Mystic Bounty Hunter - Hush Money interaction

[Carioz 0]

========== Syndicate ==========

Hush Money
----------
Type : Support
Cost : 1
Subtype : Attachment. Item.
Game Text : Attach to a character. Response: after attached character enters a discard pile, each opponent must sacrifice a resource and a support card, if able.
Flavor text :
Illustrator : John Moriarty
Collector's Info : EE R87

========== Neutral ==========

Mystic Bounty Hunter
--------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 3
Skill : 3
Icons : CCI
Subtype : Sorcerer.
Game Text : Action: sacrifice Mystic Bounty Hunter to return to their owners' hands all Attachment cards in all discard piles.
Flavor text : Their organization had a knack for finding lost treasures that O'Donnell envied.
Illustrator : Laurel Austin
Collector's Info : EE C218

Ok, let's say I have MBH in play and attach Hush Money to her.

Then I activate MBH ability: what happens now is:

1) I pay the cost for the ability, saccing MBH.

2) As of faq 2.0. page 1 Rules Qualification on Attachments, Hush Money discards immediately

3) MBH ability has it effects, returning Hush Money to my hand

4) Now it's time for response: since faq 2.0 specifies:  "Some cards respond to leaving play, or to effects that may cause them to leave play. Such responses can be triggered as if the card were still in play. Note that only Response or Forced Response effects can be triggered in this manner, and they must respond to leaving play or the effect that cauuses them to leave play. Cards may not take "one last Action" before they leave play." and having carrying character discard piled is "the effect that cauuses them to leave play", Hush money should trigger from my hand (an out of play state), right?

5) Ok, I admit I suck at "if able". Say that my opponent has resurces but no supports, does the sacrifice fizzle or he has to sac the resource nonetheless?

[PRODIGEE 0]

Your process seems viable to mee :

The response is to be made, no problem on this : Event if it's a sacrifice, the  response stated that the response occurs as the character reach the discard.

About your question on "if able". I would say that it's not a "then"-conditionnated response : Your opponent  can make both (destroying a support+Ressource) or just one condition, if he's not able to.

It's not a "then" condition, which would forbidd this kind of possibility.

 

[marius8 1]

My take is: You sac MBH as a cost. HM goes to discard. MBH resolves, putting the HM in your hand. HM's condition is met, and your hand is also a zone to "leave play." I would rule that you'll have to reveal HM to trigger it, since it's in a hidden zone now.

And yes, "If Able" means all conditions need to be met for the effect to resolve, so all players must sacrifice a support and resource and if someone can't, the effect will fail.

 

[Carioz 0]

Ok, sorry but I am a little dense on "if able" (maybe because its Italian translation makes it sound the opposite of what I think it is):

1) Am I correct saying that if an opponent had no supports but at least a resource, the whole effect would fizzle? (as in opponent doesn't sacrifice anything)

2) As a theoretical question, what would have changed if the card had been printed without "if able" clause, in the above situation?

Thanks

[marius8 1]

Carioz said:

Ok, sorry but I am a little dense on "if able" (maybe because its Italian translation makes it sound the opposite of what I think it is):

1) Am I correct saying that if an opponent had no supports but at least a resource, the whole effect would fizzle? (as in opponent doesn't sacrifice anything)

2) As a theoretical question, what would have changed if the card had been printed without "if able" clause, in the above situation?

Thanks

It means it's an all or nothing effect. So, in the case of Hush money, all players need to have a support card in order to have the effect sacrifice a support card and a resource.

If it didn't have "if able" then it wouldn't matter who has what. Everyone would sacrifice a resource and a support card, and if they don't have a support card, well, then they are lucky.

The term "if able" is very confusing, because even in English it seems to mean the opposite. In CoC it means "if the entire effect is able to execute without fail.", although it's easy to read as "To the best of the ability"

This is quite a nuicance, for the Eldritch Story deck:

-- Story --
The Squalid Hamlet
Icons : TCAI
Game Text: Each player chooses one of his domains, then attaches the top 5 cards of his discard pile to that domain as resources, if able.
Illustrator: Alan Bednar
Collector's Info: EE F247

This story just didn't work at all. It required ALL players to have 5 cards in the discard pile before ANY resource was placed. (Although some would say that 3 cards can be the top 5...)

If it didn't have the If Able thing, it would just work better - Then just any card in the discard pile would end up as a resource, regardless if it would be the full effect or not...

Templating is that complicated.

 

[PRODIGEE 0]

 Oupsay !!! Marius is right and I'm totally out of terms !

 

the text from the FAQ :

(v1.8) “If Able”
Certain card effects contain the text “if able.”
For these cards all normal rules apply for choosing targets and triggering effects, with one
exception: If there is no legal target during resolution, there is no effect.

For example, Darrin plays Deep One Rising (ARK PS M4). Both players pass on using disrupt
actions and the effect now resolves. However, if there are no legal targets for Darrin
to choose, the text of Deep One Rising has no effect.

If a player cannot fulfill the entire effect of an “if able” clause, that effect is ignored. For
example, if you play Byakhee Attack, an opponent with only one card in hand cannot choose
and discard 2 cards, so they keep the card in their hand. (You can still play Byakhee Attack
because of the “if able” clause, but since the clause cannot be fulfilled its effect is ignored
by that opponent.)

If a player must choose between multiple “if able” effects, he may not choose an option that
has no eligible targets unless no alternative is available.

[marius8 1]

PRODIGEE said:

 Oupsay !!! Marius is right and I'm totally out of terms !

But now, we're all sure you'll never forget!

I think we made a great breakthrough in your progress today!

[PRODIGEE 0]

Indeed, I was kinda puzzled not to find why I did'nt understand it that way ... And I finally check home for the french translation made years ago ... with strange definition on the "if able" clause.

I know I must check the english rules first, but I still have bad habits !

[PRODIGEE 0]

Well I made some research, and found that something like 56 characters were concerned by the If Able Clause ....

I agree this rulings is a good one for some of them, but I find that some characters like The thing from the fog, twin of you or street preacher do not need such restrictions ... They are not that good ...

[Eryx_UK 14]

I have to admit that I don't like the "if able" clause. Take the example above... "discards 2 cards if able." As I would read that, if they only had one card in their hand they lose that card. The "if able" clause should only be there to say that if they don't have any cards in their hand then they can't.

[PearlJamaholic 0]

but they could have worded it 'discard up to 2 cards, if able.' for that case. or just discard up to 2.

[marius8 1]

PearlJamaholic said:

but they could have worded it 'discard up to 2 cards, if able.' for that case. or just discard up to 2.

No, that wouldn't work. Say I hit you with a Byakhee Attack, while you have 5 cards in hand. You can still keep your whole hand, because "discarding 0 cards" means you discarded "up to 2 cards."

[PearlJamaholic 0]

Marius said:

PearlJamaholic said:

 

but they could have worded it 'discard up to 2 cards, if able.' for that case. or just discard up to 2.

 

 

No, that wouldn't work. Say I hit you with a Byakhee Attack, while you have 5 cards in hand. You can still keep your whole hand, because "discarding 0 cards" means you discarded "up to 2 cards."

huh??? what???

[bard8 0]

"The Opening of Every Gate

Event, Promo 10

Response: After and Ancient One character enters play, each player must sacrifice up to 2 characters, if able."

 

I think that's the wording FFG uses in cases where they want to avoid stupid Byakhee Attack-like situations (you have only 1 card in hand so you don't have to do anything). However I wonder if it would work were it worded "Response: After and Ancient One character enters play, each player must sacrifice 2 characters."

[marius8 1]

Bard said:

"The Opening of Every Gate

Event, Promo 10

Response: After and Ancient One character enters play, each player must sacrifice up to 2 characters, if able."

 

I think that's the wording FFG uses in cases where they want to avoid stupid Byakhee Attack-like situations (you have only 1 card in hand so you don't have to do anything). However I wonder if it would work were it worded "Response: After and Ancient One character enters play, each player must sacrifice 2 characters."

Yeah, your templating makes much more sense then the one that got printed on The Opening.

Templating on CoC sometimes gets a bit strange.

-- Neutral --
Dexter Asylum
-------------
Type : Support
Cost : 2
Subtype : Location.
Game Text: Forced Response: after a player draws 1 or more cards, he must pay 2 or sacrifice an insane character, if able.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Guy Gentry
Collector's Info: EE P9

It's kinda clear what they mean, but it gets weird when you don't have an insane character, so you must pay 2, if you have a domain you can pay 2 with.

[Carioz 0]

Marius said:

-- Neutral --
Dexter Asylum
-------------
Type : Support
Cost : 2
Subtype : Location.
Game Text: Forced Response: after a player draws 1 or more cards, he must pay 2 or sacrifice an insane character, if able.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Guy Gentry
Collector's Info: EE P9

It's kinda clear what they mean, but it gets weird when you don't have an insane character, so you must pay 2, if you have a domain you can pay 2 with.

Wierd, I have always thought the domain draining effect in absence of insane characters was a wanted effect.

[marius8 1]

Carioz said:

 

 

Wierd, I have always thought the domain draining effect in absence of insane characters was a wanted effect.

What's a "wanted effect" !?

[Carioz 0]

Marius said:

 

 

What's a "wanted effect" !?

No, I wasn't using "wanted effect" as a game word, it was more a comment on: "Different people view different situations as wierd".

Well, I understood you were saying that the no-characters compulsory drain was something unexpected (as in, the card was meant to do something similar but due to rules it came out very different from where it was designed). Instead I've always though that the no-characters compulsory drain was something wanted, as in, the card was designed and printed to have that specific effect (too).