The Foundation

Danigral - 5 out of 5. Okay so not the greatest beatstick, but that ability is amazing, especially - once again - when using extra domains via Eldritch Nexus. It can really swing games. So it looks like a government deck will be very defensive, draw the game out while you build up your domains and stall your opponent, and then swing it hard with The Foundation to waltz into stories. Once he’s out, he provides a lot of protection with his disrupt, arguably the best ability in this box.

 

mnBroncos - 4 out of 5. I wish these guys had toughness or willpower without that I can only give them a four at the cost. However, also can be paid with multiple domains (where you want to) and can be reduced by Lt. Wilson. Very solid guy that can remove two characters from the board and then next turn if he is still on the board you can have access to protection at any times.

 

Obtuse - 4 out of 5. I love that the new box is making large Agency characters actually playable. He’s like a Many Angled Thing on steroids if you drain multiple domains for him. Can reduce him with the LT of course, and oh yea, he can cancel out abilities targeting your agency characters. One downside to draining all your domains to pay for him is you won’t have anything open to use his disrupt for a turn, making him vulnerable to wounding effects like Khopesh. At 8 cost and 5 skill he does get around much of the other removal out there though. Big body, big (but manageable) cost, big abilities. Hopefully you draw him in the mid game though, otherwise he’s probably a resource.

 

Kamacausey-5 out of 5. What an ability!!! He is yet another card that screams to be abused with eldritch nexus from this set. For me his score is not based off of his stats, but off of his game changing/swinging abilities. If removing your opponents characters from the game isn't enough to seal the deal when he comes into play he is going to make it near impossible to kill of your agency characters once you refresh your domains on the following turn. This guy is top notch! Talk about saving the best for last!

 

livingend - 5 out of 5. Now this is what I’m talking about. 8 is a ton of resources but if you ever get to drop these bad boys, you’re gonna be a massive favorite to win the game. Remember when I said that Eldritch Nexus and the like are effectively Feed Her Young for cards that let you drain multiple domains? Well, this also wipes your opponent’s entire board in the process. Still not enough? Okay, on top of that your opponent’s targeted removal becomes useless once you refresh with The Foundation under your control. Verdict: “How’d your tournament go?” “Meh, went 0-2 drop. Freaking Foundation got me on turn 5 both times.”

 

WWDrakey & Ire - 5 out of 5. Yowza. Now that's the kind of impact a 8-cost card needs to have to be good. And with Government now packing solid cost-reduction... these guys will be the end-game wrecking ball for Agency to pack.

"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

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:

Can the card The Foundation (F20 - For the Greater Good) which states :

 

Disrupt: Pay 1 to cancel an effect that would target 1 or more [Agency] characters you control.  

 

use it’s triggered effect to cancel a wound or stop a character from being driven insane due to the lose of an icon  struggle? In other words, is the effect of an icon struggle a targeted effect?

 

 

Here is his reply:

 Yes icon struggles target characters so can be canceled for 1 by way of The Foundation.

 

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.