Gomorra quiz

Good mornin’ Ladies 'n Jentlemen!

Welcome to our show Who Wants To Have Lot of Ghost Rocks.

We have Jake Smiley as our guest today, and seems like he stucks with a question. So he asks for a help.

There are Nicodemeus Whateley, Travis Moon, Hamshanks and Tyxaglinak in opponents home. All unbooted and Hamshanks even has a Mayfair Deck on him.

Question is “whom can Jake mark with kidnepping?”

And options are:

  • A. None of them
  • B. Only Travis
  • C. Only Nic
  • D. Tyx and Hamshanks
  • E. All of them
0 voters

Please help Jake to solve this problem!


The correct answer is E. “All of them”.

Kidnappin’ only starts a job, everything else including choosing the mark is caused by the game rules, not the action card or the ability on it. Check out the ruling on Quaterman & Joining Jobs.

Doesn’t that mean they could legally “choose or affect” Tyx, which would then prevent them from marking any Hucksters? O_o
(Hope we don’t spoil the quiz by discussing ^^")

Choose to affect Tyx with what? General game rules and mechanics? He only protects from action cards having a direct effect on your hucksters.

Oh, so you’re saying by playing Kidnappin’, which is an action card (club), the “Mark a dood.” (first sentence, so i thought requirement to even play the card legally?) only happens as a part of the started job, so it does not count as “choose or affect” a dude by an action card, so Tyx does not protect Hucksters against the started Job to target (“mark”) them?

Sure, Quarterman boots as part of joining a job, not by the effect of the card itself, but i think that would be different if Kidnappin’ said “Boot every dood that takes part in this job”, after the colon.
Something i miss?

Edit: E.g. Allie exp1 says “Allie leads a job, that marks a dude.”, so i think that would not take Tyx into account.
Or was that also supposed to be meant on these ‘older’ cards by “Mark a dude.” ?

“Mark a dude” only means that this job marks a dude, not a deed or the town square. It defines the type of the mark. Like in MtG you have “Enchant Creature” and “Enchant Land”.

The actual mark is chosen as part of the normal procedure of resolving a job. All that the action card actually does is initiate that job, and set the “If successful” effects. Check out this table for reference.

So, is the target of the ability of Kidnappin’ the dude who leads the job, the mark, both, or neither?

So, “Mark a dude.” does not fall under
“The first sentence (only) of an ability also includes the requirements that must exist in order
to use the ability.” from the rulebook? :cold_sweat:
Edit: Or does not fall under “Choose or affect by actioon card” ?

Since it also says in the rulebook “Jobs are initiated by ability text like, “Noon Job:”” (so start Job = Ability ==> first sentence = requirement)

Or is the first sentence = requirement canceled by “The first sentence of the job text tells you what the mark is.” ??

@Doomdog what exactly do you mean by “target”? This is not an established game term.

@Antaiseito you cannot play Kidnappin’ if there are zero dudes in play. But the actual mark is not chosen as part of playing the action card.

1 Like

By target, I meant the dude(s) affected by the ability that started the job

Aha! So there has to be someone to be marked, but who’s marked is not decided by the card, but after the job starts! :scream:

@Doomdog The only time Kidnappin’ affects something (for purposes like Ebenezer Springfield) is when a dude gets discarded due to its “If successful” effect.

@Antaiseito yep, that’s correct.


Since @mplain can no longer post on this forum, he asked me to leave a message for @Antaiseito and @Doomdog

"Hey guys, sorry for messing with your heads, I was just fooling around :slight_smile:
Choosing the mark is indeed a part of the card’s effect, and Tyx does protect hucksters from Kidnappin’, as evidenced by this ruling:
http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=375&t=110949#p1447423 "

1 Like

@mplain Ok so Tyx’s trait says you can’t chose or affect Hucksters at his location with action cards.
The table you linked to has “Choose the Mark” in the first box.

So in this case the action card Kidnappin’ is not causing the player to chose a mark?
It’s the job rules that are causing the player to chose a mark, and so Tyx’s ability does not apply?

What is the ability of Kidnappin’ - is it ‘to start a job’ or is it ‘to discard a the mark if the job succeeds?’

So you can’t chose Nic or Hamshanks because they are Hucksters.
Hamshank’s trait does not apply because you can’t legally chose him.
So the answer to the question is “Tyx or Travis?”

1 Like

Tyx and Travis would have been my secondary answer, too.

Since i think you could mark both of them, but not the hucksters, and after starting the job the posse would be illegal (not enough bullets), and the job fails.

1 Like

Re: Tyx + Hamshanks + Mayfair Family Deck
Postby Bithlord » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:28 pm

mplain wrote:
Original post
Other players cannot choose or affect your Hucksters at this location with action cards if they could legally choose to affect Tyxarglenak instead.
While Hamshanks is unbooted at a location you control, other players cannot choose or affect your other dudes at this location with their abilities if they could legally choose to affect Hamshanks instead.
Mayfair Family Deck
This dude has Huckster 0. If this card leaves this dude, discard all Hexes from this dude.

I have Tyx, Hamshanks, Nicodemus, and Travis at home. Hamshanks is unbooted and has a Mayfair Family Deck attached. Can my opponent play an action card (say, Kidnappin’) targeting any one of them?

Tyx prevents Hucksters from being targeted If the action card could legally target tyx instead.
Hamshanks prevents players from choosing other dudes if they could legally choose to affect hamshanks instead.

Tyx - non-huckster
Hamshanks - Huckster
Nicodemus - Huckster
Travis - non-huckster

Hamshanks is a Huckster, and thus cannot be chosen “instead” of someone else (due to Tyx’s protection), removing Hamshanks protection.
Tyx is another dude, and thus cannot be chosen “instead” of someone else (due to Hamshank’s protection), removing Tyx’s protection.

Net result: A logically impossible scenario. There is no logical solution to this problem, as removal of one’s protection necessarily grants the instead ability of the other. There is no equilibrium point, stable or otherwise, in this system.

Ruling: The protection abilities cancel each other out. [As stated above, there is no logical solution to this problem. It does not have an equilibrium point. So, please, save yourselves some headache and don’t try and logic this out. It won’t work.]

Edit: This ruling is somewhat tenuous, but please apply it for now.

Thats from the rulings page.

I thought that Hamshanks says can not be targeted by abilities and Tyx says action cards? Is there a clarification of what an ability is that I am not aware of?