Jump to content

Penfold3

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,180

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Penfold3

  1. Posted

     A replacement effect replaces the previous effect with a new result. So when that originating effect is executed it is the new "instead" that happens. The would is showing that an effect has been initiated (all targets selected, costs, payed etc. etc.) but the disrupt or passive is going to kick in before execution and replace the old effect with a new one.

    That should answer all your questions about the replacement effects. Calyptra cannot cause a character that would not be going insane at a story it is committed to be wounded because it was never a legal target for an insanity effect to target or resolve on therefore the is no insanity effect to replace on that character. But honestly that last statement didn't even require an understanding of the word "would" just common sense in regards to replacing an effect. I can't replace your apple with an orange if you don't have an apple to begin with.

  2. Posted

    .Zephyr. said:

    Did you try to look at someone getting this without help of designer etc. Rulebook + FAQ should be enough, but it fails so hard.

    Well this is precisely how I learned to play. It wasn't until years later that discovered that FFG had created a forum for it (or should I say Edge created a forum for it which FFG uses) and probably a year of lurking before I started posting in this particular forum. I didn't send in my first rules question until maybe about a year and a half ago. My rules knowledge comes almost entirely from reading the FAQ. But then while I did some scripting, programming isn't in my background, law is. I don't have a particular problem parsing out the meanings of card text or applying the FAQ/timing charts to them.

    But I've also played dozens of CCG's and while I have to set aside all expectations of those games rules, they certainly trained me in how to break things down and know when and how to apply a rule.

    You think this game is hard? I started playing Magic about six months into the Beta release. The rule book was about 10 pages of small print in a booklet the size of a card. All sorts of crazy mistakes were made and the rule structure was ridiculous… and by that I mean, there wasn't much beyond the booklet for the next, maybe two years. At the ten year mark Magic had become a byzantine set of rules, which seemed to change every rotation, with numerous errata and bannings that you had to remember, and there was still minimal online resources for it. You were pretty much dependent on the referees for complex card interaction rulings and when you played outside of your local store it was not infrequent that different places played cards differently. I got out right around that point.

    That game is almost entirely different now, and their approach to it is closer to how an international federation handles a sport than how an average gaming company handles their games. But then they probably have  a larger player base internationally than some of the olympic recognized sports… they certainly bring in more money than a number of them.

  3. Posted

     I am completely failing to understand how these cards pose problems for you.

    Would means when an effect initiates that when executed will cause a thing to happen, you can do this thing here.

    If it uses the word instead it is a replacement effect, which means it replaces what would happen when that effect executes with that other thing.

    So what is the problem with how Expendable Muscle and Kaleidoscope of Calyptra work? They replace the initiating effect for the designated cards with a different effect when it executes. I can't think of an easier way to explain it, and all I did was say pretty much the same thing that is in the FAQ.

    Which witch were you referring to? What about invulnerability don't you understand?

  4. Posted

     I'm failing to see what the problem is with Small Price to Pay.

    "Action: Choose a character you control and a character an opponent controls. Choose one of those characters to go insane, then wound the other character."

    You cannot choose an invulnerable character to be wounded. A character with Terror or Willpower cannot be chosen to go insane. If you chose one card with invulnerability and one with Teror or Willpower, you must drive the invulnerable one insane since you can't choose to drive a character with terror or willpower. If the Invulnerable character also had willpower or terror then neither character could be chosen to fulfill the first effect so the card would just fizzle.

    All of this is spelled out very clearly in the Rulebook (regarding what cannot be done) and reinforced with entries in the FAQ (which tells you what happens after you've tried and failed).

    How many hours do you think it would take to redesign the FAQ from scratch the way you suggest? How long do you think it would take to right additional rules for each card that comes out as well for each card that exists? Damon is one person. Your expectations have no basis in reality at all. I'd rather get a new asylum pack every month (or new faction box every four months) than have gaps created by Damon working on periphial stuff. The rules are there. It is my responsibility to learn them and abide them if it is important to me. It isn't like I can't figure this stuff out if I take the time. If I can figure it out anyone can. I just refer to the FAQ every time I have a question. Rarely is there something that does not have some sort of precedent in there. When there isn't it is because ti is a new mechanic, and shortly after release a FAQ comes out explaining things. If I can't wait I'll send in an email.

    FFG produces quality games, at an affordable price, that I get a lot of repeat play value out of. If I wanted something that was easier to play or easier to understand I'd play Dominion or Ascension. Both fine games which I really enjoy, but I play Call of Cthulhu and A Game of Thrones because I like the complexity. If the game is too hard for you then it is just the wrong kind of game for you. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you keep tilting at this windmill you are going to very shortly be the boy who cried wolf. People will just stop responding.

    And that is **** near where I'm at now. I mean this seems like a vendetta for you and borders on trolling.They are not going to suddenly hire an extra three or four people to work on this game. This game almost certainly does not generate enough money to justify that. Magic is where it is now because it has tens of thousands of players. It didn't do this overnight either. It was a good decade or so being one of the top 3 CCG best sellers (usually holding that top spot) before it got to the point where it is now. When we can make this games profits hit the tens of thousands of dollars in a quarter for a couple years in a row, I'm willing to bet they'll put more money into the game. Not likely to be a moment before that though.

    At some point you just need to accept it or move on.

  5. Posted

     Yeah, I just decided to completely ignore the warning as it was nonsensical in every possible way and I had not violated any rules posted on this forum nor in the agreement when I joined the forum a couple years ago. I suspect the problem was the quote I gave was not in full context and someone got their undies in a bind over it because it gave the reasoning behind a ruling rather than just the ruling. You shouldn't let someone bully you into conforming to how they think you should act when you haven't done anything wrong. Until such a time as that is an official policy I'm going to carry on the way everyone else has since I've been a member and a lurker on these here forums.

  6. Posted

    .Zephyr. said:

     Believing my rulings is dangerous, lately it seems like doing the opposite would yield better results…

    But FAQ says "This is during the normal timing window when characters are committed to stories." so i dont see much i could have misinterpreted here.

    On Black dog i might be wrong, but i just tried to read the card carefully and that's what i came up with.

    Edit: I read again, no Black Dog responding to black dog - black dog enters play (already) commited, he is not being commited so response condition on other black dog did not happen.

    Both of these are correct. You do not "commit" the Black Dog, you put it into play committed to a story per its response, it completely bypasses the committing process. Because of that you could not respond with another Black Dog to your opponent's Black Dog.

  7. Posted

     Zephyr, the problem is you expect this game to work the way you expect it to work. It is a game with its own language. If you don't learn the language you are going to play it wrong. Every CCG I've ever played has these kinds of problems. Have you seen the cards for L5R or MtG? If you haven't learned the rules and timing of those games those cards make no sense at all. Even when you have learned the rules if you don't have the timing down pat figuring out when and how to use those cards can at times be every bit as difficult. And in Magic's case they have a large team of designers, developers, and professional playtesters, and they still have to errata or ban cards.

    I'm not sure what your gaming background is Zephyr but this is not a board game, with a static card pool and set rules which never receives new additions or is going to be applied to pieces created 8 or more years since it was written.

  8. Posted

    Magnus Arcanis said:

    The bit about replacements effect was kinda confusing. I didn't actually mean to imply that Alyssa is a replacement effect, just that you don't "need" the word "instead" to have it be a replacement effect.

    According the game you do. It defines a replacement effect as using the word instead. Anything may cause a redirection or alteration to how something is handled, but it is not a true replacement of the effect without the word instead.

    Now here is where it gets a little "weird," something can, for all intents and purposes, act as a replacement effect, without being a replacement effect. It may seem like semantics but when it comes to games that rely on specific wordings and definitions it is the difference between what effects can be triggered off its use or prevent its use, in the same way that destroy, sacrifice, and discard all do the same thing from a player perspective but the game defines each differently and has a card pool that deals with each differently.

  9. Posted

     I thought I had hit submit hours ago. Sorry for that late addition.

    Regarding the disrupt, there are several places where a disrupt can work it all depends on what it is disrupting, but the straightforward place a disrupt works is in between the initiation and the execution of an effect. IOW after a draw is initiated but before it is executed. Once it has been executed it is too late to technically discard a card drawn  as a disrupt. That window is closed. A Response effect to the draw could allow you to cause a discard, Forced Response: After an opponent draws a card, that player must discard that card. But a disrupt something, meaning halting something in the timing chart, resolve itself, and then turn that other bit back on.

  10. Posted

     Magnus it can't work that way. If Alyssa is a replacement effect without the word instead (and there is literally no precedent for that and it is a direct contradiction of the FAQ), if you would draw a card and I disrupt the adding it to your hand to put the top card on top of my deck, that would be in place of your draw effect. Meaning not only do I "eat" your draw I get a limited form of recursion from it as well… that is what made me actually look at the card text with an eye to rules rather than just assuming that it worked the way I wanted it to, which in all fairness is what I am constantly telling other players not to do. Yay irony!

    I can literally find nothing to support the replacement effect interpretation of this card other than my own assumption. And it should be pointed out Damon does not write the articles that get posted besides the intros into the new cycles/expansions (they always mention him by name when he contributes something). I have no idea how thoroughly the webmaster vets his or her articles, and even he he has them completely vetted doesn't mean that the designer intent and rules text necessarily agree with each other, and failing errata or rules changing, the rules text must take priority.

    Zephyer, we've been over expendable muscle many times on the forum. It is not a disrupt it is a passive so it does not even come close to comparing to Alyssa. It does however compare to The Parlor. Expendable Muscle and The Parlor, as passives affecting an action, alter the initiated action, altering it unequivocally and irrevocably. But what is being modified there and how does that work in context. For the Parlor it is a non-triggered constant effecting passive. Upon the initiation of a draw effect the top card of your deck must be drawn. The disrupt halts the adding of the card to your hand. So boom time to draw, before you can go any further that card must be revealed. Then before it can be added to your hand it can be discarded by Alyssa Graham. Now Expendable Muscle has an effect that comes into play only when it would be killed or made insane and it is a replacement effect. What it does is change any effect that would kill it or make it insane instead become an effect that, at execution, instead turns it into an attachment.

    A disrupt halts the execution of an effect. It then resolves itself. The game then continues with the original effects execution.

    In both cases the passives resolve themselves when the referenced effect initiates. EM's effect resolves on the initiation of an effect that would kill or make it go insane, but that altered effect does not change its normal timing. The Parlor resolves on the initiation of an effect that would make you draw a card. They resolve in different places because the text tells us they do. One is a replacement of an effect the other is creating a new game state.

    There is really no point in arguing this (I'm looking at you Magnus) since EM and The Parlor have been ruled on directly. No matter how much someone wants it to be another way, it isn't unless Damon decides to reverse the ruling and he has done so in the past. I like that he is willing to revisit his own rulings and when he finds them at odds with something or a simpler means of ruling he opts for it. But these are both pretty well based on the current rules of the game and to change them would require an alteration to the rules or errata to cards, I don't foresee either of those being likely.

  11. Posted

     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.

  13. Posted

     You wrote it a little icorrectly, but your point got across. YEs, when you win a story you must immediately decide if you want to resolve its effect. If you choose to do so you do it immediately. The way you are resolving A New Challenge is pretty much the way it was designed to be used, to chain-up story wins or to deny your opponent an expected win by moving the success tokens around… but mostly the former.

  14. Posted

     The Core Set has 7 out of the 8 factions and can make three basic decks by adding any two factions together. As you start getting the chapter packs you'll work your way into enough cards for four or more decks pretty quickly. They've recently announced they will be shifting to faction and theme boxes which almost guarantees that this is going to be enough to build multiple decks with a minimal outlay of cash. 

  17. Posted

     Then we just disagree.

    Ye-Te-Veo is simply okay. Nice little efficient 2 coster great at slowing down a rush deck, but nothing to get worked up about.

    Master of Myths, requires the constant non-use of a domain, to lock down combat at 1 story, and prevent your opponent from getting an extra success token for an undefended story and if you are lucky from winning the skill check. or if used on the attack, lets you spend that tertiary domain to put a character into play to challenge at another story, spreading your opponents defenders more thinly. Good card, but that constant need to leave the extra domain open means it is NOT for every deck.

    Apeirophobia… OH NOES! Suddenly it is risky to run great characters. I can't just play a deck that cheats powerful characters into play (goodbye Aziz plus Nodens and Azathoth) or grab all the most cost efficient characters with terror or willpower in one or two factions and shove them into a deck. I need to build a balanced character base and possibly resource what would otherwise be great characters when I see Hastur being resourced. Now this is a STRONG card… but it only forces the discard when I have specific types of cards in play. I can build or even just play around this card.

    Stygian Eye like Apeirophobia only works at its best when I have an opponent who is playing really good characters. They either have terror or willpower so I can send them to stories without them going insane and therefor me losing control of them and the Stygian Eye getting sent back into my deck, or I'm grabbing characters with powerful effects that I don't have to exhaust the character to take advantage of. And, like  Infernal Obsession, it is unique, so I can at best grab two of your characters with them together. So perma-steal with no conditions or restrictions for 3 or conditional or restricted steal for 2. Tell me again how Stygian is so much better as to be power creep again?

  18. Posted

     AU, you are remembering an entirely different discussion. The Doorway question is whether or not if I remove the character targetd by Khopesh, whether or not Khopesh's effect resolves… and the answer is yes, sort of.

    1. My opponent triggers the Khopesh targeting my character.
    2. I could trigger The Doorway here, but if I do there is no longer a legal target for the Khopesh's effect so it would fizzle here.
    3. The Khopesh effect resolves here.
      3.1 The wounding of the characters now actually creates another opportunity for me to trigger a disrupt, this is where all wound canceling disrupts would be triggered… but because The Doorway is not restricted to what it can disrupt, it just triggers during disrupt timing, I can trigger The Doorway here, returning my character to my hand. Because it is not canceling the effect, or forcing the Khopesh to have an illegal target before execution, the wound it deals to its attached character still must be applied.

    The Doorway prevents the Khopesh of the Abyss from being used during commitment. You must use it before your opponent commits, which of course causes other possible issues with cards jumping into play as a response to a card leaving play which means they can be committed to the story in place of whatever was lost.

  19. Posted

     I keep reading about power creep, but honestly I don't really see it in any real terms. Sure there will occasionally be cards that are just better in one fashion or another than the vast majority of other cards of the same type, but that is pretty much par for the course. What I do see are purposeful design choices that make older cards work better, or create new deck types.

    It is no longer a simple game with interesting effects that only have a moderate change on the game state. What we have are cards designed to be heavily synergistic, and not just following subtype themes, but mechanically operate together in extremely interesting ways, sometimes subtly so. Some of these combinations are across factions, some are in faction but across themes, and some of the cards seem to be part of much more intricate decks that allow players to choose from a number of synergistic or combinatory effects that together create control decks or combo decks that players are just now starting to explore.

    We should be due for a FAQ update in a week or so I'd guess for GenCon. I'm curious to see if any of these issues are addressed, and if they how.

  20. Posted

     I'm pretty sure we can bet that FFG won't invent a rule that specific cards they've created to be able to be scored in a single turn cannot be scored in a single turn… that is just bad design.

    In a game where you only have one of every card there is both far more luck and far more play skill equired, while having a strict limit on how many times a card can appear in your deck puts a fair amount of skill in the deck building, while still requiring play skill and luck to come into play. I played a Game of Thrones yesterday where all my opponents locations were in the botom third of his deck. He did not see one single location the whole game, each location was in his deck x3 and 25% of his deck was locations. Probability is a *****, Just because statistically something should show up with a given frequency doesn't mean it will. You've got anomolies that balance out those god hands where you get everything you need right when you need.

    Getting lucky enough to get that 1 turn scoreable agenda when you are one point away is not something you can depend on. Also the nmber of agendas you'd need in your deck to match the required agenda points is going to making protecting your hand, your archive, and your deck problematic… especialy given that there are going to be times when you are drawing these weenie agendas instead of ice you need to protect them in said places. The corp was always light on search effects, I doubt this is likely to change.

    I refuse to worry about it until it has proven to be problematic. Besides, FFG has a long history of balancing mechanics and cards like this with other mechanics or cards.

  21. Posted

     Always choose the printed icons. Th chances of your opponent destroying a supporting card granting an icon rather than the character receiving it is much lower than making the receiving character loose 1 or more icons.

    The first result is  the correct one but for the process is slightly different. If the printed icon was selected to be changed, Scotophobia cannot in any way effect those gained from other sources. So the final count is Terror, Combat, Arcane. So technically both printed ones are considered blank/removed, but the game only considers that there is one until the effect wears off.

  22. Posted

     You are right on both counts as far as can be told. The rules specifically address conspiracy cards, if they applied to story cards also they would have just said story cards since conspiracy cards are treated like story cards when in play… except where the FAQ says otherwise. I would say the passive effect is definitely different than the triggered effect on Conspiracy cards. I don't believe I've seen a story card with a truly passive effect that doesn't involve winning the game (an dI don't think those can be properly termed passives since the rules specifically state the player decides to enact them.

  23. Posted

     You need a deck for both sides. I actually think this is a strength of factioning, you can pick a faction on each side of the coin who plays in a fashion you like or whose fluff fits your own idealizations. But you need a deck of each side to participate in a tournament. You can do whatever you want when it comes to social games.

  24. Posted

     Each person is different, but I have to say, selling a game that requires trackers, markers, counters etc, and not including them, while okay for experienced card gamers, is an auto-fail with pretty much every other person, especially board gamers or non-gamers just getting into gaming. Experienced card gamers can and probably will find things they like to use all on their own, or probably own enough bits and stuff that they could field all their own things, but it is nice that I won't have to, if I don't want to.

  25. Posted

     Anything that says action or response may only be triggered before any story struggle resolution has happened (if the trigger has been met) or after all story struggle resolution has happened. Disrupts are the only player triggered actions that can be used during story struggle resolution.

    So if it says Action: or Response: yes it must wait until all story struggles are resolved, which includes winning and resolving any triggered won story effects, and replacing any won stories.

×
×
  • Create New...