Clipper's profile

The rule does say you can only deconstruct a card out of an item via an effect of the Item card you are discarding. This rule can be stretched to say the keyword is an effect of the card, so an effect that targets that keyword fits that particular ruling. I can't see any way it can be stretched to cover discarding a card out of an Item which is over its limit, though. There is absolutely no way that the over-limit case can be assumed to be an effect of a card in the Item.

Thus, while it's clear that Bruno is allowing another method to circumvent the deconstruction rule, the rules definitely disagree in their current form.


But knowing the limit will not actually be exceeded as soon as you add the card is not enough according to you, so this seems like a double standard. Or are you saying that it is valid to read the rules description as sometimes saying you need to take the limit after the new card is added into account?

First, I believe the joining the game rules in English actually say you actually have to discard the whole item if it is over the limit.

They say to "Immediately apply the new hand and inventory size limits, by discarding any excess cards and/or items in each player’s hand and/or inventory." It doesn't specifically call out item cards within your inventory, so this would not fall under the umbrella of times at which you are allowed to deconstruct an item. Thus, you would have to discard the whole item.

Bruno's comment clearly contradicts this, so it shows the rules themselves are wrong again in this case.

However, going by Bruno's comment, I'd say he is implying you have the choice. He would have provided a specific method to apply if there was one he had in mind, as I would assume he knows there is no such method printed in the rules. So this would lead to B.1 being the way to do it.


If I may state a small aside, I also want to act a little as Devil's advocate here with a theoretical situation that applies both of Bruno's rulings. Assume we had a card that stated "In your inventory, this card counts as two cards towards the stacking limit." In a solo game, you could add this card to a stack with 3/4 item cards in it, as the stack is not full and you ignore the text on the card when combining items. The stack then is at 5/4 cards, so must be corrected and you could voluntarily deconstruct any card of your choosing. I don't think this is what Bruno expects, but it's the only way to apply the same logic as is used in the Woven Basket case. It's just food for thought, though, as I doubt such a card actually exists.

Don't worry mate, I wasn't referring to your posts, which were civil and well structured.

You did provide a good argument for the text supporting the ruling. You also pointed out that it was only Bruno's clarification that let us know that you use the prior stacking limit, not the new stacking limit, which is indeed the crux of the ambiguity.

Thank you Unisus, it's nice to see someone actually understood my argument is about the wording and not the ruling.

I'd actually like to see an argument that shows why my interpretation was actually invalid rather than just being told I was wrong. I know which interpretation is the correct one given the ruling, but that doesn't make the other interpretation invalid.

To me, the current wording is misleading, such that it actually implies something different to what Bruno has stated it implies. Yes, his input has resolved the ambiguity, but that doesn't make the ambiguity go away. The wording you propose above would be very clear and cannot be misconstrued.

I have no problem with the ruling. It's the designer's intent and I'm fine following that.

My argument is just that the wording of the rules does not match the ruling, even though the ruling was made with regard to that wording.

There is only one moment I can potentially see that you could consider the item card to be both attached and also exceeding the limit at the same time. That would be a theoretical time after you have attached the item card but before its effect is activated. How long is this time? It appears to be immeasurable; thus infinitesimally small!

I wasn't considering this time to exist as it has essentially zero length. I don't believe that to be a poor assumption. If that time does not exist, then the rules allow the basket to be added.

Thus, the wording of the rules is ambiguous, which is my only point here.

My point is you are never exceeding it. As soon as you put it in the stack, it is not exceeding the limit, as the limit is now different, so there is no point in the process at which you are exceeding the limit.

When is the stacking limit exceeded, though? It can't be exceeded before you add the item, and as soon as you test if adding the item would exceed the limit, you would be comparing to the new limit. Thus, I'd actually taken the wording to accept adding the Woven Basket, as it seems to be specifically worded to test the limit only after you had tried adding the item.

I stand corrected as to the intent of the rule, though.