This came up in a game I played with my friend last night.
The card is a Hastur Event (Madness) -from the Dreamlands expansion, I think.
It costs 3 and says "Action: Choose an opponent's character. That opponent must choose and exhaust another character he or she controls. Then, wound the character with the lower skill."
Now...when I played it, he had several Agency / Miskatonic / Zoog characters in play. All of them were Skill-2 (Agency guys), excepting the curious Zoog (the one that gives Arcane to other characters at a story with him)...and a Dreamlands Scholar (IIRC) which had Skill-3.
The Scholar and the Zoog were exhausted, from having committed to a story in their turn, but all the other guys were "ready".
I selected John Henry Price (IIRC) - a 2-skill Agency guy. My expectation / hope was that he would have to kill off one of his other Agency guys (all very annoying that game: Agency Groundskeeper (killed my 70-Steps and Cavern of Flame
), Steve Harvey (Indiana Jones guy that takes away Toughness when he's sent to a story, and a Monster Hunter).
* * * this raised a question right off...which was...assuming ALL the opponents characters have the SAME skill (forget about the other guys who were exhausted for a second, and assume the only guys he had were 4 characters all with Skill-2.......would ANYONE actually have to be wounded in that case ? (since there technically would not be "a character with the lower (est) skill" in that case ? * * *
- Now, the way he felt it should/could be played was that he could choose and ditch the "exhausted" Zoog....because the Devolution text didn't say "note, you cannot select an already-exhausted character to satisfy this effect"...
He felt he was fulfilling the requirements: 1) - choose another character (Chose Zoog) 2) (and exhaust) - he said...okay, he's exhausted...the fact that he's ALREADY exhausted shouldn't matter...as he IS...at this point...exhausted..... 3) wound the character with the lower skill (Zoog's was lower than Price)
I didn't argue it too heavily in-game, but I said I'd come back and ask the boys on the forums to get their take on how the card is "meant" to be played, so we'll know for the future. Thanks to any who chime in with an answer/opinion on this one.
) which have that special "then" clause in them, no ?