Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
987654321

I believe they got it wrong

Recommended Posts

I read somewhere here you can't use Elfhelm (not the new one, the other) to nullify an effect of a location by putting 1 progress on it raising your threat by 1, because yoyu only can put the progress satisfying the cost. Elfhelm, however, doesn't say he cancels threat raise by 1, he says he reduces the threat. So my theory is that you successfully raise your threat and then you reduce it, so you tecnically explore the location with zero net threat raise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elfhelm says "After your threat is raised ... by an encounter card or quest card effect, reduce your threat by 1."  In the case of Zigil Mineshaft, the encounter card doesn't raise your threat, it just makes an optional player action available that can raise your threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the people saying it didn't work in the thread. If you follow the link, you'll read "got an official answer that's different from what everyone has seemed to agree on here". It happened in Board Game Geek forum, but also there and here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people saying it didn't work in this thread can't be the antecedent of "they", because they hadn't posted in this thread until after the OP.

 

The people saying it didn't work in the linked BGG are unlikely to be the antecedent of "they".  While "they got it wrong", the thread also has an official answer contradicting them.  It makes no sense to say "I believe they got it wrong" about a thread that proves they got it wrong, nor does it make sense to post here in 2016 about people getting it wrong in 2012, overruled in 2014.

 

So I still wonder -- who are "they"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people saying it didn't work in this thread can't be the antecedent of "they", because they hadn't posted in this thread until after the OP.

 

The people saying it didn't work in the linked BGG are unlikely to be the antecedent of "they".  While "they got it wrong", the thread also has an official answer contradicting them.  It makes no sense to say "I believe they got it wrong" about a thread that proves they got it wrong, nor does it make sense to post here in 2016 about people getting it wrong in 2012, overruled in 2014.

 

So I still wonder -- who are "they"?

Caleb and whoever else answers these rules questions at FFG? Edited by Kakita Shiro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...