Dark Initiate said:

There will almost certainly be no reversal. The timing chart and wording on the cards allow for no other rule interpretation. I'll walk you through the steps about why it works this way:

1) All wounds are dealt at the same time.

2) Only after the wounding effect is executed do characters get destroyed.

3) How many wounds did it take during the execution of that effect?

4) That is how many triggers there are for Educated Officer to respond to in the response window of the executed effect.

From a rules wonkiness standpoint there is really only a single issue that could be cited as precedent for this working in a different manner, and that is drawing or discarding cards, regardless of the number the effect is causing, are done individually. I have previously said that each wound is simultaneous, but looking at the timing chart I may be wrong there. It may be that because each is delivered individually but during the same step and cards that are destroyed do not leave play until the end of that step they just keep getting hit again and again, similar to getting shot by a machine gun where the first bullet hits you but your body is also hit six more times before you even drop.

Hm. This actually makes a lot more sense. Interesting.

Ok… lets just settle a few things here.

1. I know what a replacement effect is… not sure why you keep bringing it up like I don't. I never argued that it wasn't and even mentinoed several times that it was a replacement effect. So yes… I agree. EM's effect is a replacement effect. Actually, I'll apologize here lil a bit. Rereading it, I know why you're continueing to lecture me about replacement effects. There was a small bit of confusion when I quoted a *snipped* portion of one of your posts to re-open the discussion about the 'altering passive' rule. Instead of possibly getting my intented effect it seems that you mostly saw my arguement from the an unintended angle which has likely skewed this discussion a small amount.

2. Damon's quoted responses, implied that EM's effect didn't actually finish turning into an attachment until step 4. This is obvioulsy not what actually happens (but merely what I thought you guys were trying to tell me). Regardless, I still think, with the wording we have, should still be resolved before step 3. So we still have something to discuss.

3. Damon and I (and I believe everyone else including you, but trying not to assume to much here) seem to agree that the 'altering passive' rule applies to this situation. I know this because even Damon said that the effect is triggered and resolved in step 1.

So in the timiing structure, all the way up to step 1. b)… we're all one big happy family. So my next step is to, as simply as possible, explain the 'alter passive rule'. (lol, I could be doing an aweful job of that right now as I think this now counts as a book. lol)

For reference:

""NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied.""

___________________________________________

If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resloved on the action,…..

Resolved. Aka. Completely executed. Note its past tense. Its not 'will reslove', its not 'resloving', but in fact resolved. Finished. How do you completely execute an altering passive without actually following it through to the end?

I'll actually answer this question later, so please hold thy rage.

…which now altered, is initiated.

This puts EM's ability resolustion and resolved state in step 1 Action is Initaited.

____________________________________________

Now, I already think EM should be attachment at this point. However, that is not Damon's intent. Damon (and I pretty sure you as well Pen) think that EM's ability is applied on the action and is merely waiting till EM is wounded or is made insane.

See, I clearly get what you guys are going for. However… EM's effect doesn't, and I repeat, does NOT say "When EM is wounded…." which is the typical wording used in a replacement effect that is meant to not actually replace anything until the thing it is replaces is actually happening.

IE. Mr. David Pan, Professor Sam Campbell, Chess Prodigy… "When resolving struggles at a story that Mr. David Pan is committed to, count the total skill of all participating characters instead of the icons to determine the winner of each struggle."

The wording on those cards is the correct way to word an altering passive effect who's applied effect doesn't actually do its replacing until the thing its replacing is actually happening.

Expendable Musle on the other hand does not follow this!

"If Expendable Muscle would be wounded or go insane,…"

- Would be =/= (does not equal) When.

Would be, is an explicit refrence to its designation to a wounding/insanity effect. So in order to resolve EM's effect… it only needs to be designated to be affected by a wounding or insanity effect. Not actually being wounded or made insane. So when EM is deginated by a wounding/insanity effect it instead turns into attachment. Which is a perfectly legit replacement effect.

This of course… does mean that the effect that does the designating effect can be canceled and EM would still become an attachment anyway. Actually… let me rephrase that.

EM would actually become an attachment BEFORE disrupts could even possibly cancel the effect. Because as we read above, the passive effect is resloved on the action well before disrupts can touch the triggering action.

- This, in no way, breaks the game… at all. It clearly fits the wording provided.

____________________________________________________

This is, obviously, not what Damon intends to happen and why I blamed it on a old wording error. Thus I suggested it be erratta'd, not to use the word resloved (or rather (more clearly?) define the different levels of resolved) in certain ways…… or the ruling be changed. Otherwise… techincally… it doesn't work the way you/they want it to. (still) In my opinion anyway.

I believe I'm actually now pretty sure that I'm correct in this. The wording I've quoted fits perfectly. It doesn't break the game. I have clear examples of how its supposed to be done. I've pointed out how EM doesn't follow those given examples. I can't find an example that clearly defies my intreptation in the same way that I've found examples that defies the official ruling. What more do I need?

Oh… just to make sure I don't get accused of this. I'm NOT trying to twist words to fit how I'm now reading this. First glance I saw nothing I disagreed with. It wasn't until after digging much deeper that I've come to this conclusion. Yes there were some bumps along the road during the learning proccess, but once I switched sides everytime I've dug I only ended up coming to the same conclusion in a stronger way than the last.

Sorry for that disclaimer…

Anyway… so ya. If it makes anyone feel better I agree with the Short Fuse + Educated Officer ruling! I'm not a fan, but based on everything else its legit and follows other consistancies similiar to the one you already pointed out Pen.

All of that still misses the very clear points:

1) A replacement effect cannot replace an effect that has itself not been executed.

2) EM's ability resolves on the player or framework action that would wound it, not on EM itself.

Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop.

And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question. Your entire argument hinges on ignoring these two points. Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong. We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue.

Penfold said:

1) is complete crap. No basis in the rulebook or FAQ for this. Also… if it were true… how would Disrupt replacement effects work if they 'canno't replace an effect that itself has not executed as Disrupts execute before the action is executed?

2) I'm kinda scratching my head on this. We all think EM's ability is 'resolved' in step 1. We only differ in when we think its applied effect is actually resolved/executed/does its replacing. I didn't miss this! I expicitly said several times that I think EM's ability triggers on the designation and not on its wounding. Everything I've said and done was to contest the position that EM's ability resovled on the wounding. Not sure how many different ways/times I can state such….

"Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop."

- Only if you believe you're first point is true. Which… as far as I can tell… is not.

"And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question"

- Not sure why you're getting so heated over this (kinda getting me heated now). I'll admit we're making this into a bigger deal that it actually is, but in all fairness just about everything in my previous post argued, adressed, refutes and call into question your two points… well point 2 anyway as point 1 is well, not true. Perhaps I'm not the one ignoring things?

" Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong."

- This entry kinda distrubed me. Taking the ruling as FACT and basing your entire arugement on it is terrible way to go. Form your own opinion. Believe it or not, FFG is not infallable. They can make mistakes(not unlike everyone else, including me), and if they're never pointed out we'll never get to a cleaner game. Do I need to bring up the Yog-Sothoth + Unspeakable resurrection ruling(s)? Dreamlands Fanatic? Sides, I'm not claiming that it is fundamentaly wrong but a mere oversight in judgement based similiar but not quite inter-changeable wording(s).

" We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue."

- Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think we've made a lot of progress and I know I learned a lot. However, this has aparently negatively affected you and I really feel bad about that. My goal is most certainly not to upset anyone, so I agree we're done on this subject. We've both said pretty much all the can be said on the subject. Damon gave us his ruling and that is what is to be followed for the forseeable future.

So… truce?

I'm not upset, I'm bored. I see absolutely no interest in you trying to understand the ruling. We have a ruling. It is based and directly quotes the rules. If you wanted to understand the ruling rather than disagree with it, reverse engineering it is the single BEST way to achieve that… but you refuse to and when I suggest it you dimsiss it out of hand as a terrible idea.

What is the point?

I'm perfectly fine leaving you scratching your head, because I don't believe you want to understand the ruling, I believe you want to be right. Go debate the finer points of timing structure with Damon. I will bet you the entire Revelations cycle he says essentially the same thing. I'm also willing to bet you will continue to disagree with it and him. I'm not saying FFG is infallible, I am saying that you are far more so than they are, and particularly where this is concerned.

Again, I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, you are more invested in proving yourself right than understand why the ruling is what it is. You are going about the entire process wrong otherwise.

Some more answers:

1. Library of Perganum says "cancel an effect just triggered that would destroy a Tome card." Rulebook says all attachment are destroyed if the characters ends to discard pile. So can I cancel Deep One Assault with Library if my targeted character has a Tome attachemnt? Can I cancel any triggered effect which would cause a character to go insane with Tome?

No, Deep One Assault as an effect does not destroy Tome cards. The game destroys Tome cards when they are attached to characters that are destroyed.

2. I control Rampaging Dark Young unopposed in a story. After all stories my opponent triggers some response which puts my Rampaging Dark Young in discard pile. I choose to put Nocturnal Scavenger in a play with Rampaging Dark Young triggered effect. Can I the use response of Nocturnal Scavenger now because I won one combat struggle with Rampaging Dark Young? Sorry this example is bit messy but question is Can I trigger ef fect in a card which happened during (framework) action even when the card was not in play when the effect resolved but came to play during responses part? I would guess this is allowed.

Yes.

3. What happens if use Underground Asylum once to cancel an effect of Lost to the Madness and I control two characters? Does it cancel the whole effect of Lost to the Madness or just cancel the effect to one character?

It is a single effect that causes all characters to go insane. Underground Asylum cancels an effect that would cause a character to go insane. So Underground Asylum cancels Lost to the Madness.

Good answers but I still don't understand what is considered an effect. There is ruling that Underground Asylum can cancel going insane by terror struggle. So that is a game effect. I am just wondering how Underground Asylum works with Professor Herman Mulder. I guess I can cancel Terror of the Tides action with Underground Asylum if Terror of the Tides would cause Professor to go insane.

Some more answers:

1. What about if I control Professor Herman Mulder and Underground Asylum then what effects I can cancel?

Yes you can cancel the effect… but there is still 6 or more characters in play which means he just goes insane again. In other words you will not be able to effectively stop him because the effect just keeps reasserting itself as long as the state is true.

2. Lets say for example Terror of the Tides is put in play with the action (as a 6th character in play). Can I cancel the whole effect of action if Terror of the Tides would cause Herman to go insane? What about if opponent just plays Terror of the Tides normally? Is playing a card an effect?

You cannot cancel something that is not expressly stated as being able to be canceled by the card granting the cancel. In other words, it is not putting Terror of the Tides in play that makes Professor Herman Mulder insane, but his own effect. The only way to cancel putting Terror of the Tides into play would be to use a cancel effect that expressly cancels a card coming into play or a triggered effect. Playing a card is not a card or game effect, it is a rule of the game.

These answers make sense and I feel I am starting to really understand the game now.

I just received a bunch of new answers to some question that came up during our CoC tournament in Stahleck:

Rule Question:
What is the proper timing for Prophesy cards?
E.g. Hastur's Hamu XX 15:14 says:
"Response: After a character is made insane, discard Hamu XX 15:14 from the top of your deck to choose up to two cards in your discard pile. Add those cards to your hand."
Can I choose the Prophesy card just triggered as one of the cards to be added to my hand from the discard pile?

Answer:
Yes. You pay the cost of the card and then choose its targets.
=========================================================================================================================

Rule Question:
Catacombs Docent has the following card text:
"Response: After a character you control is made insane, drive Catacombs Docent insane to add 1 success token to a story with less than 4 success tokens on your side."
What exactly is covered by the (relatively new) wording 'made insane'?
Does it cover insanity caused by
1) losing a terror struggle?
2) a card effect (e.g. Victoria Glasser's)?
3) driving a Lunatic character insane?

Answer:
Made insane is exactly what you think. Go insane is through the result of a game or card effect. Driving insane is a cost. Made insane is any manner in which a character goes from "restored" to "in ane."
=========================================================================================================================

Rule Question:
Lethargic Miasma says:
"Attached character may not ready."
Since it doesn't use the defined term 'cannot' I assume that a card effect such as the Ancient Guardian's ("Pay 1 to choose and ready an exhausted character or support card you control.") could be used to ready the exhausted character, despite Lethargic Miasma?

Answer:
Yes.
=========================================================================================================================

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.

Thanks for posting the Q+A! Good to know what "to be made insane" means :-)

But I've got to say, I'm surprised about the answer to the prophecy question. I always thought that targets are chosen / play restrictions checked before costs are paid. (E.g. Feed Her Young isn't resourced under the domain it has been paid for.) I thought that the Hastur prophecy can't take itself out of the discard pile. Did Damon say anything more about this topic, or do you know the reasoning for this behaviour?

Relevant FAQ:

1) Action is initiated
a) Determine the cost (to either play
the card or pay for the card’s effect) or
costs (if multiple costs are necessary
for the intended action).
b) Check play restrictions, including
verification and designation of
applicable targets or cards to be
effected.
…
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Play the card, or trigger the effect,
and proceed to step two.

Kind regards,

Pete

HilariousPete said:

jhaelen said:

Looks like you got screwed by the call at Stahleck.

While the designer's verdict is final, I think this is a bad call (i.e., Damon made a bad decision). The call makes Beings of Ib very powerful, and I don't think that a zero cost card should be so powerful. (If you look at the FAQ ruling on The Captain, it looks like the previous designer ruled that the card would be too good, if you could count The Captain's icons twice at a single story. I think the same idea should be applied with Beings of Ib, since the effect is even cheaper, i.e., free. In fact, I think it would be OK to reverse the ruling on The Captain, since there is a reasonable cost attached to the effect.)

Another Question: What if you have your (single) Ancient One and your Beings of Ib attached to a story? Do you count the Ancient One's icons twice? I assume that Damon would give the same answer.

In regards to the prophecy posing, i do hope that the FAQ is correct as:

A ) it already fixes the Necronomicon / Logan dilemma.

B ) it would stop the prophecy from being used for ridiculous loops like Hamu XX 15:14 / Glimpse of the Void and such.

I've felt for a while now that things are just being made up as they go along and that they should be finalised as soon as possible. If anyone tries a Necro / Logan / skill bonus then I'd be quoting this specific little FAQ section and all hell would break loose, especially if it's within a tournament !! ( as for those attending the Aus. Nationals probably won't have it officially remedied yet ).

As for Beings of Ib and the Ancient being committed to the same story, this is how we've been playing it and it really sucks as the last game i played had the little Iblings and Cthulhu doubling up for a 16 skill story attack, which he just kept repeating until he got the domains high enough to sac 3 characters every turn. Not nice.

I should also have an answer to add here about the contradicting response turn sections of the FAQ which I have sent to Damon.

While 2 Beings of Ib + AO really sucks to face, it requires a lot of cards to set up. A lot of things can be done to those BoI after they're played. They're very easily taken out with a 1 cost Catastrophic Explosion, 0 cost Shotgun Blast or DoA, exhausted with a 1 cost Panic, destroyed with a Calling Down the Ancients or Twilight Gate + Many Angled Thing for 2 cost, etc.

Dark Initiate said:

I brought the Captain vs. Beings of Ib dilemma to Damon's attention. Let's see what comes out of this…

Got an answer to clear things up. Damon's responses ( excuse the pun ) are in bold italics.

Rule Question:

Hiya. In regards to responses there 'seems' to be 2 different answers as to order of such. Being :

'Action, Disrupt, and Response Effects', Page 17: "Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player."

It is each player taking an opportunity to respond to things that happened but were unable to be immediately responded to, for example when the story phase resolves a character was wounded. No responses are possible until the end of the story phase. The active play gets the first opportunity to respond to that wounding. Then it goes back and forth (or left if multiplayer rules are being used). When a new phase begins it is the active player who gets first opportunity to take an action. When a game effect has been initiated it is the first player who gets the first opportunity to trigger a disrupt.

'Responses', Page 18: "After all disrupts, passive abilities, and/or forced responses to an action are resolved, players may now play normal responses in clockwise order (starting with the player to the left of the player who initiated the action)."

The player to the left gets the first opportunity to trigger a response to an action taken by a player. The active player cannot get two opportunities to take actions (the action which created the opportunity for Responses) in a row.

I just ask as it would be vitally important to know in cases such as Lord Finchington vs Diseased Sewer Rats as to which goes first, the active or non active player. Thanks !!

It always goes back and forth, the question is just one of who gets first opportunity and the answer as you can see above is context dependent. The rule of thumb is if it the game being responded to or first opportunity to take any action or player triggered effect it is the active player who gets first shot. If it is a player action being responded to it is the player on the left of the triggering player who gets first shot.

So yes. After closed box phase sections, the active player responds first to occurances within the box. In response to actions in windows, the opponent gets to respond first ( So in the example Finchington would cause the Sewer Rats to go insane before the wound ).

Seriously… what ?!

So if i play Action, then my opponent gets firs opportunity to do somethin and plays Responce, and then I want to play disrupt… and what happens…
or is it like this: i ask "any disrupts?" i play my disrupts first, then my opponent, and if only he plays a disrupt i get my responce first so its back and forth???
or is it "Responce to Action (or play of a character/support/conspiracy card) by active player is started by the next player, all other things start with active player" [if so, why is it not written that way in the f**** rules…]
or is this something else
this timing doesn't make any sense to me.

Why design it like this so it makes no sense, is context dependant and no one understands how its supposed to work? Wouldnt just "first player starts playing every timing type (Action, Disrupt, Responce), if he plays/passes opponent can play, it continues till all players pass in a row" be simpler and better?

And using "action" meaning something else than "Action" is just plain stupid… are "Response" and "response" also different things?

.Zephyr. said:

Basically, yes.

.Zephyr. said:

And basically no. The opponent would play his / her disrupt first to your action. But yes, you would respond to his disrupt before he / she did.

So, if I trigger an Action or play a card other players act first i. e. they trigger their Disrupt first, and then trigger they're Response first.

But when something other than above causes an Disrupt/Responce opportunity it's active player who goes first.

Thats how it works?

When i think about often it doesnt really matter who goest first, but i really hate when such mechanics are unclear as i consider them basic framework on whitch all mechanics should work, and having holes/misscommunication in basic framework sounds like a really bad idea.

I really dont get FFGs approach, they do design and playtest really interesting cards, and then fail to explain what are they designed to do… How hard would it be to write a paragraph explaining some uses of cards with interesting effects and post them online. There are so many cards where a few examples of what this card can do and what are its limitations would help so much. Like apeirophobia explanation with T icons, not enough cards in hand. Hamu XX 15:14 and picking itself back; The Claret Knight with sacrifice effect from Cthulhu, etc. those are not very complicated interactions that need much rule expertise, those are basic interactions of those cards, that define what they do…

And another interesting rule that may not be common knowledge and that I have had clarified by Damon concerns the Artists Colony - Hastur Location. If the case is that both cards revealed are the same cost, then the active player DOES get to keep the card. Although not specifically the 'highest', there is a rule buried within the FAQ that when a player has 2 equal targets of the same cost / skill ( in the example it is the 'lowest' skill' I believe ) then the active player chooses the target out of all the available ones. This rule also carries over to the Artists Colony. It was explained in a convoluted post that went on about the emphasis of language and so forth so I will spare you the details as it only confuses the response which was to be short - yes the active player keeps cards of equal cost. It mat recieve an errata in the future but for now that is how it is played. A much better card now yes ??

COCLCG said:

It would be interesting to hear the reasoning that Damon had for that, since it's rather unintuitinve - in the English language, lowest would mean lowest and highest would mean highest, so if there was a tie then the effect would fizzle, but the FAQ says otherwise regarding "lowest" (which I didn't know btw, and this makes Calling Down the Ancients much better, too). I can see that the FAQ may change to say that in all ties of effects (as opposed to stories) the active player decides, which would make sense, but that's not clear now since the FAQ specifically clarifies this ruling under "Lowest Skill". It does not reference highest skill at all.

.Zephyr. said:

I believe that's right, and when put that way, it makes vastly more sense than the FAQ, which at this point may be in dire need of a TL;DR.

I myself did not understand the subtle distinction between "player action" and "action" until a few months ago. And it always seeks to elude my understanding. Take this passage for example:

Oh I don't agree with that ruling on Hamu at all.

Hrm. Time for an email. There has got to be something I'm missing, or he is.

HilariousPete said:

I sent this section of the FAQ to Damon and challenged both the decisions on Hamu and the Logan ( with skill bonus ) / Necronomicon about 4 days ago. He's usually very prompt so either he's too busy or is PERHAPS re-evaluating. The designation of applicable targets is the key wording here as this happens before either reach the discard pile. The ONLY reasoning I can see ( and it would be a total whack job reasoning ) is that you designate the discard pile as the target, but this doesn't sit right with me.

Another question answered :

Rule Question:

just a quickie this time. if for example Constricting Elder Thing chooses a relic as the card to return to hand, which takes precedence ? the return to hand OR the when relic leaves play shuffle into deck ?? thanks.

Answer:

Very intriguing question. The passive is not a replacement effect so technically the Relic leaves play to be returned to hand and the moment it gets there the passive then resolves on the card causing it to be shuffled into the owner's deck.

This is how a Snow Graves prevents a destroyed or sacrificed relic from being shuffled into the deck, because it must actually hit the discard pile first where its effect then immediately tries to resolve but is halted by Snow Graves conflicting, but absolute, passive effect.

Funny though. Sent this one after the above question and no answer to that one yet……….