Jump to content

armin321

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/7/12/murder-at-the-excelsior-hotel/
  2. According to the article "the event that it summons is not a part of your investigator deck and does not count toward your deck size" so yes to the above
  3. In Addition, Even if you can get rid of it by playing another card, in the worst case its still 7 ressources total to remove the weakness (4 Tower 3 other Tarot Card). Hospital depts are 6 ressources in comparison.
  4. Roland CAN take a 3xp guardian seeker card! As he also has no limited slot pools he also has no disadvantage
  5. The 30 card limit is a physical limit. The restrictions and specification of the card type and the slots are a logical limit. From the physical view the dual-class cards count as 1. From a logical view it counts as 2 cards. That are 2 totally different things. I don't think this is problem of rules but of perspective, if there is a problem anyway.. I find the article and the examples within are pretty clear..
  6. Quote from Matt Newman "Grisly Totem counts as both a Seeker card and a Survivor card. So if Zoey includes it in her deck, it will count as 2 of her 5 off-class cards." Found in the BGG Forum So no, they are class A AND B which leads to the situation above that you have to check twice, which in this case for zoey has no pro as she could took it either way but have the con of 2 slots used EDIT: Whcih btw is also described in the offical FFG article: " For example, Scroll of Secrets (The Secret Name, 116) is both a level zero Seeker card and a level zero Mystic card, " and " Tennessee Sour Mash is both a survivor and a rogue card " Also in the article " While the drifter has unlimited access to survivor cards, he can only have up to five level zero cards from any other class. Tennessee Sour Mash is both a survivor and a rogue card, and therefore it fills one of his five other-class slots. " if i could CHOOSE Either class, it wouldn't occupy the limited slot as i could choose that it is only a survivor card for pete. (AND-Logic in regard to slots) But obviously you can't so it isn't an either/or in regard to slot occupation HOWEVER, also in the article, " These cards, identified by their golden hue and dual class icons, can be added to your deck if you have access to either of the classes detailed on the card. " (OR-Logic in regards to available to choose for an investigator) described above in my examples
  7. The point is, everything is like before, besides you have to do the normal requirements check twice and sum the results up. So a seeker/mystic card: first you ignore the seeker part and handle it as a mystic card + the card traits. if it fits in your deck, good, if it use a slot, okay. Now you do the same but ignore the mystic card, so it is a seeker card with the card traits. if it fits in your deck, good, if it uses a slot, okay. its legal to use if at least one of the checks says, "yes its legal" (logical OR connection) and then you add the slot used from both checks and check if you have enough slots. (logical AND Conenction) if you have enough slots you can really use it and you loses the slots. if you dont have enough slots. too bad, you cant use it. the OR logic comes from the diana example in the article The AND Logic with the slots from the pete example in the article. The PRO of the new cards: through the OR Part it is more likely that you can use a card (its not really a probability, but i think the point is clear). Maybe u cant use it as a seeker card, but as a mystic card. the CON: its possible that the card uses more Slots through the AND Part as you have to check for slots twice.
  8. you are right, missed that also 6) Level 0 ( illicit seeker survivor ) is also unlimited because of the illicit. so it isn't a "other" card. was wrong on that, too. Thanks
  9. 1) its unlimited because lv5 illicit rogue is neither an other seeker lv0 nor an other survivor card lv0, so it doesnt fit in any limited pool 2) same as above 3) yes it fits in the limited "lv0 other seeker" pool 4) same as above 5) yes it fits in the seeker pool and in the survivor pool which are both limited and share the 5 slots 6) same as abobe 7) yes it isnt a lv0 card so doesnt fit in the limited pools (see 1) ) ? yes, there is no limited pool it could occupy slots from, but at the same time it fits in one of the unlimited pools, so you can use it 9) yes, same as above. you can use the card only because it is an illicit card. a non-illicit guardian / mystic, wouldn't fit in ANY pool, so could not be used by finn edit: typo Edit2: the improvment is: (example incoming) a lv0 seeker/survivor card could be used by daisy or by wendy . if it were a seeker only wendy couldnt use it if it were survivor, daisy couldnt use it it could be a neutral card, but then all invesigator could use it. --> it offers more deck building options without soften the requirements to much (you could say "hey there is no type, all invewtigators could use all cards and differ only through their ability", but this would take much of the ceck building aspect) in the end there is no NEW mechanic on the technical view, only the possibilty to dsitribute less cards to more investigators without ignoring character characteristics. I think there will be some examples on release but no "if its a multi class card this counts, of not this counts", it can be abstracted to one mechanic you have to check the same deckbuilding rules, but as multiclass cards have more properties, you have to check it multiple types. but there are no new RULES
  10. I think a multi class card occupies as many "requirement slot pools" it can, If it fits in atleast one pool, you can use ist Example: the Mash card and Ashcane Pete you have a Pool for any Survivor Cards with unlimited slots and a pool for Rogue cards with 5 Slots the card fits in the "survivor cards pool" and in the "rogue cards pool" for the first it doesnt matter, as there are infinite slots in the pool, for the latter it does matter, as there are only 5 slots. You can use it, because there is at least one card pool where the card fits (in this case 2) EDIT: All Deck building Restrictions and card distributions should be unambigous, independent from the new multi-color cards. With Carolyn it was added later with the comment "should be other" So every investigator should have a finite amount of "pools" where cards can fit in. Before the new card type it was so too, that a card have to fit in at least one pool so you can use it, and it occupied as many pools as possible. However until now the ammount of occupied pools was always 1 (after the carolyn fern "rework") EDIT: or occupied only pools with unlimited slots, so no one cared EDIT2: Reagarding the Dunwich Investigators. Example Zoey: She has 6 Pools One for Guardians 0-5 One for Neutral 0-5 One for Seeker 0 One for Survivor 0 One for Mystic 0 One for Rogue 0 The last 4 are bundled togehter, as they share the Slots (The first two arent bundled togehter (Could be: "Guardians and neutral 0-5), as they dont share slots. Both have infinite Slots, but mathematically speaking these arent the same infite slots) So a Seeker/Mystic Card occupies 2 Pools. Both have limited Slots, so she effectively uses 2 Slots If she takes a Gaurdian/Seeker card she occupies also 2 Pools BUT, one of them has unlimited Slots so it doesnt matter and she effectively uses 1 slot EDIT3: Example Finn 5 Pools: Illicit 0-5 /infinite) Rogue 0-3 (infinite) Neutral 0-5 (infinite) other Seeker 0 other Survivor 0 Last two bundled together and share slots (5 Slots) (Cards example theoratically, dont now if card exist): So Illicit Seeker/Rogue Lv 0 --> 2 Pools (first and second pool, as it is no "other card"), both infite, so effectively no slots used Illicit Seeker/Rogue Lv 5 --> 1 valid Pool, which has infite slots so effectively uses no slot non-illicit seeker/survivor --> 2 Pools (no illicit, no rogue, no neutral, so it's a "other" card) which are both finite so effectively 2 slots non-illicit Seeker/guardian --> 1 valid Pool, which is finite so effectively 1 slot non-illicit Guardian/mystic card --> 0 Pools, so cant use card
  11. As the Questions rises in the BGG Forum, i think 2x Lucky is possible too: (copied my answer from the bgg Forum):
×
×
  • Create New...