Regarding the O.E.S. Ring, I just looked that up - as stated in the FAQ, Official Rules Clarifications 1.7, effects last until the end of the phase unless otherwise specified, excepting "put into play", "remove from play", and "take control" effects.  Most of the cards that are similar specify "until the end of the phase", so that would make sense.  I suspect they intended to include that clarification, but forgot, but it's not the end of the world, as it's in the FAQ.  I am not a lawyer, but I do occasionally play one on the internet.

As for Jenica Capra, I think that has to be a mistake, as otherwise you could cycle through your entire deck, pick out all the attachments, and know exactly what order your cards will be in.  I have to think that that will be errata'd to "(Limit once per turn.)" in very short order.

ssjevot said:

Not as weird as the fact that there are two Silver Twilight characters who aren't Silver Twilight, or that the Serpent from Yoth isn't a Serpent!

 Fence is interesting. All those relic's getting snagged instead of being shuffled back into the deck… kind of awesome. Just need to find a way to keep it from getting iced or stolen the turn it comes out…

Agreed, Fence is a very cool card and I'm glad Syndicate got something like that.  Lookout is pretty good too.

OES Ring - it would be much better to state the duration explicitly on the card.  Still, another interesting card though.

Jenica seems like an obvious mistake, otherwise you can effectively draw all your support cards and stack your entire deck.  Every turn.  Needs to be once per turn limited.

Serpents got some high quality loving this pack with two great cards.

Maureen is a really cool idea!  I can see her copying all sorts of thing and being so cheap is awesome, even if her ability is expensive.

Notice that the Library of Ebla allows you to give a Tome to an enemy character (only the original holder must be friendly).  Gotta look for poison books now.

I don't know why, but I really love Feral Elder Thing, he just seems like crazy fun to me.  I think he'd go well with Prism of Many Views.

dboeren said:

It is almost an auto include in my mono Yog mill deck.

I want my own cards in my discard pile in order to more easily play them through recursion, I want all of my opponent's cards in their discard pile for the alternate win condition. Win Win. Easily takes the place of Pawn Broker in my deck.

Hellfury said:

But you are discarding his hand not his deck! You do let him draw one more card which means faster burning his deck but I think thats not really the way you want your discard deck to work, letting your opponent draw more cards.

However, it does work nice with the hastur support card "Carcosa".

Runix said:

I was planning on using the Spore to defend against Khopesh, but you're right that it will just make Khopesh decks even better.  I feel they should just unrestrict Khopesh and errata it so that you have to exhaust Khopesh to use its ability.  Still a great card, no longer broken.  I'll probably still use the Spore in my Mi-Go deck to try to protect my important Mi-Go, but I won't be surprised if I see it show up in Khopesh decks.

Hellfury said:

Well, it turns out it is not as good as I had originally thought it would work.

Feral Elder Thing
Card Type: Character
Cost: 3
Skill: 3
2 Terror Icons, 1 Combat Icon
Subtype: Monster, Independent
At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card.

Each player must have at least 2 cards in their hand in order for the effect to work.

So if either player has less than 2 cards in their hand, then neither player chooses 2 cards, discards them then draws 1.

This one kind of boggled me, but when I was playing Steve Horvath tonight Event Center, Damon hung out for awhile and explained it as such.

Still a great card, but not quite as great as I had originally understood it since your opponent can foil it by having less than 2 cards in hand..

Darkman said:

Worked fine for me playing against a Yog mill deck tonight.

The reason why I want card in my discard pile is that the discard pile becomes an extension of my "hand". With cards like the newest Yog Sothoth, and other recursion cards, having cards in my discard pile is a goal.

So yes, it is in fact the way I want my discard deck to work.

 I suspect that without that requirement you'd be stripping your opponents cards away to quickly and it would seriously damage your opponents ability to play the game. Now a Deck discard and hand destruction deck out of Yog/Hastur sounds like a very viable way to play. Prevents all sorts of jumping character shenanigans and reduces the effectiveness of decks that rely on cards in combination since it chews through your opponents deck as well as their hand.

Hellfury said:

Thanks for the clarification.  However, if your opponent is holding less than 2 cards you're doing something else - limiting his ability to plan and also to make use of bouncing characters like Master of the Myths or Initiate of Huang Hun.  I'll take that as a consolation prize.  It also means that you can turn it off by keeping a low hand yourself if you need to, not sure yet how much of an advantage that might be.  It's still an interesting card.

However, I think they should have worked a little harder on the wording because I'll bet almost everyone will be playing this card incorrectly.  Maybe something like "At the beginning of your turn, if both players have at least 2 cards in their hand they each choose and discard 2 cards if able.  Then, each player draws 1 card."

 For library i pick Forbidden knowlegde. Kill any character (see no restriction on ancient ones) and get 4 cards…

This elders wording shows clearly how stupid this idea of choose/then/if able vs not a good target/too little/ not enough is. Is it really that hard to write one extra sentence like: "If x happened." and make it clear?

"At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card." could mean:

a)"At the beginning of your turn. If each player has 2 cards: each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If both players discarded: each player draws 1 card." 

b)"At the beginning of your turn. Each player checks, if he has 2 cards he chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If both players discarded: each player draws 1 card."

c)"At the beginning of your turn. Each player checks, if he has 2 cards he chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand. If any player discarded: each player draws 1 card."

d)"At the beginning of your turn. Each player checks: if he has 2 cards he chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, than if he discarded he draws 1 card."

[Dominion like do as much as you can that is really clear semantics if used consequently]

e) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if any cards were discarded each player draws 1 card."

f) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if any player discarded 2 cards each player draws 1 card."

g) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if both players discarded 2 cards each player draws 1 card."

h) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if any player discarded 2 cards each player draws 1 card."

i) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if a player discarded any cards he draws 1 card."

j) "At the beginning of your turn. Each player chooses discards 2 cards. Than if a player discarded 2 cards he draws 1 card."

One sentence, 9 possible meanings, and rules to get the right one are really complicated, is it really that hard to write it like i did?

 I think the language is relatively clear (with use of the FAQ for guidance).  The "choose" part creates a target.  So if a player does not have at least 2 cards in hand, they can't satisfy this component, and thus don't discard.  The "if able" says that it doesn't matter if the first part happened or not.  "Then" tells us that after the first part is satisfied, we do the second part.  So both players will draw a card regardless of the first situation.

If I'm reading this correctly, there really was no need for "Then" in this description because in effect "if able" nullifies the requirement.

Yes, more words could be used, but there is an issue with too many words on a card.  The use of keywords and corresponding off-card definitions of those words makes for less type on the card.

 Youre seriously defending this wording by stating it uses unnesesary "than" for more confusion?

This wording should really be ranted upon so designer put more effort to wording cards right. Why not take 5 extra minutes to word card so its easier to grasp rather than let all the players spend half an hour debating, arguing anfd lookin through FAQ for help… this is really beyond stupid, if i didnt realy like this game this would be close no 1 reason to quit it… why do you defend stuff that hurts game on all possible levels… and my version are so much clearer and not much longer… and i still think its possible to get them better.

"At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card."

Quote: I think the language is relatively clear (with use of the FAQ for guidance). The "choose" part creates a target. So if a player does not have at least 2 cards in hand, they can't satisfy this component, and thus don't discard. The "if able" says that it doesn't matter if the first part happened or not. "Then" tells us that after the first part is satisfied, we do the second part. So both players will draw a card regardless of the first situation.

I don't think it's clear at all.  Let's work through this…

The "choose" part creates a target.  So if a player does not have at least 2 cards in hand, they can't satisfy this component and thus don't discard.

I disagree because of the "if able".  As you said, "if able" says that it doesn't matter if a thing actually happened or not.  I wasn't able to choose 2 cards, but it's OK because it says "if able".  Nothing has failed, therefore I can proceed to the next sentence starting with "Then".

Also, the associativity of the with with <do something> then <do something else> seems unclear.  We know that the first something has to be satisfied or the second something doesn't happen.  Does it mean:

1.  Each player tries to discard 2, then the second part happens to both of them if both of them succeed

2.  Each player tries to discard 2, then the second part happens individually to each of them if they succeeded

3.  Each player tries to discard 2, then the second part happens to both of them as long as at least one succeeded

And does "if able" apply individually or collectively?

We know how it's supposed to work because we got word from Damon, but I cannot figure out how we were ever supposed to get that as the only possible way to play the card by reading the text, even if you do include the FAQ, etc…

It's just a messy confusing card that should have been worded better so it would be clear immediately.