just wondering, if i have a high skill deck, lets say all over 4, and only 2 cards in hand, can i therefore not "choose" to discard 4 cards as i dont have that many?? and if willpower / terror, can i then "choose" neither and the card is wasted ??

the card states "choose either".

We had a thread on that already. If i recall correctly the conclusion was:

You cannot choose character with willpower/T to go insane, so you are forced to do the other option in that case.

"discards X cards" forces you to discard all you have if you have less then X.

I find this card to good to be true [and too badly worded, depends on too many other rules to even get what it does]

I guess the only weakness is choosing the option of discarding cards with empty hand. But this card wants to keep your hand empty anyway. Should have at least "Play only in your operation phase" IMO. (Or maybe pros dont have any trouble with it. We'll see)

BUT!!

"In addition, a player cannot trigger a card effect that requires him to choose a certain number of targets if there are not enough valid targets available."

from the FAQ.

the card specifically states CHOOSE EITHER.

"X" is not a random number, but a specific number relating to the skill. if i have skill 4 i cannot CHOOSE to discard 4 if i only have 2. shouldn't that be correct ??

different question entirely from the terror / willpower one

I also find this cards wording horrible

It says:
Action: Choose a non-Ancient One character. That character's controller chooses to either have that character to go insane or discards X cards from his hand. X is the skill of the chosen character.

So option A is "chooses to have that character to go insane" (either skipped to make it more clear)

And option B is "or discards X cards" (notice no choose here)

Why does i take this much analysis to even get what it does? Don't ask me.

but you can't CHOOSE it to do either in some cases. see FAQ quote. maybe im just wishful thinking, cause I'M SCREAMING BAN !! ( joke joke joke joke joke ). guess i'm making a deck with apeirophobia and key-seeker plus large man. every turn. bhammo !! and control the 1 card that does get out. mwah hahahaha.

With Alyssa Graham even scarier. I wonder how strong will it be.

I made a Miskatonic/Hastur/a bit of ST Lodge discard based to see how this mechanics work but it needs much more work, too weak apart from discarding. Havent played too many games with it though.

The discard does not have the word choose in it so it is not an illegal choice. And really there should only be one question when this card comes up and that is what can my opponent choose a character that cannot go insane and what happens when he does. That is answered by looking at what the player of the card is choosing (no restrictions or effects other than it be a non-Ancient One) and what the definition of terror/willpower are. Boom.

It is a very powerful card. YEs you could potentially recur it every turn with the right cards. There are plenty of ways of breaking each combo.

If the card becomes too strong and dominates play I fully believe it will be restricted or receive errata… but right now I don't see it as a problem in and of itself. Then again I'm an AGoT player and we have an entire challenge dedicated to discarding cards at random from a players hand and multiple effects that can strip multiple cards in a turn, every turn, with no need for recursion. You just accept it and roll with it. Kill off or cancel the cards that are the most heinous, and build in recursion and draw into your deck to combat what you can't stop.

This is the problem with this game getting deeper and more strategic, new strategies and mechanics get introduced that make us question assumptions about the game. We either, improvise, adapt, and overcome or get left on the wayside as more mentally agile players make the changes necessary and rule the roost.

hmmmm. i kinda disagree. if its the way you say it is it would be:

"choose to make insane OR discard cards"

but no, it says:

" CHOOSE EITHER " - key words.

they're both choices thus it carries through to the discard option.

"choose to do this OR choose to do this"

if you choose either to discard the cards, its still a choose action, and illegal without sufficient cards. i have no problem ( much ) with the card but the wording needs to be changed as its contradicting the rules.

faq "In addition, a player cannot trigger a card effect that requires him to choose a certain number of targets if there are not enough valid targets available."

BUT!!

penfolds usually right about this stuff so i'll roll with it. haha.

For me grammar form of "discard--s--" and i meant this one additional "s" letter that made it not a "chose and discard" but simply "discard" type effect. Though i guess you still choose those cards… there is nothing about discarding randomly…

With CoC timings discarding just after draw is insanely strong, as you wont even be able to resource and the only thing you can do before you lose your hand is to play an event… i wonder how much impact will it have on tournament play.

COCLCG said:

Remember being able to poke a hole in something is not the same as being able to support your interpretation. In this case saying there is better wording that could have been used is still not going to change the fact that the word choose does not appear before the "discard X cards." Which means, at best, there is not completely solid proof of one way or another. That is not a valid argument for your interpretation as being the right one, as a matter of fact the very argument itself becomes circular because your argument against the ruling I'm defending also discounts your own (i.e. the wording is unclear and the card does not specifically direct you to choose X cards).

To the rule in the FAQ, again the card does not dictate that you choose X cards. It simply says discard X cards, and we already have a ruling that states you can be directed to discard a specific number of cards without having to first choose those cards. Your argument depends on the the placement of the word choose, and since having it say "Chooses to either A or B" does not inherently imply or direct you to make choices within the context of A or B unless directed, nor does it grammatically force you to read the sentence as "chooses to either have that character to go insane or chooses and discards X cards from his hand. X is the skill of the chosen character." You have no actual support for your interpretation.

Because the word choose is specific for targeting within this game as a defined term, you cannot automatically assume that it applies somewhere that does not have the actual word. I could otherwise argue that it belongs in any effect before an effect, and change the meaning of the card as a result, and the way the effect is resolved, and making something targeted that p-reviously was not. Catastrophic Explosion for example suddenly becomes a targeted effect if I just add the word choose to it.

The entire thing is a bit involved. You can always send the question in to Damon by way of the link at the bottom of the page.

on no, mr. penfold, i'm not arguing at all, and fully respect your knowledge of the rules. i won't even bother asking Damon.

all i'm saying is that the rules are a little "funny" as to where words are and specifics of wording because it defies the uses of proper english. i have absolutely no doubt that within the rules interpretation the card works as you describe, but for those who speak english properly, and know when and where subjective words should be placed and the inherent effect they have on the whole sentence, it just becomes a little confusing.

ie: the second option is a choice but without the word choose it is no longer a 'choice' within game terms.

COCLCG said:

don't even know how to email him - haha

COCLCG said:

At the VERY bottom of this page, in small print, there is a link called "Rules Questions". This link takes you to the internal email interface. Damon has been very good about answering questions promptly and with explanations.

You should definitely ask Damon. I'm trying to say that the game uses both "proper" English and Cthulhu-ese. In proper English the word choose is applied to both options, but that in order for the word choose to be a game term it must actually be printed in regards to what is being targeted. If I am play Apeirophobia I get to choose the character, and then you choose which effect is going to happen. In order for the second effect to be a targeted one it needs to say choose X cards or some specific variation on that.

I may be frequently correct, but I am just a player like everyone else. My somewhat obsessive reading and parsing of the FAQ helps a lot, but I can definitely be wrong. Send it in.

yup. its cthulhu-ese. got the response and off to build an apierophobia / large man deck or one similar that returns events from discard. once in place, no card ever again for the opponent if he has a 2 skill willpower / terror character down. he draws, i play apierophobia, he discards both before even resourcing. large man returns the event for the next turn. as the player has no cards theres no way to stop this from happening. every turn. every turn. every turn. no more cards……… its a single glimpse card.

Remember that without Alyssa Graham, they will always have an opportunity to play one card before you can trigger Apeirophobia. The moment they draw into a cancel or a wound/destroy card your combo is broken. You'll need Graham and The Parlor to stop that.

Also you'll need enough characters on the board or other effects of your own to prevent them from winning stories.

just kidding. i never do what all the cool kids do.

building a destruction deck and thinking youre good cause you win = hahaha.

its so easy and takes no imagination. same with this apeirophobia / alyssa graham trick.

boring.