Outcasts Starter Box

[Thatguy]

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

from memory that is because the trigger refers to the amount suffered later on

Execute triggers and Undying refer back to a May statement too. I guess I'm not why understanding the reasoning why wounds actually lost is different than referencing the number of cards actually discarded. 

You may suffer wounds. Then the second part references how many (0,1 or 2) you actually lost. 

That seem the same as:

You may discard cards. Then the second part references how many (1 or 0) you actually discarded. 

Since there's a differing interpretation, it might be good to get a faq. Yannic's ability seems pretty strong to me, even without a broad interpretation.

[Adran]

8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Execute triggers and Undying refer back to a May statement too. I guess I'm not why understanding the reasoning why wounds actually lost is different than referencing the number of cards actually discarded. 

You may suffer wounds. Then the second part references how many (0,1 or 2) you actually lost. 

That seem the same as:

You may discard cards. Then the second part references how many (1 or 0) you actually discarded. 

Since there's a differing interpretation, it might be good to get a faq. Yannic's ability seems pretty strong to me, even without a broad interpretation.

It's not it being a may, it's the nature of the question asked. If the question is did you suffer damage/discard a card then its a yes as far as the game is concerned, if the question is how much damage did you suffer, or what suit/value was the card then you get a null response. 

If there was an effect that relied on the number of cards discarded then you would count the number actually discarded, but if ingenuity made the number0, it would still count as a number of cards discarded. 

[solkan]

It’s a “would” effect that ends up doing something completely different.  In the single case, you discarded a marker instead of a card, so you didn’t discard any cards.
 

Just like a model with Nihilm which discards a card won’t set off Misery.

 

Edit:  And, yeah, it does create a situation where you resolve a “discard a card to ....” effect but won’t resolve and passive abilities triggered by discarding a card.

 

[Azahul]

Sorry, I'm not following this exchange very well. Does that mean Yannic's Ingenuity can't be used to pay costs like the Discard a card for Juggernaut or For the Corps? Or if those are fine, what about something like Parker's Draw Their Attention ("Discard a card to take the Interact action")?

[Thatguy]

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

Sorry, I'm not following this exchange very well. Does that mean Yannic's Ingenuity can't be used to pay costs like the Discard a card for Juggernaut or For the Corps? Or if those are fine, what about something like Parker's Draw Their Attention ("Discard a card to take the Interact action")?

My interpretation is that it works for paying costs and stuff like that. 

But not abilities like Undying or the Execute trigger that give you the option of discarding a card,then have a second portion that refers back to whether you actually discarded in the first part.

[Azahul]

1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

My interpretation is that it works for paying costs and stuff like that. 

But not abilities like Undying or the Execute trigger that give you the option of discarding a card,then have a second portion that refers back to whether you actually discarded in the first part.

Ok. Do rules like Draw their Attention (on Parker) or Armoury (Steam Trunk) fall into the former or latter category? Their discard mechanics aren't explicitly costs, in that they're not Italicized, just worded "may discard a card to do X".

[Adran]

5 hours ago, Thatguy said:

My interpretation is that it works for paying costs and stuff like that. 

But not abilities like Undying or the Execute trigger that give you the option of discarding a card,then have a second portion that refers back to whether you actually discarded in the first part.

If execute was instead written. 

"The target may discard a card. If it does not, it is killed, ignoring Demise Abilities."

Would that make a difference?

Or would it have to be written

"The target is killed unless it discards a card"

4 hours ago, Azahul said:

Ok. Do rules like Draw their Attention (on Parker) or Armoury (Steam Trunk) fall into the former or latter category? Their discard mechanics aren't explicitly costs, in that they're not Italicized, just worded "may discard a card to do X".

I'm pretty sure we both think they would work. I think the fundamental difference we have is when the ability says "you may discard a card, If you did so, then do X". Its the "if you did so" part we disagree on. 

[Thatguy]

8 hours ago, Azahul said:

Ok. Do rules like Draw their Attention (on Parker) or Armoury (Steam Trunk) fall into the former or latter category? Their discard mechanics aren't explicitly costs, in that they're not Italicized, just worded "may discard a card to do X".

Those should work fine. Since you're just replacing discard with removing a token and drawing instead. 

My understanding is that it "works" with stuff with the Execution trigger in that you can choose to draw a card when you would have discarded. You just wouldn't also count as discarding for the second part and stay alive.

3 hours ago, Adran said:

If execute was instead written. 

"The target may discard a card. If it does not, it is killed, ignoring Demise Abilities."

Would that make a difference?

This would be the same, if my interpretation is correct. Since it has two parts:

"The target may discard a card."

And

"If it does not (discard a card), it is killed, ignoring Demise Abilities." 

Which is still two parts, with a second part that references what happened in the first. 

3 hours ago, Adran said:

Or would it have to be written

"The target is killed unless it discards a card"

This would be different imo. Since it's closer to the Rapid Fire and Flurry wording. 

So you could use Yannic's aura and live against something like the Exorcist's Into Dust to draw and stay alive.