44 minutes ago, dpuck1998 said:

Let me offer more help, things you can find reading the rules.

“IF YOU DO” AND “IN ORDER TO”

If an ability includes the phrase “if you do” or “in order to,” the player referenced by the ability must successfully and completely resolve the text that precedes that phrase before they can resolve or perform the text that follows that phrase. In other words, if the first part of the ability is not successfully and completely resolved, that which follows the phrase does not resolve or cannot be performed.

Let me offer more help in possibly understanding how language works. Don't be a jerk, we're discussing the specific wording of a card in conjuction with the rules.

If you want to go to the rules, read the part about using cards. Only certain artifacts can be used.

How about this. If a card said,"Fight with a friendly creature. Destroy that creture." what would happen if all your creatures were already exhauseted? Would you still need to destroy a creature even though none fought? According to the precedent put forward by Poltergeist you would. After all DAMAYC says to destroy that creature. Which one? Who knows, but something needs to be destroyed. Crazy town.

20 minutes ago, dperello said:

I'd still like someone who has no problem with this card to explain to me exactly which artifact Poltergeist is referring to when it says " that" artifact. It clearly isn't the one you just used because you didn't just use one. So it's referring to some nebulous artifact chosen how exactly? Not by using it, which is what the card says.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

"When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest."

Play: Use an artifact controlled by any player as if it were yours. Destroy that  artifact.

So, part A: "Use an artifact controlled by any player as if it were yours." I attempt to use an artifact that can't be used. By the "resolve as much as you can" rule, this is perfectly fine.

Bart B: "Destroy that artifact." That part works.

[fin]

As frustrating as it might seem the rules are pretty clear here. It doesn’t have the pretext saying you need to do the former text as clarified under the “in order to” rules. While it doesn’t say “choose an artifact” you still have to “choose an artifact” because the effect directly effects a singular artifact. Ergo just like with anger and other cards like it, you choose your target then process as much of the effect as possible.

10 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

As frustrating as it might seem the rules are pretty clear here. It doesn’t have the pretext saying you need to do the former text as clarified under the “in order to” rules. While it doesn’t say “choose an artifact” you still have to “choose an artifact” because the effect directly effects a singular artifact. Ergo just like with anger and other cards like it, you choose your target then process as much of the effect as possible.

the dumb thing about this card, though, is that it doesn't say choose an artifact , it says use an artifact . which is the source of all the hubbub here.

Would you guys here think that if there was a card that said " use a creature .... destroy that creature" but the only creature available was exhausted you would NOT be able to use that creature, and not destroy it? or would you hold that card to the same scrutiny as Poltergeist?

Seems there are those that are not able to understand the rules and want to make them up. Play how you want, but the rule is pretty clear.

Just now, dpuck1998 said:

Seems there are those that are not able to understand the rules and want to make them up. Play how you want, but the rule is pretty clear.

can you expound on what rules take effect and how they are clear? And please, for the community's sake, keep a less abrasive tone.

3 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

the dumb thing about this card, though, is that it doesn't say choose an artifact , it says use an artifact . which is the source of all the hubbub here.

Exactly this. If the words on a card mean anything, then the instructions to, "Destroy that artifact," target the artifact that was selected by its use.

If a card says to, "Archive a friendly creature," you can't choose an opponent's creature if you don't have any friendly ones. But wait! DAMAYC states that if you can't choose a friendly creature you must still choose a creature, right? That's doing as much as you can and ignoring the "friendly" part. You can't just ignore some requirements and apply others in some arbitrary way. Words mean things, but apparently FFG is making up their own language here and disregarding how our language actually works.

55 minutes ago, dperello said:

Let me offer more help in possibly understanding how language works. Don't be a jerk, we're discussing the specific wording of a card in conjuction with the rules.

If you want to go to the rules, read the part about using cards. Only certain artifacts can be used.

How about this. If a card said,"Fight with a friendly creature. Destroy that creture." what would happen if all your creatures were already exhauseted? Would you still need to destroy a creature even though none fought? According to the precedent put forward by Poltergeist you would. After all DAMAYC says to destroy that creature. Which one? Who knows, but something needs to be destroyed. Crazy town.

Not sure why you are so angry, but alas. I only posted a rule directly from the rules book. There was no ill intent.

In other FFG games, if there are two sentences, you can ignore them and play only specific parts of a card. Destiny works that way as well. The rule I posted

reflects that you do not have to meet all requirements to play a card and only do as much as possible.

Sorry if you are offended, just offering my opinion on the rules.

Oh! Wait! What if .... the card text was dictated to someone and they wrote “use” instead of “choose”? That would explain this mess 😁

@dperello you are correct though, it doesn’t make sense.

52 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

the dumb thing about this card, though, is that it doesn't say choose an artifact , it says use an artifact . which is the source of all the hubbub here.

Would you guys here think that if there was a card that said " use a creature .... destroy that creature" but the only creature available was exhausted you would NOT be able to use that creature, and not destroy it? or would you hold that card to the same scrutiny as Poltergeist?

It doesn’t have to, whenever you play a card that effects a non specified card in play (ie any artifact in this case) you have to, by definiton, choose that card do you not?

1 hour ago, dperello said:

Let me offer more help in possibly understanding how language works. Don't be a jerk, we're discussing the specific wording of a card in conjuction with the rules.

If you want to go to the rules, read the part about using cards. Only certain artifacts can be used.

How about this. If a card said,"Fight with a friendly creature. Destroy that creture." what would happen if all your creatures were already exhauseted? Would you still need to destroy a creature even though none fought? According to the precedent put forward by Poltergeist you would. After all DAMAYC says to destroy that creature. Which one? Who knows, but something needs to be destroyed. Crazy town.

Yes if you played a card that said “fight with a friendly creature. Destroy that creature” and all of your creatures where exhausted you would:

-play the card

-choose a target (a friendly creature)

-resolve the effects that can be resolved in this instance fight cannot but destroy can.

now why you would ever play this is another question entirely.

1 minute ago, TwitchyBait said:

It doesn’t have to, whenever you play a card that effects a non specified card in play (ie any artifact in this case) you have to, by definiton, choose that card do you not?

sure but i get the feeling we are playing semantics here. the rules don't define choose the same way it defines use . Use has a pretty well defined meaning, whereas choose doesn't.

Just now, Poposhka said:

sure but i get the feeling we are playing semantics here. the rules don't define choose the same way it defines use . Use has a pretty well defined meaning, whereas choose doesn't.

How could you ever effect an artifact I’d you didn’t choose it? The words don’t need to define choose because you always have to choose unless it’s a global effect or the card explicitly states a specific card it effects. It would be redundant.

4 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

How could you ever effect an artifact I’d you didn’t choose it? The words don’t need to define choose because you always have to choose unless it’s a global effect or the card explicitly states a specific card it effects. It would be redundant.

I understand precisely where you're coming from, but the rules has a specific definition on the word use - in fact, there's a whole section dedicated to the word use . Refer to USING CARDS on page 6 in the user guide v.1.1.

However, choose is a "just" a verb in the English language describing the selection of something for some purpose, it doesn't have this "legaleze" meaning like use does.

4 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

I understand precisely where you're coming from, but the rules has a specific definition on the word use - in fact, there's a whole section dedicated to the word use . Refer to USING CARDS on page 6 in the user guide v.1.1.

However, choose is a "just" a verb in the English language describing the selection of something for some purpose, it doesn't have this "legaleze" meaning like use does.

Understandable, but the rules have set a precident that the effects do not need to be capable of being fully carried out to play a card thus the “do as much as you can” rule even before the recent errata. Thus the rules I believe cover this with the do as much as you can rule and other rulings we’ve seen with the Errata to give us a consistent idea of how this plays out, it’s just a different mideset than some other card games where the initial effect doesn’t need to be necessary unless we get the specific wording outlined in the rules. Thus use can not be completed but the rest of the effect can specifically because of these rules and the user would gain no benefit or triggers from “using” an artifact.

I've played magic in the 90s. It has become much more streamlined in that time. Take a look at cards from the revised set and before and you know what I mean.

We've come a long way since then and ffg has learned from the mistakes made in magic through the years.

But with that background, it is no surprise, that there are some issues with keyforge and its rules.

That being said, I will not join this discussion, as to me it's obvious, how poltergeist works.

2 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

effects do not need to be capable of being fully carried out to play a card thus the “do as much as you can” rule

I actually agree with your standpoint, but if FFG came out and said that the other held true, I would understand that too.

I guess my main issue with all of this is how a target is selected. Poltergeist, the way it is worded, indicates that you select an artifact by using it. This ruling implies that you can select a target even if that target never, under any circumstances, has the ability to do the thing you're selecting it for.

Here's the thing. In order to use something, creature, artifact, whatever, the rules clearly state the that thing, whatever it is, is exhausted and its ability tiggers. The rules also clearly state that cards with constant abilities can't be used and therefore don't exhaust. What Poltergeist allows is for someone to try and use a card for something it specifically can't do, but in so doing make it a target of Poltergeist nonetheless.

All they had to do was have it say, "Choose an artifact. Use it as if it were yours. Destroy that artifact." Then DAMAYC would be fine. Now it's just a mess.

55 minutes ago, dperello said:

I guess my main issue with all of this is how a target is selected. Poltergeist, the way it is worded, indicates that you select an artifact by using it. This ruling implies that you can select a target even if that target never, under any circumstances, has the ability to do the thing you're selecting it for.

Here's the thing. In order to use something, creature, artifact, whatever, the rules clearly state the that thing, whatever it is, is exhausted and its ability tiggers. The rules also clearly state that cards with constant abilities can't be used and therefore don't exhaust. What Poltergeist allows is for someone to try and use a card for something it specifically can't do, but in so doing make it a target of Poltergeist nonetheless.

All they had to do was have it say, "Choose an artifact. Use it as if it were yours. Destroy that artifact." Then DAMAYC would be fine. Now it's just a mess.

Undrstood, if it makes it any easier on you just picture turn of play like this.

1: Play Card

2: Generate aember

3: Choose Target

4: Apply any effects that can apply

Given the combination FAQ rulings, “do what you can”, and “in order to” rules this seems to be what should always occur. Again this is all covered in the do as much as you can rule, some of the cards effects are possible, others aren’t you do what you can out of the two.

It’s similar to using say anger which lets you ready and fight with a friendly creature when theirs no enemy creature to fight. You ready then don’t fight because you can’t letting you use it in some other fashion.

32 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

1: Play Card

2: Generate aember

3: Choose Target

4: Apply any effects that can apply

but that's not how it works in the general case 😕 for example, you can't play an upgrade without choosing/having a valid target first.

3 hours ago, dperello said:

Exactly this. If the words on a card mean anything, then the instructions to, "Destroy that artifact," target the artifact that was selected by its use.

If a card says to, "Archive a friendly creature," you can't choose an opponent's creature if you don't have any friendly ones. But wait! DAMAYC states that if you can't choose a friendly creature you must still choose a creature, right? That's doing as much as you can and ignoring the "friendly" part. You can't just ignore some requirements and apply others in some arbitrary way. Words mean things, but apparently FFG is making up their own language here and disregarding how our language actually works.

DAMAYC allows you to play a card reguardless if any or all of it effects would happen. For ****s sake its what lets you play Poltergeist just to get aember when there are no artifacts out. Otherwise you couldn’t play it unless their was an artifact out. You can play

Do you get it now??? You don’t HAVE to succeed in using said artifact to destroy it because Poltergeist doesn’t specifiy that you need too. The second sentence on Poltergeist doesn’t care if you could use the artifact or not. It just says to destroy it.

Poeple can play Punch on a creatureless board to get the aember it gives you for playing it even though it tells you to deal 3 damage to a creature which isn’t possible.

Why is your mind breaking because of this!?

@Poposhka Because upgrades modify the card their attached to.

1 hour ago, Poposhka said:

but that's not how it works in the general case 😕 for example, you can't play an upgrade without choosing/having a valid target first.

That is how it works because you're talking about 2 different types of cards, I quote playing cards, page 5 under "action cards":
"When an action card is played, the active player resolves the cards "play:" ability and, after resolving as much of the ability as possible places the card in their discard pile."
Note how it never mentions whether you need to be able to resolve any particular part of the effect, in fact it states the exact opposite that you only "must resolve" what can be resolved and ignore the rest. Note here in the description that the card is played and THEN it's play ability is resolved as much as it can.
In contrast on page 6 under "upgrades" it says:
'upgrades enter play attached to a creature chosen by the player who controls the upgrade"
This bold text is the card rules explicitly setting a requirement for the card to be played, something entirely absent from the rules for an action card.

16 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

"When an action card is played, the active player resolves the cards "play:" ability and  , after resolving as much of the ability as possible places the card in their discard pile."

'upgrades enter play attached to a creature chosen by the player who controls the upgrade"

fair points!

1 minute ago, Poposhka said:

fair points!

Thanks for being civil, having fun learning all the in's and outs of the game with everyone else so we can all enjoy it more and clear up any misunderstandings before big competitive play rolls around

5 minutes ago, Hyperjayman said:

DAMAYC allows you to play a card reguardless if any or all of it effects would happen. For ****s sake its what lets you play Poltergeist just to get aember when there are no artifacts out. Otherwise you couldn’t play it unless their was an artifact out. You can play

Do you get it now??? You don’t HAVE to succeed in using said artifact to destroy it because Poltergeist doesn’t specifiy that you need too. The second sentence on Poltergeist doesn’t care if you could use the artifact or not. It just says to destroy it.

Poeple can play Punch on a creatureless board to get the aember it gives you for playing it even though it tells you to deal 3 damage to a creature which isn’t possible.

Why is your mind breaking because of this!?

There's obviously a disconnect happening here. I understand how FFG supposedly intended the card to work. What I can't fathom is how so few people seem to understand that they're intended use has you targeting a card by trying to use it in a way that it could never, ever be used.

The ruling is the same as using Commander Remiel to use an exhausted creature. He doesn't allow that, because exhausted creatures can't be used, just like constant effect artifacts can't be used. There's this little bit from the rules:

• When using a card via a card ability, any other requirements of using
  the card (such as exhausting to reap, fight, or resolve its “Action:”
  ability) must be observed, or the card cannot be used.

We all likely agree that this means you can't make a card do something it can't do. Now Poltergeist specifically says to destroy the artifact you just used. You can't use constant effect artifacts. What part of this isn't making sense.

Let's try this. Poltergeist does the following:

• 1. Use an artifact. (There are no artifacts that can, by any interpretation of the rules, be used.)
• 2. Destroy that artifact. Which artifact? The one you just used silly.
• - But no Artifact was used.
• - Okay then, the one you tried to use.
• - I don't understand. I can try to use something that can't be used? How does that work?
• 2.5. Ignore what Poltergeist just said and now go ahead and choose an artifact instead, despite not being given that option.
• 3. Now destroy the artifact.

I know how Poltergeist works. You chose any artifact, use it if you can, then destroy it. Got it. Cool beans. I understand. But this is NOT what the card says to do, and DAMAYC does not solve this problem. The only identifier on Poltergeist as to which artifact is destroyed is in relation to the one that was just used. If no Artifact is used there is no indication in the text on Poltergeist as to which artifact gets destroyed. 'Destroy that artifact." Which artifact is that? Well, it says, "Use an artifact," so I destroy the one that I just used. But there were no artifacts that could be used. Never mind then, just pick one and destroy it. Ignore the entire first sentence and just pretend it said something different.

Again, I understand how it's been clarified. I understand it's poorly worded. I understand as well as anyone how DAMAYC impacts the game. Heck, I'm constantly telling people how important that particular rule is. Poltergeist isn't an example of DAMAYC, it's an example of a card being worded in a way contrary to how it is actually supposed to work. I'm fine with that, but other's reluctance to even see there's a problem here is weird.