Julia Brown Oddly Amphibious

[mischraum.de 12]

 The text on the neutral Julia says:

Disrupt: If Julia Brown would go insane as the result of a terror sturggle, sacrifice her instead. Then, search your deck for a card titled "Julia Brown" or "The Sleepwalker," put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck.

Does "committed" automatically mean the new Julia card is exhausted or is she committed and ready? Because you exhaust a card to commit it to a story but is being put into play committed to a story really the same thing?

 

And now imagine I put the Cthulhu version of Julia into play. The Forced Response says:

Forced Response: After Julia Brown commits to a story, discard 2 cards at random from your hand, then draw 2 cards.

Does the response trigger also when Oddly Julia is entering play due to the neutral version of her?

[TheProfessor 4]

 If I understand your question (which I might not), the answer would be no.

Let's say Neutral Julia is at a story and goes insane.  You decide to search your deck for Oddly Amphibious Julia and she is is put into play committed - she doesn't actually commit to a story, so her ability does not trigger at this time.

[The Dog of War 0]

Hmm....that is a pretty fine line of distinction one has to make, eh Professor ?  - Committed to the story....but "she hasn't actually committed" - for purposes of triggering her effect ?

* - also - assume you had zero cards in your hand to discard - or only 1 - when you DID send Cthulhu Julia in to a story (in the normal method during your Story Phase) - you still get to draw 2-cards, right ?  

I ask because in the other thread (check it out maybe) one of the guys was pointing out that you HAVE to have two characters in play for something like A Small Price to Pay - or Opening the Limbo Gate (one of your guys, one of enemy - in discard pile) ...etc - and I was wondering if this is another card where if "you don't have the thing before the comma, then you can't get the effect after".... the "THEN ..... - if condition before THEN is not satisfied, then what comes after the THEN....cannot happen either.... they said....

Is Julia's thing similiar or different / etc ?

 

[Dam the Man 84]

Rosh87 said:

 

* - also - assume you had zero cards in your hand to discard - or only 1 - when you DID send Cthulhu Julia in to a story (in the normal method during your Story Phase) - you still get to draw 2-cards, right ?  

Rosh, what happened to your FAQ ? Just asking 'cos that exact question is covered in there (can only draw if you first discard 2 cards).

[playwithfire 0]

TheProfessor said:

 

 If I understand your question (which I might not), the answer would be no.

Let's say Neutral Julia is at a story and goes insane.  You decide to search your deck for Oddly Amphibious Julia and she is is put into play committed - she doesn't actually commit to a story, so her ability does not trigger at this time.

 

 

 

This is correct. She is put into play already commited to the story and thus does not complete the forced response that would trigger to her committing to the story.

[The Dog of War 0]

Dear Dam,

                         My friend has my printed out FAQ - and he is on vacation a few more days.   Also...I have been working 3rd shift....so many of my morning postings are done under a cloud of fatigue and probably less-than-100% thinking ability - lol.     

-

But thanks for pointing it out to me !    (that it's in there - - - the FAQ is not something I am innately thinking, "Oooh, I'll check the FAQ cause surely it will tell me the answer to this obscure question !" - whatever it is - mostly because many here have been generally suggesting the FAQ is somewhat incomplete or quite random in both the EXACT questions it chooses to address....and even what conclusions it apparently draws for certain cards - I point to Endless Interrogation and Jack Brady (Syndicate guy) - interpretations as just 2-examples of rulings people have declared "unusual")

-----

As an aside....Julia Brown (Cthulhu) - doesn't even seem to be that good of a card then....if you have to have 2-cards in hand when you attack with her, just to make sure her "ability" triggers...and looking at her card, in general....at best...you are getting a 1-point "discount" on the Cost-to-Skill ratio (I think she costs 3 but has 4-skill)  - and one extra Terror icon.... (2-Combat and at least 1-Terror is common for many Cthulhu characters).   Is there some special way to use her that I cannot fathom ?  

* - one possible way I can imagine - but it's gimmicky - would be a Yog // Cthulhu mix deck that relied on you tossing strong things like Cthulhu or Yog himself into the discard pile - then using Limbo Gate to put them into play without having to pay their printed costs.   This is tricky though as you would have to have these strong cards in your hand....AND have Julia....and put her into play on turn-3...commit and attack with her..discard those exact cards...also have or draw a Limbo Gate (or similiar card) on Round-4....resource...and play Limbo to possibly...possibly...get Cthulhu (for instance) into play 2-turns sooner than "normal resourcing" would allow you.    But that seems fairly "luck based" (heavily) to actually get all those cards and the timing of them "just right" - - - so ...other than that, how is Julia even all that helpful to most decks ?

[TheProfessor 4]

 But you are forgetting how cool she looks with the violin in hand!  That makes her worth playing.

[Dam the Man 84]

Rosh87 said:

Dear Dam,

                         My friend has my printed out FAQ - and he is on vacation a few more days.   Also...I have been working 3rd shift....so many of my morning postings are done under a cloud of fatigue and probably less-than-100% thinking ability - lol.     

Ah, you're still the n00b-phase I see. First rule of thumb: keep pdf files of the rulebook and FAQs on your comp at all times .

[mischraum.de 12]

 Ehm, back to topic... I can agree with Oddly Julia not triggering the forced response when coming into play this way. But what about her card status? Is she ready or exhausted at the story?

[jhaelen 98]

mischraum.de said:

 Ehm, back to topic... I can agree with Oddly Julia not triggering the forced response when coming into play this way. But what about her card status? Is she ready or exhausted at the story?

Definitely exhausted. The card would have to say so if it was different, overriding the general rule. This is similar to Cats of Ulthar (Dreamlands 116).

[TheProfessor 4]

jhaelen said:

mischraum.de said:

 

 Ehm, back to topic... I can agree with Oddly Julia not triggering the forced response when coming into play this way. But what about her card status? Is she ready or exhausted at the story?

 

Definitely exhausted. The card would have to say so if it was different, overriding the general rule. This is similar to Cats of Ulthar (Dreamlands 116).

 

I've always played that she is exhausted, but I'm not sure I can point to a rule to indicate that.  Exhaustion happens as a result of Committing, but Odd Jules doesn't actually commit - she just shows up committed.  Maybe I've been playing it wrong.

 

[The Dog of War 0]

No, that sounds right - Professor ...

...Gosh Professor !  .... Goll-Y Professor !  - this whole thing makes me think fondly of Gilligan and The Skipper - lol

It would only make sense that when she appears, it is "exhausted" because you have to exhaust to "commit to a story" - UNLESS there is some special effect going on, or wording on the card that, "This card does not exhaust to commit to stories....EVER." -  that would be funny if FFG or any other card-game companies would ever write their rules in that "perfectly clear" type of lingo, eh ?

 

I still think she sucks...and I can't figure out how one would want to use her (Amphib Julia) ....  maybe if I got a good look at the other versions of her....I dunno....I guess they intended for you to have ...what...3-copies of each in your deck....and then play off their switching abilities ?  How might this work, I wonder .... ?

 

 

[TheProfessor 4]

Rosh87 said:

I guess they intended for you to have ...what...3-copies of each in your deck....and then play off their switching abilities ?  How might this work, I wonder .... ? 

No - you can only have 3 total Julia Browns in your deck, regardless of sub-title.

The 2 Neutral Julia is pretty nice - she's an investigator and her skill goes up with the number of insane characters. I use her in my Miskatonic deck.

[The Dog of War 0]

Ahh, of course you are right (3-of name, regardless of other sub-text - like Hastur, King in Yellow // Hastur, Lord of Carcosa).    Still....like, the Neutral Julia....how many times would you find yourself in a situation where 2-3 characters are Insane....at the same moment....so she even benefits all that much from that ability ?  A minor 1-skill increase (the most likely I would think) - is hardly worth it....no ?

 

[TheProfessor 4]

 Well, in my Miskatonic deck, she is an investigator, so frequently comes out even cheaper than usual, but at cost 2 with investigation she is not bad.  And she has the resilience to withstand going insane (can be replaced).  And I frequently have insane characters hanging out...  So I like her - I think she is an excellent cost 2 investigator.  Plus she is a musician - that gives her bonus points :-)

[PRODIGEE 0]

Just an addition to this question.

If you use the Neutral Julia's version to have the Oddly version committed into a story, following the replacement effect, if you check Julia's text (both version ) :

Neutral
•Julia Brown, Insomniac
-
Type : Character
Cost : 2
Skill : 3
Icons : AI
Subtype : Investigator.
Game Text: Julia Brown gains +1 skill for each insane character in play. Disrupt: If Julia Brown would go insane as the result of a T struggle, sacrifice her instead. Then, search your deck for a card titled "Julia Brown" or "The Sleepwalker", put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck.
 

Cthulhu
•Julia Brown, Oddly Amphibious

Type : Character
Cost : 3
Skill : 4
Icons : TTCC
Subtype : Deep One.
Game Text: Forced Response: After Julia Brown commits to a story, discard 2 cards at random from your hand, then draw 2 cards.
 

 

So, the Oddly amphibious version would come into play "commited" in a story.

Thus, she did not follow the commitment steps, where the player commits his character and has to exhaust them in front of the story choosen.

So, I would definetly rule that the card enters the story readied. I would also ruled thesame for the cats of ulthar.

 

 

If you follow the rules :

The active player decides which of his ready characters in play will
commit to which of the three stories, and then commits all of those
characters to the three story cards at one time. When a character
has been committed to a story, that character’s controller exhausts
that character and moves it in front of the specific story card. The
active player may commit any number of characters to each story,
as long as they are not already exhausted. Each character may only
be committed to one story.

If you refer to the board of the 13th page, Phase 5.2 and 5.4 are the phase when the player would commit characters and thus follow the obligation to exhaust the characters in a way to commit.

 

The FAQ specifies that :

Characters are Exhausted as costs for
card effects, by card effects, and to
commit to a story (unless a card effect
states otherwise).

And Julia's neutral version specified that the card you've searched is a card a card that is "putted into play committed", so she did'nt follow any commitment phase ...

[The Dog of War 0]

Well put, Prodigee.

One additional question on this though....when normal human Julia (Neutral one) is at a story, and "would go Insane" ....because she is up against, let's say, a Hastur creature with 1-single Terror icon, and nothing else, and a Magah BIrd (which has no icons at all, but the keyword "Fast").....   and you sacrifice her (I think it's a Disrupt effect) - to look for Oddly Amphibious Julia and put her into play, committed to that same story....

....what happens to the actual Icon Struggles from that point onwards ?   For instance...have you actually already "gone through" the Terror Struggle ....so you don't do it again ?  - or do you actually do it "again" - only using the new Julia's Icons to see how the struggle resolves ?  If you do it again, then in the example I noted, Julia would beat the two opposing creatures with her 2-Terror icons, and one of them (the Magah Birds) would have to go Insane, before proceeding onwards to the Combat Struggle, which Julia would also win in this example (since she has 2-Combat to the imaginary Hastur creature's 1-Terror (only)-). 

 

[jhaelen 98]

PRODIGEE said:

The FAQ specifies that :

Characters are Exhausted as costs for
card effects, by card effects, and to
commit to a story (unless a card effect
states otherwise).

And Julia's neutral version specified that the card you've searched is a card a card that is "putted into play committed", so she did'nt follow any commitment phase ...

I'd interpret this excerpt of the FAQ to mean the opposite: Since Julia's card effect doesn't state otherwise, the committed card has to be exhausted.

Now, as dadajef correctly pointed out in another thread, putting cards into play (as opposed to playing them) bypasses their cost. But is exhausting a card to commit it to a story really a cost? I don't think so, but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise by further good arguments backed by rules 

[The Dog of War 0]

It's things like this (intricacies between just 1-2 cards) that I guess are a part of all card games (I forget if my old high-school group found such things popping up in MTG way back when)...but it makes it all the more important that FFG update their FAQ (perhaps a bit more regularly) - or at least are more comprehensive in some of their answers for particular questions.

This Julia thing is a perfect example.   Under "normal" circumstances, the commit - draw 2  - discard 2 - concept would be easy to understand...but when she is put into play by Neutral Julia...she is put into play "already (turned sideways along the story card) committed to the same story" (appx wording).

So...have you actually committed her ?   I tend to think FFG would argue you have....by virtue of using Neutral Julia's ability to find Amphib-Julia and put her into the story.   But it's hardly conclusive. 

Ugh.  I may just avoid using this card with my opponent due to the potential for rules headaches / debates it could cause.  

 

* and did someone - while debating this card, suggest that unless you actually had the 2-cards in hand to discard, that you

a.) could not actually commit to the story

OR

b.) could still commit, but would not get to draw the extra 2-cards ?

 

I seem to think we were discussing that particular aspect of this card a few weeks earlier, but can't recall where...

[danach81 0]

Rosh87 said:

It's things like this (intricacies between just 1-2 cards) that I guess are a part of all card games (I forget if my old high-school group found such things popping up in MTG way back when)...but it makes it all the more important that FFG update their FAQ (perhaps a bit more regularly) - or at least are more comprehensive in some of their answers for particular questions.

This Julia thing is a perfect example.   Under "normal" circumstances, the commit - draw 2  - discard 2 - concept would be easy to understand...but when she is put into play by Neutral Julia...she is put into play "already (turned sideways along the story card) committed to the same story" (appx wording).

So...have you actually committed her ?   I tend to think FFG would argue you have....by virtue of using Neutral Julia's ability to find Amphib-Julia and put her into the story.   But it's hardly conclusive. 

Ugh.  I may just avoid using this card with my opponent due to the potential for rules headaches / debates it could cause.  

 

* and did someone - while debating this card, suggest that unless you actually had the 2-cards in hand to discard, that you

a.) could not actually commit to the story

OR

b.) could still commit, but would not get to draw the extra 2-cards ?

 

I seem to think we were discussing that particular aspect of this card a few weeks earlier, but can't recall where...

I'd agree with Jhaelen. The wording about committing doesn't appear to be different, so she'd enter play exhausted since she has been committed to a story, and then her forced response would trigger. Also, since her forced response is one of those "then" effects, if you don't have the cards to discard you don't get to draw, but you can still commit her.

[EchPiEl 20]

I think that you don't draw, she doesn't commits, she "enters play committed", so tthere's not an actual time she's "committing" to the story for her Forced Response to trigger.

It's the same case with Willpower and Terror Icon characters that "enter play insane", thay actually enter play insane so their Willpower and Terror don't save them, because thay have entered play already insane.

[The Dog of War 0]

This illustrates what Jhaelen mentioned in another thread to a poster regarding CoC simplicity, or lack thereof.   Look at how many conflicting "ways to play it" - this single thread has revealed, just concerning one single card (Julia B.).

To the point, your example of Insanity // entering play - is interesting, though I'm not sure that it's a perfect parallel to Julia and her ability.  Again, this shows another thing FFG should lay out (100% clearly) in the FAQ - the entire step-by-step process of what happens when Neutral Julia is sacrificed, all the way through to actually resolving the story with the new Amphibious Julia.   It's a shame just 1-2 cards, which are "meant" to work together, can generate so much uncertainty, but that again shows how complex (overall) the CoC game seems to be.

[danach81 0]

EchPiEl said:

I think that you don't draw, she doesn't commits, she "enters play committed", so tthere's not an actual time she's "committing" to the story for her Forced Response to trigger.

It's the same case with Willpower and Terror Icon characters that "enter play insane", thay actually enter play insane so their Willpower and Terror don't save them, because thay have entered play already insane.

I think she "committing" to the story when it says to "put her into play committed" to the forced response would trigger. However, I can just as easily see the ruling go the other way because the FAQ says that this effect is essentially a "bypass" to the terror struggle game effect. Therefore, you would simply replace the character to take up where she left off. The wording of the example makes it seem that she simple takes up where the other Julia left off:

"For example, Julia Brown (Summons of the Deep F17) which reads, "...Disrupt: If Julia would go insane as a result of a T struggle, sacrifice her instead. Then, search your deck for a card titled "Julia Brown" or "the Sleepwalker," put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck" sacrifices and "replaces" herself with a new copy from the controlling player's deck, the sacrifice replaces a Terror struggle and the controlling player has effectively gotten around the consequences of losing a Terror struggle (making one of his characters go insane.)"

I'll submit it to FFG.

 

[PRODIGEE 0]

danach81 said:

EchPiEl said:

 

I think that you don't draw, she doesn't commits, she "enters play committed", so tthere's not an actual time she's "committing" to the story for her Forced Response to trigger.

It's the same case with Willpower and Terror Icon characters that "enter play insane", thay actually enter play insane so their Willpower and Terror don't save them, because thay have entered play already insane.

 

 

I think she "committing" to the story when it says to "put her into play committed" to the forced response would trigger. However, I can just as easily see the ruling go the other way because the FAQ says that this effect is essentially a "bypass" to the terror struggle game effect. Therefore, you would simply replace the character to take up where she left off. The wording of the example makes it seem that she simple takes up where the other Julia left off:

"For example, Julia Brown (Summons of the Deep F17) which reads, "...Disrupt: If Julia would go insane as a result of a T struggle, sacrifice her instead. Then, search your deck for a card titled "Julia Brown" or "the Sleepwalker," put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck" sacrifices and "replaces" herself with a new copy from the controlling player's deck, the sacrifice replaces a Terror struggle and the controlling player has effectively gotten around the consequences of losing a Terror struggle (making one of his characters go insane.)"

I'll submit it to FFG.

 

Well, i do understand now why it seems harsh right now !! ^^

Just consider one thing. "COmmitting" and "having a character committed by effects" are totally differents situation.

The character is not committing, as it wasn't there during the 5.2 or 5.4 momentum of theStory Phase. It is committed by a card effect and need'nt follow a cost, as the player paid a cost to resolve an effect, not to commit Siren Julia ! You just replace the character, but it's status (readiness, exhustion or insanity) is particular to any single character.

FFG needs to explain this further, as I understand players who want official stuffs on this.

I hope my answer is the good one, but, as "putting into play committed" is a new effect, FFG is free to decide whatever they want to apply !!

[jhaelen 98]

PRODIGEE said:

Just consider one thing. "COmmitting" and "having a character committed by effects" are totally differents situation.

The character is not committing, as it wasn't there during the 5.2 or 5.4 momentum of theStory Phase. It is committed by a card effect and need'nt follow a cost, as the player paid a cost to resolve an effect, not to commit Siren Julia ! You just replace the character, but it's status (readiness, exhustion or insanity) is particular to any single character.

FFG needs to explain this further, as I understand players who want official stuffs on this.

I hope my answer is the good one, but, as "putting into play committed" is a new effect, FFG is free to decide whatever they want to apply !!

Your explanation certainly makes sense. Still, I think this could go either way, so I'd like to see an official clarification of the difference between 'committed' and 'committing'.