Next Numerical Cost

[dragonsbane89]

it may sound simple, but i was told that if you used leet and then played cash out, you would draw three cards (1/2x+1).

My question is that it says next numerical cost, so wouldn't the 4 from leet be wasted on paying the 0 cost to cast cash out because it would be the next numerical cost?

[doc8466]

Good question......
Without :chomp: direction, I'd say Leet was wasted in this instance. Since it's been made clear that 0 is an option in many instances, it is there, so it is the next cost.
I've got to go find another thread that talked about cost lowering effects and see if there was a final word there....

[dragonsbane89]

k, let me know asap. thanks

[joshlytle]

it may sound simple, but i was told that if you used leet and then played cash out, you would draw three cards (1/2x+1).

My question is that it says next numerical cost, so wouldn't the 4 from leet be wasted on paying the 0 cost to cast cash out because it would be the next numerical cost?

This, along with several other questions with vague answers is being address in the latest rules update. That update will be posted soon (probably tomorrow or Monday).

The new rules *should* be comprehensive, but of course there may be a few random special cases that have been overlooked. Well, that's what the version number is for! If we find any questions that don't have answers we'll release a new updated version of the rules.

But for now, rules version 2.0 is coming and it represents a shift in the way several things are handled.

As for your question, under the new rules numeric cost is determined by summing all of the number costs on a card, including the ones listed in its rules text. So, 1337! would "add" to the X.

These rules should go into effect immediately when we post them, so you can go ahead and play the card that way now.

Josh Lytle

[dragonsbane89]

thanks for all the help

[doc8466]

Excellent Josh, thanks.

It was another good example of "I think this is what it means" vs "this is exactly how it reads"

dragonsbane89 and I were talking about this same thing in another thread, and I used Cash Out as an example showing how you COULD reduce "X" only thinking of Cash Out's effect, not the fact that it's a 0 cost tactic.

Looking forward to the next few day's announcements! :D

[Heartless_]

This, along with several other questions with vague answers is being address in the latest rules update. That update will be posted soon (probably tomorrow or Monday).

The new rules *should* be comprehensive, but of course there may be a few random special cases that have been overlooked. Well, that's what the version number is for! If we find any questions that don't have answers we'll release a new updated version of the rules.

But for now, rules version 2.0 is coming and it represents a shift in the way several things are handled.

As for your question, under the new rules numeric cost is determined by summing all of the number costs on a card, including the ones listed in its rules text. So, 1337! would "add" to the X.

These rules should go into effect immediately when we post them, so you can go ahead and play the card that way now.

Josh LytleI'm not sure if I understand this or not. So does 1337! reduce the numeric cost of a card? I've been trying to figure out if a player uses 1337! to play a character for less and I play Forced Recruitment to capture that character what do I have to pay to meet Forced Recruitment's cost? The number printed on the card or the cumulative cost between 1337!'s reduction and the cost of the card?

[Taramoor]

Near as I can figure, the cost is reduced, and since you declare a value for X as a cost to play Cash Out, 1337! reduces that cost as well.

So, 1337 would reduce the following:

Forced Recruitment
Jackmove
Skewer
Ritual of the Shattering Teeth
Invent
Micromajig Avalanche


Or at least, that's what I think would happen...

[strategin]

For anyone getting here by way of a search, this was discussed in another thread.

The conclusion was that because one-three-three-tee specifically says that it reduces the numeric cost (as opposed to other reductions such as Jo, the Research Assistant, and the Runic Circuitry which make the next cost that you pay less).

There was an officially ruling on the Lathe, which as with one-three-three-tee reduces the actual numeric cost, which was used to make this ruling.