1 hour ago, CSerpent said:

none of that says that you choose which option a card applies to,

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."

I think that is EXACTLY what it says

Quote

Nothing we've been told suggests otherwise, unless you interpret unaltered Carolyn as though she were altered Carolyn, which doesn't make sense.

There is no altered Carolyn? (yet?)

There was a thread somewhere where a dev answered how to interpret the text on the card, it wasn't important enough to make it into the official FAQ / Errata?
and we have some other cards with the same basic text that probably should be interpreted the same way?

(For that matter, there is no reason to clarify the wording on the Dunwich investigators yet - there is no current ambiguity about whether it means 'other' cards or not; since all the cards are 'other' cards right now. The lack of clarification on something that doesn't need clarifying is hardly evidence that they should be interpreted differently than how Carolyn is interpreted.)

I'm not ruling out having missed the errata somewhere, but I did glance over the official version on the product page:
https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/arkham-horror-the-card-game/

So I suppose Carolyn has to take half her deck as neutral too, since there are no Guardian cards with the Seeker icon? No wonder everyone thinks she's so bad.

40 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

There is no altered Carolyn? (yet?)

There was a thread somewhere where a dev answered how to interpret the text on the card, it wasn't important enough to make it into the official FAQ / Errata?

The official ruling via the FFG Rules Question Form (source: arkhamdb) on Carolyn was:

• Q: How does the restriction on number of Seeker/Mystic cards interact with the 0-5 "heals horror"? If I take 2 Clarity of Mind, does that count towards my 15 Seeker/Mystic cards, or is it separate because it falls under my 0-5 "heals horror" cards? A: If a Seeker or Mystic card heals horror, it counts towards that deck building option, not her 15 limited Seeker/Mystic slots. In other words, her card should actually read “15 other Seeker and/or Mystic cards”. (Also, the Seeker symbol next to the word Guardian should be a Guardian symbol; we’re aware of this error.)

The unofficial ruling from Matt Newman on the Mythos Busters Discord regarding dual-class cards was:

• “Grisly Totem counts as both a Seeker card and a Survivor card. So if Zoey includes it in her deck, it will count as 2 of her 5 off-class cards.”

The following information from Matt, posted on the Arkham Horror LCG Facebook page, is also relevant:

• “We’re working on a comprehensive FAQ entry that should answer all outstanding questions before The Secret Name releases.”

I hope that helps.

24 minutes ago, Assussanni said:

• Q: How does the restriction on number of Seeker/Mystic cards interact with the 0-5 "heals horror"? If I take 2 Clarity of Mind, does that count towards my 15 Seeker/Mystic cards, or is it separate because it falls under my 0-5 "heals horror" cards? A: If a Seeker or Mystic card heals horror, it counts towards that deck building option, not her 15 limited Seeker/Mystic slots. In other words, her card should actually read “15 other Seeker and/or Mystic cards”. (Also, the Seeker symbol next to the word Guardian should be a Guardian symbol; we’re aware of this error.)

Right, so not errata'ing the card and putting a special emphasis on what "other" means - just clarifying that the existing wording should be interpreted the same to the newer investigators.

Quote

“Grisly Totem counts as both a Seeker card and a Survivor card. So if Zoey includes it in her deck, it will count as 2 of her 5 off-class cards.” 

Yes... exactly. How is that statement derived from the current rules? (or as the thread started: how would you even try to express that as a new rule?)

Not only is it going against the Carolyn ruling, which would indicate that these should be viewed as "other cards not covered by another deck building option", but it's also redefining what is meant by "card"!

1 hour ago, ColinEdwards said:

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."

I think that is EXACTLY what it says

That says that a card is chosen (i.e. from the pool of cards), not an option to apply to a card.

9 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

That says that a card is chosen (i.e. from the pool of cards), not an option to apply to a card. 

No, it clearly states "must be chosen from among the Deck Building Options" ( specifically referring to the 'Deck Building Options' section of the character card.)
That is: each card needs to follow at least one of the options there (but not more than one!)

"Deck Building Requirements" - stuff that all cards need to follow is separated into it's own section.

The rules do NOT say "Each standard player card must be chosen from among your pool of cards", when discussing what the "Deck Building Options" means. (It doesn't exactly add much to say that!)

10 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

No, it clearly states "must be chosen from among the Deck Building Options" ( specifically referring to the 'Deck Building Options' section of the character card.)

Yes, what is it that must be chosen?

10 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

That is: each card needs to follow at least one of the options there (but not more than one!)

Where do you get "not more than one"?

10 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

"Deck Building Requirements" - stuff that all cards need to follow is separated into it's own section.

No, in fact, that section lists cards that are required to be in the investigator's deck.

10 minutes ago, ColinEdwards said:

The rules do NOT say "Each standard player card must be chosen from among your pool of cards", when discussing what the "Deck Building Options" means. (It doesn't exactly add much to say that!)

I didn't say that it does. As you say, it's obvious. I only restated the obvious.

20 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

Yes, what is it that must be chosen?

When you are choosing from among"something" ( i.e., choosing from among ( an apple, an orange, or a banana ) it's a member of that set you are choosing from.

In this case, you are choosing from among the set of valid options: i.e., each card selected needs to match one of the set of options (and you get to choose which option is matched.)

Deck building requirements also list other requirements a deck needs to follow, see Carolyn or Rex for an example. Unlike the deck building options, you have to match all deck Building requirements.

The rule book (and the investigator cards) make a clear distinction.

2 hours ago, ColinEdwards said:

Deck building requirements also list other requirements a deck needs to follow, see Carolyn or Rex for an example. Unlike the deck building options, you have to match all deck Building requirements.

The rule book (and the investigator cards) make a clear distinction.

Those are under a third section, "Additional Restrictions" (actually a fourth, including "Deck Size"). Which, incidentally, implies that the other sections are also restrictions, not just options and requirements.

It comes down to this: Matt Newman has said how Carolyn works and how the Dunwich investigators work. They differ. Neither has been errata'ed yet, but the designer has expressed his intention. Anything else is a house rule. And at any rate, we have until at least January before we really have to concern ourselves with dual class cards, by which time there may be clarification and/or revision.

4 hours ago, CSerpent said:

Those are under a third section, "Additional Restrictions" (actually a fourth, including "Deck Size"). Which, incidentally, implies that the other sections are also restrictions, not just options and requirements.

No, not seeing where you are getting this; deck building options and descriptions are clearly differentiated in the rules and on the card.

I think the absurdity of trying to use options as requirements has already been pretty well covered in this thread too.

( I am not saying they can't errata the card to add a new restriction, where one doesn't exist. Just that given the rules now, no such restriction exists, and it would require an actual rule change to make it exist.)

4 hours ago, ColinEdwards said:

No, not seeing where you are getting this; deck building options and descriptions are clearly differentiated in the rules and on the card.

Oh my goodness.

Quote

Deck size: 30.

Deckbuilding Options: 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 ( and/or ).

Deckbuilding Requirements (do not count toward deck size): Hypnotic Therapy, Rational Thought, 1 random basic weakness.

Additional Restrictions: No Weapon cards level 1-5.

I see four sections. The fourth is "Additional Restrictions". Restrictions in addition to the restrictions already given.

4 hours ago, ColinEdwards said:

I think the absurdity of trying to use options as requirements has already been pretty well covered in this thread too.

Options are restrictions. You are restricted to certain cards.

If your options are to drive in the two right hand lanes, you are restricted from driving in the left hand lanes (apologies for my US centric view on where you can drive).

1 hour ago, CSerpent said:

Options are restrictions. You are restricted to certain cards.

If your options are to drive in the two right hand lanes, you are restricted from driving in the left hand lanes (apologies for my US centric view on where you can drive).

When you have the option of driving in the two right hand lanes, you are expected to be in one of the lanes or the other - you are not required to be driving in both right hand lanes simultaneously. Driving in one of the two lanes does not restrict you from later using the other (valid) lane either.

To move away from the car analogy: you can think of the cards valid for an investigator as the 'union' of all possible 'deck building options' minus any 'deck building restrictions', not the 'intersection' of options.

(That does leave open whether the 'up to 5 cards' means 'other' cards. In the one case we have seen, Carolyn, it was clarified to be intended that way.)

Since the developers have stated that they're still ironing out the details of how the multi-class cards actually work and will be releasing a full FAQ in time, might it not be better to hold off until then? This thread is getting awfully snipey and entrenched for an issue that is explicitly not yet settled by the designers.

Agreed. Truce.

Even leaving aside whether they change the intent, it seems like the entire argument is based on current rules and some hypothetical impossibility that they can phrase the Dual Class cards in a way that works with the current rules. We probably could have had this same argument about Permanent cards when they were first revealed - "Deck building restrictions all say 30 cards, there's no way Permanents work! But what if they make a Level 0 Permanent - does that count as one of Zoey's 5 because blah blah blah."

If we want to rules lawyer the dual class rules when we have them, then sure, whatever - it's really clear how it's supposed to work, if you want to take a bash at FFG's templating and rules writing over it, power to ya, done it more than a few times myself. But playing rules lawyer to disprove the developer on rules we haven't seen yet - no matter how much you dislike those rules - is the height of pointless.

22 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Even leaving aside whether they change the intent, it seems like the entire argument is based on current rules and some hypothetical impossibility that they can phrase the Dual Class cards in a way that works with the current rules. We probably could have had this same argument about Permanent cards when they were first revealed - "Deck building restrictions all say 30 cards, there's no way Permanents work! But what if they make a Level 0 Permanent - does that count as one of Zoey's 5 because blah blah blah."

If we want to rules lawyer the dual class rules when we have them, then sure, whatever - it's really clear how it's supposed to work, if you want to take a bash at FFG's templating and rules writing over it, power to ya, done it more than a few times myself. But playing rules lawyer to disprove the developer on rules we haven't seen yet - no matter how much you dislike those rules - is the height of pointless. 

I agree that all of the discussion in the last couple pages has been on the current rules, not on the proposed changes, but it's hard to have a discussion on "what new rules would have to be introduced to make that it work" without people having some consensus on that the current deck-building rules are.

I think we had a couple examples of how they can easily make the dual class cards work with the current rules ("Multi-class cards count as both classes" = "Job Done" ), but that doesn't get to the vision of treating some options as requirements, double counting cards by introducing a concept of class slots, etc. In order to get to that behavior, they'd need to introduce something fairly sweeping to the deck building.

(but I agree with Allonym and CSerpent: think this has moved beyond being a useful discussion)

13 hours ago, Buhallin said:

"Deck building restrictions all say 30 cards, there's no way Permanents work! But what if they make a Level 0 Permanent - does that count as one of Zoey's 5 because blah blah blah."

How Permanent interacts with deckbuilding has been well-defined from the core set, so there was no reason for argument when actual cards with Permanent were revealed:

Quote

Permanent
Permanent is a deckbuilding keyword ability.
• A card with the permanent keyword does not count towards your deck size.
• A card with the permanent keyword still counts as being part of your deck and must therefore adhere to all other deckbuilding restrictions.

It would have helped to have the article be more clear about the wording: 'Multi-class cards count as both classes; each of the classes need to be checked independently as a valid deck building option' seems like what half the article was alluding too. (contradicting by the other half of the article?)

Articles are often unclear about rules. Sometimes, they're even plain wrong.

7 hours ago, ColinEdwards said:

It would have helped to have the article be more clear about the wording: 'Multi-class cards count as both classes; each of the classes need to be checked independently as a valid deck building option' seems like what half the article was alluding too. (contradicting by the other half of the article?)

But that would mean you couldn't include multi-class cards if you only matched one class. Per the article, Agnes is allowed to take the Scroll of Secrets, even though she can't take Seeker cards.

2 hours ago, rsdockery said:

But that would mean you couldn't include multi-class cards if you only matched one class. Per the article, Agnes is allowed to take the Scroll of Secrets, even though she can't take Seeker cards.

Sure you could. Deckbuilding restrictions don't say "Zoey cannot have Seeker, Rogue, Mystic, or Survivor cards L1-5". They just tell you what you can put in. So long as something meets the condition to be added, it doesn't matter if some other part of the card doesn't meet the condition.

This is no different than any of the other trait-based inclusions. If Marc includes a Survivor Tactic, that's still legal even though it doesn't match his allowable class cards.

4 hours ago, rsdockery said:

But that would mean you couldn't include multi-class cards if you only matched one class. Per the article, Agnes is allowed to take the Scroll of Secrets, even though she can't take Seeker cards

Exactly! That's why one half of the article felt inconsistent with the other half!. (They probably went back and forth a couple times on how to word it during the design stage.)

Those articles are often wrong and things can still be changed. And yes. people understand the new rules they just don't agree with the whole, investigators that should be able to include these cards get hit with a penalty but those investigators that really shouldn't get to use these cards can use them without any hit. Since the multiclass cards are an AND and not an OR, I am guessing when the dust settles, if you can't include both survivor and rouge cards in a deck, no mash for you.

47 minutes ago, Mep said:

Since the multiclass cards are an AND and not an OR, I am guessing when the dust settles, if you can't include both survivor and rouge cards in a deck, no mash for you.

I'd be completely shocked by this. It would restrict dual-class cards to only a few investigators each, which is pretty obviously not what they intended them to be. Even if I thought there was some unfixable problem with the rules here, FFG has rarely been one to live within the limits of their own wording. They'll put an entry in the FAQ about how it works, and that's how it'll work.

There really is zero issue here on what can be included, despite some very intense efforts to create one. The only open issue is with how you count them in cases where you have numeric restrictions on certain cards. Despite ongoing assertions to the contrary, I don't think it's all that hard to write a rule that handles that.

I really don't get the freakout here. Are they more expensive for more flexible investigators? Sure, but those investigators already have access to a card pool which is MASSIVELY larger than anyone else in the game. Does anyone actually think Zoey's stock is going to drop because Enchanted Blade costs her a flex slot, or that Rex will be any less game-breaking because taking the Mash (not that you would) takes two slots instead of one? This seems intentional to me - the dual-class cards are intended to be more flexible in use by more limited investigators. Nothing wrong with that.

5 hours ago, rsdockery said:

But that would mean you couldn't include multi-class cards if you only matched one class. Per the article, Agnes is allowed to take the Scroll of Secrets, even though she can't take Seeker cards.

Reiterating this again since it got pinged - the bolded part is incorrect. Nothing prohibits Agnes from taking Seeker cards. She is allowed to take any card which matches anything in her Deckbuilding Options. Scroll of Secrets is a Mystic card of an appropriate level, so she can take it regardless of any other characteristic of the card.