Lobber Crew reads:

Kingdom . Action: Sacrifice this unit to force an opponent to sacrifice a unit he controls, if able.

When I use this action, it creates a LIFO stack (or can be added to one already in progress). So, does the sacrafice happen during "payment" to add to the stack? In other words, do you have to sacrifice the unit to add the action to the stack or just announce you are adding the action to the stack then sacrifice the unit during resolution of the stack?

This also brings up Brutal Offering which reads:

ACTION: Sacrifice a Unit. If you do, deal X damage to each unit in all Battlefields, where X is the sacrificed Unit's Power.

In this case it is my understanding that you sacrafice the unit during resolution but I could be wrong. I do feel that whatever happens for one should happen for the other I just cannot figure out which way it should be.

It is also important to note that if you do not sacrafice the lobber crew as payment, the you could add the action over and over to the current stack as you see fit so that no matter what your opponent does, the lobber crew will resolve first (which means your opponent cannot steal one of your units in order to sacrifice with take captive! or grasping darkness.

Things (actions) can't be added to a stack without paying their costs - else you could say you're playing something from your hand without paying its cost in order to add to the stack at a certain time. Gotta pay it's cost to start it off (and add to stack if there is one).

SO opponent scarifices Lobber Crew to activate its action. You respond with Grasping Darkness. He's already "gone" when you play Grasping (just like you already paid your resources to play Grasping Darkness), but the order should play out that you gain control of Lobber Crew, then Lobber Crew's effect resolves. SO i suppose the question is: who sacrifices a unit? you - because you were the opponent when the action was triggered, or your opponent - because he is now the opponent of Lobber Crew now that you control it ?

In reading your response I'm still a little confused. Do you sac lobber crew to add him to the stack or during resolution?

It seems like you are saying you sac him during resolution otherwise if the lobber crew power is activated by sacrificing him, then he would not be a target for grasping darkness in the current stack.

Let me explain by an example (which one is the correct way?):

1 - Sac in payment
Creating Stack:
a - My opponent sac's Lobber Crew to make me sac a unit, then places lobber crew in discard pile as payment.
b - I play Grasping Darkness to grab one of his units
Resolving Stack:
b - I grab a unit (lets say Spider Riders)
a - I sac a unit I control (gonna be those Spider Riders)

2 - Sac in resolution
Creating Stack:
a - My opponent declares he is using the Lobber Crew's action to make me sac a unit, he keeps his unit on the board but pays the sac during resolution.
b - I play Grasping Darkness to grab one of his units
c - He can again use the Lobber Crew action to make me sac a unit (why not? it is still on the board to be used this way and he will pay the sac in resolution).
Resolving Stack:
c - He does the action which sacs the Lobber Crew then forces me to sac a unit
b - I grab a unit (lets say Spider Riders but it really doesnt matter at this point)
a - He does not sac the Lobber Crew since it is already gone and therefore this action does not happen (but it really already happened earlier).

So which way is correct?

the first example is correct.

**This is if you play Grasping Darkness IN RESPONSE TO Lobber Crew. The other way around, Grasping Darkness really doesnt circumvent LC at all.

what i was saying (now incorrectly as i think about it more) is that i was implying that maybe the lobber crew doesnt hit the discard pile right away (it's on its way there) until after stack is resolved. And also that resolutions are 'checked' once they happen in their order in the stack. So that -

1. you sac LC to activate its action (you sacrifice to pay for).

2. i play GD. i pay 3 to play.

*STACK TIME!!!* (here's the weird part):

3. GD's effect resolves: i technically & virtually gain control of LC (even though he's "on his way" (like...hate to use the word, but "limbo") to the discard pile because cost already paid, is what i meant)

4. LC effect resolves: i'm now its owner - you're now LC's opponent - you must sacrifice a unit.

so my 3,4 PROBABLY doesnt work, but what you laid out certainly does. The outcomes may seem the same, but what i described can be done if Orc player only has the LC in play (its effect wouldn't resolve) vs. requiring another low-cost unit in what you described. but i'll bet that mine can't be done anyway

I don't like Lobber Crew lol.

Yea I dont like LC either but it would be insanely overpowered if you sacraficed it in resolution. Thanks for the clarification.

Ehhhh...not trying to be a brainiac , but neither the card nor the rules say that one part of an action's effect is a payment and another part is not. It all happens when it gets it's turn after waiting in line. Which could be why they installed Forced effects in the first place: to make sure certain things aren't preempted by response actions.

Overseer Lazarus said:

Page 15 of the rulebook states:

"All costs must be played (I think this is a typo and meant to be PAYED) and any targets must be chosen when the action is triggered, reguardless of whether or not the effect resolves immediately."

So yea, that is what the question really is: is the sacrifice considered a payment to trigger the action? Or, is the declaring the action a trigger in itself and the sacrifice part of the effect which gets resolved when the LIFO stack gets resolved.

The "Illegal Target" section of the FAQ has LC as an example:

"For example: Flames of Tzeentch (CC 102) which
reads “Action: Deal X damage to one target unit.”
Bob plays Flames of Tzeentch, paying 1 resource
and targeting Charlie’s Lobber Crew (CC 66). In
response, Charlie decides to use the Lobber Crew’s
ability which reads “Action: Sacrifice this unit to
force an opponent to sacrifice a unit he controls, if
able.” Because Charlie plays his action in response
to Bob’s Flames of Tzeentch, it resolves first.
Charlie’s Lobber Crew is sacrificed as a cost for
its own effect, and that effect resolves fully before
Bob’s Flames of Tzeentch resolves. When it comes
time for Bob’s Flames of Tzeentch to resolve, it
now sees that the target of the effect is now illegal
(since it was removed from play) and the card effect
is cancelled. Flames of Tzeentch then goes to the
discard pile."

The sacrifice definetely seems like a payment. I think the test is, replace the "sacrifice" part of the text with "Pay one resource." Now, ask the question again; the answer should be quite clear. I would say that any time an action (note: lower case "a," not to be confused with "Action:") is taken to trigger an "Action:," that action is considered payment.

Also, if you think through the results of treating the "sacrifice" as a payment and as an effect, the answer should be evident. If the "sacrifice" is part of the effect and not a trigger, then it would be impossible to stop an opponent from using the "Action:." Unless it has some kind of payment involved, it can be activating over and over again until it passes.

RM

I do not have rulebook handy, but I believe the definition of sacrifice also would be relevant to consider. if I remember correctly sacrifices cannot be stopper or interrupted. i would say the sacrifice is a cost paid when you announce the action so the RL cannot be stolen after you announce its use.

So we know nothing, we only use other CCG rules to find how to play with W:I.

Sacrifice, sometime is a cost, sometime not.

The "Illegal Target" section of the FAQ has LC as an example where they use SAC as a cost.

"Charlie’s Lobber Crew resolves first.
Charlie’s Lobber Crew is sacrificed as a cost for
its own effect, and that effect resolves fully before
Bob’s Flames of Tzeentch resolves."

It's a cost but they do SAC during resolve time.

Rock Lobber : Action: Pay 2 resources and sacrifice
Nurgle Sorcerer : Action: Spend 3 resources to

Pistoliers : Action: Spend 1 resource to

Grudge Thrower : Action: Spend 1 resource and sacrifice

If spend = pay why to they use "spend".

Can I use Pistoliers's action and spend 0 ressource ? So I don't move them but i used the ability.

I think yes because I can play "Brutal Offering" without SAC a unit.

I checked the rules and RexGator is correct. "Any time a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, the card is placed in its owner's discard pile. A sacrifice is absolute, and cannot be cancelled by other effects."

Elyandel, your comments seem to be a little off base. It would seem that you can play Brutal Offering and choose not to sacrifice a unit, but in doing so you are choosing not to activate the "Action:." As per the rulebook, "Actions are always optional." However, as per the Errata, "If a card has multiple effects, all effects resolve if possible." Whether the "Sacrifice a unit." on Brutal Offering is a payment or not, if you choose to activate the action you MUST sacrifice a unit AND deal damage if you are able to.

I should think that if such a rule exists for multiple effects, the same logic ought to be applied to single effect Actions (even though this is not explicitly stated in the rules). Therefore, if you choose to activate the Pistoliers' Action, you must "Spend one resource to move this unit from its current zone to another of your zones." Please note this IS one effect.

That said, one defintion of "spend" is "to pay out (money)." Why do they use "spend" on some cards and "pay" on others? It's simply inconistent use of grammar, see the Shadow Warrior thread.

RM

How to determine if something is a cost - Do X to do Y. If a card says you do one thing to have something else happen it is a cost.

Sac'ing the Lobber is a cost. The card is immediately considered sacrificed even though it may remain on the table as an indicator of its effect and position in the action chain. Once it has been sacrificed it can no longer be legally targeted by any effect that would remove it from play or transfer control of it to another player since it is no longer considered to be in play.

i believe the example in the FAQ (flames of tzeentch & lobber crew) suffers from syntactic ambiguity (phrase structure). It simply states that LC's cost for its action is paid and then its effect resolves first (because it is last in stack). Because of the ambiguity of the timing in the sentence, it isn't explicit as to when LC is actually sacrificed (because essentially the resolution of its effect comes right after its cost because it is last.) However, considering the rulebook states all costs must be played (paid?) when the action is triggered ... regardless whether or not the effect resolves immediately, i'm sure the LC gets sac'ed right away. The '"1" that's paid in the example seems to reiterate this, even though the Action: for FoT costs nothing to trigger.

ty dormouse - why i retracted my original thinking because even if it was in "limbo" somewhere, it would be out of play and thus not targetable by Grasping Darkness.

Flames of Tzeentch can only cost nothing only if X=0 in which case there is no real effect from the card to worry about resolving. X must be paid when the card is played from hand or it can deal no damage... there is a difference in how these cards are formatted though because FoT is a tactic so the cost of the card in resources is the cost to play it from hand, where the cost for Lobbers effect is stated in the card text.

Under Terminology Clarifications in the FAQ 1.0, they define C ost with "Any reference to cost in a card effect always references the top left number printed on the card." Additionally, on page 7 of the Rulebook, in the Card Anatomy Key, Cost is defined as "The number of resource tokens a player needs to pay in order to play this card from his hand." In the same Key, under point 9, Card Text, it says "The special effects unique to that card."

Welp, that about wraps that up. Whoever's the last one out, be sure to let the dog back in and turn off the lights. Thanks!

Overseer Lazarus said:

I sent a rules question to James about activating Prepare for War, asking if I could choose to reshuffle the unit that was sacrificed. He responded that I could not because "targets are chosen before costs are paid." So, evidently, they intend for anything that shows up before "to" in gametext to be a "cost" for rules purposes.

So we have "cost" as a game term to be referenced by cards (e.g. Dwarven Cannon Crew) and "cost" as a rules term, which is anything you have to do to generate the effect. I agree that this could have been made clearer in the rules.

Honestly they could have called it "Fran" and it wouldn't change the fact when you are told something must be done in oder for this other thing to be done the common vernacular for that in English is cost. We could also call it fine, fee, requirement, tribute etc... but cost is the common term most of us would naturally use.

The cost to play a card is always going to be the resources in the upper left hand corner, the cost to trigger an ability will always be defined in that ability as what condition must be met before the effect activates.

I'm not sure how much more clear it needs to be. Pay me $10 to get a ticket to Kick-Ass. No money, no movie ticket.

dormouse said:

Defiantly resolving to do what one wants to do regardless of rules and reason is up to the individual. But if the idea is to try to reach a baseline understanding of a game's rules for ALL to play by, so as to avoid conflict when members of different playgroups get together for gaming, for example, then it behooves us to just play by the rules given to us in the official rules documents, be it a rulebook or an erratum sheet.

In speaking of how clear this matter really is, I've shown already that in 2 different places, cost is defined as the number in the upper left corner, and in another place that the text on a card is called an effect. Period. I understand what James said in reply to a similar question, but the rulebook is the rulebook, and no game is sustainable if its players have to hit up the email for answers every time an unusual event occurs. Nor is it sustainable if we have to "use our best judgment" in such cases. We have a set of rules to govern the game by. Until the next Official Erratum Sheet is issued, that's what we ought to play with, certainly at competitive events.

The effects to be triggered have requirements to be met for the effect to be placed on the stack "do X to get Y" the cards themselves say this. We refer to it as a cost, but as I said we can call it Fran, how we choose to reference it does not change the fact the cards clearly state that X must be done in order for the effect to triggered.

That is why I am saying that I feel it doesn't need to be made anymore clear. Read the card. Do what it says to trigger the effect. That effect is now part of the action chain.

Is there a logical argument that says this should be done in another way? I mean for 10 months or so no one I've run across has interpreted it another way, but if there are people doing so then it should be brought to James' attention so it can be included in the FAQ. I'll start the campaign myself for it to be referred to as Fran.

I am lobbying for "fizzbin"...

Fizzbin is much better.

Do I hear Fizban ? ^^

Overseer Lazarus said:

The FAQ excerpt you posted is simply establishing that any reference to cost in a card effect is talking about the number in the upper-left corner. I believe that ruling was attempting to address the question of whether Dwarven Cannon Crew (and similar cards that use the word cost) check loyalty icons to determine the numerical value of that cost. If you'll refer back to Dam's post on the first page, you'll see that the FAQ refers to sacrificing the Lobber Crew as a "cost." It is too bad that somebody didn't break out the thesaurus during the rulebook editing process. We have "action" and "Action," which are not the same thing, and "cost" and "Cost," which are not the same thing.

It's pretty clear if you look at cards like Nurgle Sorcerer that you can't activate an ability with a "to" in it, and then see which parts of it you can resolve. "Oh, gee, I don't have any barrels. Guess I'm just hitting your guy for one." Even deferring 'payment' until resolution would cause things to get wonky, for example in a Lobber Crew vs. Nurgle Sorcerer situation. If I have three barrels and a Sorcerer and you have a Lobber Crew, we could each just go on and on responding with the same Action in the hopes of having our ability to resolve first (thus preventing the other from resolving).

All right, I'm feelin' that. You all make good points, which seem fair enough for me in a social setting. We may try that tack in our playgang, in fact. But, unfortunately, tournament officiating leaves no margin of error. And I'm afraid that trying to introduce players whom I've just met to my main squeeze Fran Fizzbin may be testing the outer limits of even my modest persuasiveness. To avoid a mass mental meltdown, I'm going to have to make all my rulings from whatever Erratum Sheet and Official Rulings they send me for the Regs (Lord above, please move the hearts of these men and women to update the 1.0 sheet. Amen.).