Since there was a huge number of new cards recently, which involved a lot of new concepts, I would like to ask FFG to produce a new FAQ that might include the answer to your questions.

This thread will be a kind of reminder, that we will use as a link to the other discussions.

I'll try to set up some of the questions :

Question : Samantha Grace, who win in case two players already got 3 Story cards in case she dies ?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=145139

Question : Uncommitting = Removing ?

Question : What happens when you discard a card which text mentionned an action "Put into Play" ?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=98954#146713

Question : What happens for the control of an attachment while the supporting character changes control ???

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=100545

Question : Couting Skills, precision about the cou nt of icons during struggle and during phases in case they do not Count

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=141745

Question : Unorthodox Tactics and the possibility to resolve icons truggle even when the story is won.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=141259

Question : The "If Able" Clausis, how does it works ? Explaining cards like the Pulp Writer

multiples points here : http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=142683

and other stuffs there :

Some players also asked for precisions on how the defender commits its characters ...

Feel free to had what you feel necessary to submit to FFG... And we'll send Nate the post right after that !

Does anybody had something to add to those questions ???

The answer to the Samantha Grace question is, the active player.

The 'Frozen In Time' story card effect could use some clarification.

Unless a ruling has been made but it's just buried somewhere amoungst the posts.

An official faq is needed and this discussion I think can be very helpfull.

Somewhat redundant, as others have yet pointed out some of the issues, but it's a copy / paste from my notes:

Hand Camera (AMM F7): is it missing a "then, shuffle your deck"?

Cave Mouth (AMM F8): if both player have it in play (yeah, right ) and one wins two stories and the other one one, does the game end in a draw due to having no more stories in play? Do stories won in previous rounds get replaced once Cave Mouth exit play? If so, in which order? If there have been more than 3 stories won (ex. 2 players each winning 2 stories each) how does later repleacement -if it exists- take place?

Giant Albino Penguin (AMM F9): exact meaning of immune is not explained in the rules. How does immunity interact with targetting? Is it an immune character a legal target and the effect fizzles or it cannot be targeted?

White Out (AMM F10): Does not count meaning is unclear: does it mean it's skill is 0 and it has no icons for all purposes (e.g. Nodens response) or only for story resolution?

Polar Mirage (AMM F11): If the character is exhausted, can it be committed nonetheless?

Polar Fog (AMM F18): No mistakes in the card per se, but the ruling on exhaustion and commitment should be consistent with AMM F11.

Albert Wilmart, On Sabbatical (AAH F6): -ref. AMM F10- Is the skill 0 for all purposes or only for story resolution?

Cthuga, Fiery Conflagration (AAH F15): -ref AMM F10- Have the other characters no [combat] icons for all purposes or only for story resolution?

Tcho-tcho Tribe (AAH F16): What does "defending" mean? It is not defined in the manual or the faq.

Dark Druid (AAH F20): -ref AMM F7- is it missing a "then, shuffle your deck"?

Trent Dixon, Workaholic (ASD F6): Can opponent commit to stories where Trent Dixon's skill and skill are applied? Do those stories resolve? Even if Trent Dixon commits in the "opponent commits" part?

Eric Zann, Strange Virtuoso (ASD F10): spellcheck.

The Black Goat's Rage (ASD F16): Affiliation does not exist. Faction would be better.

Julia Brown, Insomniac (ASD F17): Does her sacrifice satisfy the lost terror struggle effect?

The Underwater Conspiracy (ASD F20): Not a mistake per se, but doesn't the card read: "If all characters in play have willpower and could go insane if they hadn't, they lose willpower and go insane, otherwise the card fizzles"?

Fugitive Scientist (ASD F26): -ref AMM F10-: Is the skill 0 for all purposes or only for story resolution?

Arkham Advertiser Archives (ASD F28): what does undrain mean? How is it different from refresh?

Local Brew (ASD F32): not a mistake per se, take notice that attached character gains fast twice.

Under the Porch (ASD F36): -ref AMM F7- is it missing a "then, shuffle your deck"?

Howard Ludvinsk, Visiting Artist (ASD F43): How does he interact with Wilbur Whateley, Preternaturally Intelligent (ADH F13), once the latter becomes a story?

Brazen Hoodlum (ASD F45): -ref AMM F10-: Is the skill 0 for all purposes or only for story resolution?

Across Dimensions (ASD F53): -ref ASD F16- Affiliation does not exist. Faction would be better.

Arcane Grifter (ASD F65): -ref AMM F10-: Is the skill 0 for all purposes or only for story resolution?

Dimensional Worm (ASD F73): Attacker is undefined.

Summoning Circle (ASD F74): Redundant text. Knelt is undefined.

Literature Professor (ASD F83): -ref ASD F16- Affiliation does not exist. Faction would be better.

Nebolous Ooze (ASD F91): -ref AMM F11- No mistakes in the card, but needs consistent rulings with AMM F11's.

The Spaw of Madness (ASD F99): -ref ASD F28-: undrain.

Unorthodox Tactics (ASD F100): do characters stay committed even after story is won and thus replaced?

From the manual: page 11: max 4 conspiracies, page 14: max 3 conspiracies.

While I agree that with almost everything posted above,

I have a problems with 2 points -

Ygolanac

Pulp writer

(Ygo is not mentioned, but for the sake of things...) those cards have been around... I don't know, 2 years ? And so far there was no problem with playing them. So please do not let ffg mess with them (looking at their... problems with rulings, so to say - let's not give them the opportunity to ruin 2 cards from legacy format. (OK, Ygo is reprinted, but you know what I mean).

And I think that these are not that hard to understand....

This Carioz, is really the most constructive psot I ever read on this forum and I really do thank you for the help.

Hope This will really make the Cut for FFG to produce a really nice FAQ.

Antoher question about Conspiracy Theorist (Last AP)

Players cannot win the game by winning story cards unless at least one of their won story cards is also a conspiracy card, or unless there are no story cards left in the story deck.

What Happens in tournament, in case the time's out and we need to define the winning conditions and there are no conspiracy cards in play ?? Shall the servitor define an "alternative" winning conditions, in a way to keep the tempo onto his tournamanent ??

imho by rules if this happens, then

If the time limit has been reached without a winner being declared, tally both players "won" story piles. The greater pile wins. If that is equal, then both players are awarded a draw.

(= Second phrase here grant win not via winning stories, so Theorist will not affect that way of determining winner.

PRODIGEE said:

****, I knew I had to introduce some random disparaging remarks just to keep my bitterness quotient stable.

Oh, well, one does live and learn.

Carioz said:

Heavy Furs (AMM F5): -ref AMMF9- Immunity undefined.

Antartic Yeti (AMM F14): -ref AMMF9- Immunity undefined.

Alaskan Sledge Dog (AMM F16): -ref AMMF9- Immunity undefined.

Summoning Circle (ASD F74): Is it also missing a "then, shuffle your deck"?

A Call for Help (ASD F62): Is it missing a "reveal it"?

Random bitter remark.

We can also add Dynamite :

-- Agency --
Dynamite
Attach to an [Agency] character.

Action: Discard Dynamite from play to wound all characters committed to the same story as attached character.
AAD F42

What is exactly "Discarding from play" ??? Does this means sending to discard or is it something else ?

Dynamite hurts the person using it, right?

PRODIGEE said:

Its there to prevent discarding from hand. and all discard are done to discard pile.)

PRODIGEE said:

"Destroy" or "sacrifice" would have been more accurate wording for game play purposes, but probably would seem odd.... sacrificing dynamite.....

Regarding the FAQ

This is more having to do with older cards, but I'd like the know what the plan is:

Are Black Border cards (CCG) now errated to their new Core Set (LCG) versions?

i.e.

Have any/all CCG Ancient ones lost Loyal ?

Is CCG Steve Clarney now Miskatonic?

Are any alterations in skill/icons now errated to their Core Set reprints?

Maybe I missed it, but Eye of the Deep should make characters gain Deep One Subtype as it was discussed eariler in the forums when it was spoiled, as even Nate said it was pointless having the extra name of "Deep One" on the cards.

Agreed.

scourn1 said:

about attachments :

1) attachments exhaust or not with the characters ? The trailer video says yes, but it's not the habitual way to play the attached card. So what's the official rule ?
2) Attached cards are committed or not with the characters when the Characters commit ?
3) case of the hound of Tindalos : when you unattach it from a character committed, where goes the Hound, is it committed or not (see question 2) ? Explain what is "unattach a card".

White Out (AMM F10) : can we understand the 'or' like an 'nor' ('and') or the player must choose the icons OR the skills to not count.

What's the rule if you play a blind submission on the obsessive Inmate already comitted (you take control of him but can't remove him from the story ? He changes the side ? The effect from the blind fails ?). The same with cards like Agoraphobia or Path of Blood, can we play these card on obsessive Inmate. (it's the problem to know if Uncommitting and Removing have the same meanings in LCG's game).

Dadajef said:

Attachments:

1> They do not exhaust with the character (if they did, cards like Military Bike would be useless).

2> They don't go anywhere, really, although I think most people keep them under the character they're attached to for clarity and neatness's sake. It doesn't really matter either way, the only time they're effected is when attachment destruction targets them or the character they're attached to dies (or if it's an attachment that discards itself to do something, like Dynamite).

3a> Depends on when you unattach the Hound. You could unattach him during the story phase before your respective committing step (i.e., depending on whether you're the attacker or defender) and then commit him, but if you do it after that point then you're out of luck and he's stuck back at home.

3b> "Unattaching" the hound specifically is turning him back from an attachment into a character. Unattach in other circumstances can mean various things -- usually moving an item from one character to another.

White Out: It's a "nor", the character counts neither (otherwise it would be worded a lot differently, although I can see your confusion).

Blind Submission on Obsessive Inmate: First of all, I'm assuming you lowered his skill to 2 or lower somehow, as otherwise Blind Submission wouldn't work on him. Assuming you did, he would remain committed to the story but change hands over to you, thus counting his skill and icons at in your favor at that story, instead of in your opponent's.

Agoraphobia and Path of Blood would be fine on him as well. He'd be returned to the owner's hand in either case.

Actually, the FAQ says "Any time a player gains control of a committed character during a story, that character is removed from the story.", which makes me think the Obsessive Inmate would be removed from the story if Blind Submission was used on him (although the wording "during a story" is a bit confusing . . . I think it means during the story phase?)

Your different reponses is a point of view and generally I'm agree with you. But it's not so evident, as you can see with the notion removing/returning in hand/uncommitting/ a character (and yes obsessive Inmate poses a lot of problems). Another problem, Unattach a hound is not uncommiting it (it's not a change control !) so wee need rules to say what becomes a card unattached. For attachments, the same problems : as you said it is destroyed with the characte or it moves with him when the character changes controle so what when the character is commiting (I say committing (stories), not exhausting, attachement don't exhaut with the characters everybody is agree about that !)

The rules and FAQ don't talk about theses cases and answers from players or gurus are not alaways the same. We are talking a long time about these problems here on this forum or the french Forum. It will be interessant to have a definitive answers about these points.

While some of those things are cut and dry, I do agree that a few are left a bit too vague. There's a number of issues, large and small, that could be covered in a FAQ update . . . with Gencon in less than two weeks, I hope an update is coming.

Amante said:

...And it will not possible because you can't uncommit the obsessive... For the moment (see the post about that) the idea is uncommitting is the same word for removing, so you could'nt take control of obsessive or remove it from a story (and for example return in a hand, etc...). So we need clarification about the words 'uncommit' and 'remove'.

Yes we could expect a new FAQ for the gencon !

And here it is now !!!

While there's somme materials for uncommitting/removed and stuffs, I'm particularily proud to see this REVOLUTIONNARY CONCEPT !!!

(v1.0) Searching the deck
If a card effect allows a player to search
his deck, he must shuffle your deck
afterwards.

Now, it's the end for every non-sportmanlich attitude of players who used their Under the Porch to scourch the deck and know what they will be playing for futur turns. Note that the wording is clear enough to allow the player to play "Journey to the Other Side" still

(Search is a mecanic, remind it!)

Bravo for FFG !

PRODIGEE said:

I'm thrilled that the FAQ has been released. I do find it humorous the mistake made in the FAQ clarification though, as PRODIGEE pointed out.

Who is "you" in this clarification? I'm pretty sure that should have read "his", not "your", because "your" doesn't make any sense. Unless the point is that he must shuffle his opponent's deck after searching his own!