Slaanesh's Domination

Action: Reveal up to 3 cards at random from one target opponent's hand. You may play any tactics thus revealed as though they were in your hand for no cost.

Cost in card effects, as defined by FAQ 1.0.:

Cost
Any reference to cost in a card effect always
references the top left number printed on
the card. A card with a cost of 0 cannot be
reduced.

So, if Player A plays a Slaanesh's Domination and finds a tactic with a Loyalty cost... Player A can play it as there was no printed cost but he must pay the Loyalty cost.

Under a strict application of the rules, it should be that way post-FAQ 1.0. But it is ? As I've just caught this and I'd like an answer rather quickly (tourney tonight), I'll contact James right away but do not hesitate to show me wrong.

I had the same discussion with peoples from my country, some weeks ago. And I did not found an answer that can satisfy me.

In our language "for no cost" has been translate by "for free" with no reference in the translation to any "cost" (I mean the keyword "cost"), for free means that you do not have to spent any ressource to play a card.

But according to the original card and the FAQ I can not play this card in that way.

What does "for no cost" mean exactly? (cause I am not native)

Cost = 0, in that case you have to pay the loyalty.

Cost does not even exist, in that case you can not add Loyaulty to something that does not even exist so you pay nothing more and the card is really for free.

From the FAQ :

Loyalty is a variable that can add to the cost of a card.

So when you get your answer I will be glad to know it also .

"For no cost" means "for no cost". No, really, that's the problem right now. Under the new FAQ, any mention of "cost" in a card effect should always refer to the actual printed number in the upper left side of the card. So, the right translation should not be "for free" as you have to pay the Loyalty. But I guess that's an side effect of the new cost definition (defined anew for cards like Dwarf Cannon Crew, I guess) and I suppose Slaanesh's Domination should not have been affected that way. But if there is no new ruling against this, it is.

Outside of card effects, "Cost" might mean the [printed] cost (rulebook p. 7) or the [total] cost (p. 12). Loyalty Cost (p. 7, p.11), Total Cost (p. 11) and Printed Cost (p. 11) are also mentioned. Fortunatly, outside of card effects, we don't need a clear definition of "Cost" for the moment. The mechanism itself is robust enough and without implication of cards, it's okay.

As of right now that is a logically correct interpretation. James may finesse the ruling at some point, but yes, I'd say the argument that Loyalty must still be accounted for is valid. I suspect this was an unintentional result of the ruling, but they may have made it with full knowledge there is no way to tell for sure.

The entry for Loyalty in the FAQ reads:

Loyalty is a variable that can add to the cost
of a card. However, it is not considered part
of the cost for the purposes of card effects.

So, this could mean that loyalty is not included in the cost that Domination is reducing to zero, and so the Domination player would still have to pay it. But couldn't it also mean that the Domination player doesn't have to pay the loyalty costs because he is playing the tactics as part of a "card effect" (and so loyalty is ignored altogether)? That is, if it is part of the cost, then it is covered by "at no cost"; if it isn't part of the cost, then the Domination player doesn't have to pay it, because everything is under the umbrella of the Domination "card effect."

This is why using cost to mean three different things is a bad idea.

When a card is played or put into play by another card effect it appears to ignore loyalty, I would personally assume that Slaanesh's Domination works the same way, but there is no definitive proof of that.

dormouse said:

But it's not the same thing. Other similar effects may ignore "Loyalty Cost", but only because they usually say "Search for a [thing] of cost X or lower and put it into play". (vaguely quoting the Dwarf Cannon Crew here). It doesn't mention any "cost" (here, the "printed cost") anywhere else than in the "targeting part". So, of course, you don't care of the "Loyalty Cost". You don't have to pay for it, because you "put the card into play".

Here, for "Slaanesh's Domination", the "cost" of the target [tactic] card is reduced to 0 and you may play it as it was in your hand. But "cost" in card effects only concerns the "printed cost". What do you do with the unreduced "Loyalty Cost" ? You have to pay it because you play the card as it was in your hand: you have a tactic with a 0 printed cost and an unreduced Loyalty cost.

Which is a credible, but not completely convincing argument. I'm split evenly on this, there are credible arguments on both sides, I'd lean towards the new ruling making costs in card effects refer to the printed cost in the upper corner of the card mean that loyalty cost is left alone, to be safe... though I have a strong suspicion that this was not taken into account for this particular card.

Mortella

Limit 1 Hero per zone.

Quest. Action: Corrupt this unit to play a tactic out of an opponent's discard pile, ignoring loyalty costs, as if it were in your hand. Return that card to the bottom of its owner's deck. (Play restrictions must still be observed.)

-

The text on this card specifically states that you ignore loyalty costs, leading me to believe that you must pay only the printed cost for Mortella and only the loyalty cost for Slaanesh's Domination.

RM

By the way, the point is that actually slaanesh card text lets too many opportunities of interpretation, I think.

Objectively it's not really possible to state about the number of ressource you have to spend for this card.