Damon's answer-

A character of the active player must be at the story at the time of story resolution, for that particular story. If the character is removed at any point before that particular story starts to resolve there is no story to resolve. If that character is removed at any point after that particular story has begun to resolve it continues.

Rule Question:

My question is, when is the check made to determine if the active player has a character committed to a story to decide if the story will resolve?

We played it, if the active player's characters are removed from story #1 before any struggles have resolved at any story then story #1 will not resolve but if that character is instead removed after a struggle has resolved at any story then story #1 will resolve. Is this correct? Will a story only resolve fully if the active player has a character committed to it and has chosen to begin resolving it's icon struggles?

Following Hybrid's further Rule Question above, here's Damon's additional clarification as per http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/86709-story-not-resolving/#entry846823

The active player chooses what story to resolve. He or she may only choose stories that they have a character at. Each story is not so much checked at a specific point as disallowed to be chosen by the active player when it is time for them to choose which story is to resolve next.

I have a question concerning a neutral character card, the Halflings of D'haz. According to the text box: "The loser of any *combat* struggle in which Halflings of D'haz participated must receive an additional wound for each icon by which the struggle was lost." Last night, I committed to two different stories with the Halflings of D'haz committed to one of them. I chose to resolve that story first, and my opponent didn't have any *combat* icons, so I dealt the initial wound from the icon struggle and then had 5 more wounds to inflict on my opponent. He only had two characters committed to that story and two more committed to the other. My question is, since he had 5 wounds coming his way from the Halflings of D'haz, would he have had to distribute those wounds to 5 of his characters in general, or only to those committed to the same story as the one the Halflings were committed to? We consulted the FAQ but it only said that the loser can't 'double up' the wounds on a single character. Any clarification would be of great help.

As per your separate Halflings of D'haz question. thread, Damon's confirmed that wounds do have to be given among participating characters.

The FAQ Errata used to read as follows:
"Search for the Silver Key - Halflings of D’haz (F75) - The loser of the [Combat] struggle where Halflings of D’haz participated must assign additional wounds for each icon the struggle was lost by among characters he committed to the story."

Now it reads as:
"Search for the Silver Key - Halflings of D’haz (F75) - The additional wound tokens are assigned one at a time by the losing player."

Is the removal of the reference to "among characters he committed to the story" significant? Is this no longer the case, or is it now just assumed that it still needs to be assigned to the loser's participating characters only, and that excess wounds (if all the loser's participating characters are destroyed or invulnerable) are disregarded?

It is not significant. Wounds received from a combat struggle can only ever be applied to your characters committed to that story unless the card effect specifically states otherwise. It was deemed that the original wording of the card and the old wording of the FAQ were were both still not clear enough for some players to understand how the wounds were to be dealt. The new wording is explicit that each wound is to be treated as if it were an additional combat struggle that has been lost, which is to say they are assigned one at a time meaning you cannnot assign more wounds than a character can survive.

The new FAQ entry does not state an errata to the card text, it instead clarifies how the card text is to be resolved. Since the original card text says you receive additional wounds this does not contradict the rulebook wording how characters receive wounds or how players assign them in a fashion that would let said player assign wounds to the opponents characters.

Discussions with Damon Stone from the Communal Shower and neutral/multi-faction characters topic...

1. If Strange Delusions causes a card to gain a faction affiliation, is that in addition to its printed faction affiliation? If so, then we need to know how to answer questions about whether a card belongs to, doesn't belong to, or is the same/different faction as another card. There are many cards that this could affect. Is a multi-faction card from a different faction than a card that shares only one of its factions for instance? Two multi-faction cards that share one faction? Maybe that faction is Neutral?
2. How are Neutral cards treated? The rule s say that a Neutral card does not belong to any faction. But we're not sure how this fits with some cards. Is a Neutral card "a different faction" from another card? (example: Communal Shower or Professor Lake) Does it matter if the other card is also Neutral? What if the Neutral card has another granted faction from Strange Delusions?
3. Is a Neutral card from the same or different faction than another Neutral card?
What we're looking for is a consistent way to answer all faction related questions about Neutral cards, and also all faction related questions about multi-faction cards (one of which might be Neutral) - provided that you rule that multi-faction cards exist from Strange Delusions.?

Neutrals, as the rule you quoted says, do not belong to any faction. That solves all the questions you asked regarding neutral cards. You cannot compare something that does not exist to something else. Neutral cards have no faction so they have nothing to compare, in the case of Communal Shower that means you can commit a Cthulhu character and a Neutral character both to the same story, no problem. A Neutral card does not belong to the same faction as another Neutral card, because they belong to no faction at all.
Strange Delusions will give a character an affiliation of your choice but it does not say anything about removing existing affiliations, just adding one. So a card that was Cthulhu, could be Cthulhu Hastur. It would match both factions and treated at all times as if it were both factions until Strange Delusions effect ended with the phase it was triggered. If a card said Cthulhu cards cannot commit to a story, that card could not commit. If a card said non-Hastur cards do not count their skill, it would count its skill because it is a Hastur card. Communal Shower would prevent it from committing to any story at all since it is a character from different factions.

Note: The FAQ was later updated to clarify further , in relation to Professor Lake.

As both neutral characters and insane characters are said to have 'no faction', are characters with no faction (e.g. insane characters) considered to be 'neutral' and can they be targeted by effects that target neutral characters like Path of Blood (Summons of the Deep F72) which reads: "Action: Choose a neutral character in play. Return that character to its owner's hand." ?
Interestingly, Old Sea Dog (Summons of the Deep 116), which reads: "Action: Exhaust Old Sea Dog to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, that character loses all faction affiliations and becomes neutral." , suggests that having no faction results in becoming neutral, but I'm not sure if his ability is an exception.

No. A character with no faction is not neutral even though all neutral characters have no faction. It is a Ravens/Bird thing. All ravens are birds. Not all birds are ravens.

FYI, it was interesting for me to realise that if a character goes insane (and loses its faction) then you can no longer use effects that require you to have a field that consists of entirely that faction, such as The Black Goat's Rage (Dreamlands F16) or Arctic Ethnologist (Seekers of Knowledge F13).

Yep

Also FYI, there's some inconsistency as to how "faction" is referenced, as: "faction" (e.g. Professor Lake (Forgotten Lore F3)), "affiliation" (e.g. The Black Goat's Rage (Dreamlands F16)), "faction affiliation" (e.g. Old Sea Dog (Summons of the Deep 116)), "cards" (e.g. Arctic Ethnologist (Seekers of Knowledge F13)) or "type" (e.g. Thing from the Stars (Core F85).
In spite of the different naming convention, I assume they're all treated the same way, and all follow the lines described in the FAQ for Professor Lake (Forgotten Lore F3) when dealing with 'no faction' cards.

It is unfortunate they use different wording, but all are technically referring to the same thing, lack of faction affiliation. It is sadly what happens after a number of years of development, a large card pool with no rotation, and numerous designers and developers.

The Setting Sun (Dreamlands F20) reads: "Night. It is Night. After The Setting Sun comes into play, destroy all Day cards.

Each non-unique character loses an [investigation] icons"

Should that read as 'icon' (singular) or 'any/all [investigation] icons' (plural)?

Icons should be singular.

Relating to the Under the Porch + Eat the Dead = ??? topic...

The FAQ Official Rules Clarification used to read as follows:
"2.23 Zones of Play - Out of Play - ... If a card would go to an out of play zone, it goes to its owner’s out of play zone. A card that moves from an in play zone to an out of play zone is treated as though it were a new card. Any effects connected to the card will no longer affect it. The only exception to this rule is any abilities that trigger when a card moves from an in play zone to an out of play zone."

Now it reads as:
"2.23 Zones of Play - Out of Play - ... If a card would go to an out of play zone, it goes to its owner’s out of play zone. A card that moves from an in play zone to an out of play zone to an in play zone is treated as though it were a new card. Any effects connected to the card will no longer affect it. The only exception to this rule is any abilities that trigger when a card moves from an in play zone to an out of play zone."

Does this now mean that only cards that return to play can escape effects connected with the card?

There appears to be a duplication of words in that entry. Thank you for catching that, we'll remove that extra "in play zone." This rule is to show that if you have a card that says, "Response: After this character is destroyed..." or something effectively similar, its effect still triggers. The game state remembers that the card left and its trigger is still applicable, while a character that has an effect target and resolve on it that lets say lasts until the end of the phase, immediately ends when that card enters the discard pile. If that card returns to play it has no memory of that effect.

For example, if I use Under The Porch to search for and play a character during the Story phase, and then that character is wounded in a [Combat] struggle and destroyed, will it return from the discard pile to my hand at the end of the phase?

No.

Further, is that still the case if the affected card also changes from one out of play area to another?

It loses all memory of any effect active on it the moment it leaves play.

The FAQ reads as follows:

When playing Bloodbath (The Yuggoth Contract F102), which reads: “Action: During all [Combat] struggles this turn, the player who wins this struggle may wound an additional character committed to that story for each [Combat] struggle he won the struggle by.” which player chooses characters to wound? Can I divide up the extra wounds between characters however I want?

The player who wins the combat struggle chooses which characters get wounded. That player may choose to distribute the wounds however he wants among characters committed to that story, as long as it is legal. This does mean that a player can, for instance, put two wounds on the same character with no toughness (because the wounds are dealt simultaneously), if he wants to. However, he cannot choose to wound a character with Invulnerability.

That answer seems to disregard the instruction that it must be an "additional" character. Shouldn't it be that the losing player wounds one character as per normal, then the winning player may then choose other participating characters totaling the number of [Combat] icons by which he won the [Combat] struggle by, and place one wound on each; and this effect cannot be triggered unless there are enough other participating characters..?

The player who plays the card gets to assign the additional wounds. The player who lost the combat struggle still assigns the first wound. The wording of "may wound an additional character" means the player who used Bloodbath has the option of wounding additional characters up to the number of combat icons he won that struggle by. He can do less if he chooses.

Just FYI, following Damon's reply, I've sent him the following:

Regarding the existing FAQ entry for Bloodbath, so that it doesn't sound like the [Combat] struggle winner gets to assign ALL wounds, can I suggest rewording the line from "The player who wins the combat struggle chooses which characters get wounded." to something like: "The player who wins the combat struggle chooses which characters get wounded from the additional wounds."

Q:

can I use Frozen Time (F22) for blanking the text of a conspiracy card?

A:

Yes.

Damon Stone
Associate LCG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]

Hi Damon!

I've got some questions about succes tokens on characters and madness.

- What happens if I've got a fated character with one or more succes token on it (due to the use of the fated action), and this character goes insane? Are tokens lost or they stay on my character?

- I've got the same question about Tesla. What happens to tokens when Tesla goes insane?

- Last question: what happen if I've got Tesla with 3 or more succes tokens on it, and I give it Fated with Yog-Shottoth? Are the fated succes tokens are the same as the "Tesla" succes tokens? Or there is different kind of succes tokens?

Thanks for your answer and for everything you're doing for this amazing game!!!

Umm, did you actually send these questions to rules support? If not you won't get an answer.

And this thread is intended to only report official answers.

And to answer your questions unofficially: There is only one kind of success tokens; if the character goes insane, they are discarded; and if Tesla in your example gets the Fated keyword, he will be put on the bottom of your deck.

Hi Damon!

I've got some questions about succes tokens on characters and madness.

- What happens if I've got a fated character with one or more succes token on it (due to the use of the fated action), and this character goes insane? Are tokens lost or they stay on my character?

- I've got the same question about Tesla. What happens to tokens when Tesla goes insane?

- Last question: what happen if I've got Tesla with 3 or more succes tokens on it, and I give it Fated with Yog-Shottoth? Are the fated succes tokens are the same as the "Tesla" succes tokens? Or there is different kind of succes tokens?

Thanks for your answer and for everything you're doing for this amazing game!!!

Umm, did you actually send these questions to rules support? If not you won't get an answer.

And this thread is intended to only report official answers.

Thanks for this precision, I didn't know. I was thinking, reading the title of the topic that Damon directly answer here... Can you tell me how I can send question to rules support please?

And to answer your questions unofficially: There is only one kind of success tokens; if the character goes insane, they are discarded; and if Tesla in your example gets the Fated keyword, he will be put on the bottom of your deck.

I agree with you there is only one kind of succes token, but can you tell me where did you have the information about discarding succes tokens because I didn't read anything about this on extra rules inside The Key and The Gate box or FAQ, maybe I miss it...

This is from the Cthulhu FAQ:

This is from the Cthulhu FAQ:

After a character goes insane it loses

any tokens placed on it or any cards attached to it. When a character with 1

or more wound tokens goes insane it is

immediately destroyed.

Thanks for this information!

Can you tell me how I can send question to rules support please?

The link (Rules Questions) is hidden in the smallprint at the bottom of the page:

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

Rule Question:

Can you disrupt paying the cost for an action, and does it happen at that moment inbetween step 1d) and 1e), or does it have to wait until step 2 after the cost has already been paid?

The Action Window in Detail --

1. Action is initiated - a) Determine the cost(s); b) Check play restrictions; c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s); d) Apply any other active modifiers; e) Pay the cost(s); f) Play the card / trigger the effect

2. Disrupts.

3. Action is executed.

4...

Note that elsewhere the FAQ says " Disrupt effects can be played immediately, whenever their play requirement is met, and their resolution precedes the resolution of the occurrence that allowed the disrupt to be triggered. "

Here's an example:

I have Ritual of Summoning and Wandering Tinker in play, and I have taken control of an opponent's character with Infernal Obsession. If I am going to sacrifice the Infernal Obsession-controlled character to Ritual of Summoning, and then I choose to disrupt the sacrifice with Wandering Tinker to relocate Infernal Obsession to take control of a different character from my opponent, how would this resolve?

Would the character have already been sacrificed to the cost, without the opportunity for a disrupt, or is the disrupt delayed but still valid even though the character has still been sacrificed?

Or does the disrupt occur before the sacrifice cost is paid, then the reallocation of Infernal Obsession to a different character means the initially stolen character returns to its owner's control and the sacrifice can no longer proceed with that character?

Also, if Infernal Obsession was relocated from one character to another resulting in the original character changing control, would this trigger the "If control changes again, discard Infernal Obsession from play." or is that bypassed because Infernal Obsession has been changed to a different character?

Wandering Tinker (Denizens of the Underwold) -

Disrupt: When a character would be destroyed exhaust Wandering Tinker to choose a non-Relic support card attached to that character. Take control of that attachment and attach it to another character.

Infernal Obsession (The Antediluvian Dreams) -

Attach to a non-Ancient One character.

While attached, you gain control of attached character. (If control changes again, discard Infernal Obsession from play.)

Ritual of Summoning (The Order of the Silver Twilight) -

Action: Sacrifice a character to place a success token on this card.

Action: Discard 5 success tokens from Ritual of Summoning to put a character into play from your hand.

As a matter of policy we do not give rulings on cards that have yet to be released. I can give you a general statement that costs are paid before an opportunity to play a disrupt is available as shown in the FAQ section you quoted. Also I can tell you that an attachment is immediately discarded if a character it is is on leaves play as part of paying a cost.

Does that mean you can never disrupt the paying of a cost, or that you can disrupt it but after the fact in step 2), after the 1e) opportunity feels like it's come and gone - much like you do with waiting for the opportunity to play responses long after everything's been sorted out in the struggles phase?

The area is not quite as clean cut as all that. Disrupts are written, generally, like response effects, that is to say, it tells you when you would need to trigger, and what, precisely, you are disrupting. If a card said, "Disrupt: When a player pays a cost, do X" that would be a clear invocation of the Golden Rule since it would explicitly and directly contradict the written rules of the game. Outside of an explicit contradiction based on a card saying to disrupt paying a cost, no, you could not.

See also subsequent corrections/clarifications on this topic here .

Can you confirm the order that things happen in the refresh phase?

In the Call of Cthulhu rulebook, under Turn Sequence it indicates: 1) restore one insane character, 2) ready all exhausted characters (except the restored one), then 3) refresh drained domains.

However a different order is listed under Detailed Turn Sequence, of: 1) ready all exhausted characters, 2) restore one insane character (and then it neglects to mention about refreshing drained domains)

The order rarely matters as the action window isn't until after all three steps are complete, but one instance where it mattered related to Stygian Eye which reads " Attach to a non-Ancient One character. Take control of attached character. After Stygian Eye leaves play, shuffle it into its owner's deck. Forced Response: After attached character is readied, it goes insane. "

My opponent played Stygian Eye to take control of one of my characters without a terror icon. On my turn I played Thief for Hire and overpaid sufficiently to take control of Stygian Eye and get back my character, who I exhausted and commit to a story. In my next refresh phase, when I readied that character then Stygian Eye's forced response instantly sent him insane (and Stygian Eye is destroyed), but do I then get to restore him or has the restore step passed within the same Refresh phase?

The rulebook I'm looking at has the two orders as identical. It is very possible that the rulebook you are looking at is printed incorrectly. The Turn Sequence page is correct.

The rulebook I'm looking at with the inconsistent 'Refresh' steps is the downloadable one from the Support section of FFG's Call of Cthulhu web site - http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=11&esem=4

Sounds like there's an updated version of the Core Rules, which should replace that one..?

I'd also suggest adding the Seekers of Knowledge and Key and the Gate inserts to that web site, as rules for Prophecy and Fated are otherwise missing from the support page.

For cards that change type, do they revert to their original form the moment they enter the discard pile?

For cards like Guardian Pillar that can change from a Support to a Character card, I believe this is considered a character card while in play and while leaving play, then reverts to its original support card type once in the discard pile, but could Muddy Waters be triggered - which reads " Response: After a character enters a discard pile, exhaust Muddy Waters to exhaust a character. "? Does "enters a discard pile" equate to the 'leaving play' form or the being 'in the discard pile' reverted form?

There's nothing in the FAQ's (1.12) Card States section about this, though in the Frequently Asked Questions section there is the following related info:

Q: Does Guardian Pillar’s (Dreamlands F78) ability allow it to be committed outside of the normal phase when characters can be committed to stories?

A: No, Guardian Pillar’s ability allows it to be committed as a character to a story. This is during the normal timing window when characters are committed to stories. Also, it is important to note that Guardian Pillar is no longer a support card while it is a character, and that it does retain its name and uniqueness.

Q: If I use Hound of Tindalos’s (Core F110) triggered effect to attach it to a character (which makes it into an Attachment support card), and it is destroyed, does it count as a character or support card leaving play?

A: The Hound of Tindalos will count as a support card leaving play. However, it will revert to a character once it is in the discard pile.

Leaves play and enters discard pile are not the same thing in game trigger terms. You could respond to a character leaving play, but the card that enters the discard pile is a support card.

Note: This came up in relation to questions asked in CardGameDB's Muddy Waters card comments

i) If a character is destroyed by a wound and then returned to play in response, does it still retain the wound(s) when it returns to play?

If my character without Toughness takes a wound and dies from my opponent's use of Khopesh of the Abyss, then I play Eidolon's response to bring it back, would it still have the wound and immediately be destroyed again (in spite of now gaining Invulnerability)?

Eidolon reads " Response: After a character is destroyed by an opponent's card effect, return that character to play under your control and attach Eidolon to it (counts as an Attachment support card with the text "Attached character loses all icons and gains Invulnerability. No skill checks can resolve at a story at which attached character is committed."). ".

The FAQ's (1.12) Card States section seems to state that wounds are retained:

...Similarly, after a card is placed in the discard pile, returned to a player’s hand, or leaves play for any reason, any effects and/or wounds are removed after all responses have resolved. Any attachments attached to a card that left play are destroyed, unless otherwise stated in game text.

No wounds are retained. That part of the FAQ is a bit unclear in its application because it is referring to a specific circumstance. I'll try and make it cleaner with the next FAQ update. It is referring to a response window that causes things to leave play and a very specific edge case. This part of the FAQ is meant to be general rules and clarifications, with edge cases being dealt with in the latter part of the FAQ.

ii) If a character had an attachment on it when it left play, would that attachment also return to play with the character if it was returned to play as a response?

If my 3-skill 'Independent' subtype character has a '.45 Pistols' attachment and is destroyed by my opponent's Ice Shaft, then I trigger 607 Walter Street's response to bring it back, would it still have the '.45 Pistols' attachment?

607 Walter Street reads " Response: After a card with the Independent subtype is destroyed, exhaust 607 Walter Street to return that character to play under its owner's control. "

As stated above this was intended to deal with a very specific thing from the original game and original FAQ. When a card leaves play for whatever reason it loses all memory of ongoing effects, attachments, and all tokens/counters immediately unless otherwise stated by a card effect.

To trigger Bringer of Fire's action, do all my copies of Bringer of Fire need to be ready first, in order to be exhausted to pay the cost?

Bringer of Fire reads " Action: Exhaust all copies of Bringer of Fire you control to choose and destroy a character with skill 4 or lower. Use this ability only if you control more than 1 card named Bringer of Fire. "

If I have two copies of Bringer of Fire, but one is already exhausted, is it sufficient or insufficient to exhaust the remaining Bringer of Fire to meet this requirement? (Presumably the answer is 'that isn't good enough', because if it were 'that'd be fine' then I could also meet the cost by already having all my copies of Bringer of Fire exhausted and be able to trigger it continuously!)

One potential FAQ entry that might support the view that this is sufficient (though I don't think it does) is:

Q: Can I sacrifice Aziz Chatuluka (Ancient Relics F15) to put Cthulhu (Core F41) into play if all my domains are already drained?

A: Yes. Aziz directs you to drain all undrained domains, so if all domains are already drained then you have satisfied this requirement.

Aziz specifically says all undrained domains. Bringer of Fire does not say all readied Bringers of Fire. Without this qualification you must exhaust all of them.

i) In the 'End of Turn vs. End of Story Phase' sub-section in the Timing Structure section of the FAQ it states " The End of the Turn should have its own grey (non-interrupt) box in the timing flowchart. " However there actually is an 'End of Turn' phase, albeit it only lists a framework action of " The player on your left becomes the active player ". If there's something missing, should this be noted in the 'Players Handbook Errata' sub-section in the Official Rules Clarification section?

FYI, the full quote from the FAQ is --

End of Turn vs. End of Story Phase

If the active player commits no characters to a story, the Story Phase ends immediately.

The End of the Turn is a separate phase that occurs after the Story Phase. The End of the Turn should have its own grey (non-interrupt) box in the timing flowchart

My understanding is the first printing of the rulebook was missing this step. It should be in the errata section, thank you.

ii) In the 'End of Turn vs. End of Story Phase' sub-section in the Timing Structure section of the FAQ it states " The End of the Turn should have its own grey (non-interrupt) box in the timing flowchart. " However, the core rules actually refer to these as "green boxes". (A Game of Thrones uses grey boxes - perhaps that's where this reference slipped in from..?)

FYI, the full quote from the Core Rules is --

SEQUENCES IN GREEN BOXES CANNOT BE INTERRUPTED BY ANY ACTIONS OR RESPONSES (DISRUPTS MAY STILL TAKE PLACE AND FORCED RESPONSES MUST RESOLVE IMMEDIATELY).

iii) In the 'Response "Opportunities"' sub-section in the Timing Structure section of the FAQ it states " NOTE: There can be no Response actions triggered to “end of phase” effects resolving. " Is this also the case for 'end of turn' effects resolving?

Consider the following examples:

a) I have in play Basilisk and Doctor Bancroft. At the end of my turn Basilisk's forced response triggers and I elect to give Doctor Bancroft two wounds. Can I now pay 1 to trigger Doctor Bancroft's response to place two wounds on an opponent's character?

Basilisk reads " Forced Response: At the end of your turn, deal 2 wounds to all other characters you control or sacrifice Basilisk. "

Doctor Bancroft reads " Response: After Doctor Bancroft is wounded, pay 1 to choose a character. Place X wound tokens on that character. X is equal to the number of wound tokens on Doctor Bancroft. "

b) I have in play two insane characters. I restore one during the refresh phase, which has the 'Lunatic' subtype. I play Whisper in the Wind to restore the other. During my draw phase I play Hamu XX 15:14 face up on top of my deck. At the end of the turn Whisper in the Wind's effect requires me to drive the Lunatic insane. Can I now trigger Hamu XX 15:14's response to retrieve two cards from my discard pile?

Whisper in the Wind reads " Action: Restore all insane characters you control. At the end of the turn, all Lunatic characters go insane. "

Hamu XX 15:14 reads " Prophecy.

Play during any player's draw phase.

Action: Place this card face up on your deck.

Response: After a character is made insane, discard Hamu XX 15:14 from the top of your deck to choose up to 2 cards in your discard pile. Add those cards to your hand."

And end of the turn is the end of a phase, just with no following phases for the active player. So no opportunity for responses.

iv) In the 'Framework Actions' sub-section in the Timing Structure section of the FAQ it states there is a " 6. Responses " step. However, in the core rules it states that " sequences in green boxes cannot be interrupted by any actions or responses ". Are 'green boxes' and 'framework actions' synonymous, or are they different things? If they are the same, then should step 6. Responses be deleted (or should this be clarified as a special case only for the " Response to struggle and success results may be played " white box that follows the " Resolve each story... " green box? If green boxes and framework actions are not the same, then how does one identify a framework action (as this isn't actually explained anywhere in the FAQ)?

FYI, the only explanation as to what a framework action is comes from the 'Framework Actions' sub-section in the Timing Structure section of the FAQ --

Framework Actions

All framework actions, including the “start” of every phase, work very similarly to the way that player actions work. Here is the timing resolution for framework actions.

The biggest difference between framework actions and player actions is that the framework action initiates several events dictated by the rules of the game, rather than player choice

Note also that the general 'Responses' sub-section in the Timing Structure section of the FAQ states " Responses are not normal actions, but are effects that may be triggered by players when a specific opportunity arises within an action window. ", which seems to suggest they cannot occur in a non-action green window.

There is a difference between being interrupted and allowing responses to trigger after all framework actions are resolved. Drawing is a framework action of the draw phase. I cannot respond to drawing the first card before I draw the second, but I can respond to the drawing of either or both cards, after I have completed my framework draw.

Does that make sense?

Yes, this does make sense. If I've understood it correctly, responses to framework actions still happen in the green box (and don't have to wait for the white box that generally follows where 'Actions may be taken'), just as the last thing (i.e. not an 'interruption'). The only exception being for responses during story struggles, for which a separate white box explicitly separates those responses from the green box, stating "Response to struggle and success results may be played". Have I got that right?

Yep.

If so, do you think that "Response to struggle and success results may be played" should actually be a green box (i.e. still part of the framework action that preceded it - just at the end), rather than a white box?

Perhaps the Responses section of the FAQ could be clarified by appending "or following a framework action" to " Responses are not normal actions, but are effects that may be triggered by players when a specific opportunity arises within an action window ".

I'd also suggest putting somewhere - in the rules or the FAQ - that "Framework Actions are represented by green boxes in the Core Rules Detailed Turn Sequence", as it doesn't actually say this anywhere.

I'll talk it over with the team when we have a lull (if we have a lull).

Hi Damon,

Can the event Immurement (Denizens of the Underworld F30) be played if you have more than one domain with equal-most resources?

Immurement reads:

" Action: Drain a domain you control with the most resources to choose a support card or a non- Ancient One character an opponent controls. That card's owner attaches it to a domain of his as a resource. "

For example, if you had two domains with equal-top resources (e.g. Domain A with 2, B with 2 and C with 1), would this card be able to trigger if you drained Domain A for the cost?

Or would the game be unable to identify "a domain you control with the most resources" in this situation, because even though the card text refers to "a domain" (as opposed to "the domain") it does not give you the option to choose a domain you control with the most resources?

I believe it would fail based on previous discussions you and I have had on the topic as per the emails quoted [ here ] - the outcome of which (if I've understood correctly) is that where you don't get to 'choose' (i.e. where the game has to try to decide) then it can't be done. If so, I'm guessing this was not as intended (based on Marius's advice to flatten resources to reduce the cost of this card), and the card should actually be re-worded as "Choose and drain a domain you control with the most resources.."

----------------------------------------

As a side note, the FAQ's only direction on the topic is in (2.29) Lowest skill, but that's specific to "target"ing, which requires the word choose --

(2.29) Lowest Skill

...At any time a card effect targets a character with the lowest skill and there is a tie, the card effect’s controller may choose which character is affected.

(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” is not a targeted effect.

By way of feedback, I think that whole entry on "Lowest Skill" should be re-written. That info shouldn't be about skill, but about anything where "lowest", "most", etc. is used (e.g. skill, cost, icons, resources, cards in hand, etc.); and it should indicate the difference between situations where you get to choose, and where you don't.

--Jason--

Obviously when a card directs you to do something with the most the wording of it is incredibly important. I cannot speak to this effect in a general way because of that.

When you have two domains with 5 resources and one domain with 3, you have two domains with the most resources, the most being the number 5. So you are told to drain A domain with the most (5) resources. If the card read drain THE domain with the most (5) resources, you could not play the card.

Does that help?

If you're happy with the wording, then I'm happy - I'm just trying to reconcile in my mind which situations do permit tie-breakers and which ones fail, so that I can apply the logic to all such cards. I thought from our last conversation that the word "choose" was the key, but I now take it that it can be either "choose the" or simply "a" that permits tie-breakers (with the card's controller determining which card is affected).

So for instance, if Rite of the Silver Gate's effect had been worded as " ...Discard a card with the highest cost... " then you could choose from among equal highest, but because it actually says " Discard the card with the highest cost " then the game can't determine single highest cost card and it fails. Have I understood that correctly?

For reference, Rite of the Silver Gate (The Key and the Gate, F25) reads in full " Action: Exhaust Rite of the Silver Gate to choose a non-story card in play. The controller of that card reveals the top card of his deck and compares its cost to that of the chosen card. Discard the card with the highest cost. Then, place a success token on the Rite of the Silver Gate. "

That is more or less correct...but, and here is the frustrating part when it comes to universal unifying theories, trying to establish context independent general rules is occasionally going to cause problems when you are dealing with effects on different card types and whose effects are resolved or even handled differently in the rules text of the game.

TL:DR - Context matters.

Fair enough. Thanks again Damon.

Arsene Renard (The Key and the Gate, F54) reads:

" Fated 3.

Response: After an opponent plays a support card, search the top 5 cards of his deck for a support card and put that card into play under your control. Then, place a success token on Arsene Renard. If that card is still in play at the end of the turn, sacrifice it."

Q1.i) If Arsene Renard triggers his ability to search the top 5 cards of his opponent's deck but fails to find a support card, does he still place a success token on himself?

No he does not. Everything before the "Then" statement must successfully resolve for the success token to be placed.

I'd also like to understand the general rule(s) being applied to decide this...

Q1.ii) The FAQ says in 2.3 'If Able' that: " If a “Then” effect follows the “if able” effect, all designated cards and players must have had the effect successfully resolve in order for the “Then” effect to resolve. "

Is this FAQ entry intended to be a clarification for "if able" cards, to indicate that they are to be treated the same as other cards without "if able"; or does this requirement for successful resolution only apply to cards where "if able" is specified (unlike Arsene Renard)?

As I said above, the "Then" effect is conditional. Every part before the "Then" must resolve successfully for anything after to even be attempted.

"If able" means you will make an attempt to resolve every part of the effect on every designee, and not being able to resolve it on everything designated by the card does not prevent the entire effect from resolving on those designees that it can resolve for.

An effect which says "If able" for the first part of the effect and is followed by a "Then" effect will resolve on each designee and for those designees that had the "if able" effect successfully resolve will then resolve the "Then" effect, while those designees who could not successfully resolve the "If able" effect will not attempt to resolve the "Then" effect.

Here is the example, I play a card that says, "Action: Each player with 5 cards in hand draws 5 cards, if able. Then, discards 2 cards." If I have 5 cards in my hand and you have 2, I get to draw 5 cards. You draw nothing. Now because I drew 5 cards, I discard 2. You discard nothing.

Doesn't that contradict the example given in the FAQ under 2.3 "If Able" , below, which states that unless everyone is able to fulfil the requirement then nobody proceeds to the "then" statement?

" For example, Darrin’s opponent Tommy has Feral Elder Thing (Revelations F78) in play with the text, "At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card." When Tommy’s turn begins Darrin has 3 cards in hand and Tommy has 1. Darrin choose and discard 2 cards, but Tommy is unable to choose 2 cards to discard. Since both players were unable to discard 2 cards, neither player is able to draw a card. "

(Or is the difference that you've added the "with 5 cards in hand" limiting condition?)

Correct, because 1 player did not meet the requirement to be designated they are excluded from the entirety of the effect. I was attempting to give you another explanation that differed enough from the one in the FAQ so that you could get a better idea of the general rule.

Q1.iii) The FAQ says in 1.10 'Eligible Targets' that " In order to target a card with an effect, that card must meet the targeting requirements. Any part of the effect for which that character is ineligible is simply ignored. "

If a component is ignored (e.g. Arsene Renard's instruction to "put that card into play under your control" in the instance where no support card is found), is it also ignored when determining whether or not to trigger a subsequent 'then' effect; or by ignoring it does that automatically preclude from being able to trigger the following 'then' instruction?

This has nothing to do with Arsene. This is specifically for cards that direct you to target a card in order to play it. If the card does not say choose to designate there is no target.

Q1.iv) The FAQ says in 'Frequently Asked Questions' that:

" If a card requires something like “destroy all Day cards, then...” is it possible to satisfy this requirement if there were no Day cards in play at the time? In other words, can you destroy 0 cards?

Yes. The requirement is to destroy all, whatever number that is, including 0, as long as you have done that the “then” effect will trigger. If a card gave a set number, you would have to meet that number."

Does this logic apply to Arsene Renard, that searching, finding 0 and putting in to play 0 support cards has met the initial requirement to invoke the 'Then' statement to place a success token on himself? Or does such logic only apply in instances that effect "all" corresponding instances?

Again this has nothing to do with Arsene because his card effect does not use the word "all."