Welcome to Card Game DB
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!
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!
The Foundation
Submitted
Guest
, -- | Last updated --
![]() The FoundationShield of Humanity Type: Character Faction: The Agency Cost: 8 Skill: 5 Icons: (C) (C) (I) (I) (I) Game Text: Government. You may drain multiple domains to pay for The Foundation. For each domain beyond the first you drained when you play The Foundation, your opponent chooses a non-Ancient One character he controls and removes it from the game. Disrupt: Pay 1 to cancel an effect that would target 1 or more [Agency] characters you control. Set: For the Greater Good Number: 20 Illustrator: |
Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game, Living Card Game, the Living Card Game logo, Fantasy Flight Games, and the FFG logo are trademarks of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.
17 Comments
"Disrupt: Pay 1 to cancel an effect that would target 1 or more [Agency] characters you control."
Does this mean you can cancel struggle effects, namely the Terror and Combat struggle effects?
No, this does not target anything. It's meant for card effects that specifically target your character.
My logic in thinking this is based on the FAQ v4.0 which states:
"(1.9) Choosing Targets
The word “target†is used to indicate that an effect is directing a player to choose 1 or more cards for an effect to resolve on. Not every effect that resolves on a card is targeted. An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically using the word “choose†or “chosen†is not a targeted effect. "
and the Rulebook p.9:
"The player who loses a Terror struggle must immediately choose one of his characters (committed to that story) to go insane, if able. "
So, since you are choosing a character for a game effect to resolve on it is then a targeted effect.
But I'm probably missing something which would indicate that you are right dboeren
You're choosing, the effect isn't. If the other player got to pick who got hit then it would likely be targeted.
But the FAQ says " 'target' is used to indicate that an effect is directing a player to choose" which is what you do after loosing a struggle. Also, I don't think who chooses matters, because you certainly can target your own characters with card effects.
Here is the question I sent to Damon Stone and the answer I received:
Here is his reply:
So an icon struggle effect is a targeted effect and can be canceled by The Foundation's disrupt action.
Wow, that is crazy then. I hadn't realized The Foundation could cancel the effects of a terror or combat struggle.
For cards like this one where "You may drain multiple domains to pay" for playing them, do all the domains used need to have a faction match, or just one?
Locally I am pretty sure we have just required that you have at least one card of the correct type, not one per domain. Thats seems to be what everyone has assumed, and it has not been contested or debated by anyone.
I also didn't see the issue raised at the Australian Nationals, where there were several decks with Foundation, and people from groups in other states, all of whom seemed to play the same.
That said, I can find nothing definitive. The rules vaguely imply a matching card per domain, but only in contexts that have clearly assumed only a single domain is being used. I haven't seen any specific ruling in the rules/faq/forums.
There was a dual faction SilverTwilight/Agency deck that won the UK nationals last year, by MulletCheese(?), so he might be able to comment informatively regarding this issue. In his tournament report he does speak on the great synergy of foundation+eldritch nexus, which I think would be greatly hampered if he had run into the 1-match-per-domain interpretation.
Hm. The more I look at the rules, the more I think that there needs to be a match in each domain used.
[Card cost:] The number of resources a player needs when draining a
I read the rules you quoted before posting. The question is "one-anywhere" or "one-each".
The first and third things you quote use "the domain", making them almost useless for for directly inferring a multi-domain rule.
The middle one has more of a "one-each" wording, but isn't necessarily definitive. I also don't like rules being introduce in a "note", which are historically often not bound by careful language, still this language is almost persuasive.
But in addition to the way I have encountered it played, there is the question of the natural pluralization of the rules you quoted. I would take them to be these:
a domain -> domains, or the domains, depending on context
the domain -> the domains
the domain's -> the domains'
Applying these, we get:
1) [Card cost:] The number of resources a player needs when draining domains in order to pay for a card that he wishes to play from his hand. Note that at least one of the domains' resources must match that of the played card’s faction.
2) Also note that when draining domains to play a non-neutral card, at least one of the attached resources must be of that card’s faction (this does not apply to neutral cards). This is called making a resource match.
3) Important: Remember that at least one of the resources attached to the domains must match the faction of the card being played.
These natural transforms are clearly coherent and reasonable, implying the interpretation is also coherent and reasonable. Meanwhile, while rule two can be easily modified in either direction, it seems harder to pluralize rule 1 or 3 in support of the one-each approach without arbitrarily inserting a word like "each" into the sentences.
I think you've just demonstrated that more changes to the language are needed in order to support the 1-match-for-all reading. "When draining a domain" means, to my mind, just that--whether or not other domains are being drained in the same payment effort. The word "each" would be superfluous.
I agree w/ Carthoris. Whether one domain or many, you are draining all of them, and the rule says that in order to drain a domain to pay for playing a card you need a matching resource on that domain.
So, all the domains need a match, not just one - or at least that's how I read it.