1) Yes limit is one card of each type per CHECK.
2) Only once at the start of your turn. Plus once at the end of your turn.
3) You keep the cards won during explorations (obviously not the rewards for wining the scenario) and restart
4) Cards which have the BASIC trait = cards which say basic underneath the description
Just to be more precise :
3) You keep the cards won during explorations... but then you need to rebuild your deck for the retry of the scenario (so you have to keep only the number of each type of boons allowed by your current card feats).
2) The Crusader has an ability to send a boon to the bottom of the deck. Are these types of abilities only usable once per turn? Or can she keep sending boons until she gets something that's not a boon?
The answer is specified in her power:
You may examine the top card of your location deck at the start ([]or end) of your turn. If it’s a boon, put it on the bottom ([]or underneath the top card) of the deck.
So the question isn't about "these types of abilities". This particular ability is explicit about when it can be used.
To address an unclear point, it has been ruled that if you have the "or end" power, you can use the ability at both the start and end of your turn.
To address an unclear point, it has been ruled that if you have the "or end" power, you can use the ability at both the start and end of your turn.
What ?!? That's completely new to me. Can you possibly point out where this was decided?
It may be some flaw in my grasp of English, but I interpret the word 'or' as 'either the one OR the other'; in fact, I cannot possibly thing how to define 'or' otherwise.If what you say is true, I definitely think these cards should be errataed to "at the start [AND end] of your turn", for those of us with less... interpretative understanding of words.
I definitely think these cards should be errataed to "at the start [AND end] of your turn", for those of us with less... interpretative understanding of words.
I agree! I always read OR, as an alternative between options.
And use AND, if both can options be used.
To address an unclear point, it has been ruled that if you have the "or end" power, you can use the ability at both the start and end of your turn.What ?!? That's completely new to me. Can you possibly point out where this was decided?
It may be some flaw in my grasp of English, but I interpret the word 'or' as 'either the one OR the other'; in fact, I cannot possibly thing how to define 'or' otherwise.If what you say is true, I definitely think these cards should be errataed to "at the start [AND end] of your turn", for those of us with less... interpretative understanding of words.
"Or" is the inclusive or in this case (that's the official term for it if you want to look it up), it means the following options are valid:
If it said "and", then the only valid option is "do it at both the start and end of turn" which gives a lot less flexibility to the power.
If the terminology was "either start or end of turn", then the or is exclusive and only one of them can be taken, but not both. That is not the case here though. While "or" is generally exclusive by default in the English language, there are contexts where it is meant to be inclusive. These types of powers is one of those contexts, due to the rule that cards don't have memories and therefore don't know whether or not you already used the power at the start of your turn (per Mike's quote).
"Or" is the inclusive or in this case (that's the official term for it if you want to look it up), it means the following options are valid:
Do it at the start of turn
Do it at the end of turn
Do it at both the start and end of turn. If it said "and", then the only valid option is "do it at both the start and end of turn" which gives a lot less flexibility to the power.
If the terminology was "either start or end of turn", then the or is exclusive and only one of them can be taken, but not both. That is not the case here though. While "or" is generally exclusive by default in the English language, there are contexts where it is meant to be inclusive. These types of powers is one of those contexts, due to the rule that cards don't have memories and therefore don't know whether or not you already used the power at the start of your turn (per Mike's quote).
Fair enough, I guess. I would argue that the 'and' would be no less appropriate in this instance, but that is because I would read the 'you may' to apply separately to both 'at start' and 'at end of turn', while you would seem to assume the opposite. And given that 'or' is exclusive by default, while 'and' is inclusive, it seem much more intuitive and confusion-free to use the latter.
I must say that it bugs me if a game seems to require PhDs in English and linguistics to be played properly, but admittedly us non-native speakers are probably not the English editions' target audience in the first place.
I'd say that, no matter how this was worded, it would have caused someone problems.
"and/or end" would probably be the most clear, but is a bit kludgier. I've come to like the style that the simple or brings. I just look at the ability and go "Can I use this now?" and maintain the rule that cards don't have memories to know if I've used it earlier :)
Think of it as effectively saying "If it is currently the start of the turn or the end of the turn then you may [etc]".
That said, why couldn't you just use the word "and" here? It wouldn't force you to use the ability at those times, because the ability says you "may" use it anyway. If it wasn't an optional use ability then sure, that would be different, but on the other hand for a non-optional ability I would always interpret "or" as exclusive in the first place.
Just for humour value, my first reaction when reading that ruling was "With the other power, can I also put the card both on the bottom *and* one card from the top?". Actually, with exactly one other card in the deck you can!
Yes we can always make things clearer with more words... but at some point you start writing on the art of the card :-)
R. g. :
You may examine the top card of your location deck ONCE at the start ([]AND/or ONCE AT THE end) of your turn.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And" doesn't work because it might suggest to some people that you can't do the end of the turn unless you also did it at the start of the turn. "And/or" technically works, but it's clunky and we try to avoid it. "Or" works because cards don't have memories—whether or not you did it before has no bearing on whether or not you can do it now.
"And" doesn't work because it might suggest to some people that you can't do the end of the turn unless you also did it at the start of the turn. "And/or" technically works, but it's clunky and we try to avoid it. "Or" works because cards don't have memories—whether or not you did it before has no bearing on whether or not you can do it now.
I was wondering about that.
If you can say "a player shouldn't assume the OR is exclusive because cards have no memories", couldn't you also say "players shouldn't assume AND makes both examines mandatory, because cards have no memories and doing it at the start can't have a bearing on doing it at the end"?
I'm not arguing about it, but I'm curious as to what tips your scales wording-wise when the "cards have no memories" (a concept with plenty of evidence being too vague for multiple players) enters the equation.
The point I took from what Vic said is that "and" has essentially the same problem as "or".
Using "or" creatures confusion between:
"(If it is the start or end of the turn), (then you may do X)"
vs
"(You may do X), (at [either] the start or end of the turn)"
Using "and" creates confusion between:
"(At the start and end of the turn), (you may do X)"
vs
"(You may), (do X at [both] the start and and of your turn)"
So I now agree that "and" isn't any better. I also think the "cards don't have memories" disambiguator should work in either case to end up with the same (and intended) end result (I don't really understand Andrew's argument above for why it should be different).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
What Andrew is getting at is that the cards get to break the rules. If the rule is "cards don't have memory," but a card suggests that it does, players might think that's deliberate. (I think you could try to make the same argument with "or," though.)
The thing that tips my scales is that "and" ties things together more tightly than "or" does. If I tell you to eat some peas and carrots, I likely mean for you to eat both of those things. If I tell you to eat some peas or carrots, it may not be as clear as I'd like that I'm allowing you to have some of each, but it *is* pretty clear that I'm not *requiring* you to eat both.