Jump to content

Penfold3

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,180

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Penfold3

  1. Posted

     I get what you are talking about. I definitely prefer to play weird decks. I loathe and avoid destruction based decks. Just not interesting to me… unless it does its destruction in new or novel  ways.

    I pointed out the Parlor because… well she and Alyssa go together, thematically and mechanically, and they do what you said you wanted her in your deck for more efficiently.

    I don't have a problem with creating a fun out of the box deck and playing with it and slowly making it as efficient as I can without abandoning my theme or core mechanic. Just trying to make the most killer deck to play socially… well if I am not gearing up for a serious tournament why bother? Finding ways to win under the gun makes me a better player, and stopping and really examining every card in the card pool with an open mind and evaluating the efficiency and synergy of the cards will help me be  abetter deck building. Looking at cards and mechanics dismissed by everyone else in my building social decks actually makes this easier for me.

    But everyone does  what they like. More power to them.

  2. Posted

     I would definitely replace Victoria's (Secret) Loft with The Parlor. The ability to choose which card is going to get discarded by Alyssa is potent, and the added information boosts your use of Power Drain and Stygian Eye.

    It is pretty similar to a deckI've built but have not had the opportunity to play yet.

  5. Posted

     Remember that without Alyssa Graham, they will always have an opportunity to play one card before you can trigger Apeirophobia. The moment they draw into a cancel or a wound/destroy card your combo is broken. You'll need Graham and The Parlor to stop that.

    Also you'll need enough characters on the board or other effects of your own to prevent them from winning stories.

  7. Posted

    I'm not sure what you find confusing, perhaps it is because the documents are kind of long and the FAQ is pretty involved, but here are the parts that matter

    From the FAQ page 9:
    (3.2) Resolving Stories
    Resolving struggles and determining
    success at all three story cards happens
    all within the same “gray box” on the
    timing flowchart. Thus, no actions or
    responses can be triggered between one
    story’s resolution and the beginning of
    the next story’s resolution. The only
    responses players can choose to trigger
    are Disrupts, however Forced Responses
    that apply to the situation must trigger
    automatically.

    Page 13 of the Rulebook shows us the boxes in question and clearly shows after all story struggles are resolved in the same box comes another box with "Response to struggle and success results may be played."

    So there ya go. If you don't have the pdf versions I suggest downloading them. Word searching them will sometimes cause you problems but as long as you at least skim every instance of a word that shows up you'll find the one that addresses your question. Makes finding things a LOT easier. :D

  8. Posted

     You should definitely ask Damon. I'm trying to say that the game uses both "proper" English and Cthulhu-ese. In proper English the word choose is applied to both options, but that in order for the word choose to be a game term it must actually be printed in regards to what is being targeted. If I am play Apeirophobia I get to choose the character, and then you choose which effect is going to happen. In order for the second effect to be a targeted one it needs to say choose X cards or some specific variation on that.

    I may be frequently correct, but I am just a player like everyone else. My somewhat obsessive reading and parsing of the FAQ helps a lot, but I can definitely be wrong. Send it in.

  10. Posted

    COCLCG said:

    hmmmm. i kinda disagree. if its the way you say it is it would be:

    "choose to make insane OR discard cards"

    but no, it says:

    "CHOOSE EITHER" - key words.

    they're both choices thus it carries through to the discard option.

    "choose to do this OR choose to do this"

    if you choose either to discard the cards, its still a choose action, and illegal without sufficient cards. i have no problem ( much ) with the card but the wording needs to be changed as its contradicting the rules.

    faq  "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."

    BUT!!

    penfolds usually right about this stuff so i'll roll with it. haha.

    Remember being able to poke a hole in something is not the same as being able to support your interpretation. In this case saying there is better wording that could have been used is still not going to change the fact that the word choose does not appear before the "discard X cards." Which means, at best, there is not completely solid proof of one way or another. That is not a valid argument for your interpretation as being the right one, as a matter of fact the very argument itself becomes circular because your argument against the ruling I'm defending also discounts your own (i.e. the wording is unclear and the card does not specifically direct you to choose X cards).

    To the rule in the FAQ, again the card does not dictate that you choose X cards. It simply says discard X cards, and we already have a ruling that states you can be directed to discard a specific number of cards without having to first choose those cards. Your argument depends on the the placement of the word choose, and since having it say "Chooses to either A or B" does not inherently imply or direct you to make choices within the context of A or B unless directed, nor does it grammatically force you to read the sentence as "chooses to either have that character to go insane or chooses and discards X cards from his hand. X is the skill of the chosen character." You have no actual support for your interpretation.

    Because the word choose is specific for targeting within this game as a defined term, you cannot automatically assume that it applies somewhere that does not have the actual word. I could otherwise argue that it belongs in any effect before an effect, and change the meaning of the card as a result, and the way the effect is resolved, and making something targeted that p-reviously was not. Catastrophic Explosion for example suddenly becomes a targeted effect if I just add the word choose to it. 

  11. Posted

     You are correct in what you are saying, but I may not be making the distinction clearly, and the FAQ is a bit weird in the regard. The FAQ talks about actions and actions, but makes a distinction between them when one is a player action and the other is an Action: effect. Triggered effects and effects just triggered are synonymous and both refer to the type of effect, not any effect that has a trigger (which could be argued to include the reward/penalty for winning/losing a struggle).

    Damon should probably be consulted for specifics or made aware so the wording is made more explicit one way or another.

  14. Posted

     But cannot is absolute. Nothing that uses the word cannot can be trumped. Cards with willpower and terror cannot be made insane. So despite the fact that a card says choose a character, that character goes insane, you cannot choose a character with willpower or terror. However there are cards that remove one or both of those from cards which allows them to then be made insane. Also it should be noted that passives are not triggered but resolved. They may have points of initiation but from game terms are not effects that are "triggered."

  15. Posted

     The discard does not have the word choose in it so it is not an illegal choice. And really there should only be one question when this card comes up and that is what can my opponent choose a character that cannot go insane and what happens when he does. That is answered by looking at what the player of the card is choosing (no restrictions or effects other than it be a non-Ancient One) and what the definition of terror/willpower are. Boom. 

    It is a very powerful card. YEs you could potentially recur it every turn with the right cards. There are plenty of ways of breaking each combo.

    If the card becomes too strong and dominates play I fully believe it will be restricted or receive errata… but right now I don't see it as a problem in and of itself. Then again I'm an AGoT player and we have an entire challenge dedicated to discarding cards at random from a players hand and multiple effects that can strip multiple cards in a turn, every turn, with no need for recursion. You just accept it and roll with it. Kill off or cancel the cards that are the most heinous, and build in recursion and draw into your deck to combat what you can't stop.

    This is the problem with this game getting deeper and more strategic, new strategies and mechanics get introduced that make us question assumptions about the game. We either, improvise, adapt, and overcome or get left on the wayside as more mentally agile players make the changes necessary and rule the roost.

  17. Posted

     I agree that more often than not the term "if able" does not actively change how we would have ruled on how the card was played anyway, and it does look like an attempt to make things more clear… and yes I do believe that it causes at least as much confusion (at least to the people here) as it clears up. This is why I am a big proponent of cards being worded in a specific way, and using the timing charts and game defined terms (like Action: and sacrifice) to carry across everything, even if it means players have to stop for a moment and parse a complicated card rather than trying to use common usage phrases and then defining them in a specific way or including extra language to make things more clear. Meh. I'm not the designer, past, present, or future so it I don't get a vote.

  18. Posted

     The answer is still in the FAQ, just look at the Timing Section. Committing is an action. His ability is a passive. All passives initiate the very first moment they can. Because it is not a player controlled triggered effect (Action: Response: Disrupt:) but a a passive it MUST resolve at that first opportunity. In other words once Wilmarth has been committed, before any other effects can trigger (except a Disrupt: that has a "When a character would commit" as its trigger), it must be resolved. There is no other time for it to do so, and nothing in the rules to support the player making the choice of when he wants to resolve it since it is not a player triggered effect.

    NOTE: That last sentence is incredibly important when trying to figure out rules. Being able to argue that a thing does not happen when or how is one thing, sometimes the wording is complicated or not very clear. Being able to cast doubt on it is not the same thing as being able to provide an argument, in the rules, or another interpretation being supported over that one or even to the same level. In this example we could try and argue because it does not state specifically within the wording when it happens the player gets to choose, but there is literally nothing in the rules to support that alternate interpretation, where as the timing chart is very clear about when passives initiate and resolve and the definition of passive show clearly that it is a game function not a player choice when it resolves.

  19. Posted

     Depends on your meta. A permanent card that just cancels wounds is nice… but a permanent card that can cancel wounds and commit to stories when you need it to is a little bit better I've found. Sure it can be destroyed or sacrificed, but so can support cards. That added versatility makes up for the increased fragility in my mind.

    So while he does not add to your Mi-Go engine he provides it a level of security that you would not necessarily otherwise have. 6 of one half a dozen of the other if you ask me on this front. Depends on the level of redundancy you have/need.

  23. Posted

     You are both saying the same thing, BUT oneof you is failing to understand the difference between taking an action and playing an Action:…

    When a response window opens up no Action: effects can be triggered until all Response: and Disrupt: actions have been played and all Forced Response: effects have been triggered and resolved.

    After all of those have been resolved the response window closes and only then is possible for new Action: effects to be played.

  24. Posted

     Never mind, other page, found it. Choose an opponent is the targeting, it is not the sole effect. Both sentences are the effect. Targeting something and then failing to be able to succesfully resolve the effect causes problems about whether or not the card can be triggered based on the specifics of wording. If Able as the rule is currently written would allow for it to be triggered assuming the targeting restriction is met.

    I want to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the "if able" definition, I'm simply trying to relate how it effects the game.

    And at risk of another moderator warning me about personal correspondence, Damon didn't seem particularly thrilled about the definition either. If I had to take a guess it is something he inherited that he doesn't believe improves the understanding of the game as currently written. (I want to be clear he didn't say this, I'm reading between the lines)

    Whether he clarifies the definition or changes the definition is anyones guess, but he did say he was going to examine it since it is causing so much confusion.

×
×
  • Create New...