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."

Q2.i) After triggering his ability to search the top 5 cards of his opponent's deck, what happens to those cards afterwards? (E.g. are they shuffled back in, or are they returned to the top of the deck in the same order?)

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

Q2.ii) The FAQ says in 2.11 'Searching the Deck' that " If a card effect allows a player to search his deck, he must shuffle his deck afterwards. "

Does shuffling only apply where the whole deck is being searched?

Does shuffling only apply where you are searching your own deck?

You quoted the relevant answer here. The rule works on any effect that says search the deck. It does not matter in this instance how much of the deck is searched.

Lastly, on the point of shuffling following search, to account for Arsene Renard, I think the FAQ entry needs to be broadened to state "If a card effect allows a player to search a deck, the owner of that deck must shuffle their deck afterwards."

Sorry Damon, thought I'd wrapped my head around the whole 'search' = 'shuffle' thing, but then I spotted this --

Museum Curator (The Yuggoth Contract, F70) reads:

" Response: After Museum Curator enters play, search the top 5 cards of your deck for a support card and put it into play. Put the rest of the cards on the bottom of your deck. "

Q3.i) If a shuffle has to occur here too, due to searching (just like Arsene Renard) then the remaining cards would no longer be on the bottom of the deck - unless you shuffle all cards except "the rest" and then place them on the bottom. Or is this a case where one assumes a golden rule applies to prevent shuffling? Or should this be errated to use the words "look at" instead of "search" to prevent an unintended shuffling?

You would shuffle and then place the cards on the bottom of the deck.

Appreciate the information, Damon. Seems odd (to say the least) that you would shuffle the remainder of the deck, which hasn't been viewed... but it is what it is.

It does, but that is the proper way to fulfill both. It could probably use an errata to clean it up.

Q3.ii) So after searching, you have to shuffle the deck and put the 5 cards on the bottom. How are those 5 cards ordered? Are they:

a) ordered as chosen by the person who looked at the cards, then placed on the bottom of the shuffled deck?

b) ordered as chosen by the person who owns the deck (which in this case is the same person looking at the cards), then placed on the bottom of the shuffled deck?

c) ordered randomly (i.e. shuffled separately from the rest of the deck), then placed on the bottom of the shuffled deck?

IF the cards are not stated to change order they go on the bottom in the same order they came off, so the card in the first position, what had been the top position, is the first card added to the bottom of the deck, then the second card and so on and so forth.

Burglar Tools (The Key and the Gate, F55) reads:

" Attach to a character you control. Attached character gains the Criminal subtype.

Action: Exhaust attached character and pay 1 to reveal the top 5 cards of an opponent's deck. Choose a revealed non-Location support card and put it into play under your control."

Q4.i) Is "reveal" (and "look at") different from "search", or does the "search" rule that requires a deck shuffle apply to these terms as well?

Q4.ii) After revealing the top 5 cards, what happens to the remaining cards not put in to play? Are they:

a) ordered as chosen by the person who looked at the cards, then placed on the top of the unshuffled deck?

b) ordered as chosen by the person who owns the deck, then placed on the top of the unshuffled deck?

c) ordered randomly (i.e. shuffled separately from the rest of the deck), then placed on the top of the unshuffled deck?

d) kept in the original order as revealed, then placed on the top of the unshuffled deck?

e) shuffled back in to the deck?

Reveal and look at are not search, and trigger no shuffle.

Speaking of discarding cards (in Q1.ii) ), you've reminded me of one more thing that I've been meaning to ask about...

There seem to be two contradictory examples in the FAQ --

In the 2.6 'The Words "Up To"' section, it states:

" Any card effect that involves choosing multiple targets (including choosing multiple cards to draw or discard, or choosing multiple tokens) can only resolve if the exact number of targets, cards, or tokens can be chosen.

For example: The event Byakhee Attack (Core Set F95) reads: “ Action: Each opponent chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. ” If an opponent has exactly 1 card in his hand, he is not affected by Byakhee Attack because he cannot choose 2 cards to discard. "

In the 'Frequently Asked Questions' section, it states:

" Julia Brown, Oddly Amphibious (Summons of the Deep F107), reads, “ Forced Response: After Julia Brown commits to a story, discard 2 cards at random from your hand, then draw 2 cards. ” If I have only 1 card in hand when I commit her, must I discard this card or not ? Can I draw 2 cards ?

Yes you must discard your 1 card. You must seek to fulfill as much of a card’s effect as possible. Since cards are drawn or discarded singularly you must discard cards in your hand until you have reached the maximum of 2 for this effect. However, since the next part of Julia’s effect is a “Then” statement, because you were unable to successfully discard 2 cards you may not draw any cards"

Q5) Can you please explain what is different about Julia Brown from Byakhee Attack that they are treated differently?

It is the word choose. Choosing is a specific part of the effect the targets some thing or things. If you cannot legally meet the targeting restriction/parameters you cannot resolve the effect (here you will note the Byakhee Attack effect says "if able," meaning that as long as one player can fulfill the condition the card can still be played but if no player could meet the targeting parameters the card could not be played at all).

Julie Brown, Oddly Amphibious does not target anything she simply says "discard 2 cards" and since you have no targeting restriction that you have to meet you resolve the effect discarding cards 1 at a time until you meet the full effect of the card.

Does that make sense?

Got it.

Really appreciate you taking the time to explain that for me, Damon.

> If I commit Glaki to a story and force an opponents character to commit to this story, too, he looses all icons.
> But what happens if my opponent plays Steal the soul (during the next action window) and transfers Glakis icons to his character?
> Will Glaki be driven insane by his "own" icons (now trransferred)?
> or will the character loose Glakis icons (transferred by steal the soul) too?
> So is Glakis effects working permanently?
> Or is it just for the moment Glaki commits and it is possible that the blanked charcter can gain some icons by effects afterwards?

Answer:

Glaaki 's ability only resolves on that character once. It does not permanently prevent that character from gaining icons, it simply removes those icons it has at the moment of resolution.

It should be noted Steal the Soul does not actually removed the icons from Glaaki, it simply reproduces them on the other character. I couldn't tell for sure if you realize that, but a lot of people get it wrong.

The following was prompted by the Length of Pipe question asked here .

Hi Damon,

I've got some questions about the timing of disrupts in relation to struggles - when a 'win' occurs and what constitutes 'resolves'.

1) Does "after you win a struggle" occur before or after that struggle's effect happens?

Depends on the effect. A disrupt is not a discrete action in the timing chart the way a response or action is because it is a forced break in the timing window, literally inserting its effect into the timing chart once its trigger condition has been met.

E.g. If I have the most investigation icons at a story where I have a Syndicate character with Length of Pipe attached, and I wanted to trigger Length of Pipe's ability to wound an opponents character, would this happen before or after placing the success token for winning the investigation struggle?

Length of Pipe (Denizens of the Underwold, F27) reads:

" Attach to a [syndicate] character you control.

Disrupt: After you win a struggle at a story where attached character is committed, discard Length of Pipe to wound a character at that story."

This is disrupting the framework action of one struggle and the next framework or player action.

Bloodthirsty Star Spawn seems to suggest it's before the struggle effect happens --

Bloodthirsty Star Spawn (The Rituals of the Order, F4) reads:

" Disrupt: After you win a Combat struggle at a story to which Bloodthirsty Star Spawn is committed, instead of wounding a character, the opponent must choose and destroy one of his characters committed to that story card. "

This is disrupting the effect of winning the Combat struggle, and replacing that effect with a new one.

The Cornered Man seems to suggest it's after the struggle effect happens (otherwise it would seem odd to complete a different struggle before the current struggle effect happens) --

The Cornered Man (Summons of the Deep, F57) reads:

" Disrupt: After you win a Combat struggle in which The Cornered Man participated, wound The Cornered Man to immediately resolve another Combat struggle at that story. "

This is disrupting the framework action of the Combat struggle and the next framework action, which under normal conditions would be the Arcane struggle.

2) Does "before you resolve a struggle" / "when a struggle at a story would resolve" occur before or after that struggle is determined to have been won? That is, does "resolve" indicate the completion step of awarding the struggle effect, or does "resolve" indicate the entire occurrence of the struggle?

E.g. If I wish to trigger Jiang Shi's ability to commit him to a story without exhausting by paying 1, does he join the story before or after the number of Terror icons are counted and the winner of the Terror struggle determined?

Jiang Shi (Ancient Relics, F33) reads:

" Disrupt: Before you resolve a Terror struggle, pay 1 to commit Jiang Shi to that story without exhausting it. If Jiang Shi is already committed to another story, uncommit it. "

Fall Guy seems to suggest it's after the winner is determined --

Fall Guy (Denizens of the Underworld, F14) reads:

" Disrupt: When a struggle at a story would resolve, sacrifice Fall Guy to cancel the results of each struggle you would lose at that story until the end of the phase. "

Slenderman seems to suggest it should occur before the winner is determined (otherwise presumably that first struggle effect would still happen) --

Slenderman (The Key and the Gate, F50) reads:

" Fated 3.

Disrupt: When the first struggle would resolve at a story at which Slenderman is committed, all non-Shub-Niggurath characters at that story with cost 2 or lower are uncommitted. Then, place a success token on Slenderman."

In this case all of them are going to happen before a winner is determined. The difference between before and when, is the before happens before you start a/that struggle, so Jiang Shi happens immediately after active player decides which story is going to be resolved, but before the Terror struggle itself has started. No counting or boosting effects have yet been applied. When happens after the story has started to resolve, but before results applied.

Reminder, disrupt is not a finite timing effect, happening exactly the same in every place in a phase on every card, but is disrupting a specific element of game play, as defined by the card.

Yep, I get that disrupts break timing, which is why I think it's important to be able to clearly and consistently identify from card terms used (like "after you win a struggle") exactly when that timing break occurs.

So from those specific examples, it seems that:

i) 'resolve' is a reference to enacting the struggle from beginning to end, and not just having completed the struggle

ii) "before a struggle resolves" is considered to be before the struggle has commenced;

iii) "when a struggle would resolve" is considered to be the moment that the struggle has commenced;

iv) "after you win a struggle" is considered to be after the entire struggle has completed (i.e. after the struggle has been won and the struggle effect applied)

v) an "instead" replacement effect may break the above timing

Have I got that about right, as a general rule?

That all reads correctly. I'm unaware of any cards from before or after my time as developer where the wording would indicate a different thing.

Lastly, here's an additional question and comment related to iv) "after you win a struggle"..

3) If a response or disrupt is conditional on "after you win a struggle", and as per iv) it's determined that the timing of this occurs after the struggle effects have been applied, can an "after you win a struggle" response or disrupt still be applied if the winner is determined but the struggle effect doesn't occur?

E.g. I have Fall Guy defending a story and have fewer Terror icons than my opponent, who has an attacker with Terrifying Visage attached. If I choose to invoke Fall Guy's ability by sacrificing him to prevent all struggle effects from being applied, is my opponent still considered to have 'won' the Terror struggle and can invoke Terrifying Visage's response to ready his character?

Terrifying Visage (Summons of the Deep, F12) reads:

" Attach to a character with a Terror icon.

Response: After you win a Terror struggle, ready attached character."

Responses cannot be triggered until after all stories are resolved. This means that all forced responses and disrupts whose triggers are met will have been resolved well in advance of the response. Not that this was in question, but I always like to remind people of this.

Winning a struggle and not getting the reward for it (for whatever reason) are completely divorced form each other. We know this because if I win the combat struggle but you have no one at a story to wound (either by not having any characters at the story or by the only characters being invulnerable) I am still the winner and could trigger any card effects dependent on winning said struggle. Canceling the wound with Agency Bodyguard ( Disrupt: Exhaust Agency Bodyguard to cancel 1 wound dealt to a unique character. ), which is the result of the combat struggle, would not stop me from triggering effects. It would require a canceling of the struggle itself.

4) Clover Club Ringer, which is a disrupt along the lines of "after (someone) wins a struggle" seems to suggest it needs to trigger before the struggle effect has been applied and not after. Even though "instead" isn't used, this appears to be a form of replacement effect, so correct me if I'm wrong but I think that still fits the general rules above in relation to v) .

Clover Club Ringer (Denizens of the Underworld, F11) reads:

" Disrupt: When an opponent wins a struggle at a story where Clover Club Ringer is committed, you also win that struggle. (The active player resolves their struggle first.)

Limit once per turn."

It is not a replacement effect, they always use the word "instead." Clover Club Ringer is a disrupt that you may trigger every time an opponent is determined the winner of a struggle. This happens before the result of that win is enacted (as indicated by the wording).

Here is the general wording guide,

Before a struggle resolves - this must be triggered after whatever the last player or framework action ends but before the struggle event begins.

When a struggle resolves - this must be triggered when the struggle begins, after the previous player or framework action but before any calculation is made.

When you would win/lose a struggle - this must be triggered when the winner/loser is determined, after the icon calculations are made but before the effect of the struggle is applied.

After you lose/win a struggle - this must be triggered after the result of the struggle has resolved, after calculations, but before moving to the next framework action.

I believe there is one card on our FAQ update list waiting to receive errata because it confuses When and After.

That's crystal clear now, Damon, thanks a bunch.

Question:

what happens if I use Frozen Time

[reads: Attach to a card. Treat attached card as if its text box was blank.]

to blank

Negotium Perambulans in Tenebris

[reads: 10 success tokens are required to win this story. Characters printed cost 2 or lower cannot commit to any story other than this one.]

Can I win it with 5 success tokens if it is blanked?

(so if there are already 5 or more tokens on it if it gets blanked, is it won immediately?)

Answer:

Yes you can blank Negotium Perabulans in Tenebris with Frozen Time, and yes that would mean it becomes a conspiracy with no special text so it is won the moment it has 5 success tokens on it on one side.

Hi Damon,

Following from a previous conversation we had (quoted above here ), where you confirmed that disrupts cannot be used during the 1e) Pay the cost(s) step unless a golden rule applies, I'm told you've responded differently to HilariousPete when you've answered his questions (see comments following his 'Timing in Call of Cthulhu LCG. Part 2 – Triggered effects' article here ) --

Q: Horrific Light + Agency Medic + a high-skilled character: If I cancel the wound to the high-skilled character with Agency Medic, Horrific Light will not resolve because its cost hasn't been paid, right?

A: Correct.

Q: Horrific Light + Infirmary + a high-skill MU character: Since Infirmary doesn't cancel/replace the cost (but only a result of the cost), I may destroy an opponent's character and my MU character goes back to hand, correct?

A: Correct.

I would have expected the answer in both cases to be: Agency Medic's and Infirmary's disrupts cannot be played to interrupt the paying of a cost.

Have I misunderstood your previous answer?

The golden rule applies, as I said, when the card specifies that the cost being paid is what is being disrupted.

When the costs are paid has nothing to do with whether it is disrupt-able What matters are the words on the card. The resource cost is not disrupt-able because of the timing but because there is no card that specifies "When a cost would be played" and I don't believe (though I may be wrong with this, though I've done a card search and could find nothing that matched it) there are any cards that say "when a card would be played" or "when a domain would be drained" those would be the necessary wordings to specifically disrupt the paying of the domain drain cost because they invoke the golden rule.

When the cost is a game state change then the wording of the disrupt simply needs to be able to disrupt that game state change.

The game differentiates between a conditional game state change being made as a cost and draining a domain for a resource cost.

Yes, likewise, I went searching for any cards with disrupt effects that explicitly referenced paying costs and couldn't find any either; so I took that to mean the timing chart was law and you simply couldn't play a disrupt prior to step 2) Disrupts , regardless. (This seemed backed up by your statements that "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" and "Outside of an explicit contradiction based on a card saying to disrupt paying a cost, no, you could not" . But perhaps you were referring specifically to domain draining costs, and not the sort of 'game state changing' costs like Ritual of Summoning's "Sacrifice a character to..." that I had in mind.)

That being the case, I should now think of the 2) Disrupt step in the flow as the step for disrupting the action execution only; however disrupts can in fact trigger in relation to 'game state changing' costs in step 1e) Pay the cost(s) as well. So I take it those other examples about disrupts in relation to the 'game state changing' cost (i.e. "Wound a character to..") of Horrific Light are valid.

P.S. In my very first question, posted before the release of Denizens of the Underworld was released (so you were only able to answer in a general way), I asked about an example interaction between Ritual of Summoning, Wandering Tinker and a character taken control by Infernal Obsession. I've since realised that was a terrible example, as Ritual of Summoning's cost requires a 'sacrifice' and Wandering Tinker's disrupt triggers when a character is 'destroyed', which are not the same thing. Instead I should have asked the question like this:

I have Wandering Tinker in play, and I have taken control of an opponent's character with Infernal Obsession. The controlled character is my only attacking character committed to a story where I will lose the Combat struggle. If I then choose to disrupt the wound by exhausting Wandering Tinker, and relocate Infernal Obsession to take control of a different character from my opponent, how would this resolve?

I take it that the disrupt occurs before the controlled character takes the wound, with that character switching back to its owner's control still committed to the story, and I can reassign Infernal Obsession to a different character; though if I take control of another defender at that story then the struggle calculation does not reoccur and regardless I would now have to assign the wound to the newly stolen character

Also, if Infernal Obsession is 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/reset when Infernal Obsession has been changed to a different character?

Wandering Tinker (Denizens of the Underwold, F38) reads:

" 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 (Summons of the Deep, F51) reads:

" Attach to a non-Ancient One character.

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

I believe a lot of the problem was caused by me answering generalized questions and players trying to apply the answers to those specific answers to what appeared to be similar situations, with people unaware of some of the more subtle interactions, and my failing to ask which "cost" people were asking about disrupting. I think my answers clouded the issue more the cleared them up and at least once I failed to note a distinction myself. Mea Culpa.

As to your rephrased question, Wandering Tinker does not disrupt the wounding. It disrupts the leaving play because of the wound. So that character receives the wound, and then before it can leave play you disrupt it and get to take control of Infernal Obsession and attach it to another character, with that disrupt, now resolved finish the resolution of the wound, which is the character being destroyed. (this is where I ended up giving you the wrong answer)

The thing to remember is a Disrupt can only be triggered when the timing requirement is being resolved. So if it references a conditional game state being used as a cost, it must be disrupted right then. Disrupting the wound and disrupting the effects of the wound are different things.

I can see now that the disrupt step in the timing chart is being misinterpreted. I'll see if it can be cleared up more, but this entry in the timing section that proceeds the timing chart explains exactly how and when disrupts are to be played and resolved, " 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. " The timing chart gives a break down of how it is handled within the player action assuming that the action is the thing being disrupted.

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this clears things up.

No problem, Damon. All cleared up now.

And lastly regarding Infernal Obsession's text "(If control changes again, discard Infernal Obsession from play.)" - this only relates to control changing between players, and not control changing between characters, right? So Infernal Obsession is able to be relocated by Wandering Tinker successfully..?

Yes, it refers to control of the character that IO is on, not control of the IO itself.

Question:

what happens if I use Frozen Time

[reads: Attach to a card. Treat attached card as if its text box was blank.]

to blank

Negotium Perambulans in Tenebris

[reads: 10 success tokens are required to win this story. Characters printed cost 2 or lower cannot commit to any story other than this one.]

Can I win it with 5 success tokens if it is blanked?

(so if there are already 5 or more tokens on it if it gets blanked, is it won immediately?)

Answer:

Yes you can blank Negotium Perabulans in Tenebris with Frozen Time, and yes that would mean it becomes a conspiracy with no special text so it is won the moment it has 5 success tokens on it on one side.

Thinking about the timing of Wandering Tinker's "When a character would be destroyed..." disrupt as occurring after taking a wound but before being destroyed (as quoted above )...

Andrew Chapman (The Key and the Gate, F48) has a disrupt with similar timing, which reads as:

" Fated 3.

Disrupt: When an opponent's effect would destroy or make you sacrifice a character you control, instead discard a card from your hand. Then, place a success token on Andrew Chapman."

Andrew Chapman's ability is a replacement effect, but is this replacing the "opponent's effect" or is it replacing the "destroy or ... sacrifice" consequence of that effect?

For instance, if my opponent paid 4 and played Shotgun Blast to wound Andrew Chapman, and then I discarded a card to trigger Andrew Chapman's disrupt, what would happen? Would the Shotgun Blast wound be placed first (like the case with Wandering Tinker) before Andrew Chapman could trigger his disrupt ability, and then Andrew Chapman's attempt to save himself from being destroyed would ultimately fail because the wound remains?

Shotgun Blast (Core, F16) reads:

" Action: Choose and wound a character with skill X or lower. "

It is replacing the effect. So if it is a wound that is being resolved, instead of the wound token getting assigned to that character and then it going to the discard pile, the game "rewrites" that and makes you discard a card from your hand Another way to think about it is each such effect is treated as if it said, "Choose a character. The owner of that character discards a card from his hand."

And does it replace the entire effect, or just the destroy/sacrifice-related part?

Example 1) If Antarctic Wind was played by my opponent to exhaust then wound my character, would Andrew Chapman disrupt both the exhaust and the wound?

Antarctic Wind (Forgotten Lore, F19) reads:

" Play during your opponent's turn, after characters have been committed to stories.

Action: Exhaust a character that is not committed to a story. Then, give that character 1 wound for each Polar event in your discard pile."

My guess is that as the disrupt can rewind time to cancel the wound causing the character to be destroyed, which is what then allows the disrupt to trigger, then it clears everything else as well.

Nope. Notice how it has two effects, the primary effect and then a conditional effect. You would be disrupting the conditional, so Arctic Wind would still exhaust the character, if it didn't exhaust the character then it couldn't be wounded, in which case it wouldn't be destroyed and Andrew Champan could not work. So it is exhausted, and then the replacement effect causes the discard of the card rather than the woundstorm that would otherwise be coming.

Example 2) If my opponent triggered Apprentice Monster Hunter's action, sacrificing his character to wound a little monster of mine, would Andrew Chapman disrupt both the sacrifice and the wound?

Apprentice Monster Hunter (The Yuggoth Contract, F22) reads:

" Action: Sacrifice Apprentice Monster Hunter to choose and wound a monster character with printed skill 3 or lower. "

I'm pretty sure that the 'sacrifice' still happens, as that's considered an additional cost rather than an effect.

This one is correct, you replace the wound with a card discard, not the cost of the wound.

One final question on this topic...

Are story effects considered an effect from the player that has won it? For instance, if my opponent wins the conspiracy Ask Questions Later and chooses to trigger it, is this considered "an opponent's effect" that Andrew Chapman could disrupt?

Ask Questions Later (Summons of the Deep, F60) reads:

" If you win this conspiracy, you may wound all characters in play. "

No, effects belong to the player who controls the card, since conspiracies when they are in play are treated as stories they have no controller.

A new round of questions for you, Damon This time the topic is passives.

Always happy to help Jason

Q1) At what point does passive text start applying? Is the passive text on a card only valid when the card has fully entered play (i.e. " 1. Action is initiated; 2. Disrupts; 3. Action is executed; 4. Passive abilities (requirements now met) are initiated "), or can it also be applicable sooner (i.e. " Passive abilities are “always on,” and active whenever the circumstances of their text would indicate. When any action, regardless if it is a player action or a framework action seeks to initiate, any passives that would alter the ability will do so.. ")?

Example 1a) If I play The Guardian conspiracy card, is Savio Corvi then considered a Night card that I can search for, or does his passive text only activate when he is in play (i.e. at step " 4) Passive abilities are initiated ")?

The Guardian (Terror in Venice, F27) reads:

When you play this conspiracy, search your deck for a Day or a Night card, reveal it and add it to your hand. Then, shuffle your deck. While this conspiracy is in your won pile, increase the cost of any opponent's triggered effect that targets characters you control by 1.

Savio Corvi (Terror in Venice, F38) reads:

While there is at least 1 Conspiracy card in play, Savio Corvi gains, " Night , It is Night. Destroy all Day cards. Savio Corvi is immune to non-Day card effects."

While it is Night characters you control gain Fast and Terror.

"Gains" is always a card ability and abilities always denote the card must be in play. It is distinguished from a card effect which is any effect on a card. In short, Savio does not become a Night card if he is not in play, not because of the rules of passives but because of the rules regarding gained abilities.

Example 1b) If there is a conspiracy card in play also, is Savio Corvi considered a Night card at the time of paying his cost (i.e. at step " 1d) Apply any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s) ") , and would his cost then be reduced by 1 if I had Everlasting Night in play?

Everlasting Night (Dreamlands, F8) reads:

Raise the cost for opponents to play Day cards by 1.

Action: Exhaust Everlasting Night to reduce the cost of the next Night card you play this phase by 1 (to a minimum of 1).

Same situation as above.

Example 1c) If my opponent has Lucas Tetlow in play and I try to play Hermetic Seal, is Hermetic Seal considered immune to non-Night effects after paying his cost but before it enters play (i.e. at step " 2) Disrupts ")?

The FAQ indicates that:

" The order of precedence of when an effect takes place, assuming all conditions are met simultaneously, is as follows:

1. Disrupt effects

2. Passive effects

3. Forced Response effects

4. Response effects"

..suggesting that Lucas Tetlow's disrupt would trigger first, however the FAQ then goes on to indicate there are exceptions where passives can occur before disrupts:

" NOTE: If a passive ability would alter an action as it is being initiated, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. A Disrupt triggered, disrupts the altered action not the action before the passive is applied. "

I'm not entirely clear what these exceptions might be - e.g. does it exclude passives on cards that have not fully entered play?

Hermetic Seal (Terror in Venice, F42) reads:

Day. It is Day After Hermetic Seal comes into play, destroy all Night cards. Hermetic Seal is immune to non-Night card effects.

Disrupt: Return Hermetic Seal to your hand to cancel the response or forced response effect of a card that just entered play.

Lucas Tetlow (Seekers of Knowledge, F9) reads:

Disrupt: When a player would play a non-Location support card, discard one of your success tokens from a story to instead put that card into play under your control, as if you had just played it from hand.

Passives that alter the initiation of an action will essentially become the action itself. In this case though there is nothing about this passive that alters the initiation of playing the card so its passive does not kick in until it is in play, and Tetlow's effect will disrupt the playing of the card, so when it does come into play, it will do so on his controller's side. There are *very* few ways to stop Tetlow from grabbing a support card that is played. USually the best way to handle it is simply not to play them until you can remove him from play, blank him, or make him go insane.

Q2) If there is no initiation point for a "destroy all Day/Night cards" passive, does it continue to occur, or does it only initiate once when the card enters play?

Some cards explicitly state that this occurs " After {card name} enters play " like The Day Dreamer, but others like Savio Corvi do not.

The Day Dreamer (Dreamlands, F17) reads:

Day. It is Day. After The Day Dreamer comes into play, destroy all Night cards.

Action: Pay 2 to put The Day Dreamer into play from your hand. If The Day Dreamer is still in play at the end of the phase, sacrifice it.

Example 2a) If I have Savio Corvi and a conspiracy card in play, if my opponent attempts to play The Day Dreamer using its Action during the Story phase of my turn, does Savio Corvi destroy The Day Dreamer before it can enter play, or does The Day Dreamer enter play and then I (as the active player) can choose which passive effect occurs first to destroy The Day Dreamer instead, or is Savio Corvi's 'destroy' effect not a lasting effect and is no longer applicable?

Savio's passive will not work until the card is in play, then we have conflicting passives, which the active player resolves in the order of his or her preference.

Example 2b) If I have Savio Corvi and a conspiracy card in play, if my opponent attempts to play The Day Dreamer as normal on their turn, does Savio Corvi destroy The Day Dreamer before it can enter play, or does The Day Dream enter play and then my opponent (as the active player) can choose which passive effect occurs first to destroy Savio Corvi instead, or is Savio Corvi's 'destroy' effect not a lasting effect and is no longer applicable?

Same answer as above, conflicting passives are resolved in the order determined by the active player.

Okay, so Savio's "destroy all Day cards" is an ongoing effect.

Yes, though it has no practical purpose since all Day cards that I'm aware of destroy Night cards, and unless there is a way to put one into play during your opponent's turn, the active player will always destroy Savio rather than the other way around. We'll include an errata in the next FAQ just so people don't get confused.

Yes - using The Day Dreamer's "put ... into play" Action in your opponent's turn is the scenario that comes to mind, where he'd actually be destroyed (instead of doing the destroying) by the likes of Savio Corvi.

Q3) Do passive abilities continue to function after having been momentarily effected?

Example 3a) If my opponent triggers Glaaki's action to remove all icons from one of my characters who has a Prize Pistol attached, is the additional Combat icon gained by Prize Pistol also blanked permanently, or is this point-in-time effect overcome immediately thereafter by Prize Pistoal and the gained icon remains?

Also, just to confirm, how long does the icon removal of the character's printed icons last for? As no time limit (like 'until the end of the phase') is specified, I assume it is permanent?

Glaaki (The Rituals of the Order, F78) reads:

Response: After Glaaki commits to a story, choose a character. That character loses all icons and must commit to the same story as Glaaki, if able.

Prize Pistol (Dreamlands, F22)

Attach to an Agency character. Attached character gains Combat.

Action: Exhaust Prize Pistol and pay 1 to choose and wound one character with lower skill than the number of Combat icons attached character has.

Glaaki's abilities ar until the end of the phase. This should be in the FAQ but it appears it may have either been missed or accidentally removed in one of the updates. We'll correct it for the next FAQ. Glaaki's ability to remove all icons, removes all instances of each icon that it currently has. IT should be noted that Glaaki's effect is not a passive but an action. It resolves exactly once, does the entire effect, and then does not and cannot affect any other icons unless you can uncommit and then recommit Glaaki.

And just to double-check, it sounds like Glaaki's ability also removes the ongoing Combat icon provided by the Prize Pistol (until the end of the phase), right?

Yes. Any icons it has or has gained are removed at the moment of successful resolution of Glaaki's effect. Anything added after is retained.

Thanks Damon, you're a huge help.

In regards to being able to gain further icons after Glaaki's icon removal effect resolves (see above), it's been pointed out to me that this appears to be an exception (or a contradiction) to what is written in the FAQ in section ' (1.5) Multiple Lasting Effects ', quoted below - bold added for emphasis. Can you clarify?

Even if not triggered at the same time , multiple lasting effects may affect the same card at the same time. The order in which the lasting effects take place is irrelevant – the net sum result of all lasting effects is applied to the card.

For example, a Young Deep One (Core Set F52) (with 0 skill) is affected by two Clover Club Bouncers (Core Set F65), lowering that character’s skill by 2. The Young Deep One’s controller then attaches Notebook Sketches (Mountains of Madness F4) to it, increasing the Young Deep One’s skill by 1. The net sum of these three lasting effects is that the Young Deep One has a skill of -1.

Note, however, that a character’s skill is never considered to be below zero for purposes of resolving effects. Thus in the example above, the Young Deep One’s skill would count as though it were zero. However, if another lasting effect would give the Deep One +1 skill, the net skill would remain at zero.

Lasting effects that affect other character attributes (such as icons) work in the same fashion.

It isn’t Glaaki does not create the lasting effect that you think it does. It removes all the icons of the chosen character, one and then keeps them gone. It would need to be worded differently to prevent any new icons from being gained.

When you say "Glaaki does not create the lasting effect that you think it does", you're confirming that it is creating a lasting effect, just not the sort of lasting effect that fits in with the FAQ's statement that "the order in which lasting effects take place is irrelevant", correct?

If I've misread that, and it's not a lasting effect (which I assume is identified by anything that says "until the end of the phase" or "until the end of the turn"?), are there key words or phrases that identify what a lasting effect is and/or what does fit in with that FAQ entry?

The lasting effect Glaaki creates is the removal of the icons that character had when it was resolved. It does not reapply the triggered effect every single time a new icon would be be added, which is the kind of lasting effect it would need to matter in the way your examples/questions have been addressing It’s effect resolves once, then keeps those and only those icons away until the effect wears off.

Where Glaaki is concerned, the main point of confusion was that the 'multiple lasting effects' section reads like it applies to all lasting effects, but Glaaki's an exception that indicates that's not the case.

The multiple lasting effects rule only comes into play when the effects themselves are in conflict. If they are not in conflict then there is nothing to figure out. Since the effect from Glaaki suppresses one set of icons and only one set of icons, it is only referenced if something else were making an attempt to affect those same set of icons.

That makes sense. It might be worth adding a "when in conflict" preface to that section in the FAQ.

One more question.

Q4) Unlike icons and skill, keywords do not stack, however if your keyword has been taken away can it be regained?

Example 4a) If a character like Arcane Initiate with Willpower has this Willpower removed by Hastur, Lord of Carcosa's ability, can she then gain Willpower again using Blackmarket Artifact's ability?

Arcane Initiate (Core, F108) reads:

Villainous. Willpower.

Hastur, Lord of Carcosa (The Yuggoth Contract, F46) reads:

Villainous. Toughness +3

Action: Pay 2 to have all of your opponent's characters lose Willpower and all Terror icons until the end of the phase.

Blackmarket Artifact (Ancient Relics, F37) reads:

Action: Exhaust Blackmarket Artifact to choose a character. That character gains Willpower and Arcane Arcane until the end of the phase.

Unless the card says to the effect of “loses every instance” it is a pretty safe bet that the removal effect will only remove icons, traits, keywords, etc. that the card in question has at the moment of resolution of the removal effect. I am entirely unaware of any effect that would continually remove one of those elements without that wording.

My question was about stacking traits that aren't stackable. Like if a character already has Willpower and you give it to them again, then they don't get 2x Willpower, it's still just 'Willpower' - the additions are ignored; so if they lost Willpower can they then gain it again having already had the trait, or are additions ignored?

I'm pretty sure the answer is that they can gain it again.

Stackable or not stackable has nothing to do with how many times a character has something, stackable only refers to does it have a cumulative effect when I have more. I can have a character with willpower three times. IT is effectively “just” willpower, but if someone targeted my character with a card that said, “target character loses willpower” it would lose only a single instance of willpower, meaning I still have two more. IF the effect was "target character loses all willpower” then I would lose all three, and would need another effect to give it willpower again. If my opponent used an effect that said, “target character loses every instance of willpower until the end of the phase” then no amount of giving it willpower would result in a positive willpower keyword for that character.

Thank you for providing clarity once again, Damon.

Note that these questions were asked in relation to the Wandering Tinker topic here .

Hi Damon,

I have some questions about Responses and Forced Responses that I'm hoping you can help me with.

Are Forced Responses a special type of Response? In other words, are things that apply to Responses also applicable to Forced Responses, albeit with particular exceptions - such as Forced Responses being compulsory game effects as opposed to optional player effects..? Or are they really different things that happen to share a descriptor?

To be more specific..

Consider this scenario, which inspires my questions:

I have previously attached Indebted to an opponent's character, and at the end of my opponent's Resource phase the Forced Response triggers, but he is unable to pay 2 and therefore sacrifices that character. I have Wandering Tinker in play, and exhaust it to trigger its Disrupt ability to relocate Indebted from the current character to another of my opponent's characters.

Wandering Tinker (Denizens of the Underworld, F38) reads:

Disrupt: When a character would leave play, exhaust Wandering Tinker to choose a non-Relic support card attached to that character. Take control of that attachment and move it to another character.

Indebted (Denizens of the Underworld, F26) reads:

Attach to a non-Ancient One character.

Attached character gains, “ Forced Response: After your resource phase ends, pay 2 or sacrifice this character.”

1.i) The Timing Structure section in the FAQ states, under Response “Opportunities” , that: " When the requirements (or “play restrictions”) for playing a response are met, the response is said to have an “opportunity.” .. You can think of opportunities as “gates” that open up, allowing you to play specific responses during an action window. " Is this also the case for Forced Responses, that a gate is opened after a requirement is met which doesn't close until all Forced Responses to that requirement are completed (albeit with the difference that these Forced Responses must be triggered)?

That is, when the condition of the Forced Response trigger is met, does a window now open for all Forced Responses related to that to now be triggered, with that window not closing until all Forced Responses are triggered - and could this include Forced Responses that were not present/available at the time of the condition being met but that become present/available during this window, as can happen with Responses?

For instance with the given scenario, when the Resource phase ends, is it only the first Indebted character who is effected as being the only character present at the time of the condition, or is the second Indebted character also effected who gained the same Forced Response trigger while the initial Forced Response window for that requirement was still opened?

1.ii) The Timing Structure section in the FAQ states, under The Action Window in Detail - 5) Forced Responses , that: " After any passive abilities triggered as a result of the action or disrupt are resolved, forced responses that trigger off the action, the disrupt or passive ability resolved previously during the Action Window now trigger in the order determined by the active player. "

Where there are multiple Forced Responses to be resolved, does the active player determine the sequence all at once (e.g. card A first, card B second, card C third - now start resolving A, B then C), or one after the other (e.g. card A first - now resolve card A; card B second - now resolve card B; card C third - now resolve card C)?

If it is all at once, does this preclude cards from being inserted in to or appended to the sequence that later became available during the Forced Response window?

2.i) The Timing Rules section in the rules states, with reference to ' Response 's, that: " A response can only be played once per trigger. " I assume this is also applicable to Forced Responses?

(Note that the only reference to such things in the FAQ is the statement in 2.23 Zones of Play, in the Out of Play section, which states: " A card whose effect triggers as a response from the discard pile may only be triggered once per met trigger requirement. ")

2.ii) Further, when a card is giving text to something else, is it the card gaining the text that provides the trigger, or is it the card granting the text that provides the trigger?

For instance with the given scenario, because the first instance of Indebted's gained Forced Response text triggered with the first character, when Indebted is relocated to a new character is it now considered a new Forced Response because it's a different character that has gained that text, or is it considered the same Forced Response that was already triggered because it's the same Indebted card providing the text?

Hope you can help clarify things for me, both in relation to the specific example provided, and to understand these things in a general sense to better understand the rules to apply them to other situations.

Rather than trying to think of Forced Responses as a subset of Responses (they are entirely separate though some elements are nearly identical), the FAQ outlines that Forced Responses are like Passives, except they respond to something rather than modify it, and passives cannot be canceled.

All passives whose requirements have been met initiate at the same time, and those that conflict are then resolved in the order of the active player. Forced Responses are the same. The window to trigger them happens and they all trigger simultaneously, and the order they are resolved in is determined by the active player, so by the time the original character with indebted is leaving play all forced responses to the end of the resource phase have been initiated, the disrupt is on the character leaving play not on an effect that causes the character to leave play, though even that wouldn't allow for chaining Indebted since if it is responding to an effect that would cause it to leave play and that effect is interrupted for the attachment to leave play, that attachment could no longer finish resolving on the formerly attached character and would instead try to resolve on the new character.

As to one forced response per trigger, that is not needed since the game will not make an attempt to do so because the thing can happen only once because the trigger is met only once. Because responses are player “actions” you could, without that statement, attempt to trigger it multiple times the same way you could an action.

This all means it is immaterial in this case whether it is a the same or a new forced response because that moment of trigger condition has been met the game has initiated all appropriate force responses and their resolution after the fact does not provide a new opportunity for the same trigger to be met again, unless of course it is a brand new trigger requirement. Generally speaking though, “gained” text is considered to be an ability on the card that has gained it, not on the card that is giving it, so if I had a card that said, “Attached characters gains, ‘Action: Pay 1 to ready a character and remove it from a story. Limit once per turn.’” I could bounce that attachment to all my characters and pay 1 for as many domains as I have available because each character would be gaining a new ability so would not yet have met the limitation, and once removed, if the attachment came back, it would still be considered a new ability

I hope that helps.

Referring to the timing steps for the Forced Response:

1) Initiate forced response

2) Disrupt (only for the preceding forced response)

3) Execute forced response

4) Resolve passive abilities whose requirements are now met by the forced response, etc. (following the same steps as Step 4 (I through V of the action window))

5) Resolve forced responses triggered by the force response, etc. (following the same steps as Step 4 (I through V of the action window))

Where there are multiple Forced Responses in play with the same trigger (e.g. had there been two copies of Indebted attached to two separate characters), how does the timing work? Do they simultaneously share step 1), at which point the active player determines the order of resolution, and then each Forced Response passes through steps 2) to 5) separately one after the other? Or is there a step preceding this - the triggering, which is the only thing that is simultaneous, following which the active player determines the order, and then each Forced Response passes through steps 1) to 5) separately one after the other?

And with the active player determining the order of resolution, does he have to determine the entire sequence in that moment, or can he choose the subsequent Forced Response one at a time after each resolves?

You are looking in the wrong spot, that is how to resolve a single Forced Response, what you want is the timing chart that says when Forced Responses initiate...

1. Action is initiated.

2. Disrupts

3. Action is executed.

4. Passive abilities (requirements now met) are initiated.

I. Passive ability is initiated.

II. Disrupts

III. Passive ability is executed. (Follow steps I through V, etc)

IV. Other passive abilities (requirements now met) are initiated.

V. Forced Responses are initiated.

5. Forced Responses (requirements now met) are initiated.

I. Forced Response ability is triggered.

II. Disrupts

III. Forced Response is executed. (Follow steps I through V, etc.)

IV. Passive abilities are initiated.

V. Other forced responses (requirements now met) are initiated.

So what we have here is the moment where the game checks all Forced Responses is step 5. They all initiate, and then resolve using the chart you quoted below.

The active player will make a choice of which Forced Response will be resolved one at a time, resolving each until completion.

Got it.

I now understand that Forced Responses have to be present/available at the time the requirement is met to initiate, and Forced Responses initiate simultaneously but are resolved one at a time; whereas Responses just need to be present/available after the requirement is met, during the response opportunity window that immediately follows, to be (optionally) initiated, and Responses both initiate and resolve one at a time

Thanks for explaining all that, Damon.

My pleasure Jason.

Question:

If I have more than 1 House Advantage (DotU - F23) in play, can I use more than one to draw more cards? So if I have to draw 2 cards, can I disrupt the draw 3 times (with 3 House Advantage) and draw 6 card from the bottom of my deck?

Answer:

No, because instead is a replacement effect, so the thing you would need to disrupt is no longer that effect. The effects of House of Advantage do not “stack.”

Hi Damon,

For card effects related to "commit", how do I differentiate between cards referring to the standard framework action of committing versus cards enabling commitment outside of the standard framework?

For instance, does Swimming in the Deep allow a character to commit a character during a player actions step, or does it enable an exhausted character to commit normally without exhausting during the standard 'commit characters' framework action?

Swimming in the Deep (Terror in Venice, F11) reads:

Action: Commit a Cthulhu character you control to a story, even if it is exhausted. Sacrifice that character at the end of the phase

My take is that Swimming in the Deep lets a character (even an exhausted one) commit as an action, outisde of the normal commitment stage; based on its reference to "commit" in the present tense, and being an 'Action' (which can only be played and resolved outside the framework action of committing characters as attackers/defenders to stories). In which case, an attacker could use this card effect after all other characters were committed to stories to attack an undefended story.

Other examples where the word "commit" in present tense seems to force commitment at that moment, outside the regular opportunity to commit, are 'At Night they Roam' and 'Flush them Out', which in both cases instruct you to "commit" characters that would actually be exhausted and unable to commit in the normal manner (because they'd already exhausted to commit, or had just been restored from being insane, and were not readied before being instructed to "commit").

At Night they Roam (Terror in Venice, F17) reads:

Play during the story phase.

Action: Choose and take control of an insane character (if it is Night , instead take control of each insane character). Then, restore and commit that character to a single story. At the end of the phase drive that character insane and return it to its owner's control.

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.

Other cards that also seem to commit a character outside of the normal framework action, also using a form of present tense in the form of "committed", include 'Cats of Ulthar' and 'Black Dog'.

Cats of Ulthar (Dreamlands, F116) reads:

Action: During the Story phase, pay 3 to put The Cats of Ulthar into play from your hand, committed to a story of your choice.

Action: Pay 1 to destroy 1 Zoog card in play. The return The Cats of Ulthar to your hand.

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.

It's my observation that when a card effect refers to 'commit' in a future tense, then it's referring to the standard 'commit characters' framework action, as with 'Glaaki' and 'Y'Golonac'.

Glaaki (The Rituals of the Order, F78) reads:

Response: After Glaaki commits to a story, choose a character. That character loses all icons and must commit to the same story as Glaaki, if able.

Y'Golonac (Core, F122) reads:

Action: Pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac, if able.

There seems to be a surprising amount of confusion about this on the forums, just FYI - http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/15063-swimming-in-the-deep-noises-in-the-hills/

Sorry, I’m super busy right now, the best I can give you is a very general way of discerning the answer,

If the card refers to committed characters, it is looking at the state of a card as currently being committed it does not care how it happens.

If it refers to a player committing characters it is looking for the framework action where a player commits their characters.

Cards that force commitment like Glaaki and Y’Golonac will force the player to commit the character through the regular framework action, if it is passed, or there is any effect preventing that specific character from committing it is not able so that part of the effect is ignored.

No worries, Damon.

Just when you get the next chance, can you confirm then that I've categorised these correctly based on those general guidelines:

• Cats of Ulthar - refers to "committed", so must be outside commitment framework action

Yes, but...It isn’t strictly the word, but how it is being used and what timing windows there are for its effect. It commits itself as an action because the card says to do so..

• Black Dog - refers to "committed", so must be outside commitment framework action

Which use of commit were you referring to the first time? Commits in this case refers specifically to your opponent using the commit framework action. Committed refers to the state in which the card becomes when it enters play.

Just when you get the next chance, can you confirm then that I've categorised these correctly based on those general guidelines (continued from above) :

• Swimming in the Deep - refers to "commit" (i.e. committing), so must be during commitment framework action

No, see Cats above.

• At Night They Roam - refers to "commit" (i.e. committing), so must be during commitment framework action (even though this won't be possible as character is restored but exhausted)

No, see Cats above.

• Flush Them Out - refers to "commit" (i.e. committing, albeit with reference to previously "committed characters"), so must be during commitment framework action (even though this won't be possible as characters are uncommitted but exhausted)

You are over thinking this. Here is what the card is saying in plain speak, " Response: After your opponent has committed characters during the commit framework action , choose a story. Uncommit each character at all other stories. Then commit them to the chosen story , without using the commit framework action or having to exhaust them because exhausting is a requirement to commit only during the commit framework action . "

• Glaaki - refers to "must commit" (i.e. committing), so must be during commitment framework action
• Y'Golonac - refers to "must commit" (i.e. committing), so must be during commitment framework action

Yes.

Ah, that's better. Those specific answers align with what I originally believed was the case.

Thanks for confirming, Damon.

Q1) Can you please clarify the passive ability of Malocchio (Terror in Venice, F33), which reads:

" For each type of icon on a character card in any discard pile, Malocchio gains 1 icon of that type. "

If I have one character in my discard pile, Ghoulish Worshipper (Forgotten Lore, F19) with 2x Terror and 1x Combat, and my opponent also has one character in their discard pile, Norman Blackwood, Jr. (The Key and the Gate, F42) with 1x Combat, 1x Arcane and 1x Investigation, how many icons does Malocchio have?

I assume he can only choose the icons of one (i.e. "a") character at a time, and he only gets one instance of each type, so if Ghoulish Worshipper was targeted then Malocchio would have 1x Terror and 1x Combat - correct?

If so, can Malocchio change the targeted character? For instance, could he change to targeting Norman Blackwood, Jr. after the Terror struggle is resolved, so the Malocchio then has 1x Combat, 1x Arcane and 1x Investigation for the remaining struggles?

Malocchio gains one instance of an icon if it is present on any character in any dead pile. Regardless of how many times those icons actually appear, as long as there is a minimum instance of one, Malocchio gains one of that type.

I'm surprised that the term "a character" actually refers to 'all characters' in any discard pile, for Malocchio, but thanks for clarifying.

It’s a matter of realizing what it is looking at which is the icons. Because it is non-targeted it is looking at any icon on a character in a discard pile that possesses an icon it does not already have.

Q2) Can you also please clarify whether this passive ability would be active if Malocchio became an attachment to Richard Upton Pickman, Venerable Ghoul (Dreamlands, F97), which reads:

" Richard Upton Pickman gains the icons of each attached Ghoul character.

If Richard Upton Pickman would be wounded, you may discard an attached Ghoul character instead.

Action: Pay 2 to attach a Ghoul character to Richard Upton Pickman from your hand or discard pile."

The FAQ, in (1.15) Attaching Cards Through Card Effects, states:

" When a card becomes attached to another card due to a card effect, that card is now considered a support card (regardless of its normal type) with the Attachment subtype. For the purpose of all other card interactions (excluding interaction with the card that initially caused the attached condition), the card loses all of its original characteristics (such as skill value, icons, and type). The card retains its faction identity and printed cost. "

If, as stated, an attached character loses its icons, then Richard Upton Pickman could never gain icons, so I presume this invokes a golden rule?

However, if it is only the faction identity and printed cost that is retained, then presumably the text box (including any passive and/or triggered abilities) is lost? In which case, regardless of the golden rule, Malocchio cannot use his passive ability to gain any icons from a character in a discard pile, and in turn Richard Upton Pickman, Venerable Ghoul cannot gain any icons from Malocchio?

Malocchio gains his icons through his text ability which as a support card is not active so he is unable to gain any additional icons. Richard Upton Pickman’s text directs it to look at what current icons its attached ghouls posses, and gains those, that will usually mean printed unless there is another active effect that is giving an attached ghoul icons.

Hope that helps.

Thanks also for confirming that text boxes are also included in the "original characteristics" that are lost when a character becomes an attachment, preventing Malocchio from gaining any icons as an attachment; while also affirming that Richard Upton Pickman, Venerable Ghoul would present a Golden Rule scenario for other Ghoul cards, to gain their (printed) icons - which unfortunately Malocchio lacks - that are otherwise lost when [a character becomes] an attachment.

FYI: Elements of the following conversation were prompted from discussion in the Question about the CoC FAQ CardGameDB thread.

Do events, when played, 'enter play'?

Example: If my opponent plays a 'Response' type event card, can I trigger Hermetic Seal's disrupt to cancel it?

Hermetic Seal (Terror in Venice, F42) reads:

Day. It is Day. After Hermetic Seal comes into play, destroy all Night cards. Hermetic Seal is immune to non-Night card effects.

Disrupt: Return Hermetic Seal to your hand to cancel the response or forced response effect of a card that just entered play.

The FAQ indicates events do not immediately go to the discard pile when played, so presumably they do enter play:

" When a player plays an event (from his hand), it doesn’t immediately go into his discard pile. It is placed in his discard pile after the action is complete. "

Also, does the same answer apply for events played from the discard pile?

The FAQ indicates that these events leave the discard pile, so presumably they also do enter play:

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

And for events played from the discard pile (or attempted to be played from the discard pile, if cancelled), when they return to the discard pile are they returned to the top of the discard pile or do they keep their original position in the discard pile?

Event cards do not enter play. They are triggered from hand, resolved, and enter the discard pile without entering play. Yes, this rule also applies to event cards being triggered from the discard pile.

Hi there Damon,

Now that the FAQ's out, with its additional clarification of " An event card whose effect triggers from the discard pile does not leave the discard pile. " ...I'm hoping you can clarify the situation for me regarding event cards that are played from the discard pile as " When a player plays an event from his discard pile, it does not remain in his discard pile, but rather is placed back in his discard pile after the action is complete. "

Is it still the case that these event cards played from the discard pile do not enter play? And if so, are you able to answer the question as to where it is they do go (if it's not in to play) when they momentarily leave the discard pile?

Event cards, don’t “go” anywhere they leave the discard pile, are resolved, and go to the discard pile. IT has no bearing on the game which is why I didn’t detail it our more for you. Just like when you play an event card from hand you play it, it is resolved, and then it goes to the discard pile. They are treated identical.

"Just like when you play an event card from hand..."

That's very interesting - I don't think I've ever read anywhere what "play" actually means in terms of Call of Cthulu, and that when you play an event card from hand that it leaves the hand before being resolved and then going to the discard pile. (Looking back at the Event Cards section in the Core rules, and section 2.32 Playing Events in the FAQ, it isn't really stated there either.) I've always assumed it was played "from hand" (i.e. remains in hand, but is now revealed) until enacted or cancelled, and then goes to the discard pile; which is the reason I haven't been able to reconcile why an event triggered from the discard pile would need to leave the discard pile, let alone where it might 'go'.

Nothing resolves from in hand. Play means it’s cots is paid from hand, it leaves hand, and is resolved. The resolution of characters and support cards being played is they enter play. Event cards when they have completed the resolution of being played go to the discard pile. They exist in a limbo while they are being resolved, neither in the hand nor in play.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it then that this causes that event played from the discard pile to be relocated to the top of the discard pile, regardless of whether it is is played successfully or cancelled..?

That is correct.

Thanks for illuminating those points, Damon.

Note: The following was sent to Damon as part of another conversation, and while he never commented on these items directly I thought they might be of interest to some all the same as they may result in minor updates to the next FAQ.

By way of some feedback on the latest FAQ relating to this, which states:

Does Snow Graves (Forgotten Lore F15) prevent a player from triggering Studying the Void’s (The Key and the Gate F35) Response while it is in the discard pile?

No. There is a difference between triggering an event card from the discard pile and playing an event card form the discard pile. As per section 2.32 (Playing Events) of this FAQ, the Snow Graves would prevent the event from leaving the discard pile if you were to play it to use its "Action" effect . Snow Graves however has no effect on the "Response" effect which can only be triggered from the discard pile.

...I hope this doesn't lead to more confusion, as (I'm sure you know):

a) you can't play Studying the Void's 'Action' effect from the discard pile, because it's out of play and cannot be triggered; and

b) there are no card effects in the current card pool that will let you play Studying the Void to trigger its 'Action' effect from the discard pile (i.e. Studying the Void is not a Tactic, Spell or Event character, that can be played from the discard pile with Naomi O'Bannion's ability, Yog-Sothoth's ability or Chant of Thoth's effect, or Canopic Jar's ability respectively; which, to my knowledge, are the only cards that let you play events from the discard pile).

On another point from the new FAQ, which states:

Is it possible to search for The Mage’s Machinations (Terror in Venice F20) with Hall of Champions (Revelations F20)?

Yes. The Mage’s Machinations was designed by Tom Capor for being the 2011 World Champion. Thus, it is searchable with the Hall of Champions.

...Should The Mage's Machinations be errated with the additional text: "Card designed by 2013 World Champion Tom Capor." for this purpose? (I appreciate there's not much space for it, though!)

P.S. Some other info for you... There are misspellings of the word "Chthonian" on the following cards (in title, subtype and/or other text):

* Displaced Cthonian (Forgotten Lore, F53)

* The Cthonian Stone (Ancient Relics, F20)

P.P.S. I was very pleased to see that Clever Zoog has been errated, and is in fact now a 'Zoog'. = )

FYI, the following conversation was prompted by questions in the Limit 1/Once CardGameDB topic, and the Yithian Scout and Three Bells topic.

G'day Damon,

I've got some additional questions & comments for you.

I find the following info in the FAQ to be unclear --

(2.9) Limit 1/Once

“Limit 1 per…” is a limitation carried by cards whose effects are triggered from out of play. A card of that name can only be triggered 1 time per stated time frame. “Limit once per…” is a limitation carried by cards whose effect are triggered from in play. That card’s effect can only be triggered once per stated time frame. If the effect of the card with either limitation is canceled the limit has still been met for that time frame.

Part of the confusion is because there are cards like Yithian Scout and Vortex of Time that trigger from out of play yet are written as "Limit once per turn" that should only apply to in-play abilities according to the above FAQ item.

The Festival (The Key and the Gate, F51), reads:

Action: Exhaust The Festival and sacrifice a resource to search your deck for a card and attach it to a drained domain as a resource. Shuffle your deck.

Action: Attach The Festival to a domain as a resource (Limit 1 per turn.) This effect can only be triggered from your discard pile.

Yithian Scout (The Key and the Gate, F15) reads:

Response: After Yithian Scout enters the discard pile from play, search your deck for a card named Yithian Scout and put it in your hand.

Action: Discard a card from each opponent's deck. (Limit once per turn.) If a non-character card is discarded in this way, put Yithian Scout into play from your discard pile. This effect can only be triggered from your discard pile.

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.

Q1) If I have more than one The Festival in my discard pile, can I trigger the "Limit 1 per turn" Action ability of only one copy?

Q2) If I have more than one Yithian Scout in my discard pile, can I trigger each of their "Limit once per turn" Action abilities?

Q3) When a card changes from in play to out of play it is considered a new card, as per the FAQ. Do out of play cards, just like in play cards, have a memory of what they've done while out of play?

If Yithian Scout is in my discard pile and I unsuccessfully trigger his "Limit once per turn" Action ability (by discarding the top card of my opponent's deck that is a character card), can I ignore the limit restriction and trigger it again if out of play cards have no memory while out of play?

Note that the FAQ hasn't yet been corrected in relation to section 2.23 Zones of Play - Out of Play, as per our previous discussion in September 2013, quoted at the bottom.

Q4) If Yithian Scout is in my discard pile and I successfully trigger his "Limit once per turn" Action ability (by discarding the top card of my opponent's deck that is a non-character card) to return him to play, then I trigger The Three Bells and sacrifice him (to force my opponent to sacrifice one of their characters) so that Yithian Scout returns to my discard pile, can I again trigger his Action ability to attempt to return him to play again? Has Yithian Scout lost the memory that he is/was the same card when he returned to play and then was subsequently discarded, to reset his limit count?

Just FYI, when people have been asking questions related to "Limit 1/once" on the Call of Cthulhu forums at CardGameDB and FFG, people have instead started referencing the Star Wars LCG FAQ as a clearer explanation of what they believe should be applied --

(4.8) Limits

“Limit once per X” refers to that specific ability on that particular card. Each copy of a card with such a limit may trigger its ability once per each period of X. This type of limit tends to appear on cards that stay in play.

“Limit 1 per X” refers to all copies of a card, by title. Only 1 copy of a card with the same title may be triggered by each player during each period of X. This type of limit tends to appear on event cards.

If a card or effect with a limit is canceled, it is still considered to have been played or triggered, and counts towards the limit.

Limit 1/Once. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, the FAQ rule is written a little less than ideally.

- "Limit 1 per" is a limitation that generally appears on cards whose effects trigger from an unknown state . The way in which cards with this wording are handled is when the effect is to be triggered you check to see if any other card by that name has been triggered within the limitation, and if so, it meets the restriction for ALL copies of the card.

- "Limit once/twice/three times/etc. per” is a limitation that generally appears on cards that will trigger from a known state. Each individual card can only be triggered up to that limitation unless it goes from a known state to an unknown state.

- IF a card with the "Limit 1 per” wording is required to trigger from a known state, it is still treated identically to every other card with the wording. The state of the card is immaterial to how the rule works.

To wit:

Only a single The Festival card can have the second effect triggered per turn, as the card text indicates.

Each individual Yithian Scout can trigger its effect once per turn

Thanks Damon.

Are you able to respond to Q3 & Q4, with respect to card memory for cards in the discard pile with regards to "Limit once"?

As written [above], "Each individual card can only be triggered up to that limitation unless it goes from a known state to an unknown state."

"...from a known state to an unknown state" - I've never heard the term 'unknown state' used before in the context of Call of Cthulhu, so I'm not entirely clear on what that covers. Does this just relate to the concept in the FAQ where "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."? (And can you clarify with regards to that statement in the FAQ, is it considered a new card when a card moves in either direction: from in play to out of play, and also from out of play to in play - both of which can occur to or from Yithian Scout?)

It is an extension of the same rule. When the card goes from in in play to any out of play state, or the reverse, the game it has no memory. If it switches out of play positions, deck to hand, hand to discard, discard to hand, it has no memory. If the card is in the discard pile and does not leave the discard pile it has a memory.

I really appreciate the inclusion of generalised answers, as they help me to apply the answer to more than just the situation I'm asking about. Just making sure I've understood correctly, though -- I believe that the answer to Q3 is that out of play cards do have a form of card memory (just like in play cards) while they remain in the same out of play state; and the answer to Q4 is that Yithian Scout, after leaving the discard pile from successfully triggering his ability, has become a new card and so if it returns to the discard pile in the same turn then its "Limit once" ability has been reset and can be triggered anew. Correct?

Correct.

Perfect. Thanks Damon!

Hey there Damon,

You and I were chatting a couple of months back about differentiating whether cards reference:

a.i) committing as part of a 'commit attackers/defenders' framework action (e.g. Y'Golonac, )

vs

a.ii) committing as an action, distinct from the standard 'commit' framework action (e.g. Swimming in the Deep)

...and also:

b.i) having committed as part of a 'commit attackers/defenders' framework action (e.g. Dr. Ali Kafour, Middle Eastern Scholar)

vs

b.ii) being committed, regardless of whether as part of the 'commit' framework action or some other way (e.g. Celano Fragments, The Life's Work of Dr. Shrewsbury)

Y'Golonac (Core, F122) reads:

Action: Pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac, if able.

Swimming in the Deep (Terror in Venice, F11) reads:

Action: Commit a Cthulhu character you control to a story, even if it is exhausted. Sacrifice that character at the end of the phase.

Dr. Ali Kafour, Middle Eastern Scholar (Core, F22) reads:

Response: After you commit Dr. Ali Kafour to a story, draw a card.

Celano Fragments, The Life's Work of Dr. Shrewsbury (Core, F33)

Action: Exhaust and pay X to choose a committed character with cost X or lower. Remove that character from the story.

I need some further clarification on b.i) :

Q1) Does this check apply to whatever was committed throughout the 'commit attackers/defenders' green box framework action, or is it limited explicitly to the commitment declaration?

Q1.i) Example: As the active player I declare two of my characters as committed to a single story. My opponent plays a 'Response' during the same 'commit attackers' window, using Mists of Lethe to push one of my characters to a different story. I now have one character each at two stories, and we are still within the 'commit attackers' window. Can my opponent play Black Dog at one of these stories? That is - does Black Dog check for commitment at any stage during a 'commitment' framework, or can it only trigger based on the original commitment declaration?

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.

Mists of Lethe (The Key and the Gate, F32) reads:

Response: After an opponent commits a character to a story, commit that character to a different story.

Action: Choose a Yog-Sothoth card in play that you control and return it to its owner's hand to put Mists of Lethe on the bottom of your deck. This effect can only be triggered from your discard pile.

The answer is yes and no. The check applies to whatever was committed during the frame action, but that is not the same thing as effects played during the framework action. I’m not sure there are any cards where this distinction matters though. Also Black Dog says when an opponent commits one character. Mists of Lethe has its controller committing the character not the opponent so Black Dog would not be able to trigger.

In the Q1.i) Mists of Lethe & Black Dog example, Mists of Lethe would have relocated one of my characters, however the other character would remain untouched. If I've understood you correctly, Black Dog still cannot trigger against that character which is now alone and was previously committed at that story by me, right?

But you did not commit it alone, so no Black Dog sand Mists of Lethe do not work together.