Hey guys,

I'm trying to better understand the Alyssa Graham (AG) discard effect. Any opinions on this would be helpful. So… as a disrupt, during your opponents draw phase, AG could be used to discard one of the two cards drawn during the draw phase. I'm wondering (based on the wording), does this mean that if an opponent "would draw a card" and it is discarded by AG, then that opponent does not get to draw another card to replace the discarded card?

Or does it mean that the card that the opponent would have drawn is simply discarded, and then the opponent gets to draw the next one off his deck as part of his usual two card draw? I haven't seen any postings on this card mechanic and was hoping to get some clarification. What a great card for hand manipulation strategy if AG meant that the opponent really only gets to draw one of his two cards instead of both during the draw phase.

Anyways… thoughts?

The card would be discarded, and is not replaced, to be succinct about it.

I was wondering weather "a card" also means "2 cards" and how exactly should it be executed?

Definitely no card back, but i wonder do you discard the first one, the second one, player drawing chooses, at random, attacker chooses when to disrupt so he says first or second? Or maybe you cant trigger it if there are more than one cards drawn at one time…

It is important when you have Prism of many views or any other mean of knowing what the cards are like Journey to the Other Side.

Alyssa Graham's controller decides. Cards are drawn individually and then added to your hand. Technically you should not pick two cards up and add them both to your hand. Alyssa Graham and Laban Shrewsbury both depend on players drawing their cards singularly for their effects to work properly.

It is noted with her Parlour you don't even have to guess which ones you should choose to discard. Fun little combo there.

Indeed… I have been pondering a hand manipulation deck… and the Graham combo with the Prism of Many views really would be dreadful to your opponent (or with her parlor as well). Imagine if you had an Arkham Asylum out… you could essentially reduce your opponent's draw to one card for the rest of the game (until he gets rid of the effect). Likewise, you throw in a Carcosa and the screws really get tightened.

I wonder how viable such a hand manipulation deck would be. Perhaps Negotium would help with slowing the game down, and then using yog's removal with hastur control cards would give you enough time to set up the mill/hand manipulation… I guess that is the problem with decks like this… getting enough time to set things up.

Thanks for pointing out that when you draw X cards you draw them one by one and each can be disrupted.
I thoght you do it simultainously, so with Prism i didn't get to see the other card.

This doesn't seem that hard to pull off. In opponents turn you discard his card so he gets 1.

On your refresh you can restore Alyssa Graham, she is exhausted but it doesn't stop her from triggering effect on opponents next turn.

So if you don't need to restore other characters you decrease opponents draw to 1. And if he does want to resource its effectively 0.

And you can use more discarding cards.

Right?

Yep.

That's correct - but note that if you are using the dread combination with Arkham Asylum, restoring her counts as an action, so you will have to wait until the action window at the end of the draw phase to do it. As such, you will never be able to deny both card draws for the other player, so your opponent will always be able to draw at least one card. As noted above, though, Hastur also has other cards that can be used to clean out the other players' hand. Alyssa Graham alone is bad enough, but with Arkham Asylum, Byakhee Attack, etc., things can get really ugly for the other player really quickly.

I'm no fortune teller, but I see a lot of Khopeshes and Shotgun Blasts and Lord Jeffery Farringtons in her future.

And I see her removing them before they can be triggered.

Great little circle.

I've been using this card and examining her strength… and in the process I paid extra attention to the tiing chart… I'm now convinced that she is a filter not a draw removal.

Here is my reasoning, since she disrupts an effect it still needs to resolve. A draw effect causes you to take the top card of your deck and put it in your hand. Well there is still a top card to add when the effect resolves. That card is the one which gets added to your hand. This weakens the discard effect a fair amount since you can' choke your opponents draw effectively but it does make her recursion effect more powerful since you will immediately draw the card you add to the top of your deck if you target yourself.

Without it being a replacement effect or a change (or added details) to how card are drawn I can't see it being any other way.

Oh, I've been assuming that Alyssa's effect is a replacement effect because of the "would draw" part… But it's not, because the effect doesn't use the magic word "instead". Good catch, Penfold.

Probably she is meant to be used in conjunction with The Parlor? So that you can see what you are discarding with Alyssa?

But with that card combination I have some rule interpretation problems… As my understanding is right now, drawing a card in the draw phase is a framework action. Using the timing schedule, this should happen in step 3. The Parlor's effect is a passive ability which alters an action (you need to reveal the card before drawing it). There is a new red part about passives altering an action, it is on the left of p. 10 of the printer friendly version of the FAQ. This red part means that the alteration is applied to the action not in step 4 (the usual place for passives), but already alters the action in step 3. Although I'm not really sure I'm reading it right, because I have some problems with all those commas in the text of that red addition…

If this were right, it would mean that you have to use Alyssa's effect (a disrupt, which is resolved in step 2 of the timing structure) without knowing which card you discard, because it would get revealed and drawn later, in step 3. I think this is not how those 2 cards are meant to function. The flavor text actually references Alyssa…

Since you all play this game longer than me, what do you think about Alyssa+The Parlor and how they have to be interpreted in the timing structure?

Hmm this makes sense. And is a strong point for my argument of writing a paragraph on what the card does when you design so complicated timing dependent cards with new mechanics that uses "discard" to mean discard from top of deck but you still get the one below… if it confused so many forum users - ppl who do proved to be interested in game more than average - what are the chances other players will play it right.

Im still not sure actually, its a question regarding "does drawing the card chose the card, then it was discarded so target is illegal and you dont get it, or is it target is not legal so chose new and get it" - this is the most stupid way to explain what a card does i've ever seen - use complex detailed interaction so its impossible to get what it does. The whole point of precision in notation is to avoid confusion, not cause more confusion…

This wording looks like a task taken from a test in some Lure lawyers collage… and its not like designer cant write good rulings, he just writes rulings that depend on so much factors it hurts.

I really hate when you have argument with other player on what the card does and it can break your deck idea, its even worse for me than losing the game completely.

you may be right there Penfold, but i do have to question the interpretation. this 'would' is certainly confusing.

what then about expendable muscle. if he 'would' go insane then he transfers. as its a disrupt, doesn't that mean that the effect has resolved because the target 'would' have gone insane. im thinking that for the 'would' to carry out, the effect must be carried out ( before / simultanious to ) the 'would' ( is / being ) initiated, and we've had this conversation before if you remember, where expendable muscle 'disrupts' in time with the effect, so can't jump before the wound is taken to another character to defend against dynamite.

simply : you cannot disrupt an action that does not already exist, so in alyassa case the card is 'theoretically' drawn and then put in discard, and the 'effect' of you having that card in your hand is no longer the end result. you certainly dont get to 'replay' the action to get the card.

I think that not using word "instead" hints that maybe the effect just changes the card drawn.

I really think that not giving any official comment and shipping cards like this is really stupid. I really cant understand why… how hard would it be to write additional paragraph on what card does and publish it online or print and put small booklet in a box. The card should tell what it does, but if its too complex why keep players guessing… especially in competitive environment with many rules conflicts its really insane that the only way to get those rulings straight is to e-mail designer currently working on many titles. Do players really don't care or FFG ignores them?

There are so many steps with production/design/shipping etc. Artists create work for every card. Why are rulings so neglected that a designer - person responsible for creating new ideas - is the one to do mechanical job of keeping rulings consistent and accessible.

well, no. again in the expendable muscle example, if this was the case, then the insanity caused by the terror struggle would simply carry through to the next committed character, then driving them insane if applicable ( or the wound from the combat struggle ). pretty sure this is not the case. the insanity ( wound ) effect is still considered to have been implemented even though the 'would disrupt' has taken place. same with the card not being replaced. in my understanding that is……

Muscle uses "instead" in it text and it clearly states in the FAQ that the first effect doesn't happen, something else happens instead. Dynamite vs muscle seems interesting to me as i don;t know timings this well and it would expand my understanding of timings, but i'm not sure it is important for Alyssas case.

Regarding Alyssa: Penfolds suggestion makes some sense to me and he is the person with the best rules understanding here. This card would have been drawn, but its discarded, so i draw some other card - makes sense, but this kind of interaction is horrible to get right especialy as the timing and chosing "targets" structure is really complicated… It would make this card much less powerful draw drainer and more subtle control, so it is quite substantial difference. If this card works this way I think it is worded as bad as possible, there is no text on the card that suggests drawing a replacement and deducing it from rules looks like rule hacking… why design the card that is so hard to get and give no further explanation… Maybe it does reduce draw just lacks "instead" to clarify…

yes. it is a bit technical, and i guess we'll just have to wait for an official response. the card isn't 'would have been drawn', as it has to actually 'be drawn' before the disrupt to that action can be implemented, so yes, tough one.

.Zephyr. said:

That's a good point, too. I don't know what to think of Alyssa anymore.

This article here states Alyssa with 2 other cards which reduce an opponent's hand cards. That would indicate that she is doing this as well…

COCLCG, you talked about waiting for an official answer - did you already submit a rules question? If not, I'll do it, but no need to bother FFG with the same question twice…

i have sent the question. eagerly awaiting a reply. will post when i know.

Re-reading the articles about her and her parlor…

I believe this will be ruled in favor of the "not-a-filter" camp.

And possible evidence to support my belief would be that not all replacement effects have to use the word "instead."

My personal belief…

A. (I don't control allysa) I'm about to draw a card, one of two things will happen. I discard it. or I put it into my hand and my opponent puts their top discard on top of their deck. Then draw my second card.

B. (I do control allysa) I'm about to draw a card, either I discard that card I'm about to draw or put it into my hand and put my top discard on top of my deck and then draw it with my second draw.

However… thats they way I 'read' the card and believe it's what they intended. However… Penfold has plenty of ground to stand on here and can easily see myself agreeing with him.

Very worth claifiying in a FAQ and have suggested Damon to do as such. I'll sit back on ths one and see how it's ruled.

official response:

"They are half right regarding the would… it is a timing restriction on when the card can be triggered not a modification or alteration of the draw effect itself. In order to prevent the draw it would need to be a cancel or replacement effect. Players can tell it is neither because it does not use the game terms "cancel" or "instead." Alyssa Graham does in fact cause a card on top of the deck to be discarded or one added from the discard pile, without otherwise affecting the draw effect it is disrupting. Remember that a disrupt effect simply means that one effect is paused, the triggered disruption effect is then resolved, and the paused effect unpauses and resumes resolution as normal unless there is a cited replacement effect or cancel. Because the draw effect is an untargeted effect that designates a card state (top card of the deck) rather than targeting the current card on top of the deck, when the disruption is resolved and unpasued effect continues there is still a top card of the deck, so it resolves on that card. This is different than when someone tries to wound a character at a story for losing the combat struggle and they then use The Doorway to return that character to hand. The rules of losing the combat struggle require the losing player to choose a specific character to wound. Once that choice is made the disrupt kicks in and returns it to hand. Now that effect attempts to resolve. It now calls for an illegal target to be effected so it "fizzles" cannot resolve successfully, and is ignored, with no character receiving the wound. Do you understand the difference?"

so. apparently she's not a miller, and i AM a buddhist, because thats 2 decks in 2 weeks that ive spent a lot of time on in the dustpan, using 2 very convoluted rulings determinations. oh well. i need a break anyway.

if using the above determination, i am failing to see how the parlor even interacts with alyssa, as the card has been drawn already before revealing, so the disrupt no longer applies to that card, thus it is impossible to filter the one you're seeing anyway. obviously ( i think ) the 2 cards are completely unrelated now.

perhaps i need to look further into timing before i make decks as i still dont understand how you can disrupt a draw that hasnt already happened. im sure its there, it just makes no sense to me. and no, but thanks, i dont need it explained to me.

Magnus it can't work that way. If Alyssa is a replacement effect without the word instead (and there is literally no precedent for that and it is a direct contradiction of the FAQ), if you would draw a card and I disrupt the adding it to your hand to put the top card on top of my deck, that would be in place of your draw effect. Meaning not only do I "eat" your draw I get a limited form of recursion from it as well… that is what made me actually look at the card text with an eye to rules rather than just assuming that it worked the way I wanted it to, which in all fairness is what I am constantly telling other players not to do. Yay irony!

I can literally find nothing to support the replacement effect interpretation of this card other than my own assumption. And it should be pointed out Damon does not write the articles that get posted besides the intros into the new cycles/expansions (they always mention him by name when he contributes something). I have no idea how thoroughly the webmaster vets his or her articles, and even he he has them completely vetted doesn't mean that the designer intent and rules text necessarily agree with each other, and failing errata or rules changing, the rules text must take priority.

Zephyer, we've been over expendable muscle many times on the forum. It is not a disrupt it is a passive so it does not even come close to comparing to Alyssa. It does however compare to The Parlor. Expendable Muscle and The Parlor, as passives affecting an action, alter the initiated action, altering it unequivocally and irrevocably. But what is being modified there and how does that work in context. For the Parlor it is a non-triggered constant effecting passive. Upon the initiation of a draw effect the top card of your deck must be drawn. The disrupt halts the adding of the card to your hand. So boom time to draw, before you can go any further that card must be revealed. Then before it can be added to your hand it can be discarded by Alyssa Graham. Now Expendable Muscle has an effect that comes into play only when it would be killed or made insane and it is a replacement effect. What it does is change any effect that would kill it or make it insane instead become an effect that, at execution, instead turns it into an attachment.

A disrupt halts the execution of an effect. It then resolves itself. The game then continues with the original effects execution.

In both cases the passives resolve themselves when the referenced effect initiates. EM's effect resolves on the initiation of an effect that would kill or make it go insane, but that altered effect does not change its normal timing. The Parlor resolves on the initiation of an effect that would make you draw a card. They resolve in different places because the text tells us they do. One is a replacement of an effect the other is creating a new game state.

There is really no point in arguing this (I'm looking at you Magnus) since EM and The Parlor have been ruled on directly. No matter how much someone wants it to be another way, it isn't unless Damon decides to reverse the ruling and he has done so in the past. I like that he is willing to revisit his own rulings and when he finds them at odds with something or a simpler means of ruling he opts for it. But these are both pretty well based on the current rules of the game and to change them would require an alteration to the rules or errata to cards, I don't foresee either of those being likely.

I thought I had hit submit hours ago. Sorry for that late addition.

Regarding the disrupt, there are several places where a disrupt can work it all depends on what it is disrupting, but the straightforward place a disrupt works is in between the initiation and the execution of an effect. IOW after a draw is initiated but before it is executed. Once it has been executed it is too late to technically discard a card drawn as a disrupt. That window is closed. A Response effect to the draw could allow you to cause a discard, Forced Response: After an opponent draws a card, that player must discard that card. But a disrupt something, meaning halting something in the timing chart, resolve itself, and then turn that other bit back on.

Penfold said:

Nope, no arguing from me.

The bit about replacements effect was kinda confusing. I didn't actually mean to imply that Alyssa is a replacement effect, just that you don't "need" the word "instead" to have it be a replacement effect.

I thought it worked this way for awhile actually, it was actually because of another ruling to a card that had me thinking in the other direction (mainly in regards to how "designated" things actually work). To which I've emailed Damon to clarify that situation as well. So, I may or may not direct my arguements in that direction.

*********************FORGET IT************************