SUZI double playing events recursively

did we? XD

While I love the idea, drawing Double, Double (4*) early seems like a crapshoot even with 1x No Stone Unturned (5) and 1x Cryptic Research (4)

Perhaps Scroll of Secrets (3) to help increase the odds? you can also munch and Regurgitate them once it's expended.

What helped me is that for the first couple turns Suzi's stats are awful. So if you ended up needing to draw a lot, it was less of a big deal. I had planned on getting another Cryptic Research and or No Stone Unturned but didn't end up getting yellow xp again.

Scroll of Secrets wouldn't be crazy, but if I had yellow xp again I would probably rather search entire deck 40+ cards instead of 9. Given her huge deck size any normal search/draw feels pretty underpowered at finding a specific card.

I love Scroll of Secrets (3) in Suzi because of the number of weaknesses - it pulls double duty in getting rid of them too. :-) Looks like you enjoyed playing her!

I was irritating the hell out of my mates going Omm Nomm Nomm Nomm the whole time!

I'm not sure that you can eat cards under Crystallizer of Dreams. Those cards are available to be used but they are not "controlled" by the player in the way that deployed cards are.

(1.14) Control of Attachments An attachment may change control depending on the card it is attached to.

=If an investigator attaches a player card to a player card he or she controls, he or she retains control of the attachment.

=If an investigator attaches a player card to a player card another investigator controls, that other investigator takes control of the attachment.

=If a player card with 1 or more player attachments changes control, the card’s new controller takes control of those player attachments.

=If an investigator attaches a player card to an encounter card, he or she retains control of the attachment (but does not gain control of the attached encounter card).

Seems to imply you control attached cards

Hrm, good point. Looks like you're right. And this would also apply to Backpack.

Ya should apply there as well. However it's applied to assets you have not used while crystalizer is events you have used. Also backpack discarding makes it inconvenient, I ran into this trying to eat teammates Schoffner's Catalogue ,I would have to eat it with 1 money left

That's true but it means you get to eat them for free, without having to spend an action + resources to deploy. So in my guardian deck that I just played, I would have loved to use this to juice Suzy up more quickly had I known.

And yea, the backpack does vanish instantly when it is empty so you can't eat it also.

I'm now wondering what other attach cards could be used like this

Hey, I actually think this interpretation is wrong, sadly. Cards attached facedown underneath other player cards are considered out of play, if the rules clarification on Sefina Rousseau's page is extrapolated for this situation. As someone on reddit pointed out, this is pretty likely to be the case, otherwise doom or abilities on enemies attached underneath Binder's Jar would still be considered in play and active.

Furthermore, if control of a card was the only requirement to be able to devour it, then Subject 5U-21 or Ravenous would be able to devour cards from the discard pile or other out-of-play areas, as the rules on Ownership and Control state:

"A player controls the cards located in his or her out-of-play game areas (such as the hand, deck, discard pile)."

At that point, why bother with shenanigans like Backpack or Crystallizer of Dreams at all?

TL;DR Player cards attached facedown underneath other player cards are controlled by the player but not in play, and thus can't be the target of either Subject 5U-21's ability or Ravenous.

I am not sure your Sefina example is exactly a fair comparison because that is about in play not controlled. However, your discard pile argument is very interesting and persuasive.

Really I think the card text is just poorly written, which is okay given it's more of a joke investigator than a proper one.

I actually went several scenarios before deciding Crystallizer of Dreams worked that way and only eating my assets or teammates assets. I would still suggest an event based deck like this one if the rules were clarified to ban eating Crystallizer. Would have upgraded it slightly differently though, towards the end I decided I was pretty much only willing to spend XP on more events.

Been trying to sort through the comments and see which side of the fence I end up falling on based on how I read things and see here. I don't think it is as cut and dry as some people are saying.

For example: "Furthermore, if control of a card was the only requirement to be able to devour it, then Subject 5U-21 or Ravenous would be able to devour cards from the discard pile or other out-of-play areas, as the rules on Ownership and Control state:" No, because the specific cards explicitly state there's an at your location clause, which would trumps any wider general game rule. And CoD does satisfy the location clause. Discard and general out of play are locationless.

There's a general global concept of card out of play=>can't interact with it rule, but I think that general rule breaks down here as there's card specifics in this combo that include references to out of play and interaction that is allowed.

If the the global rule concept of out of play->can't interact and cards can't trump this rule ever, then CoD, ravenous, etc would not work in the first place as they do interact with out of play zones. Obviously the cards themselves outside this combo interact with cards out of play indivudally. So does this combination of cards fall back on the global rule (ie doesn't work) or is it a sum of the parts where the pieces can interact individually out of play? And if that line of thought is too vague, then: What part of "non-story card controlled by an investigator at your location" is not satifisfied explicitely as written, with a CoD dreams having an attached card under it? It's controlled, a card, and at your location.

Wouldn't the global rule be, "You can't interact with cards that are out of play unless explicitly referred to by the ability"?

Crystallizer of Dreams, Backpack, Scavenging, Hallowed Mirror, and Ravenous, cards like this are all quite specific with the out of play area cards that they allow you to interact with.

Why does Ravenous specify that you may devour cards from underneath it as well as cards controlled by an investigator at your location? By your logic, wouldn't it be sufficient to simply write: "Devour a non-story card controlled by an investigator at your location" and it would cover the cards underneath Ravenous?

Also, cards that are out of play are not considered to be at any location, but the investigator controlling them is. There's some ambiguity here for sure, I'm really not sure when reading this line:

"Devour a non-story card controlled by an investigator at your location."

if "at your location" refers to the investigator or the card itself. If another player drops Map the Area or Makeshift Trap on a location, then leaves, do you have to go to the investigator or the location to devour it?

I sense that I'm quibbling about semantics that can be interpreted in multiple different ways. As is usually the case with Arkham, it seems like you should just play it with your favorite/most earnest interpretation until FFG decides to clarify it whichever way they want. Or someone submits a rules question form.

"Wouldn't the global rule be, "You can't interact with cards that are out of play unless explicitly referred to by the ability?"

If you follow that line of thought, the cards in question have the attachment ability listed, and per the rules: "Once in play, an attachment remains attached until either the attachment or the game element to which it is attached leaves play". So for the cards to be attached - the cards have to be "in play" as part of the specific attach rule - as a more narrow rule than always would trump a global one?

I'm not super skilled on the rules here, but there is a verbiage difference that might be critical for whether or not 5U-21 can devour a card beneath Crystalizer.

Sefina instructs you to "place" the card beneath her. Crystalizer instructs you to "attach" cards to its self. While the ruling on Sefina clarifies that her cards are not in play I don't think we can apply that to Crystalizer because of this difference. Attached cards are typically in play and at the location of whatever they are attached to. They're face down so their text isn't effecting the game, but I don't see any reason to believe they are not in play.