Forums

Card 180 (A0599)

Forums/ The 7th Continent/ Errors on the game60 posts
64x64
Posted
#21
The first paragraph is definitely worded (and possibly placed) poorly. You can't shuffle a card back into a deck it never came from.


And yet, they tell you shuffle cards that aren't coming from the action deck "back into the Action Deck" all the time. Every food you eat shuffles cards from the discard pile back into the action deck, Unexpected Properties shuffles cards from your hand back into the action deck, etc. Those cards are only going "back" in the sense that they've most likely been in the action deck at least one time before during this game.

This isn't even always literally true --you can buy an Advanced Skill to your hand, shuffle it away with Unexpected Properties, and shuffle it "back" into the action deck for the first time. The game has no way of checking whether the card has been in the action deck or not. It does not track or remember which cards have been in the action deck.)

The discard pile "feels closer" to the action deck than the adventure deck does, and in that sense the word "back" is less confusing on the other cards it appears than 180. But mechanically, in terms of things the game actually knows about and tracks, there is no difference. "Back" is equally inaccurate on basically every card but Think.

The conclusion I draw from this is that the word "back" basically doesn't mean anything, anywhere it appears. If we try to act like it's an important piece of rules text that indicates the cards in question are coming from the Action deck, it's "wrong" on nearly every card it appears.
64x64
Posted
#22
By "the discard pile", i assume you mean the "action deck discard pile". It is intimately associated with the action deck, and nearly all cards in it came from the action deck, and thus in that context, "shuffled back" has a clear meaning - this is a card that came from the action deck and should be shuffled back into it. Even when you buy Advanced skills into your hand, you are adding them to the deck.

when you first draw card 180, you haven't seen the face, so you don'tknow ot is intended to be part of the action deck - it is merely an adventure card with rules text. In that context, "shuffle back into the action deck" is confusing.


That also doesn't address what happens when the card is drawn from the Action Deck - do you shuffle it back then?
If so, the paragraphs are necessarily out of order, as if you shuffle it back, the 2nd paragraph isn't in play.
If not, the first paragraph needs some significant changes.
64x64
Posted - Edited
#23
By the discard pile I mean the discard pile, since that's how cards refer to it. But yes, the one associated with the action deck, not The Past.

002 shuffles cards from the discard pile, which have probably but not necessarily been in the action deck at some undefined point in their history, "back" into the action deck. 180 shuffles itself, which has definitely not been in the action deck this game, "back" into the action deck. That is worse and more confusing, no question. And to be clear, I 100% agree that 180 should not say "back." I am more or less fine with it on other shuffle effects, but I don't think it does anything.

Lets look at what "shuffle them back into the action deck" means on 002.

On 002, does "back" mean the cards being shuffled are coming from the action deck?
No. They're coming from the discard pile, obviously.

On 002, does "back" mean the cards being shuffled were in the action deck most recently before the discard pile?
No. Often they've been in hands and inventories, and if it did mean this, there would be no way to track it.

On 002, does "back" mean the cards being shuffled have been in the action deck at least once this game?
No. It's rare, but entirely possible a card went from the advanced skill pile to a hand to the discard without having yet touched the action deck.

On 002, does "shuffle them back into the action deck" mean anything different from "shuffle them into the action deck"?
No. "Back" is just a filler word, perhaps a gentle reminder of how cards cycle through the action deck ecosystem, or a way of reinforcing the idea of food as a healing effect. It has no rules significance here.

Are there any cards where "back" actually matters to the rules meaning of the card, rather than just being a quirk in the way shuffle effects are templated?
Arguably 180, as seen in this thread. I know of no others.

Thus, my theory: "back" on 180 was just them using their standard shuffle template, without realizing that it would be confusing in this instance. I don't think we should read too much into it, that's all.
64x64
Posted
#24
abredon wrote:

And as for card 180, during discussion on BGG, it turned out that players were interpreting it three different ways, and each group was sure their interpretation was correct according to the rules.


This sentence is misleading. I just found the thread, and there are no "groups" which interpret the sentence in three different ways, there is one guy dissecting the rule and figuring out three feasible ways of interpreting it, while arguing that the second one (gives a star, goes back to the discard) is the most logical one. A vast majority agreed, and almost noone argued for the other two wonky interpretations.
64x64
Posted
#25
abredon wrote:

Nowhere in the rules, errata, or FAQ does it state that card text is not processed during the Results step of an action. since there is no rule against it, by default it is processed.


This, sir, is just your simple and plain assumption.

Rules say you line up the stars from cards you reveal during the result step of an action and then you can use cards from your hand, items, effects from permanent events and/or quest items to increase your successes.

Rules never say you can use the text on the skill cards you have revealed in this step. That text is meant to be used when you actually have that skill. When you draw cards as the cost to take an action, they’re only there for the success chance of the action. Then, if you choose to take one in your hand, that card becomes a skill card you can use accordingly to its text.

Don’t just assume what is unwritten. Rules are meant to say what you can do and what they don’t specifically say, you cannot do. Period.
64x64
Posted
#26
Tootzo wrote:
abredon wrote:

Nowhere in the rules, errata, or FAQ does it state that card text is not processed during the Results step of an action. since there is no rule against it, by default it is processed.


This, sir, is just your simple and plain assumption.

Rules say you line up the stars from cards you reveal during the result step of an action and then you can use cards from your hand, items, effects from permanent events and/or quest items to increase your successes.

Rules never say you can use the text on the skill cards you have revealed in this step. That text is meant to be used when you actually have that skill. When you draw cards as the cost to take an action, they’re only there for the success chance of the action. Then, if you choose to take one in your hand, that card becomes a skill card you can use accordingly to its text.

Don’t just assume what is unwritten. Rules are meant to say what you can do and what they don’t specifically say, you cannot do. Period.



Tootzo wrote:
abredon wrote:

Nowhere in the rules, errata, or FAQ does it state that card text is not processed during the Results step of an action. since there is no rule against it, by default it is processed.


This, sir, is just your simple and plain assumption.

Rules say you line up the stars from cards you reveal during the result step of an action and then you can use cards from your hand, items, effects from permanent events and/or quest items to increase your successes.

Rules never say you can use the text on the skill cards you have revealed in this step. That text is meant to be used when you actually have that skill. When you draw cards as the cost to take an action, they’re only there for the success chance of the action. Then, if you choose to take one in your hand, that card becomes a skill card you can use accordingly to its text.

Don’t just assume what is unwritten. Rules are meant to say what you can do and what they don’t specifically say, you cannot do. Period.



Great, so character abilities don't exist because nothing in the rules says that area of the card does anything.
And the conditionals on botany cards aren't applicable because the only thing the rules tell us to apply is the consequences of an action and the area within a brown modifier box.

That interpretation causes more problems than it solves!
64x64
Posted
#27
Your character card is a :icon_hand_orange: in your hand. Text on :icon_hand_orange: cards is active in your hand. I don't think the rules are ambiguous about that one.

Conditionals on Botany cards are an example of text on cards overriding (or in this case adding onto) the basic rules. The rules say you can apply :action_condition: abilities on matching :action_empty: actions, the Botany card has an ability that says you can only use this :action_condition: sometimes, and that takes priority. The conditional ability says you can't apply the brown box if you don't have the matching plant, and that takes priority over the rules saying you can. I don't think the rules are ambiguous about this either.
64x64
Posted
#28
brisingre wrote:
Your character card is a :icon_hand_orange: in your hand. Text on :icon_hand_orange: cards is active in your hand. I don't think the rules are ambiguous about that one.

Conditionals on Botany cards are an example of text on cards overriding (or in this case adding onto) the basic rules. The rules say you can apply :action_condition: abilities on matching :action_empty: actions, the Botany card has an ability that says you can only use this :action_condition: sometimes, and that takes priority. The conditional ability says you can't apply the brown box if you don't have the matching plant, and that takes priority over the rules saying you can. I don't think the rules are ambiguous about this either.



Rules citation please - where EXACTLY in the rules does it say that text not in an action is active at all?

I looked and could find nothing except "card text overrides the rules"
64x64
Posted
#29
Which should be enough
flag_curse_sm VG: icon_succes PoC: icon_succes IM: icon_succes
CS card_pick009: icon_succes, card_pick123: icon_succesicon_succes
VotE icon_succes SoM icon_succes
64x64
Posted
#30
JackSpirio wrote:
Which should be enough

Ok, let's analyze that:
you shuffle it back into the deck the moment it is revealed, and thus the 2nd paragraph is never in play

Bzzt! The card doesn't work right!

This interpretation also means that "forewarned is forearmed" and "valiant hearts shall not fail" can be discarded when they show up in the revealed cards for the extra stars (after all, they override the rules)

That interpretation means that all text on all cards is always active.
64x64
Posted
#31
No, it does not
flag_curse_sm VG: icon_succes PoC: icon_succes IM: icon_succes
CS card_pick009: icon_succes, card_pick123: icon_succesicon_succes
VotE icon_succes SoM icon_succes
64x64
Posted - Edited
#32
JackSpirio wrote:
No, it does not

"Card text overrides the rules" means that if there is any conflict between card text and rules, the card text applies.

Since all card text overrides all rules (according to the rules), all card text on all cards visible is active at all times, if you state that "card text overrides the rules" is sufficient to resolve this issue then:

Forewarned is forearmed states that you can discard it during the results step to get the following effect: :icon_succes:

Since the text of the card overrides the rules (which don't even state the text is not active), you can discard forewarned is forearmed if drawn during the results step for an extra star immediately.

Card 180 starts with:
when revealed, shuffle this back into the action deck.

Since that is the first text on the card, you immediately shuffle it into the deck, and the second paragraph does not apply.


So that interpretation results in the following cards not functioning as intended:
Forewarned is Forearmed
Valiant Hearts Shall Not Fail
Card 180

There is a problem with that interpreration. It cannot be correct as written.

again, i am asking for official clarification, not user opinions.

I listed possible interpretations and what they fail at, how, and why.
Every user that tried to provide their opinion falls into one of those interpretations, and that interpretation fails for the reason i stated in my first post.
64x64
Posted - Edited
#33
abredon wrote:
brisingre wrote:
Your character card is a :icon_hand_orange: in your hand. Text on :icon_hand_orange: cards is active in your hand. I don't think the rules are ambiguous about that one.

Conditionals on Botany cards are an example of text on cards overriding (or in this case adding onto) the basic rules. The rules say you can apply :action_condition: abilities on matching :action_empty: actions, the Botany card has an ability that says you can only use this :action_condition: sometimes, and that takes priority. The conditional ability says you can't apply the brown box if you don't have the matching plant, and that takes priority over the rules saying you can. I don't think the rules are ambiguous about this either.



Rules citation please - where EXACTLY in the rules does it say that text not in an action is active at all?

I looked and could find nothing except "card text overrides the rules"


Rules citations on :icon_hand_orange: being "active" in your hand:
-Page 10 (You can take actions on :icon_hand_orange: in hand, explicitly, implicitly you can't take them on :icon_hand_orange: in any other zone)
-Pages 5 and 16 (What a state does/how to get rid of it is explained on the card)

Rules citations on effects other than actions existing:
-Pages 4, 5, 6, and 7 where they label virtually every rules text zone on every card type "effects and/or available actions"
-Pages 14, 15, and 16, which elaborate on a wide variety of processes for taking and resolving cards, most of which involve resolving text on those cards that is not a part of any specific action. For example, a :sandglass: temporary event explicitly tells you to resolve it's text -- that text isn't usually wrapped in an action box, it isn't necessarily taken during an action, it is resolved when you draw the :sandglass: temporary event because these rules tell you to do so.

Rules citations on cards being "live" when drawn from the adventure deck and not from the action deck, by default:
-Pages 14, 15, and 16 (Just about everything has some kind of "life" when drawn from the adventure deck)
-Page 12 (No mention of reading or resolving text is made when discussing drawing cards from the action deck, counting results, etc)

Rules we don't have that we really probably should:
-A rule formally stating that the backs of cards, before they have been "revealed" properly and have had their types established, can have rules text and not just flavor text. This is extremely obvious, but probably should be mentioned -- that text box is explicitly called flavor text in several places, which seems a little wrong.
-A rule formally stating that you can use non-action effects and abilities on any card where you could take an action. This seems likely, but is not well-defined at all. Non-action abilities have been given neither a default timing nor any default zone restrictions. Most (but not all) define timing, but zone restrictions are pretty rare, and both of these should be defined explicitly.

If you're looking for a rules citation specifically talking about text being "active" and "inactive" you won't find one. That's only exists as a formal system in the minds of people like you (and me) trying to make 7C make more sense as a formal rules system. There's no sign of any such notion in the rules system itself, not really. It's made pretty obvious that there are places where you can use cards (like your hand) and places where you can't (like the Banished pile) but the only place it's really spelled out for you in the rules is in the list of places you can take actions. Formally, there's no reason that would have to apply to non-action effects, which are different in many other ways. The closest you are likely to get is "card text overrides the rules" and numerous other rules suggesting that the cards do, in fact, do what they say they do, and that that ability does, in fact, extend to setting unusual timings.

This is essentially because 7C isn't set up as a formal system in that way. If you get down into it, there's thousands of technical ambiguities and missing details. There's a little bit of formal detail in the action structure, but that isn't what really drives the engine. "Do what the cards say" is the rule that drives the engine. In general, if you just take a step back and do that, the ambiguities will be more or less resolved. In this example, most of the other interpretations of 180, if we're honest with ourselves, only make sense to someone being deliberately obtuse. It is not really that ambiguous what 180 actually does, the only point of confusion that isn't based on a more formal understanding of the rules than the actual rules have is the unfortunate use of "shuffle back into the action deck" instead of "shuffle into the action deck" as the standard template for shuffle effects.
64x64
Posted - Edited
#34
brisingre wrote:
It is not really that ambiguous what 180 actually does, the only point of confusion that isn't based on a more formal understanding of the rules than the actual rules have is the unfortunate use of "shuffle back into the action deck" instead of "shuffle into the action deck" as the standard template for shuffle effects.

So what are you saying Card 180's effect is when drawn from the Action Deck?
1. Follow the paragraphs in order. Paragraph 2 has no effect as it is no longer visible. This doesn't make sense, although it is the result of applying "normal" card text interpretation and normal english grammar rules.
2. Ignore the first paragraph even though it says "when revealed". The card is not shuffled back into the action deck, but the 2nd paragraph takes effect.
3. Follow the paragraphs in any order, even though that runs counter to plain english reading rules. The second paragraph takes effect, then the card is shuffled back into the action deck.


Note that:
There are 2 interpretations that make sense as far as applying the 2nd paragraph, but:
One of them (#2) requires reinterpreting the "normal" interpretation of card text. The proper way to handle this is to add a clarification to the first paragraph.
The other (#3) requires reading the paragraphs out of order. The proper way to handle this is to swap the paragraphs.

So far, everyone has said "it is obvious", but NOBODY has provided the "obvious" interpretation along with their logical justification of WHY. it is STILL UNCLEAR how to interpret this card, as the 2 most likely intended interpretations require either:
A. Violating the standard method of applying card text.
Or
B. Violating standard English grammar and reading order.
64x64
Posted - Edited
#35
wow I will send you five american dollars if the creators of this game ever look at page two of this thread. we're on our own down here, there's nothing for it. would you prefer, alternatively, to send me your copy of 180 then I will send you an amended copy of my own design which will be air-fucking-tight, you'll know what to do with it when you see it, it's gonna be that clear. lots of love xoxo
64x64
Posted
#36
brisingre wrote:
1, on the other hand, is a reasonable confusion. I'd be amazed if it was the intent but it's a pretty reasonable reading of the card.
I'm glad you agree, because that's how I interpret the card :-)
I don't consider it an unreasonable interpretation, either, which may be because of my background of playing Collecting Card Games. These games tend to have much better templating than 7th Continent cards of course, because they're used in tournaments where you can win real cash.
E.g. in the 'Call of Cthulhu' LCG, there's a whole range of cards of the 'Relic' type that will get shuffled back into your deck whenever they would be discarded.

Theoretically, it doesn't really matter how players interpret cards in 7th Continent since 'nobody gets hurt' if they get it wrong. It only turn into a problem when you try to discuss the game with others and compare your experience.

But I do wonder, why there's apparently such a strong sentiment against an official clarification of an ambiguous card text. Especially, since it would be so easy to do and everyone would benefit.
64x64
Posted
#37
jhaelen wrote:

But I do wonder, why there's apparently such a strong sentiment against an official clarification of an ambiguous card text. Especially, since it would be so easy to do and everyone would benefit.


Because it really isn't necessary, the card is pretty self-explanatory
1. you take it from the Adventure deck if you spot the 180 number on the terrain card
2. you flip it and add it to the action deck
3. when you draw it from the Action Deck as part of the cost to do an action and reveal it in the Result step, you can add 1 star to the result or you can banish this card and immediately succeed that action.

It's that simple.
I really can't understand why people is so stuck on this card to write loads and loads of mental ruminations about timing, active text and rules so detailed an complex that even a game like Magic The Gathering doesn't have them :ermm:
64x64
Posted - Edited
#38
Tootzo wrote:
jhaelen wrote:

But I do wonder, why there's apparently such a strong sentiment against an official clarification of an ambiguous card text. Especially, since it would be so easy to do and everyone would benefit.


Because it really isn't necessary, the card is pretty self-explanatory
1. you take it from the Adventure deck if you spot the 180 number on the terrain card
2. you flip it and add it to the action deck
3. when you draw it from the Action Deck as part of the cost to do an action and reveal it in the Result step, you can add 1 star to the result or you can banish this card and immediately succeed that action.

It's that simple.
I really can't understand why people is so stuck on this card to write loads and loads of mental ruminations about timing, active text and rules so detailed an complex that even a game like Magic The Gathering doesn't have them :ermm:



And yet, there is a player who says they interpret it differently, partly based on playing Call of Cthulhu LCG, where there are similar cards.
Your opinion that it is obvious does not yield an official ruling, and the 2 logical ways of reading game rules both break on this card.

this is why I have proposed a rules fix - because without a rules fix then either:
1. (permissive interpretation of rules - ALL card rules text is active unless SPECIFICALLY forbidden in the rules) Card 180 gets shuffled into the Action deck EVERY time it shows up, and the 2nd paragraph NEVER has an effect. Players can also move their figures without taking an action (as the rules do not forbid it). Obviously breaks the game
2. (restrictive interpretation of rules - NO card rules text is active unless SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the rules) Card 180 never gets shuffled into the Action deck, as card text on Adventure card backs is not specified as being active Many other cards also don't work (some Satchel cards, Character skills, many adventure cards)

PLEASE NOTE: NEITHER of these interpretations has Card 180 providing any star or success. but they are the ONLY ones allowed by a literal and logical reading of the rules.

SINCE
The rules obviously don't work without certain card text being active all the time, certain other card text not being active when revealed during the Results step, and certain other card text being active when revealed during the Results step
AND
The rules don't state anything either way about card text at all
THEN
The rules need a change to clarify when particular types of card text is active.

This is why I propose the following fix. If you agree with the end result of this fix I see no reason to argue that it is not necessary, as there is definitely [I]at least one player[/i] who has disagreed with that interpretation. and when players disagree about the interpretation of a rule, and neither side can provide a rules reference or logical reason why it is that way (or the rules lead to another interpretation entirely), there needs to be a rules fix or official clarification.

Proposed fix for this card and the Flying Roots:
The rules should have the following 2 paragraphs:
All card rules text is applicable when a card is in a play area or taken from the Adventure deck.
During the Result Step of an action, only card rules text starting with "when revealed during the Result step...", continuing to the end of the card, is active.
End of proposed fix

Please note that while I have been providing logical arguments as to why a rules fix is needed, no other response has included a logical refutation - every other response has been opinion ("it isn't needed", "It's obvious", "it states on the card what it does" - which I refuted several times, including in my original post).

The rules are broken and Card 180 provides evidence of it - any rigorous application of the rules to Card 180 leads to it not doing what was intended.
64x64
Posted
#39
Just because one person doesn’t understand the way the card is played, doesn’t mean it isn’t clear.
There are tons of players who don’t understand rules, but that isn’t always the rules fault.
flag_curse_sm VG: icon_succes PoC: icon_succes IM: icon_succes
CS card_pick009: icon_succes, card_pick123: icon_succesicon_succes
VotE icon_succes SoM icon_succes
64x64
Posted
#40
JackSpirio wrote:
Just because one person doesn’t understand the way the card is played, doesn’t mean it isn’t clear.
There are tons of players who don’t understand rules, but that isn’t always the rules fault.



we know what the designer's intent is, but that is not what the card does according to the rules.

According to a standard interpretation of the rules, either all the text on cards is supposed to be applicable when drawn during the Results step (Permissive), or none of it is (Restrictive), due to the fact that the rules don't specify when rules text on cards is active.

If we apply Permissive (which seems to be required due to other cards with rules text), we must shuffle this card back into the deck (as there is nothing stating not to do so) and the 2nd paragraph is no longer in effect. NOT what the designers intended. Also, this type of interpretation allows anything else to be done that is not specifically forbidden by the rules (which is why most games are written with Restrictive rules - too many loopholes of "but the rules don't say I can't do that")

If we apply Restrictive (which is the way most games are written), we cannot read any text on the card, even if it refers to the Results step, as there is nothing stating to do so. As a result, the card is discarded with no effect. NOT what the designers intended.
This interpretation also forbids us from interpreting text outside of an action or action modifier (again, there is nothing telling us to do so, and if I recall correctly, the designers have already acknowledged that the card text on the back of Adventure cards is a problem for this very reason)

The only way to NOT process the first paragraph but still process the 2nd is for a rule to state so.
It is vastly preferable to have rules that allow a Restrictive interpretation.

That is what my 2 proposed paragraphs do. They solve several problems that have occurred, including some that have been acknowledged to be a problem. they do it cleanly, and they don't rely on obscure methods of applying rules.

Please do not respond, as you don't seem to be able to construct a logical argument. (which proceeds from a premise - in my case, that the rules are intended to be read in one of the 2 standard ways, and proceeds to a conclusion via logical inferences).
If you disagree with my premise and think that the rules are not meant to be read in one of the 2 standard ways, then the rules have the problem that any player who tries to apply normal rulebook interpretations will inevitably fail, and the rules then need to be fixed.
if you disagree with one of my inferences, you need to either state your own inferences, or point out the specific point where my inference is wrong.
The logic I used is simple, so if it is faulty, it would be simple to quote my text and point out the fault.

Since you have not even tried to do so, it seems you have no logical ground to stand upon, and are merely trolling.
Forums/ The 7th Continent/ Errors on the game60 posts
Log in & Answer