Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
62 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Arkham Horror: The Card Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Multiclass cards access rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
manthos gousiaris
msg tools
mb
I have read the text in the rules regarding access to multiclass cards, but they are a little unclear and confusing. To be more specific, the last paragraph which refers to investigators with limited access to cards from other classes is what makes me confused. The paragraph reads as follows:

"If an investigator has limited access to one of the classes on a
multiclass card and unlimited access to one of the other classes on
that card, it will still occupy one of the investigator’s limited slots
unless their deckbuilding options contains the word “other” in it."

Here's what makes me confused: All the Dunwich investigators have acess to "up to 5 cards level 0 from any other class". This sentence contains the word other in their deckbuilding options, but the word other refers to the other classes. The wording on another investigator with limited access to out-of-class cards like Finn Edwards is different though. Specifically it states: "up to five other level 0 Seeker and/or Survivor cards". The word other here refers to cards, so the difference between those cases is that the word other in the first case refers to classes, while in the second case it refers to cards.

By that wording, it seems pretty clear to me that Finn can include a multiclass card in his deck without taking up one of his out-of-class slots as long as that card has a rogue icon on it, because the word other refers to cards. On the other hand, it seems unclear to me weather the Dunwich investigators can include a multi-class card in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slot because the word other in their deckbuilding options refers to classes, but is still part of the text that composes them. What I mean to say, is that the word other in their case does not refer to cards, but still exists in the text of their deckbuilding options and I wonder if that's enough of a reason to justify a multiclass card not taking up one of their out-of-class slots.


So, in short, my question is: Can the Dunwich investigators include multi-class cards in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slots, if those cards have an icon that matches their class?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Thompson
United States
Terre Haute
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2171169/i-think-i-made-sens...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thornsen
United States
Nottingham
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The current implementation on ArkhamDB does not consume off-class slots for Dunwich investigators.

For example, Jim Culver can take 2x Enchanted Blades and still take 5 other non-Myscic cards.

I still haven't seen an official updated FAQ or anything that officially clarifies this from FFG. There is still a difference in the printed rules, and the online PDF of the rules, with the nonsense about whether the Deckbuilding Requirements use the word "other" or not, and how limited slots are consumed by multi-class cards.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Sylvester
United States
Suwanee
GA
flag msg tools
mb
manthos88 wrote:
So, in short, my question is: Can the Dunwich investigators include multi-class cards in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slots, if those cards have an icon that matches their class?


Yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Shudde M'ell
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cthompsonguy wrote:


Thanks for finding that (and providing it without comment). It's an excellent discussion, and the bottom line (last time I checked) is that we are still waiting for official clarification.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
manthos gousiaris
msg tools
mb
Thank you for your immediate answers; I know that ArkhamDb uses that implementation, but I still had my doubts, because even ArkhamDb makes mistakes sometimes. I read the other thread (thanks for redirecting me there), not on the whole though, but from what I saw, it seems to be a matter of interpretation until we have an official clarification from FFG.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Sylvester
United States
Suwanee
GA
flag msg tools
mb
Well, going by the Mythos Busters Podcast, the Drawn To The Flame Podcast, the rules channel on the Mythos Busters Discord, ArkhamDB, and the rules as written, these cards do not take up a slot for Dunwich investigators. I'm pretty confident playing them that way.

Matt did pop into the Mythos Busters discord to say he was working on an updated FAQ, but sans that materializing (seems like it must have gotten put off), I think the above are all going to be the next-best thing to having a ruling from Matt himself.

YMMV.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adny Riik
Slovakia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
manthos88 wrote:
So, in short, my question is: Can the Dunwich investigators include multi-class cards in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slots, if those cards have an icon that matches their class?
You count the number of Cards with icons other than the Mystic. That means enchanted blade will count here, but thompson will only count once
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thornsen
United States
Nottingham
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adny wrote:
manthos88 wrote:
So, in short, my question is: Can the Dunwich investigators include multi-class cards in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slots, if those cards have an icon that matches their class?
You count the number of Cards with icons other than the Mystic. That means enchanted blade will count here, but thompson will only count once


Certainly, the original preview article, the printed rulebook, and various posts from Matt Newman imply that this is the actual rule, and that multi-class cards are supposed to count as limited cards for the Dunwich investigators, Carolyn Fern, Finn Edwards, Marie Lambeau, Norman Withers, and anyone else with limited access to off-class cards.

But the current, online PDF of the rulebook on FFG's website (which should in theory be the most accurate and up to date) includes a clause that says "...unless your Deckbuilding Rules include the word other" which completely invalidates all of the above. Because every single investigator, except for Norman Withers, includes the word other somewhere in their Deckbuilding Rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kill Bray
msg tools
Basically the current rule as written in the most recent official publication (the online PDF) completely contradicts both the preview article and the physical copy of the rules released with the TCU Deluxe Expansion.

Moreover it's an extremely sloppy modification as the word "other" being present in the deckbuilding options without any specification of the context doesn't logically justify the exclusion from a rule that is still reiterated in the current PDF.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magnus Upmann
Germany
Riesenbeck
Nordrhein-Westfalen
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Faranim wrote:
Adny wrote:
manthos88 wrote:
So, in short, my question is: Can the Dunwich investigators include multi-class cards in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slots, if those cards have an icon that matches their class?
You count the number of Cards with icons other than the Mystic. That means enchanted blade will count here, but thompson will only count once


Certainly, the original preview article, the printed rulebook, and various posts from Matt Newman imply that this is the actual rule, and that multi-class cards are supposed to count as limited cards for the Dunwich investigators, Carolyn Fern, Finn Edwards, Marie Lambeau, Norman Withers, and anyone else with limited access to off-class cards.

But the current, online PDF of the rulebook on FFG's website (which should in theory be the most accurate and up to date) includes a clause that says "...unless your Deckbuilding Rules include the word other" which completely invalidates all of the above. Because every single investigator, except for Norman Withers, includes the word other somewhere in their Deckbuilding Rules.

While I think that we can all agree that this is the correct interpretation of the rules-as-written, opinions might differ on the question if these are also the rules-as-intended. I personally believe that the multi-class cards are supposed to be limited for the Dunwich investigators since the word other in their deckbuilding options refers to classes and not to cards, and that this was simply an oversight by FFG. But the lack of information makes any discussion about the rules-as-intended rather pointless at the moment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kill Bray
msg tools
The problem has become greater than what the creators intended at this point.

They let too much time pass without a clarification. Are they really going to take the backlash of telling a multitude of players that almost all the games they have been playing for the last month are invalid? Just how many players would feel that they have to scrap their ongoing campaign because their current decks are suddenly illegal?

Eliminating the rule in its entirety seems to be the only logical option in my opinion. This is a sad state of affairs, but almost no one really would be happy if they did otherwise.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
soak man
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand that there is confusion about the intended ruling on these cards, but I hardly feel a clarification will 'invalidate' my games.

The game is a coop and can be houseruled for the time being. As long as you play consistently with the same ruling, it's really not a big deal.

Yes, it needs clarified and may have been a little sloppy, but it is not some big travesty.

Honestly, the largest inconveniece is probably going to be for ArkhamDB.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kill Bray
msg tools
It doesn't matter if it is not going to be a big deal for you. There's going to be people that will make a big deal about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Sylvester
United States
Suwanee
GA
flag msg tools
mb
MagnusU wrote:
While I think that we can all agree that this is the correct interpretation of the rules-as-written, opinions might differ on the question if these are also the rules-as-intended. I personally believe that the multi-class cards are supposed to be limited for the Dunwich investigators since the word other in their deckbuilding options refers to classes and not to cards, and that this was simply an oversight by FFG. But the lack of information makes any discussion about the rules-as-intended rather pointless at the moment.


I think the most likely explanation is that the intention has changed, or that the person who wrote the original rules and the preview article had it wrong.

Either way, I think it's pretty much a given that the intention now is for these cards not to eat slots from Dunwich investigators who have one of the classes.

I'll again point out that every resource I trust for answering rules questions is taking the same interpretation of this, and Matt himself was present in one of these discussions (on the Mythos Busters discord) and didn't contradict anything that was said regarding interpretation.

So, is it possible these cards eats additional slots and Matt will come back and clarify something different? Yes. It's possible that the rules as written, Mythos Busters discord/podcast, Drawn to the Flame podcast, and ArkhamDB are wrong, and that Matt was simply too busy to comment in our discussion on the MB discord and hasn't bothered to correct us since, but my money is betting all those sources have it right.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
manthos gousiaris
msg tools
mb
MagnusU wrote:
Faranim wrote:
Adny wrote:
manthos88 wrote:
So, in short, my question is: Can the Dunwich investigators include multi-class cards in their deck without taking up one of their out-of-class slots, if those cards have an icon that matches their class?
You count the number of Cards with icons other than the Mystic. That means enchanted blade will count here, but thompson will only count once


Certainly, the original preview article, the printed rulebook, and various posts from Matt Newman imply that this is the actual rule, and that multi-class cards are supposed to count as limited cards for the Dunwich investigators, Carolyn Fern, Finn Edwards, Marie Lambeau, Norman Withers, and anyone else with limited access to off-class cards.

But the current, online PDF of the rulebook on FFG's website (which should in theory be the most accurate and up to date) includes a clause that says "...unless your Deckbuilding Rules include the word other" which completely invalidates all of the above. Because every single investigator, except for Norman Withers, includes the word other somewhere in their Deckbuilding Rules.

While I think that we can all agree that this is the correct interpretation of the rules-as-written, opinions might differ on the question if these are also the rules-as-intended. I personally believe that the multi-class cards are supposed to be limited for the Dunwich investigators since the word other in their deckbuilding options refers to classes and not to cards, and that this was simply an oversight by FFG. But the lack of information makes any discussion about the rules-as-intended rather pointless at the moment.


That was my interpretation of the rule as well, but the rule is unclear and it just seems harsh and odd for the Dunwich investigators to have to spare one of the out-of-class slot for a card that belongs to their class.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kill Bray
msg tools
manthos88 wrote:

That was my interpretation of the rule as well, but the rule is unclear and it just seems harsh and odd for the Dunwich investigators to have to spare one of the out-of-class slot for a card that belongs to their class.


I think it's even harsher for Norman to be the only one to suffer that for no other reason but the absence of a magical word in his deckbuilding options.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Shudde M'ell
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Killbray wrote:
Eliminating the rule in its entirety seems to be the only logical option in my opinion.


I agree with almost everything you say except this. These designers have earned my trust, and if their clarification going forward is to go back and reinstate the Preview rule or to change from our current understanding in some other way - that would suck, but I would assume it was being done for a valid and logical reason, probably based on cards we haven't seen yet. I still think that there needs to be an official FAQ/Errata coming from FFG itself, and that my working assumptions are merely that.

I also agree with soakman that the hardest hit here would be Arkhamdb, which has been an amazing third party resource that has done everything right in keeping up with the official rules, so if this ends up making them look "unreliable", they have just cause to be furious with FFG.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Sylvester
United States
Suwanee
GA
flag msg tools
mb
I don’t see how anything FFG could say would make ArkhamDb look unreliable. If the ruling goes against RAW, then ArkhamDb just changes and all is well with the world.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Pickman
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FFG really flubbed this rollout. What was presumably meant to be an exciting new feature has instead created a hailstorm of confusion.

The official FAQ can't come soon enough.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Shudde M'ell
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MostlyHarmlesss wrote:
I don’t see how anything FFG could say would make ArkhamDb look unreliable. If the ruling goes against RAW, then ArkhamDb just changes and all is well with the world.


My concern is mostly that if they tried to say that their original preview (i.e. that Tennessee Sour Mash uses one of Pete's five off-class splashes) is the way it works and the way it always worked and that Arkhamdb and everyone else just misunderstood, it could undermine some people's confidence in Arkhamdb, especially if they hadn't closely followed this issue. I just looked at that preview page for The Secret Name and it still has that example, with no correction or clarification on that page. That's almost certainly an error, but it's part of FFG's official information, and it seems very sloppy and irresponsible to leave it up there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Pickman
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think ArkhamDB would recover. This isn't their fault at all. Everyone is confused about this rule, and they had to go one way or the other.

For what it's worth, I think the rule itself is problematic and counterintuitive. What was it intended to accomplish? The most intuitive way to play multiclass cards would be the most generous way (from a deckbuilding perspective): if the player has unlimited access to one class and limited access to the other class, DON'T have it count against the limited access. This makes the most sense to me. Of course, this would mean scrapping the entire rule.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
soak man
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rpickman wrote:
FFG really flubbed this rollout. What was presumably meant to be an exciting new feature has instead created a hailstorm of confusion.

The official FAQ can't come soon enough.


I feel you on this, but at least it's not something game-breaking. My point is just that you can easily build around these cards or just houserule them for the time being.

I have other issues with the dual class cards. I find the lvl 0 versions splitting into specific class-oriented versions of the card (at lvl 3) pretty silly seeing as how you don't need the lvl 0 version at all to upgrade to them.

Don't get me wrong, I like seeing the cards split and having two alternate versions that lean into a different faction playstyle, but it seems like it could have been handled differently to make the choice of taking dual class cards at lvl 0 more meaningful. They are neat in theory, but they are not really offering anything unusual at lvl 0 that I can see over other card options. What I think may be more interesting is lvl 1 or 2 (or even 3 if that is a thing that happens) dual class cards because these are more likely to lend more of a boost to something your faction may not be able to do so well.

I guess I'm still struggling with what they offer, so it really doesn't matter to me exactly who can include them and how many slots they take up. I'm running enchanted blade on Akachi, and it's okay, but since it isn't a spell, it doesn't synergize with her signatures at all, and takes up two inventory slots.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Sylvester
United States
Suwanee
GA
flag msg tools
mb
Enchanted Blade is super good in most Guardians, and the Thompson is good in a handful of builds (flighty Jenny especially).

Grizzly totem ain't bad either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Pickman
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
soakman wrote:

I guess I'm still struggling with what they offer, so it really doesn't matter to me exactly who can include them and how many slots they take up. I'm running enchanted blade on Akachi, and it's okay, but since it isn't a spell, it doesn't synergize with her signatures at all, and takes up two inventory slots.

I think it might just be too early to clearly see where they're going with this. It might get very interesting down the line.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.