Hi,

it came up last night. Is a kingdom a location? Tzumainn's side list them as such, but it was argued that they do not have a "location background" behind their name, so they do not count as such, e.g., for "Fleeing to the Wall".

Thanks,

Castorp

Castorp said:

Of course they have, just a big one

Castorp said:

They are locations. They meet every definition of a location and act as such during the game. If people insist that they should have the "map" or "parchment" pattern surrounding the title as indicated in the rules, Rogue30 has the right of it - the map is the entire background of the card, so it surrounds both the title and the text box.

For the most part, if someone is trying to say "it doesn't have the same backing around the title bar, so it's not a location," they are trying to get away with a technicality. Granted, FFG did take some liberties with the appearance of the cards, but that doesn't create a new card type. There are only 4 types of cards that go into a play deck: characters, locations, attachments and events. The Kingdoms have to be one of those 4 - and their characteristics and use are most consistent with locations.

Thanks a lot. I thought so....