Sloppy Labwork says " Play: Archive a card. Discard a card."

For archiving a card, the rulebook clearly states "If the ability instructing a player to archive a card does not specify where the card is archived from, the archived card comes from that player's hand."

But I am not finding a similar statement in the rulebook related to discarding cards.

I am assuming that the discarded card also has to come from my hand, not my opponent's hand. But could someone please direct me to the specific rule that states this, similar to the rules for archiving a card? (Not an interpretation or an explanation. I get it, and I 100% agree with you. I'm just looking for an actual rule stated in the rulebook somewhere, please.)

Not sure if it is stated anywhere but cards that have you discard it from an opponents hand specifically say that.

Example - Tocsin Reap: Your opponent discards a random card from their hand.

Closest that I can find to defining "discarding" is in the Discarding Cards section where it says:

"The active player can discard from their hand any number of cards from the active house during step three of their turn. Cards are discarded one at a time, at any point throughout this step. This lets players remove cards that they do not want to play from their hand, freeing up space to draw more cards at the end of the turn."

For the case of this card ability, you get around the house requirement via the section "Using Cards via Other Card Abilities":

"If a card ability allows a player to play or use another card (or to fight or to reap with a card), the chosen card may belong to any house unless the ability specifically states otherwise."

DISCARDING CARDS (p6):
The active player can discard from their hand any number of cards from the active house during step three of their turn. Cards are discarded one at a time, at any point throughout this step. This lets players remove cards that they do not want to play from their hand, freeing up space to draw more cards at the end of the turn.

I think I would go with the general idea that you are the active player and the cards come from your hand. I think if you compare Mind Barb to Sloppy Labwork this seems a reasonable conclusion. However, that card does not need to be from the Active House, you can discard any card.

That said, I think it is also quite easy to take the card as allowing you to discard a card from your opponents hand: In much the same way as Punch may have you deal 3 to one of your own creatures, there is at least a precedence in the idea that if a target is not specified it can be you or your opponent that is able to be the target of an effect.

Bear in mind that The Crucible Online only does it from the player's hand, and if there had been any major question as to whose hand it should be, it would have been brought up long before this.

1 hour ago, Rabbitball said:

It would have been brought up long before this.

Why? Sometimes our brains looks and doesn't see what is clearly written in the rules or on the card.

It wasn't until I looked closely at the original ruling for Biomatrix Backup that I noticed that the Active Player does all the work. In other games you also have preconceptions about how a game works because of others that you have played that are similar.

So, sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can see things you miss.

3 minutes ago, Amanal said:

Why? Sometimes our brains looks and doesn't see what is clearly written in the rules or on the card.

For me, it's a matter of instruction. The active player is being told to discard a card. Cards like Mind Barb don't instruct the player; they instruct the opponent. Therefore, it must mean that the player is doing the discarding.

Also, in every case, a discard is made from the hand of the person instructed to do it. And since every case of a player discarding from their own hand, it is their choice, it makes sense to continue the pattern.

Finally, it fits the flavor of the card. Labwork results in a card being archived. Sloppy Labwork does the same thing, but another plan got lost in the process, as represented in the form of a discard from the player's own hand.

Discarding cards is a common game term that usually means from hand. Rulebook writers often leave out common definitions to avoid bogging things down too much, preventing players from finding the information that is different about this particular game. It's a delicate balance to be sure. There isn't a specific rule that defines what "discard a card" as part of an ability means.

As others have pointed out, the rulebook explains the discard process as:

"The active player can discard from their hand any number of cards from
the active house during step three of their turn. Cards are discarded one
at a time, at any point throughout this step. This lets players remove
cards that they do not want to play from their hand, freeing up space to
draw more cards at the end of the turn."

Further, cards that are in play have a process by which they are discarded - destroy (or sacrifice) which you find in quite a few places. Card effects interact with this process. While it is possible an effect could make you discard a card from play to bypass these triggers, one would expect that ability to be explicit.

From these two points, and following the process of reading rules as "do what it says, don't do what it doesn't say", we can safely assume that a discard action with no qualifiers comes from the hand.

I gotta say, I cannot imagine this was a legit question. It has to be a troll or... **** I don't even know. My guesses would be intentionally being obtuse (trolling) or attempting to play devils advocate, but not for any positive gain here, so again (trolling). I would normally apply the logical concept of charity in such a case, but this one is just a bit too far... Discarding? Really?

3 hours ago, saluk64007 said:

As others have pointed out, the rulebook explains the discard process as....

So if Sloppy Labwork is my last card of the Active House I would not discard a card?

3 minutes ago, Amanal said:

So if Sloppy Labwork is my last card of the Active House I would not discard a card?

No, but if Sloppy Labwork is the second-to-last card in your hand and you manage to play it, you would archive the remaining card and have nothing to discard. Normally such sloppy labwork results in things getting lost, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...

20 minutes ago, Rabbitball said:

No, but if Sloppy Labwork is the second-to-last card in your hand and you manage to play it, you would archive the remaining card and have nothing to discard.

So, we use the rule on p6, but we don't use the rule on page 6? Either "Discard a card" means follow the rule on p6 or it doesn't. You are using as much of the rule "you want to" and ignoring the rest.

1 hour ago, Amanal said:

So, we use the rule on p6, but we don't use the rule on page 6? Either "Discard a card" means follow the rule on p6 or it doesn't. You are using as much of the rule "you want to" and ignoring the rest.

You are confusing me with saluk64007. Discarding is currently being used in its common English card-game-specific meaning, namely to place a card from the hand into a pile (which in this case, happens to be called the discard pile). While I (as you would expect) would prefer a specific definition to that effect in the game rules, we currently do not have that, so we use what we have. Games that allow discards from another hand or from play generally specify that such can happen (or, like the very early days of Magic, imply a different meaning of the word by virtue of text that can't be interpreted any other way).

Maybe and it sounds OK, but it gets a bit "wonky" when you looks at cards like Punch, "Do 3 damage to a creature", where there isn't a target specified so it can be yours or your opponents.

38 minutes ago, Amanal said:

Maybe and it sounds OK, but it gets a bit "wonky" when you looks at cards like Punch, "Do 3 damage to a creature", where there isn't a target specified so it can be yours or your opponents.

While I agree that targeting should be more explicit, there is no implicit English definition that says damage can only happen to enemy creatures, whereas discard does have such an implicit definition.

On 1/30/2019 at 4:08 PM, Krashwire said:

I gotta say, I cannot imagine this was a legit question. It has to be a troll or... **** I don't even know. My guesses would be intentionally being obtuse (trolling) or attempting to play devils advocate, but not for any positive gain here, so again (trolling). I would normally apply the logical concept of charity in such a case, but this one is just a bit too far... Discarding? Really?

I definitely understand how you would conclude that this was trolling. But, since so many things in this game rely on specificity (e.g., Biomatrix Backup which required a ruling and then later an errata which overruled the original ruling), I like to have my bases covered as much as possible. We agree on the effect. That's wonderful. But what if I play against someone who doesn't agree? I have no official rule to fall back on. Or, better yet, what if I actually CAN use Sloppy Labwork to discard an opponent's card? That would totally change how that card gets used! (granted, highly unlikely)

Just got an official response from FFG:

“ Hello,

No, you cannot discard an opponent’s card with Sloppy Labwork. Sloppy Labwork only allows you to discard a card from your own hand. ”

On 2/18/2019 at 4:27 PM, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

Just got an official response from FFG:

“ Hello,

No, you cannot discard an opponent’s card with Sloppy Labwork. Sloppy Labwork only allows you to discard a card from your own hand. ”

Just wanted to say sometimes it feels like people post rules questions and they are arguing their interpretation because they want to be right or just trying to build this picture of how flawed they think the rules are. Then when you point out the ways to get official answers you realize they are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Thank you for not only following through but posting the reply as well. It is much appreciated!

Some people (and I feel the op is one) just want to cover their bases to cut grass under the feet of the people that want to abuses grey areas in the rules

Quote

ABILITY, CARD ABILITY

An ability is the special game text a card contributes to the game. Unless an ability explicitly references an out-of-play area (such as a hand, deck, archives, or discard pile), that ability can only interact with cards that are in play

This is what the rulebook states. As you can see, this card should interact with only the cards which are in play zone.

But rulebook also states:

Quote

ARCHIVE S

[...]

If the ability instructing a player to archive a card does not specify where the card is archived from, the archived card comes from that player’s hand.

So the first part interact with the hand as the rulebook states. Now we have to ask, is the fact that this card is interacting with the own player's hand, make it implicit that the second part will also interact with the own player's hand? To me it shouldn't be so, but it's pretty clear that this part is ROI instead of RAW.

FFG stated that the rulebook must be read as RAW, so they have to clearly add "discards" as the same part they did in the Archives.

Guess from now on I'm going to assume if something says discard I'm just going to assume it's from the opponents hand or archives. I mean it doesn't say it doesn't work that way right?

1 hour ago, Greymarch2000 said:

Guess from now on I'm going to assume if something says discard I'm just going to assume it's from the opponents hand or archives. I mean it doesn't say it doesn't work that way right?

I appreciate your jocularity, but FFG's official response makes this sarcasm unnecessary.

4 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

I appreciate your jocularity, but FFG's official response makes this sarcasm unnecessary.

Everyone requires a different level of clarity in rules. However, in every rule set there is a certain amount of presupposition the reader must make. To some, when told to discard a card, the mechanisms are by and large understood. Fortunately, there are very few people who pass out because the rules didn't instruct them to breath, with their lungs, at regular intervals. We all feel our level of comprehension is probably the norm, but there is actually a broad range of understanding in how games work and what is meant by seemingly clear instruction.

9 hours ago, Synnaq said:

FFG stated that the rulebook must be read as RAW, so they have to clearly add "discards" as the same part they did in the Archives.

It will be so delineated in the Keyforge Comprehensive Rules I'm working on, which is almost finished with Stage 1. Stage 2 will be to post a Dropbox link here and let people eviscerate it fixing all of the known and unknown mistakes. That will be "fun" but worth it.

5 hours ago, dperello said:

Everyone requires a different level of clarity in rules. However, in every rule set there is a certain amount of presupposition the reader must make. To some, when told to discard a card, the mechanisms are by and large understood. Fortunately, there are very few people who pass out because the rules didn't instruct them to breath, with their lungs, at regular intervals. We all feel our level of comprehension is probably the norm, but there is actually a broad range of understanding in how games work and what is meant by seemingly clear instruction.

Considering that children such as mine play this game, clarity is warranted.