Unhealthy Fixation says:

Attach to a character.
Attached character cannot uncommit from a story until that story is won.

It seems this would protect the attached character from being uncommited by card effects, like Kidnapping 101 :

Action: Choose an opponent's non-Ancient One character committed to a story. Uncommit that character from that story.

Would it also protect the attached character from being uncommitted when the character's controller changes?

Some cards use a different wording; they say 'remove' instead of 'uncommit'. Is that actually a different effect?

Harry Houdini is such a card:

Action: Pay 1 to remove Harry Houdini from a story he is committed to. Then, ready him.

Does this mean that Unhealthy Fixation wouldn't have any effect on Houdini's ability?

And am I right to assume that Obsessive Inmate doesn't have any protection from being forcibly removed/uncommited since his abilty doesn't say 'cannot'?

Obsessive Inmate does not un-commit from a story until that story is won.

jhaelen said:

For Unhealthy Fixation vs Kidnapping 101:

Kidnapping would not work on a character has UF attached. Because of the wording used. However, "remove" should be treated different so an UF'd Harry Houndini could use his effect to leave a story. Can't do so naturually, but has his ability as an option.

For the Obsessive Inmate, I... I'm gonna go with does not = cannot. He can be removed, just not uncommitted. However... its... icky. I'm not a fan of having differnet wordings meaning the exact same thing. But without a clarification or other faq ruling(s) to lead us in another direction I'd agrue that they are treated the same.

I'm not convinced on Obsessive Inmate. I think the "does not" means at the end of story resolution, when you uncommit chracters, you don't do this to Obsessive Inmate. My instinct is that this is all it means, nothing more.

And, that would explain the different language - it means something different.

TheProfessor said:

I almost had that exact same position (in fact I had to delete a good part of my last post), but I couldn't find any evidence to support that. While if we treated "does not un-commit" as an absolute it would function exactly the same as a "cannot" effect.

If the effect was not intended to be an absolute then it should've specifically mentioned when it would apply as we have several ways to uncommit a character. In other words I have trouble accepting a vague/broad effect meaning something so specific when it could just as easily be read to affect all situations.

However, and interesting kink.

from the faq 1.5 under Ready/Exhausted vs Commited/Uncommited

"Characters are Uncommitted from a
story when they are removed from the
challenges due to a card effect, or after
the story has resolved."

With this, remove = uncommit. Which is... annoying. Which also means that I was wrong about Harry and other other remove effects. They cannot be used on a card that can't be removed/uncommited from a story.

I think it does bolster my OI ruling though. As when an effect would remove OI from a story OI doesn't move. However, a possible way it could be different is that cards that cannot be uncommited can't be targeted by an effect that would uncommit a character while doesn't uncommit means that it could be targeted but it just doesn't actually uncommit? Seems silly, but not impossible.

Oooo... Hmm... A question for Damon in there?

Thanks for your replies, Magnus, Professor!

TheProfessor said:

Regarding OI, however, I agree with TheProfessor. The card is missing the 'cannot'.

Isn't this similar to replacement effects which require the word 'instead'?

In a different thread I was wondering if 'Eat the Dead' isn't actually a replacement effect, although it doesn't use the word 'instead'. I mean, the attached character is attached to a domain as a resource instead of being put in the discard pile, right?

So I asked Damon about the difference between "Remove" and "Uncommit". He said:

The two phrases are essentially synonymous. In regards to the ruling, if a card says cannot uncommit then no card effect or game effect can force it to uncommit. If a card says it does not uncommit then the normal game effect that would cause that card to uncommit after stories are resolved is ignored, but any card effect that uncommits or removes a character from a story would still be able to do so.

Cannot means don't even bother trying.

A card that does not, would bypass the normal rule of characters uncommitting but can be removed/uncomitted by a card effect, but a card that says cannot won't even let you try to uncommit it no matter what the source of the effect.

**** lunch break. Damon beat me to it.

TheProfessor said:

TheProfessor said:

Since its being ruled that way ok. (especially since thats what I first thought as well)

Still though... doesn't seem to make sense. Ulimtately I'm chalking this up to poor wording on the card as

"Does not uncommit at the end of the story phase"

would make things a lot clearer. Otherwise I still basically read "does not uncommit from stories" as "cannot uncommit from stories." Otherwise... how are we supposed to relate "does not?" Does "does not" always reference game effects (or non-card effects)?

/me sratches head.

I'm probably reading to far into this... but I don't like this ruling. Any chance for a better explanation or a slap in the face cause I don't think I understand how "does not uncommit" only applys to the 'end of story' phase?

The ruling I gave seems so much simpler. The part where does not is treated as cannot and chalking it up to a simple wording inconsistancy.

Well, considering that we both (initially at least) understood it the same way suggests to me that the wording is probably OK.

I look at it this way does not uncommit suggests that the card itself ignores the uncommit activity. Not that is cannot uncommit, simply that this card doesn't uncommit itself.

The card does not uncommit it, but the card can be uncommitted by something else.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Does not and cannot are not the same thing. I do not eat egg plant. I am fully capable of doing so I choose not to.

Also in case you hadn't noticed there isn't a lot of space on these cards for text. If they forcefully include extra wording then we will want them to carry it over across everything. Which means other cards will end up with effects that are less interesting or less powerful (or perhaps worse too powerful) in oder to put those extra words there. Cannot has been defined in the FAQ I believe. I know Damon has defined it on numerous occasions. Do not is a direction, not a rule/FAQ defined definition.

I don't see what the problem is. Then again I'm used to cannot from AGoT which is a bit cleaner in word choices and definitions (as well as layout). I'm hoping that same level of clarity comes to this game (actually more, AGoT certainly has its fair share of confusing wording).

Penfold said:

Ahh.. umm. Don't think the egg plant metaphor applies. You choosing not to eat egg plant would more closely resemble: "At the end of the story phase you may choose to not uncommit this character." Thats more along the lines of you're capabale, but just choosing not to.

As far as spacing... that.. uhh. No. Not an excuse. If a repeatedly used effect would actually become a spacing issuse you can make it into a keyword. However... theres plenty of room on Obessive Inmate...

Ok. Yes, cannot is defined in the FAQ. "Does not" isn't, which is why its open to intrepetation. The ruling we have right now basically says, without the rest of the wording:

Cannot = unaffect by any kind of effect.

Does Not = unaffected by game effects.

Which is more or less how we're supposed to define "Does Not" now. Without this ruling (that was just given)... we had NOTHING that led us to believe "Does not" only applies to game effects. Other than, perhaps the general perception that this is the only time this would ability likely matter.

Which is what first led me to believe what you guys thought. The general perception. However, after I thought about it, theres nothing that reliably leads me game effect only. Thinking more, I came to the conclusion that "does not" much more closely resembles cannot in that it would apply to both game and card effects since it didn't specificy game effect. Without the specification or definition, why wouldn't it work for all different types of effects? Thats what leads me to believe that 'does not' basically functions as 'cannot.'

Thats my thought process behind this... what your guys'?

Magnus Arcanis said:

Putting it in game terms this indeed means that 'normally' equals 'due to game effects' while 'something' equals 'a card effect'.

Now the prize question is: Is this wording consistently used with exactly this meaning?

Taking e.g. Sweet Dreams:

Action : Until the end of the phase, (T) icons do not protect characters from insanity.

So far my assumption would have been that after playing this event characters with (T) icons could be turned insane by both game effects (e.g. terror struggles) and card effects. Now, I'm wondering: Should it have said '...(T) icons cannot protect characters from insanity' if both was possible and Sweet Dreams actually only allows game effects to turn them insane?

Intuitively, this feels wrong.

jhaelen said:

Ya... unless we treat 'do not' and 'does not' seperately... fairly certain this helps my side of the arguement.

Interesting question, but ultimately I think all we're doing is showing that the card text isn't written rigorously enough as we are unable to apply a consistent meaning to "does not". We have a ruling on the original question, I think we also need to get a ruling on Obsessive Inmate as well and make sure both rulings get into the next version of the FAQ.

I think that it is a question of logical application of the rules and faq to the specific text of the card. A card with terror is normally protected by T icons. The terror icon itself is what makes the card subject to the rule about not being able to be made insane. If a card says T icons do not protect characters from insanity then I would say that they would lose that protection in all instances.

I think the phrasing of the card makes any other interpretation hard to back up.

If we had a card that was worded more like Obsessive Inmate we may end up with a different answer. Take this for example

"Theoretical Inmate #1 does not go insane."

"Theoretical Inmate #2 cannot go insane."

IT feels weird in this context but these two card side by side to me do definitely read differently and seem to mean entirely different things. I would be forced to assume that #1 is not made insane by terror struggles, while the other could not even be attempted to be made insane.

Personally I think we are just reading too much into it. We have a ruling. Any cards that you use do not versus cannot have a precedent set. If we want a ruling on does not we should ask, but I don't think we can arbitrarily extend the ruling on one specific wording to cover one which is similar but not the same.

Wordings on cards grow and change over time. The longer the game (and the longer that the game is made by the same designer/s) the more consistent and more clear cut everything is. The more clearly ruled and explained each errata and clarification is the better we understand how the cards are intended to work and the more we understand the fundamental language behind the game. CoC has had a number of developers over the last few years and that certainly hasn't helped things be consistent.

Penfold said:

For the record. yes, we do have a ruling and onlookers should adhere to that until changed. I'm currently on the side of getting it changed for no other reason than to make the game more logical. lol.

@ the example. If we did have two different wordings then 'does not' would HAVE to be defined as a specific thing (game effect only). Otherwise I would still assume they mean the same thing based on wording.

While you are right that the inconsistancy in wording is... atrociously aweful when it gets to a point when a card no longer functions as intended. However, intent can't drive rulings. Rulings must drive intent. If the inconsistancy in wording has literally changed how a card interacts with the game then erratta it or changes the rules so the intent is restored.

In this case, an erratta would be the easiest fix. However, since we do have a card that 'seemingly' backs up the 'does not' does not just apply to game effects... Obessive Inmate should be ruled that way until a change is made. Not have inconsistant rulings (this would be negated if we ruled that Sweet dreams only effects game effects) as inconsistant rulings is far worse than inconsistant wordings.

The trick is with ruling is that they're made by humans and are prone to error (i would know, i've made enough of em), and while Damon is a talent, hes still rather new, and things have gotten kinda messy since we went lcg (not that things weren't messy in the ccg, but ya...). I certainly don't know everything either, but thats why these discussions exsist. If we always took rulings (that aren't printed) at face value then... indescribeable things would happen.

I'd like to bring today's preview of the next AP to your attention since it's relevant to this discussion:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

First, we get 'Voice of the Jungle', a zero-cost Shub card that works like Unhealthy fixation on steroids: It's attached to a story and any committed characters cannot uncommit!

Second, we get Lethargic Miasma, which has the follwing effect:

"Attached character may not ready."

Note that it doesn't say "Attached character cannot be readied."

I guess, this means it only prevents the character from being readied

a) automatically in the Refresh phase or

b) by winning an arcane struggle?

Readying the character using a different card effect should work since it doesn't use the magic bullet word "cannot" - or is this (yet) a(nother) templating error?

May not be readied means the normal game effects will not affect it. Card effects will.

Penfold said:

We know that "does not" means normal game effects don't work, but have we received an official ruling on "may not", or is this just guesswork on your part?

I actually asked about a week ago about cannot versus does not, and Damon's response included may not as being synonymous with does not.

Penfold said: