Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColinEdwards

Splashing multi-class cards?

Recommended Posts

The whole 'multi-class' cards take up a splash slot seems like a real mess to me. If you take an investigator like Carolyn who has a couple requirements... It's not like healing cards take up an out of class spot. Why complicate things with counting them as out of class for dual-class cards? 

What if Ashcan Pete wants to take ONLY seeker cards but some are dual class? Why would the ability to take out of class cards - in addition to seeker - cards be more restrictive? 

How about a rethink of how that will work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was apparently clarified that Carolyn should say "15 other Seeker and/or Mystic cards".  That allows you to slot a healing Mystic card as a "heals horror" without taking up a class-specific slot. 

With that clarification (and only with it), it's fairly clear to me.  When counting cards by class, you count these as both of their classes.  So you have to include the Mash when you're counting non-Survivor cards.

I think this means that the Scroll of Secrets would take up one of Norman's Mystic slots, even though it is also a Level 0 Seeker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that seems strange to me is that they state that Diana Stanley can take Scroll of Secrets without being able to take Seeker cards at all. I don’t think we have seen Diana’s deckbuilding requirements yet, but if this is true then it would seem like they don’t count as both classes in the case that you aren’t allowed any cards of one of the two classes.

Edited by Assussanni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2018holiday_btn_ffg.png

Edited by armin321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite agree with the deck building clause for multi faction cards but after thinking for a while i think it has got to do with the way the deck restrictions is worded.

Diana can use the card with just her unlimited access to mystic cards because she doesn't have restriction against seeker cards. Whereas for Ashcan Pete although he has unlimited access for survivor cards, he effectively has restrictions to only 5 other cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, FFG preview articles are often wrong about the rules. So exactly how these work I am not sure we truly know just yet.

My take is that these new cards have restrictions built in to allow design space to make certain cards that would be broken with certain investigators yet maybe needed with others. Tennessee sour mash would work great with Finn Edwards and is an Illicit, so perhaps we will since a higher level version that he could take but not Ashcan Pete, who has a much higher willpower to start with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, armin321 said:

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

So...still confused here.

Level 5 ( illicit rogue ) is unlimited because level 5 rogue doesn't count for 0-3 rogue limit?

Level 5 ( illicit seeker ) unlimited, as level 4 seeker doesn't count gainst level 0 seeker limit?

Level 0 ( illicit seeker ) limited to 5 a deck because level 0 seeker limit?

Level 0 ( rogue seeker ) limited to 5 a deck because seeker?

Level 0 ( seeker survivor ) limited to 2 a deck because seeker and survivor both take slots?

Level 0 ( illicit seeker survivor ) limited to two a deck because they take up both seeker and survivor spots?

Level 1 ( illicit seeker survivor ) unlimited because level 0 limits do not apply?

Level 0 ( illicit guardian ) unlimited?

Level 0 ( illicit guardian mystic ) unlimited?

 

FINN Deckbuilding requirements (restated for "clarity"):

Up to 5 ( seeker or survivor ) slots level 0, unlimited illicit slots level 0-5, unlimited rogue slots level 0-3, unlimited neutral slots 0-5, unlimited level 4-5 ( guardian, seeker, survivor or mystic ) slots for cards that that have illicit slots, unlimited level 1-3 ( guardian, mystic, survivor or seeker ) slots for cards that also have ( rogue or illicit )slots, unlimited level 0 ( mystic or guardian ) slots for cards with either ( rogue or illicit ) slots.*

This is an improvement ... how?

 

* Cards fill all applicable slots

 

 

Edited by ColinEdwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news for Lola Hayes i guess ! ? If for restriction sake it counts as both then a double class card count towards 2 restrictions at a time for her "7 cards each from 3 different classes" that should be a good thing. It will give her more flexibility.

Ex : 6 Guardian cards - 6 Mystic cards - 1 Mystic/Guardian double class card. So you have 7 cards for both Mystic and Guardian if i understood the wording correctly.

Furthermore if she can use a double class with her "role system" it will be more easy to play her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of playing with the counter-intuitive restriction. We're houseruling that the dual-class cards belong 100% to both classes and you can absolutely use it for either of its classes in any way that would be legal for that class.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem more intuitive to say 'you can include a card if you meet any of the requirements" and interpret 'other cards' to mean "*cards* that don't meet any other requirements" 

Edited by ColinEdwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the deckbuilding guidelines in the article to be somewhat confusing as well - right now, it seems like the better the card fits the "theme" of your investigator the more it eats up your restricted slots. It may just be that they won't see much use with the "plus any 5 level 0 cards" type investigators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ColinEdwards said:

So...still confused here.

Level 5 ( illicit rogue ) is unlimited because level 5 rogue doesn't count for 0-3 rogue limit?

Level 5 ( illicit seeker ) unlimited, as level 4 seeker doesn't count gainst level 0 seeker limit?

Level 0 ( illicit seeker ) limited to 5 a deck because level 0 seeker limit?

Level 0 ( rogue seeker ) limited to 5 a deck because seeker?

Level 0 ( seeker survivor ) limited to 2 a deck because seeker and survivor both take slots?

Level 0 ( illicit seeker survivor ) limited to two a deck because they take up both seeker and survivor spots?

Level 1 ( illicit seeker survivor ) unlimited because level 0 limits do not apply?

Level 0 ( illicit guardian ) unlimited?

Level 0 ( illicit guardian mystic ) unlimited?

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

 

Edited by armin321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, armin321 said:

3) yes it fits in the limited "lv0 other seeker" pool

4) same as above

I don't think that's right.  The limited Seeker cards are other Seekers, meaning cards that don't fit the other requirements.

The difference with the Dunwich investigators is that they don't say "other" (neither does Carolyn as printed, but it was ruled that she should say that).  So any card that has a class other than the investigator's main class counts as a splash slot, even though it also identifies as the main class.

Edited by CSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

I don't think that's right.  The limited Seeker cards are other Seekers, meaning cards that don't fit the other requirements.

The difference with the Dunwich investigators is that they don't say "other" (neither does Carolyn as printed, but it was ruled that she should say that).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by armin321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Turtlefan2082 said:

The way I took it, they work in an "either/or" situation.  Either they are Class A or Class B

 

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

 

Edited by armin321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turtlefan2082 said:

I see.  Hypothetically, let's say Ashcan is built with the scrolls (go with me on this).  Because the scrolls' classes are both off class, is it counted as one, or two towards his five cards?

From what Matt said, it would count as two off-class cards for Ashcan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

From what Matt said, it would count as two off-class cards for Ashcan.

At the same time, it is just one card.  I can see this being an issue with the Dunwich investigators.  Would this detract players from including these cards in Dunwich decks?

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...