Jump to content



Photo

You've Got Questions? I've Got Answers - Straight From Damon Stone


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#21 Yipe

Yipe

    Member

  • Members
  • 682 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

Coming from someone who doesn't understand the rules on the same level as the two of you (Penfold and Magnus Arcanis), when I first read what Damon wrote me, I didn't understand the conclusion.  Hopefully you guys can help me out.

My confusion stems from Step 1b:

"Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. This is where Expendable Muscle's Passive is resolved on the wounding effect."

The word "resolved" is the part giving me trouble.

If Expendable Muscle's passive ability is resolved before Step 3: Action is Executed, then why isn't he turned into an attachment and attached to another character, thereby giving that character +1 toughness and saving it from the dynamite (i.e. wound)?

Is it because the resolution of Expendable Muscle's passive ability waits to be completed until Step 4: Passive Abilities are Executed?

To be clear, I'm not challenging Damon's ruling.  I just want to understand how a passive ability can be resolved but then wait to be applied until after the action it's altering is completed.

Thanks for your help!

 



#22 Yipe

Yipe

    Member

  • Members
  • 682 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:02 PM

By reviewing the Replacement Effects ruling in the FAQ (section 2.10 v2.1), I may have answered this myself.

Basically, Expendable Muscle is changed into an attachment to circumvent the action's normal effect (in this case, being wounded).  However, this is happening after the action is executed, otherwise it wouldn't be a replacement effect (and we know that it is due to the word "instead" in Expendable Muscle's passive ability).  Right?  Err, right.  Man, this is complicated stuff.

I must agree with Magnus Arcanis here that, however appropriate, it seems counter-intuitive to use the term "resolved" in Step 1b as it's not actually resolving until after Step 3.  That just confuses me…



#23 Dark Initiate

Dark Initiate

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:46 AM

It was reported on another thread that Damon stated that Educated Officer permits the controlling player to draw 7 cards after that player wounds another player's character using Short Fuse. I'm not sure that the rules of the game demand that interpretation, and I am pretty sure that this makes the Educated Officer too powerful. (Compare with card Forbidden Knowledge.)

Anyway, my suspicion is that Damon will reverse this ruling.  So I'd like to know with certainty whether this will or will not happen before an upcoming regional that I plan to attend.  I don't want to build a deck around this exploit and get screwed, when the local organizers rule that the Educated Officer cannot do this.  I also don't relish facing a deck that uses this exploit against me.

Given the explanation of the ruling that I heard, it appears that a player could draw 14 cards with Professor Rice in play.



#24 Surreal

Surreal

    Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 03:03 AM

Dark Initiate said:

Given the explanation of the ruling that I heard, it appears that a player could draw 14 cards with Professor Rice in play.

That is true and makes sense when you look at action window more carefully. I wouldn't be too worried of this anyway. Misc + Agency might not be best pairing and it is hard to pull that combo. Well 7 cards from Short Fuse can happen more often. I think it is cool there is reason to play Short Fuse + Educated Officer. I don't think this is broken thought. Those both cards cost 3 and Educated Officer might be killed with some removal in next opponents turn latest. You could play Educated Officer + Short Fuse on same turn but this happens earliest turn 4 and 5 turn is first turn you can really start using those extra cards. Game might be almost over by then. Could be a strong deck if somebody really tunes the deck. I actually think this game needs more strong deck archetypes and strong but not broken cards.

 



#25 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:31 AM

 Magnus, you'll note I came to the same ruling that Damon did, for pretty much the same reason, before he had been consulted.

So looking at what he wrote there are clearly two important parts, one it is a replacement effect. There is absolutely no evidence to support any other conclusion than this. Zero. None. If you do not agree this is a replacement effect your understanding is mortally flawed and we cannot continue with this discussion until this addressed. Do you or do you not agree that it is a replacement effect? If not please provide evidence (direct citation of the rulebook or faq please) to the contrary.

I'm going to assume you agree that it is and move on.

So the next bit seems to be your problem with the word resolve. What is exactly resolving EM's ability? It is a passive replacement effect, so what it is changing is the wounding effect, altering it so at that wounding effects execution it turns EM into an attachment.

This is where I think you have a fundamentally wrong understanding… everything you are writing seems to be under the impression that EM's passive turns it into an attachment, but this is not strictly speaking correct. EM's passive forces a wounding effect to turn it into an attachment. Once you understand this (and because it is a replacement effect, it is still the resolution of the original effect that causes EM to turn into an attachment) then understanding the resolution of EM's ability on the action is making that action a "turn to attachment" effect instead of a wounding effect, in regards to EM. That wounding/turn into an attachment effect must still resolve within the timing structure. Because it is a replacement effect it has NO way to turn into an attachment before the effect itself is executed. If there was a disrupt effect played that cancels the wound on EM your ruling would STILL have EM turn into an attachment, and that clearly cannot happen, since you cannot replace an effect that has been canceled, because it never happened in game terms.

There is no way your ruling works without breaking the game, that for no other reason should prove that you are wrong. 

Now you can make a statement that resolves is the wrong word, but resolve clearly has a specific meaning in this game that is different than you think, and when you view EM's ability as a modification of another effect, then it must have resolved prior to that effect resolving if it is a replacement effect. Damon's more fully explained answer follows the same thing I said, and his is perfectly internally consistent without disturbing any part of the timing structure. Your is not. Internal consistency and when extrapolated out continued adherence and support of the greater timing structure trumps, well, kind of everything.



#26 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:50 AM

Dark Initiate said:

It was reported on another thread that Damon stated that Educated Officer permits the controlling player to draw 7 cards after that player wounds another player's character using Short Fuse. I'm not sure that the rules of the game demand that interpretation, and I am pretty sure that this makes the Educated Officer too powerful. (Compare with card Forbidden Knowledge.)

Anyway, my suspicion is that Damon will reverse this ruling.  So I'd like to know with certainty whether this will or will not happen before an upcoming regional that I plan to attend.  I don't want to build a deck around this exploit and get screwed, when the local organizers rule that the Educated Officer cannot do this.  I also don't relish facing a deck that uses this exploit against me.

Given the explanation of the ruling that I heard, it appears that a player could draw 14 cards with Professor Rice in play.

There will almost certainly be no reversal. The timing chart and wording on the cards allow for no other rule interpretation. I'll walk you through the steps about why it works this way:

 

1) All wounds are dealt at the same time.

2) Only after the wounding effect is executed do characters get destroyed.

3) How many wounds did it take during the execution of that effect?

4) That is how many triggers there are for Educated Officer to respond to in the response window of the executed effect.

From a rules wonkiness standpoint there is really only a single issue that could be cited as precedent for this working in a different manner, and that is drawing or discarding cards, regardless of the number the effect is causing, are done individually. I have previously said that each wound is simultaneous, but looking at the timing chart I may be wrong there. It may be that because each is delivered individually but during the same step and cards that are destroyed do not leave play until the end of that step they just keep getting hit again and again, similar to getting shot by a machine gun where the first bullet hits you but your body is also hit six more times before you even drop.

Hm. This actually makes a lot more sense. Interesting.



#27 Magnus Arcanis

Magnus Arcanis

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

Ok… lets just settle a few things here.

1. I know what a replacement effect is… not sure why you keep bringing it up like I don't. I never argued that it wasn't and even mentinoed several times that it was a replacement effect. So yes… I agree. EM's effect is a replacement effect. Actually, I'll apologize here lil a bit. Rereading it, I know why you're continueing to lecture me about replacement effects. There was a small bit of confusion when I quoted a *snipped* portion of one of your posts to re-open the discussion about the 'altering passive' rule. Instead of possibly getting my intented effect it seems that you mostly saw my arguement from the an unintended angle which has likely skewed this discussion a small amount.

2. Damon's quoted responses, implied that EM's effect didn't actually finish turning into an attachment until step 4. This is obvioulsy not what actually happens (but merely what I thought you guys were trying to tell me). Regardless, I still think, with the wording we have, should still be resolved before step 3. So we still have something to discuss.

3. Damon and I (and I believe everyone else including you, but trying not to assume to much here) seem to agree that the 'altering passive' rule applies to this situation. I know this because even Damon said that the effect is triggered and resolved in step 1.

So in the timiing structure, all the way up to step 1. b)… we're all one big happy family. So my next step is to, as simply as possible, explain the 'alter passive rule'. (lol, I could be doing an aweful job of that right now as I think this now counts as a book. lol)

For reference:

""NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied.""

___________________________________________

If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resloved on the action,…..

Resolved. Aka. Completely executed. Note its past tense. Its not 'will reslove', its not 'resloving', but in fact resolved. Finished. How do you completely execute an altering passive without actually following it through to the end?

I'll actually answer this question later, so please hold thy rage.

…which now altered, is initiated.

This puts EM's ability resolustion and resolved state in step 1 Action is Initaited.

____________________________________________

Now, I already think EM should be attachment at this point. However, that is not Damon's intent. Damon (and I pretty sure you as well Pen) think that EM's ability is applied on the action and is merely waiting till EM is wounded or is made insane.

See, I clearly get what you guys are going for. However… EM's effect doesn't, and I repeat, does NOT say "When EM is wounded…." which is the typical wording used in a replacement effect that is meant to not actually replace anything until the thing it is replaces is actually happening.

IE. Mr. David Pan, Professor Sam Campbell, Chess Prodigy… "When resolving struggles at a story that Mr. David Pan is committed to, count the total skill of all participating characters instead of the icons to determine the winner of each struggle."

The wording on those cards is the correct way to word an altering passive effect who's applied effect doesn't actually do its replacing until the thing its replacing is actually happening.

Expendable Musle on the other hand does not follow this!

"If Expendable Muscle would be wounded or go insane,…"

- Would be =/= (does not equal)  When. 

Would be, is an explicit refrence to its designation to a wounding/insanity effect. So in order to resolve EM's effect… it only needs to be designated to be affected by a wounding or insanity effect. Not actually being wounded or made insane. So when EM is deginated by a wounding/insanity effect it instead turns into attachment. Which is a perfectly legit replacement effect.

This of course… does mean that the effect that does the designating effect can be canceled and EM would still become an attachment anyway. Actually… let me rephrase that.

EM would actually become an attachment BEFORE disrupts could even possibly cancel the effect. Because as we read above, the passive effect is resloved on the action well before disrupts can touch the triggering action.

- This, in no way, breaks the game… at all. It clearly fits the wording provided.

____________________________________________________

This is, obviously, not what Damon intends to happen and why I blamed it on a old wording error. Thus I suggested it be erratta'd, not to use the word resloved (or rather (more clearly?) define the different levels of resolved) in certain ways…… or the ruling be changed. Otherwise… techincally… it doesn't work the way you/they want it to. (still) In my opinion anyway.

I believe I'm actually now pretty sure that I'm correct in this. The wording I've quoted fits perfectly. It doesn't break the game. I have clear examples of how its supposed to be done. I've pointed out how EM doesn't follow those given examples. I can't find an example that clearly defies my intreptation in the same way that I've found examples that defies the official ruling. What more do I need?

Oh… just to make sure I don't get accused of this. I'm NOT trying to twist words to fit how I'm now reading this. First glance I saw nothing I disagreed with. It wasn't until after digging much deeper that I've come to this conclusion. Yes there were some bumps along the road during the learning proccess, but once I switched sides everytime I've dug I only ended up coming to the same conclusion in a stronger way than the last.

Sorry for that disclaimer…

Anyway… so ya. If it makes anyone feel better I agree with the Short Fuse + Educated Officer ruling! I'm not a fan, but based on everything else its legit and follows other consistancies similiar to the one you already pointed out Pen. :)

 



#28 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 08:31 AM

All of that still misses the very clear points:

1) A replacement effect cannot replace an effect that has itself not been executed.

2) EM's ability resolves on the player or framework action that would wound it, not on EM itself.

Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop.

And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question. Your entire argument hinges on ignoring these two points. Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong. We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue.



#29 Magnus Arcanis

Magnus Arcanis

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 12:07 PM

Penfold said:

All of that still misses the very clear points:

1) A replacement effect cannot replace an effect that has itself not been executed.

2) EM's ability resolves on the player or framework action that would wound it, not on EM itself.

Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop.

And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question. Your entire argument hinges on ignoring these two points. Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong. We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue.

1) is complete crap. No basis in the rulebook or FAQ for this. Also… if it were true… how would Disrupt replacement effects work if they 'canno't replace an effect that itself has not executed as Disrupts execute before the action is executed?

2) I'm kinda scratching my head on this. We all think EM's ability is 'resolved' in step 1. We only differ in when we think its applied effect is actually resolved/executed/does its replacing. I didn't miss this! I expicitly said several times that I think EM's ability triggers on the designation and not on its wounding. Everything I've said and done was to contest the position that EM's ability resovled on the wounding. Not sure how many different ways/times I can state such….

"Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop."

- Only if you believe you're first point is true. Which… as far as I can tell… is not.

"And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question"

- Not sure why you're getting so heated over this (kinda getting me heated now). I'll admit we're making this into a bigger deal that it actually is, but in all fairness just about everything in my previous post argued, adressed, refutes and call into question your two points… well point 2 anyway as point 1 is well, not true. Perhaps I'm not the one ignoring things?

"Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong."

- This entry kinda distrubed me. Taking the ruling as FACT and basing your entire arugement on it is terrible way to go. Form your own opinion. Believe it or not, FFG is not infallable. They can make mistakes(not unlike everyone else, including me), and if they're never pointed out we'll never get to a cleaner game. Do I need to bring up the Yog-Sothoth + Unspeakable resurrection ruling(s)? Dreamlands Fanatic? Sides, I'm not claiming that it is fundamentaly wrong but a mere oversight in judgement based similiar but not quite inter-changeable wording(s).

"We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue."

- Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think we've made a lot of progress and I know I learned a lot. However, this has aparently negatively affected you and I really feel bad about that. My goal is most certainly not to upset anyone, so I agree we're done on this subject. We've both said pretty much all the can be said on the subject. Damon gave us his ruling and that is what is to be followed for the forseeable future.

So… truce?



#30 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:23 AM

 I'm not upset, I'm bored. I see absolutely no interest in you trying to understand the ruling. We have a ruling. It is based and directly quotes the rules. If you wanted to understand the ruling rather than disagree with it, reverse engineering it is the single BEST way to achieve that… but you refuse to and when I suggest it you dimsiss it out of hand as a terrible idea.

What is the point?

I'm perfectly fine leaving you scratching your head, because I don't believe you want to understand the ruling, I believe you want to be right. Go debate the finer points of timing structure with Damon. I will bet you the entire Revelations cycle he says essentially the same thing. I'm also willing to bet you will continue to disagree with it and him. I'm not saying FFG is infallible, I am saying that you are far more so than they are, and particularly where this is concerned.

Again, I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, you are more invested in proving yourself right than understand why the ruling is what it is. You are going about the entire process wrong otherwise.



#31 Surreal

Surreal

    Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 05:36 AM

Some more answers:

1. Library of Perganum says "cancel an effect just triggered that would destroy a Tome card." Rulebook says all attachment are destroyed if the characters ends to discard pile. So can I cancel Deep One Assault with Library if my targeted character has a Tome attachemnt? Can I cancel any triggered effect which would cause a character to go insane with Tome?

No, Deep One Assault as an effect does not destroy Tome cards. The game destroys Tome cards when they are attached to characters that are destroyed.

2. I control Rampaging Dark Young unopposed in a story. After all stories my opponent triggers some response which puts my Rampaging Dark Young in discard pile. I choose to put Nocturnal Scavenger in a play with Rampaging Dark Young triggered effect. Can I the use response of Nocturnal Scavenger now because I won one combat struggle with Rampaging Dark Young? Sorry this example is bit messy but question is Can I trigger ef fect in a card which happened during (framework) action even when the card was not in play when the effect resolved but came to play during responses part? I would guess this is allowed.

Yes.

3. What happens if use Underground Asylum once to cancel an effect of Lost to the Madness and I control two characters? Does it cancel the whole effect of Lost to the Madness or just cancel the effect to one character?

It is a single effect that causes all characters to go insane. Underground Asylum cancels an effect that would cause a character to go insane. So Underground Asylum cancels Lost to the Madness.

 

Good answers but I still don't understand what is considered an effect. There is ruling that Underground Asylum can cancel going insane by terror struggle. So that is a game effect. I am just wondering how Underground Asylum works with Professor Herman Mulder. I guess I can cancel Terror of the Tides action with Underground Asylum if Terror of the Tides would cause Professor to go insane.



#32 Surreal

Surreal

    Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:13 AM

 Some more answers:

1. What about if I control Professor Herman Mulder and Underground Asylum then what effects I can cancel?

Yes you can cancel the effect… but there is still 6 or more characters in play which means he just goes insane again. In other words you will not be able to effectively stop him because the effect just keeps reasserting itself as long as the state is true.

2. Lets say for example Terror of the Tides is put in play with the action (as a 6th character in play). Can I cancel the whole effect of action if Terror of the Tides would cause Herman to go insane? What about if opponent just plays Terror of the Tides normally? Is playing a card an effect?

You cannot cancel something that is not expressly stated as being able to be canceled by the card granting the cancel. In other words, it is not putting Terror of the Tides in play that makes Professor Herman Mulder insane, but his own effect. The only way to cancel putting Terror of the Tides into play would be to use a cancel effect that expressly cancels a card coming into play or a triggered effect. Playing a card is not a card or game effect, it is a rule of the game.

These answers make sense and I feel I am starting to really understand the game now.



#33 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:50 PM

I just received a bunch of new answers to some question that came up during our CoC tournament in Stahleck:

Rule Question:
What is the proper timing for Prophesy cards?
E.g. Hastur's Hamu XX 15:14 says:
"Response: After a character is made insane, discard Hamu XX 15:14 from the top of your deck to choose up to two cards in your discard pile. Add those cards to your hand."
Can I choose the Prophesy card just triggered as one of the cards to be added to my hand from the discard pile?

Answer:
Yes. You pay the cost of the card and then choose its targets.
=========================================================================================================================

Rule Question:
Catacombs Docent has the following card text:
"Response: After a character you control is made insane, drive Catacombs Docent insane to add 1 success token to a story with less than 4 success tokens on your side."
What exactly is covered by the (relatively new) wording 'made insane'?
Does it cover insanity caused by
1) losing a terror struggle?
2) a card effect (e.g. Victoria Glasser's)?
3) driving a Lunatic character insane?
 

Answer:
Made insane is exactly what you think. Go insane is through the result of a game or card effect. Driving insane is a cost. Made insane is any manner in which a character goes from "restored" to "in[s]ane."
=========================================================================================================================

Rule Question:
Lethargic Miasma says:
"Attached character may not ready."
Since it doesn't use the defined term 'cannot' I assume that a card effect such as the Ancient Guardian's ("Pay 1 to choose and ready an exhausted character or support card you control.") could be used to ready the exhausted character, despite Lethargic Miasma?

Answer:
Yes.
=========================================================================================================================

Rule Question:
If I commit two (or more) Beings of Ib at the same story while I have a single Ancient One in play (or the Ancient One and a single Beings of Ib), do I count the AO's skill and icons twice or just once?
The card says:
"If you control a single Ancient One character, count its skill and icons at any story to which Beings of Ib is committed."

Answer:
Twice.



#34 HilariousPete

HilariousPete

    Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:55 PM

Thanks for posting the Q+A! Good to know what "to be made insane" means :-)

But I've got to say, I'm surprised about the answer to the prophecy question. I always thought that targets are chosen / play restrictions checked before costs are paid. (E.g. Feed Her Young isn't resourced under the domain it has been paid for.) I thought that the Hastur prophecy can't take itself out of the discard pile. Did Damon say anything more about this topic, or do you know the reasoning for this behaviour?

 

Relevant FAQ:

1) Action is initiated
a) Determine the cost (to either play
the card or pay for the card’s effect) or
costs (if multiple costs are necessary
for the intended action).
b) Check play restrictions, including
verification and designation of
applicable targets
or cards to be
effected.

e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Play the card, or trigger the effect,
and proceed to step two.

 

Kind regards,

Pete



#35 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:22 PM

HilariousPete said:

1) Action is initiated
a) Determine the cost (to either play
the card or pay for the card’s effect) or
costs (if multiple costs are necessary
for the intended action).
b) Check play restrictions, including
verification and designation of
applicable targets
or cards to be
effected.

e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Play the card, or trigger the effect,
and proceed to step two.

Hmm, interesting. I didn't consider this answer surprising because it seems to confirm the timing for the Shub-Necronomicon + Altar of the Blessed exploit: You get to put the character you sacrificed as the cost into play as well. I have no explanation for it right now, since the FAQ seems to indicate a different order.



#36 Dark Initiate

Dark Initiate

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

jhaelen said:

Rule Question:
If I commit two (or more) Beings of Ib at the same story while I have a single Ancient One in play (or the Ancient One and a single Beings of Ib), do I count the AO's skill and icons twice or just once?
The card says:
"If you control a single Ancient One character, count its skill and icons at any story to which Beings of Ib is committed."

Answer:
Twice.

 

Looks like you got screwed by the call at Stahleck.

While the designer's verdict is final, I think this is a bad call (i.e., Damon made a bad decision). The call makes Beings of Ib very powerful, and I don't think that a zero cost card should be so powerful. (If you look at the FAQ ruling on The Captain, it looks like the previous designer ruled that the card would be too good, if you could count The Captain's icons twice at a single story. I think the same idea should be applied with Beings of Ib, since the effect is even cheaper, i.e., free. In fact, I think it would be OK to reverse the ruling on The Captain, since there is a reasonable cost attached to the effect.)

Another Question: What if you have your (single) Ancient One and your Beings of Ib attached to a story? Do you count the Ancient One's icons twice? I assume that Damon would give the same answer.



#37 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

In regards to the prophecy posing, i do hope that the FAQ is correct as:

A ) it already fixes the Necronomicon / Logan dilemma.

B ) it would stop the prophecy from being used for ridiculous loops like Hamu XX 15:14 / Glimpse of the Void and such.

I've felt for a while now that things are just being made up as they go along and that they should be finalised as soon as possible. If anyone tries a Necro / Logan / skill bonus then I'd be quoting this specific little FAQ section and all hell would break loose, especially if it's within a tournament !! ( as for those attending the Aus. Nationals probably won't have it officially remedied yet ).

As for Beings of Ib and the Ancient being committed to the same story, this is how we've been playing it and it really sucks as the last game i played had the little Iblings and Cthulhu doubling up for a 16 skill story attack, which he just kept repeating until he got the domains high enough to sac 3 characters every turn. Not nice.

I should also have an answer to add here about the contradicting response turn sections of the FAQ which I have sent to Damon.



#38 AUCodeMonkey

AUCodeMonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:35 AM

While 2 Beings of Ib + AO really sucks to face, it requires a lot of cards to set up. A lot of things can be done to those BoI after they're played. They're very easily taken out with a 1 cost Catastrophic Explosion, 0 cost Shotgun Blast or DoA, exhausted with a 1 cost Panic, destroyed with a Calling Down the Ancients or Twilight Gate + Many Angled Thing for 2 cost, etc.



#39 mischraum.de

mischraum.de

    Member

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:07 AM

Dark Initiate said:

Looks like you got screwed by the call at Stahleck.

While the designer's verdict is final, I think this is a bad call (i.e., Damon made a bad decision). The call makes Beings of Ib very powerful, and I don't think that a zero cost card should be so powerful. (If you look at the FAQ ruling on The Captain, it looks like the previous designer ruled that the card would be too good, if you could count The Captain's icons twice at a single story. I think the same idea should be applied with Beings of Ib, since the effect is even cheaper, i.e., free. In fact, I think it would be OK to reverse the ruling on The Captain, since there is a reasonable cost attached to the effect.)

Another Question: What if you have your (single) Ancient One and your Beings of Ib attached to a story? Do you count the Ancient One's icons twice? I assume that Damon would give the same answer.

I brought the Captain vs. Beings of Ib dilemma to Damon's attention. Let's see what comes out of this…


Travelling for LCG tournaments: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Gen Con, Genoa, Göteborg, Liege, Salzburg
Next destination: Make a suggestion!

#40 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:51 PM

Got an answer to clear things up. Damon's responses ( excuse the pun ) are in bold italics.

Rule Question:

Hiya. In regards to responses there 'seems' to be 2 different answers as to order of such. Being :

'Action, Disrupt, and Response Effects', Page 17: "Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player."

It is each player taking an opportunity to respond to things that happened but were unable to be immediately responded to, for example when the story phase resolves a character was wounded. No responses are possible until the end of the story phase. The active play gets the first opportunity to respond to that wounding. Then it goes back and forth (or left if multiplayer rules are being used). When a new phase begins it is the active player who gets first opportunity to take an action. When a game effect has been initiated it is the first player who gets the first opportunity to trigger a disrupt.

'Responses', Page 18: "After all disrupts, passive abilities, and/or forced responses to an action are resolved, players may now play normal responses in clockwise order (starting with the player to the left of the player who initiated the action)."

The player to the left gets the first opportunity to trigger a response to an action taken by a player. The active player cannot get two opportunities to take actions (the action which created the opportunity for Responses) in a row.

I just ask as it would be vitally important to know in cases such as Lord Finchington vs Diseased Sewer Rats as to which goes first, the active or non active player. Thanks !!

It always goes back and forth, the question is just one of who gets first opportunity and the answer as you can see above is context dependent. The rule of thumb is if it the game being responded to or first opportunity to take any action or player triggered effect it is the active player who gets first shot. If it is a player action being responded to it is the player on the left of the triggering player who gets first shot.

So yes. After closed box phase sections, the active player responds first to occurances within the box. In response to actions in windows, the opponent gets to respond first ( So in the example Finchington would cause the Sewer Rats to go insane before the wound ).






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS