Profil de krbj

These people seem to share my confusion, https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1834403/fire-use-character-basis.

Firebird: I am trying to get a grasp of the individual/shared fire figure concept from reading the thread at https://the7thcontinent.seriouspoulp.com/fr/forum/topic/87/le-feu-de-camp/page/4/271014/#271014 but my French is not so good.

Are there official rulings for the possible scenarios below? Different alternative suggestions are posted as a), b) etc, they might all be wrong of course.

1) A two character game, both character's fire figures have been set up on the terrain already. Character A makes a new fire, no other character is involved.
a) The players must remember which fire figure is his and (re-)use that for the new fire place. [difficult mechanism]
b) It is not possible to distinguish between the fire figures and we don't have a good way to remember so the active player can choose freely which fire figure to (re-)use.

2) A three character game, two fire figure's are already on the terrain and one sits with player C (as I understand, not in a pool, right?). Character A makes a new fire, no other character is involved.
a) The players must remember which fire figure is his and (re-)use that for the new fire place. [difficult mechanism]
b) It is not possible to distinguish between the fire figures and we don't have a good way to remember so the active player can choose freely which (already placed) fire figure to (re-)use, but can not choose to use the one that sits with player C.
c) The fire figures are actually an expedition pooled resource, so player A can use the one remaining unused fire figure, resulting in three fire figures on the terrain. [seems to go against what Bruno says in the other thread?]

3) A three character game, two fire figure's are already on the terrain and one sits with player C (as I understand, not in a pool, right?). Character A makes a new fire as active player, character C is also involved.
a) The players must remember which fire figure is player A's and (re-)use that for the new fire place OR use the one that sits with player C, but can not use the already placed one that has been placed by character B. The active player decides which to use. [difficult mechanism]
b) The active player (A) can choose te (re-)use one of the already placed fire figures (It is not possible to distinguish between the fire figures and we don't have a good way to remember), or use the on that sits with player C.

You could probably make even more complex scenarios, but I think the ruling has to be based on one of these two principles to keep it manageable:
Either
I) mark every (placed) fire figure or use some other technique to remember which character it belongs to
or
II) treat all the expedition's fire figures as a pooled resource, rather than individual

We play following principle II, since principle I adds a lot of unrewarding complexity/work/confusion and principle II doesn't seem to change the balance much in our experience.

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. :)

I agree the wording could reallybenefit from being clearer here, we also did not know what to do in this situation.

Sorry to sgbeal but I don't see the validity of this as a "bug" at all. I don't know if you will read the responses here, but maybe someone else will be confused by your reasoning, so I post my thoughts.



I think it rather seems that you are the one "downright wrong" and that it is a "downright lie" that seagulls don't live in arid places.

Sandy beaches and neighboring dunes are commonly considered arid. If you need something to convince you of this I think you could try just googling "arid beaches", "arid coastal cliffs" or even "arid environment seabirds". I have many times visited arid places with an abundance of seabirds.

Secondly, if more is needed, "deserted" has a marked nuance of "a place where people [or other phenomena] have been before but has now left" rather than "a place where there are no people". To desert is to leave something, to be deserted is to have been left by something. Of course a short dictionary description does not tell you the full meaning of the world but just a short description of one or a few of the most commonly used meanings. You could have different opinions about this, but for me I would consider a ruin a much better match for a deserted place than a necropolis.

So I find the texts match up fine with the mechanisms and there really is nothing wrong here, sorry that you didn't enjoy getting confused but that is one of the appeals of this kind of game to me, sometimes the game outwits you (and sometimes it seems you even outwit yourself!).

I think a bit more politeness or research could be proper before venting such anger and frustration here, but to each his own of course. Have a good game! :)