Jump to content



Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#121 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 05:55 PM

Q1) Can you please clarify the passive ability of Malocchio (Terror in Venice, F33), which reads:
"For each type of icon on a character card in any discard pile, Malocchio gains 1 icon of that type."

If I have one character in my discard pile, Ghoulish Worshipper (Forgotten Lore, F19) with 2x Terror and 1x Combat, and my opponent also has one character in their discard pile, Norman Blackwood, Jr. (The Key and the Gate, F42) with 1x Combat, 1x Arcane and 1x Investigation, how many icons does Malocchio have?
I assume he can only choose the icons of one (i.e. "a") character at a time, and he only gets one instance of each type, so if Ghoulish Worshipper was targeted then Malocchio would have 1x Terror and 1x Combat - correct?
If so, can Malocchio change the targeted character? For instance, could he change to targeting Norman Blackwood, Jr. after the Terror struggle is resolved, so the Malocchio then has 1x Combat, 1x Arcane and 1x Investigation for the remaining struggles?

Malocchio gains one instance of an icon if it is present on any character in any dead pile. Regardless of how many times those icons actually appear, as long as there is a minimum instance of one, Malocchio gains one of that type.

I'm surprised that the term "a character" actually refers to 'all characters' in any discard pile, for Malocchio, but thanks for clarifying.

It’s a matter of realizing what it is looking at which is the icons. Because it is non-targeted it is looking at any icon on a character in a discard pile that possesses an icon it does not already have.


Q2) Can you also please clarify whether this passive ability would be active if Malocchio became an attachment to Richard Upton Pickman, Venerable Ghoul (Dreamlands, F97), which reads:
"Richard Upton Pickman gains the icons of each attached Ghoul character.
If Richard Upton Pickman would be wounded, you may discard an attached Ghoul character instead.
Action: Pay 2 to attach a Ghoul character to Richard Upton Pickman from your hand or discard pile.
"

The FAQ, in (1.15) Attaching Cards Through Card Effects, states:
"When a card becomes attached to another card due to a card effect, that card is now considered a support card (regardless of its normal type) with the Attachment subtype. For the purpose of all other card interactions (excluding interaction with the card that initially caused the attached condition), the card loses all of its original characteristics (such as skill value, icons, and type). The card retains its faction identity and printed cost."
If, as stated, an attached character loses its icons, then Richard Upton Pickman could never gain icons, so I presume this invokes a golden rule?
However, if it is only the faction identity and printed cost that is retained, then presumably the text box (including any passive and/or triggered abilities) is lost? In which case, regardless of the golden rule, Malocchio cannot use his passive ability to gain any icons from a character in a discard pile, and in turn Richard Upton Pickman, Venerable Ghoul cannot gain any icons from Malocchio?

Malocchio gains his icons through his text ability which as a support card is not active so he is unable to gain any additional icons. Richard Upton Pickman’s text directs it to look at what current icons its attached ghouls posses, and gains those, that will usually mean printed unless there is another active effect that is giving an attached ghoul icons.

Hope that helps.

Thanks also for confirming that text boxes are also included in the "original characteristics" that are lost when a character becomes an attachment, preventing Malocchio from gaining any icons as an attachment; while also affirming that Richard Upton Pickman, Venerable Ghoul would present a Golden Rule scenario for other Ghoul cards, to gain their (printed) icons - which unfortunately Malocchio lacks - that are otherwise lost when [a character becomes] an attachment.



#122 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:48 PM

FYI: Elements of the following conversation were prompted from discussion in the Question about the CoC FAQ CardGameDB thread.

Do events, when played, 'enter play'?

Example: If my opponent plays a 'Response' type event card, can I trigger Hermetic Seal's disrupt to cancel it?

Hermetic Seal (Terror in Venice, F42) reads:
Day. It is Day. After Hermetic Seal comes into play, destroy all Night cards. Hermetic Seal is immune to non-Night card effects.
Disrupt: Return Hermetic Seal to your hand to cancel the response or forced response effect of a card that just entered play.


The FAQ indicates events do not immediately go to the discard pile when played, so presumably they do enter play:
"When a player plays an event (from his hand), it doesn’t immediately go into his discard pile. It is placed in his discard pile after the action is complete."

Also, does the same answer apply for events played from the discard pile?

The FAQ indicates that these events leave the discard pile, so presumably they also do enter play:
"When a player plays an event from his discard pile, it does not remain in his discard pile, but rather is placed back in his discard pile after the action is complete."

And for events played from the discard pile (or attempted to be played from the discard pile, if cancelled), when they return to the discard pile are they returned to the top of the discard pile or do they keep their original position in the discard pile?

Event cards do not enter play. They are triggered from hand, resolved, and enter the discard pile without entering play. Yes, this rule also applies to event cards being triggered from the discard pile.


Hi there Damon,

Now that the FAQ's out, with its additional clarification of "An event card whose effect triggers from the discard pile does not leave the discard pile." ...I'm hoping you can clarify the situation for me regarding event cards that are played from the discard pile as "When a player plays an event from his discard pile, it does not remain in his discard pile, but rather is placed back in his discard pile after the action is complete."

Is it still the case that these event cards played from the discard pile do not enter play? And if so, are you able to answer the question as to where it is they do go (if it's not in to play) when they momentarily leave the discard pile?

Event cards, don’t “go” anywhere they leave the discard pile, are resolved, and go to the discard pile. IT has no bearing on the game which is why I didn’t detail it our more for you. Just like when you play an event card from hand you play it, it is resolved, and then it goes to the discard pile. They are treated identical.

"Just like when you play an event card from hand..."

That's very interesting - I don't think I've ever read anywhere what "play" actually means in terms of Call of Cthulu, and that when you play an event card from hand that it leaves the hand before being resolved and then going to the discard pile. (Looking back at the Event Cards section in the Core rules, and section 2.32 Playing Events in the FAQ, it isn't really stated there either.) I've always assumed it was played "from hand" (i.e. remains in hand, but is now revealed) until enacted or cancelled, and then goes to the discard pile; which is the reason I haven't been able to reconcile why an event triggered from the discard pile would need to leave the discard pile, let alone where it might 'go'.

Nothing resolves from in hand. Play means it’s cots is paid from hand, it leaves hand, and is resolved. The resolution of characters and support cards being played is they enter play. Event cards when they have completed the resolution of being played go to the discard pile. They exist in a limbo while they are being resolved, neither in the hand nor in play.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it then that this causes that event played from the discard pile to be relocated to the top of the discard pile, regardless of whether it is is played successfully or cancelled..?

That is correct.

Thanks for illuminating those points, Damon.


Edited by jasonconlon, 18 June 2014 - 09:08 PM.


#123 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:54 PM

Note: The following was sent to Damon as part of another conversation, and while he never commented on these items directly I thought they might be of interest to some all the same as they may result in minor updates to the next FAQ.

By way of some feedback on the latest FAQ relating to this, which states:
Does Snow Graves (Forgotten Lore F15) prevent a player from triggering Studying the Void’s (The Key and the Gate F35) Response while it is in the discard pile?
No. There is a difference between
triggering an event card from the discard pile and playing an event card form the discard pile. As per section 2.32 (Playing Events) of this FAQ, the Snow Graves would prevent the event from leaving the discard pile if you were to play it to use its "Action" effect. Snow Graves however has no effect on the "Response" effect which can only be triggered from the discard pile.
...I hope this doesn't lead to more confusion, as (I'm sure you know):
a) you can't play Studying the Void's 'Action' effect from the discard pile, because it's out of play and cannot be triggered; and
b) there are no card effects in the current card pool that will let you play Studying the Void to trigger its 'Action' effect from the discard pile (i.e. Studying the Void is not a Tactic, Spell or Event character, that can be played from the discard pile with Naomi O'Bannion's ability, Yog-Sothoth's ability or Chant of Thoth's effect, or Canopic Jar's ability respectively; which, to my knowledge, are the only cards that let you play events from the discard pile).

On another point from the new FAQ, which states:
Is it possible to search for The Mage’s Machinations (Terror in Venice F20) with Hall of Champions (Revelations F20)?
Yes. The Mage’s Machinations was designed by Tom Capor for being the 2011 World Champion. Thus, it is searchable with the Hall of Champions.

...Should The Mage's Machinations be errated with the additional text: "Card designed by 2013 World Champion Tom Capor." for this purpose? (I appreciate there's not much space for it, though!)

P.S. Some other info for you... There are misspellings of the word "Chthonian" on the following cards (in title, subtype and/or other text):
* Displaced Cthonian (Forgotten Lore, F53)
* The Cthonian Stone (Ancient Relics, F20)

P.P.S. I was very pleased to see that Clever Zoog has been errated, and is in fact now a 'Zoog'. = )


Edited by jasonconlon, 23 June 2014 - 10:57 PM.


#124 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:55 PM

FYI, the following conversation was prompted by questions in the Limit 1/Once CardGameDB topic, and the Yithian Scout and Three Bells topic.

G'day Damon,

I've got some additional questions & comments for you.

I find the following info in the FAQ to be unclear --
(2.9) Limit 1/Once
“Limit 1 per…” is a limitation carried by cards whose effects are triggered from out of play. A card of that name can only be triggered 1 time per stated time frame. “Limit once per…” is a limitation carried by cards whose effect are triggered from in play. That card’s effect can only be triggered once per stated time frame. If the effect of the card with either limitation is canceled the limit has still been met for that time frame.


Part of the confusion is because there are cards like Yithian Scout and Vortex of Time that trigger from out of play yet are written as "Limit once per turn" that should only apply to in-play abilities according to the above FAQ item.

The Festival (The Key and the Gate, F51), reads:
Action: Exhaust The Festival and sacrifice a resource to search your deck for a card and attach it to a drained domain as a resource. Shuffle your deck.
Action: Attach The Festival to a domain as a resource (Limit 1 per turn.) This effect can only be triggered from your discard pile.


Yithian Scout (The Key and the Gate, F15) reads:
Response: After Yithian Scout enters the discard pile from play, search your deck for a card named Yithian Scout and put it in your hand.
Action: Discard a card from each opponent's deck. (Limit once per turn.) If a non-character card is discarded in this way, put Yithian Scout into play from your discard pile. This effect can only be triggered from your discard pile.


The Three Bells (Revelations, F92) reads:
Action: Pay 1 and exhaust The Three Bells to have each player choose and sacrifice a character. Then, place a success token on The Three Bells.
Action: When The Three Bells has 3 or more success tokens on it, exhaust and sacrifice The Three Bells to put into play under your control 1 character from any player's discard pile.


Q1) If I have more than one The Festival in my discard pile, can I trigger the "Limit 1 per turn" Action ability of only one copy?

Q2) If I have more than one Yithian Scout in my discard pile, can I trigger each of their "Limit once per turn" Action abilities?

Q3) When a card changes from in play to out of play it is considered a new card, as per the FAQ. Do out of play cards, just like in play cards, have a memory of what they've done while out of play?
If Yithian Scout is in my discard pile and I unsuccessfully trigger his "Limit once per turn" Action ability (by discarding the top card of my opponent's deck that is a character card), can I ignore the limit restriction and trigger it again if out of play cards have no memory while out of play?
Note that the FAQ hasn't yet been corrected in relation to section 2.23 Zones of Play - Out of Play, as per our previous discussion in September 2013, quoted at the bottom.

Q4) If Yithian Scout is in my discard pile and I successfully trigger his "Limit once per turn" Action ability (by discarding the top card of my opponent's deck that is a non-character card) to return him to play, then I trigger The Three Bells and sacrifice him (to force my opponent to sacrifice one of their characters) so that Yithian Scout returns to my discard pile, can I again trigger his Action ability to attempt to return him to play again? Has Yithian Scout lost the memory that he is/was the same card when he returned to play and then was subsequently discarded, to reset his limit count?

Just FYI, when people have been asking questions related to "Limit 1/once" on the Call of Cthulhu forums at CardGameDB and FFG, people have instead started referencing the Star Wars LCG FAQ as a clearer explanation of what they believe should be applied --
(4.8) Limits
“Limit once per X” refers to that specific ability on that particular card. Each copy of a card with such a limit may trigger its ability once per each period of X. This type of limit tends to appear on cards that stay in play.
“Limit 1 per X” refers to all copies of a card, by title. Only 1 copy of a card with the same title may be triggered by each player during each period of X. This type of limit tends to appear on event cards.
If a card or effect with a limit is canceled, it is still considered to have been played or triggered, and counts towards the limit.

Limit 1/Once. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, the FAQ rule is written a little less than ideally.
- "Limit 1 per" is a limitation that generally appears on cards whose effects trigger from an unknown state. The way in which cards with this wording are handled is when the effect is to be triggered you check to see if any other card by that name has been triggered within the limitation, and if so, it meets the restriction for ALL copies of the card.
- "Limit once/twice/three times/etc. per” is a limitation that generally appears on cards that will trigger from a known state. Each individual card can only be triggered up to that limitation unless it goes from a known state to an unknown state.
- IF a card with the "Limit 1 per” wording is required to trigger from a known state, it is still treated identically to every other card with the wording. The state of the card is immaterial to how the rule works.

To wit:
Only a single The Festival card can have the second effect triggered per turn, as the card text indicates.
Each individual Yithian Scout can trigger its effect once per turn

Thanks Damon.
Are you able to respond to Q3 & Q4, with respect to card memory for cards in the discard pile with regards to "Limit once"?

As written [above], "Each individual card can only be triggered up to that limitation unless it goes from a known state to an unknown state."

"...from a known state to an unknown state" - I've never heard the term 'unknown state' used before in the context of Call of Cthulhu, so I'm not entirely clear on what that covers. Does this just relate to the concept in the FAQ where "A card that moves from an in play zone to an out of play zone to an in play zone is treated as though it were a new card."? (And can you clarify with regards to that statement in the FAQ, is it considered a new card when a card moves in either direction: from in play to out of play, and also from out of play to in play - both of which can occur to or from Yithian Scout?)

It is an extension of the same rule. When the card goes from in in play to any out of play state, or the reverse, the game it has no memory. If it switches out of play positions, deck to hand, hand to discard, discard to hand, it has no memory. If the card is in the discard pile and does not leave the discard pile it has a memory.

I really appreciate the inclusion of generalised answers, as they help me to apply the answer to more than just the situation I'm asking about. Just making sure I've understood correctly, though -- I believe that the answer to Q3 is that out of play cards do have a form of card memory (just like in play cards) while they remain in the same out of play state; and the answer to Q4 is that Yithian Scout, after leaving the discard pile from successfully triggering his ability, has become a new card and so if it returns to the discard pile in the same turn then its "Limit once" ability has been reset and can be triggered anew. Correct?

Correct.

Perfect. Thanks Damon!


Edited by jasonconlon, 23 June 2014 - 09:13 PM.

  • jhaelen likes this

#125 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:27 PM

Hey there Damon,

You and I were chatting a couple of months back about differentiating whether cards reference:
a.i) committing as part of a 'commit attackers/defenders' framework action (e.g. Y'Golonac, )
vs
a.ii) committing as an action, distinct from the standard 'commit' framework action (e.g. Swimming in the Deep)
...and also:
b.i) having committed as part of a 'commit attackers/defenders' framework action (e.g. Dr. Ali Kafour, Middle Eastern Scholar)
vs
b.ii) being committed, regardless of whether as part of the 'commit' framework action or some other way (e.g. Celano Fragments, The Life's Work of Dr. Shrewsbury)

Y'Golonac (Core, F122) reads:
Action: Pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac, if able.

Swimming in the Deep (Terror in Venice, F11) reads:
Action: Commit a Cthulhu character you control to a story, even if it is exhausted. Sacrifice that character at the end of the phase.

Dr. Ali Kafour, Middle Eastern Scholar (Core, F22) reads:
Response: After you commit Dr. Ali Kafour to a story, draw a card.

Celano Fragments, The Life's Work of Dr. Shrewsbury (Core, F33)
Action: Exhaust and pay X to choose a committed character with cost X or lower. Remove that character from the story.

I need some further clarification on b.i):
Q1) Does this check apply to whatever was committed throughout the 'commit attackers/defenders' green box framework action, or is it limited explicitly to the commitment declaration?
Q1.i) Example: As the active player I declare two of my characters as committed to a single story. My opponent plays a 'Response' during the same 'commit attackers' window, using Mists of Lethe to push one of my characters to a different story. I now have one character each at two stories, and we are still within the 'commit attackers' window. Can my opponent play Black Dog at one of these stories? That is - does Black Dog check for commitment at any stage during a 'commitment' framework, or can it only trigger based on the original commitment declaration?

Black Dog (Revelations, F29) reads:
Response: After an opponent commits exactly 1 character to a story, pay 1 to put Black Dog into play from your hand committed to that story. After that story resolves, if Black Dog is still in play, return it to your hand.

Mists of Lethe (The Key and the Gate, F32) reads:
Response: After an opponent commits a character to a story, commit that character to a different story.
Action: Choose a Yog-Sothoth card in play that you control and return it to its owner's hand to put Mists of Lethe on the bottom of your deck. This effect can only be triggered from your discard pile.

The answer is yes and no. The check applies to whatever was committed during the frame action, but that is not the same thing as effects played during the framework action. I’m not sure there are any cards where this distinction matters though. Also Black Dog says when an opponent commits one character. Mists of Lethe has its controller committing the character not the opponent so Black Dog would not be able to trigger.

In the Q1.i) Mists of Lethe & Black Dog example, Mists of Lethe would have relocated one of my characters, however the other character would remain untouched. If I've understood you correctly, Black Dog still cannot trigger against that character which is now alone and was previously committed at that story by me, right?

But you did not commit it alone, so no Black Dog sand Mists of Lethe do not work together.

Note: this came up in relation to questions asked on CardGameDB's forum in the Clarifications on a few cards topic.

Edited by jasonconlon, 24 June 2014 - 08:58 PM.


#126 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:29 PM

{Continued from previous post.}

Some side questions:
Q2.i) Mists of Lethe has a similar ability to Military Bike, of being able to reassign characters to other stories. Mists of Lethe has not received the errata that was given to Military Bike, so does that mean Mists of Lethe's response can relocate an opponent's attacking character to a story where there are currently no other committed characters?

Military Bike (Summons of the Deep, F102), including errata, reads:
Attach to a character you control.
Disrupt: After a story to which attached character is committed resolves, exhaust Military Bike to immediately re-commit attached character to another unresolved story. Characters can only be re-committed by Military Bike to a unresolved story where there are already characters.

Yes.

Q2.ii) Similarly, can Mists of Lethe's response relocate an opponent's defending character to a story where there are currently no other committed characters; ignoring the Step 2 - Opponent Commits rule that "The opponent (the non-active player) may now commit any number of his ready characters to any story where the active player has committed at least one character during step 1."; where, without any attackers present, that story will not resolve?

Yes, because as noted above the opponent is not committing that character, you are.

I'm fascinated by the idea that "Mists of Lethe has its controller committing the character". (I would have assumed the character is still considered to have been committed by the character's controller, rather than Mists of Lethe's controller, after the effect resolves.) I think this might be the first card that can cause my character to be committed to a story on my side which is considered to have been committed by my opponent and not (or no longer) by me! I wonder what interesting card interactions that might open up!?

Note: this came up in relation to comments made on CardGameDB's card database in relation to the Mists of Lethe card.
 

Just to make sure I've got my head around those definitions/differences related to 'commit', can you confirm that my reading of the following card is correct:

Cannibal Ghast (Core, F106) reads:
Cannibal Ghast cannot commit to stories on your turn.

'Cannot' is absolute, however 'commit' in this instance only relates to the standard framework 'commit' action. I could still use a card effect that committed Cannibal Ghast to a story on my turn outside of the standard framework 'commit' action. Correct?

Correct. A card effect could make it committed.


  • jhaelen likes this

#127 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:31 PM

An unrelated question:
Q3) When a card makes reference to being able to "play" a card, this means "to pay all costs and follow all play restrictions in order to bring the card into play from a player’s hand" as per section (2.24) “Put into Play” vs “Play” vs “Enters Play” in the FAQ. However, in terms of The Action Window In Detail section in the FAQ, which outlines:
Step 1 - Initiate action (check restrictions, determine and pay costs, and trigger the effect)
Step 2 - Disrupts
Step 3 - Execute action
...does paying the cost to play that card as per the effect occur in Step 1 or in Step 3?

As you noted here "Step 1 - Initiate action (check restrictions, determine and pay costs, and trigger the effect)"

Q3.i) Example: During the resolution of a story where I have a character committed, when the Combat struggle is about to initiate I trigger the disrupt on Tommy Malloy, "The Big Palooka". My opponent responds with his own disrupt triggering Hali's Directive to cancel Tommy's effect. Hali's Directive goes to the discard pile, while Tommy returns to my hand from where I could immediately trigger his disrupt ability again. However, at what point would I pay Tommy's cost of 2 to 'play' him - was it during Step 1, and so I would have lost those spent resources when Hali's Directive is triggered in Step 2; or is it not until Step 3?

Tommy Malloy, "The Big Palooka" (Denizens of the Underwold, F4) reads
Disrupt: Before a Combat struggle resolves at a story where you have at least one character committed, you may play Tommy Malloy from your hand committed to that story.

Hali's Directive (Denizens of the Underworld, F47) reads:
Disrupt: Cancel the effects of a character card just triggered. Then, drive that character insane, if able.

You'd have to pay his cost in Step 1 of each of those, meaning you pay once, he get’s canceled, and then you pay a second time, and assuming it is not canceled again he is played successfully.

Note: This came up in relation to questions asked on BoardGameGeek's forum in the Disrupting a disrupt? Tommy Malloy vs Hali's Directive. topic.

#128 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:32 PM

Some FAQ comments:
4) Section (2.13) Paying Costs states that "You may only pay costs with cards you control. You may never exhaust a card, drain a domain, drive insane, sacrifice, or otherwise use or alter the game state of any card you do not control, as the means of a paying the cost of an effect." This definition does not appear to cover paying costs with your story success tokens, such as in relation to Fraternal Ties.

Fraternal Ties (Seekers of Knowledge, F37) reads:
Action: Discard X success tokens from 1 story to choose X cards in your discard pile and add them to your hand.

Extrapolate, please, we’ll clarify in the next FAQ, that you cannot use or alter the game state of any card or token you do not control.

Note: this came up in relation to questions asked on CardGameDB's forum in the Clarifications on a few cards topic.
 

5) There are a number of A Game of Thrones references that should be changed to Call of Cthulhu references. Namely:
5.i) "trait" should be “keyword”

Trait is not keyword, trait is subtype, but thank you. What document and where uses this wording.

Whoops, sorry - yes, I meant to say "subtype" rather than "keyword". You'll find eight "trait" references in the Card Clarification and Errata section of the FAQ.

Note: this came up most recently in relation to questions asked on CardGameDB's forum in the Does blanking a textbox remove traits? topic.

5.ii) "grey" box should be "green" box, which I think I've mentioned previously

This should have already been corrected (in this case it was a difference in the first printing of the core set). I try to make sure that it gets done in the next FAQ.

The reference to a "grey" box only remains in the Timing Structure part of the FAQ, in the second paragraph of the End of Turn vs. End of Story Phase section.


6) One card that I've seen commonly misplayed by new players, and is regularly questioned in the forums, is whether or not The Three Bells can be triggered by a player with no characters to sacrifice; with the intent to force just the opponent to sacrifice a character. When that pack was released, FFG put out a news item specifically addressing this point, but it never made its way in to any rulesheet or FAQ:
"In Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game, the phrase “have each player choose and sacrifice a character,” necessitates that each player be able to choose and sacrifice a character. This means, your The Three Bells must claim the sacrifice of your character in order to force the sacrifice of your opponent’s (and visa versa), but the All-Mother excels at replacing her fallen with new progeny, meaning your sacrifice is likely to be less costly.

The Three Bells (Revelations, F92) reads:
Action: Pay 1 and exhaust The Three Bells to have each player choose and sacrifice a character. Then, place a success token on The Three Bells.
Action: When The Three Bells has 3 or more success tokens on it, exhaust and sacrifice The Three Bells to put into play under your control 1 character from any player's discard pile.

There are a couple of rules in the FAQ that already address this. I’ll propose to the team the idea of including it in the questions section as well, but it is covered. For example, (1.9) Choosing Targets -
"A player cannot trigger a card effect that requires him to choose a character, support card, or story card if there is no card of that type that he is able to choose.
For example, a player could not play Opening the Limbo Gate (Core Set F116) unless every player’s discard pile contained at least one character card.
In addition, a player cannot trigger a card effect that requires him to choose a certain number of targets if there are not enough valid targets available.
"

Note: this came up most recently in relation to questions asked on CardGameDB's forum in the Clarifications on a few cards topic.
Credit also to HilariousPete for his previous tip about the news article reference.

#129 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:51 PM

Village of Ash (F9, The Shifting Sands) reads:
Each player chooses one story card that he has won (except this one) and shuffles it into the story deck. Then shuffle all Relic cards in play into their owners' decks.

Q) Does Village of Ash require each player to have a won story card (excluding Village of Ash) to trigger its effect?
For example, if my opponent has taken one story card and I have none, and I have just won Village of Ash, am I unable to trigger its effect to have just my opponent lose a story card?
(Just FYI, I now believe this is the case, following our recent discussion [above] about similar cards like The Three Bells; however this is something I've only just picked up on.)

Yes.

Note: this came up most recently in relation to questions asked on CardGameDB's forum in the Dreamwalkers and Village of Ash topic.

#130 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:39 PM

Khopesh of the Abyss (F16, The Shifting Sands) reads (including errata):
Attach to a character you control Attached character gains Toughness +1.
After Khopesh of the Abyss leaves play, shuffle it into its owner's deck.
Action: Wound attached chracter to choose a character. That character takes 1 wound.


Note that the first instance of "character" in the FAQ Errata for Khopesh of the Abyss is misspelt.

Q) Does Khopesh of the Abyss work or fail on its final use?
For example, I have Khopesh of the Abyss attached to a character that has no printed Toughness.  I use Khopesh of the Abyss once, taking a wound (equal to my gained Toughness + 1 from Khopesh of the Abyss), to wound a character of my opponent's.  If I attempt to use Khopesh of the Abyss a second time, taking a second wound and exceeding my character's Toughness, that character is destroyed and Khopesh of the Abyss is also destroyed - but, having now paid the cost, does the Khopesh of the Abyss's 'Action' still execute or, having now left play, does it not?

Yes, you could get two uses out of it. Once the cost has been paid the effect must resolve.

Note: this came up most recently in relation to questions asked in CardGameDB's forum in the Timing on Naaginn with an Attachment topic.

Edited by jasonconlon, 09 July 2014 - 07:51 PM.


#131 Serazu

Serazu

    Member

  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 05:12 AM

My questions, concerning the interaction between SNOW GRAVES and PAY TRIBUTE, ISAAC MILES and IMMUREMENT...

 

My first one:

 

> Per the faq:
>
> Quote
> If my opponentâ?Ts Stygian Eye (Ancient Relics
> F96) leaves play and I have a Snow Graves
> (Forgotten Lore F15) attached to his discard
> pile does this prevent Stygian Eye from being
> shuffled back into his deck?
> Yes it does. Stygian Eye reads, â?oAfter
> Stygian Eye leaves play, shuffle it into its
> ownerâ?Ts deck.â? Since the passive effect
> does not initiate until after it has left
> play it must be placed in the discard pile.
> Snow Graves reads, â?oCards cannot be
> moved out of attached discard pile for
> any reason.â? This prevents Stygian Eyeâ?Ts
> passive from being able to resolve.
>
>
> So, what happens in the case between:
>
> 1. Snow Graves and Pay Tribute? Let's say that Snow Graves is attached to my discard pile and I play Pay Tribute. Does it go on the bottom of my deck, or does it get stuck in my discard pile?

 

 

Damon's reply:

 

It goes to the bottom of your deck.

 

 

My second question:

 

> 2. Snow Graves and Isaac Miles? Let's day that Snow Graves is attached to my discard pile and Isaac is in play on my behalf. A character of mine is supposed to hit my discard pile. Where does he end up? Is the answer the same as the above or does Isaac's ability implies that it's a substitute effect we 're dealing with here and the character evades the discard pile altogether?

 

 

Damon's reply:
 

 

Issac Miles is a replacement effect it changes the destination from discard pile to bottom of the deck.

 

 

My third question:
 

 

> 3. Snow Graves and Immurement? Let's day that Snow Graves is attached to my opponent's discard pile and I play Immurement to target a support of his. Where does the support go? The wording "leaves play" is not mentioned here, so does this mean that the support gets attached to one of his domains?

 

 

Damon's reply:

 

Snow Graves has no effect on Immurement.

 

 

My take on those issues:

 

> My thesis is that all three cards bypass Snow Graves, Pay Tribute and Immurement because their final destination is part of their effect, and Isaac because he creates a substitute effect, but I may be wrong in this.

 

 

Damon's reply:

 

You are not wrong.

 


  • jhaelen and jasonconlon like this

#132 rayad

rayad

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 08:14 AM

i do not get the ability of cunning macheraro.



#133 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 06:38 PM

Hi rayad, this topic isn't for asking questions, it's for official answers already given (by Damon Stone of FFG). Instead you should start a new topic for your questions.

To answer your question unofficially though...
If there's a conspiracy card in play, and you've got Cunning Mascheraro (who has a Terror icon) in play, then regardless of whether or not he is attacking/defending a conspiracy then it's considered that you've got an additional Terror icon on your side. For example, if you send no one to defend an opponent's attack of a conspiracy, you still have one Terror icon on your side; or if you do send Cunning Mascheraro to attack/defend a conspiracy then he brings his Terror icon plus you count it again for a total of two Terror. If you play a card where Cunning Mascheraro gains more icons, then the extra icons will count at each conspiracy too.

Cunning Mascheraro (Terror in Venice F14) reads:
Cunning Mascheraro counts its icons at each conspiracy card in play.

Edited by jasonconlon, 06 August 2014 - 06:39 PM.


#134 jasonconlon

jasonconlon

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 08:21 AM

In relation to Jacob Finnegan's second Forced Response effect that triggers "when you do not succeed at a story where Jacob is committed"...

Q1) Can this second effect trigger if Jacob Finnegan is committed as a defender?
As only the active/attacking player can "succeed" according to the rules & FAQ, does that mean the inactive/defending player "[does] not succeed", or does that mean that concepts of "succeed" and "do not succeed" are not applicable to the inactive/defending player?

Q2) Can this second effect trigger if Jacob Finnegan is committed as an attacker where the story is won by placing a final success token during the investigation struggle?
As the story resolution immediately ends and characters are no longer committed to a story when the final success token is placed, if the final skill check has not taken place, does this mean:
a) if I won Investigation and the story then I did succeed as the active player and Jacob's first effect triggers;
b) if my opponent won Investigation the story then I did not succeed as the active player and Jacob's second effect triggers;
c) regardless of who won the story, as I did not complete the skill check, I did not succeed and Jacob's second effect triggers; or
d) regardless of who won the story, as the skill check did not occur, I neither succeeded nor did not succeed and Jacob's second effect does not trigger?

Jacob Finnegan (Denizens of the Underworld F6) reads:
Forced Response: When you succeed at a story at which Jacob Finnegan is commited, add an additional success token to that story.
Forced Response: When you do not succeed at a story where Jacob Finnegan is committed, put him on the bottom of his owner's deck.


Core rules read:
Determine Success
After the four icon struggles, the active player determines if he has been successful at the story. He now adds the combined skill values of all his characters currently committed to the story. This number is the total skill. If the total skill value of the active player exceeds the total skill value of his opponent, then the active player may place a success token on his side of the story being resolved.

Winning A Story Card
Immediately after a player has won a story card (which happens the moment that a player has five or more success tokens on his side of the story card), that player takes the story card, chooses whether or not to execute its effect, and then places it prominently in his game area, faceup, to indicate that he has won the story. This occurs before resolution of the next story card begins.
After a story card has been won, and its effect executed or declined, it is replaced by a new story card from the story deck. Thus, if a story card has been won before it is fully resolved (usually by having the fifth token placed from an investigation struggle), it is replaced, and the resolution of that story is over.
Characters that were committed to a story that was won are no longer considered committed to any story.


FAQ reads:
Q) Is it possible for the defending player to succeed at a story?
A) No. The skill check is to determine whether or not the active player is successful. If the inactive player has equal or greater skill than the active player he has kept the active player from succeeding at the stroy, but has not himself been successful.

As long as a skill check is made at a story at which Jacob Finnegan is committed that you do not succeed at (regardless if you are the active or inactive player) his forced response will trigger. If there is no skill check then it will not. Hope that helps.

Just double-checking my understanding of Jacob Finnegan, then...

Q1) - as the inactive player can never succeed (only the active player can), Jacob will always trigger his second Force Response if he defends and is still committed when the skill check occurs.

Q2) - as the skill check does not occur if the story is won during the preceding Investigation struggle step then neither of Jacob's Forced Responses could trigger if he was committed when that story was won.

Have I got that correct?

I must admit my surprise at your indication that "do not succeed" also applies to the inactive player - assuming I've understood you correctly for Q1). I always thought that the reason the inactive player cannot succeed is because, as stated in the rules, only "the active player determines if he has been successful at the story" - meaning that the outcome of "succeed" or "do not succeed" is only in relation to the active player making the check (against "the total skill value of his opponent"), whereas the inactive player does not make a check and has no outcome as such.

Is there something about the quote [above] that did not answer what happens with Jacob Finnegan regardless of whether he is controlled by the active or inactive player?

I can try phrasing it a different way-
1.Investigation struggle resolves (if story is won proceed immediately to story effect resolution, there is no skill check, otherwise proceed to 2).
2.Skill check happens (the player who controls Jacob Finnegan does not succeed).
3.Jacob Finnegan Forced Response triggers, sees said skill check and lack of a positive result.
4.Jacob Finnegan Forced Response resolves, he leaves play, going to the bottom of his owner’s deck.

No worries, Damon.

Your initial response was clear. I was just so surprised to get that answer (that "do not succeed" actually applies to the inactive player - in spite of how the rules and the FAQ explain the skill check and "succeed" as being about the 'active player'), I thought it safest to double-check by restating your answers back specific to the two questions for re-confirmation.

...But thanks as always for making the time to respond.

Yeah, the wording of JF makes it so it is checking for a “yes I succeeded” when the skill check happens. The wording for the effect that would work the way you had intuited would need to be something like, “IF you do not succeed at a story at which JF is committed during your turn…” because the check happens regardless, that you can only win under some particular set of circumstances does not matter in tho case, conceptually it is the same as losing a story struggle at a story where you have no committed characters. If there was a card that said “if you lose a combat challenge sacrifice this card” you’d have to sacrifice even if you couldn’t win the combat challenge because of game rules. The check was made you didn’t win, your guy goes away.


Note: this came up in relation to questions asked in BoardGameGeek's forum in the Rules Questions topic.

Edited by jasonconlon, 25 September 2014 - 08:48 AM.

  • jhaelen likes this




© 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