Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

Bugged Analysis Paralysis​ while nemesis side scheme already in play

A topic by SAldricH-tech created 39 days ago Views: 74 Replies: 3
Viewing posts 1 to 3
(1 edit)

Playing Ghost Spider vs Misterio, the side scheme Analysis Paralysis is drawn from the encounter deck, its instructed to fetch the nemesis side scheme from the different areas and add threat to Analysis Paralysis equal to the threat on the nemesis side scheme, however, the nemesis side scheme was already in play (didn't search anywhere), it had at the moment 5 threat but that amount of threat was not added to the just drawn Analysis Paralysis side scheme, staying at 1 threat. I believe it should have added the 5 threats from the nemesis side scheme since that effect on Analysis Paralysis must be resolve regardless of finding or not the nemesis side scheme from other areas.


[0.5.9.53]-ghost-spider-mysterio-expert-(116)-(1678789593).json

Developer

Hi @SAldricH-tech,

Thank you for your bug report regarding card “27173” (Analysis Paralysis) in version 0.5.9.53. We also received your message through our bug report server.

The card “27173” reads:

Search the encounter deck, discard pile, and set-aside area for your nemesis side scheme, then reveal it. Place X additional threat here, where X is equal to the amount of threat on that side scheme.

There are four possible interpretations of “that side scheme”:

  1. “That side scheme” applies regardless of whether you reveal it or not.
  2. “That side scheme” refers to the card you just found.
  3. “That side scheme” refers to the card you just revealed (meaning no threat is added if the reveal is canceled).
  4. “That side scheme” refers to the card just put into play.

We have chosen to interpret it as the second option.

We are not entirely certain our understanding is correct, as we did not find any rules or FAQs addressing this specific scenario. If you come across any relevant information, please let us know.

Thank you!

yes, you are completely right, here is the oficial ruling.


Developer(+1)

Hi @SAldricH-tech,

Thank you so much for taking the time to find that official ruling in the FAQ! We appreciate you pointing out this update – we hadn’t yet noticed it.

It’s great to have this clarification from the official source. Since the FAQ confirms that our current process aligns with the correct ruling, we will continue with our existing implementation.

Thanks again for bringing this to our attention! Your help in keeping us accurate is invaluable.