Profil de SethA

Yeah, I have no trouble house ruling something like this. I do feel the card could have said on its own text something to the effect of "while blocked, consider weight is zero."

I don't know what "RP" is, though? Should I be familiar with that abbreviation or is that from the French?

In fact the , so the original card can only be discarded. I see nothing to indicate this could be banished.

The card he is asking about is 136.

This card is the . The problem with the "block" is that blocked cards still require you to carry the weight and count against your maximum, but the text specifically says which means you are not carrying it anymore. This doesn't really make a lot of sense. Weight is a bit of a premium, and this is an unnecessary handicap.

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

This is more of a FYI than a question. Something in the KS update today made me realize I'm not doing the "try your luck" thing entirely correctly. I've been treating them as a simple randomizer because four of the cards say "return this," so it has been a bit of an automatic pick a card, look at the title and return the card mechanic for me, with one obvious exception, and one not so obvious exception. This shouldn't be a spoiler for anyone who's played for a scenario or two, but marking it anyway, the exception being What I didn't notice is that the other , does NOT say "return this" which would lead you to the default result of discarding it instead of returning it. Also the other card in the first spoiler is discarded as well.

Goes to show, sometimes after playing a while you get in a groove with applying what you think are the proper mechanics, and you forget to read the fine print and get it wrong.

Schleima, also pay attention to compound actions that are single rows. It's easy to miss that they are compound. Most of the compound ones are easy to spot because they have many rows where you complete one, then move the die down to the next. There are a couple of sneaky cards where it's a single row and you think it is a simple action but it's not. The black background can be easy to overlook.

There is some additional detail regarding sleeves in Update #4. They have revised the number for sleeving all blue action cards to 250 if you buy one of the optional season 2 expansions.

The qualification you are asking about is for the . In other words the logic works like this:

Sounds like you did find it. There are quest specific cards for this area. I don't recall the exact actions that give you the different objective cards but I thought just and then

The Introduction does provide a pretty direct clue to this question. I admit I also missed it and fumbled around in the wrong direction before finding the hint. It says which you can look for on the world map. Specifically There is a slightly shorter route

Shouldn't be an error there. You get to conclusion C .

I'm wondering if I've been playing "wrong" this whole time. There are situations where consequence white/black block tells you to take a card or read a bit of text from the book. This is 4-a, so at that point you haven't finished the entire consequence phase, and are technically still in the current action resolution. This means you may not have rolled a die to see if armor or weapon broke, this means that you may still have an expanded action hand because you haven't finished which would trigger needing to discard back down to your hand limit, this means you haven't actually discarded your revealed action cards either, among some other things.

So now you take the card or read the booklet, and then you see a mandatory action. So the simple question is, is this new action nested inside the previous 4-a, or are you supposed to conclude 4-b of the previous action, then move to the next mandatory action? I think it is the [edit] latter, but I can't see where this is stated in the rule book. Reading in a literal sense, it almost leads you to believe you do everything on the new card, then come back to 4-b of the first. But that runs afoul of the other rule that says you can't take an action if you are in the middle of an action. Using a more specific example, if the card drawn as a consequence is a temporary event card, the rules state you must immediately resolve it. So the question then becomes, can you keep your expanded action hand, not roll for breaking a weapon, and also choose to pick out of discards from the first action since it has not concluded to 4-b yet? Then once you do the action on the temporary event card, now you come back and finish 4-b? The exact sequence has lots of impacts, such as if you are using focus on the second action, the revealed cards from the first haven't been discarded, so they aren't available to be selected by focus.

I'd never even thought about this until a specific situation caused me to dig deeper.

You've got a strong point here. I see nothing that states you can't keep doing it over and over. The card has multiple actions, which are intended to be setup that you can do all of them if you want. I really hope they don't change it to where you discard after one action because that would not be cool.

As it is, it still has limits to how useful. Once you build your three card hand, no incentive to keep using it. If you are pulling from your action deck, that has a hidden cost of shrinking your action deck. It also probably forces discards. I can't see anyone doing the repeat action more than once or twice.

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

Or you can rewrite the Ambush effect description. It currently says "Skip the first gear-up step." This could be changed to "Skip the first gear-up step, excepting if a condition allows Ambush to be ignored."

Personally, I thought this was sort of obvious and doesn't need the fine print, but I can see how I skipped past the wooden literal interpretation to what I thought was intended by the rules.

This card has a "go see" action to draw a 447 card. I believe this should have a diamond symbol on it, since 447 can be banished and not be available.

Edit: NM, I figured it out. If a mod want's to remove this comment, that would be great.

Ugh, 303 and 304 must have stuck together when we were sleeving. One side said 303, the other was terrain. Checked it many times, but had to take it out of the sleeve to discover the problem. Thanks!

That's fine, and I don't really care. It hasn't spoiled my enjoyment of the game. I report something, if they accept it fine, if they never fix it, that's their prerogative too. I think there is a very high chance of a reprint/expansion-reprint like before, so I was simply passing it along for whatever edits they might do with the reprint.

The interesting linguistic aspect is if the translator had gone with the literal "good day" it would have been perfectly accurate, and while my French is rusty, I believe bonjour and bon jour have the same meaning with or without the space, as bon = good and jour = day, while the same is not true in English. Well as an adverb means "good", but as an adjective, it has a different meaning and different usage, and we just use "good" as an adjective. Which is why I can agree English as a language kinda sucks--too many quirks like that. For example, "I did a good job" and "I did well" highlight this oddity.