Julia Brown: Uncommon Character Cost 3 Skill 2 Arcane Investigation Icon Text: INVESTIGATOR Julia brown gets +1 skill for each insane character in play. Disrupt: If Julia Brown would go insane as the result of a terror struggle, sacrifice her instead. Then, search your deck for a card titled Julia Brown, or The Sleepwalker, put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck.

I have problems with the wording and effect of this card. It makes sense by itself, but it satisfying the Terror Struggle makes no sense to me. I've thought about it a few times and thought I had it figured like it's intent is, but extending her effect to other cards makes me wonder. As I understand it, Julia uses the effect of the Terror Struggle to set off her sacrifice ability and the Terror Struggle is done. This happens because it is a "Replacement Effect". I haven't seen "Replacement Effect" in the rules, but I guess it exists anyway. To me Julia is chosen to go insane, her Disrupt goes off and this card is removed. Ok so far. Terror struggle reads:

Terror Struggle
The player who loses a Terror struggle must immediately choose
one of his characters (committed to that story) to go insane, if able.
That character is no longer considered to be committed to the story
(the character is considered to have fled the scene, gibbering and
drooling).

To me this means since Julia didn't actually go insane, you have to choose another character to go insane instead as per the "Paying Cost" section of the FAQ. It's not an actual cost that needs paying, but I feel it applies as a character needs to be chosen to take the effect of the struggle. It is not optional.

I've had it explained to me that "instead" is the magic word here, but I'm reading "instead " as 'Instead of her going insane, she disappears so you need to choose another character to go insane'. i can even see the Disrupt causing her new card to come into play at the story before the Struggle's effect goes off so the new version can be chosen to go insane, or be immune because it has Terror or Willpower.

If this is not the case and she ends the Terror struggle, then you should be able to choose the Assistant to Dr West, anyone with Warded Flesh or a 'Disrupt:bounce to hand' effect for the Terror or Combat struggle, return them to hand and say the criteria for the effect has been satisfied. All Terror and Combat say is " The player who loses a Terror struggle must immediately choose one of his characters (committed to that story) to go insane, if able / The player who loses a Combat struggle must immediately choose one of his characters (committed to that story) to take a wound, if able." I choose the Assistant to take a wound and bounce him to hand. I chose a character to take a wound so the struggle is satisfied, even though the character is no longer on the board. No instead needed.

So, is this the new game loop hole?

Its not the best wording, but as I am understanding it, she is chosen to go insane (choice fixed) she sacs herself to get another copy of herself which gets put back committed to the story and continues, the terror struggle having already been completed. As I say, its not the best card wording.

Risking that you feel insulted by the answer, I'll give it a shot anyway:

"Instead" is key. Julia's effect won't happen until the struggle effect is satisfied. You have to turn her insane for the replacement effect to work. But instead of turning her upside down, you get to sacrifice her.

"Instead" is short for "Cancel effect A then do effect B."

I gave the coffee/tea as an example of what instead means.

You said:

To me this means since Julia didn't actually go insane, you have to choose another character to go insane instead as per the "Paying Cost"

Here you show a different replacement effect, in essense. However, the "instead" of Julia overrides the instead of the other ruling.

If Julia would get willpower or Terror, she would never go insane in the first place, and thus is unable to replace the effect.

Furthermore, it's all in the timing.

-- Yog-Sothoth --
Warded Flesh
------------
Type : Support
Cost : 2
Subtype : Attachment.
Game Text: Attach to a character you control. Disrupt: before a card effect resolves , return attached character and Warded Flesh to their owners’ hands.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Roberto Marchesi
Collector's Info: AE R180

-- Neutral --
Assistant to Dr. West
---------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 3
Skill : 3
Icons : AII
Subtype : Scientist.
Game Text: Response: when Assistant to Dr. West enters play from your hand, put a character with printed skill 3 or lower into play under your control from any discard pile. Disrupt: before an effect resolves , pay 1 and sacrifice a character to return Assistant to Dr. West to its owner's hand.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Patrick McEvoy
Collector's Info: FC R128

-- Neutral --
•Julia Brown, Insomniac
-----------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 2
Skill : 3
Icons : AI
Subtype : Investigator.
Game Text: Julia Brown gains +1 skill for each insane character in play. Disrupt: If Julia Brown would go insane as the result of a T struggle, sacrifice her instead. Then, search your deck for a card titled "Julia Brown" or "The Sleepwalker", put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck.
Flavor text:
Illustrator: Tomasz Jedruszek
Collector's Info: ASL F17

The Warded Fleshed character, as well as the Assistant will be gone before the terror struggle resolves, where Julia's effect takes place at the very moment the terror struggle is resolving it's penalty.

Marius said:

Nope, can't see it that way. Instead means " Effect A is going to hit Julia, so do Effect B before Effect A takes place." You would still need to resolve Effect A.

"Disrupt: Before Julia Brown goes insane as the result of a T struggle, sacrifice her." might give the effect you're after. It takes place after the T struggle is resolved and the result would still be the new card coming out.

Donald said:

Except that would make her ability pretty pointless. As I said, its not the best wording but the intent is clear.

Donald said:

Maybe "As Julia Brown goes insane..." might work better for you.

Your wording doesn't fix it though. Because your JB indeed goes insane before the terror struggle resolves.

But really, "Disrupt: If Julia Brown would go insane as the result of a terror struggle, sacrifice her instead." works perfectly well.

Let's go etymological here:

• instead

595, from M.E. ine stede (c.1225, see stead); still often two words until after c.1640. A loan-translation of L. in loco (Fr. en lieu de).

• stead

O.E. stede "place, position, standing, delay," related to standan "to stand," from P.Gmc. *stadiz (cf. O.S. stedi, O.N. staðr, Swed. stad, Du. stede "place," O.H.G. stat, Ger. Stadt "town," Goth. staþs "place"), from PIE *stetis-, from base *ste-/*sta- "to stand" (see stet). Now chiefly in compounds or phrases. Steadfast is from O.E. stedefæst "secure in position," from stede + fæst "firmly fixed" (see fast).

(Funny enough, the etymological records also mention Steadfast and Fast... )

It's a loanword from, translated from French - "en lieu de", meaning "in place of."

Your statement: "Effect A is going to hit Julia, so do Effect B before Effect A takes place." is not an accurate description of what happens when your replace one thing with another.

A wonderfully confusion English idiom is "You can't have a cake and eat it." - You can have a cake, or eat it instead. Eating the cake means you no longer have the cake. You can't eat the cake before you get the cake either.

Or, as I posted from the dictionairy:

Instead: as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something: We ordered tea but were served coffee instead.

If you get coffee instead of tea, it means you don't get the tea. Only having this statement means the outcomes are mutually exclusive. An other effect is placed in place of the result of the terror struggle.

The_Big_Show said:

"Disrupt: Before Julia Brown goes insane as the result of a T struggle, sacrifice her. Then, search your deck for a card titled "Julia Brown" or "The Sleepwalker", put it into play committed to the same story, and then shuffle your deck."

That less pointless?

Marius said:

And... we're back to arrogant and smug. You made it through one post, though. Good job. Save the English lessons for someone who needs them.

Not really.

No, the disrupt keeps her from the effects of the Terror Struggle while letting her be selected for it.

No, it doesn't. Thus, this whole discussion.

Let's not.

Right, Instead of the effect going off on Julia, she is sacrificed. The Effect still needs to resolve.

Donald said:

Pffff... Since I have an interest in linguistics and etymology, I'm smug. And still you insist that if you get one thing instead of the other, you actually get both. Good for you!

Yes, you're the victim. Everyone is so mean to you, answering your questions in depth and all, giving you a complete reasoning... Really, I don't give you any room to misunderstand here. It might be overkill, but you insist on misunderstanding the word "instead" - So, an indepth look in the meaning of the word was in order to make sure there is no way ever to misunderstand it. And still you do. Yeah, that makes me feel all clever and superior...

Maybe next time you don't want an answer, don't ask a question?

Marius said:

No, you're smug because you refuse to think of your idea and answer as possibly flawed and wrong. You're arrogant because " I don't give you any room to misunderstand here".

Marius said:

WTF again? I have no idea where you're coming up with this. And a complete reasoning doesn't mean it's the correct reasoning.

Marius said:

No, I understand "Instead" , I just don't agree with you. Instead of going insane her ability triggers. Fine. But nothing in that says the Terror Struggle has been resolved. Instead means " Effect A is going to hit Julia, so do Effect B before Effect A takes place." You still need to resolve Effect A. Maybe you missed that the first time or just ignored it.

Marius said:

I want an answer and discussion about it. I don't want your self righteous attitude saying any thought or opinion other than your's is wrong.

Donald said:

That's not what "instead" means.

"I ordered tea, but got coffee instead" doesn't mean I get coffee, then tea. It means that coffee replaced tea. What part is ambigious about that?

Donald said:

My, my, so you want a discussion without anyone arguing your interpretation might be wrong?

Accusing everyone taking the time to post a different interpretation than yours and taking the extra effort to back up their interpretation as arrogant and self-righteous is really clever. The trouble is, doing this will smother any discussion before it even started. It's not a useful attitude if you are interested in getting an answer to your question.

You may want to take a deep breath, reactivate the parts of your brain that are required for rational thinking and reread Marius' argumentation.

Maybe you'll even want to offer rational arguments why Marius interpretation is wrong.

Marius said:

I think Donald means that the ambiguous part is that you still want tea -ie someone still needs to go insane-, and coffee doesn't satify your cravings (tongue in cheek, but not to much).

Me? I don't care about coffee or tea, I'll just have some popcorn and watch the fight.

Carioz said:

Julia says: If [you order coffee], [get tea] instead.

Greg says: before [you order coffee], [get tea].

As worded, Greg results in you both getting tea and coffee, in that order. Julia will give you tea when you ordered coffee. Both cards say different things. According to the premise, since Greg and Julia are similar, the end result would be exactly the same. However, Greg's statement doesn't equal Julia's statement.

No matter how much the game rules say that in the case of a lost terror struggle [you order coffee], the end result will be [Tea], and the fact that [you order coffee] is lost, because of the replacement effect. The order of coffee is fullfilled once you get tea, even though you really ordered coffee. If you wanted to have coffee regardless, [you] have to [order coffee] again, or, in game terms, have another lost Terror Struggle.

Greg, however, will [get tea] before you [order coffee] so you end up with both.

So, Greg != Julia. A ruling that goes for one doesn't need to go for the other. If there is any room for interpretation I don't see it. It's complete boolean logic and mathematically sound.

Donald said:

My apologies, I read your revision slightly wrong.

Either way, the intent of the card is clear.

Show me the rules text for 'Replacement Effect'.

Since beverage analogies are all you seem to understand, I'll try one more time:

The Terror Struggle orders coffee for the table. Julia says I want tea. Someone still has to pay for the coffee.

As written, it's as clear as Trent Dixon.

I'm done.

Donald said:

See also: The Golden Rule and the meaning of the wordt 'Instead'

Donald said:

Your analogy is flawed.

The Terror Struggle orders [coffee/one insane character] for 1 person at the table. Julia says [if I get coffee, I have tea instead/if I would go insane I get sacrificed instead]. This implies [the coffee is cancelled/the insanity effect is cancelled.]

Donald said:

Obviously.

i see donalds point but under that same idea wouldnt canceling a wound during the combat struggle mean no one was wounded so you'd have to wound someone else? so forest sister couldnt save herself during the struggles, she could try and try again but would drain all your domains for no gain.

i think this is basically an eqivalent of that but on terror instead of combat.

Marius said:

And I'm back. A nice, civil tone like that, jhaelen? OK.

jhaelen said:

No, that's what I'm looking for, not grade school lessons on the meaning of common words delivered in a condescending tone. I have explained several times and all I get in response are grammar lessons. This also goes back to a private conversation between he and I.

jhaelen said:

but this is some how rational, helpful & OK?

PearlJamaholic said:

Not quite. The Combat Struggle is resolved and a character select, but the disrupt goes off before the wound is applied. With an insanity effect, the card's text is immediately blanked so the disrupt can't go off after the Terror Struggle is resolved on a character card.

Marius said:

I am done with coffee metaphors & the meaning of instead. As I've said several times, the meaning of instead is understood and set. Marius is applying it wrong.

I don't know how to explain it any more clear. As in the example I gave PJA, if the Terror Struggle resolves Julia's card is blank and her Disrupt can't be used since she is blanked. The Disrupt goes off before the Terror Struggle is resolved and Julia is removed. The Terror Struggle has not resolved and another Character needs to be chosen to go insane. Nothing in the card's text or in The Golden Rule says this is done instead of a character going insane because of the Terror Struggle. Instead of this character going insane from the Terror Struggle, something else happens before the Terror Struggle is resolved. Now resolved the Terror Struggle.

Marius doesn't understand the basic of the Struggles. Terror and Combat struggles don't target specific characters like a shotgun blast or sac offering, they are a game effect that must be resolved by you choosing one of your characters. If the first choice of targets is no longer available, another selection must be made for the effect.

"This implies the insanity effect is cancelled." -But doesn' t state implicitly, so you're guessing.

"Either way, the intent of the card is clear."- How so? What is your basis for knowing what the designers were thinking? Julia works the same either way, it's if another character goes insane that is in question.

Have at it.

Donald said:

Ah, okay, I see. While that probably explains the way you reacted, I'd recommend to continue your feud using private messages, then. If I enjoyed public mud-slinging, I'd watch a talk show.

Donald said:

But the condition for the Disrupt is stated " as the result of a [Terror] struggle ". I.e. it happens after determining the outcome of the Terror Struggle and choosing Julia as the Character to go insane but before actually turning her insane (that's why the card says "if Julia Brown would go insane"). So, the Terror Struggle has been resolved. It's just that the Character is sacrificed instead of going insane.

Donald said:

Obviously, I don't have a clue what the designers were thinking. I think, what I'm doing is applying Occam's Razor . In other words, if there are two conflicting interpretations I go with the one that offers the simplest explanation. Before you start arguing, 'the simplest' explanation is the one that seems to be the simplest to me . YMMV.

i guess the text box would be blanked, but we have dexter which is insane. so there is a precedence, but its clearly stated there. i do think the meaning of the card is clear, and once again it is clear that time wasnt taken to properly word a card........hopefully they hire an editor, proof reader soon.

i do think if we ask for a official wording for the card it would be the cancel/replace effect.

I had some problem with the resolution of this card on a casual game :

This is how we ruled it :

Julia commit with a character with no T icon against an elder Shoggoth.

We play the T struggle

Julia's team loose the T struggle. I decided to choose Julia as the character that's driven crazy. I haven't yet resolved any struggle, right ?

Instead of resolving the struggle, I disrupt. As it is stated on the rules, disruption takes predominance on the normal timing.

I have choose a target that was legal (julia got no Willpower or T icons), and INSTEAD of resolving, the text of the card offer me another conclusion (CF GOLDEN RULES).

Then, no way to return back to the targetting phase, as the T struggle is ended, the victil chosen but escaped !

SO I'll follow MArius interpretation on this one.

jhaelen said:

Ah, but you're using science . This fails as soon as someone religiously wants Julia to be a defective card, even while not batting an eye at the effect before, when asked to examine the effects.

Donald said:

This is quite a good example. Instead of looking at the precise facts on offer, the assumption is made about the tone, and the facts are ignored. Also, using [Variables] in the equation as a form of demonstration of facts is grossly misunderstood, as well as the applications of the variables offered in the defenition of the key part of the word. A word used to replace one thing with another.

A cards wording is about, well, words and what they mean.

I could have offered: "Your statement is false. That is not how Julia works so don't expect anyone to rule that way." - But I also offered why. The attention of detail may be perceived as condecending, but that's more the fault of what Donald expects, or secretly hopes for, than anything else.

Asking a question is to imply you are not sure. If someone says: "I am sure, here are the facts" then the replying "Well, aren't you smug and condecending to me!" is a silly response to an answer to your question. It seems that Donald is not wanting to find a solution, just asks questions so he can mock anyone who answers for being 'smug' instead. So, yeah, I call ulterior motive in both asking the question, and purposly misunderstanding the card.

And indeed, Julia is not the first card with this exact replacement effect:

-- Hastur --
• Charles Dexter Ward
--------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 3
Skill : 3
Icons : CA
Subtype : Servitor.
Game Text: Charles Dexter Ward is Insane. Charles Dexter Ward retains all its properties and can commit while being Insane.

Whenever Charles Dexter Ward would go Insane, choose another character, if able. That character goes Insane instead.

Flavor text:
Illustrator: Aaron Acevedo
Collector's Info: AKD F9

The only difference is the choice of conjunction in the statement. But dispite that, according to Donalds dogma, when someone would send CDW alone, all characters in play without terror or willpower go insane, and maybe the game ends in an infinite involuntairy loop. (There is a ruling about loops though, so they would break after a set number of iterations, but still...)

To get to the original question, there is no loophole as: "Greg equals Julia" is a false statement.

Sorry for taking so long to reply, the Church of Donald took a field trip to the airport today to hand out pamphlets and flowers.

Charles Dexter is very different from Julia and I can't see any connection between their abilities. He's starting out insane and has text that lets him keep his abilities and icons. The last FAQ has the addition of :

(v1.9) Charles Dexter Ward F9
This additional text applies to Charles Dexter Ward: “Charles Dexter Ward can be chosen as the target of an effect that would cause him to go Insane, including a lost Terror struggle at a story to which he is committed.

to let him be targeted by insanity effects to use his abilities. Nothing is a disrupt or the fabled "Replacement effect", it's a simple re-assigning of target. CDW wouldn't loop in my 'Dogma' since the Terror Struggle would resolve and CDW's text allows it to be reassigned.

As for the rest of marius' blather, what can I say? I read and understood your 'facts' and came to a different conclusion. Since it seems it is impossible for you to be wrong, you assumed I did not understand your facts, so they must be explained over and over. Or my mysterious ulterior motive made me ignore the only possible correct answer, yours, for my own unknown (even to me), secret ends. Sorry, but you're not that important.

Donald

Marius, from what I can understand your interpretation of how Julia Browns' ability works

seems likely to be correct. The wording however is not obvious so shouldn't we have an

official ruling? Whether you're purposely being condenscending I won't venture to say but

you do sometimes come off that way maybe when you think you're being clever or cute.

You obviously have a wealth of knowledge. The trick is how to present it.

This medium allows for a broad spectrum of interpretation and often misunderstandings.

In attempt to avoid any misinterpretation, I can certainly be a jerk but I am not trying to be

with these observations.

Hybrid said:

"For now, Julia’s usefulness in the game is reliant on her replacement effect, which allows her to bypass the insanity-producing effect of the terror struggle. The word “instead” lies at the heart of the replacement effect, as it allows the new effect to occur in place of whichever effect it is replacing. Not “in addition to,” but instead. This means that when Julia Brown sacrifices and “replaces” herself with a new copy from your deck, you have effectively gotten around the consequences of losing a terror struggle."

This ruling can be found here . The question boiled down to "Why isn't it in the rules book?" - but it is, under the Golden Rule. The meaning of the word "Instead" means you get one effect in the place of the other, not in addition to the other.