Jump to content

Penfold3

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,180

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Penfold3

  2. Posted

    0 is a number, in so far as it is a symbolic representation of a quantity as much a -1 is. Because cannot is absolute AND 0 is a number that is up to 2, the second effect cannot be resolved at all.

    The first effect can however be triggered. It can get complicated to understand, but essentially the player is only triggering the first static effect. That is the only one which needs to be able to legally resolve when we are checking targets and designation. The second effect is contingent on the first effect being successful so essentially the game does not care about those when it is checking.

    While math sets make perfect logical sense to you the vast majority of players would probably be quickly lost if everything was {} and () etc. I'm pretty sure my math skills are not up to that.So they choose words to be game terms and then define them in the rulebook and FAQ.

  3. Posted

     Hrm… without the word instead being used there is some weird stuff going on with Forgotten Shoggoth. It clearly, at least in my mind, prevents them from going to the discard pile, but if it isn't a replacement effect, I'm not sure what is going on in game terms. My guess was it should have been a replacement effect and should probably receive errata to say instead.

  4. Posted

     Zephyr, you don't get the rules yet. There is nothing wrong with that at all… but you are blatantly ignoring parts of the rules that are clearly written because you disagree with them. Down that path lies madness my firend.

    0 is a number. You cannot choose it because you cannot move any cards, including 0, from your discard pile if SG is attached. Functionally it results in the same thing, but it is about function it is about the rules. Discard, out right destroy, sacrifice and wound until destroyed all functionally result in the same thing, the card in question going to your discard pile, but the rules say each of those is a different thing. They are not interchangeable and trying to reason your way around it is sloppy thinking and will result in continued rules misunderstandings.

  5. Posted

     Cards are drawn and discarded singularly. Because you are not told to choose a subset of cards but to discard X cards you discard each card until you reach the number X. Page21 from the faq -

    "Julia Brown, Oddly Amphibious (Summons of the Deep F107), reads, “Forced Response: After Julia Brown commits to a story, discard 2 cards at random from your hand, then draw 2 cards.” If I have only 1 card in hand when I commit her, must I discard this card or not? Can I draw 2 cards?

    Yes you must discard your 1 card. You must seek to fulfill as much of a card’s effect as possible. Since cards are drawn or discarded singularly you must discard cards in your hand until you have reached the maximum of 2 for this effect. However, since the next part of Julia’s effect is a “Then” statement, because you were unable to successfully discard 2 cards you may not draw any cards."

     

    What makes this different from some other effects as I said is the lack of the word choose, which forces you to be able to target a specific number of cards. If you cannot choose them the effect fails entirely. However without that designator you must attempt to discard cards from your hand individually until you have either reached the number the effect states or until you can no longer discard cards.

     

    It should be noted here that the "then" clarification directly applies to the Feral Elder Thing argument that was being made earlier. Unable for both individuals to choose and discard 2 cards, no one gets to draw any cards because the first effect was not successful. PErsonally I wish the wording did allow for each person who was able to successfully discard 2 cards to draw a card, but that isn't how it is done in AGoT which has the same designer and same wording. The FAQ does seem to have that one spot where we can hold out a glimmer of hope, but given it is not in a section about that at all and does not precisely say that it works that way I'm not holding my breath (but I am keeping my fingers crossed).

  6. Posted

     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.

  7. Posted

     Another of the gang in red? But this one is totally new one not in the Congress of keys story card.

    So the benefit of conspiracy cards, beyond whatever effect you've probably built your deck to take advantage of, is that you get first crack at them. With Amaranth, you also get a "free" defender who may let you keep bringing those conspiracy cards into play one after another. I like.

  8. Posted

     You are still learning the game. As Graham pointed out, many of the people who have been playing for years are also still trying to master the game.

    LCG's are like chess, short time to learn, a life time to master.

    Khopesh is a card, much like Master of Myths that lets lesser players play up. It is like spotting an opponent a queen. If you are a better chess player giving an intermediate player that advantage isn't an insta-loss, it just puts you in a position where you have to pay attention. In this game knowing your opponent may have a Khopesh just means you come with a certain kind of deck or a certain strategy.  Most players try to wipe out boards when they get the Khopesh rather than using it to snipe characters that are really troublesome. This is the first of many bad plays I've seen with this card.

    Now the card itself while letting intermediates play closer to the level of advanced players does not continue to scale up. It lets them beat their peers, but advanced players recognize the tempo loss most frequently caused by spending multiple cards to get rid of other cards if there is not a immediate gain, essentially you are draining two domains, spending two draws, and spending two cards to get rid of the same. The 1:1 advantage becomes greater if you are killing off characters that are strictly better than the ones you are throwing away, but it does not get you beyond the 1:1 unless the character you put the khopesh on has toughness itself.

    It isn't a bad card, but if you divorce yourself from the attachment of any given card and look at the math behind the cards you start to see it isn't nearly as amazing as a lot of the early hype made it out to be. It skews the metagame but only because we allow it. I predict the winning deck at worlds will not have it, and I'd be surprised if the winning decks at the continental championships have it.

  14. Posted

     I'm interested in that Explorer, Roald Ellsworth. Side note: is that a real explorer? That name seems a little familiar.

    There currently aren't any explorers in the game, but if this set has 5 or 6 that can all get willpower and I get either to draw two cards or return my best card in my discard pile to hand I'm not going to mind to much when they get Khopesh'd out of existence (and as a disrupt, pretty much nothing but a cancel can interfere with you getting the card(s).

    Actually These guys would do really well against a Silver Twilight deck as well, all their bouncing my Explorers to hand just gets me more cards to hit them with… Admittedly Initiates is a 1 resource advantage to them, but I think in the end my card advantage and recycling would take the day.

    Things are looking up for Miskatonic.

  16. Posted

     You can make a 45 card deck which is equal to the core set decks out of the GJ and Mart boxes. IF you are looking for a more consistent deck buying the house expansions will not only give you a more consistent deck, but a better deck than buying a core set x2 or even x3 IMO.

    The question is how does the person want to play the game? Most of the recommendations for second or third core set seem to be predicated on one of two assumptions, 1. the person is going to  want to compete in a tournament and therefor will "need" (or at least be best served by) owning every card x3, or 2. the want more consistent decks and a second core set is the best way to achieve that.

    Not every new player is going to cleanly fit into these two and I'd like to see us as a community move away from these stock answers and ask a question or two and try to tailor the answer a little bit more to their needs.

  18. Posted

     No that doesn't seem correct to me. The example in the FAQ is based purely on the eligible targets part, it has nothing to do with the "then" statement so it is not mentioned. If it did, it would defintiely conflict with the "Then" definition in the rules. Omission is not tacit approval of.

    Now you do have a good point about Byakhee Attack implying that only one character is affected. It does not exclude both characters, but that is not a legitimate reason to assume that it does (following the same reasoning I just gave that omission is not tacit approval of).

    Trying to keep trck off all the things that have specifically been answered by Damon, versus ones which are decided by precedent or through implication based on other rulings of his.

    I'd like to get a clear answer in regards to those two effects (that is Byakhee Attack and Feral Elder Thing). My ruling as a TO would be the direct ruling on FET overrules the implication in the FAQ on Byakhee. An adjustment of the FAQ should follow.

  19. Posted

     dboeren, you are wrong about "if able." That is not what it means in this game. There is a specific entry in the FAQ about what it does mean. Read that and you'll see how this card is intended to work, and understand why most of the proposed "alternate interpretations" breakdown.

    And in regard to A1, A2, A3 all needing to be resolved successful before the the "then" can resolve, the answer is yes, and there is nothing in the rules that one can point to as a conflicting statement. The rules state specifically, "Any time two effects are linked by the word “then,” the first effect must resolve in order for the second effect to occur." So a single effect may do multiple things (A1-3) but it by all appearances is still considered to be a single effect. The effect linked by the word "then" can only resolve if the first effect, with all of its multiples, resolved successfully.

    Lacking anything in the rulebook or FAQ to the contradictory there is no credible argument for any other interpretation.

  20. Posted

     What makes Master of Myths awesome is he allows beginning and intermediate level players, "play up." HE can be included in their decks and his utility and efficiency shrinks their decision tree and covers up deck building mistakes against other beginning and intermediate level players and tier 2 decks

    Advanced level players see him and recognize him for what he is, a sueful but unessential card in a many decks. I have him in two of my five decks. I have one which I would think about putting him in if I had three more available and knew what I wanted to take out, and then have two decks I would never put him in.

    He is less useful in my play than Black Dog is, which has the potential to actually change the board position and does much more to punish a rush strategy IMO.

    He does not need to have errata, be restricted, or be banned.

  21. Posted

     Zephyr, how about you learn the language used in this game. Every game uses different wording. No matter how clear you think your wording is someone is going to find it problematic which means a FAQ that states what each game phrase means. You don't like it you are playing the wrong type of game.

    "Choose" sets a condition. Each player must choose 2 cards and discard them. "If able" lets us know that if both players cannot meet the condition it does not resolve. "Then" lets us know that the following sentence only takes place if the proceeding was successfully resolved. A few reads through of the FAQ gets all of this in your head and it becomes pretty simple to figure out exactly what is meant.

    I'm not sure how many changes to the FAQ and wording Damon is willing to make. There were a number of things that truly didn't make sense from the previous designer, the game is in a much better state, the cards are more versatile, and innovative, the tournament scene is growing and the game is deeper with more options available than anytime since the switch to LCG. At some point though you start making changes that crete confusion because of the difference in wording of previous cards versus that of newer cards. Attempts at creating extremely clear cards actually create ambiguity.

    This is part of the reason why legal contracts are written the way they are rather than in plain English, because plain English is a pretty unspecific language with lots of ways of interpreting things even when grammatically correct, let alone conversational English.

  24. Posted

     I suspect that without that requirement you'd be stripping your opponents cards away to quickly and it would seriously damage your opponents ability to play the game. Now a Deck discard and hand destruction deck out of Yog/Hastur sounds like a very viable way to play. Prevents all sorts of jumping character shenanigans and reduces the effectiveness of decks that rely on cards in combination since it chews through your opponents deck as well as their hand.

×
×
  • Create New...