Don't you love the fact that a lot the spoiled cards have mistakes? Check the card spoiled in the article.

You'd say, given the fact the card is really simple (and really useless), it would be possible to avoid simple problems like forgetting what this card attaches to.

So yes. You play Dream Dagger, then it just stays there, because it doesn't attach like other powerhouses like .45 pistols. Then you try to activate it's ability and guess what? It doesn't work either, unless you can unattach a card which wasn't attached to anything.

Sure it will be better to test the cards effects, then make spoilers, then test spoilers - look a the text (size, style, keywords in bold or not; etc...), then print the cards.

Remenber faq 2.0 about then, the first effect must resolve in order for the second effect to occur !

With the problem of the Keywords style day/night from previous spoilers, with this problem here we could tell : FFG tests the cards effects, then print the cards. What's else !

I like the art for dream dagger.

Could immediately tell the artist is female by the way the bustline is NOT featured.

Very nice use of lighting, and the way the dagger hilt glows redly on the bedclothes.

Chick

chicklewis said:

A greater resolution

Yes, it is nice art

thanks, Marcoa !

Where did you get the detailed version ??

Chick

Second attempt ...

I visit Anna´s blog (http://annafreshlypainted.blogspot.com)

Ok, I took a look at this card. What's the problem again? Is it that it doesn't specifically say it attaches to a character? FFG probably figured people would be smart enough to see that a card that affects characters should be attached to one, but I guess they were wrong. Personally I'm glad they didn't put the unnecessary text on, it would just clutter up the card. And yes, the art is great.

Edit: I posted a sligthly too snappy response. Better clear it.

They probably assumed anyone who knows how to play will be able to infer that it attaches to a character (not to mention that they need the space to list the rest of what it does).

Omit needless words

Two previous Attachments that hadn't the "attach to -something-" passive ability were ruled not to attach (Whateley Diary and another book, I reckon). It was an old forum post, so no source.

Saying Dream Dagger should attach even when not ruled to because it "makes sense" would be like playing Julia Brown as if she had the Mutable subtype because she shapechanges.

I don't know if you should take what I say for granted ^^

But here's an attachment you play without attaching it to a character. It stays on the table. Cost of 1 is okay but ....

It becomes really interesting when you're able to pay 1 more and attch it. Not really usefull when you're playing any character that is'nt a dreamer (even if a given [C] icon should help sometimes, despite the cost of a second domain to drain). But Priceless on a dreamer.

I don't know why you're all want this card to do something that is'nt written on the card ????

Let me remind you there is no "then" condition for unnnatchment/attachment and this single line is clear enought to allow a player to :

1. Attach this to a charcater, as the result of the part of the action that possibly be lead.

2. Move the attachment to another Character, as the result of the whole action

PRODIGEE said:

Agreed

PRODIGEE said:

This is the part I have trouble with: since tha action states: Action: pay 1 to unattach Dream Dagger and attach it to a different character you control.

Now, while there is no then, both part of the action could be argued to fail, if Dream Dagger is not currently attached to a character you control.

First part is rather obvious: it cannot be unattached since it is not attached.

Second part is trickier: you need to attach it to a different character you control. But since it was attached to no character, the check "is this different from the character it was attached before?" can never be yes, so it never attaches.

While there is no then, if both parts fail, well, the Dagger sit unused and unuseable.

Cards that attach to characters as a rule mention it on the card.

No, FFG 'figured' nothing. This is just another mistake in a long list of them.

Some folks may be willing to pay good money for a flawed product but others will not.

I'd hate to see potenial local players turn away from this game due to poor quality control,

there are too few as it is. I hope FFG has recommited themselves to the quality most of us expect.

If Dreamlands proves to be as error filled as 'Spawn' it would be a real shame.

Newbunkle said:

LOL. The 99% of players with common sense are going to attach this to characters and not bat an eyelid about the missing reminder text, regardless of whether FFG says they can or not.

Newbunkle said:

And it could be a bad way to play the card. Remember for CCG's players, The Mask from the extension Maks of Nyarlathotep, a card like MN U14 Unmasking Cowardice for exemple. In a first time, It was a card you play like a support : you put it in play. In a second time, in reponse of something you could attach it to a character. It was not an attachment you play directly on a character !

So, the dream dagger can be a card you put in play by paying 1. Once in play, you can trigger its action and attach it to a character but the actual wording is not clear. Or it's a card when you play it, you must attach directly to a character like the .45 pistols.

It's two different way to play the card and the text doesn't explain enough, which way is the good one. So, yes mistake somewhere...

Unmasking Cowardice
-------------------
- Steadfast [AGENCY][AGENCY] -
Type : Support
Coût : 0
Sous-type : Mask.
Descriptif : Response: after a story resolves, attach Unmasking Cowardice to a committed character. Attached character cannot commit to a story alone.
Flavor text :
Illustrateur : Aaron Acevedo
Info Collectionneur : MN U14

Newbunkle said:

Newbunkle said:

Well, common sense doesn't always apply in a game! That's why there are rules and FAQs and whatnot. For friendly play, no problem. For tournament play where there might be prizes at stake, everyone needs to have a voice of authority making clear, indisputable rulings.

Maybe there is an intention to create a new rule that when something is labeled as an attachment it must come into play attached to a character. With this there would be no further need for the additional text.

there are cards that attach to a domain (ancient gold, expectancy, fungal colony...), to a story card (still life exhibition), attach to a support card (artifact of the lost cities), so actually it should be clear, to what any given attachment attaches to....

And since attachments can attach to darn near everything (Urban lists a field of examples), it need be clear which. I see the sentiment that there is an omission here. But character is stated twice. I think we can take the obvious step. FFG need comment but not erratta. I think it's perfectly fine as is except for that one tournament moment, "the servitor blinked! I'll never get my binky!"

Players using cards that float then attach can take it up in Whately. I know a really big weird barn I suggest investigating.

Newbunkle said:

Nice insult to all your players, Nate. Clear, constitant wording is essential for all games of this type to avoid confusion and wild player interperation of the rules (it doesn't say you can't do it ring any bells?) This is especially true since the a major selling point of the APs is to bring in new players who may have common sense, but not the experience of other players.

Donald