"Reveal the top card of your stack. You may install that card, lowering the install cost by $10, if able; otherwise, trash it."

So, let's say I reveal a Toolbox, $9.

• Do I get to install it for free?
• Does "if able" modify the discount clause? I can't actually lower the cost by 10. So I could pay retail price for it, since the event still says I may install it?
• Or, since I can't fulfill all clauses which precede "if able," do I have to trash it?

The second two interpretations seem unlikely to me, since it seems that the intention would be to test run for an expensive program such as Morningstar or Femme, let it go to the top of the deck, then next turn install it for free. There's also some pretty expensive hardware out there, but again, I think it's unlikely that this card was printed if the only fully legal targets for it were Monolith and Blackguard.

Basing interpretations on subjective perception of "Rules As Intended," is a specious argument, so I remain tentative.

"if able" modifies "You may install that card, lowering the install cost by $10" and not simply "lowering the install cost by $10".

I'm going to venture a guess and say English isn't your first language?

In a sentence like that, where there are commas surrounding a word or phrase in the middle of a sentence, then you can eliminate anything between the commas and still have a viable sentence.... just like that one.

Essentially, if you try removing the words in between the commas, you get "You may instal that card, if able." Which is what the sentence is trying to say. However, it adds an extra fact that the card's cost is lowered by 10 [credits] whenever you are resolving the ability on Eureka.

So, in your first example, if you use Eureka and reveal a Toolbox (or anything else cost 10 or lower), then you may install it for free. (bear in mind, you can only lower the cost as far as 0, even if it's lowered by 10 and is cost 1... the game doesn't give you free credits simply for lowering the cost of things you play/install)

It's a valid question, especially given that the wording is similar to False Lead, which we know if the runner cannot lose 2 clicks (because they only have one remaining) they lose nothing.

However, I am also confident that Eureka's 'if able' is simply modifying the 'you may install' clause rather than the 'reduce cost' portion of the text. Otherwise the card would ONLY be useful for cards costing 10+cr, of which there are too few to justify running this card.

No, English is my first language and I actually have a Bachelor's degree in it. It's because I am a writer that the badly-written sentence bugs me. I can parse it in several different ways:

1. You may install that card,
2. lowering the install cost by $10,
3. if able;
4. otherwise, trash it.
   

It isn't certain that (2) is a parenthetical clause. It could be, but as written, it is ambiguous whether "if able" modifies (1) or (2), or both of them together. If the former, then you may install it if able, with a discount of up to $10.

If the second, then you run into the interpretation Feesh pointed out, where, like False Lead, if you cannot lower the install cost by $10, then you don't get to lower it at all.

The most draconian position is whether "if able" triggers (4) in the event that (1) and (2) are not both successful, if it is intended to modify both.

I agree that the second and third interpretations are unlikely, as the only cards that could fully/successfully fulfill the card under those conditions are Monolith and Blackguard, and there are no possible synergies with Eureka for anything that would tutor that Hardware to the top of your deck.

The more forgiving interpretations would let you Test Run a Femme, tag their advancement server to pluck an agenda, then the next turn Eureka it back into play to tag R&D for a Maker's Eye run, which strikes me as a much more fun option and a natural synergy. But again, making rulings based on what you subjectively believe the intention to be is a slippery slope, when you can only say that (2) is "probably" a parenthetical.

The card makes sense that it's meant to discard Events and hardware that you couldn't pay for even with the discount; there's no doubt about that.

It's a valid question, especially given that the wording is similar to False Lead, which we know if the runner cannot lose 2 clicks (because they only have one remaining) they lose nothing.

However, I am also confident that Eureka's 'if able' is simply modifying the 'you may install' clause rather than the 'reduce cost' portion of the text. Otherwise the card would ONLY be useful for cards costing 10+cr, of which there are too few to justify running this card.

Exactly. I was trying to be helpful, because statements like that one, that is between commas in the middle of sentences, is confusing to international players sometimes that are not familiar with the English sentence rules.

Can also be confusing to people who feel they need to read too much into something because they have a higher education and feel they must apply all possibilities to a sentence and, therefore, confuse themselves.

Can also be confusing to people who feel they need to read too much into something because they have a higher education and feel they must apply all possibilities to a sentence and, therefore, confuse themselves.

Thanks for that, you stay classy.

The fact remains, the card has ambiguous wording and it wouldn't be the first time. You can't just declare "well it obviously says this."

Can also be confusing to people who feel they need to read too much into something because they have a higher education and feel they must apply all possibilities to a sentence and, therefore, confuse themselves.

Thanks for that, you stay classy.

The fact remains, the card has ambiguous wording and it wouldn't be the first time. You can't just declare "well it obviously says this."

You usually can in a game where it's not designed to confuse people and the "ambiguous" wording comes from people over thinking said wording.

Can also be confusing to people who feel they need to read too much into something because they have a higher education and feel they must apply all possibilities to a sentence and, therefore, confuse themselves.

Thanks for that, you stay classy.

The fact remains, the card has ambiguous wording and it wouldn't be the first time. You can't just declare "well it obviously says this."

You usually can in a game where it's not designed to confuse people and the "ambiguous" wording comes from people over thinking said wording.

It really is not as clear-cut as you say it is. As has been brought up before you'd think that False Lead might mean that the runner can lose one click as well if he only has 1 click left but it doesn't. If the runner doesn't have 2 clicks left then he doesn't lose any. That's not so different from this case. I think we may need an official ruling on this one.

Can also be confusing to people who feel they need to read too much into something because they have a higher education and feel they must apply all possibilities to a sentence and, therefore, confuse themselves.

Thanks for that, you stay classy.

The fact remains, the card has ambiguous wording and it wouldn't be the first time. You can't just declare "well it obviously says this."

You usually can in a game where it's not designed to confuse people and the "ambiguous" wording comes from people over thinking said wording.

I literally don't understand how you can say this. You play AGOT, you know that game's lengthy FAQ and errata *exist* because of all the times that a sloppily-templated card either created an edge case that had to be clarified, or a card Like Griff or Call of the Three-Eyed-Crow literally can't work with the text on the card written as is. You're not thinking. Just up and deciding you know how best to read a card is a really bad precedent.

I literally don't understand how you can say this. You play AGOT, you know that game's lengthy FAQ and errata *exist* because of all the times that a sloppily-templated card either created an edge case that had to be clarified, or a card Like Griff or Call of the Three-Eyed-Crow literally can't work with the text on the card written as is. You're not thinking. Just up and deciding you know how best to read a card is a really bad precedent.

that's exactly why the card's wording doesn't confuse me. I'm not thinking about it. I just go by the precedent of other cards with similar "ambiguous" wording on them that were clarified/errata'd. You named one of them yourself. False Lead is a similar "could be misinterpreted" wording that was ruled you lose two or you lose none. Tollbooth is another example. If you can't spend the three credits, you don't lose any, and it ends the run, but if you have at least three, you lose three.

Why would they make a card that only is able to trigger off of two, maybe three cards (don't have a card list with costs in front of me), and doesn't even save you really any money. Monolith for a total of 11 credits and 2 actions (and that's if you time it perfectly to be on top of your deck, so, not to mention all the card draw and credit gaining to get to that point in the first place)... no thanks, but Femme Fatale for three credits, sure.

It really is not as clear-cut as you say it is. As has been brought up before you'd think that False Lead might mean that the runner can lose one click as well if he only has 1 click left but it doesn't. If the runner doesn't have 2 clicks left then he doesn't lose any. That's not so different from this case. I think we may need an official ruling on this one.

An official ruling is most likely going to be the same, uncomplicated interpretation, where it translates to installing a card, if able, while reducing the cost by up to 10 credits, depending on how much the card costs to install in the first place.

I literally don't understand how you can say this. You play AGOT, you know that game's lengthy FAQ and errata *exist* because of all the times that a sloppily-templated card either created an edge case that had to be clarified, or a card Like Griff or Call of the Three-Eyed-Crow literally can't work with the text on the card written as is. You're not thinking. Just up and deciding you know how best to read a card is a really bad precedent.

that's exactly why the card's wording doesn't confuse me. I'm not thinking about it. I just go by the precedent of other cards with similar "ambiguous" wording on them that were clarified/errata'd. You named one of them yourself. False Lead is a similar "could be misinterpreted" wording that was ruled you lose two or you lose none. Tollbooth is another example. If you can't spend the three credits, you don't lose any, and it ends the run, but if you have at least three, you lose three.

Why would they make a card that only is able to trigger off of two, maybe three cards (don't have a card list with costs in front of me), and doesn't even save you really any money. Monolith for a total of 11 credits and 2 actions (and that's if you time it perfectly to be on top of your deck, so, not to mention all the card draw and credit gaining to get to that point in the first place)... no thanks, but Femme Fatale for three credits, sure.

It really is not as clear-cut as you say it is. As has been brought up before you'd think that False Lead might mean that the runner can lose one click as well if he only has 1 click left but it doesn't. If the runner doesn't have 2 clicks left then he doesn't lose any. That's not so different from this case. I think we may need an official ruling on this one.

An official ruling is most likely going to be the same, uncomplicated interpretation, where it translates to installing a card, if able, while reducing the cost by up to 10 credits, depending on how much the card costs to install in the first place.

I agree that it most likely means what you say it means but to dismiss the oposing view as overthinking is unfair.

I literally don't understand how you can say this. You play AGOT, you know that game's lengthy FAQ and errata *exist* because of all the times that a sloppily-templated card either created an edge case that had to be clarified, or a card Like Griff or Call of the Three-Eyed-Crow literally can't work with the text on the card written as is. You're not thinking. Just up and deciding you know how best to read a card is a really bad precedent.

that's exactly why the card's wording doesn't confuse me. I'm not thinking about it. I just go by the precedent of other cards with similar "ambiguous" wording on them that were clarified/errata'd. You named one of them yourself. False Lead is a similar "could be misinterpreted" wording that was ruled you lose two or you lose none. Tollbooth is another example. If you can't spend the three credits, you don't lose any, and it ends the run, but if you have at least three, you lose three.

Why would they make a card that only is able to trigger off of two, maybe three cards (don't have a card list with costs in front of me), and doesn't even save you really any money. Monolith for a total of 11 credits and 2 actions (and that's if you time it perfectly to be on top of your deck, so, not to mention all the card draw and credit gaining to get to that point in the first place)... no thanks, but Femme Fatale for three credits, sure.

It really is not as clear-cut as you say it is. As has been brought up before you'd think that False Lead might mean that the runner can lose one click as well if he only has 1 click left but it doesn't. If the runner doesn't have 2 clicks left then he doesn't lose any. That's not so different from this case. I think we may need an official ruling on this one.

An official ruling is most likely going to be the same, uncomplicated interpretation, where it translates to installing a card, if able, while reducing the cost by up to 10 credits, depending on how much the card costs to install in the first place.

I agree entirely, I said as much, because if that isn't the eventual answer then the card is a waste of deck space. If I had a nickel for every errata in the AGOT FAQ that boiled down to "of *course* it works that way" I'd have...well, money for parking downtown.