" Deploy Action : Each player must sacrifice a unit at each planet, if able. "

My literal interpretation of this card would be that if a player doesn't have at least one unit at each planet, then that player is immune to this card, since I believe that's how "if able" works -- the player can't sacrifice a unit at each planet and so does nothing. However, "each" and "if able" seem to interact oddly in the LCGs.

I suspect the intent was: For each player X, for each planet Y, (Player X must sacrifice a unit at planet Y, if able).

Any comments?

That interpretation might be true in a literal sense, but it is not true within the context of the game because of the following (RRG, p.4):

" Card Effect

- A card ability may be initiated if all or part of its effect is able to resolve. Once initiated, players must resolve as much of an effect as they are able , unless the effect uses the word 'may.'"

So, because you must resolve as much of an effect as possible, the correct way to interpret Consumption is that you have to sacrifice 1 unit from each planet you have at least 1 unit at. You don't get a pass on planets 1-4 if you have no units at planet 5.

The "if able" is what allows the Nid player to trigger the event, even when all players do not have units at all planets.

That interpretation might be true in a literal sense, but it is not true within the context of the game because of the following (RRG, p.4):

" Card Effect

- A card ability may be initiated if all or part of its effect is able to resolve. Once initiated, players must resolve as much of an effect as they are able , unless the effect uses the word 'may.'"

So, because you must resolve as much of an effect as possible, the correct way to interpret Consumption is that you have to sacrifice 1 unit from each planet you have at least 1 unit at. You don't get a pass on planets 1-4 if you have no units at planet 5.

The "if able" is what allows the Nid player to trigger the event, even when all players do not have units at all planets.

I will disagree with you because the term "if able" means to do the whole thing or do nothing. Okay, to be fair, this is based on their other LCGs, as the RRG doesn't define "if able" that I can tell. It is possible that "if able" works *differently* here than in the other LCGs. However, my point is that I'm not pulling this out of nowhere.

English is a pig of a language, and sentence construction is a sod at the best of times. There are multiple ways to read a sentence with clauses like this.

They could also have written it as "each player must sacrifice a unit, if able, at each planet" - but I'm not sure if that would have been any clearer.

Not sure which other LCGs you're referring to. My only real experience is with AGOT, both versions, and in THOSE games, "if able" does not mean "all or nothing." It means, "do as much as you can; if you can't do it all, the effect can still be triggered for the partial effect." But then, AGOT has the same, "once initiated, do as much as you can" rule as the one I quoted from the RRG above.

Send it in to FFG directly if you want an official answer.

Netrunner uses "if able" in an all-or-nothing way. If a card says, for example, a player loses three credits, then they lose three credits, or all credits if they have less. However if a card says a player loses three credits if able, a player with one or two credits suffers no effect. I don't know how other LCGs handle the same terms, but dragging rules from one game into another is generally not a good idea.

Netrunner is also the odd-man-out LCG in terms of design. All of the others (except maybe LotR) are designed by, or based on a design by, the same guy. While it is generally not a good idea to import rules and rulings from one LCG to another, it is an ESPECIALLY bad idea if the rule or ruling is coming from Netrunner as it's design and template assumptions are the most unique.

I'm guessing it has to do with NetRunner being a revival of a CCG designed by someone else (Richard Garfield in this case). And I'm further guessing that L5R will have its own rules quirks (even though the rules will be somewhat brought in line with the other LCGs).

Netrunner is also the odd-man-out LCG in terms of design. All of the others (except maybe LotR) are designed by, or based on a design by, the same guy. While it is generally not a good idea to import rules and rulings from one LCG to another, it is an ESPECIALLY bad idea if the rule or ruling is coming from Netrunner as it's design and template assumptions are the most unique.

Call of Cthulhu also has the "all or nothing" interpretation of "if able". I could call AGoT the odd-one-out due to being the first, so it is stuck with earlier interpretations, but I consider that largely irrelevant, just like I consider the Netrunner exclusion largely irrelevant since they didn't just import all card text verbatim.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that the intention is for it to affect people without units at all planets (particularly without units at the unrevealed planets).

Finally, given that we're appealing to 3 other games, it is worth addressing in this one. (If there were a definition of "if able" in this game, I wouldn't need to refer to other games.)

It's something I raise every now and then, that the phrase "if able" could/should be dropped entirely from the Conquest, Star Wars, AGOT LCG template, being that it doesn't add anything that the rule of "you must be able to change the game state to initiate, and you must resolve as much as possible" doesn't already cover. My understanding is that the "if able" was originally an attempt to cover off on this rule ... and then the rule was officially adopted anyway.

(particularly without units at the unrevealed planets).

Unrevealed planets are not even planets, so not part of "each planet" (RRG p12).

Facedown planet cards are not in play and are not considered planets until they are turned face up.

It's something I raise every now and then, that the phrase "if able" could/should be dropped entirely from the Conquest, Star Wars, AGOT LCG template, being that it doesn't add anything that the rule of "you must be able to change the game state to initiate, and you must resolve as much as possible" doesn't already cover. My understanding is that the "if able" was originally an attempt to cover off on this rule ... and then the rule was officially adopted anyway.

I thought the intention of "if able" was to override the "as much as possible" rule to an "all or nothing" rule. If not, I agree with you that it would serve no purpose.

There is also the "Do X, if able. Then, do Y" construct that only does Y if X happens, but I think that was a poor choice of wording.

Then again, I don't know of a game with similar complexity that doesn't have these issues.

(particularly without units at the unrevealed planets).

Unrevealed planets are not even planets, so not part of "each planet" (RRG p12).

Facedown planet cards are not in play and are not considered planets until they are turned face up.

I did not notice that. I have learned something -- admittedly tangential to the original topic -- but I have learned something.

I thought the intention of "if able" was to override the "as much as possible" rule to an "all or nothing" rule. If not, I agree with you that it would serve no purpose.

Historically, the "all or nothing" rule that "if able" was meant to override in AGoT (which serves as the basis for the Star Wars and Conquest rule sets...), was the rule stating that all specified targets must be present/available in order to trigger an ability. So, for example, an ability that said, "Action: Exhaust a target ready unit in each player's HQ" requires 1 ready unit to be available in each player's HQ before the effect can be trigger - otherwise, you are missing valid targets for the effect - but "Action: Exhaust a target ready unit in each player's HQ, if able" could be triggered no matter how many players had ready units in their HQ.

The rule for, "if the effect doesn't change the game state, you cannot trigger the ability" is a relatively late comer to AGoT-based rule sets, but the "all valid targets must be available in order to trigger the ability" was there almost from the beginning. The historical point, though, is that "if able" originally overrode an "all or nothing" rule in favor of "as much as possible" game play, not the other way around.

It is arguable whether or not the rule for, "If there is no valid target for a targeting effect, the ability cannot be initiated." (RRG, p. 15) is made redundant by the "effect must change the game state" and "do as much as you can" rules. I would guess that "if able" persists, at least in part, because of this.

I thought the intention of "if able" was to override the "as much as possible" rule to an "all or nothing" rule. If not, I agree with you that it would serve no purpose.

Historically, the "all or nothing" rule that "if able" was meant to override in AGoT (which serves as the basis for the Star Wars and Conquest rule sets...), was the rule stating that all specified targets must be present/available in order to trigger an ability. So, for example, an ability that said, "Action: Exhaust a target ready unit in each player's HQ" requires 1 ready unit to be available in each player's HQ before the effect can be trigger - otherwise, you are missing valid targets for the effect - but "Action: Exhaust a target ready unit in each player's HQ, if able" could be triggered no matter how many players had ready units in their HQ.

The rule for, "if the effect doesn't change the game state, you cannot trigger the ability" is a relatively late comer to AGoT-based rule sets, but the "all valid targets must be available in order to trigger the ability" was there almost from the beginning. The historical point, though, is that "if able" originally overrode an "all or nothing" rule in favor of "as much as possible" game play, not the other way around.

It is arguable whether or not the rule for, "If there is no valid target for a targeting effect, the ability cannot be initiated." (RRG, p. 15) is made redundant by the "effect must change the game state" and "do as much as you can" rules. I would guess that "if able" persists, at least in part, because of this.

There are 3 issues here:

1) How "each" works in combination with validity. For example, "each player does Y" can be interpreted as a series of instructions for each player X, "X does Y" where "X does Y" is evaluated independently for each player as valid or not or it can be interpreted as "All players do Y" whose validity can be evaluated as a single atomic unit.

2) Target validity. That's the targeting requirements you discussed.

3) Non-target validity. In cases like "discard 2 cards" the cards are not targets, so the targeting rules don't apply.

I think 1) could have been handled more elegantly by using "each player" as shorthand for a separate instruction for each player and "all players" to mean an atomic instruction. I am getting the impression that, in a system with a "all targets must be valid" rule, the default interpretation is an atomic instruction unless "if able" appears.

I'm not sure if "if able" interacts much with 2) outside of the presence of an "each" term.

However, 3) is a completely different case. In games with "as much as possible", "if able" can turn that to "all or nothing".

In short "if able" affects 1/2 in rulesets with "all targets must be valid" in one way and affects 3 in rulesets with "do as much as possible" in the opposite way. I'm not sure "if able" makes sense for 1/2 in rulesets with "do as much as possible", but this is the original case under discussion. In a "do as much as possible" ruleset, it would be perfectly clear *without* "if able." The presence of "if able" just confuses the issue.

Also, can "all targets must be valid" coexist with "do as much as possible" in some way I'm not thinking?

Also, can "all targets must be valid" coexist with "do as much as possible" in some way I'm not thinking?

Sure.

"All valid and required targets must be available in order to initiate the effect" can easily coexist with,"Once initiated, do as much of the effect as possible" because choosing the target is part of the initiation process, not part of resolving the effect. (RRG, p. 8-9, step 5 vs. step 6).

Whether or not the historical basis for including "if able" in the template is still viable or applicable is a whole other conversation. However, the original question of whether "if able" creates an all-or-nothing effect out of Consumption seems to be answered by the "do as much as you can" rule. The question remains whether we think that answer should be run past FFG for verification.

Also, can "all targets must be valid" coexist with "do as much as possible" in some way I'm not thinking?

Sure.

"All valid and required targets must be available in order to initiate the effect" can easily coexist with,"Once initiated, do as much of the effect as possible" because choosing the target is part of the initiation process, not part of resolving the effect. (RRG, p. 8-9, step 5 vs. step 6).

Whether or not the historical basis for including "if able" in the template is still viable or applicable is a whole other conversation. However, the original question of whether "if able" creates an all-or-nothing effect out of Consumption seems to be answered by the "do as much as you can" rule. The question remains whether we think that answer should be run past FFG for verification.

Without "if able", I would agree that the all-or-nothing rule takes effect. At the same time, "if able" is not defined for Conquest, and there is precedent for "if able" to override that in other LCGs. (Though you could adopt the opinion that, since it is not defined, that it does nothing.)

In this case, there are two cases of "each" -- each player and each planet. There does seem to be a useage of "if able" with "each" that effectively treats each player and/or planet as a separate instantiation. However, there doesn't seem to be a point to this in a "do as much as you can" ruleset, since that's the default interpretation anyway.

I strongly suspect that "if able" does not do anything and should just be deleted. It is unnecessary at best interpretation and wrong at the worst interpretation.

I think the card's intended interpretation is consistent with the interpretation of "do as much as you can" when "if able" is removed. The question is what does "if able" mean in this ruleset?

You're only going to get an answer to that question that you find satisfactory from an official FFG source.

I'd suggest sending it in through the "Rules Question" link on the customer service page since they do not answer questions directly on the boards.