If you can choose between two bad things that can happen to you, can you choose one that doesn't really have an effect on you? Most recently we've run into that with the corruption card that lets you choose between losing half your items or taking another corruption card. If you have only one item can you choose to lose "half" of them which effectively lets you off the hook? Is there an official ruling on that?

I guess it's the same as choosing between losing all your money or an item when you don't have any money etc.

I don't think it's the same as losing all your money when you have none. In all instances in this game I can think of, when you discard something, it's round down. So I believe if you have just one valid item for the Corruption card, you can choose to discard half of it (that is, nothing) instead of taking the Corruption. However, if you have no items at all, you can't fulfill that condition, and must draw a Corruption.

The closest thing I can think of is how they errataed Location Special Abilities (you must meet the requirements or you can't use a Location Special Ability). By following that guideline, I would say you have to choose the effect where you can meet the requirements, i.e. having money to choose lose your money, or having items.

So, if you don't have any money, you shouldn't be able to choose the "Lose your money" option, etc.

On that note, can you be selective about that sort of thing? If you have a derringer, and get an encounter that says you discard an item of your choice, can you choose the derringer and keep it? How about if you fight a Rat-Thing?

Or if you draw the mythos card that says curse one investigator, bless another, can you choose to curse somebody who is already cursed, or somebody who cannot be cursed (Wendy with Elder Sign, somebody with Third Eye)?

The text on the Derringer (and similar items) says you can't lose it "unless you choose to allow it". That means it WILL be discarded if you choose it when going unconscious/insane, or giving it to a Rat-Thing, etc. I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise, but that would be a pretty silly way of avoiding having to discard items all the time.

For Curses and Blessings though, I don't see why you couldn't choose freely. Doesn't matter if they have a Curse already.

If a card, token, special ability says otherwise then it trumps the rules.

In the Official Answers from Kevin Thread there is a part about becoming Cursed while already Cursed. You are treated as if you have just received the card, i.e. you don't roll on the following round.
Example: You have been Cursed for a couple of turns now. You become Cursed again, so you don't roll to see if the Curse goes away next Upkeep.

If you can't be Cursed, then you are not a legitimate target, and therefore can't be selected.

Tibs said:

This is the correct interpretation. The fact that you have 1 item means you meet the condition so can select it as an option. Because the rounding down means you lose nothing does not mean that your option is voided.

ColtsFan76 said:

Same opinion, since it the game never stops you from shopping if you have 1 Dollar, even though the only things you will be buying are missions.

Tibs said:

What about the encounter in South Church from the base game Tibs, when Father Michael appropriates half your money or items ROUNDED UP for the poor? Anyway when a corruption card is activated in my opinion it is in the "spirit of the game" to take some form of hit if you can, not try to weasel out of things on a technicality. Be a man and take a corruption card or lose an item. It’s your choice and one upon which the fate of your very soul may rest: Man or Legal Weasel. Make a stand!

sulphurea said:

What about that encounter? If you have one item and no money, you have to choose to lose the item, because you don't have any money.

"Legal Weasel" isn't a very polite title, but unfortunately, that's the one I have to take for the sake of simplicity and consistency--both of which we know Arkham Lacks.

If you only have one item left, I guess that's punishment enough. That's what one gets for being greedy.

'What about that encounter?'

The point I was making is that the South Church encounter is a round up when you had stated that 'in all instances in this game I can think of, when you discard something, it's round down.'

I don't know why you assumed that I was calling you a "Legal Weasel", perhaps Freud could answer that. The point I was trying to get across was (and I honestly meant no offense) is it really in the spirit of the game to try and find a loophole to get out of paying the cost of being corrupted? All this talk of 'half of something rounded down is nothing, therefore I can GET AWAY without taking a corruption card by discarding half of something and actually keeping my item just doesn't sit well with me. How do you honestly feel about that? In my opinion if you are not actually getting rid of something just take a corruption card for God's sake, don't act like a small, short-legged, lithe carnivorous mammal of the genus Mustela.

In all seriousness your wisdom and reason are much appreciated Tibs. I beg you please do not ignore my pleas for rules clarifications in the future.

sulphurea said:

LOL I didn't think you were calling me one. But I was still openly accepting the title
Besides, I think weasels, stoats, ferrets, and ermines are awesome.

In the spirit of Endless Greed, it does make sense that you get a corruption if you don't discard your remaining item. We may have to rethink the concept of "condition fulfillment" versus "effect fulfillment."

'A stoat by any other name would smell as sweet.' William Shakespeare

I'm also a big fan of mustilids. In my opinion pound for pound the toughest mammals on the planet.

We tend to read the card carefully and determine what makes most sense -- if it says "spend all your money" and I don't have any, well, then that's usually OK, the poor do get handouts sometimes.

Other times it doesn't make any sense. For example, the "Speak to Your Friend" corruption card gives the option to either give a Cult Membership to an Investigator or discard the top Corruption card. It doesn't make sense to give a second Cult Membership to an Investigator, so if everyone is already in the club (or all non-members refuse to join), then a Corruption card must be discarded.

We've had some good discussion over how to play these anomalies, but generally choose the option that everyone can live with -- I just wish we wrote them down so we could be assured of remaining consistent.

sulphurea said:

While I think mustelids are distilled awesome, sweet is in the top ten adjective I think of to describe thier odor. With 4 ferrets in my house I'm pretty familiar with the little stinkers.

On topic, when one of these ambiguous situations comes up it is probably easiest make a decision that everyone is comfortable with. If you want additional opinions it is easy enough to post here after the game is over.

sulphurea said:

As Tibs likes to point out with me all the tiem, as soon as you make a blanket statement, someone can find the exception in one fo the 1,000+ cards in the game!