Jacqueline Fine plays 5 spells per turn|Deck Guide

Thanks for posting this deck idea!

I have a question for you: how does Sign Magick (3)'s trigger not cost a charge on the spell/ritual asset? The card says to ignore the cost, but not all costs. Shrivelling has two costs: the cost and the charge cost. Ignoring the cost of the doesn't seem like it would also ignore the charge cost.

I'm comparing this language to Knowledge is Power, which states "ignoring all costs." Sign Magick (3) doesn't say to ignore all costs, just the cost.

I'm genuinely curious here. :-)

I'm also noticing Shining Trapezohedron, which uses the language about "without pay any of its costs (including its action cost)."

Given cards like Knowledge is Power & Shining Trapezohedron talking about "all costs" or "any costs," I think that Sign Magick (3) is intended to only ignore the portion of the cost.

And I could be wrong, as this is a just-released card and we don't have any rulings on its language yet.

Yeah, that's a bit a "bet" in this situation, indeed, it's not that clear like this :)

My base was the Rules and References for Additional Costs, they say:

"For example: “Ashcan” Pete is at the Miskatonic Quad and activates Duke’s second ability, which reads: " Exhaust Duke: Investigate. You investigate with a base skill of 4. You may move to a connecting location immediately before investigating with this effect.” Pete pays the cost to activate this ability, which is spending one action and exhausting Duke."

We can see that the "exhaust" in this example is considered as part of the "cost", therefore I concluded that the charges spent during the trigger of your spell are also part of the cost.

What also confirms is that both exhaustion and charges are between the and the ':' that precedes the result of the action, for example on the Arcane Initiate.

So I replaced it by: "Jacqueline pays the cost to activate the spell, which is spending an action and spending one charge."

While your example is correct, and Spending a charge is part of the cost, the new Sign Magic explicitly states that you only don't pay it's "->->" cost. It does not say e.g. "ignore all costs". Thus won't spend an action, but still pay all other costs like spending a charge.

Still nice action compression but need to refuel spells from time to time.

@Valentin1331: Thank you for the reply, and also for the specific language/example you're looking at. :-)

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think the key part of your logic is that the example describes "Pete pays the cost...," with 'cost' being single thing (even if that single cost has multiple parts, specifically the action and the exhaust). Did I understand you correctly?

I think other parts of the rules describe cards has having multiple costs, not only one cost. For example, looking at the Costs section of the rules, note how the rules refer to 'costs' as being plural:

• Some triggered card abilities are presented in a "cost: effect" construct. In such a construct, the aspect preceding the colon indicates the ability costs that must be paid and any triggering conditions that must be met to trigger the ability.
• If multiple costs for a single card or ability require payment, those costs must be paid simultaneously.

This is what leads me to believe that for your Sign Magick (3) examples the spell assets (like Shrivelling) have multiple costs, with the cost being separate from the "Spend 1 charge" cost. Ignoring one of these costs (the action) doesn't ignore the other cost (the charge) in my reading.

Hopefully we'll get a ruling/clarification. Thank you again for your thoughtful reply! :-)

Thanks @SocialPsientist and @Shakiko for taking the time to react and do the research.

It makes sense otherwise Sign Magick would be just too powerful IMO.

Though in this specific deck, using the charges of your Clairvoyance/Shrivelling is still fine as Wither and Sixth Sense prevent using them for an even amount of clues/hp.

Recharge helps on refilling if needed with almost no chance to fail with Jacqueline Fine's .

And the synergies explored in this deck are still mind-blowing to me! What do you think could be good options?

I like the idea of using both Shrivelling and Azure Flame so if you attack an enemy and miss you have a backup attack option. Also, you can more quickly kill enemies with health that varies by .

I also think that Sign Magick (3) providing both an arcane slot and an action makes some utility spells more interesting. For example, I pretty much never use either Healing Words or Clarity of Mind, yet with an extra slot and action I might use these to heal as I do other actions.

There’s also Twila Katherine Price to save charges. Or Eldritch Sophist from your seeker.

Or add Alchemical Transmutation for more resources so you can replace empty spells.

Or you could alternate between sixth sense and wither to consume no charges.

I don't think Sixth Sense works with Clairvoyance as you describe. Clairvoyance triggers from Sign Magick only after Sixth Sense fully resolves (see Activate Action, which specifies that the consequences of a 'activate' action resolves the action). Subsequently, the 'duration of the indicated ability' (ex. Sixth Sense in this case) would have ended, and you would no longer be investigating at a separate location when Clairvoyance begins its trigger.

FWIW, I believe @Crazly is right here. To re-quote the rules:

[The rules of "As if" say: "Other card abilities or game effects resolved during the duration of the indicated ability or action are also resolved with the altered game state in mind."]

The text on Sign Magick states, "After you activate..." meaning that the action will have already been resolved. The effect of Sixth Sense will have already resolved and so therefore the "As if" clause is no longer relevant.

Hey @Valentin1331, I really love yoir decks and the in-depth write-ups you do, and I am so curious for the 20k-series to continue! As for Jacqueline here, is there the lvl 0 deck with an upgrade guide available somewhere?

Can you update this with the 0xp deck and progression? Thanks :)

any chance of the 0xp deck? thank you