If Snow Graves is attached to your discard pile can Yog-Sothoth's ability to play spell event cards from your discard pile still work or not? My thought is no but I began to wonder about the word "play" and what it means.

you have to put spell into play from the discard pile. and coz of snowgraves you cannot move cards from discard pile. something like this.

There is a parallel discussion of this going on in another thread. One of the posters indicated that they received an email response from Damon that said, in effect, there is no "zone of play" to which an Event card must enter to be used. The way I read the response was that an Event card is normally played from hand to discard pile with no in-between zone. In that logic, Yog can trigger an Event card in the discard pile without it ever leaving the discard pile.

It's not particularly satisfactory to me, but I don't see anything in the FAQ that specifies an Event card must enter the zone of play to be executed.

TheProfessor said:

That contradicts the FAQ in some way:

When a player plays an event from his
discard pile, it does not remain in his
discard pile, but rather is placed back
in his discard pile after the action is
complete. (FAQ 2.1.1: 2.12)

Although it is not stated that getting out of the discard pile is a condition for the event to be played...

mzi said:

Well, according to the rulebook and FAQ, I still think a played event goes briefly into play before being discarded :

Rulebook, p. 5

Event Cards
Event cards represent spells, actions, disasters and plot twists. An
event card is normally played from a player’s hand, its text effects
are resolved, and then it is placed in its owner’s discard pile .

FAQ, p. 6, definition of "Play".

To “Play” a card is to pay all costs and
follow all play restrictions in order to
bring the card into play from a player’s
hand.

FAQ, p. 6, definition of "In Play"

In Play
In play is the Play Area.

[by opposition to : "Out of Play
Out of play is the Draw Deck, Hand,
Domains (and resources), and Discard
Pile."]

Damon's unquoted explanation goes against the simplest interpretation of the rules.

Damon took over FAQ writing um, i think in 1.5 or something like that. It sounds like he did a bit of research in the wording and created a FAQ entry that represented the rules and fixed what would have been a massively abusive combo. If his first ruling was wrong I'm glad he reconsidered the question or looked at it more deeply and wrote an entry that covered it.

I always thought the card was triggered from hand and went to the discard pile, not that it ever entered play. Paying to put a card into play and paying for a card's effect from hand would use similar terminology, but if that event card is literally in play then there are effects that could create some weird issues someday.

The way I read his FAQ entry is the card removes itself and then is reentered into the discard pile from Yog's effect.The FAQ entry could have clearly stated it went into play, but he specifically avoids using that terminology.

O.K. I've read everyone's interpretations and opinions on how they believe this should work but I'm still unclear. Could everyone just answer this question straight up, "If you locked your opponents discard pile with a snow graves would you allow him to play event spell cards from said discard pile via the use of Yog-Sothoth, yes or no?"

Short answer : From a written rules standpoint, we can't tell.

wow. semantics abound here. i understand the rules are unclear and all, but doesn't it seem pretty obvious that snow graves is meant to stop people playing things or retrieving things (to play those things) from their discard pile? i'd say snow graves means things can only get put INTO the discard pile, and that they're vortexed into oblivion unless and until someone can remove that snow grave.

i feel the same way about the stygian eye discussion. obvious intent...

this sounds like the way kids try breaking the rules when they're grasping at straws. but dad... you said not to xxxx and i didn't really xxxx because the xxxx was blah blah blah and i blah blahed. blah.

sorry, not trying to call anyone out. it just seems from my newbie/outsider position the cards were meant to be read in a certain spirit.

piszcadz said:

I'd say there two big reasons for such discussions:

1. In big tournaments (like the upcoming Regionals championships) it is essential that there is no disagreement over the way a card works. And quite frankly the only way to eliminate disagreement is to have the game designer specify the functioning.

2. Although it might appear obvious as to the "certain spirit" in which the cards are meant to function, how can you know for sure? Basically one way - the word of the game designer.

So in the question of any sort of confusion, some official determination is really the only way to resolve issues. Since we can't be getting constant feedback from the game designer, we have to go to the RuleBook and the FAQ and assemble the answer from these rules. It would be inappropriate to say "I know what the game designer intended!" because there is no way for me to know what the designer intended unless he told me.

Also note the FAQ would not even exist if it were not necessary, so clearly FFG thinks it is important to answer these questions.

you are of course correct professor...

i just had a fleeting moment of frustration with this aspect of the game consuming so much time.

like magic or not, it was always pretty darned clear what the rules were (for the most part...)

at the moment this flexibility in rule interpretation seems like more of a feature of the game, than a bug, eh?

Haha! Well, Magic is clear because there are extremely detailed rules that go through step by step. But "clear" is subjective - I've seen many a MtG game where it was necessary for one player to walk his opponent through the steps to demonstrate something was legal. Of course the upside is that there is a detailed tournament rule set so in case of confusion it can all be resolved. And they have many years of experience, hundreds of play testers, and multiple employees involved.

FFG is doing a great job with a much smaller community. But we do get into these confusions.

Fortunately for us, the current designer, Damon Stone, is quite response to any official rules inquiries submitted through the "Rules Questions" link way down at the very bottom on this page.

piszcadz said:

E.g. I think the rules are clear regarding Snow Graves making it impossible to play cards from the discard pile but I didn't feel sure about the Stygian Eye's effect duration. Passive effects can be tricky and a new FAQ entry is desirable to point out how it's supposed to work.

We've had similar discussions before and my stance about them is this:

If CoC was an RPG and not an LCG, intent would be easier to determine, since you could always ask yourself: 'Would interpreting it this way be 'balanced' or does it seem 'too good to be true'?

RPG's tend to strife for clear and easy rules, although they sometimes also reward system mastery. They also feature a 'game master' to overrule rules-lawyers, so they cannot ruin the game for everyone else. This is important, because it's a cooperative game.

A CCG/LCG, though, is at its core a competitive game (LotR being the odd one out, obviously). Often cards are designed precisely to reward players that figure out weird interactions with other cards, resulting in powerful combos. System mastery is important because the deck-building aspect is almost like its own game. That's also why correct and consistent templating (use of game terms) is so important: changing, omitting, or adding a single word can completely change how a card is played. New players won't notice all of the intricacies right away, while experienced players actively look for such deviations.

The FAQ is explicit on this,

"When a player plays an event from his
discard pile, it does not remain in his
discard pile, but rather is placed back
in his discard pile after the action is
complete. (FAQ 2.1.1: 2.12)"

Any non-FAQ ruling from Damon prior to a FAQ release is certainly going to be his best interpretation of how the rules say it should work. Any FAQ ruling after his statement is what he has decided needs to be done for game balance and to ensure intent and function are as unified as possible. Damon has reversed his position on spot rulings when he was able to sit down and go through the rulebook and FAQ in detail before. I applaud his desire to have the game make sense more than his being "right."

Stygian Eye has a ruling. It is entirely possible that a future FAQ may overturn that ruling, but it sounds like he has a very specific view of the rules in this case and how it is applied. I suspect rather than a FAQ concerning the Eye we might get a FAQ entry that clearly differentiates the various types of passive effects making everything easier to understand.