A big discussion is occurring on the reddit board as to when targets have to be chosen. In particular, do you have to indicate the target of a card during the pre-initiation phase or only when the card commences being played (step 3 in the Initiation Sequence: Appendix I of the Rules.)

Example: Say you are engaged with an enemy and have Brother Xavier with 0 damage and your partner has 2 damage. You play Emergency Aid. Do you have to specify that the target is your partner (the only legal target at the time), or is the existence of a legal target enough... because if the existence of a legal target is enough then what could transpire is that you take an Attack of Opportunity, assigning the damage to Xavier, and then when the card actually commences you could now target Xavier, who has damage on him.

I think the rules strongly suggest you have to declare the target in the pre-initiation phase. And for two reasons:

1. During the pre-initiation phase the rules say you must "declare your intent," and I would say that selecting a target counts as part of the declaration of intent.
2. To confirm that the card can change the game state, you have to know beforehand what the targets are. If simply having one target that would change the game state is sufficient, then there is nothing stopping you from eventually selecting another later that would not cause a change of state.

However, I could see another case being made that says "there is a check that the game state could **potentially** be changed during the pre-initiation segment, but then when a target is actually selected, there is another check that that target actually does change the game state (see rules on Targeting), so having someone wait until the card resolves does not compromise the premise that cards should change the game state.

My gut says pre-initiation, but you could always send the question to FFG via their site. It seems entirely too complicated to target something as a result of an effect of a card you haven't yet played.

Either way, this instance seems moot. It's going to heal the same amount either way and I don't see the point in triggering an AoO unless you are trying to trigger an 'on damage' proc'ing ability. Save the card until you won't take damage?

If this is still going in circles on Reddit I'm not sure anything anyone can say here is going to resolve it, but here goes:

The term “choose” indicates that one or more targets must be chosen in order for an ability to resolve. The player resolving the ability must choose a game element (usually a card) that meets the targeting requirements of the ability.

If an ability requires the choosing of a target, and there is no valid target (or not enough valid targets), the ability cannot be initiated.

These are the two relevant parts from "target". "resolve" and "initiated" are addressed distinctly differently. It doesn't say you have to choose the target to initiate it, only that there has to be a valid target. So I think there are two separate pieces: You must have a valid target in order to initiate the ability, but you actually choose those targets when the ability resolves.

I think this actually makes sense. The text, including "choose", doesn't actually do anything unless/until it resolves, so targets are (pretty naturally) chosen during resolution. The part about needing a valid target to initiate is an additional restriction.

Knowing the target isn't actually required to know if you can change the game state. You don't need to know if it WILL actually change the game state, only that it has the potential to. If there is a valid target, that potential is met. When you resolve the ability you then have to select a valid target.

But like I said, I doubt this is going to convince you of anything if the previous discussion hasn't. Just send it to FFG.

8 hours ago, Soakman said:

My gut says pre-initiation, but you could always send the question to FFG via their site. It seems entirely too complicated to target something as a result of an effect of a card you haven't yet played.

Either way, this instance seems moot. It's going to heal the same amount either way and I don't see the point in triggering an AoO unless you are trying to trigger an 'on damage' proc'ing ability. Save the card until you won't take damage?

If you change out Brother Xavier with Guard Dog you get a situation where it is no long unimportant.

If you have guard dog with 0 damage and an enemy 1 point away from death. You want to activate the guard dog's ability to kill the enemy without having to do combat. You have Emergency Aid in your hand. If no one has taken damage, you are not going to be able to play it because there are no valid targets. But if you or another investigator at your location has damage, you are now able to satisfy the pre-initiation requirements. But you quite possibly want to heal the guard dog instead of another ally or your fellow investigator because that means the guard dog can do more damage later on.

So the existence of damage on another card lets you play the Emergency Aid, but it isn't clear whether you can name Guard Dog as a target later on. If so we have a situation where the existence of a damage on a **non-particpating** card makes it legal to do something that you otherwise could not do.

47 minutes ago, FireBones said:

If you change out Brother Xavier with Guard Dog you get a situation where it is no long unimportant.

If you have guard dog with 0 damage and an enemy 1 point away from death. You want to activate the guard dog's ability to kill the enemy without having to do combat. You have Emergency Aid in your hand. If no one has taken damage, you are not going to be able to play it because there are no valid targets. But if you or another investigator at your location has damage, you are now able to satisfy the pre-initiation requirements. But you quite possibly want to heal the guard dog instead of another ally or your fellow investigator because that means the guard dog can do more damage later on.

So the existence of damage on another card lets you play the Emergency Aid, but it isn't clear whether you can name Guard Dog as a target later on. If so we have a situation where the existence of a damage on a **non-particpating** card makes it legal to do something that you otherwise could not do.

I get that there are situations where it could matter, but the one given initially does not really.

Still, I'm having difficulty following a logic that would let you play a card (regardless of what lets you play the card initially), in turn taking damage from an AoO, only to then heal it as the damage that wasn't there when you decided to play the card. Seems too convoluted to bother with, and I prefer simplicity in game design. Not saying that it isn't a legal move for sure, just saying that I find it too much trouble to care about such an edge case and also wouldn't like to see this exploited to make cards that enter the pool later need weird conditional wording.

Honestly, I've always hated pre-initiation checks. They're paradoxical kludges meant to limit cases where paying a cost to do nothing can provide some benefit. It's far cleaner if cards just do what they say when they take effect.

On 9/7/2017 at 3:49 PM, Soakman said:

I get that there are situations where it could matter, but the one given initially does not really.

Still, I'm having difficulty following a logic that would let you play a card (regardless of what lets you play the card initially), in turn taking damage from an AoO, only to then heal it as the damage that wasn't there when you decided to play the card. Seems too convoluted to bother with, and I prefer simplicity in game design. Not saying that it isn't a legal move for sure, just saying that I find it too much trouble to care about such an edge case and also wouldn't like to see this exploited to make cards that enter the pool later need weird conditional wording.

There is a difference between "simple" and "reasonable/in-line with game's intentions). Trying to carve down the set of legal plays to a consistent logic in which the AoO cannot be used as a crutch actually leads to the most complex set of rules. To see what I mean...

I see qualitatively different situations:

1. You have to select your target during pre-initiation.

2. You do not have to select a target during pre-initiation, but the target you end up selecting had to have been a valid target prior when the intention of the card was initially provided. (i.e., when pre-initiation began).

3. You do not have to select a target during pre-initiation, and you can select any target when card resolves that is legal at that time.

It is easy to imagine a case where 1 and 2 are different. Imagine you are engaged with an enemy that has the text "when XXX attacks you, lose a random asset." Now, say you have two allies, and both have damage on them. You play Emergency Aid, and there is definitely an eligible target, but after the AoO, one of your allies may be removed, but the other could still be healed.

I would say that number 2 is most in line with what might be considered the spirit of play... targets are chosen when cards resolve, but you cannot rely on an AoO or other pre-commencement steps to do something you would not otherwise be able to do. However, number 2 is also the most complex, because you now have to stipulate that the target would have been legal both **before** the card commences and **when** the card commencements---meaning that the action would have led to a change in game state originally and also leads to a change in game state right now.

Compare that to number 3, which can be boiled down to a simple, 2-step rubric:

A. There must be at least 1 eligible target when a player attempts to play the card.

B. Any legal target can be chosen at the point of time when the card actually resolves.

The above may allow for complex maneuvers, but the rules themselves are simple to state.

Matt Newman responded to my email for clarification:

With regard to the statement that a player "declares his or her intent" during the pre-initiation phase:

This sentence should be taken to mean “declares his or her intent to play the card or initiate the ability.” You are not required to choose targets or declare what you wish to do with the card or effect at that time.

He elaborates:

*cough* Nailed it *cough*

Good to know. Thanks for the update on the response.