If I have a unique card in play with a text that says something like "Sacrifice this card to do (X)" and have already played a duplicate for it, what do I do?

The "Sacrifice" rules say that a sacrificed card cannot be saved, the "Duplicate" rules say that the duplicate's interrupt effect cannot be cancelled. So what happens if I sacrifice this card to do (X)? Do I indeed sacrifice it to do (X) and place both the card and its duplicate on my discard pile, or can I discard the duplicate to do (X)?

"Cannot be saved" doesn't actually cancel anything. In order to cancel something, you have to initiate it first. So, since "cannot be saved" stops you from ever triggering the save in the first place, it trumps any "cannot be canceled" restriction on the save.

So, you cannot trigger a dupe to save from a sacrifice and both the original and the dupe will go to the discard pile if you sacrifice a duped character.

Also there is the clause where if a cost is prevented from being paid, the effect does not occur. (Assuming "cannot be saved" were not a factor.)

So I just managed to overlook two very important aspects in one question ... I get the feeling this isn't going to be so much easier than 1.0, after all.

Thank you, guys.

Don't dupe a character you want to sacrifice, that's just wasteful.

No one ever said the rules wouldn't lead to complicated game situations, or that people could largely ignore the rules text and still play. This was never going to be "easier." The promise was more that fewer things would read as or feel like exceptions, so that learning the basic framework of the rules would lead you to the right answer with greater consistency.

It's worth noting that this interplay between " cannot be saved" and "cannot be canceled" would be exactly the same in 1.0 - as would the fact that if you somehow prevented yourself from paying a cost, you would not actually initiate the effect. The difference is that these things are easier to point to in the rules documents for 2.0 than to parse out from the various FAQ entries in 1.0.

Don't dupe a character you want to sacrifice, that's just wasteful.

Well, if the duplicate would have stayed, it wouldn't have been wasteful. But under these rules, you're absolutely right, of course.

No one ever said the rules wouldn't lead to complicated game situations, or that people could largely ignore the rules text and still play. This was never going to be "easier." The promise was more that fewer things would read as or feel like exceptions, so that learning the basic framework of the rules would lead you to the right answer with greater consistency.

It's worth noting that this interplay between " cannot be saved" and "cannot be canceled" would be exactly the same in 1.0 - as would the fact that if you somehow prevented yourself from paying a cost, you would not actually initiate the effect. The difference is that these things are easier to point to in the rules documents for 2.0 than to parse out from the various FAQ entries in 1.0.

Understood and agreed. We only got into 1.0 for a couple of weeks, just before 2.0 was announced, and I never got around reading all of the FAQ, because I kind of guessed it would be obsolete anyway. I started, but gave up to learn and remember all of that stuff very quickly (the others never even took a look). Now with 2.0, most of the stuff is part of the rulebooks, and while we'll play the German version, I've already started digging through the english rules to soak up as much info as possible. The way my memory works, though, I'm destined to forget a lot and will have to read it all again and again (and play, of course!) before most stuff will stay in my head. So please, bear with me. I'm trying very hard.

Don't dupe a character you want to sacrifice, that's just wasteful.

Well, if the duplicate would have stayed, it wouldn't have been wasteful. But under these rules, you're absolutely right, of course.

No one ever said the rules wouldn't lead to complicated game situations, or that people could largely ignore the rules text and still play. This was never going to be "easier." The promise was more that fewer things would read as or feel like exceptions, so that learning the basic framework of the rules would lead you to the right answer with greater consistency.

It's worth noting that this interplay between " cannot be saved" and "cannot be canceled" would be exactly the same in 1.0 - as would the fact that if you somehow prevented yourself from paying a cost, you would not actually initiate the effect. The difference is that these things are easier to point to in the rules documents for 2.0 than to parse out from the various FAQ entries in 1.0.

Understood and agreed. We only got into 1.0 for a couple of weeks, just before 2.0 was announced, and I never got around reading all of the FAQ, because I kind of guessed it would be obsolete anyway. I started, but gave up to learn and remember all of that stuff very quickly (the others never even took a look). Now with 2.0, most of the stuff is part of the rulebooks, and while we'll play the German version, I've already started digging through the english rules to soak up as much info as possible. The way my memory works, though, I'm destined to forget a lot and will have to read it all again and again (and play, of course!) before most stuff will stay in my head. So please, bear with me. I'm trying very hard.

Naturally, it's much easier to just learn the rules as you play. Questions always arise, and I think that it will be a lot easier to locate and deduce answers to them with the second edition rules reference guide than it ever was with the first edition FAQ and rule book. I probably would have a more difficult time memorizing the rules without being hands on!

So please, bear with me. I'm trying very hard.

Nothing to bear with. You're doing great. Dare I say, "Better than most!"?

My last post was more of a rant that's been building inside of me since last November in response to people's comments about not being able to wait for 2.0 and simple rules every time a tricky situation or interaction came up in 1.0 after the announcement. Pay me no mind. None of it was meant to be directed at you in my head; you were just the unfortunate one who (didn't really) ask the question. I truly am sorry if any of it seemed like I was anything but impressed with the work you're putting in to understanding the 2.0 rules prior to release.

Guilty as charged. I'm not opposed to thorny rules interactions--I play Netrunner. I have expressed many times that I've been looking forward to the 2.0 ruleset, and if I may it's almost always in context of "I'm glad this particular interaction is going away."

I love a good round of ruleslawyering--the Quill & Tankard posts are basically the only articles I read on Cardgamedb. What I'm looking forward to is a ruleset that is designed to be cohesive from the ground up, that has a consistent granularity of structure, and doesn't feel like a ramshackle assemblage caused by ten years of cumulative edge cases, inconsistent templating, and convoluted interactions.

No worries, I didn't feel insulted. I totally get that for fans of 1.0 who have been around from day one constantly getting the same questions is somewhat unnerving, and now, with 2.0, history repeats itself, at least a bit.

Let's hope people actually use what luxury is given to them and read that glossary in the rules reference book. I'm sure as hell doing (still at it, that's why the S&D question arose; I was just reading the Sacrifice term and came on the "cannot save" bit), but it's so much info to sink in I can't possibly remember everything at once. I can't wait to play; that will, indeed, help very much to get a better grip on everything.

and if I may it's almost always in context of "I'm glad this particular interaction is going away."

Not you personally, but there were a lot of those kinds of "I'm glad this particular interaction is going away" comments to things that were almost certainly not going to go away - and ultimately haven't. (Like, for example, how to combine gains/loses icon or gains/loses STR effects.)

--the Quill & Tankard posts are basically the only articles I read on Cardgamedb.

Those hacks? (I kid.)

What I'm looking forward to is a ruleset that is designed to be cohesive from the ground up, that has a consistent granularity of structure, and doesn't feel like a ramshackle assemblage caused by ten years of cumulative edge cases, inconsistent templating, and convoluted interactions.

In my experience, the feel of those things were worse than the truth of them in 1.0. Of course, they were true - I just didn't think that they weighed as heavily on the rule set as the appeared to because of the organization (or lack thereof) in the FAQ. The answers tended to be available - people just couldn't find them, or were required to combine bits from multiple entries that didn't seem related at first glance. To me, the biggest improvement in the rules for 2.0 is the glossary organization and "see also" tips of the RRG. People can actually find the answers to their questions.