NB Posts : 234
Created :
Last visit :
Looks lovely!
So, apparently, the recommended order has you do the WGUMCD curses last of all. My mistake.

Crystal's Song, Voracious Goddess, and Offering to the Guardians are recommended early because they're quite a bit easier than other curses.

After that, it's all about the same. I don't really know why they chose the order they did.
Posted - Edited
Icy Maze and Sanctuary add very little that isn't a part of their curse. A small handful of 050s and advanced skills, nothing important. I don't know which exact cards it is but I don't think it's anything major.

The recommended order of the curses means almost nothing. You can play the curses in absolutely any order.

Some curses like Voracious Goddess give you more straightforward clues. Most others expect you to have some knowledge of the map, but you can get that knowledge from any other curse, or just by wandering around. The curses don't have a story that flows from one to the next, or clues you learn in one curse to apply in another one. At most, you have to remember where you've seen a symbol before. The only reason Icy Maze and Sanctuary are after the WGUMCD curses is because they're longer/harder/easier to die on.

Going from Classic to WGUMCD does have one other small issue though. Of the hundred-and-something cards removed from the kickstarter edition to classic, a single one
the goat
matters to a WGUMCD curse
This is pretty easily fixed by
printing out a goat and adding it to the 150s table by sleeving it in front of an Empty Handed or something
, but if you don't, as far as I know, that curse is impossible to even start in Classic.
BrunoS wrote:
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.


From this thread:
The discord link got changed again, I updated it with the new one.
Don't remember the page but I'm pretty sure the rules for combining items have a section on what happens when an individual item is removed from a stack.

Anyway it works exactly as you describe. Whatever's on top of the stack is the new top card, the die stays on top of the stack at the same durability.
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.
That would have worked better, yes.
That is my interpretation as well, as interesting as it is to digress into the other one.
abredon wrote:

Since you have not even tried to do so, it seems you have no logical ground to stand upon, and are merely trolling.

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.
Posted - Edited
jhaelen 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..."

This is incorrect under the rules.

The rulebook quite clearly states that you resolve the text of cards when you draw them from the adventure deck. It doesn't need a timing to apply then, because the rules say it applies. The rules do not say to resolve text of cards when you draw them from the action deck -- it is quite clear, on page 12, that the normal thing to do with those cards is just to count their stars. Normally, no text on the cards you draw applies during this phase, and if you play that it does, it causes some other weirdness, like being able to discard Forewarned is Forearmed for an extra star immediately after it is drawn for another :icon_succes: on the check you drew it.

The few abilities that do trigger during that phase, including the Flying Roots card and the second (but not the first) ability of 180, trigger because they specifically say they do.

I would support errataing this card as you describe, because every couple weeks some poor kid posts about how confusing 180 is, but it is wrong to be resolving the text on cards when you draw them from the action deck.

jhaelen 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.
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.

"Pretty sure" is the extent of my authority. I didn't design 7C, I don't and cannot know for sure what they were thinking. I can't make official rulings. But I've played hundreds of hours, I know the rules well, including recently studying them in detail specifically to look for evidence for another discussion of this question. Within those limits, there is not a doubt in my mind. I do not believe this card is ambiguous. I am as certain as I can be without an official ruling that it works as I describe. I doubt that's "good enough" either, but it would blow my mind if Bruno showed up and said I'm wrong about this.

Gamebreaking is relative, and certainly on it's own shouldn't be taken to mean it couldn't work that way. Loads of gamebreaking stuff absolutely does work under the rules, like Dark Side combo. I merely mean that, faced with a choice between two interpretations for what a minor magic item is supposed to do, one of which provides a small but solid bonus, the other of which completely outclasses every other source of healing in the game, including major relics, and renders the core hunting system almost obsolete, I think the first one is more likely the one they intended. That's all.

I'm definitely not trying to tell anybody how to play their game. You can do whatever makes sense to you, or whatever makes the game more fun to you, or just whatever you want. 7C's great about that, it's almost always fine to just play it your way. But I'm confident in my interpretation of the rules.
It's supposed to count as a Repentance card when you count them.

There's not, like, a different way to get it where it does say to flip it before banishing it. I'm pretty sure they just forgot to say to flip it.
Posted - Edited
I doubt it -- if that was planned it would have been announced alongside Classic, when they said that they were reprinting Icy Maze and Forgotten Sanctuary (but not Swamp of Madness or any other expansions.)

Please do send a pic of that cage/the salamander, I'm curious now.
Posted - Edited
The goat was a kickstarter-exclusive stretch goal, you can see (some) of those on the first kickstarter page, which is where I'm getting this info.

There's a curse in WGUMCD that involves sacrificing the goat as the very first step. It is possible WGUMCD also introduced a second way to get a goat banner, but I don't know about it if so. If not, without a goat banner anywhere in the game, there's no way to start this curse.

I found a salamander one time, but it might not have been that one. I think I, like, hatched mine from a fossil? Do you remember where you find that cage?
What's your favorite creature?

Personally, I think the biggest loss is the characters.
I don't think there's a weather figure that blocks you moving away from it, I think they all five just have abilities that trigger when you leave their card.

If movement "touches" every terrain card on the path to your destination momentarily, that would mean that you can't move past worms (because you have to momentarily enter their space and then are not allowed to leave.) It would also mean that moving past Weather would cause those abilities to trigger (because you enter the weather space momentarily, then leave and cause the when-you-leave ability to trigger.)

If there are multiple paths to your destination, you can often choose between triggering the weather and not (some are potentially beneficial to trigger.) Potentially, you could even pick a path that leaves the same weather space many times -- nothing says the path you pick has to be direct, after all.

I don't think this should be taken as evidence for or against this interpretation of how movement works. I just think it's a relevant detail -- if movement visits every space on the path, that affects weather similarly to how it affects worms.
Posted - Edited
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.
Some good thoughts here.

Interesting that people consider the balloon to be banned, I think that's one the most clear -- it returns the board and the past, including the rockworm, before it does anything that the rockworm could possibly be thought to block. No more worm, no more block -- so even if you do think "place" would be blocked, the worm's gone... That's my thinking anyway.

Moving past them's an interesting notion. I think the rulebook's pretty clear that you pick a reachable terrain card and then move directly to it, nothing about the movement rules suggests any sort of interaction with intervening cards, you don't have to decide what path you take, just pick a destination for which paths exist. So that'd say you can move directly past them. But flavor rules might say otherwise. Notably, if it does work this way, leaving Weather figures probably does too.
Posted - Edited
We don't know exactly everything but here is a list of some losses:

-Dark Chest of the Damned curse
-HP Lovecraft and Victor Frankenstein characters (easily the two strongest characters IMO)
-Loads of advanced skills including important ones like Poisoned Weapon
-The Goat (which renders Classic somewhat incompatible with WGUMCD, if a Classic owner wanted to track one down on ebay)
-Minis + Magnifying Glass + third card tray
-"Build your own" character cards
-Hissing Cages (and the animals therein)
There is a terrain card with features that resemble his cryptic rantings.

Multiplying the number of "teeth" on the card by the number from his hint gives you a hidden number. :card_pick_thumb: (Somewhat unusually, it doesn't check that you actually have the hint -- if you remember it you can skip talking to the old man, or take the other option.)

The terrain card in question can be found in the snowy area north of the jungle.