just a quickie. lodge defences of course increases the cost to destroy locations by 2.

NOW

im presuming the cost incurred by a character like crazed arsonist is that the arsonist goes insane ( i may be totally off centre here in the definition of COST ). so , if that is actually the case, must the crazed arsonist go insane AND pay 2 to destroy a location ??

for example :

from FAQ:

"Note that sacrificing a card to pay for an effect is also considered paying a cost. For example, if a player wishes to activate Predatory Byakhee (Core Set F89), he must sacrifice the Byakhee. If the effect were canceled, the Byakhee would still be sacrificed."

of course sacrificing is not driving insane, but im guessing the same would apply.

COCLCG said:

No, that's totally correct. Everything before "to" is a cost.

COCLCG said:

Yes, I think that's correct, too. Definition of cost in the FAQ:

Costs are any resources paid in order
to play a card, as well as anything
before the “to” part of a card ability.

Because the cost of an effect is an amount of resources as well as other things stated before "to" (in contrast to being mutual exclusive), Crazed Arsonist's effect's usual cost is driving insane and paying 0 resources. The Lodge Defences just increase this about 2 resources.

Im not shure, you increase cost by 2, but there is nothing in arsonists cost to increase by 2 in the first place.

If it had "pay 0 and drive insane" increasing it by 2 makes sense. Now not really…

HilariousPete said:

That's right… Has anyone submitted a rules question yet? If not, I'm going to do it

yep. done. awaiting answer.

I'm interested in this answer as well, if they have to pay 2 on non domain draining costs that could make this card more useable.

You could certainly argue that there is an implicit "pay 0" in costs like these so there is something to add +2 onto.

All things before to are a cost. Lodge Defenses clearly states Increase the cost by 2. So we have two choices here… everything now gains a "pay 2" added to whatever the cost is or it forces the actual cost being payed to be two more of that… in other words driving a card insane to do a thing will involve driving three cards insane (and effectively make the card untriggerable since you'd need three of the named card in play).

This second interpretation makes the card WAY overpowered, so I'm going to go with it adds a "pay 2" to the cost of the card.

I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to the "does not compute" model. When something doesn't have a numerical value, it isn't zero, it is a non-number. If you add 2 to a non-number you don't get a meaningful number. So it could very well be ruled that if there is no initial cost, there is no increase in cost… But who knows - things are not always intuitive in this game.

But we have a cost. So it isn't about numerical versus written, the card says add 2 to the cost. I'd bet dollars to donuts we won't get a no value distinction here. I'll bet any one who wants to take it the Miskatonic box that the answer we get is "pay 2" is added to the cost as the clarification.

for ONCE, im right and glad that this card is in my deck. 'official' response ( without being 'official' of course ):

"Yes, everything immediately before the word "to" in a card effect is part of the cost. Lodge Defense add the condition of paying 2 in order to have successfully paid the cost of the card effect. If the card has a resource cost 2 is simply added to the amount that needs to already be paid. If it has any cost other than a resource cost, there is now an additional need to drain a domain of at least 2 resources."

Yay, good ruling. Maybe now I will use this card sometime, I'd been sort of overlooking it thinking it only added to the cost if there was already a domain cost.