HoEM double surge?

[Zjb12 2]

 So, in the HoEM, I have had this happen b4, but now we are in a tournament.  The quest card says if there are no locations in the staging area, the first treachery card gains surge.  Then I draw impassable chasm and with no active location, it also gains surge.  Is that a double surge then, meaning you draw two cards from the encounter deck?   That's how we've alway s played this b4, and it actually benefits me this time...weird.  Thoughts?

[wraith428 7]

Unlike Doom X or Victory X, Surge does not ever have a numerical value  The card either has the Surge keyword or not.  In this case two seperate effects are giving the card the Surge keyword but the effects of Surge are to draw 1 additional card.

 

At least that's my read on it.

 

Wraith428

[Zjb12 2]

 Thanks wraith.  My score didn't end up beating my earlier score, so it's kind of mute, except that this has happened b4.  So you just pull one card, huh?  My hobbits would probably appreciate that when we play together if it that's the right way to do it.

[guciomir 0]

And my take is that you will draw 2 cards. In FAQ, if you have 2x caught in the web, you have to pay for both of them.

[jhaelen 98]

wraith428 said:

Unlike Doom X or Victory X, Surge does not ever have a numerical value  The card either has the Surge keyword or not.  In this case two seperate effects are giving the card the Surge keyword but the effects of Surge are to draw 1 additional card.

 

Agreed.

[radiskull 39]

 I agree with wraith and jhaelen.  It would be akin to giving Legolas ranged.

[booored 247]

radiskull said:

 I agree with wraith and jhaelen.  It would be akin to giving Legolas ranged.

this is interesting, I was on the side of drawing 2 cards but this is a good argument above against that. Though it is not set in stone thatg surge can not have a X value, it just hasn't yet. Still, I find the above argument convincing.. just if there is ever a surge X card released it will mean that this is wrong.

[guciomir 0]

Someone could post a question to FFG so we will know for sure. Right now everyone is guessing

[jhaelen 98]

guciomir said:

Someone could post a question to FFG so we will know for sure. Right now everyone is guessing

This isn't guessing; it's examining all of the relevant facts and coming to the logical conclusion. Wraith428 already gave the reasoning for the (correct) interpretation. It's Surge not Surge X; i.e. it's a binary thing.

Arguing otherwise would indicate the rulebook is wrong and the definition of Surge would have to be errataed.

[booored 247]

well kind of... it is an assumption that there can not be "surge x". "Surge X" just has not been seen yet... if they ever make a card that has "surge x" then this would mean you draw 2 cards. I still think it is worth a rule clarificartion, as it is the kind of rule that they allow for it gives them freedom in designing new cards. Still I think the argument that it ISN'T like this is strong... I havv't got Kaz yet but aparently there is a 2 card  surge card in that and the 2nd surge is a when reveal effect.... so we HAVE seen a 2 card surge card that dose not use "surge x"

[guciomir 0]

jhaelen said:

guciomir said:

 

Someone could post a question to FFG so we will know for sure. Right now everyone is guessing

 

This isn't guessing; it's examining all of the relevant facts and coming to the logical conclusion. Wraith428 already gave the reasoning for the (correct) interpretation. It's Surge not Surge X; i.e. it's a binary thing.

 

Arguing otherwise would indicate the rulebook is wrong and the definition of Surge would have to be errataed.

There are 2 relevant facts and are pointing at different directions:

we have surge , but not surge X

vs

as per FAQ, effects are stacked , for example caught in the web (the same effect is triggered twice if 2 webs are attached to the same hero)

 

You can't really say that you are right. For me it is 50-50 situation, so I'll send question to FFG. I wonder when they will reply.

[guciomir 0]

Check this http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=201&efcid=4&efidt=599850

I created new topic as I got answers for more questions

[booored 247]

awesome... glad my instincts were not wrong... there was a good argument against this, one that had me convinced, even though I played the other way.. but this if this is what FFG said then that is the end of the discussion... surge keywords stack.. end of story.

[wraith428 7]

For some reason I don't like this ruling from a rules standpoint... but what does my opinion matter.  There definately needs to be errata so that Surge in the rule book becomes Surge X making it clear that there can be multiple surges. 

 

Does anybody see any other double keyword issues that could pop up.  Double guarded objectives?  A double restricted item (think of it as a two handed weapon.)

 

Others,

 

Wraith428!

[Scoob4 0]

I agree Wraith, it's not a particularly enjoyable response. Frankly, if I hadn't ever heard the question, I never would have thought of it myself, I came down so strong on the side of "Surge is Surge, not Surge X" (As opposed to other rules clarifications, like whether Thalin has his effect before Surge can occur, where I could see arguments either way) Because I was so strong on one side, it just feels "wrong" to me, even knowing the source of the interpretation.

It's much the same as Stand and Fight. I feel like we're getting things handed in the way they meant the cards to be written, or realize after the fact that's how they wanted the cards to work, not actually the way that makes the most sense. I'm worried about the official FAQ growing by leaps and bounds with too much to remember if this trend continues.

[silverhand77 0]

So just to clarify, is the concensus that if a card already has surge, it can't gain it again and therefore only one card is drawn? This is the way I interpret it and I just wanted to ckeck.

[wraith428 7]

According to Nate that is not true.  A card can have multiple surge keywords and each resolves seperately.

 

Wraith428

[jhaelen 98]

Scoob said:

 

It's much the same as Stand and Fight. I feel like we're getting things handed in the way they meant the cards to be written, or realize after the fact that's how they wanted the cards to work, not actually the way that makes the most sense. I'm worried about the official FAQ growing by leaps and bounds with too much to remember if this trend continues.

 

Agreed. There seems to be a tendency of interpreting rules in the most counter-intuitive way possible. The latest set in CoC has also suffered from a couple of odd card texts.

 

I guess, it's a good thing FFG decided they wanted to hire an additional LCG card designer. Maybe the quality of the templating will improve then.

[booored 247]

they need to hire a native english speaker.. it is writting the rules in french then translating them to english that is screwing this game