Sometimes a card allows you to examine one or more cards—that means looking at the specified card and then putting it back where it came from.
If, for any reason, you are ever required to remove one or more cards from your deck and you don’t have enough cards, your character dies.
Before you act, examine the top 3 cards of your deck, then recharge 1, discard 1, and bury 1.
Lirianne encountered the Cyclops Oracle with a single card in her deck. My reasoning at the moment was that examining couldn't make her die because that doesn't actually remove cards from the deck, but yields a pool of a single card from which to recharge, discard, and bury. That being partly impossible since the pool contains a single card, Lirianne would just recharge a card and not die.
The more I think of it, the more I doubt. What do you think?
Examining cards is not fatal in the card game.
Not so far, anyway.
Mike's answer addresses that examining doesn't kill you, but I believe that the encounter with Cyclops Oracle does kill you.
Unless I've been playing the game horribly wrong, the examining would still go off (yielding only a single card), and then you need to recharge, discard, and bury one each of the cards you just examined. Since the examined cards are still part of your deck, failing to discard/bury them means that you are unable to remove a card from your deck, meaning your character dies.
The only way I could see this preventing you from dying is if you weren't allowed to examine any cards to begin with due to there being less than 3 cards left, in which case you can make the argument that the entire sentence forms one instruction per the golden rule so you get to ignore the nastiness. However, if you rule this way then you also need to rule that Augury/Scrying don't let you examine locations with less than 3 cards or that you ignore a Cure entirely if it tells you to heal more cards than you have in your discard pile. I certainly don't play those cards that way, and I can't think of anyone that would argue that is how those cards are meant to be played. As such, we need to be consistent and say "if Augury lets us look at a 1 or 2 card location deck, then examining 3 cards from our own character deck works the same -- we look at what is left."
Since you then followed that instruction to examine the top 3 cards of your deck, you need to follow the part after the "then" as well, meaning you need to remove cards from your deck that don't exist, meaning your character dies.
1. The examine is "truncated" in this case, per the rule of Dealing with Cards:
"If you're told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren't that many cards available, use as many as there are."
2. Examining does not remove cards (no rule quotation; it's a required interpretation for Mike's just-now statement that examining is not fatal. If examining did remove the cards even for a moment, Lirianne would deck herself in that moment.)
3. The second half of the power targets the examined cards. Suppose Lirianne has two cards. Both get examined, one gets recharged, the other discarded. The burial becomes an impossible instruction because there wasn't a third card examined.
True grit indeed.
1. The examine is "truncated" in this case, per the rule of Dealing with Cards:
"If you're told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren't that many cards available, use as many as there are."2. Examining does not remove cards (no rule quotation; it's a required interpretation for Mike's just-now statement that examining is not fatal. If examining did remove the cards even for a moment, Lirianne would deck herself in that moment.)
3. The second half of the power targets the examined cards. Suppose Lirianne has two cards. Both get examined, one gets recharged, the other discarded. The burial becomes an impossible instruction because there wasn't a third card examined.
True grit indeed.
Thanks for the catch for the Dealing with Cards rule, I overlooked that one in my own skim for my reply. That said, while the burial is an impossible instruction in your case, since the cards are in your deck and being removed from your deck, the fact it is impossible means (in my opinion) that you die due to being unable to bury that card. However for a 2-card case I'd also argue you can do the discard and bury and ignore the recharge (since recharging doesn't remove a card, ignoring that bit doesn't kill you if there are no cards to recharge). The card doesn't specify that you have to recharge then discard then bury, so you can choose the order in which to carry out the actions.
While the power is indeed targeting the examined cards, the examined cards are still part of your deck, so a power removing examined cards from your deck is still a power removing cards from your deck. The "for any reason" in the Dying section bit covers that interpretation, in my opinion.
While the power is indeed targeting the examined cards, the examined cards are still part of your deck, so a power removing examined cards from your deck is still a power removing cards from your deck. The "for any reason" in the Dying section bit covers that interpretation, in my opinion.
Let's see if I can explain it with an example.
Say I have two cards, A and B. I have to resolve this thing's power, so...
1. I examine A and B. The third examine doesn't happen.
2. I recharge A.
3. I discard B.
4. I bury... Ø.
What is Ø? It doesn't seem to be an examined card. Or an examined non-card, for that matter, because I never examined... whatever it is. That's why I think the burial becomes impossible and I survive.
So, to be clear, Sandslice is suggesting that because the reveal is impossible, you can survive?
So if you didn't have to reveal, but the Cyclops just said "Recharge the top card of your deck, discard the top card of your deck, and bury the top card of your deck" we all agree you would die?
|
Yes, that would definitely kill you Orbis, since you aren't limited to a specific set of cards. Well, assuming you only have one card and not two. With two though you'd be safe but you'd be burying the recharged card.
I'm with Sandslice on this one. It specifically requires you to do the action with one of the examined cards. The examined card doesn't exist, so you ignore the impossible instruction. The rules say you simply do the action (examine) with less cards if you don't have enough, so in this case you only have one or two cards to do three actions with. Nothing ever remotely tells you to stretch those three actions outside the cards you are currently examining, so you are safe.
So, to be clear, Sandslice is suggesting that because the reveal is impossible, you can survive?
So if you didn't have to reveal, but the Cyclops just said "Recharge the top card of your deck, discard the top card of your deck, and bury the top card of your deck" we all agree you would die?
Second thing first:
-With one card in deck, that would kill you on the bury.-With two cards, you'd survive (because the recharged card makes itself available to bury.)
If the Cyclops said "...the top card of your deck" instead of "1" each time, then yes, it could kill if you only had one card.
----
That said, if the Cyclops's first part actually said to reveal (or display) 3 cards from the top of your deck, you'd be dead before worrying about the second part. Reveal and display actually remove the cards from their location.
Examine doesn't remove the cards. :)
Perhaps the Cyclops could say:
[quote=Cyclops Oracle
]Before you act, examine the top 3 cards of your deck; you may rearrange them. Then recharge, discard, and bury the top three cards of your deck (in that order).
We are looking into this.
Why change it at all?
While the examine may not kill and may not be fully performed, the Recharge, Discard and Bury will depending on the number of cards. One card left, dead. Two cards left, not dead.
I disagree, discard, bury and recharge use the same terminology:
Discard: Put it into your discard pileRecharge: Put it facedown at the bottom of your character deck
Bury: Put it under your character card
All require removing it from its current location, what needs to be clarified is where exactly that is. Where do "examined cards " exist? Are they still considered to be a part of where they came from, or are they in their own space? If they are in their own space, then should they be considered removed when examined? Examining may end up killing.
Examining cards is not fatal in the card game.
Not so far, anyway.
This is probably what Mike and the team are looking into, which means they have to examine every card that uses that key word to see how it may effect the game before making a decision. Either way, with the game mechanics, it looks as though one of the effects (either examining, or the result of the cards still being part of the deck) will kill off the character.
We are looking into this.
Note that Siren Caller has a similar mechanic:
If undefeated, examine the top 3 cards of your deck and discard any allies. Shuffle the remaining cards into your deck.
Though it seems obvious here that if you have a single card in your deck, and it is an ally, you don't die (since examining can't kill you).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is another example where I feel like having every quantum aspect of Examine explained is unnecessary. If you have a location deck with one card, and you are using a power to examine the top two cards of your location, then you can only examine one.
So extrapolating that with my own deck, if a power asks me to examine the top three cards of my deck and I only have one card, then I examine that one card. Unfortunately the next part is not something that you can disregard. I recharge that single card. I discard it. Then I die because I can't bury another.
I think the examine part is not required to be explained any further.
This is another example where I feel like having every quantum aspect of Examine explained is unnecessary. If you have a location deck with one card, and you are using a power to examine the top two cards of your location, then you can only examine one.
So extrapolating that with my own deck, if a power asks me to examine the top three cards of my deck and I only have one card, then I examine that one card. Unfortunately the next part is not something that you can disregard. I recharge that single card. I discard it. Then I die because I can't bury another.
I think the examine part is not required to be explained any further.
I follow your reasoning behind your other post. I was reading it as assuming that recharging had no effect on the deck. But, I think examining does need a rule clarification. Even the simplest explanation that the cards are still part of the deck they come from would resolve this. Then if Cyclops Oracle was not intended to kill of a character, errata is necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is another example where I feel like having every quantum aspect of Examine explained is unnecessary. If you have a location deck with one card, and you are using a power to examine the top two cards of your location, then you can only examine one.
So extrapolating that with my own deck, if a power asks me to examine the top three cards of my deck and I only have one card, then I examine that one card. Unfortunately the next part is not something that you can disregard. I recharge that single card. I discard it. Then I die because I can't bury another.
I think the examine part is not required to be explained any further.
Only if you can choose the same card for two of the actions. (It's not something I considered, admittedly.)
Only if you can choose the same card for two of the actions. (It's not something I considered, admittedly.)Hmmm, I might be wrong. The Recharge, Discard and Bury might require different cards. If you have two or less cards, you'd be dead.
Or you ignore impossible instructions, because if there were only 1 or 2 cards examined, you'd be performing the other actions on the mysterious Ø (which isn't an examined card.) But let's see what the shark pond decides about it.
Or you ignore impossible instructions, because if there were only 1 or 2 cards examined, you'd be performing the other actions on the mysterious Ø (which isn't an examined card.) But let's see what the shark pond decides about it.Only if you can choose the same card for two of the actions. (It's not something I considered, admittedly.)Hmmm, I might be wrong. The Recharge, Discard and Bury might require different cards. If you have two or less cards, you'd be dead.
The rulebook specifically says that in the case of the impossible instruction being "remove a card from your character deck for any reason" means you die (examined cards in the character deck are still part of the character deck, the fact you're removing examined cards is part of "for any reason").
The rulebook specifically says that in the case of the impossible instruction being "remove a card from your character deck for any reason" means you die (examined cards in the character deck are still part of the character deck, the fact you're removing examined cards is part of "for any reason").Or you ignore impossible instructions, because if there were only 1 or 2 cards examined, you'd be performing the other actions on the mysterious Ø (which isn't an examined card.) But let's see what the shark pond decides about it.Only if you can choose the same card for two of the actions. (It's not something I considered, admittedly.)Hmmm, I might be wrong. The Recharge, Discard and Bury might require different cards. If you have two or less cards, you'd be dead.
In order for it to kill you, it would also have to remove something that isn't an examined card - something that Cyclops doesn't do because cards don't do what they don't say.
|
|
We can argue to our heart's content but until Vic/Mike/et al discuss the implications of the "Examine Then Do X", we're just going to spin our wheels.
I'm quite content that if you're asked to Examine the top 3 cards and you have less than that, you can only examine the cards you have. And that examine does not kill you if there aren't enough cards.
But if you have less than three cards, what happens with the Recharge 1, Discard 1 and Bury 1?
We can argue to our heart's content but until Vic/Mike/et al discuss the implications of the "Examine Then Do X", we're just going to spin our wheels.
I'm quite content that if you're asked to Examine the top 3 cards and you have less than that, you can only examine the cards you have. And that examine does not kill you if there aren't enough cards.
But if you have less than three cards, what happens with the Recharge 1, Discard 1 and Bury 1?
I think you ignore the excess, because the examine didn't provide enough valid targets for the instruction.
....
...you know. What if the disposals are (for some reason) intended for your hand? The card's wording is awkward enough to where that's a possibility - which means that the death would possibly happen at the end of the turn (and thus may - may! - be preventable.)
|
|
No, that doesn't make any sense.
Before you act, examine the top 3 cards of your deck, then recharge 1, discard 1, and bury 1.
There is no way it means from your hand. The two questions are: a) If you have less than three cards in your deck, does examine kill you? (And I'm agreeing with Mike that it doesn't. And that relates to the use of examine in other instances.) b) Is the Then part mandatory? Do you have to Recharge 1, Discard 1 and Bury 1 if there aren't enough cards to do so?
I think the question is thus:
Do you return the examined cards before you start removing them and/or how much are they considered part of your deck?
Situation A: You examine the card(s), then replace them. Now you recharge, discard, and bury cards - since they are very clearly your deck at this point, and you can't bury one, you die.
Situation B: You examine the card(s). Examining does not remove them from your deck, so you don't die. However, since they are part of your deck, when you go to bury one and cannot, you die.
One of these two (I'm unsure which) appears to be Theryon's argument.
Situation C (Sandslice's argument as I understand it): You examine the card(s). Examine is a special state where the cards are not removed from your deck, so you don't die, but they are in a subset that isn't really in your deck either - removing cards from this subset is not necessarily removing them from your deck, even though that's the end result. Thus, when you are asked to bury one and cannot, it is an impossible instruction, not a cause for death. The cards, or lack thereof, are then returned to the deck, or, more accurately, removed from the "examined" subset.
---
I was agreeing with Sandslice until I tried to quantify everything and write it down. Now I think Situation B is correct. I do not think A is correct because then there is no point to examining the cards before hand.
Definitely whether or not examined cards still count as part of your deck while being examined is a factor, and an interesting question in its own right. I'd say the do, since nothing says they don't and since the default examine instructions will put them back where they came from.
But there is actually perhaps a more important part of the rules that I think goes in Sandslice's favor:
Sometimes a card allows you to examine one or more cards—that means looking at the specified card and then putting it back where it came from. If a card tells you to examine a deck until you find a particular card type, begin with the top card of that deck and stop when you have found a card of the correct type. Put the cards you examined back in the same order you found them, unless instructed otherwise. If you don’t find a card of the specified type, ignore any directions related to that card.
Does not finding a third card mean you can ignore the instructions for the card of the specified type? Does "being third" count as a specified type?
All these questions and more (or maybe less) will be answered soon. Until then, if this situation comes up just make the best decision you can and live with it (or I guess die with it depending on how you decide).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Being third" might not count as being a card of a specified type. But if the instructions say "Examine the top three cards of your deck, then recharge one, discard one, and bury one" it seems fairly obvious to me that this means "recharge one (of the cards you examined), ..."
I don't believe that just examining a deck to find the top three cards kills you - you just fail to find one or more cards that match the criterion, and so ignore whatever you are directed to do with those cards. So of there are no cards in your deck, you do nothing. If there is only one card you examine it, then recharge it. And if there are only two cards, you examine them then recharge one and discard the other.
The problem is the specific (vs general) rule of being unable to remove a card from your deck NOT just being ignored because it's impossible, but rather causing character death.
|
|
First, I'm not saying after you examine them you then replace them. The power on Cyclops Oracle tells you what to do with them. It is the same thing as a Spyglass or Augury where it tells you to Examine cards and then do something with them. It doesn't say to put them back before the Then clause. (It follows the "unless instructed otherwise" part of the rulebook that Hawkmoon quoted.)
I'm just saying that I accept Mike's above initial ruling about examining not killing a person if you don't have enough cards.
But the question becomes whether the part of the power "Then Recharge 1, Discard 1, and Bury 1" is mandatory whether you have examined three cards or less. And if less, what happens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just FYI, we had a stack of issues that we were dealing with that are now in the Wrath FAQ. Once those are dealt with, we'll circle around to this.
The answer has significant impacts on Mummy's Mask, so we're making sure we get an answer we want.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I can tell you this for sure: Examining a card does not remove it from its location, and the rule "If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are" applies to the first part.
It's the second part that needs some debatin'.
Definitively winning the weekly "best can'o'worms" contest.
Getting this one out on a week where WotR is launched, MM announced and Paizocon wrapped up... kudos Fayries.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I can tell you this for sure: Examining a card does not remove it from its location, and the rule "If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are" applies to the first part.
It's the second part that needs some debatin'.
I don't have the exact wording for the resolution yet, but the answer is going to be that you die.
I don't have the exact wording for the resolution yet, but the answer is going to be that you die.That said, I can tell you this for sure: Examining a card does not remove it from its location, and the rule "If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are" applies to the first part.
It's the second part that needs some debatin'.
Well at least it's you telling us this and not a doctor. :P
Vic will have the final say on the logic here, but I'm going to tell you the philosophical argument as to why the Cyclops Oracle kills you when you only have 1 or 2 cards in your deck: You should not be more likely to survive the closer you are to death.
If you didn't have to deal with cards you don't have:
Character A has 3 cards. He must put 2 of them somewhere other than his deck and 1 of them at the bottom of his deck. He is 1 card away from dying.
Character B has 2 cards. He must put 1 of them somewhere other than his deck and 1 of them at the bottom of his deck. He is 1 card away from dying.
Character C has 1 card. He must put it at the bottom of his deck. He is 1 card away from dying.
Character D has 0 cards. He mustn't do anything. He is 0 cards away from dying.
Characters C and D changed nothing about their state.
Character B became 50% more likely to die.
Character A became 67% more likely to die.
Because they had more cards, Characters A and B got much worse than Characters C and D.
Contrast this with the card that says "You must discard the top card of your deck." Character A gets 33% closer to death, Character B gets 50% closer, Character C gets 100% closer, and Character D dies. That's much better for the game.*
So if the results can kill you, you have to deal with the cards you don't have in your deck. Sez me, anyway. I leave it to Vic to figure out how we're going to explain that. Might take a bit.
Mike
*By the way, this discussion gave us the idea for the slightly friendlier power "If you have at least 1 card in your deck, discard the top card of your deck." But this isn't that.
...wait. Cyclops Oracle is going to get to kill you from 2 cards, even though you can recharge first making that card available for the other action?
Seems like it'd be simpler to have it display (rather than examine) the three cards, then choose a disposal for each, in that case.
|
|
...wait. Cyclops Oracle is going to get to kill you from 2 cards, even though you can recharge first making that card available for the other action?
Seems like it'd be simpler to have it display (rather than examine) the three cards, then choose a disposal for each, in that case.
I think the problem that some people are getting is that the "Then" part of the power is what you do with the cards you have Examined. And while the Examine part isn't mandatory to have 3 cards, the rest of it is. (Yes, it is confusing. And thus, needs a bit of rewording because of this discussion.)
You can't decide to Recharge one card, then draw it back up for either the Discard or Bury. You've already committed that card to the Recharge part. So you need three cards for the second portion of the power.
Again, it needs a bit of rewording like:
Before you act, examine the top 3 cards of your deck, then recharge 1, discard 1, and bury 1. If you have two or less cards in your deck, you're dead.
:-)
Vic will have the final say on the logic here, but I'm going to tell you the philosophical argument as to why the Cyclops Oracle kills you when you only have 1 or 2 cards in your deck: You should not be more likely to survive the closer you are to death.
The Spirit of the Law should prevail against the Word of the Law everytime...
Bravo Mike.
"Before you act, draw three cards, then recharge one of those cards, discard another one, and bury the last one."
"If you’re told to do something other than drawing from your deck with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are"
Just proposing...
Vic will have the final say on the logic here, but I'm going to tell you the philosophical argument as to why the Cyclops Oracle kills you when you only have 1 or 2 cards in your deck: You should not be more likely to survive the closer you are to death.
If you didn't have to deal with cards you don't have:
Character A has 3 cards. He must put 2 of them somewhere other than his deck and 1 of them at the bottom of his deck. He is 1 card away from dying.
Character B has 2 cards. He must put 1 of them somewhere other than his deck and 1 of them at the bottom of his deck. He is 1 card away from dying.
Character C has 1 card. He must put it at the bottom of his deck. He is 1 card away from dying.
Character D has 0 cards. He mustn't do anything. He is 0 cards away from dying.Characters C and D changed nothing about their state.
Character B became 50% more likely to die.
Character A became 67% more likely to die.
Because they had more cards, Characters A and B got much worse than Characters C and D.Contrast this with the card that says "You must discard the top card of your deck." Character A gets 33% closer to death, Character B gets 50% closer, Character C gets 100% closer, and Character D dies. That's much better for the game.*
So if the results can kill you, you have to deal with the cards you don't have in your deck. Sez me, anyway. I leave it to Vic to figure out how we're going to explain that. Might take a bit.
Mike
*By the way, this discussion gave us the idea for the slightly friendlier power "If you have at least 1 card in your deck, discard the top card of your deck." But this isn't that.
So, is the order of recharge, discard, bury fixed? Since the card didn't specify the order to in which to take the actions (explicitly at least; it can be implied that is what is meant), but rather "just do these three things" I'd argue that in the 2-card case you wouldn't die because you can choose to discard and bury the 2 cards you examined and ignore the recharge. Since recharging doesn't remove any cards from the deck, it doesn't kill you to ignore it per the golden rule. This only works if the ordering isn't set in stone, however.
"Before you act, draw three cards, then recharge one of those cards, discard another one, and bury the last one."Just proposing...
"If you’re told to do something other than drawing from your deck with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are"
See above, if the 2 card case isn't meant to kill you due to my explanation, this would change that so it does. It can also inadvertently set off powers that deal with removing cards from your hand (are there any?)
|
|
I believe the reasoning is that you need to have a pool of 3 cards to be able to fulfill the instructions.
i.e. You examine the 3 cards. While they are being examined you must bury one, discard one and recharge one. If you recharge first, you do not get to draw the card to be available for the discard or the bury. Once recharged, it is removed from your pool of examined cards.
On top of that, the designers have stated why the math should work. You should not receive a benefit because you have few cards in your character's deck.
As I said, this is tricky wording and rulesmithing, so I'm not really taking a public stance on how it should work. I just wanted you to be aware why I came down on the side of the Cyclops Oracle harshing your mellow.
There are a bunch of cards that care about this answer, so we're making sure we get something that works for all of them.
So, is the order of recharge, discard, bury fixed?
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I believed that. Depending on the final wording of the resolution it might be or it might not be.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Again, I don't yet know what the final words to solve this will be, but I will say this:
If the card said "recharge 1, discard 1, then bury 1," the order would be fixed. *As currently worded*, it doesn't say that, so they happen simultaneously, which means you get to choose the order.
|
Sometimes a card allows you to examine one or more cards—that means looking at the specified card and then putting it back where it came from.If, for any reason, you are ever required to remove one or more cards from your deck and you don’t have enough cards, your character dies.Before you act, examine the top 3 cards of your deck, then recharge 1, discard 1, and bury 1.Lirianne encountered the Cyclops Oracle with a single card in her deck. My reasoning at the moment was that examining couldn't make her die because that doesn't actually remove cards from the deck, but yields a pool of a single card from which to recharge, discard, and bury. That being partly impossible since the pool contains a single card, Lirianne would just recharge a card and not die.
The more I think of it, the more I doubt. What do you think?
I believe Lirianne should live in this circumstance. When she encounters the card she examines the top three cards of her deck. She only has one so she examines it, as per Dealing with Cards. She then recharges it, since that is first on the list with cyclops oracle. She no longer has a card to bury or discard, but since she has fulfilled the as much of the instructions on cyclops oracle as she could, she should be okay.
Since the Cyclops Oracle has a set order, the ability should be resolved in that order. It may seem counterintuitive that having only one card in her deck should live through it, but unless the Cyclops Oracle receives errata then for now Lirianne should live to fight another day, or at least long enough for the Cyclops Oracle pounds her into mush.
Eegarding Vic's post: I strongly believe if a card has a list of things to do (like our friend the Cyclops Oracle) then it should be done in the order listed on the card, unless the card specifically says to do it in any order. If it isn't already a rule, I believe it should be. It will make things simpler and reduce variation among gaming groups, which is going to be important if there is going to be a competitive format of the PACG, as has been hinted at in the blog.
I believe Lirianne should live in this circumstance. When she encounters the card she examines the top three cards of her deck. She only has one so she examines it, as per Dealing with Cards. She then recharges it, since that is first on the list with cyclops oracle. She no longer has a card to bury or discard, but since she has fulfilled the as much of the instructions on cyclops oracle as she could, she should be okay.
Since the Cyclops Oracle has a set order, the ability should be resolved in that order. It may seem counterintuitive that having only one card in her deck should live through it, but unless the Cyclops Oracle receives errata then for now Lirianne should live to fight another day, or at least long enough for the Cyclops Oracle pounds her into mush.
Eegarding Vic's post: I strongly believe if a card has a list of things to do (like our friend the Cyclops Oracle) then it should be done in the order listed on the card, unless the card specifically says to do it in any order. If it isn't...
It's been stated by Vic above that Lirianne dies in this scenario -- that much is already known. What won't be known until the final wording comes out is whether or not someone with 2 cards remaining in their deck could live through the Oracle. This may take some time, as Mike hinted that the answer will impact a lot in Mummy's Mask and future sets so they want to make sure to take the time to get it right and get wording they are happy with using on future cards.
I disagree on the ordering thing, I think it is perfectly fine to say no explicit ordering = you get to choose (aka what the current rule is). In a competitive PACG scenario this gives a leg up to those who are more familiar with the rules (a good thing imo). What is unclear is whether or not allowing the player to choose is what the Cyclops Oracle in particular should do, there are plenty of instances elsewhere where being able to choose makes things a lot better.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eegarding Vic's post: I strongly believe if a card has a list of things to do (like our friend the Cyclops Oracle) then it should be done in the order listed on the card, unless the card specifically says to do it in any order.
The rulebook explicitly says that the default is exactly the opposite: "If the game doesn’t specify an order for things, you decide the order."
The real problem here is that it's not obvious which of these rules apply to the situation:
"If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction."
or:
"If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are. For example, if you’re told to draw 4 cards from a deck that has only 3 cards, draw the 3 cards. (Regardless, if you need to remove any number of cards from the blessings deck and don’t have enough, you lose the scenario; if you need to remove any number of cards from your deck and don’t have enough, your character dies.)"
The latter, not the former, should apply here. (The wording will *certainly* change on the former, and we *may* change the wording of the latter and/or the card in question.)