{Continued from previous post.}

Some side questions:

Q2.i) Mists of Lethe has a similar ability to Military Bike, of being able to reassign characters to other stories. Mists of Lethe has not received the errata that was given to Military Bike, so does that mean Mists of Lethe's response can relocate an opponent's attacking character to a story where there are currently no other committed characters?

Military Bike (Summons of the Deep, F102), including errata, reads:

Attach to a character you control.

Disrupt: After a story to which attached character is committed resolves, exhaust Military Bike to immediately re-commit attached character to another unresolved story. Characters can only be re-committed by Military Bike to a unresolved story where there are already characters.

Yes.

Q2.ii) Similarly, can Mists of Lethe's response relocate an opponent's defending character to a story where there are currently no other committed characters; ignoring the Step 2 - Opponent Commits rule that " The opponent (the non-active player) may now commit any number of his ready characters to any story where the active player has committed at least one character during step 1. "; where, without any attackers present, that story will not resolve?

Yes, because as noted above the opponent is not committing that character, you are.

I'm fascinated by the idea that "Mists of Lethe has its controller committing the character". (I would have assumed the character is still considered to have been committed by the character's controller, rather than Mists of Lethe's controller, after the effect resolves.) I think this might be the first card that can cause my character to be committed to a story on my side which is considered to have been committed by my opponent and not (or no longer) by me! I wonder what interesting card interactions that might open up!?

Just to make sure I've got my head around those definitions/differences related to 'commit', can you confirm that my reading of the following card is correct:

Cannibal Ghast (Core, F106) reads:

Cannibal Ghast cannot commit to stories on your turn.

'Cannot' is absolute, however 'commit' in this instance only relates to the standard framework 'commit' action. I could still use a card effect that committed Cannibal Ghast to a story on my turn outside of the standard framework 'commit' action. Correct?

Correct. A card effect could make it committed.

An unrelated question:

Q3) When a card makes reference to being able to "play" a card, this means " to pay all costs and follow all play restrictions in order to bring the card into play from a player’s hand " as per section (2.24) “Put into Play” vs “Play” vs “Enters Play” in the FAQ. However, in terms of The Action Window In Detail section in the FAQ, which outlines:

Step 1 - Initiate action (check restrictions, determine and pay costs, and trigger the effect)

Step 2 - Disrupts

Step 3 - Execute action

...does paying the cost to play that card as per the effect occur in Step 1 or in Step 3 ?

As you noted here " Step 1 - Initiate action (check restrictions, determine and pay costs , and trigger the effect)"

Q3.i) Example: During the resolution of a story where I have a character committed, when the Combat struggle is about to initiate I trigger the disrupt on Tommy Malloy, "The Big Palooka". My opponent responds with his own disrupt triggering Hali's Directive to cancel Tommy's effect. Hali's Directive goes to the discard pile, while Tommy returns to my hand from where I could immediately trigger his disrupt ability again. However, at what point would I pay Tommy's cost of 2 to 'play' him - was it during Step 1 , and so I would have lost those spent resources when Hali's Directive is triggered in Step 2 ; or is it not until Step 3 ?

Tommy Malloy, "The Big Palooka" (Denizens of the Underwold, F4) reads

Disrupt: Before a Combat struggle resolves at a story where you have at least one character committed, you may play Tommy Malloy from your hand committed to that story.

Hali's Directive (Denizens of the Underworld, F47) reads:

Disrupt: Cancel the effects of a character card just triggered. Then, drive that character insane, if able.

You'd have to pay his cost in Step 1 of each of those, meaning you pay once, he get’s canceled, and then you pay a second time, and assuming it is not canceled again he is played successfully.

Some FAQ comments:

4) Section (2.13) Paying Costs states that " You may only pay costs with cards you control. You may never exhaust a card, drain a domain, drive insane, sacrifice, or otherwise use or alter the game state of any card you do not control, as the means of a paying the cost of an effect. " This definition does not appear to cover paying costs with your story success tokens, such as in relation to Fraternal Ties.

Fraternal Ties (Seekers of Knowledge, F37) reads:

Action: Discard X success tokens from 1 story to choose X cards in your discard pile and add them to your hand.

Extrapolate, please, we’ll clarify in the next FAQ, that you cannot use or alter the game state of any card or token you do not control.

5) There are a number of A Game of Thrones references that should be changed to Call of Cthulhu references. Namely:

5.i) " trait " should be “keyword”

Trait is not keyword, trait is subtype, but thank you. What document and where uses this wording.

Whoops, sorry - yes, I meant to say "subtype" rather than "keyword". You'll find eight "trait" references in the Card Clarification and Errata section of the FAQ.

5.ii) " grey " box should be "green" box, which I think I've mentioned previously

This should have already been corrected (in this case it was a difference in the first printing of the core set). I try to make sure that it gets done in the next FAQ.

The reference to a "grey" box only remains in the Timing Structure part of the FAQ, in the second paragraph of the End of Turn vs. End of Story Phase section.

6) One card that I've seen commonly misplayed by new players, and is regularly questioned in the forums, is whether or not The Three Bells can be triggered by a player with no characters to sacrifice; with the intent to force just the opponent to sacrifice a character. When that pack was released, FFG put out a news item specifically addressing this point, but it never made its way in to any rulesheet or FAQ:

" In Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game, the phrase “have each player choose and sacrifice a character,” necessitates that each player be able to choose and sacrifice a character. This means, your The Three Bells must claim the sacrifice of your character in order to force the sacrifice of your opponent’s (and visa versa), but the All-Mother excels at replacing her fallen with new progeny, meaning your sacrifice is likely to be less costly. ”

The Three Bells (Revelations, F92) reads:

Action: Pay 1 and exhaust The Three Bells to have each player choose and sacrifice a character. Then, place a success token on The Three Bells.

Action: When The Three Bells has 3 or more success tokens on it, exhaust and sacrifice The Three Bells to put into play under your control 1 character from any player's discard pile.

There are a couple of rules in the FAQ that already address this. I’ll propose to the team the idea of including it in the questions section as well, but it is covered. For example, (1.9) Choosing Targets -

" A player cannot trigger a card effect that requires him to choose a character, support card, or story card if there is no card of that type that he is able to choose.

For example, a player could not play Opening the Limbo Gate (Core Set F116) unless every player’s discard pile contained at least one character card.

In addition, a player cannot trigger a card effect that requires him to choose a certain number of targets if there are not enough valid targets available."

Credit also to HilariousPete for his previous tip about the news article reference.

Village of Ash (F9, The Shifting Sands) reads:

Each player chooses one story card that he has won (except this one) and shuffles it into the story deck. Then shuffle all Relic cards in play into their owners' decks.

Q) Does Village of Ash require each player to have a won story card (excluding Village of Ash) to trigger its effect?

For example, if my opponent has taken one story card and I have none, and I have just won Village of Ash, am I unable to trigger its effect to have just my opponent lose a story card?

(Just FYI, I now believe this is the case, following our recent discussion [ above ] about similar cards like The Three Bells; however this is something I've only just picked up on.)

Yes.

Khopesh of the Abyss (F16, The Shifting Sands) reads (including errata):

Attach to a character you control Attached character gains Toughness +1.

After Khopesh of the Abyss leaves play, shuffle it into its owner's deck.

Action: Wound attached chracter to choose a character. That character takes 1 wound.

Note that the first instance of "character" in the FAQ Errata for Khopesh of the Abyss is misspelt.

Q) Does Khopesh of the Abyss work or fail on its final use?

For example, I have Khopesh of the Abyss attached to a character that has no printed Toughness. I use Khopesh of the Abyss once, taking a wound (equal to my gained Toughness + 1 from Khopesh of the Abyss), to wound a character of my opponent's. If I attempt to use Khopesh of the Abyss a second time, taking a second wound and exceeding my character's Toughness, that character is destroyed and Khopesh of the Abyss is also destroyed - but, having now paid the cost, does the Khopesh of the Abyss's 'Action' still execute or, having now left play, does it not?

Yes, you could get two uses out of it. Once the cost has been paid the effect must resolve.

My questions, concerning the interaction between SNOW GRAVES and PAY TRIBUTE, ISAAC MILES and IMMUREMENT...

My first one:

> Per the faq:
>
> Quote
> If my opponentâ?Ts Stygian Eye (Ancient Relics
> F96) leaves play and I have a Snow Graves
> (Forgotten Lore F15) attached to his discard
> pile does this prevent Stygian Eye from being
> shuffled back into his deck?
> Yes it does. Stygian Eye reads, â?oAfter
> Stygian Eye leaves play, shuffle it into its
> ownerâ?Ts deck.â? Since the passive effect
> does not initiate until after it has left
> play it must be placed in the discard pile.
> Snow Graves reads, â?oCards cannot be
> moved out of attached discard pile for
> any reason.â? This prevents Stygian Eyeâ?Ts
> passive from being able to resolve.
>
>
> So, what happens in the case between:
>
> 1. Snow Graves and Pay Tribute? Let's say that Snow Graves is attached to my discard pile and I play Pay Tribute. Does it go on the bottom of my deck, or does it get stuck in my discard pile?

Damon's reply:

It goes to the bottom of your deck.

My second question:

> 2. Snow Graves and Isaac Miles? Let's day that Snow Graves is attached to my discard pile and Isaac is in play on my behalf. A character of mine is supposed to hit my discard pile. Where does he end up? Is the answer the same as the above or does Isaac's ability implies that it's a substitute effect we 're dealing with here and the character evades the discard pile altogether?

Damon's reply:

Issac Miles is a replacement effect it changes the destination from discard pile to bottom of the deck.

My third question:

> 3. Snow Graves and Immurement? Let's day that Snow Graves is attached to my opponent's discard pile and I play Immurement to target a support of his. Where does the support go? The wording "leaves play" is not mentioned here, so does this mean that the support gets attached to one of his domains?

Damon's reply:

Snow Graves has no effect on Immurement.

My take on those issues:

> My thesis is that all three cards bypass Snow Graves, Pay Tribute and Immurement because their final destination is part of their effect, and Isaac because he creates a substitute effect, but I may be wrong in this.

Damon's reply:

You are not wrong.

i do not get the ability of cunning macheraro.

Hi rayad, this topic isn't for asking questions, it's for official answers already given (by Damon Stone of FFG). Instead you should start a new topic for your questions.

To answer your question unofficially though...

If there's a conspiracy card in play, and you've got Cunning Mascheraro (who has a Terror icon) in play, then regardless of whether or not he is attacking/defending a conspiracy then it's considered that you've got an additional Terror icon on your side. For example, if you send no one to defend an opponent's attack of a conspiracy, you still have one Terror icon on your side; or if you do send Cunning Mascheraro to attack/defend a conspiracy then he brings his Terror icon plus you count it again for a total of two Terror. If you play a card where Cunning Mascheraro gains more icons, then the extra icons will count at each conspiracy too.

Corrected answer --

If there's a conspiracy card in play, and you've got a Cunning Mascheraro (who has a Terror icon) in play, then even when he is not attacking/defending that conspiracy it's considered that you've got his Terror icon on your side. For example, if you send no one to defend an opponent's attack of a conspiracy, you still have one Terror icon on your side; though if you do send a Cunning Mascheraro to attack/defend a conspiracy then his Terror icon is counted as usual but do not double-count it. If there is a conspiracy card in play but there is no attacker present, the story and its associated struggles will not resolve, so you would not win its Terror struggle even though you are considered to have a Terror icon present. If you play a card where Cunning Mascheraro gains more icons, then the extra icons will count at each conspiracy too.

(See also a related official answer here .)

Cunning Mascheraro (Terror in Venice F14) reads:

Cunning Mascheraro counts its icons at each conspiracy card in play.

In relation to Jacob Finnegan's second Forced Response effect that triggers "when you do not succeed at a story where Jacob is committed"...

Q1) Can this second effect trigger if Jacob Finnegan is committed as a defender?

As only the active/attacking player can "succeed" according to the rules & FAQ, does that mean the inactive/defending player "[does] not succeed", or does that mean that concepts of "succeed" and "do not succeed" are not applicable to the inactive/defending player?

Q2) Can this second effect trigger if Jacob Finnegan is committed as an attacker where the story is won by placing a final success token during the investigation struggle?

As the story resolution immediately ends and characters are no longer committed to a story when the final success token is placed, if the final skill check has not taken place, does this mean:

a) if I won Investigation and the story then I did succeed as the active player and Jacob's first effect triggers;

b) if my opponent won Investigation the story then I did not succeed as the active player and Jacob's second effect triggers;

c) regardless of who won the story, as I did not complete the skill check, I did not succeed and Jacob's second effect triggers; or

d) regardless of who won the story, as the skill check did not occur, I neither succeeded nor did not succeed and Jacob's second effect does not trigger?

Jacob Finnegan (Denizens of the Underworld F6) reads:

Forced Response: When you succeed at a story at which Jacob Finnegan is commited, add an additional success token to that story.

Forced Response: When you do not succeed at a story where Jacob Finnegan is committed, put him on the bottom of his owner's deck.

Core rules read:

Determine Success

After the four icon struggles, the active player determines if he has been successful at the story. He now adds the combined skill values of all his characters currently committed to the story. This number is the total skill. If the total skill value of the active player exceeds the total skill value of his opponent, then the active player may place a success token on his side of the story being resolved.

Winning A Story Card

Immediately after a player has won a story card (which happens the moment that a player has five or more success tokens on his side of the story card), that player takes the story card, chooses whether or not to execute its effect, and then places it prominently in his game area, faceup, to indicate that he has won the story. This occurs before resolution of the next story card begins.

After a story card has been won, and its effect executed or declined, it is replaced by a new story card from the story deck. Thus, if a story card has been won before it is fully resolved (usually by having the fifth token placed from an investigation struggle), it is replaced, and the resolution of that story is over.

Characters that were committed to a story that was won are no longer considered committed to any story.

FAQ reads:

Q) Is it possible for the defending player to succeed at a story?

A) No. The skill check is to determine whether or not the active player is successful. If the inactive player has equal or greater skill than the active player he has kept the active player from succeeding at the stroy, but has not himself been successful.

As long as a skill check is made at a story at which Jacob Finnegan is committed that you do not succeed at (regardless if you are the active or inactive player) his forced response will trigger. If there is no skill check then it will not. Hope that helps.

Just double-checking my understanding of Jacob Finnegan, then...

Q1) - as the inactive player can never succeed (only the active player can), Jacob will always trigger his second Force Response if he defends and is still committed when the skill check occurs.

Q2) - as the skill check does not occur if the story is won during the preceding Investigation struggle step then neither of Jacob's Forced Responses could trigger if he was committed when that story was won.

Have I got that correct?

I must admit my surprise at your indication that "do not succeed" also applies to the inactive player - assuming I've understood you correctly for Q1) . I always thought that the reason the inactive player cannot succeed is because, as stated in the rules, only "the active player determines if he has been successful at the story" - meaning that the outcome of "succeed" or "do not succeed" is only in relation to the active player making the check (against "the total skill value of his opponent"), whereas the inactive player does not make a check and has no outcome as such.

Is there something about the quote [above] that did not answer what happens with Jacob Finnegan regardless of whether he is controlled by the active or inactive player?

I can try phrasing it a different way-

1. Investigation struggle resolves (if story is won proceed immediately to story effect resolution, there is no skill check, otherwise proceed to 2 ).

2. Skill check happens (the player who controls Jacob Finnegan does not succeed).

3. Jacob Finnegan Forced Response triggers, sees said skill check and lack of a positive result.

4. Jacob Finnegan Forced Response resolves, he leaves play, going to the bottom of his owner’s deck.

No worries, Damon.

Your initial response was clear. I was just so surprised to get that answer (that "do not succeed" actually applies to the inactive player - in spite of how the rules and the FAQ explain the skill check and "succeed" as being about the 'active player'), I thought it safest to double-check by restating your answers back specific to the two questions for re-confirmation.

...But thanks as always for making the time to respond.

Yeah, the wording of JF makes it so it is checking for a “yes I succeeded” when the skill check happens. The wording for the effect that would work the way you had intuited would need to be something like, “IF you do not succeed at a story at which JF is committed during your turn…” because the check happens regardless, that you can only win under some particular set of circumstances does not matter in tho case, conceptually it is the same as losing a story struggle at a story where you have no committed characters. If there was a card that said “if you lose a combat challenge sacrifice this card” you’d have to sacrifice even if you couldn’t win the combat challenge because of game rules. The check was made you didn’t win, your guy goes away.

Note: this came up in relation to questions asked in BoardGameGeek's forum in the Rules Questions topic.

Apologies for the stupid, and perhaps slightly lazy question- Just finished a very long shift.

But I was wondering.

How do I contact Damon??

I've got LOTS of questions regarding Savio Corvi and his immunities...

Thanks!

Just use the link 'Rules Questions' at the very bottom of this page and set the topic to COC LCG:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_faq.asp

I've got LOTS of questions regarding Savio Corvi and his immunities...

Moving these Questions to another thread! Sorry!

Hi Saldre,

This thread is for official answers, so it's not the place to ask your question - best to start a new topic (or stick to discussing it in your thread on the other board, that you mentioned).

If you do get an answer back from Damon about it, though, then here's the place to share!

Hi Damon,

I'm stumped, and would appreciate your expert guidance on a question posed by one of the fellas on the forums .

My opponent has Hermetic Seal.

He plays Initiate of Huang Hun and triggers its Response , and we each return a character to hand.

I have Dreamlands Fanatic in hand and trigger it's Response to put it in to play.

Q1.i) Can my opponent trigger Hermetic Seal to cancel Dreamlands Fanatic's Response , returning it to my hand?

Case for "No": Hermetic Seal targets the response or forced response of "... a card that just entered play", so it must already be in play and is too late to cancel. Thus, Hermetic Seal would only work against cards like Initiate of Huang Hun that have a Response (or a Forced Response ) that trigger "After [this card] enters play ...", to cancel their subsequent effect.

Case for "Yes": According to the FAQ, disrupts " ... resolve completely before the effect they have interrupted does ", so it can rewind time to cancel the effect. (Other cards like Agency Bodyguard are worded to trigger from a past tense effect - " Disrupt: Exhaust Agency Bodyguard to cancel 1 wound dealt to a unique character. " - and can only work if they similarly rewind time.)

Q1.ii) If "Yes" to Q1.i) above, and Dreamlands Fanatic is returned to my hand, did it actually enter play, and can my opponent who has a Stalking Hound in hand trigger its Response to put that in to play?

Case for "No": If Hermetic Seal rewound time, then Dreamlands Fanatic is considered to have not actually entered play nor left my hand. (If it were otherwise, then in the Agency Bodyguard example you could also trigger responses relating to a card being wounded where there is no wound due to it being cancelled, which seems illogical.)

Case for "Yes": Even if Hermetic Seal rewound time, if Dreamlands Fanatic never actually entered play then you couldn't trigger Hermetic Seal, creating a time loop which seems illogical - and might just cause the universe to collapse!

Q1.iii) If "Yes" to Q1.i) above, and Dreamlands Fanatic is returned to my hand, can I trigger its Response again during the same response window?

Case for "No": If Hermetic Seal rewound time, then Dreamlands Fanatic is considered to have not actually entered play nor left my hand. The Core rules state " A response can only be played once per trigger. " so it cannot be triggered from the same card again.

Case for "Yes": If Hermetic Seal rewound time, the Core rules " once per trigger " requirement implicitly applies to cards in play, and not cards out of play (like in your hand), but for the explicit exception of cards in the discard pile as per the FAQ addition that " A card whose effect triggers as a response from the discard pile may only be triggered once per met trigger requirement. "

Thanks in advance.

There is no window for Hermetic Seal to cancel a come into play response effect like that. The character does not enter play until that response fully resolves, and by the time it has fully resolved the disrupt window for it’s response has already passed. There is no response being triggered on a card that has just entered play, it is a response putting a card into play.

As I suspected, Hermetic Seal would only work against cards like Initiate of Huang Hun that have a Response (or a Forced Response ) that trigger "After [this card] enters play ...", to cancel their subsequent effect. Thanks for confirming, Damon.

Forced Response of Functional Psycopath destroy the character with the lower cost. If I lose Terror struggle and one character is insane, he is uncommit. I must destroy the insane character and destroy another character when characters when uncommit

Answer

No a character made insane from a story is not destroyed by Functional Psychopath. The rule book reads, "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).” No longer committed is not the same as uncommitting.

Any ask?

Now with new FAQ:

Characters are uncommitted from a story when they are removed from the story due to a card effect, the game effect of being sent insane as a result of losing a Terror struggle , when that story is won, or at the end of the Story Phase, after all stories that will initiate have resolved and final player actions for that phase are complet

I love this game. But sometimes I think somebody wish my sanity wasted

Hi there, Damon.

A handful of random questions for you, if I may...

1.1) Can the Functional Psychopath's ability only target characters uncommitting from a story, or any character in play?

1.2) If characters are committed to three stories, when all characters simultaneously uncommit following story resolution, does the Functional Psychopath's ability trigger three times?

Functional Psychopath (The Sleeper Below F12) reads:

Forced Response: After characters uncommit from a story, choose and destroy the character with the lowest cost.

It destroys any character in play with the lowest cost, chosen by its controller. At the end of story resolution step all characters at all stories are uncommitted at the same time.

Does Functional Psychopath's Forced Response only trigger in relation to the framework action of uncommitting from stories, or would it also trigger in relation to card effects that cause characters to uncommit at other times (like Kidnapping 101 and Flush Them Out)?

Kidnapping 101 (The Yuggoth Contract F96) reads:

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

Flush Them Out (Revelations F2) reads:

Play during your opponent's turn.

Response: After your opponent has committed characters, choose a story. Uncommit each character at all other stories. Then commit them to the chosen story.

Functional Psychopath should not kill on a character no longer being committed to a story because of insanity, but when characters are uncommitted because of the framework action. If a card effect specifically uncommitted one or more characters Functional Psychopath will not trigger, the wording for that would be “when 1 or more characters are uncommitted…” uncommit refers to the frame work action (commit and uncommit) while uncommitted looks for the state change. It is a fine line.

2) The active player commits a single character to a story. The defending player pays 1 to put Black Dog in to play at that story, and chooses to commit no other characters. The active player then switches their only attacking character to a different story (using [ Noises in the Hills ]), so there is now no attacking character present with Black Dog at the original story. What happens to Black Dog?

Is it:

a) Black Dog returns to hand when all stories are resolved, even though its specific story never initiated?

b) Black Dog remains in play until an attack at that original story is resolved during a later turn?

c) Black Dog remains in play permanently, even if that original story is resolved later in the game, as that original story failed to resolve during the phase in which the effect was initiated?

Black Dog (Revelations F29) reads:

Response: After an opponent commits exactly 1 character to a story, pay 1 to put Black Dog into play from your hand committed to that story. After that story resolves, if Black Dog is still in play, return it to your hand.

He would stay in play and [uncommit] from that story as normal.

With the Black Dog remaining in play in that scenario, would the lasting effect continue such that the next time that particular story did resolve then he would return to hand (i.e. 2b ), or is that effect considered to only apply for the story phase in which he was played and would no longer affect him (i.e. 2c )?

Black Dog would return to hand when that story eventually resolves.

3.1) When Maureen de Garmeaux " gains the skill, icons, and text box of that character ", are each of these added to her own (i.e. is her skill, icons and text box increased by those of the targeted character), or do they replace her own?

Maureen de Garmeaux (Revelations F67) reads:

Action: Pay 3 to choose a non-Ancient One character. Maureen de Garmeaux gains the skill, icons, and text box of that character until the end of the phase. If Maureen de Garmeaux is still in play at the end of the phase, she goes insane.

Added to.

3.2) The active player has Maureen de Garmeaux and Professor Nathaniel Peaslee, Alien Intelligence in play. The active player pays 3 and triggers Maureen's ability and targets the Professor. The active player then triggers Maureen's gained ability from Professor Peaslee, targeting an opponents character and paying its cost value (including one Yog-Sothoth resource), seeking to take control of it. What happens?

Is it:

a) Professor Peaslee remains with the active player as the text gained by Maureen that references "Professor Nathaniel Peaslee" can only be applied self-referentially and Maureen is not the Professor, and the active player takes control of the opponent's targeted character?

b) The real Professor Peaslee is given in to the control of the opponent, and the active player takes control of the opponent's targeted character?

c) The effect fails during Action Is Initiated step 1b) " Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. " as the self-reference to Professor Nathaniel Peaslee cannot be fulfilled when gained by Maureen?

Professor Nathaniel Peaslee, Alien Intelligence (The Key and the Gate F6) reads:

Action: During the operations phase pay X (which must include at least one Yog-Sothoth resource) to choose a non- Ancient One character of X skill or less. The controller of that character gains control of Professor Nathaniel Peaslee and you gain control of that character.

Frequently Asked Questions reads:

Q) If a card copies another card’s text or effect and the text includes selfreferences (i.e. the card’s title) is it replaced by the card’s title that is copying the effect? A) Copying a character’s text box copies the printed textbox. All examples of a card’s name remain unaltered, and as such any use of a card name that was self-referential for the previous card does not refer to the copying card unless it has the same name.

Official Rules Clarification reads:

(1.2) Working Effects

...

A card that is self-referential (that is, has card text that refers to itself by Title) refers only to itself, and not to any other copies of that card. Any selfreferential effect on a card concerning the act of playing that card, or putting that card into play, is active as the card is being played or put into play.

C.

Note: This was asked in relation to a question posted previously in this thread, here .

4.1) Does Cunning Mascheraro count its icons twice at a Conspiracy that he is committed to?

Cunning Mascheraro (Terror in Venice F14) reads:

Cunning Mascheraro counts its icons at each conspiracy card in play.

The Captain (Dreamlands F21) reads:

Action: If it is Day , pay 2 to choose a story. Until the end of the phase, count The Captain's icons and skill towards that story without committing him to that story.

Frequently Asked Questions reads:

Q) Can I trigger The Captain’s (Dreamlands F21) Action at a story he is committed to in order to double count his icons and skill at that story?

A) No. You cannot trigger The Captain’s ability to have his icons and skill count twice at a story, whether if its used at a story he’s already committed to, or if the action is triggered twice at the same story.

Official Rules Clarification reads:

(2.30) Counting Skill

Some effects reference counting skill or not counting skill. These effects do not change the actual numbers on the card. They only mean that the skill is counted or not counted during the skill comparison at the story.

No.

4.2.1) Does Island Hermit count its skill twice when two Ancient One s are committed to the same story?

Island Hermit (Forgotten Lore F9) reads:

Count Island Hermit's skill towards any story where an Ancient One character is committed.

No.

4.2.2) Does Island Hermit count its skill twice when committed to the same story as an Ancient One ?

No.

4.3.1) Does an Ancient One count its skill and icons twice when committed along with one Beings of Ib to the same story?

Beings of Ib (Dreamlands F7) reads:

Lower the cost to play Bokrug by 1 (to a minimum of 1).

If you control a single Ancient One character, count its skill and icons at any story to which Beings of Ib is committed.

No.

4.3.2) Does an Ancient One counts its skill and icons thrice when committed along with two Beings of Ib to the same story?

No

5.1) Can Ambush be used to play a card outside of the Operations phase?

Ambush (Denizens of the Underworld F51) reads:

Action: Play a character card with cost 3 or lower from your hand. If that character is still in play at the end of the phase, sacrifice it.

Frequently Asked Questions reads:

Q) Can I trigger Corrupted Midwife (Revelations F51) to play a character from my discard pile outside of the operations phase?

A) No. Corrupted Midwife reads, “Action: Exhaust Corrupted Midwife to choose 1 character in your discard pile. Play that character as if it were in your hand as your next action.” Because you cannot play characters from your hand at anytime other than your operations phase, her ability does not get around this rule.

Yes, this event directly contradicts the rule of only being able to play characters during the operations phase (it tells you when you play it to then play a card). Compare this to Ghoulish Hag which lets you play it form the discard pile as if it were in your hand. This only directly contradicts the rule that you cannot play cards that are not in your hand. Also compare Ghoulish Hag to Corrupted Midwife, which directs you to play it as your next action. The only time you can take an action to play a character is during the operations phase.

5.2) When a story is won where a Dormant card is attached, can that Dormant card then be played, outside of the Operations phase?

The Sleeper Below rules insert reads:

Dormant

During your operations phase, as a standard player action you may pay X to attach a card with the Dormant keyword face down to a story as a Dormant card. X is the number of success tokes you have at that story. Limit 1 per story per turn. When that story is won, you may play that card reducing its cost to 0. Dormant cards are considered "in play" but do not count as attachment support cards.

Yes. When the story is won the Dormant rule is saying you may now play this card.

Note: This was originally asked in relation to the Claret Knight and indirect triggered effects topic.

G'day Damon,

A couple of questions for you, if I may, about targeted effects...

1) I'm wondering why the latest FAQ revision wasn't changed in line with my proposal for Generalisation of targeting, as "choose" is one (and the most prevalent) indicator but not the only one (e.g. Immurement's simple use of "a" in "drain a domain with the most resources") , along the lines of: " An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically indicating player choice is not a targeted effect. "..?

Have I misunderstood our previous conversation about Immurement and Rite of the Silver Gate... Is "a"/"an" not also an indicator of player choice (in most instances) and thus of a targeted effect, even where "choose" or "chosen" is not specified?

FAQ reads:

(1.9) Choosing Targets

The word “target” is used to indicate that an effect is directing a player to choose 1 or more cards for an effect to resolve on. Not every effect that resolves on a card is targeted. An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically using the word “choose” or “chosen” is not a targeted effect.

2) Would Disc of Itzamna protect a character from Temple of R'lyeh?

That is, is the statement "That opponent must sacrifice a character he controls." a targeted effect, even though it doesn't contain the word "choose" in relation to the opponent's character (although it does state "choose an opponent" in the preceding statement), but it does contain the word "a" (i.e. "sacrifice a character")?

Disc of Itzamna (Ancient Relics F57) reads:

Attach to a character.

Attached character cannot be the target of triggered effects.

After Disc of Itzamna leaves play, shuffle it into its owner's deck.

Temple of R'lyeh (Ancient Relics F73) reads:

Action: Sacrifice a Cthulhu character to choose an opponent. That opponent must sacrifice a character he controls.

Choose and chosen are the only indicators of a chosen effect. So no, the Disc would not protect from an un targeted effect like the Temple.

To be more clear, the Temple is a targeted triggered effect, but it does not target the character, it targets the player. A card like The Claret Knight would ignore the effect, because it is immune to triggered effects.

Thank you for that clear answer, though I'm surprised that is the answer! I thought 'targeted' was synonymous with 'player choice' for an effect to resolve on, but your response indicates that not every effect that involves player choice (like Immurement with respect to selecting a domain with the most resources, and Temple of R'lyeh with respect to the opponent selecting a character) is targeted.

4.3.1) Does an Ancient One count its skill and icons twice when committed along with one Beings of Ib to the same story?

Beings of Ib (Dreamlands F7) reads:

Lower the cost to play Bokrug by 1 (to a minimum of 1).

If you control a single Ancient One character, count its skill and icons at any story to which Beings of Ib is committed.

No.

4.3.2) Does an Ancient One counts its skill and icons thrice when committed along with two Beings of Ib to the same story?

No

I'd like to note that the answers regarding 'Beings of Ib' directly contradict an answer given earlier by Damon:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/64358-youve-got-questions-ive-got-answers-straight-from-damon-stone/page-2#entry726973

So, what is it, now?

I'd like to note that the answers regarding 'Beings of Ib' directly contradict an answer given earlier by Damon: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/64358-youve-got-questions-ive-got-answers-straight-from-damon-stone/page-2#entry726973

So, what is it, now?

A follow-up question, Damon...

I've just been informed that someone else previously enquired about Beings of Ib and counting skill, to which you provided the following answer

, that sheds a different light to that of 4.3.2) quoted in the previous email [above] --

Rule Question:

If I commit two (or more) Beings of Ib at the same story while I have a single Ancient One in play (or the Ancient One and a single Beings of Ib), do I count the AO's skill and icons twice or just once?

The card says:

"If you control a single Ancient One character, count its skill and icons at any story to which Beings of Ib is committed." Answer:

Twice.

Can you please clarify the difference (if there is one) in these answers?

The answer is if the AO is committed to the story, it’s icons will only be counted once. If you have two Beings of Ib each would make the AO have it’s icons counted…and this was where there was a genuine mistake on my part, the game is going to make sure that AO’s icons are counted, but after you resolve the first passive, the second passive is now also fulfilled, in other words counting icons at a story with this wording is a binary, either they are or are not, if Beings of Ib said “add it’s icons” then it would be an additive effect with each BoI contributing that AO’s icons as well as their own.

So regardless of the combination (where you control a single Ancient One) - the Ancient One with one or more Beings of Ib together at a story, or one or more Beings of Ib at a story without the Ancient One - the Ancient One's icons are only counted once. Got it.

Correct. I’ll include this in the next FAQ.

Can the card The Foundation (F20 - For the Greater Good) which states

Disrupt : Pay 1 to cancel an effect that would target 1 or more [Agency] characters you control.

use it’s triggered effect to cancel a wound or stop a character from being driven insane due to the lose of an icon struggle? In other words, is the effect of an icon struggle a targeted effect?

Damon Stone replied:

Yes icon struggles target characters so can be canceled for 1 by way of The Foundation.