NB Posts : 56
Created :
Last visit :
Going strictly by the rules the cards are first discarded and therefore already in the discard pile when taking the cards to reshuffle.

Anjika's ability is a little different, as you don't just draw a random card from the discard but choose a specific card. And the problem was that this ability could be abused in a way that wasn't intended.
Yes - per the rules the one with the "idea" for the item is the active player in crafting it, but he can give the item to any of the involved characters.
I'm curious also
By the way, i'm using Swan Panasia sleeves. I couldn't find the thickness, they are just categorized as "thin".
No pictures at the moment, but i can fit all cards into the six trays for playing, for storage i put them together into five trays, the sixth is used for storage of the extra components.
BrunoS wrote:

Anjika’s ability was not meant to allow players to take from the discard pile the card that was just discarded.

That being said, since there is no simple way to express that in a sentence without raising new questions or interpretations, we are considering deleting the “or your inventory” part of the sentence to change it into:

You may discard 1 card with the keyword stealth from your hand to choose 1 card with the keyword aggressiveness in the Discard Pile and add it to your hand.


Actually it would be much easier in my opinion to simply state, that in cases where you may discard a card to retrieve a card from the discard, those two cards may not be the same. That would be a general rule and would allow further similar abilities without having to go through all cards to see whether there might be a problematic card or not.

Also, the correction you suggest seems a little like overkill and would make Anjika much weaker instead of just eliminating this one minor issue.
Yes, you take a card of the specified number and follow the instructions of that card, sometimes just taking other cards (like food or XP) or facing other actions to do.
If you compare the investment to get this card with the other cards, it's not that difficult to understand (imho):

You have to hunt successfully at a golden hunting place, and then you have to be lucky enough to draw this card. And if you take it, you have not gotten any food from that hunting action.
And don't even try to hunt bloody - it may be the only non-predator you find.
It's from the
Crystal Song

It is correct, there are several reasons to do it this way. There are cards that
raise the card cost or the required successes
for any action, also this is the usual way in 7th Continent to give you two options you have to choose from.

The action cost of 0+/0 is found on many cards, for example on the cloud side of the exploration cards.
But wouldn't that mean that once i have laid out a couple of cards in at least two adjacent rows, i can start movement in nearly any direction, no matter where i'm headed?
What i'm not clear about: how exactly do i determine the direction?

Let's say i'm on a card with further cards leading two cards to the west and four cards to the north, but no open card to the north. Do i sail west or north to get to that card in the NNW? What if there are cards in all directions? What if i want to get to a card that's east from my position, but i can only reach it by going west first?
The first (in my opinion).

The second would be written more in the way of "only if you have <1> or more, you can take the following actions:" (we need a "mastery"-emoticon)
If i remember correctly, those two came up late and didn't make it to the upgrade pack. With the need of reprinting the upgrade pack i guess they included them as well. (and yes, in my upgrade pack those two cards are included)
Posted - Edited
Actually, from the 30 cards in this expansion, only
6 cards are not automatically banished in the whole process.
Of those only 4 are not banished at all.
Else i could just
replace the banishing of the 150 by discarding it

Also, just having more 150 cards wouldn't work, and just throwing in a second set as it is would also lead to problems.
Well, with one pack you can
only get one creature in a game
. I'd like to have the chance to
get more than only one creature, especially as
you can loose your creature
. So i thought about getting additional packs and modify them, using the free numbers we still have.

I'm thinking about getting one or two additional packs Comfort Creatures . I guess that would work, or is there any reason why that would lead to problems (other than maybe unbalancing the game)?
SethA wrote:
You know, if I try to force my way into the Apple store to grab an iPad, they won't open the door to let me back out without paying either. Gasp! Those dirty b@stards!!! Actually wanting to get paid for the product before giving it to me.

Directly quoted from you. Describing how someone just is kept from stealing - maybe i misunderstood, but i thought you tried to show how scalpers just enforce the law so you don't visit a concert you haven't paid for. Else i don't see any relevance of your example.

But i already understand: scalper is just another word for vendor, and you usually refer to everyone selling things they don't produce themselves as scalper. No problem. It's just not what people usually have in mind when speaking about scalpers.
Posted - Edited
@Setha: I looked up several definitions for scalpers, and none of them shows scalpers as something positive. So i hardly get the impression that i'm projecting my opinion on others.

I never said that there isn't anybody who wants to use the service scalpers provide, i said that they weren't asked for.

Someone being desperate enough in his wish to get a ticket to pay scalpers doesn't make him like what they do.

To say that scalpers are justified because they exist means effectively that everything is justified, else it wouldn't exist.

As i said before, scalpers are people who try to make profit by artificially widening the gap between supply and demand. People who pledge for a couple of copies of a game at KS and resell them later for an upmarked price for example aren't scalpers. Of course, if in your opinion scalper is just a synonym for reseller then i can't probably have a point in your opinion. But i usually don't think in only rough categories, so two people doing similar things can actually be found in different categories.

On your brilliant example about the iPod in the Apple store: ok, i see that you must have a different definition for scalpers, as where you are from scalpers are the people checking tickets in a concert to make sure only people that paid for visiting get in.

You know, just stating some of your personal opinions as facts doesn't make you right.
Posted - Edited
Ok, i'm sorry if my somewhat exaggerated comparison did hurt anyone's feelings. I'm known for bringing up extreme examples to clarify my point.

Also, i didn't talk about warlords, but about "respected" companies, which i know doesn't make the situation any better but rather worse.

That said, to equate contracted transporting companies with scalpers is, while not an absurdly exaggerated analogy, simply wrong.

But maybe we just have different definition for what a scalper is? In your example of buying a product in a store, the scalper isn't anyone in the chain from the manufacturer to the salesman in the store - those are all people involved in the process by contracts to assure a smooth process. Whether it's for your convenience (you don't have to search for a manufacturer selling you his product) or for better risk management (manufacturers often don't sell directly as they have contracts with distributors which give them more security in their business), all parties involved were contracted by one side or the other. The scalper would be the person standing at the front door of the store demanding a fee you have to pay so the open the door for you - a service not needed nor wanted, but they will keep the door shut until you pay.

A scalper doesn't buy things to assure availability, but to artificially lower supply, so the price raises when they resell. Scalpers are the people who go to a convention, grabbing all the promos laying out (yeah, there's a reason why you now have to ask for promos) and selling them for moon-prices on eBay.

Oh, and on the topic of Ticketmaster: i just never heard of them? You know, i personally don't visit concerts, festivals, sport-events or other such things. So i don't know that much about what companies are involved in buying tickets. That doesn't mean that i don't know about scalpers. And as i said before, if one of the two sides of a transaction sees the necessity of contracting someone to help them, that is their right. Now if you tell me that Ticketmaster forces the hosts of events to sell them their tickets, then i'll tell you that they are scalpers whether they are a "respected" company or not.

Oh, and not to forget: i also don't support Starbucks...
Posted - Edited
SethA wrote:
Unisus wrote:
it's more like someone cleaning your car without you wanting it and then charging you a fee for their work.

So where you are from, you are first forced to attend a concert you don't want to see, and then pay for the ticket later? Strange customs...

Normally you would buy tickets yourself - but with scalpers taking away the tickets within minutes after sale opens (i'm not sure, but there was even under 1 minute once if i remember correctly), to attend a concert you are forced to pay for a service you didn't ask for - as you said that the scalpers are providing a service for those who want to buy tickets. If they would only provide their "service" for those who actually want that service, they wouldn't have to offer the tickets on the free market, as then they would already know their clients.

DukeKrostif wrote:
Scalping is basically a form of investment. If someone invests in something like this (or tickets) and the demand isn't high enough they end up with a large stock of items they can't get rid of or have to sell at a cheaper price. It's a risk reward scenario, you also have to choose the right time to sell. I can understand the gripe when it comes to tickets for big events because of the limited quantity and time limit you have to purchase them within. Buying actual items to sell on like this isn't an old concept or particularly bad... it's basically the same as people who buy a product and keep it in mint condition to sell once production has stopped, there are games made while I was a kid I'd kill to have but cost a daft amount because they're rare and in good condition, but at least there's still a way of getting a good copy thanks to these guys!

Buying stuff to keep it available later for an upmarked price is ok, but forcing yourself as a middleman between buyers and sellers is not really something we should see as something helpful. I mean we also are not ok with big companies claiming the rights for a well in afrika and then selling the people there the water they had for free all the time, or am i wrong?