I've got a few questions concerning the name of cards and its effects.

Let's take a look at two cards: Ravager from the Deep and Richard Pickman.

-- Cthulhu --
Ravager from the Deep
---------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 4
Skill : 2
Icons : CCA
Subtype : Deep One.
Game Text: Villainous. Toughness +1. Forced Response: After Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story, wound all other characters at that story.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Lars Simkins
Collector's Info: Core Set F46

-- Syndicate --
•Richard Upton Pickman, Genius Painter
--------------------------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 4
Skill : 3
Icons : CCI
Subtype : Cultist.
Game Text: Action: Pay 2 to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, Richard Upton Pickman gains that character's keywords and triggered abilities. Then, treat that character as though its printed text box were blank until the end of the phase.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Nick Percival
Collector's Info: Core Set F63

Situation A :

Both cards are in play. Player A (Cthulhu player) decides to attempt a story. He sends a few characters (2 keepers of the golden path). Player B (Syndicate) pays 2 to use Pickman effect on the Ravager (copying and blanking its gametext). Then, Player B goes to the same story with Pickman.

Pickman effectively gains Toughness+1 and a rather useless gametext. He can't use it for himself: he's not a Ravager from the Deep and the gametext requires a 'Ravager from the Deep' titled character to commit !

The gametext requires a precise title to work. Looks correct to me.

Situation B:

Both cards are, once again, in play. Player B copy and blank Player A's Ravager. Player B attempts to a story with a few characters. Then, Player B decides to send its blanked Ravager in defense, arguing that its effect still works. Yes, it is blanked but Pickman's gametext says now "Forced Response: After Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story, wound all other characters at that story." and a Ravager have just commited to a story !

Player B argues that Ravager's gametext doesn't explicitly require the Ravager to be "this one". Is this right ?

I'm a lot less sure about this one, guys.

Any thoughts ? A reference to a rule, ruling or errata would be a huge bonus.

I think that's very well picked up and that your Situation B is quite correct (so is Situation A, of course).

I don't have time now to pore over the rules and FAQ, but it's quite clear that Pickman doesn't affect a card's name, and that his newly-acquired Forced Response ability must trigger as a result of a card named Ravager from the Deep committing to a story (regardless of where Pickman is or what he's doing).

It strikes me that the person who noticed this has a very good head for CCGs, and I don't know that I'd want to play against them in a tournament!

It also means that Pickman is ineffective at stopping Ravager , unless one or the other of them receives a future erratum amendment.

Supa said:

For me it doesn't work. The text "Forced Response: After Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story..." means " After This card titled Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story...".

"After Ravager from the deep..." it's not " After a Ravager from the Deep...".

You are inserting words into the card text which do not exist.

It does not say 'this card', it does not imply 'this card', and nothing in the rules or errata suggest (to me) that card text can only refer to the card it's printed on.

Why add words which don't exist? The card says, "After Ravager from the Deep is..." so the trigger for the Forced Response is a card named Ravager from the Deep committing to a story. That's all there is to it. Unless a rule or FAQ says otherwise, a player can't go around inserting words into card text which aren't there.

as you play, it means when you have already an hungry dark young in play for example and you put into play another hungry dark young, you will trigger the response twice : one for the dark young in play and one for the new one entering in play.

The text (like Ravager) is not 'a ravager' or 'a hungry dark young' (note the word a ), it refers just to this card, not to all cards with the same title.

The same with Victoria Glasser, you trigger her forced response when she enters in play, you will not trigger the effect from the Victoria you control if your opponent plays its own Victoria for example.

It's for that : "After Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story..." means "After This card titled Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story..." and not "After a Ravager from the Deep is committed to a story..." (with the word a). When the game refers to all cards with the same title, it is said clearly (Alaskian sledge dog for example).

yes i agree it means the card you have in play "that" ravager of the deep, there is no need to twist the meaning of the phrase, just read as printed ravager of the deep means the card your reading it from

Muzar_Nulus said:

Whoa did i come late for this discussion xD

In my point of view is actually plain simple. The card does not specify if it is that one or any other but you should interpret each card names within it's fram to itself. Ok it needs a bit of wording work, for instance, if you pick up ravagers text it should say "After this caracter is..." instead of it's current wording but I can't also find any card that allows use it's effect cumulatively.

I hope i was able to make myself understand because i think i lost my self in there XD

My two cents :

The text from the Ravager specifies that anytime there's is a character called "Ravager" commited, the forced response applies.There is nothing in the text about "this" character or "your character".Dadajeff said this is no mention of "A ravager", but let's remind that the text of Thomas Malone is exactly worded the same :

Agency
•Thomas F. Malone, Haunted Police Detective
-
Type : Character
Coût : 4
Skill : 5
Icones : CC
Sous-type : Investigator.
Descriptif : Heroic. Response: after resolving a story to which Thomas F. Malone is committed, choose and destroy an opponent's Villainous or Cultist character that was committed to that story.
Flavor text:
Illustrateur : Anders Finer
Info Collectionneur : Arkham Edition U1

Imagine the same exemple with pickman and malone.Considering Pickman blanked a text he copied, the text is still in play . Thomas malone (blanked texted) is committed and the story resolves. As long as Pickman do inherit its text, the effect will be effective. But it will be Pickman's controller that might be able to trigger the effect.

There is no problems , as the conditions for the responces to works are fulfilled. Just play the card the way it is worded ! Supa is right saying that the card doesn't explicitly said that it needs to be the card that owns the text that benefit this text. Remember when designers wants the texts to strictly concern a card, they use other sentences like Alaskan sledge dogs with the wording "Each Alaskan Sledge Dogs" or

Such question had been submitted on the old forum, but I can't find them !!!

You're totally right saying that pickman is uneffective against ravager, but he also has no use against malone and some others characters (blackwood detective bymemory). There is nothing to be changed. Darknight said that you just have to consider the card where the text is printed ... So, that means that when we used to play the Mad zealot in the x4 copies days, anytime you want to play a second Mad Zealot, you weren't able to use the effect twice to bring two zealot back from the dead.

I really don't agree with this, as it is pure interpretation, without any reference to a rule that would interfer with this.

Pickman text has a huge drawback, it's not Called by azatoth !!