Just now, Turtlefan2082 said:

At the same time, it is just one card. I can see this being an issue with the Dunwich investigators. Would this detract players from including these cards in Dunwich decks?

Matt's response is pretty explicit. Assuming they don't change their minds, it counts as two. It's looking like cards have "slots" rather than counting the cards themselves.

It will probably deter the Dunwich investigators from using the dual-class cards, but I don't think that's an awful thing. They're still the most flexible characters in the game, if 8 or 10 cards end up being extra expensive for them it's not like it'll cripple them.

On the broader issue, it's definitely not intuitive, but I don't think it's exactly hard once you see a few examples. It feels like people are working hard to make it more complex than it is because they don't like the rule, more than there being an actual problem with the rule.

30 minutes ago, Turtlefan2082 said:

At the same time, it is just one card. I can see this being an issue with the Dunwich investigators. Would this detract players from including these cards in Dunwich decks?

Some have suggested that that was part of the point -- that this helps out other investigators while not being as good for the already-strong Dunwich team.

No... I think it is complex.

The basic rule is that you can only include cards specifically allowed to you; everything else is outlawed. The rights granted are 'match any of the requirements'.

So, key point: None of the card lists are restricting what cards a character can use; everything is restricted to begin with - the card lists are whitelisting what cards can be used.

If a card allows a character who can not include cards of a type at all to include them, then a character who can already use those cards should not be any more restricted.

Again, when talking about cards I think it's also really misleading to say 'you have a thirty card minimum hand size, but dual-class cards count for two, so your actual limit is 15 physical cards'

The 30 card limit is a physical limit.

The restrictions and specification of the card type and the slots are a logical limit.

From the physical view the dual-class cards count as 1.

From a logical view it counts as 2 cards.

That are 2 totally different things.

I don't think this is problem of rules but of perspective, if there is a problem anyway..

I find the article and the examples within are pretty clear..

What's so complex about it?

"If you are limited to a certain number of cards, dual-class count as one card for each matching class."

I don't necessarily love it, because it leads to some weird situations. If Finn takes a Seeker/Guardian card it counts as one. If he takes a Mystic/Survivor card, it counts as one. If he takes a Seeker/Survivor card, it counts as two. That seems odd, that it would be more expensive for playing into his strengths. But it's not really complex.

Hmmm ... and Roland CLEARLY can't take a exp-3 guardian-seeker card because his deck building requirements state 0-2 seeker cards only.

(That's just a silly example of how a poorly thought out the ruling was; it seems obvious to me that deck building options are adding to what characters can take, not limiting them (the default is zero, no need to explicitly limit.)

Roland CAN take a 3xp guardian seeker card!

As he also has no limited slot pools he also has no disadvantage

1 hour ago, armin321 said:

Roland CAN take a 3xp guardian seeker card!

As he also has no limited slot pools he also has no disadvantage

Because cards with slots count as two if the slots align with slots on the character card slots, so cards only count as half when being compared to the other card restrictions on the character card. No wait, we defined other as being NOT the character level and class restrictions, but just the slot restrictions just before defining one card is two slots but slots count as one card each!

Got it!

(I am not disagreeing with your interpretation; just the convoluted mess you had to go through to try to explain it.)

Without knowing the wording on the multi-class rules, they are going to be something like: can be played as long as "any of the requirements are met." We also have a starting point of "characters can't use cards unless explicitly allowed to do so."

Moving from the rules and the cards, you also have a bunch of errata: stuff not in the rulebook or on the cards: balancing or clarification.

Then you get another layer of errata: stuff clarifying other errata or making the logical consequences clear. This can be extended, as we get errata clarifying errata that is clarifying errata.

The depth of the errata stack is what I am alluding to when I talk about 'complexity'.

By the time you feel the need to start inventing new concepts (card slots) to explain the consequences of errata on errata: you have moved well beyond the remit of errata (clarify and balance) and moved into using the errata as the rules.

(This is a bad thing)

Wow, I'm quite impress this topic is taking 2 pages, and people are still confused.

For me, it's pretty straightforward.

There is only one rule added: «gold cards with two faction icons can be included if you met one of either icons.»

The only implicit rule that has to be undestood is that it count as a card from both factions.

e.g: if your deckbuilding Pete, restriction say you can take "up to five level 0 cards from any other class", adding a mystic/seeker card count as one other faction card, since it is both factions, and adding a survivor/rogue card also count as "any other class" card (singular!).

3 hours ago, vindoq said:

For me, it's pretty straightforward.

There is only one rule added: gold cards with two faction icons can be included if you met one of either icons.

I don't think that is actually sufficient, you need to say it as 'can be included if any of the requirements for inclusion are met' to account for inclusion by trait.

That's also assuming you don't have requirements on a card that override the rule. "Can include seeker cards 0-2" read literally doesn't mean you are barred from experience 3+ cards, just that you need to meet some other criteria to include them.

Still with me?

So, a card that says 'up to 5 cards of any other other class' doesn't limit you to only 5 cards, just that for more than 5 cards: "you need to meet some other criteria." Pete could include 20 multi-class survivor cards, because it is legitimate for him to do so.

Making sense still?

The question still remains whether Pete's 20 hypothetical multi-class cards count against the 'up to 5 cards of another class'; which sort of hinges on the use of 'other cards' on later investigators ( e.g., Finn), which was clarified for Carolyn as being implicitly there.

( i.e., Pete can take 20+ multi-class cards, but do those cards fill the 'up to 5' cards as well?)

( You could also suggest that Pete is LIMITED to a max of 5 other cards, including ones that are valid by other means, but that seems clearly not be supported by 'match any valid criteria' mechanism.)

Open Question 1: does the errata for Carolyn mean Pete should be 'interpreted the same way?' ( i.e. Carolyn is a specific example of a general situation) or that by explicitly mentioning Carolyn does that mean that Pete should be interpreted differently, despite having the same language?

Open Question 2: Should multi-class cards count twice? This is more related to interpreting 'card' as referring to a physical 'card' or if some other thing (inventing some new concept like 'slots')

(That seems like a step too far for errata: no longer clarifying rules, but introducing new rules.)

It is sufficient.

If you can include guadian card 0-5 and you can include seeker card 0-3, you can include a guardian/seeker 3XP, because it fit the first condition. It doesn't say "cannot include seeker card 3 and above".

Not with you.

Pete could not include 20 survivor-other cards because that would break the "up to five non-survivor" condition.

Not making sense to me.

Question 1: The errata I found on Carolyn mention «In other words, her card should actually read “15 other Seeker and/or Mystic cards”». So no problem if they add "other", and Pete could do the same if they go back on all investigator and add this "Other" everywhere, but the article doesn't go in that direction.

Question 2: A card is a card. Can't see what's wrong here.

Rhetorical Question: Doesn't the "level 3 seeker card" break the "only include level 0-2 seeker card" requirement?

Answer to Rhetorical Question: "No, because it isn't a deck requirement, it is an deck option"

(In both cases, 'up to 5' or level 3, because the card is valid to include, due to meeting a different condition, it can be included. You just need to choose among the valid options.)

The only question is whether the the multiclass cards take up the 'up to 5 out of class', such that if you have 5+ multiclass you can't have any out of class.

The Carolyn errata is suggestive of Pete also having his limit be interpreted as 'other' cards, i.e., cards not valid by another mechanism. (Since there is no current ambiguity for Pete, there hasn't been a reason to clarify it, yet.)

(That's pre-errata, just based on rules and cards. The article is suggestive of some upcoming errata that would be counterintuitive or at least inconsistent, if it in fact is released that way, but which we haven't actually seen yet. )

47 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

Doesn't the "level 3 seeker card" break the "only include level 0-2 seeker card" condition?

No, not as long as it meets another valid requirement. The requirement does not say "only level 0-2 Seeker". If it did, then correct, she couldn't take it. It's an inclusive rule, not an exclusive one.

It's no different than Calvin being able to take Ward of Protection because it is Spirit-traited. The fact that he can't normally take Mystic cards doesn't come into it.

I believe there are only two investigators with exclusive rules: Rex, not allowed to take Fortunes; and Carolyn, not allowed to take Level 1+ Weapons.

14 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

No, not as long as it meets another valid requirement.

It's no different than Calvin being able to take Ward of Protection because it is Spirit-traited. The fact that he can't normally take Mystic cards doesn't come into it. The only investigator so far with a "cannot have" type restiction is Carolyn, with no level 1+ Weapons.

Just to be clear: there are Deck Building Options and there are Deck Building Requirements.

You can choose among ANY valid "Deck Building Option"

You must adhere to ALL "Deck Building Requirements"

You see where I am going with this?

Edited to be more pedantic and less snarky:

Is "Up to 5 level zero cards" an Option or a Requirement?

If it is a Deck Building Option, it's NOT a Requirement, it is optional.

1 minute ago, ColinEdwards said:

Just to be clear: there are Deck Building Options and there are Deck Building Requirements.

You can choose among ANY valid "Deck Building Option"

You must adhere to ALL "Deck Building Requirements"

You see where I am going with this?

I don't, I'm afraid.

BTW, I edited my post from under you. I don't know if it changes anything.

7 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

Just to be clear: there are Deck Building Options and there are Deck Building Requirements.

You can choose among ANY valid "Deck Building Option"

You must adhere to ALL "Deck Building Requirements"

You see where I am going with this?

Edited to be really pedantic:

Is "Up to 5 level zero cards" an Option or a Requirement?

If it is a Deck Building Option, it's.... Wait for it .... It's coming ... It's NOT a Requirement ... It's optional.

Yes, it's an option. So you don't have to take five off-class cards if you don't want to.

Edit: Oh, I see, I said "requirement". My mistake, then, "No, not as long as it meets another valid option".

Just now, CSerpent said:

Yes, it's an option. So you don't have to take five off-class cards if you don't want to.

More to the point of multi-class cards, you aren't limited to 5 if they are valid by another mechanism.

1 hour ago, CSerpent said:

It's no different than Calvin being able to take Ward of Protection because it is Spirit-traited. The fact that he can't normally take Mystic cards doesn't come into it.

This looks like an obvious thing to say, but it was this comment that finally allowed me to get my head around exactly how these work and, more importantly, why they work the way they are presented in the preview article. Thanks!

1 hour ago, ColinEdwards said:

More to the point of multi-class cards, you aren't limited to 5 if they are valid by another mechanism.

Unless the Dunwich investigators are errata'd to include the word "other" in their "up to five level 0 cards from any other class" clause then the card being valid by another mechanism doesn't matter. It's more like an option (level 0 cards from any other class) combined with a restriction (no more than five level 0 cards from any other class). The dual-class cards appear to count as one card of each of their parent classes.

So, taking Pete as an example, you are essentially going through your deck asking, "How many Guardian level 0 cards do I have? How many Seeker level 0 cards do I have? etc." and the sum of the answers can't exceed five. Tennessee Sour Mash returns 1 because it is a level 0 Rogue card. If Pete puts Scroll of Secrets into his deck then it returns 1 when you look at how many Seeker level 0 cards you have in your deck and 1 again when you look at how many Mystic level 0 cards you have in your deck, for a total of two towards the restriction of no more than five cards from any non-Survivor class.

I don't think this is at all intuitive, but it does seem logically sound. It will lead to some rather bizarre situations if they release higher level dual-class cards, say Tennessee Sour Mash level 1. Pete could still take this but it would now no longer count towards the five splash card limit. Likewise there is the weirdness that Buhallin pointed out with Finn earlier.

41 minutes ago, Assussanni said:

Unless the Dunwich investigators are errata'd to include the word "other" in their "up to five level 0 cards from any other class" clause then the card being valid by another mechanism doesn't matter. It's more like an option (level 0 cards from any other class) combined with a restriction (no more than five level 0 cards from any other class). The dual-class cards appear to count as one card of each of their parent classes. 

It actually does matter... because the "up-to-five" is not a Requirement.

You could take 20+ multi-class cards because the "up to 5 out-of-class" is an "Option", and you can include cards that meet any valid option.

It needs to be clarified whether or not taking more than 5 multi-class cards would allow them to take other cards. Since the situation has never come up for Pete, there has never been a need to errata Pete yet - but the Carolyn errata (where it did come up), strongly indicates that the Dunwich investigators would be handled the same way.

The article was actively suggesting that Pete would be errata'd as:

Other Requirements:
No more than 5 non-neutral, non-survivor symbols on cards

(I am not saying that they couldn't do this, errata to balance over-powered cards is fair game, but there is nothing in the current card that indicates that it should be errata'd in such a manner, no any discussion about the reason why this card was deemed over-powered enough to require this.)

8 hours ago, vindoq said:

Wow, I'm quite impress this topic is taking 2 pages, and people are still confused.

People are working very, very hard to be confused.

My plan is to not sweat it and read the rules when they come out in Feb or March.

52 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

It actually does matter... because the "up-to-five" is not a Requirement.

You could take 20+ multi-class cards because the "up to 5 out-of-class" is an "Option", and you can include cards that meet any valid option.

If you have a Survivor/Rogue card in your deck, then you have a Rogue card in your deck, and so it counts toward the five non-Survivor cards. This is actually a case where "other" would not be correct.

Without the corrected "other", Carolyn's rules read such that a Seeker card that heals horror counts toward her 15 Seekers. The "other" is what lets her take 15 Seekers in addition to any that heal horror.

The Dunwich investigators get five off-class cards, period. It doesn't matter whether they are also on-class. If it has an off-class, it counts.

1 hour ago, Buhallin said:

People are working very, very hard to be confused.

Let's review the relevant rules?

Quote

Deckbuilding (Rules Reference page ?

• Each standard player card in a player’s investigator deck must be chosen from among the “Deckbuilding Options” available on the back of his or her investigator card.
• All other “Deckbuilding Requirements” listed on the back of a player’s investigator card must be observed
  

Deckbuilding Options: (from "Ashcan" Pete)

• Survivor cards ([Survivor]) level 0-5
• Neutral cards level 0-5
• up to five level 0 cards from any other class.

Deckbuilding Requirements:

• Duke
• Wracked by Nightmares
• 1 random basic weakness

I don't believe the latest FAQ from Oct includes anything about Carolyn, so it doesn't currently form part of the "official" rules at this point. Newer investigators have the phrasing "other cards" to make this explicit, but the general consensus is that the intent was that her 15 seeker and/or mystic card limit do not include cards that fall under one of the other limits.

Quote

Deckbuilding Options (From Carolyn Fern):

• Guardian cards level 0-3
• Neutral cards level 0-5
• cards that "heal horror" level 0-5
• up to 15 Seeker and/or Mystic cards level 0-1

Deckbuilding Requirements: Hypnotic Therapy, Rational Thought, 1 random basic weakness.

Additional Restrictions: No Weapon cards level 1-5.

So, it should be really, really clear that - according to the rules, as they exist, and as currently clarified in the FAQ - that cards investigators can choose are from among the "Deckbuilding Options" and meet all "Deckbuilding Requirements". If you unclear as to the difference between "Requirements" and "Options" - refer to the card, they are neatly separated out into labeled categories for you.

In the one case that a card can currently appear in more than one category that it should be interpreted as "up to 15 other Seeker and/or Mystic cards"

(I think we have a pretty good idea of what a card is, right?)

The main point of this is that, as the rules currently stand, "Ashcan" Pete can take any number of survivor cards - whether they are multi-class or not. He can choose among any of the "Deckbuilding Options" and he doesn't need to meet all of them. (Even without the keyword "other" on Carolyn's ability, it's clear that she can take any number of "heal horror" cards. the clarification only indicates that she the "heal horror" cards don't eat into the "up to 15" cards.) He needs to respect all requirements, but "limit of 5 non-survivor cards" is not a requirement.

Given the way Carolyn operates, it feels pretty reasonable to infer that all other cards that share the same language (the Dunwich investigators) operate the same way. That's not conclusive evidence, but it's never come up before so there has never been a need to clarify.

So... the question is how to get from the rules to what was explained in the article? Obviously we need to infer the language of how multi-class card inclusion will be written, but as you can see from the earlier posts: it is a total mess trying to get the behavior described in the article from just adding some rules. It is confusing right? There is no logical path from the rules, as they exist now, and what was talked about in the article.

Working very, very... VERY... hard.

If we're going to go so deep into parsing the rules, none of that says that you choose which option a card applies to, only that any card you choose has to fit (at least) one. Nor does it say that it only applies to one ("among" doesn't have to mean "one and only one"). So what we can infer from the dual class cards as described is that a valid, chosen card fits all possible options. Nothing we've been told suggests otherwise, unless you interpret unaltered Carolyn as though she were altered Carolyn, which doesn't make sense.