Hey Guys,

First time posting… I'm experimenting with hastur/yog discard strategy. I was wondering how Snow Graves (SG) and Implant Fear (IF) interact with each other. Clearly, IF causes the opponent's hand to be discarded in its entirety. However, the second part of the effect allows an opponent to retrieve two cards from his discard pile. Since SG precludes the second part of the effect from happening, does this mean that only the second effect of IF is stopped or does that mean that the first effect (discard hand) of IF ends up fizzling since the second effect is stopped?

1) Choose an opponent.

2) That opponent discards their hand.

3) Then, he chooses up to 2 cards from his discard pile and puts them into his hand.

My understanding is that each part of the effect resolves fully before the next part of the effect resolves. Snow graves prevents the third part of the effect from resolving, but the first two effects do resolve. Discard occurs, but the opponent choosing 2 cards from the discard pile does not.

From FAQ v2.1

(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.

Excellent… that seems to speak right to the issue. Thanks for the quick response. I like Implant Fear (despite the high cost for an event), but was not a big fan of letting my opponent select any two cards he liked out of his discard. Snow Graves seems to do the trick then.

He can choose up to 2, so he can choose 0 cards - and that's the most cards he can get because of snow graves. So every single part of this card can be carried out. [nice combo]

As a general rule though. Can you play a card that has any effect impossible to carry out and doesn't have "if able" clause?

Im trying to get this wording -> semantic convention and just keep failing… help please.

.Zephyr. said:

I disagree. (down the rule lawyer rabbit hole we go….)

Every part of the third effect cannot be carried out, so he cannot do anything in the third part.

He may technically target the 2 cards in the discard pile, but they cannot be removed, thus the third part cannot be carried out.

I am only being pedantic about this point because you state "So every single part of this card can be carried out." which is false and such resolution is unnecessary for the result he is trying to accomplish. It muddies the waters of comprehension to add that bit.

I won't address the "If Able" argument here though. I think I understand why he stated what he did RE: Feral Elder Thing, but then again I am not positive and prefer to hear Damon's take on the matter than try to answer and potentially waste both of our time with lots of pointless typing on a subject I have an imperfect knowledge of.

You disagree that you can choose 0 cards and take them from discard pile?

I really think all conventions that treat 0 a a special number when there is no need for it are really bad. Maybe in ancient times zero was too wierd number to comprehend, but now we have math in school and its quite familiar.

Dude, Hellfury agrees that yes, you could normally select 0 cards to return to your hand. However, with Snow Graves, you're not even allowed the option to resolve the 3rd portion of the action. So in essence, NO you can't select 0 cards in the situation as presented.

Munchkins belong in games of D&D I'm not playing, and in MtG.

.Zephyr. said:

No. Reread my post.

I say that Snow graves doesnt prevent you from taking 0 cards from the discard pile, as zero cards is an empty set of cards, so there is no change to be prevented. And it does agree with 3td statement.

SA says "cards cannot be moved"

Choosing 0 and taking them doesn't violate this effect in any way.

(not that it really matters as you'll not get anything anyway so it is basically the same meaning reached in other way)

Ok Zephyr.

I disagree with your assertion that "So every single part of this card can be carried out." because it is simply false. I illustrated why it was false and why your addition of that statement is uneeded and why I even bothered to point out such a pedantic point.

I refuse to debate further about anything else until you address or redress the statement as that is the crux of the disagreement. Its not about anything else, it is about that.

Zephyr, you don't get the rules yet. There is nothing wrong with that at all… but you are blatantly ignoring parts of the rules that are clearly written because you disagree with them. Down that path lies madness my firend.

0 is a number. You cannot choose it because you cannot move any cards, including 0, from your discard pile if SG is attached. Functionally it results in the same thing, but it is about function it is about the rules. Discard, out right destroy, sacrifice and wound until destroyed all functionally result in the same thing, the card in question going to your discard pile, but the rules say each of those is a different thing. They are not interchangeable and trying to reason your way around it is sloppy thinking and will result in continued rules misunderstandings.

I agree i don't get the rules.

I'm trying really hard, as i really like this game, i bought a ton of cards, and i want to get those rules because i hate arguing with my friends about rules when we play.

I have math/IT background. Math has developed a clear tested way to deal with 0, empty sets, empty action vs error action vs no action etc.

I want to translate this semantics to semantics that is used by science and is precise and i'm more familiar with. Here i don't see enough precision and get really confused in more complicated cards (i really like timing box cause it works like programming language function calls so i believe it is precise).

So you say "choose up to 2 cards" does not allow player to "choose no cards"?

In my understanding 0 is up to 2.

SG prevents me from taking any cards from discard pile.

But i want to take 0 cards = no cards, so it doesn't apply as im not taking a single card from there.

I dont get what your point is? You say that SG prevents any effect that tries to move cards even if it tries to move 0 cards? Or that 0 is not up to 2? Or what?

If your interpretation of SG affecting 0 cards is right then:

If an effect has the word “cannot” in its description, then it is an absolute: Effects that attempt the described action will not affect any card that “cannot” be affected by such an effect. It is an illegal target and any card effect that seeks to specifically affect that card cannot be triggered.

So you can't even play this card? Am i right?

Or does cannot be triggered does not mean cannot be tiggered but rather doesnt do anything…

I found FAQ to confuse me in equal proportion to explaining rules. Im even trying to rework FAQ so it actually helps me understand rules.

[for example now same and similar things are described in fragments all over the faq…]

0 is a number, in so far as it is a symbolic representation of a quantity as much a -1 is. Because cannot is absolute AND 0 is a number that is up to 2, the second effect cannot be resolved at all.

The first effect can however be triggered. It can get complicated to understand, but essentially the player is only triggering the first static effect. That is the only one which needs to be able to legally resolve when we are checking targets and designation. The second effect is contingent on the first effect being successful so essentially the game does not care about those when it is checking.

While math sets make perfect logical sense to you the vast majority of players would probably be quickly lost if everything was {} and () etc. I'm pretty sure my math skills are not up to that.So they choose words to be game terms and then define them in the rulebook and FAQ.

Ok this helps a ton. With your targeting check explanation i find it easier to grasp as i thought you have to check each of targeting requirements in all effect parts for triggered effect to be able to trigger it. This makes all much simpler…. But why are so many targeting effects "if abled" if failing to find target just ignores them?

I really see many not stated or stated in a way that is ridiculously hard to find assumptions, and i want to be able to get complicated interactions. I assumed FAQ should state such conventions so players can actually learn to read cards reading faq… and they write "cannot trigger" becouse sometimes it is true and other times it is not the case…

I really think FAQs general description needs to get cleared up, because now i find it a complete mess.

As for math, if you can get this you would definitely get more precise version.

Using common words for special is normal procedure in programming languages, you just have tomake sure scope of each operation is clearly defined as it might change the meaning. Historicaly there were some confusion even in completely artificial languages "if X happens then if Y happens then do A else do B" is a nice example. Is else reffering to X and not Y or is it when not X - this is confusing becouse scope is not defined. I see similar problems here.

And this is where you are going to continue to have problems. This is the same thing I was talking to Tom Capor about, you are stuck on trying to make the rules make sense by your use of words and logic rather than trying to understand what they mean in this context.

Let's take a look at "A Single Glimpse"

Play during your operations phase.
Action : Choose an opponent. That opponent must sacrifice a character, if able.

So we have an effect that can be triggered since the only condition is to "choose an opponent." Now the "if able" tells us that if the opponent cannot sacrifice a character there is no effect. So you as the player can trigger the effect and play the card even if it is going to have no effect. Why would you want to? Some Silver Twilight cards power up if you have fewer, or no cards in your hand or if it was the last card in your hand. A version Yog-Sothoth becomes cheaper for each Spell in your discard pile. The game is richer and more complex because you can trigger this card, even if there is no effect.

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.

This card is fine with me, i don't see much problem with this if able.

But if there was a card like:

Action: Choose an opponent. That opponent must sacrifice a character.

What happens when he has no characters? Is this card unplayable or does the second part simply do nothing and "if able" just confirms it. If all cards had if able on everything that can go wrong, or no cards had it and rules said only first part of effect needs to be possible to play the card… but now its mixed and i get confused.

This is a problem for example with Khopesh and wound cancelling and invoulnerability.

Is the ruling that Khopesh on invoulnerable character cant be triggered. But if you cancel the wound its fine… is this a consequence of some general rules, or just Khopesh only claryfication. This is similar to cannot question in Snow Graves vs Implant Fear, why is Khopesh not possible tofire and implant fear still playable?

Same happens when you play Small Price to Pay

Action: Choose a character you control and a character an opponent controls. Choose one of those characters to go insane, then wound the other character.

There is no if able here, but i guess you can still play it if the character cant go insane and you need to get rid of the card for some reason. And of you cant play it what is "then" on this card for.

Can you choose your invoulnerable one and opponents char to make opponents char go insane.

I think this should follow in a simple way from FAQ guidelines, and if it doesn't it should have per card errata, so that a new player has any possibility of playing this card the way it was intended to work.

Now FAQ has some contradicting rules scattered throughout the document, the card has no direct explanation… and this is a card from Core Set so new players are supposed to use it… it really irritates me.

There are to ways to deal with this:

- make FAQ clear enough so that cards like this can be understood easily

- make per card explanation of each complicated card

i find none of those done for CoC, even afer re reading and reordering FAQ i still dont know answers to those questions; so i come to conclusion thatCoC rules are a complete mess… but i like this game and want to get them

Penfold said:

So, you're saying, I wouldn't be able to play the card (and choosing an opponent without characters in play) if it didn't say 'if able'?

Why?

Imho, nothing at all would change if you omitted the 'if able'.

FAQ:

(1.5) Choosing Targets

Good lord Zephyr, it is like you aren't even trying to understand the rules. Every single one of those questions is addressed in the FAQ. Khopesh is a very simple ruling, you can't put it on an invulnerable character because invulnerable characters cannot be wounded, cannot is absolute in this game, it means do not even try, and any effect that seeks to specifically wound such a character (as opposed to an effect that would cause mass wounding and does not call out the invulnerable character) cannot even be triggered, and it is a single effect that wounds both the attached character and the targeted character, so it cannot be triggered at all. This has been answered and clarified. Canceling the wound works because it is canceling the placement of the wound token, not canceling an effect that would wound a character. An effect that said cancel an effect that would wound target character would cancel the entire effect, and neither character would be wounded.

And your wording is not any better, and in my opinion worse, "Try to choose?" What does that even mean. It doesn't say choose, it says try to choose. That passive language causes an entirely different problem, now every card is successful or fails entirely on the choose, rather than on the effect, which means no card could be played if you could fail to choose the card directed, but illegal targeting is rarely the problem with card effects, it is whether the effect itself can be resolved. If Able addresses a completely different problem… and for the record, removing if able from a number of cards would have very little effect in specific regards to whether the card effect resolves, but it does have a problem with whether or not the card effect could be triggered at all… and this is a case where the words of the card are added to make it easier to parse… and you are having a problem because of it, it wasn't that long ago you were directing for more words to be added to cards to make them easier to understand. You have pretty much just invalidated your own previous argument.

I have a new policy thanks to you. I'm going to answer rules questions that come up once. I'm not going to defend or explain why that is the way it is anymore outside of the single explanation. It isn't worth the time or frustration and it certainly isn't worth the grief or arguments. You and everyone else can accept them or ignore them as you choose, but you've completely burned me out of caring whether you play the right way for the right reasons. There are other knowledgeable posters on the board. They can fill you in. I can't imagine how Damon deals with this sort of thing, but God bless him for having the patience I don't.

But yes, the fact that Forgotten Shoggoth is a passive and effects the destination of all relevant cards before they leave play is how the card works. That it isn't a replacement effect is the real issue I was addressing in regards to how other cards would be affected with that card leaving play.

Im not even trying…………………….

I re read FAQ many times, reordered it so i can find it, posted FAQ entries to all cards in the FAQ on cardbamedb

And thats not even trying….

I might be trying too hard and that seems to be the problem.

I try to find as many entries that describe given interaction i dont get as i can and use them to find out what happens, many of those are contradictoty or not apply or apply in a way i dont get so i get even more confused becaouse of trying to get it.

And my point is either "more words so its all clearaer" and when its not add some more so it is or less words and keep to them meaning literally with strict rules explained in many words but no rules and even less text on cards. Middle ground is the source of confusion.

What i do really wrong is writing those posts in frustration after trying to figure out all FAQ entries and failing to find consistent meaning but having many ideas that can be interpreted in many ways.

For that im sory as my posts tend to be long and not structured very well and bring my confusion to discussion rather than explaining my doubts.

HEre is my suggestion, figure out what is causing the problem for you and look that up. Trying to apply every possible FAQ entry to a card is going to be information overload and of course it is going to increase your confusion. English is my native language and I've played this game for close to six years and that would almost certainly cause confusion to me.

If the question is how does a card that references "printed skill" work with an insane character, check the entry on "printed" in the FAQ. IF that does not resolve it (and in this case it did provide the answer) then look at the entry on "insanity." Stop complaining about the fact that the entry on insanity does not include that it keeps its name, that is wholly unnecessary to the topic and is about personal preference. This creates a level of animosity and increased confusion in regards to the FAQ none of which makes it easier for you to actually derive the answer you are looking for.

jhaelen said:

Where did I originally write that? I want to see the context I was talking about before I answer your question to make sure I'm understanding where the question is coming form.