Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Call of Cthulhu LCG
|Search for Cards|
|Recent Card Discussion|
Yesterday, 03:17 PM by Carthoris
Yes. That makes her ideal for actions that demand a character return to hand to pay for a desired effect.
Yesterday, 04:17 AM by Saldre
Can she be triggered from returning to your hand due to HOST's effect for example?
Oct 29 2014 04:42 PM by AceRimmer
Oct 29 2014 06:06 AM by WWDrakey
Only the controller of the card.
Oct 29 2014 03:30 AM by AceRimmer
Is the stories you win, only target the controller of the card, or all players?
Thief for Hire
Oct 29 2014 01:53 AM by Zephyr
Depends on attachement.
Voice of the Jungle
Oct 29 2014 12:43 AM by Saldre
Oh darned!!! I just read this!!! It sort of kills the deck I was making!!! It involved committing lunatic characters to Mass Hysteria... and keeping them there...
Oct 29 2014 12:06 AM by Saldre
Really Savio I find is probably the most confusing card!
For example, would he be immune to "Voice of the Jungle" or what about the Conspiracy Mass Hysteria? Would his gained horror icon protect him from going crazy at that story?
I will write up an official question and ask for an official answer on Savio and his interaction with other cards!!!
I am only asking because I built a Hastur/Shub deck based on Voice of the Jungle, the Above Conspiracy and Savio and we ruled that he was immune to all of their effects due to his own passive text.
Oct 28 2014 07:38 PM by WWDrakey
Hmm, not quite convinced, as the way the FAQ defines Immunity, targeting is only a small part of it.
Here's the whole relevant card entry.
Some cards have the card text “Immune
to X” in their text boxes. This means
that they cannot be targeted by cards
with that subtype and/or card type.
This also means that if a card with
that subtype and card type does not
target a specific character, but affects
all characters or a group of characters,
these cards ignores that effect. A
character can never be immune to its
As far as I can tell, the attachment is affecting a particular group of characters here, the size of that group just happens to be "1". Note that there's no mention of immunity somehow being limited to only particular kinds of card effects, be it triggered or something else. If anything, Claret Knight just has a more limited version of immunity, and one that is actually clearly "slipped" into Cthulhu from AGoT... while Savio has the blanket one (all card effects, instead of just triggered ones).
Now, one can also quite easily deduce that what the attachments are doing (be it granting keywords, or doing something nasty) is in fact a card effect, through:
(1.1) Card Effect vs. Game Effect
All effects are either card effects or
game effects. Card effects are produced
by cards, game effects are produced by
the rules of the game
And the only reason this and the definition of Immunity do not stop attachments from attaching is that it is explicitly said that:
Cards with the Attachment subtype
are followed by the term in the card
text box “Attach to X.” (For example,
attach to a character you control). This
term is not a card effect, but rather
an additional requirement to play the
card. The requirement must be met,
regardless of if the Attachment enters
play from hand or through a card effect.
...the attaching limitations are not card effects.
I am drawing a lot of the logic from AGoT, as the definitions are very similar there, and also relying on the rulings gotten on that side from FFG.
However, if you still feel that there's a hole in my logic, I urge you to send the question to FFG and report the answer you get. I haven't TO'd as much on this side of the fence, so may very well be in the wrong.
Oct 28 2014 01:44 PM by GrahamM
I'm not entirely sure you're right, WWDrakey.
In the Immunity section of the FAQ, immunity is defined as "cannot be targeted by cards with that subtype and/or card type. This also means that if a card with that subtype and card type does not target a specific character, but effects all characters or a group of characters, these cards ignore that effect. A character can never be immune to its own effects"
As far as I know, attachments never actually target the thing being attached, and their passive abilities at the very least don't target in the way that every other targeting ability works (I would say they don't target at all) and so circumvent the whole immunity thing.
Savio is slightly more ambiguous than say The Claret Knight, who is clearly vulnerable to a Stygian Eye, since he is only immune to triggered effects rather than effects, but I would lean towards saying that passive effects of attachments bypass all forms of immunity. For example, if you attached a Khopesh to Savio, he would gain toughness +1, but would be unable to wound himself to wound one of your opponent's characters
Oct 28 2014 12:56 PM by VonWibble
Thanks for confirming. Yes, cards like Penny (and Sorrowful Man before changes to the FAQ) were what I had in mind.
And I'm quite glad the intuitive ruling that you mention is perceived as the correct one.
Oct 28 2014 06:16 AM by WWDrakey
As far as I'm aware, Immunity does not stop the card from being attached (the attaching is not a card effect, as per FAQ 2.33, but rather an additional requirement to play the card), but it will still be immune to the attachments card effects, from both players. So, playing a Sword of Y'ha-tallo on him is a waste of time (he will not gain the icons) as is your opponent trying to play Frozen Time on him (he won't be blanked). Both however can be done, but the effects of those attachments just won't affect him.
On the plus side, that means he's a good person to go touting around some Dynamite when conspiracies are afoot!
Oct 28 2014 06:08 AM by WWDrakey
AGoT, screwing with people's trust in LCG rules doing what you think they do since...
Anyway, what VonWibble has in mind, is most likely Penny, who still allows choice of something that would not happen on that side (as far as I recall). There were also other cards, but most of those got changed via FAQ at one point.
And yes, the fact that there is no 'choose' here, makes the whole thing quite obvious in the first place (even with AGoT rules), and even if it didn't, CoC behaves a lot more intuitively with regard to such a situation with the 'choose' word being thrown in the mix (here's an FFG forum thread discussing Apeirophobia, which is kinda related, end result being that FFG ruled you cannot go with the 'drive insane' option if it is not possible).
So, I'm with dboeren, no AGoT-y squirming out of this one.
Oct 27 2014 11:50 PM by Saldre
Ahh but a lot of attachments cards have an effect- even if its a passive, so would you allow THEIR effects to trigger on Savio during your turn and the opponent would then be able to trigger his own attachment cards on Savio during his turn? Like frozen in time, for example, which would only blank Savio on an opponent's turn?
Oct 27 2014 08:00 PM by dboeren
Night is just a keyword, it does not make him suddenly not be a character card or become something different. So yes, you can still attach cards on him.
He is immune to your own effects as well. If he was only supposed to be immune to opponent's effects it would say so.
Oct 27 2014 07:58 PM by dboeren
"There are other LCGs where they can, and this guy wouldn't be very good as a result."
Can you give an example? I suspect that the situations are not that similar but I cannot confirm this without seeing an actual card.
The card is not about choosing anything, it is about having to DO something. You're asking whether you can choose to do something, fail to do it, and then say "ha ha, l can't do it but I ALREADY CHOSE, so it's too late!" Maybe some game does have a card like that, but this card is not of that
type. If you cannot perform one of the options, then you must perform the other.
Oct 27 2014 12:00 PM by VonWibble
I'm going to need more than just quoting the text I'm afraid. I think my question is better phrased as
"If a player is given a choice of 2 effects from a card, can he choose an effect he cannot complete?"
There are other LCGs where they can, and this guy wouldn't be very good as a result. Hence the question.
Oct 27 2014 09:41 AM by mic
"each opponent must drain one domain or return a character he controls to its owners hand"
Oct 27 2014 08:40 AM by VonWibble
If the opponent already has all domains drained, can they still choose to drain a domain and therefore get out of having to return a character to hand?
Oct 26 2014 11:19 PM by Saldre
I have a question.
When Savio Corvi turns into a Night Card, can you still attach cards on him?
Is he immune to your own effects? Spells that boost icons or modify them that YOU play? Like the Yellow Sign for example, or any such card?
|Browse Full Sets|