Clipper wrote: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.
Not to extend the discussion past a point of usefulness, but I think ÿøû would like to know the logic that makes this ruling unambiguous.
The check for "without exceeding stacking limit (sic)" happens before attaching the card. If this game had a more procedural method, like Netrunner, or Magic the Gathering, ÿøû might see the rules explained differently;
1. Once item is received/crafted, choose to keep it or give it to another person
2. Owner of item decides to create new stack or combine with existing stack.
2a. New stack? Kay ya done.
2b. Combine? Will the act of adding another item exceed the limit? No can do buddy. But if ÿøû aren't at the limit yet, throw another thing on this contraption!
3. Now the item is in the inventory! All the text on the card is in effect!
Ÿøû might say, "but adding this item won't exceed the limit, because of the effect". The rules state item cards don't take effect until they are in the inventory (step 3). And Bruno indicates the check does not take into account any future states the table may have. It only asks (in a solo game) are we at 4 cards yet on this stack?
I think this is the crux of the feeling of ambiguity is this:
ŸØÛ know that adding the item won't exceed the limit because of the effect, but the GAME (or rules, or whatever ÿøû want to call it) doesn't. The game is dumb. It can only see what is the state now. It has no concept of the future, it cannot extrapolate a sequence of events. This is why we are the apex predator. We can deduce and problem solve in ways these games can't. Ÿøû may get frustrated with the way games stumble over things you know as second nature. Ÿøû might even want to turn to violence against the game. But we are the games shepherds. We have to care for the game, and when we deem in necessary, direct the game in a better direction.
Clipper, what I'm saying is ÿøû should add the woven basket to stacks currently at limit. It's better for you, it makes more sense thematically...the only reason there are these restrictive item combining rules is so players wouldn't create an uber item and then keep combining items to keep it forever. This is what I believe is an unintended side effect, but it's easy to OVER rule a game (that is to create a 75 page exhaustive text on every single edge case) Regardless it's not really going to swing the game one way or another.
card in the Actuon Deck or the Discard Pilr and add it to your hand.