It has become apparent from a discussion from BGG forums that various Assets, Unique Assets and Artifact cards from Strange Remnants have had the traits printed on the cards in an incorrect format leading to some confusion about how the traits are comprehended. I felt it worth mentioning here for good flow of info for the EH community and in the hope that FFG take note and take more consideration for future expansions to prevent this happening again.

The affected cards and it's traits are listed as follows followed by what the correct Trait formatting should be:

Assets

Holy Spear:- Item - Magical Relic Weapon (Item - Relic, Weapon, Magical)

Ritual Dagger:- I tem - Magical Weapon (Item - Weapon, Magical)

Arcane Blade:- Item - Magical Weapon (Item - Weapon, Magical)

Artifacts

Khopesh of the Abyss:- Item- Magical Relic Weapon (Item - Relic, Weapon, Magical)

Dragon Idol:- Item- Magical Relic (Item- Relic, Magical)

Unique Assets

Ancient Sword:- Item - Magical Relic Weapon (Item - Relic, Weapon, Magical)

Stone Calender:- Item - Magical Relic (Item - Relic, Magical)

Mysterious Idol:- Item - Magical Relic (Item - Relic, Magical) All 3 cards

Lost Treasure:- Item - Magical Relic (Item - Relic, Magical)

The traits as listed looked like a separate classification of traits which do not exist. The discussion on BGG was about a card that instructed you to collect a Relic from the Unique Assets deck and the first card that was found listed the trait as a 'Magical Relic' which because it wasn't laid out in the correct format with commas and correct word placement caused confusion as to whether it counted or not as a Relic.

Correct format of Traits has been used consistently in all previous EH products. Case in Point:

Spirit Dagger:- Item - Weapon, Magical (Core)

Sword of Y'ha - Talla:- Item - Weapon, Magical (FL)

Poor oversight and consistency on FFG's part and I hope this is well noted.

Uh, that's a kinda huge oversight.

Thanks for posting.

And keeping my fingers crossed, that our upcoming german version will deliver an already Errata'd version.

//EDIT:

The preview apparently features the wrong formatting. Hope this will be corrected in time:

Canopic Jar

I consider both formats correct, but consistency should be maintained. Now I understand the confusion.

Whilst we at it the adventures in SR don't have numbers of their backs like they do for the Antarctic Adventures. I appreciate the format in which the adventure essentially works is either 1 - 2A - 3A - 4 or 1 - 2B - 3B - 4, but it would have been nice to have numbers on the back all the same, if only for the random elements at point 2 in the adventure.

I have had official clarification from Nikki Valens concerning this.

The format change is deliberate and will be mentioned in the next FAQ update.

I wonder what has prompted this change when the original traits system was perfectly functional as it was.

The main difference that I can see is that traits are now listed alphabetically. If this is indeed the case, then it does make it easier to know where to place a trait relative to others.

Of course, this doesn't explain why they dropped the use of commas as separators.

I think the advantage of the new format is that it makes the traits more descriptive and less mechanical. Saying something is a magical relic enhances the flavor more than saying it's Magical, comma, relic.

But then the confussion makes it worse.

I think once it's addressed as deliberate, it shouldn't be a source of confusion. A Magical Relic is both magical, and a Relic. It doesn't seem that confusing; unless you apply the incredibly pedantic and very strict reading of the text that, admittedly, is often needed to play board games correctly. The uncertainty of whether we should be exceptionally pedantic or not has caused some confusion, but once that's cleared up, I think the fact that a Magical Relic is both Magical and a Relic isn't much of a stretch.

I think once it's addressed as deliberate, it shouldn't be a source of confusion. A Magical Relic is both magical, and a Relic. It doesn't seem that confusing; unless you apply the incredibly pedantic and very strict reading of the text that, admittedly, is often needed to play board games correctly. The uncertainty of whether we should be exceptionally pedantic or not has caused some confusion, but once that's cleared up, I think the fact that a Magical Relic is both Magical and a Relic isn't much of a stretch.

This pretty much sums it up perfectly.

The issue was caused by uncertainty due to the change of format without due clarification from up high. As you say, once this is clarified then it is balck and white and everyone will again be seeing it from the same angle and there will be no more confusing interpretations.

I was one of those who chose to see " Magical Relic " as a separate classification then a card with just "Relic". I figured that if I was allowed to select a Magical Relic then the effect would say something like "search the Unique Assets Deck for a Relic or Magical Relic". Had the Trait had a comma separating Magical and Relic then it would have been clear that these were indeed two separate traits that apply to the card and not seemingly one descriptor.

The pedantic Black and White world of board game rulings is necessary to preserve the efficient flow of game-play which keeps everyone involved and sharing a symbiotic connection to the game at hand. Once uncertainty and confusion creeps in then that harmonious zone you are all in can break down and spoil the fun.

Casual interpretation and common sense game-play are the realm of RPG's not BG's.

And this is still not in the latest FAQ, which was posted several months after this thread. Is there a more recent FAQ that might make this correction official?

There is on the second page of the latest FAQ:

"Starting from the release of the Strange Remnants expansion,the formatting of a card’s trait line has changed. A card’s traits are now separated by spaces, not commas."