not say "all involved from the previous action."

There are several other similar situations where both common sense and literal rule interpretation would lead to applying to everyone on the terrain card. Here's one of those similar sequences:

And that's why I say the original issue I'm bringing up should have better clarity, or a note of clarification here, at least. Two very similar sequences, one, no one would question it applies to all on the terrain card, the other, probably a subset of those on the terrain card, yet both sequences just have the same wordings of "all involved" following a red bordered action.