.Zephyr. said:

I believe that's right, and when put that way, it makes vastly more sense than the FAQ, which at this point may be in dire need of a TL;DR.

I myself did not understand the subtle distinction between "player action" and "action" until a few months ago. And it always seeks to elude my understanding. Take this passage for example:

Oh I don't agree with that ruling on Hamu at all.

Hrm. Time for an email. There has got to be something I'm missing, or he is.

HilariousPete said:

I sent this section of the FAQ to Damon and challenged both the decisions on Hamu and the Logan ( with skill bonus ) / Necronomicon about 4 days ago. He's usually very prompt so either he's too busy or is PERHAPS re-evaluating. The designation of applicable targets is the key wording here as this happens before either reach the discard pile. The ONLY reasoning I can see ( and it would be a total whack job reasoning ) is that you designate the discard pile as the target, but this doesn't sit right with me.

Another question answered :

Rule Question:

just a quickie this time. if for example Constricting Elder Thing chooses a relic as the card to return to hand, which takes precedence ? the return to hand OR the when relic leaves play shuffle into deck ?? thanks.

Answer:

Very intriguing question. The passive is not a replacement effect so technically the Relic leaves play to be returned to hand and the moment it gets there the passive then resolves on the card causing it to be shuffled into the owner's deck.

This is how a Snow Graves prevents a destroyed or sacrificed relic from being shuffled into the deck, because it must actually hit the discard pile first where its effect then immediately tries to resolve but is halted by Snow Graves conflicting, but absolute, passive effect.

Funny though. Sent this one after the above question and no answer to that one yet……….

COCLCG said:

Then, If a am playing Initiate of Huang Hun with a Snow Graves over opponent's discard… his character don't go to his hand?

No. The returned character doesn't hit the discard pile first, it goes straight to hand, so don't worry about that one. The only real relevance this question has is to Relics, because they have the 'when leaves play shuffle into deck' text, and the characters Constricting Elder Thing and Lodge Housekeeper, which may try and return them to hand.

When an action reads "put into play from your hand" do I have to pay the costs of that specific card?

Thanks!

Mnemonaut said:

Please note that this thread is supposed to be used to post official answers anyone received from FFG and not to ask rule questions.

browsing the forums I came up to this rule answer:

Rule Question:
What is the proper timing for Prophesy cards?
E.g. Hastur's Hamu XX 15:14 says:
"Response: After a character is made insane, discard Hamu XX 15:14 from the top of your deck to choose up to two cards in your discard pile. Add those cards to your hand."
Can I choose the Prophesy card just triggered as one of the cards to be added to my hand from the discard pile?

Answer:
Yes. You pay the cost of the card and then choose its targets.

Now I am a bit puzzled: this answer doesn't really fit the current action framework from the current faq.

a) Determine the cost (to either playthe card or pay for the card’s effect) or costs (if multiple costs are necessary for the intended action).
b) Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected.
c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any effects that modify a penalty are applied to that penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)
d) Apply any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s).
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Play the card, or trigger the effect, and proceed to step two.

Now, Hamu XX in order to be able to target itself need to be in the discard pile during b. During b however Hamu is still sitting on the player's deck since it can get into the discard pile only during phase e) Thus I'd rather say that by current framework it is not possible to have Hamu XX target itself.

Am I right?

If I am, care if I post the updated answer?

Thank you for your time.

Answer:

As far as my understanding goes, yes you are correct. As always Damon might correct me. But I would say that I am fairly confident on this one.

Seeing as this topic is dedicated to answers straight from Damon Stone, one can only presume that apparently the answer you quoted (the one posted by Jhaelen) WAS the official ruling made by him.

COCLCG said:

Feel free to attempt to get an official verification (or clarification). I felt the ruling was a bit odd myself, but then I'm regularly surprised by official rulings

Lo and behold, just as I was complaining of not having received answers for a long time, I received two replies to questions asked over two months ago:

Rule Questions:
1) Is it possible for the defending player to succeed at a story?

2) If a card copies another card's text or effect and the text includes self-references (i.e. the card's title) is it replaced by the card's title that is copying the effect?

Examples for affected cards: Richard Upton Pickman and Neil's Curiosity Shop.

Answers:

#1 is just part of the definition in the rulebook.  "After the four icon struggles, the active player determines if he has been successful at the story."  I guess I always took that one as pretty evident.

#2 I think is a case of the card does what it says.  If it copied the text box AND the title, then it would have to say that.  Otherwise, if it only says that it copies the text box then that's all it copies.

dboeren said:

Note also that only the active player may place a success token for being successful at a story.

This is semantically equivalent to the following sentence:

Note also that the defending player may not place a success token for being successful at a story.

If the defending player cannot succeed at a story period, the sentence wouldn't be required and is in fact slightly misleading.

Regarding #2 I never assumed that the title was copied. My assumption was that any occurence of the card's title in the text box is basically a reference to the card's title, i.e. equivalent to the text saying 'this card'. In other words I expected the reference to the card's title to adjust if the card's title changed for any reason.

But apparently card titles are simply part of the text and not actually references. And that confuses the hell out of me because the FAQ speaks about self-referential cards:

A card that is self-referential (that is, has card text that refers to itself by Title) refers only to itself, and not to any other copies of that card.

Since we just found out that card titles in the text box are not in fact references, how can they cause the card to be self-referential?

It's probably the software-engineer in me that causes me to question these things that make perfect sense to anyone else.

Some answers from FFG / Damon Stone I got today.

1) Lucas Tetlow: May I also take control of a support with a play requirement, e.g. "Attach to X" like Infernal Obsession? If yes, may I make a new selection for X (and e.g. take control of my opponent's character with his own Infernal Obsession)?

Yes, but all play restrictions must be met.

2) If yes to 1), what happens if I can't fulfill "attach to X"? (E.g. Prize Pistol and me not playing Agency). Does the effect fizzle, or is the support discarded, or may I not even trigger Tetlow's effect at all?

You must be able to meet the play restrictions of the card to trigger Lucas Tetlow.

3) Expert Testimony: May an already exhausted character be committed with Expert Testimony?
(I think yes, because of the Cats of Ulthar fragment in FAQ… but official clarification would be good.)

Yes, a card effect that commits a character requires no special states or costs other than those stated on the card. Exhausting is required only if the card says or if a character is committed to a story by the game rules.

4) Expert Testimony: May an already committed character be committed to another story? If yes, what happens with its former story, is the character uncommitted from that story and committed to the new one? Or is he committed to 2 stories simultaneously?

Characters cannot be committed to more than a single story at a time. Something that commits a character that is already committed  will uncommit it and commit it to the new story. Note: Expert Testimony cannot be used to commit a character to a story they are already committed to.

5) Ipiutak: The costs of a to-be-copied-effect do not have to be paid by me again, right? Now what happens if the cost is variable (e.g. my opponent discards X=2 cards from his hand to play Unbound and destroys one of my characters, is the effect copied with X=2, or with X=0, or may not be copied at all?)

It is copied with x=0.

6) Are struggle booster icons also icons? (E.g. Does Glaaki remove Whitton Greene's investigation booster icon? And does The Hall School allow me to add a investigation booster icon to each of my characters?)

No. Icon boosters are icon boosters, a completely different thing.