The new FAQ has some points that I'm totally opposed !!

The new ruling on the change of status for the Guardian Pillar removes a lot of possibility to handle the card ! No more possibility to give it a Ghoul Tainted, to play Burrowing beneath during the story phase,  no possibility to use the mmoquah serpents ...

This is the worst thing I ever read on the FAQ, and I still don't know how to submit it for a change.

Just imagine how cool will be the GENCON Tournaments with :

3x Magah, 3x Pillar ,3 seventy steps .... be prepared to encounter Agency and Hasturian only decks ...

 We got a new ruling at GenCon.  Interrogation Center affects Guardian Pillar.

Interrogation Center: Neutral Characters cannot commit to stories

Guardian Pillar:  If you control more Dreamlands support cards than any opponent, you may exhaust Guardian Pillar to commit it to a story as a character with 4 skill, Terror, 3 x Combat and Invulnerability. 

This was a little surprising to me because Guardian Pillar is not a character before you exhaust to commit.  So I thought it was not a Neutral Character so not affected by Interrogation Center.  But it was ruled that when Interrogation Center is in play Guardian Pillar cannot be used as a character at a story.

Most of the decks at GenCon included Birds, 70 Steps, Cavern of Flame, Interrogation Center, Guardian Pillar, and Crazed Arsonists.

This is surprizing, as the Pillar becomes a character while he's committed ...

How could they rules it this way  ???

Probably the same way they ruled that Jack "Brass" Brady can disrupt event cards...

Some other questions I have:

1) Is Forced Response equivalent to Response in terms of triggered effects? This is in relation to Power Drain which can cancel Action and Response type effects. Can it also cancel FR?

2) What's the difference between Forced Response and Response that has "must" in its text body (vide Azathoth)? If the effect MUST be triggered, wouldn't it be better if it were changed to FR to avoid any confusion?

3) Why the hell would you put a misleading example in the previous FAQ? I mean the Jack "Brass" Brady using his disrupt on Shotgun Blast while the text of his action clearly states that it can be used before the triggered ability resolves, which would imply an effect that came from the card on the table, not in the hand.

1) Power Drain can't cancel a Forced Response or an Interrupt. In the game you have 4 triggered effects and Power Drain cancel only 2 of them (Action and Response)

2) A player choose or not to play a Response, a Forced Response must always be triggered, you have no choice.

3) The example is wrong in the faq and has never been corrected, one day may be. Jack Brady can't disrupt from an event card, only from a triggered ability (ie. a card already in play, a triggered effect from a character or support card already in play)

Manit0u said:

I agree, the wording on Azathoth is confusing, but it's likely they meant it to be a Forced Response and not Response trigger. If so, errata is needed. How Azathoth is actually played needs clarification:

1) Some say that the ruling on passive effects for Chess Prodigy would rule that the passive effect on Azathoth would still happen even if he was removed from play because the FAQ states that passive effects "based on a trigger" last until the end of the turn even if removed from play (did they mean "turn" or "story phase"?) The FAQ here is immensely confusing: errata Chess Prodigy to be a forced response then so it actually is a triggered response and not "a passive effect based on a trigger." Is Azathoth such an example of a "passive effect based on a trigger"? Is there a difference between that and just a passive effect? Is it because passive effects can't be disrupted or canceled? 

2) Some say that passive effects are removed the instant the card is removed and it is removed from play, which would make more sense and would make Azathoth actually playable. It's too dangerous otherwise and too situational to actually be of use.

 Sorry if my previous post was trollish. I don't really know what the intent of the designers were for any card. This one is a reprint of a CCG card, so I'm sure it was meant to be exactly what it is. Clarification on the wording in the FAQ for Chess Prodigy about passive effects with a trigger, and about it lasting until the end of the turn, would be helpful, especially if there is any application to Azathoth.

 One more that's come up in a post about Julia Brown:

When Julia Brown (Summons F17) is sacrificed and Julia Brown (Summon F107) is put into play commited per Julia 17's disrupt ability, does Julia 107's forced response trigger, and does she enter play exhausted? 

danach81 said:

On that one I'd say yes.

 Yes, what? There are two parts to that question... ;)

To me that's one question,but yes, they would both trigger IMO.

The problem is to know if "commit" and "committed" means the same thing with the same timing.
I commit a character, then he is committed for example. Julia has a Forced Response when she commits not when she is already committed. So it depends how a player understand the timing between "commit" and "committed".

 Agree with Dadajef.  to me there is a difference between commiting a character (we know what happens in this case - exhaustion, ability triggers) and coming into play committed. To me and my use of English, the latter means there was no "Commit" step.  If so, then there are no triggers - no exhaustion, no Forced Response.

"Commit" and "committed" are differents gametexts.

I still don't know if the character that commes into play "committed" has to exhaust or not, as you exhaust your characters once you commit them ! The FAQ indeed lakes a precision on this point ! But I tend to rules like the Professor .