So the FAQ added this to resolve the multiple belt problem:
Resolution: On page 9 of the Rulebook, under Playing Cards, add the following sentence to the definition of Reveal: "You may not reveal the same card more than once per check or step."
So, I realize that this is a little obscure, and I don't even think there's a card to make matter yet, but I wanted to double check that things are working as intended, or if this was an unintentional side effect. Since I can't think of a card that is already released that will illustrate my example, allow me to invent one:
Mouse
Ally
Animal"Reveal this card to add 1 to your non-combat Perception check.
Recharge this card to add 1 to a combat check at your location.
Discard this card to explore your location."
Under the current FAQ wording, you would not be able to use the mouse for its own ability and Lini's ability on the same perception check, but you could on the same combat check. Is this intentional?
Interesting. So, if I'm getting the concern here:
We're fine with saying the Mouse can't reveal twice to add +2 to her Perception check.
We're fine with saying that Lini can't reveal the Mouse twice to add +2d4 to the check.
We're not sure we're fine with saying that Lini can't reveal the Mouse to add +1 to her Perception check, and then reveal the same Mouse to add +1d4 to the same check.
Is that the concern? If so, tell me why it's a concern.
Interesting. So, if I'm getting the concern here:
We're fine with saying the Mouse can't reveal twice to add +2 to her Perception check.
We're fine with saying that Lini can't reveal the Mouse twice to add +2d4 to the check.
We're not sure we're fine with saying that Lini can't reveal the Mouse to add +1 to her Perception check, and then reveal the same Mouse to add +1d4 to the same check.Is that the concern?
Yes.
If so, tell me why it's a concern.
You don't think it's odd that Lini can reveal an animal for her power and then discard it for the animal's power, but she cannot reveal it for her power and then reveal it for it's own power?
It seems like a tiny, but still existing, unintentional nerf to Lini. Or any other way to reveal a card two different ways for different effects.
It also seems to limit design space to me, which is never a good thing.
I mean, it's a tiny issue, but I always try to strive for perfection.
If so, tell me why it's a concern.You don't think it's odd that Lini can reveal an animal for her power and then discard it for the animal's power, but she cannot reveal it for her power and then reveal it for it's own power?
When I ask you to explain something, please don't assume I am taking the opposite position.
When I ask you to explain something, please don't assume I am taking the opposite position.If so, tell me why it's a concern.You don't think it's odd that Lini can reveal an animal for her power and then discard it for the animal's power, but she cannot reveal it for her power and then reveal it for it's own power?
Apologies, its a manner of speaking.
Allow me to rephrase.
"Isn't it odd that Lini can reveal an animal for her power and then discard it for the animal's power, but she cannot reveal it for her power and then reveal it for it's own power?
I think oddities caused by the FAQ are cause for concern."
Your question reminds me of something that I've been mulling over for the past few weeks. I'm not suggesting this as a change that should be made to the game, but it's something I may try some time as a variant to increase the game's difficulty a bit.
The idea I've been thinking about is to require all cards be put in a "limbo" area in front of you immediately when they are played, regardless of whether they are to be revealed, displayed, discarded, recharged, buried, or banished.
A card in the limbo area is not considered to be in your hand/discard pile/deck, it is its own unique location.
All cards in the limbo area remain there until all of their effects have been resolved, and their effects don't begin to resolve until the players decide not play any more cards. At the point the last card is played, the effects are resolved in an order decided by the players, and then the cards go to their appropriate locations: revealed cards go back to your hand, discarded ones go to your discard pile, banished ones go to the box, buried ones go under your character card, recharged ones go under your deck. Displayed cards remain in the "limbo" area until you are instructed to get rid of them (there could be a separate "display" area distinct from the "limbo" area, but functionally I see no issue considering them to be the same thing). Discarded cards with a recharge check remain in the "limbo" area until you actually perform the recharge check.
In many ways, this is more or less what already happens in the game. One key difference is that this change prevents you from revealing a card for one effect and recharging it for another (the most obvious example of this is Lini, so this would be a pretty blatant nerf to her).
My inspiration for this came from a few different places. One was the thread about playing multiple Belts of Giant Strength an infinite number of times. This change would prevent that because a card that gets revealed goes in the limbo area and can't be revealed again until it goes back in your hand. Granted, this has already been addressed in the FAQ, but I was mulling over this long before that was posted.
Another inspiration was discussions like this. The concept of "Discard to do X" cards with a recharge check having exclusive rights to this "limbo area" idea seemed unappealing to me. Why not consistently make all cards get played into the "limbo area" if it must exist?
Finally, I was trying to apply this concept to address the Restoration issue you brought up, Orbis, but I couldn't quite figure out all the details. I was toying around with the idea of allowing the players only to play into the "limbo" area one time between explorations. So for instance, you couldn't run your Restoration engine concept (before they changed the card) to get your whole discard pile back before your next exploration, because that would require playing into the "limbo" area multiple times. I hadn't fully thought through the details on how much this would limit the Restoration engine, but I think it would make it less effective.
Anyway, I haven't had the time to try this variant out and I haven't really thought through whether this would break the game or not. I think it would make it harder in a few ways, which is all right with me. If I have time, I can report back the findings, or if anyone else wants to venture trying it, please feel free to share your thoughts.
Stuff
The "limbo" thing that you refer to is extremely common and is found in many card games. It messes with a lot of things in PACG, though, and does indeed make several things harder; but since it doesn't make things equally harder, I think it isn't a good idea. It screws up game balance.
...I'm actually having difficulty putting into words all my feelings on the matter, but in my opinion, the "limbo" as you call it does not have a place in PAGC, I do not think it's a good idea. Not without some re-working, anyway. To an extent, it works. My friends and I all used to play other card games, and we natuarally put all of our cards into a "limbo," as you put it, area and then send them where they're supposed to in the right order when they are no longer relevant. We do not, however, prevent revealed cards in the limbo area, from being spent, like your idea suggests.
Getting back to the original topic, the limit in the FAQ update being on "Revealing" twice. It feels like that goes against the distinction made in the Rulebook about playing a card.
Doing something with a card that does not activate that card’s power does not count as playing that card.
So this would be the first thing that goes against the spirit of that rule.
I'd also think that saying you can't "play" the same card twice on the same check would prevent other things from happening (ex: hypothetical super deck cycling where I could somehow recharge and draw during a check).
But I'd also think you'd need to be concerned about a character some how activating multiple powers by revealing just 1 card. Like if somehow Lini was at a location that said "Reveal an ally to add 3 to your check." In the "play" version, she'd be able to reveal the Mouse 3 times.
Of course the mouse and that location are hypothetical. So whether this all practically matters is a different issue.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, doesn't this line from the rulebook already cover the whole multiple belt problem?
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.
It seems clear to me that this should prevent you from revealing a belt more than once during the same check. In other words, is the new FAQ entry about limiting the number of times you can reveal a card even necessary?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, doesn't this line from the rulebook already cover the whole multiple belt problem?
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.It seems clear to me that this should prevent you from revealing a belt more than once during the same check. In other words, is the new FAQ entry about limiting the number of times you can reveal a card even necessary?
"Power" in this case refers to a player's power, as in "Power Feat," not a card's "power." Card "powers" were covered under "one of each type of card per check."
If it worked the way you suggest, then you could not have different cards with the same effects played on the same check; this would mean that you could only play one effect that says "add a die to your check," for instance. You would also be unable to play two belts once each on the same check.
"Power" in this case refers to a player's power, as in "Power Feat," not a card's "power." Card "powers" were covered under "one of each type of card per check."
I honestly think "power" is more general than that, and even if the intent was for it to refer to "character powers" exclusively in this case, I would argue that it SHOULD be more general than that.
Pg 14 of the rulebook explains that "at this location" effects are considered "powers". This is important because effects like Fort Rannick's "When you attempt a combat check, you may discard an ally to add 1d4 to that check" and the Old Light's "Add 1d6 to checks using the Fire trait" could in principal be invoked repeatedly if not for the rule I quoted earlier.
So at the very least, "powers" in the context we're talking about here should refer to both "character powers" and "location powers". But why draw the line here? Why not include ALL powers, whether they're from a boon in your hand, from a boon you've displayed, from your character card, or from a location card?
If it worked the way you suggest, then you could not have different cards with the same effects played on the same check; this would mean that you could only play one effect that says "add a die to your check," for instance. You would also be unable to play two belts once each on the same check.
Well, that's a gray area. "Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step" is ambiguous about that. If the same power is coming from two different copies of a card, the case could be made that it counts as two separate powers because it's coming from two distinct sources. Or the case could be made that it counts as the same power because it is literally the same string of characters.
This is probably a discussion for another thread.Yes, please.
Noted. I'll take it to the homebrew and houserules forum when I get a chance.