I read somewhere here you can't use Elfhelm (not the new one, the other) to nullify an effect of a location by putting 1 progress on it raising your threat by 1, because yoyu only can put the progress satisfying the cost. Elfhelm, however, doesn't say he cancels threat raise by 1, he says he reduces the threat. So my theory is that you successfully raise your threat and then you reduce it, so you tecnically explore the location with zero net threat raise.
I believe they got it wrong
what location is raising your threat? what cards are you using in this example?
what location is raising your threat? what cards are you using in this example?
My guess is Zigil Mineshaft:
Action: Raise each player's threat by 1 to place 1 progress token on Zigil Mineshaft.
Elfhelm says "After your threat is raised ... by an encounter card or quest card effect, reduce your threat by 1." In the case of Zigil Mineshaft, the encounter card doesn't raise your threat, it just makes an optional player action available that can raise your threat.
On the other hand, there is this post https://boardgamegeek.com/article/17687642#17687642
I'm surprised, but a ruling from Caleb is about as definitive as it gets, absent a later ruling reversing it.
So if Caleb said it worked back in 2014, who is the "they" in the OP?
All the people saying it didn't work in the thread. If you follow the link, you'll read "got an official answer that's different from what everyone has seemed to agree on here". It happened in Board Game Geek forum, but also there and here.
The people saying it didn't work in this thread can't be the antecedent of "they", because they hadn't posted in this thread until after the OP.
The people saying it didn't work in the linked BGG are unlikely to be the antecedent of "they". While "they got it wrong", the thread also has an official answer contradicting them. It makes no sense to say "I believe they got it wrong" about a thread that proves they got it wrong, nor does it make sense to post here in 2016 about people getting it wrong in 2012, overruled in 2014.
So I still wonder -- who are "they"?
Edited by Kakita ShiroThe people saying it didn't work in this thread can't be the antecedent of "they", because they hadn't posted in this thread until after the OP.
The people saying it didn't work in the linked BGG are unlikely to be the antecedent of "they". While "they got it wrong", the thread also has an official answer contradicting them. It makes no sense to say "I believe they got it wrong" about a thread that proves they got it wrong, nor does it make sense to post here in 2016 about people getting it wrong in 2012, overruled in 2014.
So I still wonder -- who are "they"?
Caleb doesn't work for "they", because Caleb agrees with the OP.
They is just a retoric resource!
They is just a retoric resource!
...or is that what they would have you believe?
