Hastur Card - Devolution - (Question)

[The Dog of War 0]

This came up in a game I played with my friend last night.

The card is a Hastur Event (Madness) -from the Dreamlands expansion, I think. 

It costs 3 and says "Action: Choose an opponent's character.  That opponent must choose and exhaust another character he or she controls.   Then, wound the character with the lower skill."

 

Now...when I played it, he had several Agency / Miskatonic / Zoog characters in play.   All of them were Skill-2 (Agency guys), excepting the curious Zoog (the one that gives Arcane to other characters at a story with him)...and a Dreamlands Scholar (IIRC) which had Skill-3. 

The Scholar and the Zoog were exhausted, from having committed to a story in their turn, but all the other guys were "ready".

I selected John Henry Price (IIRC) - a 2-skill Agency guy.     My expectation / hope was that he would have to kill off one of his other Agency guys (all very annoying that game:  Agency Groundskeeper (killed my 70-Steps and Cavern of Flame ), Steve Harvey (Indiana Jones guy that takes away Toughness when he's sent to a story, and a Monster Hunter).

 

* * * this raised a question right off...which was...assuming ALL the opponents characters have the SAME skill (forget about the other guys who were exhausted for a second, and assume the only guys he had were 4 characters all with Skill-2.......would ANYONE actually have to be wounded in that case ? (since there technically would not be "a character with the lower (est) skill" in that case ?   * * *

 

- Now, the way he felt it should/could be played was that he could choose and ditch the "exhausted" Zoog....because the Devolution text didn't say "note, you cannot select an already-exhausted character to satisfy this effect"...   

He felt he was fulfilling the requirements:    1) - choose another character (Chose Zoog)     2) (and exhaust) - he said...okay, he's exhausted...the fact that he's ALREADY exhausted shouldn't matter...as he IS...at this point...exhausted.....   3) wound the character with the lower skill (Zoog's was lower than Price)

 

I didn't argue it too heavily in-game, but I said I'd come back and ask the boys on the forums to get their take on how the card is "meant" to be played, so we'll know for the future.   Thanks to any who chime in with an answer/opinion on this one.  

 

 

 

[TheProfessor 4]

 He didn't exhaust the Zoog.  You can't exhaust a character that is already exhausted, you can only exhaust a ready character.

When Skill is tied, the active player makes the choice on who is to wounded.

[The Dog of War 0]

Thanks Professor....I sort of thought so..

 *** So are you saying if all his Characters had Skill-2....then I would actually get to choose which one is wounded, and not him ??? ***

 

But what if the situation was - ALL - his characters were exhausted...and Devolution was played then....how would it resolve in that case ? 

And is there anything solid in the rules or Errata that I can point to that will clearly demonstrate that the "exhausting the character" is part of the effect and he can't count an "already exhausted" character for that ?

(just in case he asks)

 

 

[TheProfessor 4]

 The "then" in the action text is important.  If the payment can't be made (the part before "then"), the consequence (the part after "then") doesn't happen.  So if the opponent doesn't have any characters to exhaust, there won't be any wounding.

As for not being able to exhaust and exhausted character, page 4 of the rule book states:

A card that is exhausted cannot exhaust again until it has been readied once more.

 

[The Dog of War 0]

That would be important in many other cards too then... (then ! ) which have that special "then" clause in them, no ?

One I am wondering about (having just looked at its text earlier today) would be the Princess Zura (Cthulhu character from Sleep of the Dead- AP, I think).

Her text says:  Response: After an opponent's character leaves play, ready Princess Zura. Then, draw a card.

 

Now...perhaps I am looking at it incorrectly...but wouldn't the interpretation be the same as with Devolution then  ?  - ie - if you cannot Ready the Princess (because she's already "Readied" for whatever reason at that point in the turn).....then you don't get to draw a card either ?

In other words...if an "already-exhausted" character cannot be Exhausted (again) to pay for an effect which says you must exhaust......... then can you "Ready" an "already-readied" Princess Zura, yet still get to draw your card ?

* or there is the other possibility that though they sound the same, something about her card's exact wording // or FFG-errata I am unaware of, has clarified how that would work ?)

 

-

I'm just trying to know (for future reference as I learn the game better) - how some of these wordings are meant to be played.

[TheProfessor 4]

 Yes, you have the right idea.  THEN is a crucial word in this game.  The FAQ states:

If a card uses the word “then,” then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully before the subsequent dependent effect can be resolved.

So you are correct with Princess Zura - if you don't have any exhausted characters, you can't ready one.  So you can't complete the first part.  Because the second part starts with "then", you can't draw a card.

As for can you Ready an already Readied character, we can find this language in the FAQ talking about Y'Golnac targeting a ready character (there is no "then" in Y'Golnac's ability) - [i.e. you can't Ready a Ready character]:

Also, it is important to note that Y’Golonac’s ability to ready a character exists independently of his ability to force characters to commit to the same story as himself. Therefore, he is able to target a ready character with this ability, and even though the first part (ready a character) does not resolve, the second part of the effect does resolve as long as there is nothing preventing them from committing to the same story.

 

 

[The Dog of War 0]

Excellent explanation, Professor.  Thanks a lot for clarifying that for me in such a clear and helpful way.   

[TheProfessor 4]

Rosh87 said:

Excellent explanation, Professor.  Thanks a lot for clarifying that for me in such a clear and helpful way.   

That's because I'm a Professor! :-)