Damon wrote me back with a detailed answer of the timing structure and how this interacts with Expendable Muscle's passive ability:

There is one simple thing that you have to understand in order to apply the FAQ correctly, and that is Expendable Muscle is a replacement effect, designated as such by the word "instead" (which the FAQ clearly states makes it a replacement effect). Once we know this then what we are really trying to figure out is what is it replacing and when does that happen?

1) ACTION IS INITIATED

After a player initiates an action, the timing window starts. For the initiation stage of any player action, a player must go through the following substeps, in order. The first step is always revealing the card or declaring the intent to use an ability.

THEN:

a) Determine the cost (to either play the card or pay for the card’s effect) or costs (if multiple costs are necessary for the intended action).

b) Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. This is where Expendable Muscle's Passive is resolved on the wounding effect.

c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any effects that modify a penalty are applied to that penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)

d) Apply any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s).

e) Pay the cost(s).

f) Play the card, or trigger the effect, and proceed to step two.

2) DISRUPTS

In clockwise order, players now have the opportunity to disrupt the action. If all players pass, then the action will be executed, and can no longer be disrupted.

3) ACTION IS EXECUTED

The active player now executes the effects of the action. If this action discards or destroys one or more cards, returns one or more cards to a player’s hand or deck, these cards immediately leave play. This is where the wounding effect having been altered by Expendable Muscle's Passive effect is executed. All characters wounded and Expendable Muscle becomes an attachment due to its passive effect having been resolved in step 1.

Yipe said:

I see what he did there….

However Damon should not use the word "resloved" in either the description of the ruling or the FAQ. Resloved should mean to completely reslove the effect.  To competely reslove EM's effect should invovle it being turned into a attachment. Also, the wording from EM does not lead to me to believe that this is how it should be handled. The text "would be" should not mean "when <card> is" in my opinion.

To achieve Damon's result I would then suggest an erratta to EM. "When EM is wounded or is made to go insanse, instead…." 

Likewise I would also ammend Richard Upton Pickman as his wording is pretty much identical.

To keep things intuitive.

would be = before step 3.

when ~ is = during step 3.

after ~ is = after step 3.

Or something similiar.

EDIT: when ~ is might not be the best solution. As there are cards that used "when" instead of "while."

In either case, I'm gonna chalk this up to poor wording. I do think cards should be used as written and not as intended, but that can create some odd non-intuitive situations as well, but I still think its better than going off of intent.

Kinda like Lady Lu Chu's effect. "When Lady Lu Chu is the only character you control at a story, she gains Fast and (C)(C)." Is that supposed to be "While"? or does she gain extra fast and CC everytime she ends up being alone when intereacting with cards that move, commit and uncommit charactes from stories.

Naturealy I read that as a "while" effect. Reading it closer now, I'm not so sure.
 

 I think at this point I have to ask if you are purposefully being difficult. You don't like the answer so you insist that it is wrong, despite his explanation being exceptionally clear. At some point you have to just accept that you are 1) wrong, 2) don't understand the timing structure as well as you think, 3) don't know what the definitions of the words are in game terms. And what the heck, 4) refuse to adjust your understanding of any of the above.

#4 for me is the most troubling. I can't even begin to understand why time and again you seem un-willing or un-able to adjust your understanding of the game. It is like you aren't even considering that your understanding is wrong. You'd rather blame it on bad wording rather than a bad understanding of the rules.

I mean those misinterpretations don't effect me, and thankfully with Damon being easily reachable and people here posting his replies, other players are not so duly influenced by said mistakes, but it does constantly imply that the game is at fault, or he is at fault, rather than you being at fault, and that is never a good face to put on our game and community for potential new players. I also have no idea how much your opinion impacts your local play group, but I wouldn't be surprised  if they end up conceiving of the game wrongly and echo your reluctance to refine or adapt their knowledge of the game.

Penfold said:

2) I definatley don't understand them as well I would like.

3) Game terms has become a challenge for this game (and increasingly so for me), and I'm trying my best to understand them as written. Which over the years, the intent has not always been accurately shown.

4) Actually I have adjusted. I had a bit of that Ah-ha moment with Damon's latest answer. Now I fully see how they saw it. All I'm doing at this point was pointing out that some of they're intent is not intuitively shown by some of the game terms used to decribe their intent. Granted, I am gonna apologize here in that I had originally meant to come off more constructive than defiant than I did in my last post. It was hastly typed and under extreme exhaustion. I blamed the 'bad' wording as the primary cause of why FFG and I seem to disgaree on this subject. Bad may not of been the best choice of words to descibe my meaning either, but lets face it. In the case of 'resloved' currently not having consistant meanings is…. bad? Slightly off? A slip of the tongue? Confusing?

I am more than capable of addmitting when I'm wrong. However, for that most part… I don't think that I am in that case. I'm not gonna apologize for continueing to provide evidence of my intreptation of the rules as written. And I'm not gonna apologize for taking anyone's ruling at face value (nor would I be if anyone did not take my word at face value). Not that I'm gonna immediately defy them, but before accepting it I prefer to come to my own conclusion. If my conclusion and the rulers' conclusion happen to be the same then great. Easy. That actually happens more often than you'd might think.

So, no. I'm not purposely trying to be difficult. However, I'm not gonna just roll over just because someone said so as long as I have solid ground to stand on (obvioulsy without solid ground I would already be at the conclusion that was I wrong). Most of this was an exercise in improving my knowledge of how this game is now to be ruled. Not to just to disagree. And I've learned a lot and believe that we're bascially down to semantics and subtle word choice at this point.

I can get more into how I'm getting to my newest conclusions, but I'll have to save that for another day. But I don't like the answer because I think it is wrong under the written rules and thus suggested a change so their intent is shown.

I encourage anyone who cares to really study, and I mean really study, the wording used and form their own opinion. Obviously we have Damon's ruling and we all should follow it until otherwise noted. Still, FFG can be wrong, can change its mind, and can be convinced. Just like everyone else (including me). I did take that long look at the wording used in both the cards and the faq and came to my own conclusion that I still don't think is incorrect. Everything lines up for me, and seeing Damon's latest explanation, to me, actually supports many of my claims. Again, I encourage anyone to do the same and hopefully together we can create a better FAQ for everyone.

If anything I'm trying to help the game by shooting for accuracy (again, apologizing for not being a bit more constructive in my disagreements, questions, and suggestions). This may be a little idealist, but inconsistant wording in this game's history is a problem on some very subtle levels and I hope to either help right the boat or at least gain an understanding how a rule is actually supposed to work.

As for my local play group. I encourage them to make their own decisions. If they ask me for a ruling, I give the most official one I can. If they ask for my explanation of it, and if it happens to be one I disagree with or simply can't explain how FFG came to this conclusion… I tell them that I don't know, and its just how it is ruled. And of course… we all follow the most current offical rulings and still manage to have a ton of fun and bring in new players! Side note, have a roster of ~8 players now. With possibly more on the way and I play at the epicenter of the '08 attack. Which speaks volumes in my opinion. ;)

With the exception of Damon (and those relaying his message) no one has offered any evidence to disprove my opinions other than… "Damon said it works <this> way and on some level it makes sense."

To end this on a positive note. Damon has done a lot for this game. True, I don't believe he's fixed everything, but I never expected him to. I, right here, and right now, rather give him credit and props for the improvements he has made for this game. As much as people (including me), complain, disagree, challenge, etc… Damon on certain subjects I'm quite certain that we all can agree that things, overall, have improved since he was placed in charge. Sure hes had help and what not, but when its all said and done the buck (i imagine) usually stops with him for many decisions. For me its always about improvement and thats what we've gotten.

Coming from someone who doesn't understand the rules on the same level as the two of you (Penfold and Magnus Arcanis), when I first read what Damon wrote me, I didn't understand the conclusion.  Hopefully you guys can help me out.

My confusion stems from Step 1b:

"Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. This is where Expendable Muscle's Passive is resolved on the wounding effect."

The word "resolved" is the part giving me trouble.

If Expendable Muscle's passive ability is resolved before Step 3: Action is Executed, then why isn't he turned into an attachment and attached to another character, thereby giving that character +1 toughness and saving it from the dynamite (i.e. wound)?

Is it because the resolution of Expendable Muscle's passive ability waits to be completed until Step 4: Passive Abilities are Executed?

To be clear, I'm not challenging Damon's ruling.  I just want to understand how a passive ability can be resolved but then wait to be applied until after the action it's altering is completed.

Thanks for your help!

By reviewing the Replacement Effects ruling in the FAQ (section 2.10 v2.1), I may have answered this myself.

Basically, Expendable Muscle is changed into an attachment to circumvent the action's normal effect (in this case, being wounded).  However, this is happening after the action is executed, otherwise it wouldn't be a replacement effect (and we know that it is due to the word "instead" in Expendable Muscle's passive ability).  Right?  Err, right.  Man, this is complicated stuff.

I must agree with Magnus Arcanis here that, however appropriate, it seems counter-intuitive to use the term "resolved" in Step 1b as it's not actually resolving until after Step 3.  That just confuses me…

It was reported on another thread that Damon stated that Educated Officer permits the controlling player to draw 7 cards after that player wounds another player's character using Short Fuse. I'm not sure that the rules of the game demand that interpretation, and I am pretty sure that this makes the Educated Officer too powerful. (Compare with card Forbidden Knowledge.)

Anyway, my suspicion is that Damon will reverse this ruling.  So I'd like to know with certainty whether this will or will not happen before an upcoming regional that I plan to attend.  I don't want to build a deck around this exploit and get screwed, when the local organizers rule that the Educated Officer cannot do this.  I also don't relish facing a deck that uses this exploit against me.

Given the explanation of the ruling that I heard, it appears that a player could draw 14 cards with Professor Rice in play.

Dark Initiate said:

That is true and makes sense when you look at action window more carefully. I wouldn't be too worried of this anyway. Misc + Agency might not be best pairing and it is hard to pull that combo. Well 7 cards from Short Fuse can happen more often. I think it is cool there is reason to play Short Fuse + Educated Officer. I don't think this is broken thought. Those both cards cost 3 and Educated Officer might be killed with some removal in next opponents turn latest. You could play Educated Officer + Short Fuse on same turn but this happens earliest turn 4 and 5 turn is first turn you can really start using those extra cards. Game might be almost over by then. Could be a strong deck if somebody really tunes the deck. I actually think this game needs more strong deck archetypes and strong but not broken cards.

 Magnus, you'll note I came to the same ruling that Damon did, for pretty much the same reason, before he had been consulted.

So looking at what he wrote there are clearly two important parts, one it is a replacement effect. There is absolutely no evidence to support any other conclusion than this. Zero. None. If you do not agree this is a replacement effect your understanding is mortally flawed and we cannot continue with this discussion until this addressed. Do you or do you not agree that it is a replacement effect? If not please provide evidence (direct citation of the rulebook or faq please) to the contrary.

I'm going to assume you agree that it is and move on.

So the next bit seems to be your problem with the word resolve. What is exactly resolving EM's ability? It is a passive replacement effect, so what it is changing is the wounding effect, altering it so at that wounding effects execution it turns EM into an attachment.

This is where I think you have a fundamentally wrong understanding… everything you are writing seems to be under the impression that EM's passive turns it into an attachment, but this is not strictly speaking correct. EM's passive forces a wounding effect to turn it into an attachment. Once you understand this (and because it is a replacement effect, it is still the resolution of the original effect that causes EM to turn into an attachment) then understanding the resolution of EM's ability on the action is making that action a "turn to attachment" effect instead of a wounding effect, in regards to EM. That wounding/turn into an attachment effect must still resolve within the timing structure. Because it is a replacement effect it has NO way to turn into an attachment before the effect itself is executed. If there was a disrupt effect played that cancels the wound on EM your ruling would STILL have EM turn into an attachment, and that clearly cannot happen, since you cannot replace an effect that has been canceled, because it never happened in game terms.

There is no way your ruling works without breaking the game, that for no other reason should prove that you are wrong. 

Now you can make a statement that resolves is the wrong word, but resolve clearly has a specific meaning in this game that is different than you think, and when you view EM's ability as a modification of another effect, then it must have resolved prior to that effect resolving if it is a replacement effect. Damon's more fully explained answer follows the same thing I said, and his is perfectly internally consistent without disturbing any part of the timing structure. Your is not. Internal consistency and when extrapolated out continued adherence and support of the greater timing structure trumps, well, kind of everything.

Dark Initiate said:

There will almost certainly be no reversal. The timing chart and wording on the cards allow for no other rule interpretation. I'll walk you through the steps about why it works this way:

1) All wounds are dealt at the same time.

2) Only after the wounding effect is executed do characters get destroyed.

3) How many wounds did it take during the execution of that effect?

4) That is how many triggers there are for Educated Officer to respond to in the response window of the executed effect.

From a rules wonkiness standpoint there is really only a single issue that could be cited as precedent for this working in a different manner, and that is drawing or discarding cards, regardless of the number the effect is causing, are done individually. I have previously said that each wound is simultaneous, but looking at the timing chart I may be wrong there. It may be that because each is delivered individually but during the same step and cards that are destroyed do not leave play until the end of that step they just keep getting hit again and again, similar to getting shot by a machine gun where the first bullet hits you but your body is also hit six more times before you even drop.

Hm. This actually makes a lot more sense. Interesting.

Ok… lets just settle a few things here.

1. I know what a replacement effect is… not sure why you keep bringing it up like I don't. I never argued that it wasn't and even mentinoed several times that it was a replacement effect. So yes… I agree. EM's effect is a replacement effect. Actually, I'll apologize here lil a bit. Rereading it, I know why you're continueing to lecture me about replacement effects. There was a small bit of confusion when I quoted a *snipped* portion of one of your posts to re-open the discussion about the 'altering passive' rule. Instead of possibly getting my intented effect it seems that you mostly saw my arguement from the an unintended angle which has likely skewed this discussion a small amount.

2. Damon's quoted responses, implied that EM's effect didn't actually finish turning into an attachment until step 4. This is obvioulsy not what actually happens (but merely what I thought you guys were trying to tell me). Regardless, I still think, with the wording we have, should still be resolved before step 3. So we still have something to discuss.

3. Damon and I (and I believe everyone else including you, but trying not to assume to much here) seem to agree that the 'altering passive' rule applies to this situation. I know this because even Damon said that the effect is triggered and resolved in step 1.

So in the timiing structure, all the way up to step 1. b)… we're all one big happy family. So my next step is to, as simply as possible, explain the 'alter passive rule'. (lol, I could be doing an aweful job of that right now as I think this now counts as a book. lol)

For reference:

""NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied.""

___________________________________________

If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resloved on the action,…..

Resolved. Aka. Completely executed. Note its past tense. Its not 'will reslove', its not 'resloving', but in fact resolved. Finished. How do you completely execute an altering passive without actually following it through to the end?

I'll actually answer this question later, so please hold thy rage.

…which now altered, is initiated.

This puts EM's ability resolustion and resolved state in step 1 Action is Initaited.

____________________________________________

Now, I already think EM should be attachment at this point. However, that is not Damon's intent. Damon (and I pretty sure you as well Pen) think that EM's ability is applied on the action and is merely waiting till EM is wounded or is made insane.

See, I clearly get what you guys are going for. However… EM's effect doesn't, and I repeat, does NOT say "When EM is wounded…." which is the typical wording used in a replacement effect that is meant to not actually replace anything until the thing it is replaces is actually happening.

IE. Mr. David Pan, Professor Sam Campbell, Chess Prodigy… "When resolving struggles at a story that Mr. David Pan is committed to, count the total skill of all participating characters instead of the icons to determine the winner of each struggle."

The wording on those cards is the correct way to word an altering passive effect who's applied effect doesn't actually do its replacing until the thing its replacing is actually happening.

Expendable Musle on the other hand does not follow this!

"If Expendable Muscle would be wounded or go insane,…"

- Would be =/= (does not equal)  When. 

Would be, is an explicit refrence to its designation to a wounding/insanity effect. So in order to resolve EM's effect… it only needs to be designated to be affected by a wounding or insanity effect. Not actually being wounded or made insane. So when EM is deginated by a wounding/insanity effect it instead turns into attachment. Which is a perfectly legit replacement effect.

This of course… does mean that the effect that does the designating effect can be canceled and EM would still become an attachment anyway. Actually… let me rephrase that.

EM would actually become an attachment BEFORE disrupts could even possibly cancel the effect. Because as we read above, the passive effect is resloved on the action well before disrupts can touch the triggering action.

- This, in no way, breaks the game… at all. It clearly fits the wording provided.

____________________________________________________

This is, obviously, not what Damon intends to happen and why I blamed it on a old wording error. Thus I suggested it be erratta'd, not to use the word resloved (or rather (more clearly?) define the different levels of resolved) in certain ways…… or the ruling be changed. Otherwise… techincally… it doesn't work the way you/they want it to. (still) In my opinion anyway.

I believe I'm actually now pretty sure that I'm correct in this. The wording I've quoted fits perfectly. It doesn't break the game. I have clear examples of how its supposed to be done. I've pointed out how EM doesn't follow those given examples. I can't find an example that clearly defies my intreptation in the same way that I've found examples that defies the official ruling. What more do I need?

Oh… just to make sure I don't get accused of this. I'm NOT trying to twist words to fit how I'm now reading this. First glance I saw nothing I disagreed with. It wasn't until after digging much deeper that I've come to this conclusion. Yes there were some bumps along the road during the learning proccess, but once I switched sides everytime I've dug I only ended up coming to the same conclusion in a stronger way than the last.

Sorry for that disclaimer…

Anyway… so ya. If it makes anyone feel better I agree with the Short Fuse + Educated Officer ruling! I'm not a fan, but based on everything else its legit and follows other consistancies similiar to the one you already pointed out Pen. :)

All of that still misses the very clear points:

1) A replacement effect cannot replace an effect that has itself not been executed.

2) EM's ability resolves on the player or framework action that would wound it, not on EM itself.

Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop.

And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question. Your entire argument hinges on ignoring these two points. Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong. We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue.

Penfold said:

1) is complete crap. No basis in the rulebook or FAQ for this. Also… if it were true… how would Disrupt replacement effects work if they 'canno't replace an effect that itself has not executed as Disrupts execute before the action is executed?

2) I'm kinda scratching my head on this. We all think EM's ability is 'resolved' in step 1. We only differ in when we think its applied effect is actually resolved/executed/does its replacing. I didn't miss this! I expicitly said several times that I think EM's ability triggers on the designation and not on its wounding. Everything I've said and done was to contest the position that EM's ability resovled on the wounding. Not sure how many different ways/times I can state such….

"Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop."

- Only if you believe you're first point is true. Which… as far as I can tell… is not.

"And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question"

- Not sure why you're getting so heated over this (kinda getting me heated now). I'll admit we're making this into a bigger deal that it actually is, but in all fairness just about everything in my previous post argued, adressed, refutes and call into question your two points… well point 2 anyway as point 1 is well, not true. Perhaps I'm not the one ignoring things?

"Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong."

- This entry kinda distrubed me. Taking the ruling as FACT and basing your entire arugement on it is terrible way to go. Form your own opinion. Believe it or not, FFG is not infallable. They can make mistakes(not unlike everyone else, including me), and if they're never pointed out we'll never get to a cleaner game. Do I need to bring up the Yog-Sothoth + Unspeakable resurrection ruling(s)? Dreamlands Fanatic? Sides, I'm not claiming that it is fundamentaly wrong but a mere oversight in judgement based similiar but not quite inter-changeable wording(s).

"We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue."

- Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think we've made a lot of progress and I know I learned a lot. However, this has aparently negatively affected you and I really feel bad about that. My goal is most certainly not to upset anyone, so I agree we're done on this subject. We've both said pretty much all the can be said on the subject. Damon gave us his ruling and that is what is to be followed for the forseeable future.

So… truce?

 I'm not upset, I'm bored. I see absolutely no interest in you trying to understand the ruling. We have a ruling. It is based and directly quotes the rules. If you wanted to understand the ruling rather than disagree with it, reverse engineering it is the single BEST way to achieve that… but you refuse to and when I suggest it you dimsiss it out of hand as a terrible idea.

What is the point?

I'm perfectly fine leaving you scratching your head, because I don't believe you want to understand the ruling, I believe you want to be right. Go debate the finer points of timing structure with Damon. I will bet you the entire Revelations cycle he says essentially the same thing. I'm also willing to bet you will continue to disagree with it and him. I'm not saying FFG is infallible, I am saying that you are far more so than they are, and particularly where this is concerned.

Again, I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, you are more invested in proving yourself right than understand why the ruling is what it is. You are going about the entire process wrong otherwise.

Some more answers:

1. Library of Perganum says "cancel an effect just triggered that would destroy a Tome card." Rulebook says all attachment are destroyed if the characters ends to discard pile. So can I cancel Deep One Assault with Library if my targeted character has a Tome attachemnt? Can I cancel any triggered effect which would cause a character to go insane with Tome?

No, Deep One Assault as an effect does not destroy Tome cards. The game destroys Tome cards when they are attached to characters that are destroyed.

2. I control Rampaging Dark Young unopposed in a story. After all stories my opponent triggers some response which puts my Rampaging Dark Young in discard pile. I choose to put Nocturnal Scavenger in a play with Rampaging Dark Young triggered effect. Can I the use response of Nocturnal Scavenger now because I won one combat struggle with Rampaging Dark Young? Sorry this example is bit messy but question is Can I trigger ef fect in a card which happened during (framework) action even when the card was not in play when the effect resolved but came to play during responses part? I would guess this is allowed.

Yes.

3. What happens if use Underground Asylum once to cancel an effect of Lost to the Madness and I control two characters? Does it cancel the whole effect of Lost to the Madness or just cancel the effect to one character?

It is a single effect that causes all characters to go insane. Underground Asylum cancels an effect that would cause a character to go insane. So Underground Asylum cancels Lost to the Madness.

Good answers but I still don't understand what is considered an effect. There is ruling that Underground Asylum can cancel going insane by terror struggle. So that is a game effect. I am just wondering how Underground Asylum works with Professor Herman Mulder. I guess I can cancel Terror of the Tides action with Underground Asylum if Terror of the Tides would cause Professor to go insane.