The issue is I don't think that settles the original question at all. The wording of the card is different enough, although similar, that the case changes...

Discarding cards and "spending clues" don't have the same meaning although their effects of "losing X of something you have" may have the same outcome.

To put it more into a more rules based answer:

Each investigator discards one card...

Okay, we go around the table and players 1, 2, and 3 do it, as per the rules of resolving effects and order. Then player 4 says, "I have no cards". The game state changed. Done.

Spend two clues...

The player says, "I only have 1 clue", then you don't have what you need to initiate the resolving of the effect. The game state didn't change.. you need to do the other option.

I get the similarities, but it is distinct enough to not be covered by the case above.

Of course, in the other thread I said, and stick to it, that this "spend two clues" card is probably poorly designed and won't exist... but it is more of a theoretical argument than anything.

To twist it in another direction...

What about Offer of Power: https://arkhamdb.com/card/01178

Revelation - You must either (choose one): draw 2 cards and place 2 doom on the current agenda (this effect can cause the current agenda to advance), or take 2 horror.

If you are one doom away from flipping the agenda, can you draw 2 cards, place the first doom (which flips the agenda) and then do you place the second doom? Or do both dooms get placed simultaneously? This is probably closer in line with the original question, but I'd say you do what it says and place both dooms, then the agenda flips. Leaving you with a fresh agenda with no doom.

Rather than edit, just adding a second post...

I guess my question is, "Do clues being spent get spent simultaneously?" If the answer is "yes", then having only one would not allow a game state change, as the resolution would have you spend nothing. If the answer is "no, they are spent one at a time" then you can pick the option, only to have it not resolve successfully, but the game state changed. That's what I see as different from the example about discarding, because, to me, it is clear the investigators discard cards one at a time, not simultaneously, so I view as potentially 4 instances, not 1 like the "spend 2 clues" part is.

Rather than edit, just adding a second post...

I guess my question is, "Do clues being spent get spent simultaneously?" If the answer is "yes", then having only one would not allow a game state change, as the resolution would have you spend nothing. If the answer is "no, they are spent one at a time" then you can pick the option, only to have it not resolve successfully, but the game state changed. That's what I see as different from the example about discarding, because, to me, it is clear the investigators discard cards one at a time, not simultaneously, so I view as potentially 4 instances, not 1 like the "spend 2 clues" part is.

I'm pretty sure you spend both at the same time, but I don't see how it matters here. Either way, the game state changes.

Rather than edit, just adding a second post...

I guess my question is, "Do clues being spent get spent simultaneously?" If the answer is "yes", then having only one would not allow a game state change, as the resolution would have you spend nothing. If the answer is "no, they are spent one at a time" then you can pick the option, only to have it not resolve successfully, but the game state changed. That's what I see as different from the example about discarding, because, to me, it is clear the investigators discard cards one at a time, not simultaneously, so I view as potentially 4 instances, not 1 like the "spend 2 clues" part is.

I'm pretty sure you spend both at the same time, but I don't see how it matters here. Either way, the game state changes.

Why does the game state change in that scenario? If you are required to spend two, and only have one, and choose to "spend two" the resolution fails, and the one isn't spent, so you still have it.

I honestly can't argue this any further...

I know having to only spend one would be better for the player, and I am always for "better for the player". I just feel like we're pushing other rules (and rulings) onto a case (that I can't forget doesn't exist) when those rules don't quite fit the same way. This would be like saying you can walk into a store and a bottle of water is a dollar, but you only have 50 cents, so you pay 50 cents and walk out of the store with the bottle of water. And I know.. this is an "effect" not a "cost", but the wording and requirements, to me, makes it something like a cost. I can only hope Matthew Newman releases this exact card in the future so I can finally have quiet about this, one way or the other!

There is no practical difference between "spending clues", "discarding cards", and "losing resources" - they all mean essentially the same thing, they just use different words.

If an effect says "draw 2 cards" or "place 2 doom" or "spend 2 clues", you do it simultaneously, not one by one. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

Why does the game state change in that scenario? If you are required to spend two, and only have one, and choose to "spend two" the resolution fails, and the one isn't spent, so you still have it.

The resolution does not fail. The effect is resolved partially. Resolution is still successful, albeit not in full. "Resolution fails" or "resolved unsuccessfully" would only be the case if the resolution of an effect didn't change the game state.

To put it more into a more rules based answer:

Each investigator discards one card...

Okay, we go around the table and players 1, 2, and 3 do it, as per the rules of resolving effects and order. Then player 4 says, "I have no cards". The game state changed. Done.

Investigators do not discard cards one by one. The card doesn't say "in player order", and players don't need to make choices, so the entry for "Priority of Simultaneous Resolution" doesn't apply. All cards are discarded simultaneously. Just as you draw 2 cards simultaneously, and place 2 doom simultaneously.

Here's the rule that governs what to do when an effect instructs you to spend 2 clues but you only have 1 clue:

https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Effects

• When a non-targeting effect attempts to interact with a number of entities (such as "draw 3 cards" or "search the top 5 cards of your deck") that exceeds the number of entities that currently exist in the specified game area, the effect interacts with as many entities as possible.

Why does the game state change in that scenario? If you are required to spend two, and only have one, and choose to "spend two" the resolution fails, and the one isn't spent, so you still have it.

The resolution does not fail. The effect is resolved partially. Resolution is still successful, albeit not in full. "Resolution fails" or "resolved unsuccessfully" would only be the case if the resolution of an effect didn't change the game state.

So, when precisely does is stop resolving?

With two clues:

I make the choice to spend two clues.

I pick up my two clues.

I "spend" my two clues.

I put them back into the clue token pile.

Resolution complete.

With one clue:

I make the choice to spend two clues.

I pick up one clue.

I "spend" my one clue.

I... effect incomplete. Clue lost in limbo.

Honestly that's the part I don't get, I would love to know.

To put it more into a more rules based answer:

Each investigator discards one card...

Okay, we go around the table and players 1, 2, and 3 do it, as per the rules of resolving effects and order. Then player 4 says, "I have no cards". The game state changed. Done.

Investigators do not discard cards one by one. The card doesn't say "in player order", and players don't need to make choices, so the entry for "Priority of Simultaneous Resolution" doesn't apply. All cards are discarded simultaneously. Just as you draw 2 cards simultaneously, and place 2 doom simultaneously.

Here's the rule that governs what to do when an effect instructs you to spend 2 clues but you only have 1 clue:

https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Effects

• When a non-targeting effect attempts to interact with a number of entities (such as "draw 3 cards" or "search the top 5 cards of your deck") that exceeds the number of entities that currently exist in the specified game area, the effect interacts with as many entities as possible.

Awesome. That's the part I've been missing!

I still don't agree with the flavoring of how it works out (and again I remind myself this isn't a real card or a real situation)... but that rule makes it that choosing that option becomes valid and has a game state change.

I am surprised by this ruling but I guess that settles it.

This.

Matt's answer actually just makes it vaguer for me.

Also for future effects, probably....and I won't be surprised if Matt changes his mind later on.

This is how I've read it:

The card says: EACH investigator discards a card.

Y'all can't? Then tough luck, go with the second effect.

It's how it's done in LotR, and it is a clear ruling for all those kind of effects.

I know this is a different game, but I'm going to play it like this.

It will make it more difficult, but so be it.

I'm used to this rule, like teamjimby, and will stick with it.

Intuitively, I might have gone with the "no partial resolutions" route, but the quoted rules now make me lean in the other direction.

I do have a question about this rule though:

• When a non-targeting effect attempts to interact with a number of entities (such as "draw 3 cards" or "search the top 5 cards of your deck") that exceeds the number of entities that currently exist in the specified game area, the effect interacts with as many entities as possible.

When does this apply? I mean, if I have to spend two clues to advance the objective, surely this rule doesn't allow me to just spend the one I have? Honest question.

Edit: Reading more, I think it's because paying clues to advance the objective is a cost, not an effect.

It's actually pretty clear to me now, then. In the original hypothetical provided, losing just one clue is valid.

I guess the question comes down to "is this a cost or effect." If it is a cost "spend 2 clues" then you certainly need 2 in order to fulfill that function. If it is an effect, and "spend 2 clues" is the verbiage for "discard 2 clues" then you do not need 2, you just need enough that "discarding 2" changes the game state.

I think this is an effect, not a cost, because it is "choose to either A or B" not "Do x, if you cannot then Y"

It would only be a cost if it said "Spend X clues to do Y."

One nice aspect of Matt's ruling is that it eliminates the corner case where neither effect could be completed in its entirety. For example, if an effect said you must choose to discard 2 cards or spend 2 clues, but you only have 1 of each the effect would be unclear.

One nice aspect of Matt's ruling is that it eliminates the corner case where neither effect could be completed in its entirety. For example, if an effect said you must choose to discard 2 cards or spend 2 clues, but you only have 1 of each the effect would be unclear.

That would be a poorly designed card.

Usually one of the two should be able to be resolved in full.

Like: "or each investigator takes 1 damage/horror."

Or: "or treat each investigator's tekst box as blank until the end of the round."

Or even: "or each investigator get's -1 base will/int/str/agi until the end of the round.