I suspect that without that requirement you'd be stripping your opponents cards away to quickly and it would seriously damage your opponents ability to play the game. Now a Deck discard and hand destruction deck out of Yog/Hastur sounds like a very viable way to play. Prevents all sorts of jumping character shenanigans and reduces the effectiveness of decks that rely on cards in combination since it chews through your opponents deck as well as their hand.

Hellfury said:

Thanks for the clarification. However, if your opponent is holding less than 2 cards you're doing something else - limiting his ability to plan and also to make use of bouncing characters like Master of the Myths or Initiate of Huang Hun. I'll take that as a consolation prize. It also means that you can turn it off by keeping a low hand yourself if you need to, not sure yet how much of an advantage that might be. It's still an interesting card.

However, I think they should have worked a little harder on the wording because I'll bet almost everyone will be playing this card incorrectly. Maybe something like "At the beginning of your turn, if both players have at least 2 cards in their hand they each choose and discard 2 cards if able. Then, each player draws 1 card."

For library i pick Forbidden knowlegde. Kill any character (see no restriction on ancient ones) and get 4 cards…

This elders wording shows clearly how stupid this idea of choose/then/if able vs not a good target/too little/ not enough is. Is it really that hard to write one extra sentence like: "If x happened." and make it clear?

"At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card." could mean:

a)"At the beginning of your turn. If each player has 2 cards: each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If both players discarded: each player draws 1 card."

b)"At the beginning of your turn. Each player checks, if he has 2 cards he chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If both players discarded: each player draws 1 card."

c)"At the beginning of your turn. Each player checks, if he has 2 cards he chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If any player discarded: each player draws 1 card."

d)"At the beginning of your turn. Each player checks: if he has 2 cards he chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, than if he discarded he draws 1 card."

[Dominion like do as much as you can that is really clear semantics if used consequently]

e) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if any cards were discarded each player draws 1 card."

f) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if any player discarded 2 cards each player draws 1 card."

g) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if both players discarded 2 cards each player draws 1 card."

h) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if any player discarded 2 cards each player draws 1 card."

i) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if a player discarded any cards he draws 1 card."

j) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if a player discarded 2 cards he draws 1 card."

One sentence, 9 possible meanings, and rules to get the right one are really complicated, is it really that hard to write it like i did?

I think the language is relatively clear (with use of the FAQ for guidance). The "choose" part creates a target. So if a player does not have at least 2 cards in hand, they can't satisfy this component, and thus don't discard. The "if able" says that it doesn't matter if the first part happened or not. "Then" tells us that after the first part is satisfied, we do the second part. So both players will draw a card regardless of the first situation.

If I'm reading this correctly, there really was no need for "Then" in this description because in effect "if able" nullifies the requirement.

Yes, more words could be used, but there is an issue with too many words on a card. The use of keywords and corresponding off-card definitions of those words makes for less type on the card.

Youre seriously defending this wording by stating it uses unnesesary "than" for more confusion?

This wording should really be ranted upon so designer put more effort to wording cards right. Why not take 5 extra minutes to word card so its easier to grasp rather than let all the players spend half an hour debating, arguing anfd lookin through FAQ for help… this is really beyond stupid, if i didnt realy like this game this would be close no 1 reason to quit it… why do you defend stuff that hurts game on all possible levels… and my version are so much clearer and not much longer… and i still think its possible to get them better.

"At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card."

Quote: I think the language is relatively clear (with use of the FAQ for guidance). The "choose" part creates a target. So if a player does not have at least 2 cards in hand, they can't satisfy this component, and thus don't discard. The "if able" says that it doesn't matter if the first part happened or not. "Then" tells us that after the first part is satisfied, we do the second part. So both players will draw a card regardless of the first situation.

I don't think it's clear at all. Let's work through this…

The "choose" part creates a target. So if a player does not have at least 2 cards in hand, they can't satisfy this component and thus don't discard.

I disagree because of the "if able". As you said, "if able" says that it doesn't matter if a thing actually happened or not. I wasn't able to choose 2 cards, but it's OK because it says "if able". Nothing has failed, therefore I can proceed to the next sentence starting with "Then".

Also, the associativity of the with with <do something> then <do something else> seems unclear. We know that the first something has to be satisfied or the second something doesn't happen. Does it mean:

1. Each player tries to discard 2, then the second part happens to both of them if both of them succeed

2. Each player tries to discard 2, then the second part happens individually to each of them if they succeeded

3. Each player tries to discard 2, then the second part happens to both of them as long as at least one succeeded

And does "if able" apply individually or collectively?

We know how it's supposed to work because we got word from Damon, but I cannot figure out how we were ever supposed to get that as the only possible way to play the card by reading the text, even if you do include the FAQ, etc…

It's just a messy confusing card that should have been worded better so it would be clear immediately.

And if it really is that clear:

- what of my propositions it follows?

- Quote all FAQ that is needed to know wht this card try to do [and i do mean it, i want to see how "obvious" it is and how much FAQ text it depends on]; i do want it to be clear not "this says something that can be interpreted as, but other interpretations are also ok with quoted text"

- How is my proposition worse?

PS i did include this cards text question in my (rather long) mail to Damon with link to this thread, i wonder what will the response be. This game is not that cheap when you want to collect many cards… is printing readable text that much to ask? Or even a simple doc for every AP that explains more complicated cards, if not on paper than even online as plain html thats easy to print/read/search even on a phone…. how hard is that? (maybe im missing something)

Zephyr, how about you learn the language used in this game. Every game uses different wording. No matter how clear you think your wording is someone is going to find it problematic which means a FAQ that states what each game phrase means. You don't like it you are playing the wrong type of game.

"Choose" sets a condition. Each player must choose 2 cards and discard them. "If able" lets us know that if both players cannot meet the condition it does not resolve. "Then" lets us know that the following sentence only takes place if the proceeding was successfully resolved. A few reads through of the FAQ gets all of this in your head and it becomes pretty simple to figure out exactly what is meant.

I'm not sure how many changes to the FAQ and wording Damon is willing to make. There were a number of things that truly didn't make sense from the previous designer, the game is in a much better state, the cards are more versatile, and innovative, the tournament scene is growing and the game is deeper with more options available than anytime since the switch to LCG. At some point though you start making changes that crete confusion because of the difference in wording of previous cards versus that of newer cards. Attempts at creating extremely clear cards actually create ambiguity.

This is part of the reason why legal contracts are written the way they are rather than in plain English, because plain English is a pretty unspecific language with lots of ways of interpreting things even when grammatically correct, let alone conversational English.

Maybe it's because I'm a programmer (go figure), but it seems pretty straightforward to me. If the first step does not occur (each player discards 2 cards), then the second one cannot (each player draws 1 card).

Munchkins should be limited to D&D games I don't play in, and MtG.

Hellfury said:

This makes absolutely no sense.

The definition of "each" (sorry to get lawyer-ly here, but I think it's appropriate) is "every one of two or more considered individually or one by one". That means that every player should be considered individually, that is, the effect should succeed or fail individually, not collectively. I see nothing in the FAQ changing the definition of "each", and no examples that would imply anything different than the commonly accepted meaning of the word..

Put another way: if this is how it is supposed to be worded if effects succeed or fail collectively across all players or targets, then how would it be worded if the effect was intended to succeed or fail individually?

Put another way: if this is how it is supposed to be worded if effects succeed or fail collectively across all players or targets, then how would it be worded if the effect was intended to succeed or fail individually?

Roughly: if it was meant to work like "each player discards two cards if he has at least two in his hand, then draw a card if and only if he discarded two" it would be written along the lines of "At the beginning of your turn, each player with more 2 or more cards in hand chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. Each player who discarded draws 1 card."

Im a programmer - i know how important it is to use precise language to define semantics.

Current CoC convention in effects such as those is hard to read and isn't more precise then alternatives… this card immedietly rises so many questions i really don't understand how can you defend this wording in spite of fact that this thread exists… and ppl have problems with this cards effect.

I dont expect immidiate revolution in wording. I expect designers to see the problem and consider providing better information to players. Be it more care as far as wording goes or as simple thing as short online document that tells what cards do… its not that much to ask…

If there is an alternative convention better than the currently used one i see no reason to stick to this convention. But i do see the issue with all cards that have other wording and not confusing players more. This has to be a planned thought out process. I do think that if the new convention is thought through (definitely my rewordings are not so) and is believed to cover all future cases switching to it will be better for the game.

This combination of "each player" "choose" and "if able" into "then" is like writing an entry to obfuscated code contest and not understanding why people don't get your code… In programming languages everything is strictly defined, but still there are conventions you stick to becouse otherwise your code becomes unreadable.

Especialy as in this card the defining factor is scope of each and if able. That is not defined in this grammar…

At the beginning of your turn, [each player (chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able)]. Then, each player draws 1 card.

is not the same as

At the beginning of your turn, [(each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand), if able.] Then, each player draws 1 card.

and if i want to troll i could try:

At the beginning of your turn, each player {[(chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand), if able.] Then, each player draws 1 card}.

that would mean each player gets a card after any of them discarded, possibly they both discard and both get 2 cards

this much variation depending on commas or even judgement call is not good formal grammar.

And "then" is simply horrible. First its too common word to be mixed in normal text and it doesn't even look like a condition. And second because
"Any time two effects are linked by the word “then,” the first effect must resolve in order for the second effect to occur."
Is not clearly defined when firs effect resolved partially.

[EDIT] Brain transplants faq entry contradicts this interpretation of "if able -> then" stating that even if char didnt go insane other still readies [/EDIT]

I like new cards designs, especially as i find the number of way too weak to get anywhere cards decrease significanlty. (I dont like khopesh that shuts down too much imo, and master of the myths that can be added to any deck; but i perfectly understand that it might be only my opinion and it might be errated if those cards prove to impact game too much)

I like this game, I have a pile of cards and enjoy playing it. I despise ruling arguments while playing that might decide who wins… and with some cards have such text that it happens during my plays crushing my game experience.

Speaking as yet another programmer (is there anyone here who ISN'T one? ) I mostly agree w/ Zephr.

Personally, I'm fine with the A then B syntax meaning that B only happens if A successfully happened. Every game with complex rules adopts a certain amount of shorthand and this is one of ours. It's no more harmful than adopting the terms "play" and "put into play" to mean two slightly different things. You learn the local slang and get on with it.

Problem #1 is that "A then B" has been defined with A being a single condition, we don't know how to handle multiple conditions.

ie, when A is broken into (A1, A2, A3, etc…) do these ALL need to be successful? Any one of them? A majority? What?

Problem #2 is the presence of "if able". Technically, any clause with "if able" is always successful, because you can say "hey, I wasn't able but the text says that I didn't have to be able. Therefore I pass this condition." In programming terms we're basically talking about:

if (A or true) then B

which means that the parenthesized condition succeeds if A succeeds or if true succeeds, where true always succeeds by definition. (Sorry for the geek-out to the couple readers who actually aren't programmers!)

I agree with the two posters above me. The common-sense reading of "Each player (does something), if able. Then, each player (does something else)" would be that each player individually attempts to do the first thing, then whether or not they are successful, each player then attempts to do the second thing. That that interpretation may be wrong on both counts is a serious problem with wording conventions.

I realize the designers may not like it, but to avoid problems like this going forward, they are going to need to include more words. Without devolving into literal computer code, it's just going to be too difficult to interpret unless it's very clear what is intended. That, or simply avoid complex effects altogether.

If this card was intended to only trigger if all players have two or more cards in hand available for discard, it should have been worded that way. E.g., "If all players have two or more cards in hand, each player chooses and discards two cards; then, each player draws a card." That's perfectly clear and at a cost of not too many additional words.

I really hope we're way off on this and that the card actually works the way it appears to say it works. But given previously rulings, I'm not at all confident that that's the case.

dboeren, you are wrong about "if able." That is not what it means in this game. There is a specific entry in the FAQ about what it does mean. Read that and you'll see how this card is intended to work, and understand why most of the proposed "alternate interpretations" breakdown.

And in regard to A1, A2, A3 all needing to be resolved successful before the the "then" can resolve, the answer is yes, and there is nothing in the rules that one can point to as a conflicting statement. The rules state specifically, "Any time two effects are linked by the word “then,” the first effect must resolve in order for the second effect to occur." So a single effect may do multiple things (A1-3) but it by all appearances is still considered to be a single effect. The effect linked by the word "then" can only resolve if the first effect, with all of its multiples, resolved successfully.

Lacking anything in the rulebook or FAQ to the contradictory there is no credible argument for any other interpretation.

OK, lets see if we can get to the bottom of this I've got a little time to do more digging…

First, copying the relevant rules sections from the FAQ for "Then" and "If Able" so we have the full wording handy…

(2.13) Multiple Effects and the word “Then”
Some cards have effects that attempt to do more than one thing. Generally, these effects resolve independently of one another. (If the first effect of the card does not or cannot resolve, the second effect will still occur.)
For example: Y’Golonac’s (Core Set F122) ability reads: “Action: pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y’Golonac, if able.” Y’Golonac can target a ready character with this ability, and even though the first part (ready a character) does not resolve, the second part of the effect does resolve.

Any time two effects are linked by the word “then,” the first effect must resolve in order for the second effect to occur.
For example: Julia Brown’s (Summons of the Deep F107) text reads: “Forced Response: After Julia Brown commits to a story, discard 2 cards at random from your hand, then draw 2 cards.” The player must discard 2 cards at random from his hand in order to draw the 2 cards.

(2.19) “If Able”
Certain card effects contain the text “if able.” For these cards all normal rules apply for choosing targets and triggering effects, with one exception: If there is no legal target during resolution, there is no effect.

For example, Darrin’s opponent Tommy plays The Black Goat’s Rage (Summons of the Deep F16) which reads “… Action: Each player counts the @ icons on all readied characters he controls. The player who counts the fewest @ icons must immediately choose two characters he controls to go insane, if able.” Both players pass on using disrupt actions and the effect now resolves. Darrin counts fewer @ icons and must choose two characters to go insane. However, all of his characters have Willpower. Since there are no legal targets for Darrin to choose, the text of The Black Goat’s Rage has no effect.
If a player cannot fulfill the entire effect of an “if able” clause, that effect is ignored.
For example, if a player plays Byakhee Attack (Core Set F95) which reads, “…Action: Each opponent chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able.” an opponent with only one card in hand cannot choose and discard two cards, so they keep the card in their hand. (a player can still play Byakhee Attack because of the “if able” clause, but since the clause cannot be fulfilled its effect is ignored by that opponent.)
If a player must choose between multiple “if able” effects, he may not choose an option that has no eligible targets unless no alternative with an eligible target is available.

Next, I did a search on cardgamedb and found that "if able, then" is a pretty rare wording construct in the game. Prior to Feral Elder Thing, it has only been used on three different cards: Brain Transplant, Initiation of Glaaki, and The Underwater Conspiracy

Of the three, only Brain Transplant is mentioned in the FAQ (none are mentioned in the rulebook):

(1.8) Eligible Targets

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.
For example, with Brain Transplant (Summons of the Deep F111) you may target one insane character and one ready character who are both controlled by the same player, as per the targeting requirement. If the ready character has Willpower or a @ icon, it is ineligible for the second part of the card’s effect (“The ready character goes insane, if able”), so that part of the effect is ignored.

Note that the FAQ says that the 2nd part is ignored, but does not say that the 3rd part does not happen. This seems to me to be a very close analogue to our discussion about Feral Elder Thing. Since this is the only FAQ example we have involving "if able, then" I think it's our best point of reference.

The implication I think is that since the FAQ does not say the 3rd part is ignored, that the "then" criteria have been successfully met due to the "if able".

Does that seem correct to you or am I missing something?

Also, the example about Byakhee Attack seems to imply that the effect happens to each person separately:

For example, if a player plays Byakhee Attack (Core Set F95) which reads, “…Action: Each opponent chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able.” an opponent with only one card in hand cannot choose and discard two cards, so they keep the card in their hand. (a player can still play Byakhee Attack because of the “if able” clause, but since the clause cannot be fulfilled its effect is ignored by that opponent.)

If one opponent does not have two cards, this example says that only that opponent gets to skip the discard. Again, this is related to the Feral Elder Thing which contains a similar situation. Because they both either discard or not individually, I think an argument may be made that these might be two different effects - which in turn could make "then" execute separately on each of the two effects. I haven't yet spotted a rule to help clarify which is correct, although it may be in there and I'm just missing it. But searching for "each player" didn't turn up any examples that clearly define it either way.

No that doesn't seem correct to me. The example in the FAQ is based purely on the eligible targets part, it has nothing to do with the "then" statement so it is not mentioned. If it did, it would defintiely conflict with the "Then" definition in the rules. Omission is not tacit approval of.

Now you do have a good point about Byakhee Attack implying that only one character is affected. It does not exclude both characters, but that is not a legitimate reason to assume that it does (following the same reasoning I just gave that omission is not tacit approval of).

Trying to keep trck off all the things that have specifically been answered by Damon, versus ones which are decided by precedent or through implication based on other rulings of his.

I'd like to get a clear answer in regards to those two effects (that is Byakhee Attack and Feral Elder Thing). My ruling as a TO would be the direct ruling on FET overrules the implication in the FAQ on Byakhee. An adjustment of the FAQ should follow.

If you'll agree then, I think the situation is uncertain enough that a FAQ ruling needs to be made. The current wording is not sufficiently clear and there are hints in the FAQ that further muddy the situation even if they are not airtight evidence.

I am not trying to prove that any way of working is the obvious correct interpretation - on the contrary I do not believe ANY way of working is obvious and correct here. It's just an ambiguously worded card that needs official clarification. That's all I want, and then we can adapt to whatever new rule the card is given.

What i dont get is why you want to stick to convention that so obviously fails to work…

I did reaserch some more reasearch on if able http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=37&efcid=4&efidt=678479&efpag=0#678798

basically the text is almost never used. On most cases it doesnt change much. On few cases it is hard to read so much that cards ended up in FAQ anyways. And you want to base a complicated card on this wording convention and expect ppl to get what it does despite this convention being unintuitive and almost never used… great idea.

The problem with if able and each

does "each player does X if able" mean

each player: {{{{{ does X, if able }}}}}}

{{{{ each player does X }}}}}}} if able

.Zephyr. said:

Carioz said:

Why don't we have wording like this? Such understandable wording should make all the rules about if able and then so much more easy. I am 100% for more clearly written rulings without needing a 20-page FAQ to look it up how a card works. The above wordings leaves no questions at all and this whole discussion would be irrelevant. Why can't it be this simple???

I understand that the card works differently but you could use above wording to get to:

"At the beginning of your turn, if each player has 2 or more cards in hand, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If each player discarded, each player draws 1 card."

Just got word that the local store got the new pack in today, so I'll be swinging by this evening to pick it up. I don't know when I'll get a chance to fit in some games, but if I do I'll try some with Feral Elder Thing (using our current understanding of how he's supposed to function) and see how he works out in practice.

Ok "do X if able. Then Y" Doesnt do Y if X was not done. I misread the faq, sorry for confusion.

I still dont know what this card does. And im really furious a bout FAQ entry that suggested me a bad interpretation when the intuitive one was good… said entry:

(1.8) Eligible Targets

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.

For example, with Brain Transplant (Summons of the Deep F111) you may target one insane character and one ready character who are both controlled by the same player, as per the targeting requirement. If the ready character has Willpower or a T icon, it is ineligible for the second part of the card’s effect (“The ready character goes insane, if able”), so that part of the effect is ignored.

I thought when someone writes "this part is ignored" it means other parts are not, and not "this part is ignored, so nothing happens"

It is misleading, but the counter-argument is that you're in the Eligible Targets section and that quote is only addressing the part of the card about the targets and does not go on to talk about whatever else it does. So, it may just be a poorly chosen example that ended up being misleading because of that.

So to go in another direction, do you think some of these more viable conspiracies will make cards like Sleep of Reason that add struggles to story cards more common? If you're using these conspiracies to avoid terror/combat struggles, then these cards could stop that strategy dead in its tracks.