Would appreciate some clarification on one of the City Deck Cards: The Street Sage .

The card states " Draw 3 City Cards, place 1 facedown in front of you, and discard the other cards. You may place your facedown City card on top of its deck at the start of any characters turn "

This card came up in one of our games and there was some debate as to whether or not the player should look at the cards first. It does not say to look at them, however, if you do NOT look at them then it seems to make no sense whatsoever and none of us can figure out the purpose of doing this blind since, if you were drawing a card form the pile it would be blind anyway so what is the point?!

Has anyone else questioned this card?

What are your thoughts?

Thank you in advance!

You may look at them!

Ell.

Good enough for me - thanks!

I have a question about:
"... on top of its deck at the start of any characters turn ..."

If the target character is in the Ruins and during his turn moves in the Dungeon, where do I place the City Card at the start of his turn?

- Adventure deck
- Dungeon deck
- City deck

If I'm correct, the correct answer is Adventure deck, because deck's character ("its deck") at the start of the turn is the deck of the main board.

I have a question about:

"... on top of its deck at the start of any characters turn ..."

If the target character is in the Ruins and during his turn moves in the Dungeon, where do I place the City Card at the start of his turn?

- Adventure deck

- Dungeon deck

- City deck

If I'm correct, the correct answer is Adventure deck, because deck's character ("its deck") at the start of the turn is the deck of the main board.

It specifically says city deck, so city deck it is.

Would appreciate some clarification on one of the City Deck Cards: The Street Sage .

The card states " Draw 3 City Cards, place 1 facedown in front of you, and discard the other cards. You may place your facedown City card on top of its deck at the start of any characters turn "

This card came up in one of our games and there was some debate as to whether or not the player should look at the cards first. It does not say to look at them, however, if you do NOT look at them then it seems to make no sense whatsoever and none of us can figure out the purpose of doing this blind since, if you were drawing a card form the pile it would be blind anyway so what is the point?!

Has anyone else questioned this card?

What are your thoughts?

Thank you in advance!

I realize that this question is several years old and has been answered, but here are my two cents nonetheless.

There are other cards that explicitly state that you are not to look at them. This card has no such prohibition. As such, you are free to look at them.

I have a question about:

"... on top of its deck at the start of any characters turn ..."

If the target character is in the Ruins and during his turn moves in the Dungeon, where do I place the City Card at the start of his turn?

- Adventure deck

- Dungeon deck

- City deck

If I'm correct, the correct answer is Adventure deck, because deck's character ("its deck") at the start of the turn is the deck of the main board.

The "its" in "its deck" is referring to the City deck.

These cards are annoying and fiddly, just like the one in the highlands, and they slow down the game immensely. I removed them.

These cards are annoying and fiddly, just like the one in the highlands, and they slow down the game immensely. I removed them.

Same with lantern sprite!

These cards are annoying and fiddly, just like the one in the highlands, and they slow down the game immensely. I removed them.

I could see setting it up where once a character chooses to do so then the stranger moves on to the discard pile.

I could see setting it up where once a character chooses to do so then the stranger moves on to the discard pile.

Yeah that would be a better fix than removal. But I personally think it would be against the cards design, better to leave it to players themselves to deal with them.

The way I see it is if it's annoying to be there full time, it's annoying to be there the first time. Also why I got rid of the maze, swamp, evil darkness etc. They just make the game go on and on longer and don't really have an outcome on the game. And don't get me started on Ekor.

The way I see it is if it's annoying to be there full time, it's annoying to be there the first time. Also why I got rid of the maze, swamp, evil darkness etc. They just make the game go on and on longer and don't really have an outcome on the game. And don't get me started on Ekor.

I just fixed Ekor and Shiver Nymph in my house rules. They no longer flee if they are on the same space as another enemy with the same encounter number and a higher strength/craft. I get tired of those two wasting spaces. I just want to kill them. Now I can.

The way I see it is if it's annoying to be there full time, it's annoying to be there the first time. Also why I got rid of the maze, swamp, evil darkness etc. They just make the game go on and on longer and don't really have an outcome on the game. And don't get me started on Ekor.

Well its one way to get a very small sized Adventure Deck indeed.

I just fixed Ekor and Shiver Nymph in my house rules. They no longer flee if they are on the same space as another enemy with the same encounter number and a higher strength/craft. I get tired of those two wasting spaces. I just want to kill them. Now I can.

Yep, I always have said House Rules are a players best friend .

You could cut out seventy five percent of the adventure deck and have enough left for two long games.

You could cut out seventy five percent of the adventure deck and have enough left for two long games.

Of course you can but will the game be fun?, or just fun for you?. What you have here is a issue about what you take out not a board line percent. It might be a good idea to list the cards themselves you dropped. That would give players a better understanding of what you mean in this regard