Hello Players!

I'm gathering all unresolved questions, pleas for errata, and points of clarification for the newest FAQ. Please post to this thread any questions or concerns that you have that have not yet made their way into the FAQ. Please also post any problems or points for clarification with the general rulebook and the current FAQ (1.3).

Thank you for your efforts, and here is to a fun and competitive regionals season for Call of Cthulhu.

Damon Stone
Associate LCG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

Off the top of my head:

Widow missing "from your hand". http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=458967

Doppleganger, Is it really no longer supposed to bounce back to the hand? http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=453988

What exactly is a card's "effect" (deals with cancellations, responses, etc)

Hopefully I can add more when I'm off work.

Story effect of the Well (the if/then condition) http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=459410

Self referential lowering of costs (Ghoulish Worshippers) http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efpag=1&efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=431736

Can Repo Man's passive ability (which seems like a triggered effect) be cancelled/disrupted?

Token removal (success/wound) on insanity http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=448639

Yog's ability for spell cards that attach to a character. Do they go to the discard after attachment? http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=456011

KallistiBRC said:

Why would it be able to be canceled/disrupted? It clearly has no triggering phrase which makes it a passive and passives cannot be canceled (as noted in Timing Structure (v1.0) Actions, Disrupts, and Responses, page 7 of the FAQ. Or is the question more of, "Is Repo Man supposed to be a triggered effect?"

Penfold said:

I've been to three different playgroups that have thought this, so I figured it might just be a good thing to bring up. Anyway, their thinking was that though it is a passive some people thought that the winning of the combat struggle was a triggering effect.

Yeah, I'd like to scoff but on BGG I've seen dozens of questions on all the LCG games that makes it really evident that the person has not actually read the rulebook. Not the FAQ, the RULEBOOK. I mean seriously. RTFM.

KallistiBRC said:

Clarification: Do they go to the bottom of the deck as per the Yog text after attachment? <not discard>

Other than that I think KallistiBRC has captured the major issue that have been bantered about since the last FAQ so I have nothing else to add.

@Damon: Thanks for answering my last question despite me asking it like an ass...

Some questions from the cenacle's players :

1 ) Textbox and "printed textbox"
ex : Neutral Ground + Guardian Pillar
The neutral ground blank the "printed" textbox. Is the Guardian Pillar have a "printed" textbox or just a textbox when it becomes a character ? is the Neutral Ground working against The GP ?

2) Twisted Choregrapher
Twisted Choregrapher says he gains all printed icons of characters attached to it.
If a character card is attached to the TC in another way than the TC's response (ex: action of the Hound of Tindalos or the expendable muscle), does the TC gains the icons of theses character's cards. Or, how can you have more than one character attached to the TC at the same moment (the 's' to the word "characters attached to it" means you can have any number of attached characters ?)

3) Julia Brown, Oddly Amphibious(F107)
- If I play the interruption of Julia Brown, Insomniac (The Spawn off the Sleeper F17) and replace it by the Cthulhu version, Julia, Oddly Amphibious, must I discard 2 cards and draw 2 others ?
- If I have only one card in hand when I engage Julia (Oddly Amphibious), must I discard this card or not ? Than can I draw 2 cards ?

4) Do Cats of Ulthar or Julia Brown (Nt) or any card that can come into play commited to a story have to be put into play exhausted or readied ?

Penfold said:

Another interesting question related to Repo Man has been asked in the German CoC forum:

What happens when Repo Man's ability is used to take control of the Infernal Obsession (Summons of the Deep F51) support card attached to a character (your opponent has committed to the same story)?

I think we found the correct answer, but this one is very, very tricky.

Where in the fact does it say that? There is a difference in game terms between an effect that has triggering requirement, and a triggered effect. The rulebook clearly states what are considered triggered effects, Page 13 "A triggered effect is any effect preceded by the following text in bold: Action , Disrupt , Response , or Forced Response .

It does not include or allow for any statement about any other factor, requirement, or templating to determine whether or not something is a triggered effect.

To add to this the FAQ also clearly states what are considered passive effects, Page 4 "Passive effects are ongoing effects that are not optional, unless otherwise stated. Passive effects and abilities do not hae a trigger such as Action : , Forced Responce: , Response: , or Disrupt: "

I'm pretty sure that covers all bases.

KallistiBRC said:

I'm sorry can you be a little more precise here? What is the question or point of contention? IS there an example or a thread you can post or link to?

Penfold said:

Penfold said:

Anyway, I still feel it's not as clear as it could be. Look at the errata for the Chess Prodigy:

When does the player who controls Chess Prodigy name
what struggle is being replaced?
The player who controls Chess Prodigy names
the struggle after Chess Prodigy is committed
to a story. After the struggle type is named,
the replacement effect (counting Investigation
icons instead of that struggle’s normal icons)
will take place even if Chess Prodigy has been
uncommitted from the story or leaves play.
This type of passive effect that is based on a
trigger, will last until the end of the turn when
the trigger is met.

I feel it is confusing that the FAQ talks about "a passive effect based on a trigger" when it's not a triggered effect! It's also an example of a passive effect that is not ongoing. If it was as clear as you seem to think, then Chess Prodigy wouldn't have had to be added to the FAQ. Repo Man is just as confusing as Chess Prodigy, hence it deserves to be added to the list of cards requiring clarification.

If a card text triggers (hah!) multiple rule discussion threads on different forums that span several pages each, it's a prime candidate for a clarification or errata, don't you think?

No, actually I don't. It took me two minutes to find the relevant sections in both documents, in total. I'm all for clarifications that can't be deduced from the written documents, but in this case it is clearly covered.

At some point we as players we have to do our own due diligence to read and apply the rules that are already present in the game that cover our questions and confusions. No bold text before the effect means it cannot be a triggered effect. It's in the rulebook and the FAQ. This is not something that should require further clarification.

Then again, I used to work tech-support so I do expect people to have at least read the included reference material included with items they purchase, and so may have a lower tolerance for people who don't go to that first, before requesting help from more official channels.

Penfold said:

Well, great for you! You clearly seem to enjoy using the word 'clearly' a lot. Clearly you don't know what the word means!

As it happens, I'm writing technical manuals, too. I've also been able to deduce how it works from the FAQ, but it's everything but clear or easy . I wouldn't expect a 'normal' person to get the difference. And that's why you see players asking questions on the forums. If a manual is badly written, people will call support all the time. So it's alwys better to err on the safe side - it will save you work in the long run.

In an ideal world you wouldn't need the FAQ because everything you need to play is covered by the rules. As much as I enjoy this game, the rules are a confusing mess. Getting basic things right, like resoving stories correctly is something that takes a lot of experience. Even at the European League we've had players struggling with some of the more complicated cards and interactions.

Anyway, I think, this discussion has derailed the thread long enough. I'll refrain from posting further about this issue. It's not in our hands anyway, what will get added to the FAQ and what will not.

A thing can be clearly stated and clearly written and people still be confused... when they haven't bothered to actually read the documentation, or they had no context by which to understand the information when it was first read.

Do you know any of these individuals who you could quote or show the relevant section to who would still not understand it? I mean if someone is ESL or something that is understandable, but after reading it what person over the age of twelve (and I'm being generous with twelve) doesn't get that a triggered effect looks like This: and a passive doesn't?

I completely agree with Jhaelen on this. Sure, if you read through the entirety of the FAQ and Rulebook, hopefully you come to the right conclusion. But then you read that section on Chess Prodigy and is talks about passive effects based on trrigger. You *seriously* don't see how that could be very confusing to somebody who doesn't scour this rules forum all the time?

Or, even conceivably, they're sitting in their game club with no access to the internet to see discussions such as this one, and have only the faq and rulebook printed out. They're going to have to rule this on their own. And sure, that may be a good exercise for them, and awesome if they become better rules lawyers for it, but perhaps it's not necessarily our job to force their education upon them.

Maybe, instead, we can fix the issues with the faq such as updating the chess prodigy ruling (and any other spot that might reference passive effects and triggers). Then those two players can actually make the right ruling in confidence.

Also note, things like the C.P. text allow for "evil" players to try and manipulate the rules w/ some rules lawyering in a tournament situation, which could get the TD's involved etc etc. I really can't understand the justification for not fixing/clarifying issues, especially when questions have been specifically asked for by the faq maintainers.

dormouse said:

I think this came up in one of the threads regarding what exactly an effect is when referenced by other cards. Other confusions arise because the term effect is overloaded. Sometimes it refers directly to a triggered effect by an opponent. Sometimes it's the effect of struggle resolution, other times it's a story card effect. Which of these are actionable, which are just vague grammer, etc.

Some possible examples:

"Dark Quagmire cannot be chosen as the only target of a triggered effect. At the beginning of each player's story phase, that player must remove one of his success tokens from attached story." Would this make it immune to Repo Man? (Especially relevant given the wording on Chess Prodigy about passive effects based on a trigger)

Combine, Dark Quagmire, Guardian of the Key, and the story card that all players name a character or support card and you destroy all copies of that card. "Disrupt: Exhaust Guardian of the Key to cancel 1 effect that chooses a support card as a target." So, there are card effects, story effects, etc. Does "effect" wrap "card effect" and "story card effect"?

Also, in this situation, is winning the story a "triggered effect"? It certainly seems like it has a triggering condition of winning the story, but perhaps that's not a trigger. If 'trigger' is only *EVER* for the bolded Action, Response, Etc, then that removes most of the issue there, but we should fix the Chess Prodigy.

Here's a fun question... Say somehow that the aforementioned story ends up being won, but through some combination of events, the only thing left in play is the Dark Quagmire card. Can it be the target of that story card's effect? What if both people choose it?

Here's more for the what is an effect quetion: "After an opponent wins a story but chooses not to trigger its effect, exhaust Field Researcher to trigger that story's effect as if you had won the story.(It still goes to the winning opponent's won story pile.)" This seems to imply that a story card's text is a triggered effect since the opponent must "choose not to trigger its effect" for Field Researcher's text to apply.

And this one: "Action: Trigger a non-conspiracy story card in your won story pile. Shuffle it back into the story deck before its effect resolves." Clearly the first part (the Action) can be canceled, but what about the story re-resolution? It's been triggered?

And another for "what is an effect": "If your opponent has put a character into play due to a card effect this turn, reduce the cost to play Intervention by 2." So, let's say we have enough cost reduction on the table to lower the cost of playing a card to zero (that Miskatonic dude that lowers the cost of investigators can do it). I can now play this card, for 0 cost. Was i putting this character into play due to a card effect (i.e. the cost lower)? It becomes more relevant when considered with Stalking Hound: "After an opponent's character enters play due to a triggered effect, put Stalking Hound into play from your hand or discard pile." This seems to imply that there are card effects that put characters into play that are not triggered effects.

"Disrupt: Exhaust Underground Asylum and pay 1 to cancel an effect that would cause a character to go insane." Combat struggles? How about Zann's ability? "If you win a (T) struggle in which Erich Zann is participating, instead of the normal struggle effects, you choose which of your opponent's participating characters goes insane." If the opponent uses Zann's ability, is this now the effect that can be cancelled? (Probably not in this last case since Zann's ability is passive)

Anyway, I think this shows some of the possible confusion about what exactly an effect is, especially when combined with the word 'trigger' that happens a lot.

KallistiBRC said:

I think one example was the ability of Performance Artist:

Disrupt : Sacrifice Performance Artist to cancel the effects of a character or support card ability.

Since card rules are supposed to trump general rules this could be interpreted to allow disrupting passive card effects since the ability doesn't include the word 'triggered'.

KallistiBRC said:

KallistiBRC said:

Honestly no I don't not when the parts that actually reference Passives and Triggered effects are explicit. There is literally no other conceivable interpretation of those passages that I can come up with. You don't have to read the entire rulebook cover to cover, nor the FAQ, you can just go to the sections that deal with the question at hand what is a triggered effect or what is a passive and the answer is right there. Black and white (well black and tan).

Are you honestly saying that you can read either of those sections and come up with any logical argument? The bit with Chess Prodigy is a serious piece of inference. To me it comes down to one of two things, someone hasn't thought to look at the two sections which are actually about the question or it is based on a person wanting a thing to be a certain way and trying to rules lawyer it into being, and ignoring the two parts that actually discuss what a passive and triggered effect are and how they are differentiated in the game.

KallistiBRC said:

I have yet to see any argument that says it needs to be clarified. Seriously when you have two sections which no one has been able to come up with an argument to refute clearly saying the exact same thing in sections labeled Passive and Triggered effects respectively, in order to support an obvious interpretation which uses species reasoning in an attempt to reach a conclusion that the example is not even addressing.

How would you alter the Chess Prodigy example that still gets across the exact same thing but avoids the word trigger (which is precisely what is happening, despite the effect not qualifying as a triggered effect)? Oh and it has to not allow for any other possible interpretation, no matter how poorly read. I couldn't do it. Then again, Damon comes across as a pretty smart guy. Perhaps he has some magic turn of phrase that will better illustrate how the mechanics of the game work.

I'll certainly applaud him if he can.

After reading all of your examples for Damon I see where someone could easily get confused without referring to the relevant sections.

I can see someone stating that the cards may be trying to bend or break the rules and therefor the Golden Rule is in effect, though I still think that is not a well founded argument, and the burden of proof would be on that debater since the rulebook and FAQ due specifically state what a triggered effect and a passive are, they do not define what an effect that triggers is, but since it sometimes does and sometimes does not fit the very specific description of what a triggered effect is, I think that the right ruling is pretty easy to determine, All Triggered effects are effects that trigger, but not all effects that trigger are triggered effects.

On those grounds I withdraw my thought that there is no need for any type of clarification. Clearly something needs to be said.

Get to it Damon! Work that magic!

OH, here's one more I just happened to find:

Like a Moth: "Action: Choose a character. Until the end of the phase, lower that character's printed skill to 0."

Is this card really intended to lower the printed skill? just the skill?

There are lots of cards that validate off the printed skill ("exhaust all characters with printed skill less than 3" etc) but there are *very* few effects adjust the printed skill of a card. In fact, the only ones I can think of are Like A Motha card going insane.

jhaelen said:

There is a lot of confusion about Repo Ma and Attachments (At least in my case).

I would like to know if Repo Man can handle Snow Graves aka play it back to the opponent's discard pile (FAQ text about taking control of attachments is quite confusing in relation to Repo Man).

when you take the control of an attachment you must attach it to a CARD you control (cf faq), if you can't do it, you can't steal the card. With the Repoman you can't steal the snow grave because it is attached to a discard pile, not to a CARD.

"If that card is an attachment, immediately attach
it to an eligible card you control (following all
requirements on the card). If you cannot, then
you may not take control of the attachment."

Dadajef said:

That's part of what makes my example upthread tricky:

What happens when Repo Man's ability is used to take control of the Infernal Obsession (Summons of the Deep F51) support card attached to a character (your opponent has committed to the same story)?

You discard the IO (It's written on the card > if the control of the IO change, discard it). If the attached character was committed, you removed it from the story (you regain the control of your character) as says the faq : " Any time a player gains control of a committed character during a story, that character is removed from the story ."