The card Endless Interrogation's cost is zero and says, " Response: After you succeed at a story, discard a card at random from each opponent's hand. Then, you may pay 1 to return Endless Interrogation to your hand instead of discarding it."

While playing with my friends the other day we argued whether or not this card could be played multiple times on the same turn at the end of the story phase after succeeding at a story. As long as you have enough domains shouldn't you be allowed to play this card multiple times? Maybe you need to have succeeded at multiple story's to play it multiple times?

i would say it depends on the amount of stories won, and domains left, so for example, you win one story, play card, oponents discard, you drain domain, to get card back, resolve next story, if you have another domain to drain then you could play it again to get it back or play again and lose it

as long as you can pay the 0 cost to play it again sure. nothing says you cant trigger a response more than once if you still meet the requirements and can pay for it.

I'm not sure about that though...page 13 of the rulebook states

"Note that a response may take effect multiple times if multiple copies of that effect are in play (but still only once per card trigger)"

How long do you have before you the requirements of a response trigger have worn off?

i believe it s a new card since it left play.

suppose you play aspiring artists, draw 2 cards, then play thing behind you. now if you play that same aspiring artist you still get to draw 2 more cards, right? except in this case endless has a built in thing behind you.

PearlJamaholic said:

Actually, in the case of Endless Interrogation, the card doesn't leave play if the 'return to hand' effect is triggered:

Endless Interrogation - Response: After you succeed at a story, discard a card at random from each opponent's hand. Then you may pay 1 to return Endless Interrogation to your hand instead of discarding it.

FAQ: (v1.0) Replacement Effects
The word “instead” lies at the heart of the replacement effect, as it allows the new effect to occur in place of the effect it is replacing. Therefore, the original effect does not occur, the new effect occurs instead.

So in this case I think that it is the "same" Endless Interrogation card, and the "once per card per trigger" kicks in and you can't play it again. Now, if you had two Endless Interrogations in your hand, you'd be able to play each of them once. (For fairness, you might have to show both to your opponent toprove you have two, but that's probably getting picky).

In the example of the aspiring artist / thing behind you, there is also the slight nuance that the two plays of the artist are two separate actions and not both responses to a different event, but that's wholly irrelevant here I think. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that the card leaving play to the discard pile makes it a "new" card and therefore able to trigger again anyway (I'm on the fence, I can see it both ways actually), but that's a whole different discussion.

Thanks to KallistiBRC and Mechspike, you did notice the two rule lines that makes me said you can only trigger this effect multiple time in the same story phase if you were succesfull in multiples stories.

Of course, you're right saying that not the same deal if you get multiple copies of the endledd interrogations.

@KallistiBRC : I remember an article Cannon wrote a long time ago ... He did explains that's there is no card memory in this game, like in others CCGs that might have. Only trigger and windows of response. We had the same argumentation with card destroyed and rejoigning play via Hungry Dark Young. The trigger is met once again and do occurs. there is no consideration the card is new or not!

At worlds this card was ruled that you can re-play this card as many times as you like (assuming you can continue to drain domains). The game doesn't consider your hand in play so the game cannot 'remember' that you used a single card already once it has left play (either by returning to your hand or is sent to your discard pile). So it acts like you are playing a whole new card effect.

The force is strong in this one.

Then that's a ruling that is wrong and in direct opposition to the FAQ. It doesn't have anything to do with "remembering" the status of the card at all.

The phrase "pay 1 instead of discarding" means that the card is never discarded and instead placed back in the hand. It is the same card, triggered multiple times for the response, which is just flat out against the rules. You'd need one of two things to happen:

1) Multiple copies of the card in your hand to trigger on one story success.

2) One copy of the card in your hand to trigger on multiple story successes one after the other.

(of course, you could have multiple copies to trigger for multiple successes, which is just a combination of rules 1 and 2. And woe be to the opponent of that)

Now, I'm not saying that I'm a big expert on the rules, the people at World's were silly, or anything like that. Just looking at the existing rules, clearly written, as seems to apply directly to this discussion. There are rules that address using cards multiple times in response to the same event (you can't do it). There is nothing in the FAQ or rulebook about "remembering" or "not remembering" the status of cards of your hand. Now if they want to add something in there about your hand being "opaque to the permanent quasi Shroedinger status of card existence and remembrance" I'll be glad to accept that ruling. As it stands now, however, there is nothing in there about it. All there is is a rule that says the same card can't be triggered twice in response to an event. And you've returned the card instead of discarding it.

In fact, if you want to get right down to it, the phrase "return it to your hand" has, at its heart, the implicit argument that it is, in fact, the exact same card.

Thinking about it a little further... the ruling that they made at worlds has the implication that transient cards like Visiting Author can never be returned to your hand. Since, they've "left play", they no longer have any "remembered status" you can't argue that it was the copy of the card that entered the discard pile this phase, and you can't pay one to return it to your hand.

For me, the explication of KallistiBRC is correct and repose well on the rules.

In staleck we have played the card like worlds and we have played wrong. The demonstration of KallistiBRC works well because of the "instead of" rules (a replacement effect that is not the case for the Visiting author right). So it's not because you play card in one way during an official event that it was the good way to play it, it can be change after when you take time to think about cards (the faq or forums are there to talk about that).

An actually, in thinking about the transient case a bit more, it is unrelated. Since the text is an action that allows it to be played from the trash as opposed to a response for entering the trash, it's actually a different case. And in rereading the FAQ, there's a specific spot in their dealing with transients and the play from trash ability.

KallistiBRC said:

It doesn't matter where the card ends up after the effect is resolved. Unless the card is actually, physically 'in play'' and remains in play after the effect is resolved the "cannot trigger multiple times off of the same card" rule doesn't apply once the card is back out of play (aka in your hand or discard pile).

I think I may of figured out what some people are stumbling on.

In the FAQ under Playing Events:

(v1.0) Playing Events
When a player plays an event (from his hand), it doesn’t immediately go into his discard pile. It is placed in his discard pile after the action is complete.

All Endless Interrogation does is say that instead of placing it into the discard pile after your resolved its effect return it to your hand if you paid 1. Under the assumption that you did pay the 1 (for agrument's sake) after you completed the task of your opponent discarding a card at random Endless Interrogation then returns to your hand. The next step is to see if either player has any additional respsones to the resolution of a story card. After the opponent does (or doesn't) do something Player A (the one now holding Endless Interrogation), can now use another reponse. It can be anything, playing another response from his hand, triggering a card in play such as Monster Hunter. It doesn't really matter.

The point I'm drawing is, that the game does not check cards used as resources under domain cards, players hands, or discard piles to see if a card has been triggered already or not. It only checks cards that are currently in play. And since Endless Interrogation is now in the hand you are free to play it. Even though we may know that it is the same card (for instance if Player A has only 1 card in his hand), the game views it as that Player A is playing a new card.

In more of a step by step process:

1. End of Story resolution
2. Player A declares a response to him succeeding at a story.
3. Player A pays 0 and plays Endless Interrogation.
4. Player B has no disrupts and discards a card at random, then Player A drains a domain and pays 1.
5. Since 1 was paid to trigger the replacement effect the card returns to Player A's hand.
6. Player B has a chance to declare a response and passes.
7. Player A declares a response to him succeeding at a story.
8. Player A pays 0 and plays Endless Interrogation.
etc...

At step 8 he could play anything he wants provided that it meets the condition, but for typing sake I skipped to Endless I.

In conclusion, when player A goes to declare a response the game 'checks' to see what has been done already and due to the rule 'cards in play can not be triggered multiple times' Player A is locked out of using anything that is in play that hes used already. However, he can still play cards from his hand as they are not 'in play'. Since Endless Interrogation is NOT in play, he is able to play it (at this point i"m not sure how many times I've repeated myself so I apoligize if its getting annoying lol).

So passer-bys can easily notice this without missing it amongst the hunk of text above.

I'm saying that:
You can play a single copy of Engless Interrogation mulitple times provided that you continue to pay 1 and are able to play cards from your hand.

First, for context, I *love* Endless Interrogation as it is an integral part of one of my decks. I'd absolutely love to play with the rule as was judged at Worlds, so believe me when I say I'm not arguing this just to be a pain in your hindquarters, or arguing just for the sake of arguing. I really just want to make sure that we get it right.

I understand fully the timing for responses, the back and forth nature, all of that. I also understand that cards in hand are not considered "in play". My only problem with this ruling, is that I've not read anything in the official LCG rules (be it posted here from a FFG type person, in the rulebook, or in the FAQ) about there being a "resetting" of the card once it leaves play that allows it to be played again as a response . When cards leave play, I have no problem with them now being available to be played as new actions or in response to a new response window. Now, if whomever made the ruling at Worlds was an FFG rule person, then we can probably consider that to be an official source (and they should get the FAQ updated accordingly).

There is that one section in the FAQ where they talk about the card having all attachments going away, insanity going away, events ending, etc etc when a card leaves play. [Quoted here: Similarly, after a card is placed in the discard pile, returned to a player’s hand, or leaves play for any reason, any effects and/or wounds are removed after all responses have resolved. Any attachments attached to a card that left play are discarded, unless otherwise stated in game text.] I've bolded a section for relevance. I believe that bolded section implies that wherever the card has left play to (hand, discard pile, player's pocket, crumpled up in the trash, etc) it's ready for new actions or a different response window. (That is actually something I wasn't aware of BTW. That a card's given effects persist through the entire response window even it leaves play as part of the first response)

Similarly, the only things I've been able to find regarding responses being able to be played are the following two sections. And I think that it can be implied from these two rules that there does exist a quasi memory of the card having already been played for a response, regardless of it's resulting location:

[Rulebook : A response cannot be played until the effect that triggers it has fully resolved. A response can only be played once per trigger. ]

[FAQ : Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player.]

Now, the only way these two rules cannot be 100% in opposition to each other is if it is understood that they mean "once per card". I think we're all in total agreement on this, ignoring the specific endless interrogation case. For example, if you had three copies of Muddy Water in play and then you sent some poor character to the discard pile. You could, in response to that, trigger each copy of your Muddy Water, providing that you give your opponent a chance to respond to the character entering the discard pile once per trigger of your Muddy Water.

The whole last paragraph is to emphasize that I believe we all have no problem with the "multiple responses to a single event" part of the issue. Nor do we have any issue with a single card being played multiple times in response to multiple different events. We're all good on both of those.

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the only issue under contention, as far as I see it, is whether Endless Interrogation returning to the hand allows it to be played again in response to the same event. My point is that all the rules shown indicate that the spirit of the issue here is that no, the same card can't be used twice for the same event. I don't see anything in the rules that have at their heart the concept that a card resets it's "already been played for a response" status when it leaves play.

****Can't get the quote thing to work the way I want it to. My responses are in italics.*****

First, for context, I *love* Endless Interrogation as it is an integral part of one of my decks. I'd absolutely love to play with the rule as was judged at Worlds, so believe me when I say I'm not arguing this just to be a pain in your hindquarters, or arguing just for the sake of arguing. I really just want to make sure that we get it right.

Me too! Love the card, cut it right before Worlds for tempo reasons, but loved it during the league when I had some domains open and my opponent having cards in hand . Don't worry, I have no agression towards you, in fact I love having the discussion. I can only hope that I wasn't coming off rude earlier. Certainly wasn't my intent, but since I didn't review a thing before posting (and still haven't re-read previous posts)... Just... sorry if I gave off the wrong impression. Above all, I too just want to get it right as well. Can't think of too many things I hate more than a bad ruling (whether i benefit or not, I hate em).

Now, if whomever made the ruling at Worlds was an FFG rule person, then we can probably consider that to be an official source (and they should get the FAQ updated accordingly).

Myself, John Sweigart III (I think) were in a league game when I asked Jim Black about it who then brought Nate (at the time still lead developer for the game) over to hand out a final ruling and the explantion.

Which was more or less - The game doesn't check your hand while enforceing the "...A response can only be played once per trigger" rule so it doesn't/can't remember that you previously played the single copy of Endless Interrogation.

Hard to remember, but when things like this come up I usually suggest things like this be added to the FAQ/Errata/Rulings book so I'm not sure if I suggested it or not. Hardly matters now though. Hata is in charge now .

There is that one section in the FAQ where they talk about the card having all attachments going away, insanity going away, events ending, etc etc when a card leaves play.

I've bolded a section for relevance. I believe that bolded section implies that wherever the card has left play to (hand, discard pile, player's pocket, crumpled up in the trash, etc) it's ready for new actions or a different response window.

I don't believe that ruling is relevant to this particular case as its all in reference to a card(s) that is in play .

Similarly, the only things I've been able to find regarding responses being able to be played are the following two sections. And I think that it can be implied from these two rules that there does exist a quasi memory of the card having already been played for a response, regardless of it's resulting location:

[Rulebook : A response cannot be played until the effect that triggers it has fully resolved. A response can only be played once per trigger. ]

[FAQ : Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player.]

Now, the only way these two rules cannot be 100% in opposition to each other is if it is understood that they mean "once per card".

Agreed with one nitpick. The game only sees the playing of a second Endless Interrogation as a completely new card.

Reason being that once the first one's effect has completely resloved it is no longer in play (even though it technically never entered play to begin with but you get my meaning). So the game has no way of knowing that when you go to play Endless Interrogation that it is the same card. Wether we know as players or not doesn't matter. Since the game doesn't (i know it was a suggested add, I'm not actually referring to that suggestion when I say this) force you to reveal 2+ copies of Endless Interrogation to prove that you do indeed have 2 copies in your hand then game logic has to default into thinking that its a new card since the game doesn't check a player's hand.

I think we're all in total agreement on this, ignoring the specific endless interrogation case. For example, if you had three copies of Muddy Water in play and then you sent some poor character to the discard pile. You could, in response to that, trigger each copy of your Muddy Water, providing that you give your opponent a chance to respond to the character entering the discard pile once per trigger of your Muddy Water.

The whole last paragraph is to emphasize that I believe we all have no problem with the "multiple responses to a single event" part of the issue. Nor do we have any issue with a single card being played multiple times in response to multiple different events. We're all good on both of those.

Ya, definately in agreement.

Side note* - I think this is possibly the most complicated ruling to hand out to date in CoC LCG. Without a clear ruling in at least the FAQ/Errata book its kinda hard (at least for me aparently) to explain. Though, I suppose if I actually took time to carefully plan out and review my own post before submitting instead of typing it up as I think of it and then rushing off things might of been different.

Oh! How about this. As an alternate approach think about it this way. Player A has two copies of Endless Interrogation. Plays one and returns it to his hand. Player A wants to use his second one, but if the game was ruled as your saying, he couldn't because the game would already think that it was used. He can't just reveal his two cards to prove otherwise... So when thinking about it that way... it can't work that way. Unless of course a specific rule was added. Until then, Nate's original ruling definately seems correct to me.

EDIT: Stupid Code. works like this on every other forum or message board I know, why in the world won't it work here!?

Many EDITS later: Thing just isn't working for me, my responses are in italics.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Me too! Love the card, cut it right before Worlds for tempo reasons, but loved it during the league when I had some domains open and my opponent having cards in hand . Don't worry, I have no agression towards you, in fact I love having the discussion. I can only hope that I wasn't coming off rude earlier. Certainly wasn't my intent, but since I didn't review a thing before posting (and still haven't re-read previous posts)... Just... sorry if I gave off the wrong impression. Above all, I too just want to get it right as well. Can't think of too many things I hate more than a bad ruling (whether i benefit or not, I hate em).

Ah no, don't get me wrong. I included that disclaimer due to the fact that no matter how many times I reread what I wrote , I couldn't read it as being anything but snippy, and didn't want you to think I was trying to give off that impression. Also, not sure why the quote system wasn't working for you, it seemed right. I generally just click the quote button, and cut and paste the starting/ending quote tags. Very odd... best to blame Yog.

EDIT: Grrr the quotes are fighting me now too. As much as I love FFG, I *hate* their custom forum nonsense. I can't manage to unquote my response below, so you'll just have to read it inline I guess.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Well, technically speaking, while it's resolving it's in play... not relevant here though I agree. What I meant by that cited text was just to show the understood manner of how things resolve while in play, and the spirit behind the "once per" clause.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Agreed about the complicated ruling for sure. There's nothing wrong w/ the way you explained it at all, just the fact that the FAQ/Errata is missing a *VERY* critical ruling for the final correct interpretation. Without that "already played" memory thing, I can easily see the ruling going either way on this. And I'd be willing to bet that a tournament director, unaware of Nate's ruling or this discussion of ours, could easily rule either way based on their own interpretation of the underlying rules.

As for your second example there with the two cards, I think the ruling my way definitely means he could play the second copy by showing the two copies. There's nothing in the rules about revealing your hand voluntarily (some other FFG games do have that if I recall. Knizia's Lord of the Rings for example) so if there was the idea of an already played status, then performing the reveal would be a necessary and intrinsic component of enforcement of that rule.

Also, and this speaks towards the "intent" or "spirit" of certain rules... Even with the FAQ in place, it's easy to twist written rules and errata to come up with things that are backed by the rules, but obviously not the intent. And it seems like my interpretation of the "already played" status might be falling into that category. I wasn't aware of this idea that the game doesn't keep track of the card already having been played when it goes back to the hand, so I was just lumping it together with the "one use of a physical card's trigger per result" intent.

Soooo I'm guessing that in the future tournament directors will need to be informed of said ruling by Nate if it comes up? I'd still really like to see something in the FAQ about this and other possible future cards like it. (Thankfully the syndicate "0 cost pay 1 to return" is an action, not a response)

For example... watch how I use the FAQ/RULES here to say you can't return Endless Interrogation to your hand if it's the only card in your hand when you play it...

1) You have 1 card in your hand.

2) You play Endless Interrogation

3) While in play, you try and pay one for the "then" clause and return it to your hand.

4) Your opponent now trotts out this rule in the FAQ:

(v1.0) Player Hand
A player only has a “hand” if said player has at least one drawn card not currently in play. Thus, if a player does not possess at least one unplayed drawn card, he does not have a “hand” for the purposes of triggering effects, paying costs, or being targeted by card effects

Said silly opponent in #4 could now claim that since you don't have a hand, you can't return anything to it. Since the return location is the target of "where to return it" Clearly trying to manipulate the rules against the spirit of what the card it supposed to do.

(Note: I intentionally created a nonsense situation here, instead of possibly making something real. There is SOOO much wrong with that example, please don't think I'm serious about it being an actual valid rule possibility. For example, you'd have to accept that the "where to return it" is somehow a target (which it isn't), you'd have to not know I truncated the FAQ ruling (it has 'that require having a hand' at the end of it), and all sorts of other nonsense. The example is really intended to show only that sometimes, you do have to eventually fall back to the intent of the rules in the absence of anything else)

All I can say is... at least its not just me... stupid coding...

FAQ bound for sure this is... if not then...man... I can only see future problems similiar to the one you projected.

As for the just reveal both thing...

That can't be healthy for the game unless it comes with an attached rule(s). Most likely it would be rules over rule. Cause then you have to penalize people for revealing cards when they didn't mean to, or at the wrong time... Ick. Thats just off the top of my head, but probably necessary. Makes for some icky game-play.

Inserting silly example:
1. Player A drops a couple copies of an event card that has a response to something that happened.
2. Player B sees it and says "You revealed it, that means your playing it."

Bleh... but sadly that crap does happen in some games.

Really this situation isn't much better than my silly example, but meh. Things can always be messed up if you read it the wrong way... check out this one:

(v1.0) Player Hand
A player only has a “hand” if said player
has at least one drawn card not currently
in play. Thus, if a player does not possess
at least one unplayed drawn card, he
does not have a “hand” for the purposes
of triggering effects, paying costs, or
being targeted by card effects that
require having a “hand.”

Now, ok, I play Endless Interrogation which was my only card in hand. Remember, it's effect says "Then, you may pay 1 to return Endless Interrogation to your hand instead of discarding it."

Well, ok, once I play it my hand is now empty and according to that rule I have no hand so it can't be targeted by a card effect that requires me to have a hand. E.I. says I have to return it to my hand (the target), but I don't have one... so it can't be targeted. However, under the replacement effect rule it can't go to the discard pile so....

Oh wait, I got another one. Ok, I have 1 card in hand, Shocking Transformation. I sac my only guy while playing it to get descendant of eibon. it dies, but I discard my only success token to put it into play to get to a story which i fail to get any additional success tokens. Ok, by the effect it goes to my hand (or does it?), but I didn't draw Descendant so... do I have a hand?

I guess my point is the FAQ is not infallable, but somehow people have to use a careful mixture of intent, common sense, game logic, and fairness when this like this are open to interpretation. For me, the result comes from mostly game logic and Nate's intent (which thankfully I had some first hand experience to his intent at least). Common sense was a little fuzy (under the hard copy of a card agrument), and fairness was out the window. The inheirent nature of Rituals is BROKEN. Reason I suggest that rituals have the rule "each player can only play/use 1 ritual card/effect per phase" added to the core rule book. But hey, thats just me. Though, if that were to be accepted... this situation wouldn't of ever happened to begin with. The game would just be better in every way. Again... just my opinion...

PS. I couldn't find a good place to make this joke, but it has to get out.

"I'm gonna go HULK on this RULE!"

Magnus Arcanis said:

But... but... you copied the "return to an empty hand" example from my post!! I do find it funny that both of us came upon this same potential issue w/ the FAQ.

There are a few problems with it, BTW. Taking a look at the last clause of the rule...

1) purpose of triggering effect

2) paying cost

3) being targeted by card effects that require having a hand

#1 doesn't apply. That would be something like "exhaust Librarian to look at player's hand"

#2 doesn't apply. That would be something like "discard a card to win the game" (I want that card!!)

#3 doesn't apply. Since the player's hand is never the target of an effect requiring having a hand. That would be something like Byakhee Attack that you can't play unless the opponent has at least two cards.

Byakhee attack surprised me actually. Until I saw the ruling in the FAQ, I thought I could use it to make the opp discard their last card. But they have to have two cards in hand. Bummer.

Also... rituals? What's a ritual? something from the black border CCG days?

Hi,

as I understand you cannot play action or response cards in between story resolutions, therefore you cannot trigger the cards multiple times.

Once you start the story resolution phase you have to resolve all of them in the order decided by the active player. At the end of the phase you can play actions cards and responses. Am I wrong ?

msommi said:

Well, mostly. Your are right in that you can't do actions or repsonse while your resloving stories, but after the stories are all resolved you can. The argument within this thread is not about how many times something triggers, but whether or not Endless Interrogation can be played multiple times in response to a single trigger. Which... it can. NOTE* This is faciliated only be the fact that it is not in play and is being played from the hand. Cards in play cannot be triggered mulitple times to the same trigger unless a player controls more than one copy of that card in play. yadda yadda yadda.

To Kal,

Meant to say 'ritual-like effect.' Though really, after reading this card I wondered if it was missing the ritual subtype... its soo similiar to several other (past) ritual cards that it may as well been a ritual too. To the point where I think I actually forgot that E.I. wasn't a ritual.

msommi said:

msommi said:

You understand it mostly correctly. You cannot play actions during the story resolutions unless those actions are Disrupts. You cannot trigger responses during story resolution unless those responses are Forced Responses (which must trigger). Passive trigger instantly during story resolution like a Forced Response. The only difference being that they are not able to be cancelled.

Once the resolution phase is done, players then have an option to respond to the things that happened. So, in this case, whenever the response window for succeeding at a story opens up, the active player gets a response opportunity, then the non active player gets a response opportunity, and this keeps alternating back and forth until both players pass on their ability to take a response to that specific story success, and it moves to the next response.

So, for example:

Let's assume the non active player (B) is the one with Endless Interrogation.

[story Resolution Phase] - Grey box, only Disrupts, Forced Responses, Passive Effects. ALL stories resolve here.

Player A wins story 1.

Player B succeeds at story 2.

Player A succeeds at story 3.

[Response Phase]

Eventually, the response window for player B succeeding at story 2 will open.

Player A: No response, pass.

Player B: Endless Interrogation, return to hand.

Player A: No response, pass.

Player B: Endless Interrogation, return to hand.

Player A: No response, pass.

Player B: No response, pass.

Now, play continues. Perhaps a response window opens up to stuff happening at other stories, perhaps not. New actions may be played, etc.

The fact that you play the responses after the story phase doesn't matter. That's when the response window actually opens up. And you can play multiple response to a single event.

Heh... what Magnus said. He beat me to the posting by a few seconds apparently.

I R NINJAZ!

(insert evil laugh)

/vanish back into the darkness

Magnus Arcanis said:

i think that was the ladies bathroom.....

PearlJamaholic said:

Just as if not more mysterious... I hear they have a coach!