Penfold said:

So, you're saying, I wouldn't be able to play the card (and choosing an opponent without characters in play) if it didn't say 'if able'?

Why?

Imho, nothing at all would change if you omitted the 'if able'.

FAQ: 

(1.5) Choosing Targets

 Good lord Zephyr, it is like you aren't even trying to understand the rules. Every single one of those questions is addressed in the FAQ. Khopesh is a very simple ruling, you can't put it on an invulnerable character because invulnerable characters cannot be wounded, cannot is absolute in this game, it means do not even try, and any effect that seeks to specifically wound such a character (as opposed to an effect that would cause mass wounding and does not call out the invulnerable character) cannot even be triggered, and it is a single effect that wounds both the attached character and the targeted character, so it cannot be triggered at all. This has been answered and clarified. Canceling the wound works because it is canceling the placement of the wound token, not canceling an effect that would wound a character. An effect that said cancel an effect that would wound target character would cancel the entire effect, and neither character would be wounded.

And your wording is not any better, and in my opinion worse, "Try to choose?" What does that even mean. It doesn't say choose, it says try to choose. That passive language causes an entirely different problem, now every card is successful or fails entirely on the choose, rather than on the effect, which means no card could be played if you could fail to choose the card directed, but illegal targeting is rarely the problem with card effects, it is whether the effect itself can be resolved. If Able addresses a completely different problem… and for the record, removing if able from a number of cards would have very little effect in specific regards to whether the card effect resolves, but it does have a problem with whether or not the card effect could be triggered at all… and this is a case where the words of the card are added to make it easier to parse… and you are having a problem because of it, it wasn't that long ago you were directing for more words to be added to cards to make them easier to understand. You have pretty much just invalidated your own previous argument.

I have a new policy thanks to you. I'm going to answer rules questions that come up once. I'm not going to defend or explain why that is the way it is anymore outside of the single explanation. It isn't worth the time or frustration and it certainly isn't worth the grief or arguments. You and everyone else can accept them or ignore them as you choose, but you've completely burned me out of caring whether you play the right way for the right reasons. There are other knowledgeable posters on the board. They can fill you in. I can't imagine how Damon deals with this sort of thing, but God bless him for having the patience I don't.

 But yes, the fact that Forgotten Shoggoth is a passive and effects the destination of all relevant cards before they leave play is how the card works. That it isn't a replacement effect is the real issue I was addressing in regards to how other cards would be affected with that card leaving play.

 Im not even trying…………………….

I re read FAQ many times, reordered it so i can find it, posted FAQ entries to all cards in the FAQ on cardbamedb

And thats not even trying….

I might be trying too hard and that seems to be the problem.

I try to find as many entries that describe given interaction i dont get as i can and use them to find out what happens, many of those are contradictoty or not apply or apply in a way i dont get so i get even more confused becaouse of trying to get it.

And my point is either "more words so its all clearaer" and when its not add some more so it is or less words and keep to them meaning literally with strict rules explained in many words but no rules and even less text on cards. Middle ground is the source of confusion.

 What i do really wrong is writing those posts in frustration after trying to figure out all FAQ entries and failing to find consistent meaning but having many ideas that can be interpreted in many ways.

For that im sory as my posts tend to be long and not structured very well and bring my confusion to discussion rather than explaining my doubts.

 HEre is my suggestion, figure out what is causing the problem for you and look that up. Trying to apply every possible FAQ entry to a card is going to be information overload and of course it is going to increase your confusion. English is my native language and I've played this game for close to six years and that would almost certainly cause confusion to me.

If the question is how does a card that references "printed skill" work with an insane character, check the entry on "printed" in the FAQ. IF that does not resolve it (and in this case it did provide the answer) then look at the entry on "insanity." Stop complaining about the fact that the entry on insanity does not include that it keeps its name, that is wholly unnecessary to the topic and is about personal preference. This creates a level of animosity and increased confusion in regards to the FAQ none of which makes it easier for you to actually derive the answer you are looking for.

jhaelen said:

Where did I originally write that? I want to see the context I was talking about before I answer your question to make sure I'm understanding where the question is coming form.

 Never mind, other page, found it. Choose an opponent is the targeting, it is not the sole effect. Both sentences are the effect. Targeting something and then failing to be able to succesfully resolve the effect causes problems about whether or not the card can be triggered based on the specifics of wording. If Able as the rule is currently written would allow for it to be triggered assuming the targeting restriction is met.

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the "if able" definition, I'm simply trying to relate how it effects the game.

And at risk of another moderator warning me about personal correspondence, Damon didn't seem particularly thrilled about the definition either. If I had to take a guess it is something he inherited that he doesn't believe improves the understanding of the game as currently written. (I want to be clear he didn't say this, I'm reading between the lines)

Whether he clarifies the definition or changes the definition is anyones guess, but he did say he was going to examine it since it is causing so much confusion.

Penfold said:

However, this is what I thought was a general rule: As long as you selected a valid target, you can trigger the effect.

It doesn't matter for this purpose if the effect actually 'does nothing' or not.

If it's not stated anywhere explicitly it can be inferred from other FAQ answers, e.g. the one about Y'Golonac (readying ready characters…).

So, I'd say, in this example, 'if able' doesn't actually change the card text's meaning. If anything, it's just an attempt to clarify the meaning (which unfortunately backfires).

I'm glad to hear that Damon is not exactly happy about the 'if able' clause either!

 I agree that more often than not the term "if able" does not actively change how we would have ruled on how the card was played anyway, and it does look like an attempt to make things more clear… and yes I do believe that it causes at least as much confusion (at least to the people here) as it clears up. This is why I am a big proponent of cards being worded in a specific way, and using the timing charts and game defined terms (like Action: and sacrifice) to carry across everything, even if it means players have to stop for a moment and parse a complicated card rather than trying to use common usage phrases and then defining them in a specific way or including extra language to make things more clear. Meh. I'm not the designer, past, present, or future so it I don't get a vote.