NB Posts : 8
Last visit :
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
You don’t need these errata as this is the only explanation that makes sense in the game.
Repeating that over and over doesn't make it any more true.
What makes or doesn't make sense to you is completely irrelevant. There needs to be a general rule that everyone can follow in order to interpret the card correctly.
Otherwise why have any rules at all? Surely everyone can come up with an explanation that makes sense to them and play accordingly.
Tootzo wrote:Obviously you don't know me.
Apparently many people here can't really see what the most reasonable way of using the cards is. At this point, if you have all these doubts, I can't see how an "official clarification" could help. It's still one way of interpreting the rules.
There's a clear difference between 'rules as written' and 'rules as intended' (RAW vs. RAI). An official clarification would let us know what the intent was. That's sufficient to play the card the way it's meant to be.
Once the intent is clear, an effort could be made to reword the card or adjust the rules make sure the RAW matches the RAI.
Tootzo wrote:My interpretation doesn't require any bending of rules, either. That's the meaning of 'ambiguous'. There's more than one interpretation possible and unless one of the game's designers intervene, there can be no consensus which one is correct. To you it is simpler and more logical to assume implied rules, to me it's simpler and more logical to only rely on the actual rules and card text.
As I said, I think it's not; the card is self-explanatory as it is, because one single "interpretation" is the simplest and most logic and it works without bending a single rule. If you don't see it, play the game as you would seem more fit. It really doesn't hurt anyone (save for your logic processes)
So, yes, I'll definitely continue to play the card the way I believe to be the correct one.
MetalGod wrote:I can easily refute this on the basis of adventure card 180.
The rules state pretty clearly when you can use cards , starting on page 11 of the rule book for action resolution , only the left side of the card is used when you draw cards for a result , you can use cards from your hand , inventory or journal during the cost step and/or the results step . card text is only active when it is in your hand/inventory or journal.
Tootzo wrote:How do you come to this conclusion? And what about adventure card 180?
The only action cards you “activate” their text when revealed during the result step are the four cards from the Flying Roots add-on
JackSpirio wrote:IF it was obvious we wouldn't be discussing it. You're just trying to use rhetorics to avoid having to actually make a compelling argument to support your view.
It you just do what the cards say, which makes it obvious when they are to be used.
Tootzo wrote:The problem is, if the rules stated, that the card text is to be ignored during the Result step of an action, then you could never find out if it says “when you reveal this card” or not.
The flying roots cards specifically say “when you reveal this card”. Of course it works!!!
Thankfully, the rules do _not_ say that the text is ignored.
Tootzo wrote:To the contrary, it's you who is making stuff up. I'm just applying the rules that are actually there.
There are no official clarifications because there’s really no need. This game has basically one rule and yet you are trying all your best to freely interpret it to make it unclear or not work, where it simply works wonderfully if you just stick to what the rulebook and the cards say without letting your imagination loose. There’s nothing to imagine: it’s all just reading.
JackSpirio wrote:If you thought about that for a second you would realize that you've just created a paradoxon. If I have to read the text in order to find out if the text is to be read, then the text must always be read. Yo can't have it both ways. Either, the text is considered to be blank during the Result step of an action or not.
Card text when revealed during the result text isn’t active, unless it tells you so, which both of the cards you mention do.
If the rules were amended to say that the text is to be ignored, then they'd have to introduce a new type of icon to be placed in the left border to signify that the card is supposed to be an exception with a text that isn't ignored.
It makes no sense to put an exception where it will always be ignored. That simply cannot work.
brisingre wrote:I'm glad you agree, because that's how I interpret the card
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 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.
brisingre wrote:I think it does.
I agree this card is worded in a confusing way, but I don't think it actually needs errata, strictly speaking.
brisingre wrote:To the contrary, it absolutely must state a restriction, otherwise the text will definitely always apply. It would be clear if it stated "When this card is drawn from the adventure deck..."
You apply the first sentence when you first read the card. It's like any other rules text on the numbered side of a green card -- you do it as soon as you take the card. This doesn't need to specify a timing to work, because it uses the default timing. I agree it might be clearer if it did specify a timing, but it doesn't actually need one.
brisingre wrote:In my opinion, it's a separate paragraph, because it is meant to be shuffled back into the action deck, regardless of the reason it's been revealed from the action deck while the second paragraph only applies if it's revealed as part of the Result step of an action.
"When this gets revealed..." is a separate ability that specifies its timing. If you were meant to shuffle the 180 card back into the action deck when it is revealed from the action deck, you would shuffle it back into the deck as part of this ability. But it is not -- in fact, it is very specifically split off into a separate ability.
brisingre wrote:So, you are 'pretty sure'. Pretty sure isn't good enough, imho. Because I'm pretty sure that you're wrong and my interpretation is fully supported by the game rules.
So, I'm pretty sure you're playing it wrong, if you're shuffling it back into the action deck every time you reveal it. I'm pretty sure you only do the first ability when you take the card from the deck, just based on how the timings work -- to say nothing of the balance implications. Which, you're right, totally gamebreaking under that interpretation.
I also disagree that it is gamebreaking. Is it a good effect? Very much so. But game-breaking it's not. There's plenty of ways that can cause it to be discarded. You might just as well argue that hunting is game-breaking because it allows you to shuffle cards back into the action deck.