Forums

Just because you post the same thing over and over (with way too many lines) it doesn’t make it true.
Who gave you the right to universally define how games have to work?
Your logical fault is to think that things have to behave in only these two ways, which is completely wrong.
There is nothing that prevents a card from having only part active (the one that tells you that it is active).

If anybody in this thread is trolling it's you, dude.

The correct interpretation of the rulebook is what you are calling "Restrictive". This is quite clear.

"When this gets revealed during the Result step of an action" is an exception to the restrictive timing rules.

You believe that that this is an impossible contradiction, because the restrictive timing (from the rulebook) takes priority over the exception (on the card) and thus the exception isn't read or processed, and does not work.

The rulebook makes it extremely clear that text on cards takes priority over rules from the rulebook. The exception works fine.

A couple pages back, you decided that very important rule was too big and abstract to fit into this rules framework you've made up, and you've just been ignoring it ever since.

Given that you've decided to pretend 7C's most important rule doesn't exist, it's not surprising you're confused -- but after a month of people patiently trying to explain these basic concepts to you, all you can do is repeat your misunderstandings, longer and angrier. We are not making progress here. Perhaps The 7th Continent is simply beyond your comprehension.

Ok, if the rules are Restrictive then nothing is allowed except what is specifically mentioned in the rules. And the rule about "card text overriding rules" only applies when the card text is to be considered according to other rules (as otherwise you are right back to Permissive as far as card text, and as nothing in the rules specifies most card text to be rules text it is instead flavor text.)

This means:
1. character card skills don't work.
2. No rules text on the green side of action cards work.
3. Botany cards only work if they provide an action (actions are specifically allowed), but the restriction on when you can take the action does not apply.
4. Flying Roots don't work.
And many, many more.

Unless you are willing to provide specific rule references where the things above are mentioned (other than "card text overrides rules"), the above are true in a strict Restrictive reading of the rules)

No such specific rules references? I rest my case. nobody other than me has even tried to provide such references.

I have been willing to provide my logic. You and JackSpirio have merely stated opinions ungrounded in fact. Every time I demonstrate where you go wrong you merely write another opinion also ungrounded in fact.

I started on the BGG page that triggered this thread with the same interpretation as you. However when i actually read the rules, errata, FAQ, and designer clarifications and applied simple logic, I realized my interpretation was based on faulty premises. Then I post here and am attacked by other users who don't do the same research and can't be bothered to write a logical explanation.

I just realized that there is a 3rd possible variant interpretation of the rules. If one assumes that the "effect area" defined in the rulebook indicates where card rules text is to be in effect, even though the rulebook does not actually state this:
For non-item skill cards, the right side of the card is the "effect area", so the ability of "forewarned is forearmed" is always active when revealed, even in the Results step.
Character cards are State cards, so the bottom half of the card with is the "effect area", so character abilities are flavor text (note that this is guaranteed to be against designer intent, as Bruno has clarified that an interpretation of Anjika's ability was not his intent)
Adventure card backs have no "effect area", just flavor text, so Card 180 is just discarded when first drawn from the adventure deck. There are other Adventure cards with the same problem.

That interpretation also has too many problems, as you can see just from the Character card or Adventure card back example.

So:
1. Restrictive without effect area: only action results and action modifiers are the areas where rules text can appear. Game completely broken.
2. Restrictive with effect area: no rules on adventure backs or character abilities, and more. Game broken (there are banner effects on adventure card backs that need to be applied in order to complete certain curses)
3. Permissive: all text that looks like rules always active - most of the game works, but some cards work at times that are not intuitive(forewarned drawn during the results step). The only card that explicitly doesn't work is Card 180, which gets shuffled back into the Action deck before the 2nd paragraph can be used. However, this interpretation opens a pandora's box of non-forbidden things to do.
4. Restrictive with my list of 2 paragraphs of when card rules text should be considered at all: game works in the way most players consider to be the designer's intent.

It is fairly obvious that the designers tried to indicate what areas card rules text could appear but:
1. They missed several important areas (or added rules text to areas not originally meant to have rules text)
2. They didn't address whether there were some times during the game where text on certain cards should not be considered. (Results step, consequence step of think, ...)
3. They then added cards that were supposed to have an effect in one of those times.
4. On one of those cards they put both text that is not supposed to be active and text that is supposed to be active leading to that card not functioning properly without a special interpretation of the rules.

Basically it looks like the rules started out covering where card rules could appear, but then the editing didn't keep up with the game as it was developed. So now there is no real clarity on when text should be applied, only a rough consensus, that works for most cards, but has to be adjusted every time we encounter an odd card like the Flying Roots or Card 180. It is especially bad for Card 180, as so few people have seen the card that there has been too little discussion of how it affects the interpretation of the rules.

And while rough consensus may work most of the time within the same group, we see from the different opinions of how to interpret Card 180 that whenever you play with a different group there can be different consensus opinions.

These differing consensus opinions are what I am trying to resolve by working my way through how multiple cards would work under different rules interpretations, to find one interpretation that clearly states what we believe the designer's intent to be.

AND, based on Bruno's response to the different interpretations of Anjika Patel's ability, the designers would want a clear rules text that everyone would interpret the same way.

THUS my proposal of 2 simple rules that codify our understanding.
If the designers intent is different from our understanding, they can clarify their intent and we can adjust our play based on such clarification.
If the designers intent is the same as our understanding, then the 2 rules make sure everyone understands that intent.

I don't see why you are opposed to this suggestion.

Just because another game has similar wording or mechanics doesn’t mean this one works in the same way.

Most of the doubts come from personal assumptions we developed through experience by playing several games and I understand those assumptions sometimes kick in so unconsciously that it’s hard to step away from them or even recognize we’re taking something for granted Just from our past experiences and not necessarily because this is how things work everywhere.

If you can step back from these assumptions and manage to just read the cards and rulebook text, applying just plain and simple logic would be enough to figure everything out with no confusion whatsoever.

I do not actually object to the idea of clarifying the wording of 180. Somebody has questions about it every couple weeks, so, it could obviously benefit from clarification. On some level I agree about the rules, too -- I'd probably have made them more technical and formal about stuff like this, if it had been my job -- but that does not mean they're broken or incomplete.

180 works fine under the rules as written, it is neither ambiguous nor complicated, and the fact that it doesn't work under this more technical, more formal set of rules that you've made up based on -- essentially -- nothing from the rulebook is a problem with your understanding, not a problem with 180 or the 7C rules. If "cards override the rules" is too informal to include in your understanding, you have to figure out a version of it that you can work with. You can't just ignore it because the implications are too complicated and then say every card that used that rule needs errata because you think "cards override the rules" actually just can't be a rule.

It really sounds like you aren't even reading anybody else's posts. You keep saying nobody's explaining their logic. We have, in detail, for pages and pages. You say nobody's provided specific rules citations. I have provided many, and the most important citation, that cards override the rules, has been provided probably a dozen times by many people. That is how this works, and why it works the way it does. That rules citation is correct. Whether or not it is satisfying to you, it is the right answer.

The only person in this thread spouting baseless opinions without any rules citations is you.

Brisingre:
My rules reference for this response is card 180's text as plainly read, beginning to end.

here is the result under a 'Cards override the rule' interpretation:


Nope - doesn't work - the 2nd paragraph cannot be read.

Remember - nothing on the card prevents the first paragraph from being applied in all cases.
If you apply a ruling that you don't follow card text during the results step (based on a very vague implication in the rules), that ruling has to also apply to the 2nd paragraph and the card doesn't work. (card text cannot override rules disabling it, as that very card text is disabled.)

so, in conclusion, [I]the rules are, in fact, broken or incomplete[/i] as there is no way to properly execute Card 180 without breaking the rules.

The fact that we can deduce what card 180 is [I]intended[/i] to do, does not make that effect actually valid under the rules as written.
The fact that the rules when read as written are ambiguous about how they are to be interpreted, and every method of interpretation violates the designer's intent if followed in all circumstances indicates that the rules [I]need an errata[/i].

Rules should not be ambiguous and there should [I]always[/i] be an interpretation that makes sense when followed in all circumstances.
when both of the above happens, there is no way for a player encountering a new type of card to know how to interpret it.
When there is no way to know how to interpret a card, you need an errata for that card, or an errata for the rules to cover the case that card presents.

Exactly!
Common sense does. It’s clear how the card is intended to work. Becoming over obsessed on how the rules should be worded to be clear when you just need to use common sense just means we’re trying to break the game on purpose to demonstrate it can be broken.

People don’t need this when the card is intuitively clear.
People needs this only if they insist on requiring heavier rules to avoid people purposely interpreting card text and rules in a counterintuitive way just because a lighter ruling let them to.

Do you really need a rule that says you shouldn’t do something that makes a card or a mechanic in a game nonsensical or not working? Isn’t it obvious that any interpretation or usage of a rule/card/game element that screws things up in a way that makes them nonsensical is wrong?
Maybe you’re used to 40-pages long rulebooks and this game has a too loosely written yet really intuitive gameplay flow that your mind can’t come to terms with.

Only your own rules break the card.
Where in the rules does it state that all text must always apply?

Answer:
Point me to a rules reference that says "some text" or "sometimes applies" or anything with a similar meaning.

You can't.

Rules need to be applied consistently-if one piece of text on a card should apply, another piece of text on the same card should also apply - unless there is a rule that states in plain english which one does not apply. ('Effect Area' could do that - but adventure cards don't have an 'effect area', and on skill cards it is the entire right side of the card)

Without such a rule, 2 pieces of rules text on the same card will either both apply or neither will apply.
Anything else is strictly against the rules.

Now some games have specific rules allowing players to select which paragraphs the activate or in what order they activate said paragraphs, but this game does not, and there are many cards that you could exploit if either were the case.
For example: if you were able to choose not to activate the first 2 paragraphs of the flying roots cards or activate the 3rd paragraph first, you could avoid all the negative effects of the flying roots.

So: you must activate all card text in reading order, and Card 180 only shuffles itself back into the deck without giving a star or making the action a success.

Again, you make up your own rules and tell me that these are the rules.
They are not (see I can write bold too)
The card tells you what to do, this is what the rules tell you. Why do you have such a big problem with that?

Answer:
Point me to a rules reference that says "some text" or "sometimes applies" or anything with a similar meaning.

You can't.






Your reply is not to the point:
you have not pointed me to a rules reference that says that card text sometimes applies and sometimes is ignored.

Give me the straight text of the rule that says that.
Note: A rule that states "during the Results step" is text that applies at all times, not just during the results step.
Such text does exclude text that follows from being followed at other times, but does not exclude text before it from being followed during the results step.

Show me this rule
Answer you can’t.


Which text is normally applied during the Result step?
None
So why should a phrase which enables a sentence to apply at this point (like when drawn during the result step of an action) enable the whole card?
It enables everything which comes free it, but it does not include the text before it from being followed during the result step.

And yes, as card Text override rules, the rule it enable the Text, can be in the text itself.
There is nothing in the rules to prevent this.
It if there is show me this in the rules (of T7C, not of some other game)

Common sense is a pure substitute for (game) rules.

Using 'common sense' is the typical argument of players that don't want to follow a game's rules because they falsely believe they have a better idea how the game is supposed to work than the game's designer(s).

Anyway, I think I'm done here. I don't recall having met such an irrational resistance to attempts to clarify a set of game rules, ever.
Common sense tells me you are not amenable to reason. It's a sign of the times, I fear. #fakenews

The rules are clear, I can’t understand having such an irrational resistance to understanding the rules.

Well, it seems to me that by applying common sense most players played the card right - there is no need to make a rule book as thick as the holy bible just to make sure there is not the least possibility that a player could eventually play a card not the way it was intended.

But i guess as soon as official T7C championships are announced, the developers will provide everything needed to make sure that all players play by the same rules.

As absurd as this discussion is, I do wish Bruno or Firebird would just come and say something like "Of course it doesn't go back in the deck every time you use it".

Can someone ask on the French forum?

Hi all,

My apologies for the very long response time.

When it comes to this specific thread about card 180, the intent for this card is “Immediately after you take this card from the Adventure Deck and reveal it, shuffle it into the Action Deck. This card is now considered an Action card.

Each time you reveal it during the Result step of an action you are involved in, you can discard it to get 1 additional success or banish it to succeed automatically.”

Things might have been clearer written this way.

Bruno

Thanks a lot for providing an official response

Finally, an official answer, thanks!