So, for those unfamiliar, Ak has the unique trait of using both sides of his role card alternately; each side has the text "When you gain or lose a feat on this card, also do so on the other side of this card."
Meanwhile, the Society rules for Blackjack say "Each time they gain a power feat that appears only on their role, they also gain a power feat on their Blackjack role. Each time they gain a power feat on their role that also appears on their character card, they also gain that feat on their character card."
So... Does this mean that Ak can gain two power feats on Blackjack (or his character card) each time he gains a power feat? That's obviously not RAI, but I'm not seeing any way it's not RAW. (Unless only one of the two is considered "your role".)
The parenthetical is correct. Only the side of the role card you are actively using is your role.
If both sides counted as your role, then you’d be able to use both sides of the card at the same time.
So you're saying that whichever side is face up at the end of the scenario is considered "your role" at that time? In this case, I have follow-up questions:
*If you were using Blackjack during the scenario, which side is considered your role?
*What if you marked the "2 or 6" hand size feat on one side while it was not considered your role, then marked "1 or 7" on that side while it was considered your role? Would you mark the "1 or 7" feat on your character card without having marked the "2 or 6"? Would it function normally (aside from not being able to choose 2 or 6)?
Or, the third possible interpretation is that you choose one role at the normal time, and only that role is considered your role. Which probably makes the most sense, but also means you have to keep track of that choice which otherwise doesn't matter.
Thinking about Ak's role cards also has made me realize there's another can of worms here, though. If you choose one role as normal when you gain your third feat or role (which I believe, RAW, you must do regardless of what's considered "your role" later on), then you would mark off the power feats chosen on your character card as usual... and the role's power would allow you to gain the same number of feats on the other side of the card, but with no such restriction. You could go three deep into a power tree immediately, if you wanted, or mark three role-exclusive powers right away. And that actually applies to ALL game modes, not just Society with Blackjack.
I think maybe this thread should be moved to the rules questions forum, since it's needing some pretty deep rules knowledge.
So... Does this mean that Ak can gain two power feats on Blackjack (or his character card) each time he gains a power feat? That's obviously not RAI, but I'm not seeing any way it's not RAW. (Unless only one of the two is considered "your role".)
Actually, yes, only one is considered your role.
The problem might be (unless you're just lobbying for a more strict wording, as opposed to being unclear on how it works), you might be conflating two separate notions, that, while very similar sounding, are actually quite distinct.
From the Rulebook:
"Each side of your role card presents a different role, allowing you to choose one of two different paths for your character’s continuing advancement. When you are rewarded with a role, select one of the two sides."
So, there's the "role card" - the actual, tangible piece of cardstock, that has two -in most cases- mutually exclusive "faces".
Then, there's the "role" itself - the abstract representation of your character's specialization. You usually select the role from the two options on the *role card* - but even in cases like Ak (and also Arik the Vigilante - who presents similar card-flipping issue even before Role) you always have only *one role at a time* - at least where your "role card" is concerned. (basically, what Skizzers said)
So Ak is always EITHER a Chieftain OR Survivor. Granted, the Society rules for Blackjack (btw, where can I find this specifically? Is it in the OP guide??) wording leaves a "loophole" (which wouldn't be different even if they used "role card" instead of "card"), the intent should be obvious. It seems to be more about "common sense" rather than "deep rules knowledge" (as you point out yourself - that this can't possibly be RAI)
Now, if we want to get pedantical (as we're want to do on this forum :) - the more strict wording for Ak might've been:
"When you gain or lose a feat on this role, also do so on the other side of this card." - this makes it clear that while you're gaining two feats on your role CARD, you're only gaining one feat on your (only) ROLE.
(also, I don't have the Ak card with me, but do note: if the current wording you quoted is present on BOTH sides of his role CARD - it basically starts an infinite role-feat-gaining loop!!)
With the above, when Society Blackjack tells you: "Each time they gain a power feat that appears only on their ROLE,..." - it would be (at least somewhat more) clear that it would be triggered only once by Ak.
Thinking about Ak's role cards also has made me realize there's another can of worms here, though...
Rulebook:
"When you are rewarded with a role, select one of the two sides. Then, check all of its feats that match feats you’ve already checked on your character. "So, technically, you're not "rewarded" or "gaining" your old Character card feats a second time - you're just marking them on the role card for convenience of visual representation. So, no issue there, far as I can see.
Meanwhile, the Society rules for Blackjack say "Each time they gain a power feat that appears only on their role, they also gain a power feat on their Blackjack role. Each time they gain a power feat on their role that also appears on their character card, they also gain that feat on their character card."
So there seems to be something odd going here - it would appear that - where Curse makes you REPLACE your normal Role with Blackjack- the Society rules let you *keep* your role AND double-dip with power feats, gaining feats on BOTH the normal role and Blackjack; am I getting that right, 'because it seems somewhat odd (though, granted, much more satisfactory than the Curse implementation of Blackjack)?!?
The problem might be (unless you're just lobbying for a more strict wording, as opposed to being unclear on how it works), you might be conflating two separate notions, that, while very similar sounding, are actually quite distinct.
Little of column A, little of column B. Obviously I know that "doubling up" like that isn't the way it works (or at least, should work), but I've never seen any definition of "your role" anywhere (for good reason, as for almost any other character it's obvious) so I'm not sure which role to follow with the Blackjack - which definitely matters.
It sounds like you're agreed with skizzerz that "your role" is the role you're presently using, which still leaves the questions of:
*Which is it if you used Blackjack for this scenario?
(My interpretation would be, whichever one you "chose" when you gained your roles, as that's what you would start each scenario using except for the text on top that says otherwise.)
*Since it's not consistent which role you're following for Blackjack, how do feat prerequisites work?
(Take two power feats on Ak's character card, let's call them feats A and B. Feat B is right after feat A on the card, so you have to check feat A first. Now you leave both these feats unchecked until after gaining role cards. In one scenario you end up as Survivor and choose a role power, but you check feat A on the Chief role. Then, later, you end a scenario as Chief and check feat B. The Blackjack rules tell you to check feat B on your character card, but you've never checked feat A there.)
Actually, it just now occurred to me that this situation isn't unique to Ak - other characters could get there by checking feat A before gaining the Scenario 3A reward.
the Society rules for Blackjack (btw, where can I find this specifically? Is it in the OP guide??)
It's on the Curse sanctioning document -on the Curse store page - in the reward for scenario 3A.
So, technically, you're not "rewarded" or "gaining" your old Character card feats a second time - you're just marking them on the role card for convenience of visual representation. So, no issue there, far as I can see.
Debatable, although I'll accept it. That does mean that nothing actually tells you to check off those powers on the other role, but that's also a common sense kind of thing - and as there's no actual confusion about how that should work, I'm fine leaving it at that.
So there seems to be something odd going here - it would appear that - where Curse makes you REPLACE your normal Role with Blackjack- the Society rules let you *keep* your role AND double-dip with power feats, gaining feats on BOTH the normal role and Blackjack; am I getting that right, 'because it seems somewhat odd (though, granted, much more satisfactory than the Curse implementation of Blackjack)?!?
The Society rules just have you replace your role with Blackjack on a per-scenario basis, rather than permanently. You don't get to use both at once. (Presumably, this is so they can keep the restrictions of one Blackjack per table, and restrict Blackjack to the Curse AP, without making Blackjack characters unplayable in some situations.)
the Society rules for Blackjack (btw, where can I find this specifically? Is it in the OP guide??)It's on the Curse sanctioning document
Thanks for the link. Now I understand the issue and you're indeed correct - the "prerequisites" indeed can be become "broken". However, there seems to be 0 balance issue, generally - the purpose of the whole Blackjack rule is to keep track of which "pre-role" feats you have unlocked, even when you decide to swap your role for Blackjack (so the "pre-role" feats remain noted on you Character card, even if you've taken them post-role). So, visually, you may indeed end up with "Add 1d4 []+1 [x]+2 to your combat checks" on your Character card - but that's OK because to get there - you have legitimately "payed" for you +1 power (on you role, before gaining Blackjack) and then for +2 (on your role, post-Blackjack).
The only real gameplay impact (that I can think of) that the OP setup for Blackjack has (compared to standard play) is with banes that make you bury your role card - in that case, OP players are clearly privileged, as they get to keep post-role feats they shouldn't really have access to anymore.