Forums/ The 7th Continent/ Card effect24 posts
Posted
Could I get clarification on woven basket - a basic idea card. We've been discussing at BGG.

Specifically; If you have a full item stack, can you still add woven basket to effectively given you two more slots to the item?

This would be absolutely fine if the item was not full and allows the item stack limit to be broken then.

My own feeling is it is fine, thematically justifying you're just putting some of the components of the combined items into a the basket (lots of food, trinkets, rigging ropes for the raft etc) so it should be fine to add.

Arguments both ways on BGG

Thanks for your help

Solar
:flag_curse_sm: 1/7 :icon_curse: 1
Posted
My point of view (as a player like other ones) is the "Yes you can add the woven basket on a 4 cards item (solo mode example)."
Because I read the rule exactly as Jorgen Peddersen from BGG (his 2nd argument) :
"Jorgen Peddersen" wrote:
The rule for combining an Item is:
"Rules p20" wrote:
When an Item card is found or crafted, the player may
combine it with an existing item in their inventory
in order to form one single item, without exceeding the
allowed “stacking” limit...


This wording implies that if you could combine the Item without exceeding the stacking limit, then you are good. It doesn't say anything along the lines of already being at the stacking limit means you can't add a new Item. So what you need to ask is: "If I attach this item card, will I have exceeded the limit?"


I also like this interpretation because it makes sense at the roleplay level.

Anyway, I put a flag on this topic for the author.
:resource_fire: Firebird :resource_fire: (Phoenixeux sur TT)
[DV :icon_curse::icon_curse::icon_succes:] [OG :icon_curse::icon_curse::icon_curse:*:icon_succes:] [LG :icon_succes:] [CD+SI :icon_curse::icon_curse:] [SI :icon_curse:] [CD :icon_curse::icon_success-left: :icon_success-right:**] [SI+TS en cours]
*[Histoire-T7C :icon_succes_7:] **[Pénitence :icon_curse:+Funéraille:icon_success-left:]
Posted
I would intuitively rule it the other way, very interested in an official answer. Jorgen's reasoning is no really clear to me.

It could be seen as a timing question. Can the effect of the card take place before the stack item card count limit check happens? Or does the stack item card count limit prohibit adding any card when the limit is already reached, and the item card can not have any effect before that.

For reference:
The card text says "When this is in your inventory, the item it is part of may contain up to 3 additional item cards."
Crafting an item, rulebook page 20, says "The craft action available on certain Skill cards enables you to turn that Skill card from your hand into an Item card that goes into your inventory or another involved player’s inventory."
Definitions, rulebook page 23, says "Inventory: the play area in which a player places their Item cards." and "Item cards: cards in the inventory that were crafted or found along the adventure. They can be used to apply their effect(s)."
"Combining an item" on the same page says "When an Item card is found or crafted, the player may combine it with an existing item in their inventory in order to form one single item, without exceeding the allowed “stacking” limit, which depends on player count (as shown on the “Satchel & Journal” card)."
In "Card types" section on page 5 it says about item cards that "Item cards are placed in the players’ inventories and help them perform certain actions more easily or enable them to take new actions."

My interpretation of the above is 1) that an item card does not have any effect until it is [/part of] an item in the inventory and 2) the item card can not be added to the item [stack] if it is already full. Therefore in for example a solo player situation the woven basket could not normally (=unless some other possible stack-limits affecting rule is in play) be added to an item with already four item cards in the stack.

I might agree with roleplaying-wise view, but I don't think the role-playing is what matters in much of similar mechanisms in the game and rather fear that another interpretation might open up for a lot of possible future ruling problems.

Maybe a statement on the timing aspect of this could clear it up once and for all. :)
Posted
Well, adding the woven basket to an "already full" item is prohibited by this rule:

"When an Item card is found or crafted, the player may combine it with an existing item in their inventory in order to form one single item, without exceeding the allowed “stacking” limit..."

which implies that you cannot add the woven basket to this Item and therefore cannot benefit from its effect which applies once it is in your inventory...
Posted
I am happy to have an answer, and also that my intuition was right. Thanks!
Posted
When is the stacking limit exceeded, though? It can't be exceeded before you add the item, and as soon as you test if adding the item would exceed the limit, you would be comparing to the new limit. Thus, I'd actually taken the wording to accept adding the Woven Basket, as it seems to be specifically worded to test the limit only after you had tried adding the item.

I stand corrected as to the intent of the rule, though.
Posted
Clipper wrote:
When is the stacking limit exceeded, though? It can't be exceeded before you add the item, and as soon as you test if adding the item would exceed the limit, you would be comparing to the new limit.


That's not what the rules are saying. Read again, the wording is 100% clear:

"When an Item card is found or crafted, the player may combine it with an existing item in their inventory in order to form one single item, without exceeding the allowed “stacking” limit..."
Posted
My point is you are never exceeding it. As soon as you put it in the stack, it is not exceeding the limit, as the limit is now different, so there is no point in the process at which you are exceeding the limit.
Posted
Clipper wrote:
there is no point in the process at which you are exceeding the limit.


Nope, sorry, but you're wrong on that. I see what you mean but that logic doesn't work. There is no ambiguity there: If the stack is already full you're not allowed to add another item. You can't add the basket because it would exceed the limit. And of course, because you can't add it you don't get the bonus.
Posted - Edited
tomtom wrote:
Clipper wrote:
there is no point in the process at which you are exceeding the limit.


Nope, sorry, but you're wrong on that. I see what you mean but that logic doesn't work. There is no ambiguity there: If the stack is already full you're not allowed to add another item. You can't add the basket because it would exceed the limit. And of course, because you can't add it you don't get the bonus.

To clarify TomTom's point, the cards's text doesn't take effect until it is placed as an item, or joined to an existing item. Ÿøû can't place it on an existing item that is maxed out because of the rules. The card does override the rules, but only after it has been crafted AND attached to an existing item, or placed as a new item. The check for item limit happens before the card is added to the item, and the effect does not take effect until after the item is added.

Regardless, if ÿøû think it's a bullshit ruling, ÿøû should totally do what ÿøû want. I totally understand it doesn't make sense thematically.
Posted
I have no problem with the ruling. It's the designer's intent and I'm fine following that.

My argument is just that the wording of the rules does not match the ruling, even though the ruling was made with regard to that wording.

There is only one moment I can potentially see that you could consider the item card to be both attached and also exceeding the limit at the same time. That would be a theoretical time after you have attached the item card but before its effect is activated. How long is this time? It appears to be immeasurable; thus infinitesimally small!

I wasn't considering this time to exist as it has essentially zero length. I don't believe that to be a poor assumption. If that time does not exist, then the rules allow the basket to be added.

Thus, the wording of the rules is ambiguous, which is my only point here.
Posted
Clipper wrote:
I have no problem with the ruling. It's the designer's intent and I'm fine following that.

My argument is just that the wording of the rules does not match the ruling, even though the ruling was made with regard to that wording.

There is only one moment I can potentially see that you could consider the item card to be both attached and also exceeding the limit at the same time. That would be a theoretical time after you have attached the item card but before its effect is activated. How long is this time? It appears to be immeasurable; thus infinitesimally small!

I wasn't considering this time to exist as it has essentially zero length. I don't believe that to be a poor assumption. If that time does not exist, then the rules allow the basket to be added.

Thus, the wording of the rules is ambiguous, which is my only point here.

Not to extend the discussion past a point of usefulness, but I think ÿøû would like to know the logic that makes this ruling unambiguous.

The check for "without exceeding stacking limit (sic)" happens before attaching the card. If this game had a more procedural method, like Netrunner, or Magic the Gathering, ÿøû might see the rules explained differently;

1. Once item is received/crafted, choose to keep it or give it to another person
2. Owner of item decides to create new stack or combine with existing stack.
2a. New stack? Kay ya done.
2b. Combine? Will the act of adding another item exceed the limit? No can do buddy. But if ÿøû aren't at the limit yet, throw another thing on this contraption!
3. Now the item is in the inventory! All the text on the card is in effect!

Ÿøû might say, "but adding this item won't exceed the limit, because of the effect". The rules state item cards don't take effect until they are in the inventory (step 3). And Bruno indicates the check does not take into account any future states the table may have. It only asks (in a solo game) are we at 4 cards yet on this stack?

I think this is the crux of the feeling of ambiguity is this:

ŸØÛ know that adding the item won't exceed the limit because of the effect, but the GAME (or rules, or whatever ÿøû want to call it) doesn't. The game is dumb. It can only see what is the state now. It has no concept of the future, it cannot extrapolate a sequence of events. This is why we are the apex predator. We can deduce and problem solve in ways these games can't. Ÿøû may get frustrated with the way games stumble over things you know as second nature. Ÿøû might even want to turn to violence against the game. But we are the games shepherds. We have to care for the game, and when we deem in necessary, direct the game in a better direction.

Clipper, what I'm saying is ÿøû should add the woven basket to stacks currently at limit. It's better for you, it makes more sense thematically...the only reason there are these restrictive item combining rules is so players wouldn't create an uber item and then keep combining items to keep it forever. This is what I believe is an unintended side effect, but it's easy to OVER rule a game (that is to create a 75 page exhaustive text on every single edge case) Regardless it's not really going to swing the game one way or another.
Posted
BrunoS wrote:
Well, adding the woven basket to an "already full" item is prohibited by this rule:

"When an Item card is found or crafted, the player may combine it with an existing item in their inventory in order to form one single item, without exceeding the allowed “stacking” limit..."

which implies that you cannot add the woven basket to this Item and therefore cannot benefit from its effect which applies once it is in your inventory...


Thanks Bruno.
I will add this information in the FAQ (next version).
:resource_fire: Firebird :resource_fire: (Phoenixeux sur TT)
[DV :icon_curse::icon_curse::icon_succes:] [OG :icon_curse::icon_curse::icon_curse:*:icon_succes:] [LG :icon_succes:] [CD+SI :icon_curse::icon_curse:] [SI :icon_curse:] [CD :icon_curse::icon_success-left: :icon_success-right:**] [SI+TS en cours]
*[Histoire-T7C :icon_succes_7:] **[Pénitence :icon_curse:+Funéraille:icon_success-left:]
Posted
Clipper wrote:
My argument is just that the wording of the rules does not match the ruling, even though the ruling was made with regard to that wording.

There is only one moment I can potentially see that you could consider the item card to be both attached and also exceeding the limit at the same time. That would be a theoretical time after you have attached the item card but before its effect is activated.


LOL Not sure why this is so hard for you to get. Your argument is wrong, plain and simple. The words of the rule don't mean what you think they're saying.

In your example there would be no "time after you have attached the item card" because if the limit was already full you were not allowed to add the basket in the first place.

In general: You don't check if the stack is exceeded after adding the item. You check if the stack is at its limit before adding a card and if it is, the new card can't be placed.
Posted
I think that Clipper would prefer a wording like

"When an Item card is found or crafted, the player may combine it with an existing item in their inventory in order to form one single item, as long as the item in question is not at its allowed “stacking” limit..."

That would make a clear "item full -> no further combining allowed" rule, while the exceeding stuff could be read as a post operation criteria.
Posted
Thank you Unisus, it's nice to see someone actually understood my argument is about the wording and not the ruling.

I'd actually like to see an argument that shows why my interpretation was actually invalid rather than just being told I was wrong. I know which interpretation is the correct one given the ruling, but that doesn't make the other interpretation invalid.

To me, the current wording is misleading, such that it actually implies something different to what Bruno has stated it implies. Yes, his input has resolved the ambiguity, but that doesn't make the ambiguity go away. The wording you propose above would be very clear and cannot be misconstrued.
Posted
Clipper wrote:
Thank you Unisus, it's nice to see someone actually understood my argument is about the wording and not the ruling.

I'd actually like to see an argument that shows why my interpretation was actually invalid rather than just being told I was wrong. I know which interpretation is the correct one given the ruling, but that doesn't make the other interpretation invalid.

To me, the current wording is misleading, such that it actually implies something different to what Bruno has stated it implies. Yes, his input has resolved the ambiguity, but that doesn't make the ambiguity go away. The wording you propose above would be very clear and cannot be misconstrued.


Idk man, I thought I did a decent job. If ÿøû thought it was particularly antagonistic that was not my intention.
Posted
Anatrok wrote:
Idk man, I thought I did a decent job. If ÿøû thought it was particularly antagonistic that was not my intention.

Don't worry mate, I wasn't referring to your posts, which were civil and well structured.

You did provide a good argument for the text supporting the ruling. You also pointed out that it was only Bruno's clarification that let us know that you use the prior stacking limit, not the new stacking limit, which is indeed the crux of the ambiguity.
Posted - Edited
In the french forum, we talk about the following case :
  • (in solo mode for example) A player has an Item with 7 cards thanks to the woven basket.
  • Because of a effect in game, he discards the woven basket.


A/ Does the inventory limit apply (max 4 cards) ?
  1. With the rule p.22 "Join a game in progress", with a logical "spirit of the rules", and with the last Bruno's comment : YES, the player must adjust the number of cards from 6 to 4.
  2. With the rule p.20 "Combining a item", we can think that the limit is just for the act of combination. So : NO, the player can keep 6 cards in this item but never add another card until 1 space is free (3/4).

==> Many people agreed with Point A.1.

B/ If A.1, how does the adjustement work ?
  1. The player chooses the two extra cards to discard.
  2. The player randomly selects two extra cards to discard.
  3. The player must discard the last two cards at the bottom of the Item.

==> My point of view is B.1 but with no strong argument.

What do you think about this ?
:resource_fire: Firebird :resource_fire: (Phoenixeux sur TT)
[DV :icon_curse::icon_curse::icon_succes:] [OG :icon_curse::icon_curse::icon_curse:*:icon_succes:] [LG :icon_succes:] [CD+SI :icon_curse::icon_curse:] [SI :icon_curse:] [CD :icon_curse::icon_success-left: :icon_success-right:**] [SI+TS en cours]
*[Histoire-T7C :icon_succes_7:] **[Pénitence :icon_curse:+Funéraille:icon_success-left:]
Posted
First, I believe the joining the game rules in English actually say you actually have to discard the whole item if it is over the limit.

They say to "Immediately apply the new hand and inventory size limits, by discarding any excess cards and/or items in each player’s hand and/or inventory." It doesn't specifically call out item cards within your inventory, so this would not fall under the umbrella of times at which you are allowed to deconstruct an item. Thus, you would have to discard the whole item.

Bruno's comment clearly contradicts this, so it shows the rules themselves are wrong again in this case.

However, going by Bruno's comment, I'd say he is implying you have the choice. He would have provided a specific method to apply if there was one he had in mind, as I would assume he knows there is no such method printed in the rules. So this would lead to B.1 being the way to do it.


If I may state a small aside, I also want to act a little as Devil's advocate here with a theoretical situation that applies both of Bruno's rulings. Assume we had a card that stated "In your inventory, this card counts as two cards towards the stacking limit." In a solo game, you could add this card to a stack with 3/4 item cards in it, as the stack is not full and you ignore the text on the card when combining items. The stack then is at 5/4 cards, so must be corrected and you could voluntarily deconstruct any card of your choosing. I don't think this is what Bruno expects, but it's the only way to apply the same logic as is used in the Woven Basket case. It's just food for thought, though, as I doubt such a card actually exists.
Forums/ The 7th Continent/ Card effect24 posts