Jump to content



Photo

Alyssa Graham discard effect…?


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 demonted

demonted

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:53 AM

Hey guys,

I'm trying to better understand the Alyssa Graham (AG) discard effect. Any opinions on this would be helpful. So… as a disrupt, during your opponents draw phase, AG could be used to discard one of the two cards drawn during the draw phase. I'm wondering (based on the wording), does this mean that if an opponent "would draw a card" and it is discarded by AG, then that opponent does not get to draw another card to replace the discarded card?

Or does it  mean that the card that the opponent would have drawn is simply discarded, and then the opponent gets to draw the next one off his deck as part of his usual two card draw? I haven't seen any postings on this card mechanic and was hoping to get some clarification.  What a great card for hand manipulation strategy if AG meant that the opponent really only gets to draw one of his two cards instead of both during the draw phase.

Anyways… thoughts?

 
 


#2 AUCodeMonkey

AUCodeMonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:22 AM

The card would be discarded, and is not replaced, to be succinct about it.



#3 .Zephyr.

.Zephyr.

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 08:52 AM

 I was wondering weather "a card" also means "2 cards" and how exactly should it be executed?

Definitely no card back, but i wonder do you discard the first one, the second one, player drawing chooses, at random, attacker chooses when to disrupt so he says first or second? Or maybe you cant trigger it if there are more than one cards drawn at one time…

It is important when you have Prism of many views or any other mean of knowing what the cards are like Journey to the Other Side.



#4 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:22 PM

 Alyssa Graham's controller decides. Cards are drawn individually and then added to your hand. Technically you should not pick two cards up and add them both to your hand. Alyssa Graham and Laban Shrewsbury both depend on players drawing their cards singularly for their effects to work properly.

It is noted with her Parlour you don't even have to guess which ones you should choose to discard. Fun little combo there.



#5 demonted

demonted

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:17 PM

Indeed… I have been pondering a hand manipulation deck… and the Graham combo with the Prism of Many views really would be dreadful to your opponent (or with her parlor as well). Imagine if you had an Arkham Asylum out… you could essentially reduce your opponent's draw to one card for the rest of the game (until he gets rid of the effect). Likewise, you throw in a Carcosa and the screws really get tightened.

I wonder how viable such a hand manipulation deck would be. Perhaps Negotium would help with slowing the game down, and then using yog's removal with hastur control cards would give you enough time to set up the mill/hand manipulation… I guess that is the problem with decks like this… getting enough time to set things up.



#6 .Zephyr.

.Zephyr.

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 04:22 AM

Thanks for pointing out that when you draw X cards you draw them one by one and each can be disrupted.
I thoght you do it simultainously, so with Prism i didn't get to see the other card.

This doesn't seem that hard to pull off. In opponents turn you discard his card so he gets 1.

On your refresh you can restore Alyssa Graham, she is exhausted but it doesn't stop her from triggering effect on opponents next turn.

So if you don't need to restore other characters you decrease opponents draw to 1. And if he does want to resource its effectively 0.

And you can use more discarding cards.

Right?



#7 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 04:36 AM

 Yep.

 

 



#8 Runix

Runix

    Member

  • Members
  • 193 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 04:16 PM

That's correct - but note that if you are using the dread combination with Arkham Asylum, restoring her counts as an action, so you will have to wait until the action window at the end of the draw phase to do it.  As such, you will never be able to deny both card draws for the other player, so your opponent will always be able to draw at least one card.  As noted above, though, Hastur also has other cards that can be used to clean out the other players' hand.  Alyssa Graham alone is bad enough, but with Arkham Asylum, Byakhee Attack, etc., things can get really ugly for the other player really quickly.

I'm no fortune teller, but I see a lot of Khopeshes and Shotgun Blasts and Lord Jeffery Farringtons in her future.



#9 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:47 AM

 And I see her removing them before they can be triggered. :)

Great little circle.



#10 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 06:25 PM

 I've been using this card and examining her strength… and in the process I paid extra attention to the tiing chart… I'm now convinced that she is a filter not a draw removal.

Here is my reasoning, since she disrupts an effect it still needs to resolve. A draw effect causes you to take the top card of your deck and put it in your hand. Well there is still a top card to add when the effect resolves. That card is the one which gets added to your hand. This weakens the discard effect a fair amount since you can' choke your opponents draw effectively but it does make her recursion effect more powerful since you will immediately draw the card you add to the top of your deck if you target yourself.

Without it  being a replacement effect or a change (or added details) to how card are drawn I can't see it being any other way.



#11 HilariousPete

HilariousPete

    Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 09:24 PM

Oh, I've been assuming that Alyssa's effect is a replacement effect because of the "would draw" part… But it's not, because the effect doesn't use the magic word "instead". Good catch, Penfold.

Probably she is meant to be used in conjunction with The Parlor? So that you can see what you are discarding with Alyssa?

But with that card combination I have some rule interpretation problems… As my understanding is right now, drawing a card in the draw phase is a framework action. Using the timing schedule, this should happen in step 3. The Parlor's effect is a passive ability which alters an action (you need to reveal the card before drawing it). There is a new red part about passives altering an action, it is on the left of p. 10 of the printer friendly version of the FAQ. This red part means that the alteration is applied to the action not in step 4 (the usual place for passives), but already alters the action in step 3. Although I'm not really sure I'm reading it right, because I have some problems with all those commas in the text of that red addition…

If this were right, it would mean that you have to use Alyssa's effect (a disrupt, which is resolved in step 2 of the timing structure) without knowing which card you discard, because it would get revealed and drawn later, in step 3. I think this is not how those 2 cards are meant to function. The flavor text actually references Alyssa…

Since you all play this game longer than me, what do you think about Alyssa+The Parlor and how they have to be interpreted in the timing structure?

 



#12 .Zephyr.

.Zephyr.

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 04:47 AM

Hmm this makes sense. And is a strong point for my argument of writing a paragraph on what the card does when you design so complicated timing dependent cards with new mechanics that uses "discard" to mean discard from top of deck but you still get the one below… if it confused so many forum users - ppl who do proved to be interested in game more than average - what are the chances other players will play it right.

Im still not sure actually, its a question regarding "does drawing the card chose the card, then it was discarded so target is illegal and you dont get it, or is it target is not legal so chose new and get it" - this is the most stupid way to explain what a card does i've ever seen - use complex detailed interaction so its impossible to get what it does. The whole point of precision in notation is to avoid confusion, not cause more confusion…

This wording looks like a task taken from a test in some Lure lawyers collage… and its not like designer cant write good rulings, he just writes rulings that depend on so much factors it hurts.

I really hate when you have argument with other player on what the card does and it can break your deck idea, its even worse for me than losing the game completely.



#13 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 05:50 AM

you may be right there Penfold, but i do have to question the interpretation. this 'would' is certainly confusing.

what then about expendable muscle. if he 'would' go insane then he transfers. as its a disrupt, doesn't that mean that the effect has resolved because the target 'would' have gone insane. im thinking that for the 'would' to carry out, the effect must be carried out ( before / simultanious to ) the 'would' ( is / being ) initiated, and we've had this conversation before if you remember, where expendable muscle 'disrupts' in time with the effect, so can't jump before the wound is taken to another character to defend against dynamite.

simply : you cannot disrupt an action that does not already exist, so in alyassa case the card is 'theoretically' drawn and then put in discard, and the 'effect' of you having that card in your hand is no longer the end result. you certainly dont get to 'replay' the action to get the card.



#14 .Zephyr.

.Zephyr.

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 08:34 AM

 I think that not using word "instead" hints that maybe the effect just changes the card drawn.

I really think that not giving any official comment and shipping cards like this is really stupid. I really cant understand why… how hard would it be to write additional paragraph on what card does and publish it online or print and put small booklet in a box. The card should tell what it does, but if its too complex why keep players guessing… especially in competitive environment with many rules conflicts its really insane that the only way to get those rulings straight is to e-mail designer currently working on many titles. Do players really don't care or FFG ignores them?

There are so many steps with production/design/shipping etc. Artists create work for every card. Why are rulings so neglected that a designer - person responsible for creating new ideas - is the one to do mechanical job of keeping rulings consistent and accessible.



#15 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

well, no. again in the expendable muscle example, if this was the case, then the insanity caused by the terror struggle would simply carry through to the next committed character, then driving them insane if applicable ( or the wound from the combat struggle ). pretty sure this is not the case. the insanity ( wound ) effect is still considered to have been implemented even though the 'would disrupt' has taken place. same with the card not being replaced. in my understanding that is……



#16 .Zephyr.

.Zephyr.

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 10:21 AM

Muscle uses "instead" in it text and it clearly states in the FAQ that the first effect doesn't happen, something else happens instead. Dynamite vs muscle seems interesting to me as i don;t know timings this well and it would expand my understanding of timings, but i'm not sure it is important for Alyssas case.

Regarding Alyssa: Penfolds suggestion makes some sense to me and he is the person with the best rules understanding here. This card would have been drawn, but its discarded, so i draw some other card - makes sense, but this kind of interaction is horrible to get right especialy as the timing and chosing "targets" structure is really complicated… It would make this card much less powerful draw drainer and more subtle control, so it is quite substantial difference. If this card works this way I think it is worded as bad as possible, there is no text on the card that suggests drawing a replacement and deducing it from rules looks like rule hacking… why design the card that is so hard to get and give no further explanation… Maybe it does reduce draw just lacks "instead" to clarify…



#17 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 10:26 AM

yes. it is a bit technical, and i guess we'll just have to wait for an official response. the card isn't 'would have been drawn', as it has to actually 'be drawn' before the disrupt to that action can be implemented, so yes, tough one.



#18 HilariousPete

HilariousPete

    Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 11:49 AM

.Zephyr. said:

 

 

its a question regarding "does drawing the card chose the card, then it was discarded so target is illegal and you dont get it

 

 

That's a good point, too. I don't know what to think of Alyssa anymore.

This article here states Alyssa with 2 other cards which reduce an opponent's hand cards. That would indicate that she is doing this as well…

COCLCG, you talked about waiting for an official answer - did you already submit a rules question? If not, I'll do it, but no need to bother FFG with the same question twice…



#19 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 05:27 PM

i have sent the question. eagerly awaiting a reply. will post when i know.



#20 Magnus Arcanis

Magnus Arcanis

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 06:09 PM

Re-reading the articles about her and her parlor…

I believe this will be ruled in favor of the "not-a-filter" camp.

And possible evidence to support my belief would be that not all replacement effects have to use the word "instead." 

My personal belief…

A. (I don't control allysa) I'm about to draw a card, one of two things will happen. I discard it. or I put it into my hand and my opponent puts their top discard on top of their deck. Then draw my second card.

B. (I do control allysa) I'm about to draw a card, either I discard that card I'm about to draw or put it into my hand and put my top discard on top of my deck and then draw it with my second draw.

However… thats they way I 'read' the card and believe it's what they intended. However… Penfold has plenty of ground to stand on here and can easily see myself agreeing with him.

Very worth claifiying in a FAQ and have suggested Damon to do as such. I'll sit back on ths one and see how it's ruled.






© 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