Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FireBones

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

649 profile views
  1. Thanks for posting this. I must admit that the reply appears to contradict the Rules Reference because the Rules Reference explicitly states that This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of the cost payment or any other ability interactions. The cases that Matt is quoted as references all refer to other abilities (the chaos token effects are abilities, as are the elder sign effects). And clearly the use of rabbit foot is an ability---though one could claim that "a skill test was just failed" is part of the game state. I do wonder if the This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of the cost payment or any other ability interactions may only refer to the part about the cost having the potential of being paid, and not about the potential for the effect to change game state. Anyways, it is settled now, and I appreciate your posting.
  2. Where have the developers indicated that making a skill test inherently has the potential to change the game state? And of course being a basic action or not matters because a the rules reference states unequivocally All triggered abilities are governed by the following rules: A triggered abilities on a card player controls are optionally triggered (or not) by that player at the appropriate timing moment, as indicated by the ability. A triggered ability can only be initiated if its effect has the potential to change the game state and its cost (if any) has the potential to be pain in full, taking active cost modifiers into account. This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of the cost payment or any other ability interactions. So----unlike basic actions---you cannot trigger an ability that does not have the potential to change the game state, and changes to the game state that rely on interactions with other cards or payment for the ability do not count. With Augur, you can only bring another cat into play if that cat is in your discard pile. In my example I stipulated that the other cats are not in your discard pile.
  3. No it does not. The FAQ refers to the basic action of Investigate. I've already indicated why a card ability would be treated differently because card abilities are subject to the rule that they must have the potential to alter game state.
  4. Wanted to ask whether this topic has been fleshed out somewhere. Here is the issue: the Rules Reference implicitly creates a dichotomy between basic actions and abilities that are on cards. In particular, any triggered ability must have the potential to change the game state to be triggered, and the determination as to whether it changes the game state must not include: The costs for triggering the ability Interactions between it and other cards [See triggered ability subsection on Ability section in Rules Reference.] However, basic actions are not subject to this limitation. So it is okay to investigate a location that has no clues. For example, if you need to trigger Scavenging or exercise Drawing Thin. But what about a card whose ability is itself a basic action? For example, say you wanted to use Rite of Seeking to investigate a clueless location (e.g., you are playing a Recycling Grotesque Statue deck as Jim and need to get your statue back). I think that for Rite of Seeking you can do it because of the special bit about losing your remaining actions if a special chaos token is drawn. So even though the success or failure of the test cannot change the game state, there is the potential for the game state to be changed based on the revelation of a special token. But what about someone who has Augur out and wants to use the Investigate ability on that card (imagine that Zeal and Hope are not in the discard pile, so the player cannot shuffle him into his deck to pull out another cat). If there are no clues on the location, it seems that this ability does not have the ability to alter game state, so it sounds like you cannot do it.... unless a special ruling has been made that says basic actions printed on a card can be executed even if there is no potential to change game state because they are still basic actions. (It is true that these abilities count both as basic actions and as triggered abilities.)
  5. Quick question for people on what should happen in the following scenario: Agnes is engaged with a cultist with 1 health. Agnes has meat cleaver. Agnes activates the ability on meat cleaver, takes one horror as part of the cost to activate the Fight action on that card with the cultist as the target. Agnes activates her free reaction trigger to deal one damage to the cultist, killing him. Does the Fight action resolve now that it has no target? Does a skill test ensue? Wondering if I have to draw a chaos token, etc.
  6. No, because you are ignoring the token and not the effect. For the same reason Counterspell does not count. You are canceling the token, not its effect. The effect does not exist until ST.4 (Apply chaos token effects), but the token is cancelled in ST.3. Similarly for Dark Prophecy. The token is ignored in ST.3, so it is not around to have an effect to cancel in ST.4. Defiance, however, specifically says you are canceling the effect of the token.
  7. The best solo investigator is easily Joe Diamond now. Note that Higher Education solves his willpower issues, and he generally gets clues so fast that he does not have to face that many encounters before winning the scenario. He can play Combat Training to give agility and combat boost if he needs them. With Milan, he has plenty of resources for boosts. Note that Joe Diamond gets access to 1 additional seeker card per round (at much reduced cost), so this basically means you can make your deck 70% seeker / 30% combat and still have nearly the same effective access to seeker cards as Minh, Rex, etc.
  8. The big question for me is whether chaos tokens (themselves) and attacks (themselves) count as "effects." I'm currently assuming that canceling a chaos token does not count (so Counterspell(2) does not trigger), but canceling an attack does. Attacks are actions either triggered by text on a card or by the frameworks in the rules. But tokens are pieces of cardboard. What does count is something that cancels an effect of a chaos token (like defiance(2), but only if such a token were drawn). I'm tentatively thinking a case could be made for something like Pnakotic Manuscripts (5) or Force of Will (3) which cancel the game effect of _drawing_ a chaos token. (So the action of revealing a token counts, but the canceling of the token itself does not). Of course the above two are academic as Diana cannot play them. So the cards that count for me are limited to: Dodge Hypontic Gaze Defiance Defiance (2) Dark Insight Ward of Protection Deny Existence Eldritch Inspiration Delay the Inevitable I do not think that Time Warp or Mind Wipe count.
  9. Yep... actually it is even worse if you are playing Hard: your base stat -2 versus difficulty. I have managed to succeed on a couple of these, like the "Slumber" test, which only has a difficulty of 2. But still, it seemed so rough that I was wondering if I was missing something...
  10. The Guardians of the Abyss Tablet Chaos Token information is : "-2: Ignore all bonuses to your skill for this skill test." Notably "bonus" is not an officially defined term. The rules simply refer to "modifications." I'm reading this to include all positive modifications to your base skill, including permanent mods from assets, mods from triggered effects on assets, mods from investigator cards, skill icons, events (like lucky), and other chaos tokens. They are all included in the same boat in the skill test timing rules. They all combine to yield the modified skill value. So, for example, if someone was using Olive McBride and pulled a +1, a cultist, and a -5, and selected the +1 and cultist tokens, the +1 token would be negated as it is a positive modifier to the skill value. Also, Calvin Wright would have a skill of 0. Is this how other people read it?
  11. Question 1: Would FFG consider errata to Cheap Shot that allows one to commit skill cards with agility icons to the combat skill test that arises from this event? Question 2: If you use this against an enemy engaged to another investigator, does it break the engagement? I used the website form to submit a version of question 1, but never got a response. I think the Rules Reference is clear on Question 1, the fight action is a skill test against combat, so you can only commit cards with combat icons. (You can still use Streetwise to pump up, though). However, I'm wondering if a slight errata would make sense in this case. For Question 2, the Rules Reference is mostly clear, but there is still some doubt because it is not clear that the text has in mind a case where an enemy is evaded by one investigator while being engaged to another. In particular, the reference's text presupposes that an evaded enemy is engaged to someone: "Any time an enemy is evaded ... the enemy is exhausted (if it were ready) and the engagement is broken." Since the text presupposes that evaded enemies are engaged, it makes me think the text assumes that the evasion is being done by the engaged investigator. The rest of the text repeatedly refers to a particular investigator ("the investigator... that investigator...") Still, I think the intention is for the engagement to be broken regardless of whom the enemy is engaged with. This matches the spirit of the wording for the massive keyword. Only ready massive enemies are considered engaged to all investigators in a room, so if one investigator evades the enemy, it will have mass disengagement as a consequence.
  12. Same thing happened to me. In fact, the only reason I found this thread was because I was searching for anyone else complaining about how stupid this scenario was [before I read your post.] If you go to the wrong Act 2 it can basically be "You die; game over." on round 2 or 3.
  13. Matt Newman responded to my email for clarification: With regard to the statement that a player "declares his or her intent" during the pre-initiation phase: This sentence should be taken to mean “declares his or her intent to play the card or initiate the ability.” You are not required to choose targets or declare what you wish to do with the card or effect at that time. He elaborates: As long as the card has the potential to change the game state, you can begin the initiation sequence. Then, if an attack of opportunity is triggered and that changes the way you want the card’s effect to be resolved, so be it! That is perfectly legal. So in your example, if you play Emergency Aid and an attack of opportunity deals damage to your Guard Dog, you can then use Emergency Aid’s effect to heal the Guard Dog. You are able to do this because Emergency Aid *did* have the potential game state before the attack of opportunity occurred (because Morgan was damaged). If, hypothetically speaking, no characters in play were damaged at the time you began playing Emergency Aid, then it would have no potential to change the game state and it would immediately abort the process before the card is even played. The same is true if you, for example, used A Chance Encounter to bring an ally back from your discard pile, and triggered an attack of opportunity that ended up defeating a different ally; you could then use A Chance Encounter to bring that ally back instead of the original one.
  14. There is a difference between "simple" and "reasonable/in-line with game's intentions). Trying to carve down the set of legal plays to a consistent logic in which the AoO cannot be used as a crutch actually leads to the most complex set of rules. To see what I mean... I see qualitatively different situations: 1. You have to select your target during pre-initiation. 2. You do not have to select a target during pre-initiation, but the target you end up selecting had to have been a valid target prior when the intention of the card was initially provided. (i.e., when pre-initiation began). 3. You do not have to select a target during pre-initiation, and you can select any target when card resolves that is legal at that time. It is easy to imagine a case where 1 and 2 are different. Imagine you are engaged with an enemy that has the text "when XXX attacks you, lose a random asset." Now, say you have two allies, and both have damage on them. You play Emergency Aid, and there is definitely an eligible target, but after the AoO, one of your allies may be removed, but the other could still be healed. I would say that number 2 is most in line with what might be considered the spirit of play... targets are chosen when cards resolve, but you cannot rely on an AoO or other pre-commencement steps to do something you would not otherwise be able to do. However, number 2 is also the most complex, because you now have to stipulate that the target would have been legal both **before** the card commences and **when** the card commencements---meaning that the action would have led to a change in game state originally and also leads to a change in game state right now. Compare that to number 3, which can be boiled down to a simple, 2-step rubric: A. There must be at least 1 eligible target when a player attempts to play the card. B. Any legal target can be chosen at the point of time when the card actually resolves. The above may allow for complex maneuvers, but the rules themselves are simple to state.
  • Create New...