- Q: While playing a “Return to” scenario, what do I do if a campaign guide instruction or card ability refers to a card from an encounter set that has been replaced with a new encounter set? A: If it is a setup instruction or an instruction to search for that card and put it into play, the investigators should find the matching card from the new encounter set that replaced it and follow the instructions using that card, instead. (If it is unclear which is the matching card, use the encounter numbers to help guide you. For example, Wizard of the Order is card 4/6 of the Dark Cult set; if that set was replaced, the matching card would be card 4/6 of the new set.) If it is a gameplay effect other than the above, ignore it. - FAQ, v.2.0, August 2022
劇本
遵循《失落的時代》的劇本手冊執行設置,除了以下幾點:
- 在找出遭遇組的卡牌時,還需要為《重返界限彼端》找出幾個新的遭遇組,如下所示:
(繼續閱讀背面。)
重返界限彼端 - 背面
- 將新版的現代地點加入原版界限彼端遭遇組的地點中。將每個地點的2張卡牌中的隨機1張從遊戲中移除。將剩餘地點放置入場。
- 在冒險設置後,搜索收藏,找出新版的瓦盧西亞的預示者(沉睡者歸來)並將其放在一邊,位於場外。如果在本冒險期間,瓦盧西亞的預示者將要入場,不使用原版,改為使用其新版。
- 在構建探索牌堆時,僅使用12張單面的古代地點。不要加入原版的冒險設置指示中列出的其他遭遇卡。
FAQs
(from the official FAQ or responses to the official rules question form)Reviews
Sadly, Return to the Boundary Beyond, unlike Return to Threads of Fate, did not notably alter the scenario, leaving it almost as frustrating and confusing as it was before. There are some new "modern location" cards that vary the punishment you must inflict on yourself to explore, and the removal of the treachery cards from the Exploration Deck at least means you aren't paying for the right to be abused by treacheries, but this remains the low point in an otherwise lively and exciting campaign.
That sounds harsher than it is. AH:TCG is not a very complicated game (most of the complexity is involved in resolving specific card interactions), and the design crew at FFG deserves credit for regularly coming up with new twists on scenario design (and cramming them into fixed-size expansion packs). That this scenario is not as much giddy fun as its immediate predecessor (where half the pack was act cards; remember opening that?) is not a condemnation, just a disappointment. Interesting idea; frustrating execution, this "Return to..." eased the latter a bit.