There are a few cards with text "when X would Y" like:

Underground Asylum
Disrupt: Exhaust Underground Asylum and pay 1 to cancel an effect that would cause a character to go insane.

Vaporous Isle
While Vaporous Isle is ready, any character that would go insane is instead returned to its owner's hand.

• Library of Pergamum
Disrupt: Exhaust Library of Pergamum to cancel an effect just triggered that would destroy a Tome card.

Abhorrent Spore
Disrupt: When attached character would be destroyed, instead discard all wound tokens and attachments, including Abhorrent Spore, on attached character.

• Alyssa Graham
Disrupt: When a player would draw a card, drive Alyssa Graham insane to (choose one): discard that card, or place the top card of your discard pile on top of your deck.

• Charles Dexter Ward
Disrupt: If Charles Dexter Ward would go insane, choose another character instead. That character goes insane, if able.

Some are passives, some are disrupts; some are replacement, some are not.

I have a few questions regarding those:

First: what is the timing?
Passive abilities sometimes change the effect and sometimes are resolved after effect takes place.
Disrupts are played before effect resolves, but their condition depends on sth happening in the effect.
Does this refer to a possibility of sth happening, or do both players state their choices in initiation period and only if initiated unchanged effect would do X i can respond to X. Its especially wierd for me with effect:
"Characters committed to the same story as Kaleidoscope of Calyptra that would go insane are instead wounded."
[i asked this also in another thread]
Does it change all go insane to wound (and this can be targeted on characters with T/willpower), or only character that would actually go insane without this card will be wounded. (and if it cant be wounded is it considered as a targetting requirement of going insane in the first place)

What happens when replaced effect is followed by then, like Small price to pay on Charles Dexter Ward. Is the then part executed or not. (Replecement says the replaced effect doesnt happen, but new effect happens instead, is this substitution ok for then to resolve?)

Do cancels like Library cancel whole effect or only the part that would do what they state? (i think all, but im not sure, especially with multiple effects on many sentences)

Can those cards influence cost? Like vaporous isle ready when Lunatic like Crazed arsonists drives himself insane. Does he go back to hand (i think not but want to make sure)

A replacement effect replaces the previous effect with a new result. So when that originating effect is executed it is the new "instead" that happens. The would is showing that an effect has been initiated (all targets selected, costs, payed etc. etc.) but the disrupt or passive is going to kick in before execution and replace the old effect with a new one.

That should answer all your questions about the replacement effects. Calyptra cannot cause a character that would not be going insane at a story it is committed to be wounded because it was never a legal target for an insanity effect to target or resolve on therefore the is no insanity effect to replace on that character. But honestly that last statement didn't even require an understanding of the word "would" just common sense in regards to replacing an effect. I can't replace your apple with an orange if you don't have an apple to begin with.

You must cancel a whole effect to cancel an effect. Now you could potentially cancel the result of an effect, like I don't have to cancel Khopesh's ability to cancel the wound it is putting on my character. I don't have to cancel a Terror struggle to cancel the insanity of my character.

Library of Pergamum cancels an effect just triggered that would destroy a tome card. Does my triggering my Deranged Diva destroy your tome if you make the attached character go insane? Of course not. It is the game rules that force that card to be destroyed. How can you tell? Because no where on Deranged Diva's card effect does it say anything about a support card or attachment, or tome. IT clearly is not doing anything to the tome itself. The game rules force it to be destroyed, and since that is not a triggered effect it cannot be canceled (and even if it was a triggered effect, since it would force an illegal game state, an attachment with no character being attached to, it would not be a legal effect to trigger).

I'm not sure how replacement effects in this game work precisely for one aspect… does a replacement effect fully and clearly replace the entire effect, or is it replacing just the final game point resolution. In AGoT it replaces the final end point resolution, meaning if a character would be killed (destroyed) but is targeted with a replacement effect that instead retuiturns the character to hand, that character is still considered killed, just what happens when that character is killed changes, ratehr than going to the dead pile it is now placed in its owner's hand. A number of players seem to believe that in Cthulhu the entire effect from beginning to end is replaced so the character is never killed at all, and it is just sent to your hand.

In AGoT I could play a response effect on a character being killed because it was a kill effect that resolved on the character, even though the end result, the final destination of that character was the hand instead of the dead pile. I'm not sure what it is in Cthulhu… I've never really examined the FAQ for that kind of thing and don't remember if it is directly addressed.

Hm. Anyone remember anything ruling wise or the FAQ which definitely states one way or another, or is it a case of assumptions, mine and yours?

Penfold said:

I think it is the former one. FAQ about Julia Brown:

… Replacement effects
completely replace one effect with
another.

And about replacement effects:

The word “instead” lies at the heart of
the replacement effect, as it allows the
new effect to occur in place of the effect
it is replacing. Therefore, the original
effect does not occur , the new effect
occurs instead.

(Emphasis mine.) Completely replacing an effect includes that the original effect is not considered to have been resolved IMO. E.g. using the replacement-disrupt of Julia Brown (Insomniac) hinders my opponent to take control of the new Julia via Spawn of the Sleeper.

Well there we go. FAQ's got it.

What you are saying is just a matter of >timing< of replacement, and how it interacts with some other things, and i dont really see it clear in FAQ.

Im getting tired of this "read FAQ" i have read this, hell i did reorder it and put it in HTML to make it easier to find anything and made some comments for me to understand better. And DESPITE reading faq i still don't know how this works. Im not an idiot, IT IS NOT CLEAR. Maybe FAQ is enough when you are familiar with all timings and heard many rulings, on my level FAQ doesn't help enough…

I asked those questions because i read FAQ and still dont understand them……………….

The whole question is: "when exactly is the effect substituted" during initiation so new targeting requrements apply? or During resolution, and if so do new targetting requirements apply or not? This is NOT in the FAQ…

Your argument about replacing stuff you dont have is not valid, if the replacement happens during initiation and it repleces "effect that drives insane" with "effect that wounds" its perfectly valid semantics as far as passive effects are concerned. Its even more along FAQ with note that some passives modify effects in initiation stage. Your semantics is hard to put in FAQs timing frame as passives that didnt change initiation would be fired after effect is resolved, and FAQ states replaced effect doesn't happen. The idea of "apples become oranges" does follow FAQ description of replacing and it would allow character to be wounded even if no character would go insane. The fact that you have your interpretation doesn't mean someone else cant have his own. Maybe some part of FAQ/rulebook/convention does clear this up but i don't see it as clear… thats why im asking…

Thank you for answering, but this "just read FAQ" simply doesn't work for me.

You made a ruling that its during resolution not initiation and targeting requirements for new effect are not important for choices that are made during effects resolution. If i understand your response.

1)So if im against Calyptra and have guy with Guardian Beast and no T or willpower i can choose him to go insane, then it will be replaced by wounding, then it will fail? and it will soak this T struggle loss with no effect because of invulnerability? even if there were other characters who could both go insane and take a wound, right?

1a) I have Dexter and Calyptra, i lost T struggle, can i disrupt this effect of going insane and redirect it before it is replaced by "be wounded" so that my opponents character will be wounded?

2)If i have Dexter (disrupt: sb else goes insane instead) and play Small price to pay (insane then wound) do i still wound the other guy or not. Previous effect did not happened, but sth else happened instead, is this replacement ok with then or not?

3)About cancelling whole effect i ment sth like dimention Rift that would destroy much more than tome. Does library stop whole rift? (or only the part that destroys the tome.)

I wasn't really suggesting stopping card effect that would cause game effect that would destroy card, but it looks like one of the things that I could eventually have trouble with so, thx for clearing that up.

4) Cost i think cannot be affected, but i just want to make sure. (disrupts have no slot, but passives are "always on" whatever that means so maybe they do change cost by replacing it with other effect) A simple yes would be nice if i'm not wrong.

Penfold said:

Penfold, where in the FAQ did you get that info about "would"? It makes sense, but I can't find it. I further assume "after" means after step 3) in the timing structure (executing the effect)? Are there any other important timing words?

For your questions Zephyr:
1: Yes, according to the ruling stated by Penfold.
1a: Yes. Charles Dexter Ward has a Disrupt. Using the steps in the timing structure, in 1b), you choose any character without willpower and terror icon to go insane, in this case Ward. In 2), you trigger Ward's ability and choose another character to go insane, e.g. an opponent's character. In 3), you execute the replacing effect and wound your opponent's character.
2: Yes you do, IMO. Again with the timing structure: In 1b) you select 2 targets (opponent's character A and our Charles Dexter Ward) and then select which is the target for being driven insane (Charles Dexter Ward). In 2) you trigger Ward's Disrupt, and may re-route being driven insane to someone else, e.g. you choose your opponent's character B (without willpower and Terror). In 3) you execute the effect of Small Price to Pay: First, (instead of driving Ward insane), you drive character B insane. Normally this is successful (unless B didn't get a terror icon in the meantime by another disrupt, or did leave play by a disrupt), and you wound character A.
3: Yes. Like you and Penfold already stated, Library of Pergamum allows you to cancel an effect which would destroy a Tome card, and the triggered effect on Dimensional Rift would (also) destroy the Tome card. Since it is not worded as "cancel the destruction of a Tome card" but as "cancel the effect", the whole effect is cancelled, IMO.
4: I think so, too. I don't know of any card that has a replacement effect that reduces cost. (And I think it shouldn't be possible.) Usually, cost reductions are worded as a passive without a special trigger ("always on"), as you already stated, or as an action (e.g. Priestess of Bubastis).

Zephyr, I'm also in the process of learning this game, so take everything I stated with some caution…

Pete it looks like you got everything correct.

As to the "would" bit, the timing structure really only allows for this interpretation.

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.
6. Responses
I. Response is initiated.
II. Disrupts
III. Response is executed.
(Follow steps I through V, etc.)
IV. Passive abilities (requirements now met) are initiated.
V. Forced Responses (requirements now met) are initiated.
7. End of Action.

There is no way that the passive can happen in step 4 since the effected characters would already have the effect resolved on them. So a passive that deals with a specific kind of effect on a card must alter that effect at its moment of initiation which is precisely what the FAQ says:

NOTE: If a passive ability would alter an action as it is being resolved, 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.

A good 60% of the questions I answer can be figured out just by looking at the timing chart and figuring out purely on what is written there where the effect comes into play.

This action says altered action is >initiated<, is it just a sloppy wording that means executed not initiated? Disrupts are resolved on new action, so it it looks like it is step 1.

And this doesn't make much sense as it would require new targetting requirements if altered effect starts from step 1a… maybe it starts altered initiation from step 1b just after targeting requirements were checked for base effect….

But this still doesn't make much sense… I'd prefer this version of changing it at the last possible moment of step 3 - this would go as you describe above, but this is not what the FAQ says, that's the whole problem. Or does initiated mean executed, and it does change only step 3 - in that case i would get your point.

One thing still is not completely clear, as disrupt can for example cancel base effect that is to be substituted, and FAQ says it disrupts altered action, not base action… if i disrupted with redirecting going insane, but it is executed as wounding is wounding still redirected, or disrupt fails because effect was changed to something that makes no sense for triggered disrupt…

That's why i don't get this… this is small details of timing based on one not explicit fragment of FAQ that isn't really precise…

About altered effect and word "then" FAQ doesn't say anything, this needs ruling for this case, as "the original effect >does not occur<, the new effect occurs instead. " and it doesn't say does "then" depend on execution of base effect and base effect only or is new altered version good enough.
[was there some ruling on this previously?]

About cost i dont see much either, its just a question of "is cost an effect that can be changed", effect like "cannot be wounded" may prevent a cost of wounding a character from being payed, so maybe replacements can also influence this… idk.. and don't see it in FAQ. Im refering to cost as in lunatisc: Drive me insane to do X. Any part before "to" is a cost. Im not reffering to reducing cost by X, I'm reffering to lunatics going with Calyptra to story and using their abilities.

If all of Hillarious Pete answers are correct i see the general idea, from FAQ it was far from clear…

Penfold said:

Yes, the timing structure is wonderful when trying to solve timing issues with Actions, Responses and Disrupts. But things are not so clear to me for passives. The proper timing of passives is controlled by special words like "would", "before" and so on. I'd like to have something euqally clear for them, too.

The note in the FAQ cited by you isn't unambiguous. E.g. it only says that the effect is altered in the initialization. It dosn't say WHEN in the initialization. You ruled it as after the designation of targets (which makes sense to me), but if someone insists that it is before the designation of targets, I can't cite the FAQ and prove him wrong.

Anyway, I think I figured out all the important timing words and their meaning:

• Passives with " before ": The before-part is exectued in initialization (step 1 of timing structure) but somewhere after target designation in 1b). Don't know where exactly. Example: For The Parlor to work with Alyssa, the card needs to be revealed in step 1 because Alyssa's Disrupt happens in step 2.
• Passives with " would " and without "instead" : An altering effect. Targets are chosen in step 1b for the original effect if necessary. Disrupts in 2 will disrupt the altered action. In step 3, the altered action is exectued. Example: Prof. Rice or Forgotten Shoggoth.
• Passives with " would " and with "instead" : A replacement effect. Targets are chosen in 1b for the original effect, and in step 3, the replacement effect is executed. Example: Kaleidoscope of Calyptra. I guess the difference between an altering effect and a replacement effect is, that a Disrupt disrupting the altered effect needs to disrupt the altered effect, but a Disrupt disrupting a replacement effect needs to trigger on the original effect. Example: Dexter Ward + Kaleidoscope: You use Dexter's Disrupt on "would be driven insane" although it will actually end in a wound.
• Passives with " When ": Are executed in step 3 concurrently with the original effect. Example: Child of Argus.
• Passives with " while ": Mostly they are the type of passives that are just "on" or "off" and have no special slot in the timing structure. (Example: Visiting Professor). Sometimes you need to select something (Example: Prof. Albert Wilmarth), this happens at that point in the timeline when the condition is firstly met (e.g. you select the struggle to be omitted at the moment Wilmarth is being committed). The difference between "when" and "while" is, that the effect stops working in a "while" passive if its card has left play, but "when" passives will be executed (after they have been initiated) even if their card has left play in the meantime (FAQ entry about Chess Prodigy).
• Passives with " after ": They are executed in step 4 of the timing structure. Example: Scylla's Well.

Are my assumptions correct?

@Zephyr: The note in the FAQ is difficult for me to understand, too. I hope my entry about passives "with would and without instead" is correct. If yes, it helps you for your question:

.Zephyr. said:

There is no functional difference between a passive altering the action at the beginning of step 1 or in 1b in the cards stated. So yes, there is definitely a difference with something getting targeted first versus the effect being completely altered before it is initiated, but functionally there is no difference. No card effects can take place in between the initiation of an effect and the first opportunity of a disrupt.

Passives probably do need an expansion to be better understood in exact detail… but to be clear, none of that is going to change how the passives actually affect the game or your play because there is nothing you can ever do to stop a passive. All you need to determine is does the passive kick in during the initiation step (at any point) or does it kick in after the execution? And that can be determined by looking at what it is doing. Does it effect an actions resolution? If yes then it is a passive that kicks in during the initiation process. If the answer is no then it kicks in during the execution step or is always on, and the wording for those should be really obvious.

Then again I could be wrong, I haven't tried to look at every passive effect in the game.

Penfold said:

Penfold said:

Penfold said:

Totally agree to your 1st sentence :-) And also to your last. But the determination of when a passive resolves is not so easy if that passive contains "would". Now I figured it out, I think… What do you say to:

HilariousPete said:

Is this right?

Yep

wonderful, it's really making sense to me now :-)

Thanks for your answers

My pleasure.