Hellfury said:

Occam's Razor. The FAQ states that when you have a choice, X is mutable, otherwise it's zero. You play Unspeakable Resurrection, and thus choose a target. Thus X is mutable. The fact that it's a different zone, or the fact you don't have to pay the cost you set is irrelevant. The FAQ doesn't mention zones.

It's that simple. The rest (like the older cards) is just evidence on how this conclusion holds up in a larger environment, but the simple facts are that UR works the same as normal, exept for the 2 changes Yog introduces: Playing it from the discard pile instead of your hand, and skipping the part where you pay the cost.

This is how I understand Yog Sothoth The Lord of Time and Space to function with Unspeakable Resurrection:

In order of operations:

Pay 2 to resolve Yog-Sothoth's action (play spells from discard pile without paying for them)

Choose Unspeakable Resurrection.

Resolve the first part of Unspeakable Resurrection's action: Choose a character in your discard pile with cost X or lower. (Full stop. Period. End of sentence) Before you can put it into play.

Go back and see what x equals. Since nothing was paid for Unspeakable Resurrection, so X = 0.

You must choose a character with a cost of 0 in your discard pile and put into play.

You have to follow the entire first part of the action, not just selectively pick from it.

"Choose a character from your discard pile with a cost of X or lower" not "Choose a character".

Does anyone know the exact process for getting an official ruling? Who is authorized to provide official rulings? I do not mind Emailing questions for the good of the order I just do not know who to go to...

FFG: At the end of the day we need to have a tighter feedback loop on rules issues that come up between versions of the FAQ.

I would also like to see more hot girls with tattoos playing this game in case anyone has a solution for that...

Tokhuah said:

Date a hot girl with tattoos and teach her how to play the game? thats all I got.

As for official rulings, I would just call or email customer service and ask them if they can forward your request to the relevant game designers such as Hata. Leave a way for them to contact you to receive their reply and hope for the best.

Hellfury said:

There you go. The FAQ reads:

(v1.0) “X” (The Letter “X”)
Unless specified by a preceding card,
card effect, or granted player choice , the
letter “X” is always equal to zero.

Do we agree the FAQ says that?

So, we determine X, since you, the player, are granted the choice for X, so you can determine the target, and the cost.

We also read that:

(v1.0) Paid, Overpaid, and Cost
The printed cost of a card is the cost
that is printed on that card. The actual
cost of a card or effect is the printed
cost after any cost modifiers have been
applied. The actual cost of a card is also
the amount that is paid to play the card
from a player’s hand, or to trigger an
effect.

The actual cost of the card is independant from the cost printed on the card. So, while the card still has the value X printed on it, this functions independantly from the cost that is actually paid. So, paying only part of X or not paying the cost at all doesn't have an effect on the value of X whatsoever.

Overpay is the difference between the
number of resources on the domain that
was drained to play the card or trigger
the effect minus the value that was paid
for the card or effect, if that difference is
one or higher. In order to “overpay” for
a card or triggered effect, that card must
have an actual cost of one or greater.

Here we see there isn't even an actual relationship between the actual cost, and the amount of resources on the drained domain and thus, no relationship between the actual cost and the actual payment. Thus, how payment is handled has no relationship to the actual cost. Normal rules dictate that you can't play an effect if you can't pay the cost, but Yog tells us to play the card without paying it's cost.

It's always possible for a future ruling or erratum to change how it works, but given all the information available right now, and with making the least amount of assumptions (Like 'Go back and see what x equals' or 'the card is in a discard pile, not in your hand, so that might change how it works') and having no rules to contradict this interpretation, the only reasonable explaination is that it works as I described in the article.

Is it possible that Marius is referring to the "and without paying its costs" - part of Yog's wording - as explanation of what covers // goes beyond - the FAQ issue on X=0 ....in other words.....NORMALLY Hell and others would be correct in the X-issue with Unspeakable Ressurection...but Yog's special wording allows you to get around that ? Could that be what he's meaning in his example // explanations ?

Rosh87 said:

If Yog wouldn't have the 'without paying' clause, you'd pay 2, determine targets and cost.

...and pay whatever X (+cost modifiers) is.

So, you'll have to drain 2 domains if you determine X to be 1 or higher. The only part that's skipped is the second 'drain a domain with at least X resources' part. The rest works as normal in that regard. Oh, yeah, it's from the discard pile instead of your hand, and the card ends up on the bottom of your deck instead of the discard pile, but for the rest, it's business as usual.

Hellfury said:
Resolve the first part of Unspeakable Resurrection's action: Choose a character in your discard pile with cost X or lower. (Full stop. Period. End of sentence)

There you go. The FAQ reads:

(v1.0) “X” (The Letter “X”)
Unless specified by a preceding card,
card effect, or granted player choice, the
letter “X” is always equal to zero.

Do we agree the FAQ says that?

So, we determine X, since you, the player, are granted the choice for X, so you can determine the target, and the cost.

I am not following how you are given a choice as to arbitrarily assigning a number to X. In fact this is the point of contention that seems to be skipped over.

Marius said:

Sure.

Yeah, from this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree since you are the sole purveyor of reasonable explanations.

I'm struggling on the same point. Since Yog skips the payment part, I feel like the selection of X is also skipped.

The way I read it, you choose X as part of paying the cost. So if you play the card without paying the cost, you don't get to pick X.

What am I getting wrong here? Why is the selection of X independent of the payment activity? Or, another way, if there is no payment, why would the player get to choose X?

Hellfury said:

Sounds like a good conclusion to your thread since you seem utterly inable to post without snark.

Is this the way you talk to people you meet face to face, as well? Apparently your nickname is well chosen. Couldn't you just take a deep breath and calm down before posting? It's f****** annoying and doesn't help to create an atmosphere where anyone would want to join the discussion.

I still remember your posts when you were 'demanding' to be given a definite release date for 'Secrets of Arkham'. Don't you realize your behaviour is completely unreasonable and excessive? If I was Marius, I'd long stopped posting in this thread (if I'd bothered to reply at all).

I know the internet seems to invite the kind of uncivil behaviour I'm seeing here, since the anonymity seems to make everyone forget their inhibitions, but couldn't we at least try to keep the general rules of polite conduct in mind?

Always remember: What goes around, comes around!

You are paying cost to play an effect. With Yog you don't have to pay a cost to play the effect of the spell card from your discard pile. You don't pay a cost, you don't choose a X value. In your discard pile X=0. You return characters with only a 0 cost. Once again it's not a Chant of thoth.

For the moment french and belgian players and playtesters have played the card like that (return only 0 cost characters), I don't see why now there is some change in the way to play the card. If the idea was to use the yog to return big characters the best way is to say "spell card" and not "spell event card" to authorize combo with the Opener of the Gate (Ancient Horrors F17) for example.

TheProfessor said:

Dadajef said:

X is not only for determining cost, it is also determining targets. Since you choose a target, you get to choose X. The card still has an actual cost, which is set as well, it only doesn't get paid.

When playing a card, a whole lot of things happen at the same time: Select targets, set X, determine cost, payment, etc. When all is internally consistant, the effect resolves.

The only part that is changed is the actual payment.

As for design/balance issues, well, this has little to do with the rules issues. After all, Endless Interrogation works quite differently than designed or flavor or how it 'should' work. But going into balance a bit, needing an extra card to ressurect spell monsters does make a balance difference.

I can see how, if you're used to M:tG, it seems different from "Playing fireball for free" and thus a little counterintuitive. Compared to the information from CoCCCG rulings and FAQ's, it has shown that how effects are paid for functions quite differently from M:tG though. From 'add mana' to 'compare resources' there are some strange inversions going on that have lead to lengthy discussion in the past.

Well thank you Marius for the time you took explaining us why you did present this combo and how kind you were keeping the debate in a calm atmosphear.

Like I said in my previous post, I did'nt understood the "granted player's choice" the way you did. That's why I asked you.

I still feel a little bit surprised, as it really seems counterintuitive with the fact that X is presented as relevant to 0 when the card is placed on the discard pile and has a value up to the player when played via Yog-S's effect.

We're speaking about rules right here, not balance ... but this is something we'll need clarify in a near futur ... Like you said, having a 3 card combo is not a cause of auto-win... but we'll encounter soon if those rules don't appears in the FAQ.

Even if the messages got a little rude, Hellfury is right saying FFG don't do his job following the game's evolution.

So in summation:

In order to understand and thus play this game correctly, you must first have access to prior knowledge of a previous incarnation of a game that is no longer accessible.

Without access to this prior knowledge of rulings, it would appear that it is not possible to play the game correctly. Until we have somebody from this era dictate how certain interactions work with cards that are no longer legal/valid/relevant we have no way of knowing how to correctly play certain cards, how they interact with others and ultimately play this game.

The rulebook is not enough so we need the FAQ. This is painfully apparent.

I feel my interpretation is actually a reasonable explanation of how to play this combination of cards using what is currently available without prior knowledge of rulings that are no longer accessible.

The rulebook and the FAQ are, apparently, no longer enough either so we need those from days gone by to correctly interepret how they interact since they are the keepers of this knowledge that there is no way of citing and thus proving.

Query:
How does this game function at all without someone standing behind us and telling us at every turn how to play this game?

View this statement and subsequent question as snarky and rude as you think you should, I cannot change your perception in how you interpret my post. But that still does not remove the validity of the statement or the question.

All that I am trying to accomplish here is to understand the rules. Instead I am met with derision from a person who writes articles for FFG and is thus the image that FFG sets forth for itself on the web. Instead of an apology, I get an excuse and more subtle remarks that their interpretation is the ONLY reasonable one making discourse and debate difficult.

Why is that? Because his interpretation has been put into question from a person with an imperfect understanding of the rules due to knowledge that is no longer accessible? I dont know but this whole this has been bent completely out of proportion from the get-go. Add to that those who feel Marius cannot defend himself, where he has proven he is not shy from preemptively putting the kabosh on an imaginary personal attack and we have the death of debate.

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to the Cult of Personality. He may be a guest writer for FFG, but his interpretations are just as flawed as any body else's, as he himself has admitted to. Without knowledge that he has access to, it should be reasonable to challenge those interpretations inspite of his perceived position of 'authority' by the consensus.

The playing field is not even here if such prior knowledge is required to understand this game. Even for the sake of precedent.

As Johnny Shoes said in the previous thread that debated this issue:

"you should worry and think twice about taking the game more seriously than might be reciprocated by its stewards."

(bolded since the quote function is a piece of poo-doo)

Hellfury said:

You are met with derision for using such passive agressive words and sentences as "conspiciously", "like everybody else has" and "convoluted."

The fact that I perceived your comments as comming out a little aggresive was pointed out to you, I would expect an apology from you, but instead it has been met with an endless stream of - what not only I perceive as - snarky comments.

As for the debate: Please use facts and quote rules to waylay my arguments. I pointed out FAQ entries I based my explaination on, and instead of acknowledging that logic, or asking specific questions, or giving counter-arguments based on FAQ/Rules entries all I get is 'we choose to disagree.'

Hellfury said:

Given the information that is in the current rules, the current FAQ and the principle of Occams Razor, and my explaination flowing from that: "The only change is that you are not actually paying the cost" why would you make up rules like "X is decided when you pay" or "X is 0 in the discard pile" which is nowhere to be seen in either the rules or FAQ?

Hellfury said:

Which is funny comming for someone who clearly asks my opinion in the title of this thread ... Don't ask questions you don't want to have answered.

If you do want to challenge my interpretation (and for the sake of gameplay and clarity, that's welcome,) bring me facts. I'm perfectly capable of admitting mistakes, or saying "Well, good question, I don't know" but in this case I find no reason to change my mind.

But judging from your comments, you don't care about rules interpretations any more.

I'm sorry you wasted my time, then.

...and yet there is is still no "official" answer to the question, nor is there a mechanisim set up to reliably get an official answer. Why is there even a Rules section on the forum? Having an unofficial rules section often leads to more confusion that clarity. All this thread does is amplify the feedback loop problem regarding the official rules system (or lack of one).

Hi All

I am no rules expert and I can see both sides of the argument (I think), but I think the crux of the matter is players choice of "X".

X is the cost of Unspeakable Resurrection and Yog's effect means that you skip paying "X", but does it stop you giving a value to "X" because of player choice?

Is choosing "X" part of the cost of playing UR or simply the printed cost of UR, in the latter case this should give you the chance to say "X" =5 for example and then not pay the 5.

In the first case though if you skip paying the cost, and choosing "X" is part of that cost, you should not be able to choose "X" =5.

Could we at least agree to a ruling until FFG come up with something official.

Regards, Neil.

Basically - to sum it up - it seems Yog-Sothoth's new card, perhaps befitting a being of his power, sort of "breaks" the normal rules in regards to how Unspeakable Ressurection // X=0, etc. would normally be handled.

Because Yog's wording for that critical "Action: Pay 2 and choose...." ability includes "without paying its costs" - regarding the spell event card you choose. This part is critical in understanding (I think) how the new card was designed to work - in FFG's mind

Part of the "normal" cost of playing the Spell-Event card Unspeakable Resurrection is to PAY for "X" - by using up a number of resources equal to what you want X-to be. You then choose a character in the Discard pile, based on this chosen value. All that plays off of you actually PAYING the X-Cost of UR card. BUT.....Yog-Sothoth, CRITICALLY , allows you to effectively IGNORE this requirement....because the " without paying its costs " is a blanket statement, which frees you of ALL the normal "costs" of playing the chosen card.

Under most instances, the only "Cost" is the default one ...ie...A Single Glimpse - ALWAYS costs just 2-Resources to be played...therefore without paying its costs doesn't really give you an extra resource-related benefit since you could always play it for 2. However, since the ability relates to ANY Spell-Event card, you could play one from another Faction that you had in your discard pile...without worrying about the "Cost" / requirement for a Resource Match, for example.

It's only in the rare case of Unspeakable Res. that this issue is slightly "trickier" than usual, because of the X=cost mechanic. But if you keep in mind the core concept / power of this edition of Yog, which is ....without paying its costs ... you can quickly see how he's effectively allowing you to get beyond the normal "you must pay a certain value for X-to be a certain value" cost. Instead, you effectively pay-2 and get to set/state what value you want X-to have, when you play this ability, because Yog is specifically allowing you to bypass the normal manner in playing X-cards (or any other Spell-Event cards, to be accurate).

-

I .....THINK....I understand it.

The longer this thread goes on, the less sure I am of what the answer is.

But, as far as the tone of this thread goes, it's kind of embarrassing. Hellfury, usually I enjoy your posts, but you started the snark and if anyone should apologize it should be you.

Rosh87 said:

This seems like the way to go, this is how I hoped it would work.

You get to choose the value of "X" and then not pay it. This is probably what the designers meant to do when making this card and it is an "Acient One's" power after all, and should be amazing.

I dont think its meta breaking or ridiculously overpowered, just good, but thats only my opinion, and I have been wrong many, many times before and I am not a top level tournament player, just someone who enjoys the game.

All that said this could have been cleared up ages ago by FFG themselves prior to causing people frustration, resulting in "angry" posts and differing opinions.

We are all entitled to our own opinions and this is clearly a very tricky ruling that is open to interpretation of the rules by each individual, so come on FFG, lets get an official ruling and put this one to rest.

Having said that it has been an entertaining debate and its good to see that people have a passion for this game and for getting the rules correct.

Regards, Neil.

Rosh87 said:

Except the number of resources you will need to pay won't always be equal to the number chosen for X. With Dampen Light in play you will have to pay X+1. There are other cards as well, Tithe Collector, Notebook Sketches. Anything that raises or lowers the cost of cards needs a value of X before costs are to be paid.

Yes, but none of those things you mentioned, Grim, get around or overcome or trump the key part of Yog's ability....." WITHOUT PAYING ITS COSTS ".

I think, as long as you keep saying that to yourself as you consider this debate, the "way to play it" that Marius has been describing makes much more sense.

This is a very strange thread to read through.

I know both Marius and Hellfury to be really good guys based on ALL of their past postings.

Any chance that we could all take a deep breath, blow it out slowly, smile, and get back to enjoying a very interesting and fun card game?

That would make ME, for one, glad.

Chick

Thank you FFG James.

Great to see your cameo in the FFG Gencon videos.