An 'or' option on card requirements?

I’m assuming this is impossible, but wanted to ask before I dismissed it as so.

Is it possible to have a card that only shows if you don’t have certain requirements? E.g. I want to have a card that gives you items show up if you don’t have: item 1, item 2, OR item 3. So you could have none of them, and it shows, or two of them and it shows, and it only doesn’t show if you have all three. But it would still show if you had three of item 2, and none of item 3. Is that even possible?

(Actually, is this not a negative or option? Hmm.)
edited by babelfishwars on 3/8/2014

I’m pretty sure there’s no way to do this. The compromise I’ve found is it use “book keeping” qualities that keep track of the main qualities that the character has. It’s a bit of a hassle, but you can do some stuff with it.

[color=#009900]This is much-requested, but for internal engine reasons, it’s absurdly difficult to do and is unlikely to happen.[li][/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]You can do this with branches and rich quality requirements. If you want players with either A or B to pass a branch, add both these minimum requirements:[/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]requires A at Min 1-[q:B][/color]
[color=#009900]requires B at Min 1-[q:A][/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]…so if you have A at 1, you’ll fulfil the Min on A, and the Min on B will be 0, so you’ll fulfil that too. And vice versa. It’s a faff, and it can be confusing, but it’s the best the framework can do.[/color]

[quote=Alexis Kennedy][color=#009900]This is much-requested, but for internal engine reasons, it’s absurdly difficult to do and is unlikely to happen.[li]
[color=#009900]

[color=#009900]You can do this with branches and rich quality requirements. If you want players with either A or B to pass a branch, add both these minimum requirements:[/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]requires A at Min 1-[q:B][/color]
[color=#009900]requires B at Min 1-[q:A][/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]…so if you have A at 1, you’ll fulfil the Min on A, and the Min on B will be 0, so you’ll fulfil that too. And vice versa. It’s a faff, and it can be confusing, but it’s the best the framework can do.[/color][/quote]

Right. Finally got around to using this … and the ONLY downside is it means the qualities required to succeed are revealed, spoiling a mild surprise. Hmm. Might just have to do umpteen variations of the branch instead. :-([/li][/color]

Why would you need umpteen variations? Wouldn’t three cards suffice, one for each item that the player might not have? And then you just have all three cards link to the next step if it’s supposed to be the same no matter which item is missing? Though the obvious drawback to that is that the player might get all three cards when not having any of the items. Not sure how umpteen variations would be better in that regard though.

DISCLAIMER: I am just a player, not a creator.