Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Arkham Horror: The Card Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: either/or choices rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Peter Waldner
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmb
Hi, just a quick question:

Numerous Mythos cards give you the choice between doing X or Y. For example lose 2 resources or take 2 horror.
My understanding is, that you can only choose an option if you can fully apply it, right? For example in the choice above, I could not pick the "lose 2 resources" option, if I only had 1 and would be stuck with the second option.
I can't find a reference in the rulebook about this though.
What if I can't fully apply either option?

Also, some of the choices are more complicated. For example in the carnevale of horrors scenario, I can either take horror, or "resolve the hunter kewyword on each enemy in play". Does the game check if there are any hunters in play before I can choose this option? Or am I just lucky if there are none?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. Chris Miller
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're correct. You cannot fulfill only partial of a given option.

If neither option applies, discard the card. You dodged a bullet this time! Same goes with the Carnevale example. If a given card doesn't apply, discard it and do not draw a new card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You must choose an instruction you can resolve, but it doesn't have to change the gamestate.


For example: you can "lose" things you don't have, but you can't "spend" things you don't have, so Hunting Shadow (for example) would require you to take the horror if you don't have a clue...

Hunting Shadow wrote:
Peril.

Revelation - You must choose either (choose one): Spend 1 clue or take 2 damage.


...but Abduction would allow you to lose all your resources even if you have 0 resources, while saving your Ally. (However, you can't choose an Ally if you don't control one, so if you have no Allies, you'd have to discard all your resources.

Abduction wrote:

Revelation - Test Will(3). If you fail, you must either lose all of your resources or choose and discard an Ally asset you control.


In the case of Acrid Miasma (the "take horror or resolve the hunter keyword" example you gave), if you have no Hunters, make the most of it and get no negative impact
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claudia F
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

I have the German reference book and the English version. I'll refer to English primarily and give the German reference in brackets.

I've only found this: "If an investigator takes damage or horror as a cost and reassigns any of it to an asset, the cost is still considered paid." p 7 (S. 16). So yes, you can only choose the option that you can/want to pay for in full. You'll always be able to apply the "take horror/damage" option because you get a horror/wound token.

As for your second question I guess you're just lucky -- which is rare enough in this game.

Hope this helps. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brendan Riley
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Nos operamur, te ludere
badge
"Life is more fun if you play games." - Roald Dahl
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheSil wrote:
Hi, just a quick question:

Numerous Mythos cards give you the choice between doing X or Y. For example lose 2 resources or take 2 horror.
My understanding is, that you can only choose an option if you can fully apply it, right? For example in the choice above, I could not pick the "lose 2 resources" option, if I only had 1 and would be stuck with the second option.
I can't find a reference in the rulebook about this though.
What if I can't fully apply either option?

Also, some of the choices are more complicated. For example in the carnevale of horrors scenario, I can either take horror, or "resolve the hunter kewyword on each enemy in play". Does the game check if there are any hunters in play before I can choose this option? Or am I just lucky if there are none?


It helps me to think of it like this: When I go to the store, the clerk says "You must either pay $2 for coffee or go away empty-handed." I can't choose to pay $1, so if I don't have $2, I will go away empty-handed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
coyotemoon722 wrote:
You're correct. You cannot fulfill only partial of a given option.


This is incorrect -- you can fulfill part of an option.

If you are told you "must" choose one option from several, you must choose one that will change the game state. So you could not, for example, choose to move activate all hunters in play if they're all exhausted, because exhausted hunters do not move, and that choice wouldn't therefore change the game state.

However, if a hypothetical card says, "you must either discard 2 clues or take 2 damage," if you have only one clue, you may still choose to discard your one clue to satisfy the choice because that choice does change the game state.

As such, it doesn't matter if you can't fully fulfill either option -- if you can choose an option that changes the game state, you must. But if you can't change the game state, the card whiffs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
wombat929 wrote:
TheSil wrote:
Hi, just a quick question:

Numerous Mythos cards give you the choice between doing X or Y. For example lose 2 resources or take 2 horror.
My understanding is, that you can only choose an option if you can fully apply it, right? For example in the choice above, I could not pick the "lose 2 resources" option, if I only had 1 and would be stuck with the second option.
I can't find a reference in the rulebook about this though.
What if I can't fully apply either option?

Also, some of the choices are more complicated. For example in the carnevale of horrors scenario, I can either take horror, or "resolve the hunter kewyword on each enemy in play". Does the game check if there are any hunters in play before I can choose this option? Or am I just lucky if there are none?


It helps me to think of it like this: When I go to the store, the clerk says "You must either pay $2 for coffee or go away empty-handed." I can't choose to pay $1, so if I don't have $2, I will go away empty-handed.


Alas, real world examples don't necessarily apply to card games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon H
United States
Orion Township
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
coyotemoon722 wrote:
You're correct. You cannot fulfill only partial of a given option.


This is incorrect -- you can fulfill part of an option.

If you are told you "must" choose one option from several, you must choose one that will change the game state. So you could not, for example, choose to move activate all hunters in play if they're all exhausted, because exhausted hunters do not move, and that choice wouldn't therefore change the game state.

However, if a hypothetical card says, "you must either discard 2 clues or take 2 damage," if you have only one clue, you may still choose to discard your one clue to satisfy the choice because that choice does change the game state.

As such, it doesn't matter if you can't fully fulfill either option -- if you can choose an option that changes the game state, you must. But if you can't change the game state, the card whiffs.

BD is correct. The rules being referenced so far here are for "cost:effect" costs, not forced abilities.

Furthermore, under "Effects" it says:
Quote:
When a non-targeting effect attempts to interact with a number of entities (such as "draw 3 cards" or "search the top 5 cards of your deck") that exceeds the number of entities that currently exist in the specified game area, the effect interacts with as many entities as possible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
coyotemoon722 wrote:
You're correct. You cannot fulfill only partial of a given option.


This is incorrect -- you can fulfill part of an option.

If you are told you "must" choose one option from several, you must choose one that will change the game state. So you could not, for example, choose to move activate all hunters in play if they're all exhausted, because exhausted hunters do not move, and that choice wouldn't therefore change the game state.

However, if a hypothetical card says, "you must either discard 2 clues or take 2 damage," if you have only one clue, you may still choose to discard your one clue to satisfy the choice because that choice does change the game state.

As such, it doesn't matter if you can't fully fulfill either option -- if you can choose an option that changes the game state, you must. But if you can't change the game state, the card whiffs.


Is it compulsary to change the game state? If you have an Ally in play but 0 resources and you draw Abduction in Carnivale of Horrors, are you compelled to discard the Ally? I was fairly convinced (as evidenced by my earlier response) that you can choose not to change the game state, so long as you fulfil the text (i.e. you can't choose to do an action you can't fulfil such as "spending" or "choosing" something you don't have, but you can choose to do an action which has no impact, such as discarding something you don't have or resolving a keyword that isn't currently in play).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
LeonardQuirm wrote:
Is it compulsary to change the game state? If you have an Ally in play but 0 resources and you draw Abduction in Carnivale of Horrors, are you compelled to discard the Ally? I was fairly convinced (as evidenced by my earlier response) that you can choose not to change the game state, so long as you fulfil the text (i.e. you can't choose to do an action you can't fulfil such as "spending" or "choosing" something you don't have, but you can choose to do an action which has no impact, such as discarding something you don't have or resolving a keyword that isn't currently in play).


If you had no resources to discard, you would be forced to discard the ally.

From the RRG, under "must:"

Quote:
If an investigator is instructed that he or she "must" choose among multiple options, the investigator is compelled to choose an option that has the potential to change the game state.

In the absence of the word "must" while choosing among multiple options, any option may be chosen upon the resolution of the effect – even an option that does not change the game state.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wombat929 wrote:
It helps me to think of it like this: When I go to the store, the clerk says "You must either pay $2 for coffee or go away empty-handed." I can't choose to pay $1, so if I don't have $2, I will go away empty-handed.


This is where the clarification between lose and spend comes in. If a card asks you to spend things, you must be able to satisfy it fully to do it. If a card asks you to lose, it can be only partial.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
If you are told you "must" choose one option from several, you must choose one that will change the game state. So you could not, for example, choose to move activate all hunters in play if they're all exhausted, because exhausted hunters do not move, and that choice wouldn't therefore change the game state.


Exhausted hunters can move. They just don't move during the enemy phase. Nothing is stopping other card effects from moving them. You can, for example, engage an exhausted hunter and move it around with you.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon H
United States
Orion Township
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wombat929 wrote:
It helps me to think of it like this: When I go to the store, the clerk says "You must either pay $2 for coffee or go away empty-handed." I can't choose to pay $1, so if I don't have $2, I will go away empty-handed.

I think rather that would translate to "Pay 2 resources: Add the set aside Coffee to your hand". That's a "cost:effect" construct, and those costs cannot be partial.

Or possibly "Forced - When you leave Coffee Shop, pay 2 resources. If you cannot, discard Coffee from your hand instead"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jjdelanoche wrote:
bd flory wrote:
If you are told you "must" choose one option from several, you must choose one that will change the game state. So you could not, for example, choose to move activate all hunters in play if they're all exhausted, because exhausted hunters do not move, and that choice wouldn't therefore change the game state.


Exhausted hunters can move. They just don't move during the enemy phase. Nothing is stopping other card effects from moving them. You can, for example, engage an exhausted hunter and move it around with you.


Hmm, that's interesting.

The rules for Hunter are as follows:

Quote:
Hunter is a keyword ability.

During the enemy phase (in framework step 3.2), each ready, unengaged enemy with the hunter keyword moves to a connecting location, along the shortest path towards the nearest investigator. Enemies at a location with one or more investigators do not move.

(Some bullets about tie-breaking/being blocked)


From that, I'd argue that Hunter itself doesn't move the enemies - it's more that Hunter is a flag to determine whether an enemy is moved during the framework step. But then effects that say "resolve the hunter keyword" (e.g. Acrid Miasma, and indeed Framework Step 3.2 itself) wouldn't make any sense, so we have to assume an interpretation of the Hunter rule which itself causes the move. In which case, are the conditionals (ready, unengaged) tied to the keyword or to the Framework step? The Framework step states the conditionals itself, suggesting maybe it's that, and any other resolution of the Hunter keyword should ignore the conditionals.

But then that means engaged enemies should move at that point as well! Obviously in most cases that'd be irrelevant because the nearest investigator as at its own location (obviously). But what if it's a Prey - Bearer Only enemy that's been engaged by a non-prey investigator? Does it then make a move anyway if the Hunter keyword is triggered by Acrid Miasma, and if so, does it bring the investigator it's engaged to with it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Jjdelanoche wrote:
Exhausted hunters can move. They just don't move during the enemy phase. Nothing is stopping other card effects from moving them. You can, for example, engage an exhausted hunter and move it around with you.


The card being discussed requires you to "resolve" each hunter keyword in play. If they are exhausted, their keyword does nothing by resolving. Therefore if they are all exhausted, that option cannot be selected.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
LeonardQuirm wrote:
But then that means engaged enemies should move at that point as well! Obviously in most cases that'd be irrelevant because the nearest investigator as at its own location (obviously). But what if it's a Prey - Bearer Only enemy that's been engaged by a non-prey investigator? Does it then make a move anyway if the Hunter keyword is triggered by Acrid Miasma, and if so, does it bring the investigator it's engaged to with it?


This is all covered by the rule. Only, "ready, unengaged hunters," move.

If a bearer only hunter is engaged by another investigator, it doesn't meet the latter requirement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon H
United States
Orion Township
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
LeonardQuirm wrote:
But then that means engaged enemies should move at that point as well! Obviously in most cases that'd be irrelevant because the nearest investigator as at its own location (obviously). But what if it's a Prey - Bearer Only enemy that's been engaged by a non-prey investigator? Does it then make a move anyway if the Hunter keyword is triggered by Acrid Miasma, and if so, does it bring the investigator it's engaged to with it?


This is all covered by the rule. Only, "ready, unengaged hunters," move.

If a bearer only hunter is engaged by another investigator, it doesn't meet the latter requirement.

I think his point is that the rule is only defined in terms of the enemy phase. By the strictest reading, there's no such thing in the rules as "resolving the hunter keyword" when you're not in the enemy phase. And as such, it might be argued that the unengaged and ready clauses only apply in the enemy phase. I think the rule's intent is clear, but it's true that is isn't impeccably worded.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It isn't covered by the rule. The rule says "During the enemy phase (in framework step 3.2), each ready, unengaged enemy with the hunter keyword moves to a connecting location". There's no indication whether the "ready, unengaged" part of the rule is tied to the hunter keyword, or to the "during the enemy phase" part.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
LeonardQuirm wrote:
It isn't covered by the rule. The rule says "During the enemy phase (in framework step 3.2), each ready, unengaged enemy with the hunter keyword moves to a connecting location". There's no indication whether the "ready, unengaged" part of the rule is tied to the hunter keyword, or to the "during the enemy phase" part.

Ready and unengaged aren’t tied to either of those things.

They’re states associated with individual cards.

See Enemy Engagement and Ready on pages 10 and 17, respectively, of the Rules Reference.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
...you might want to try reading the rest of my comments in the thread to understand what I'm asking there.

I'm very aware what ready and unengaged mean; I'm pointing out that there's no clear distinction whether those states are requirements for a Hunter doing its move during the Enemy phase, or requirements for a Hunter doing a move when another game instruction says to resolve the Hunter keyword, since the definition of the Hunter keyword actually doesn't give a defined effect for being resolved outside of the Enemy phase step.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Waldner
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmb
bd flory wrote:

However, if a hypothetical card says, "you must either discard 2 clues or take 2 damage," if you have only one clue, you may still choose to discard your one clue to satisfy the choice because that choice does change the game state.


Wait, are you sure about that? This seems odd... If it tells you to either discard two clues/cards etc. or suffer other consequences, how does discarding less satisfy the requirement of the card...

Putting this into another context, if a hypothetical card says "As an additional cost to play this card you must either discard two clues or two cards" you should most definitely not be able to choose one of these options if you only have 1 card/clue to discard

I was on board with the "spend X" vs. "lose X" distinction, that reasoning made sense to me, but now I am still confused about the conflicting statements made in this threat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheSil wrote:
bd flory wrote:

However, if a hypothetical card says, "you must either discard 2 clues or take 2 damage," if you have only one clue, you may still choose to discard your one clue to satisfy the choice because that choice does change the game state.


Wait, are you sure about that? This seems odd... If it tells you to either discard two clues/cards etc. or suffer other consequences, how does discarding less satisfy the requirement of the card...

Putting this into another context, if a hypothetical card says "As an additional cost to play this card you must either discard two clues or two cards" you should most definitely not be able to choose one of these options if you only have 1 card/clue to discard

I was on board with the "spend X" vs. "lose X" distinction, that reasoning made sense to me, but now I am still confused about the conflicting statements made in this threat.


Discarding cards/losing resource/taking damage all amount to the same thing in my opinion. Whereas spending is different. Also, when we're talking about costs, we're in a different ball park anyway. A cost must be paid in full. When it's Cost:Effect (as in your example) you must be able to pay the cost in full.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Waldner
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmb
Fair enough, the Cost:Effect situation is pretty clear.
I was only putting it into this context to look at the "either/or" part of the statement and was wondering why a "you must either discard X or suffer Y" statement would be handled differenly when in a cost:effect situation or a mythos event card.


I would argue that if something says "spend/discard/lose all" it should be possible to choose this option even if the amount is 0, while if something says "spend/discard/lose 2" it must be exactly 2, regardless of the situation

So "discard all weapon cards or..." is fine to choose even without any weapons while "discard 2 weapon cards or..." is impossible with only 1 weapon in play (regardless if this is on a cost->effect or mythos card)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
LeonardQuirm wrote:
...you might want to try reading the rest of my comments in the thread to understand what I'm asking there.

I'm very aware what ready and unengaged mean; I'm pointing out that there's no clear distinction whether those states are requirements for a Hunter doing its move during the Enemy phase, or requirements for a Hunter doing a move when another game instruction says to resolve the Hunter keyword, since the definition of the Hunter keyword actually doesn't give a defined effect for being resolved outside of the Enemy phase step.

I understand that.

But you were asking whether the states are tied to the Hunter keyword or to the Enemy phase, right?

So, my point is that they're not tied to either of those things. They're properties of the enemy card. And we already know that exhausted or engaged Hunters do not move. So that doesn't change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
TheSil wrote:
bd flory wrote:

However, if a hypothetical card says, "you must either discard 2 clues or take 2 damage," if you have only one clue, you may still choose to discard your one clue to satisfy the choice because that choice does change the game state.


Wait, are you sure about that? This seems odd... If it tells you to either discard two clues/cards etc. or suffer other consequences, how does discarding less satisfy the requirement of the card...

Putting this into another context, if a hypothetical card says "As an additional cost to play this card you must either discard two clues or two cards" you should most definitely not be able to choose one of these options if you only have 1 card/clue to discard

I was on board with the "spend X" vs. "lose X" distinction, that reasoning made sense to me, but now I am still confused about the conflicting statements made in this threat.

It's weird, and I'm not 100% convinced either.

Think about it this way though - if you had 1 card and 1 clue, what would you do? You have to do one of them, because it's a must. But you can't fully do either. So you choose one and do as much as you can.

But then, doesn't the 'do as much as you can' principle kick in if you have, say, 1 clue and 2 cards? Maybe not.

So, I'm not 100% sure BD Flory is wrong either.

Can anyone think of a card that has this kind of instruction on it, so we can ask FFG and hopefully get an explanation from Matt?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.