new rule proposal
Derek Ray
So I've been unable so far to find the exact text of the rule on the
casino wall at the poker room. Phone attempts keep bonking into
voicemail; not so tidy. In any case, a proper wording could be easily
hashed out, I just wanted to save the work as it was quite eloquently
phrased.
The rule is as follows (paraphrased):
"Occasionally, sufficiently unusual circumstances may dictate that the
technically exact interpretation of the rules be passed over in the
interest of fairness. The floorperson's decision is final."
(Replace 'floorperson' with 'judge', of course.)
I suggest that this be added to the V:EKN tournament rules.
Why? To screw the rules lawyers who waste years upon years of playing
time attempting to nitpick text or a situation in order to mickey-mouse
something to their favor when their position clearly is an unsustainable
crock of shit, and allow the judge a simple recourse to tell them "Shut
up and play".
---------
Ira, I really hate to single you out, and understand that it's nothing
personal... but your discussion right now with LSJ regarding Aura of
Invincibility is a prime example of this. Your last message in that
thread contains nothing but absolute bollocks. Designer intent is
clear; card text is clear; the net.rep has made a ruling; everything is
crystal clear, but why you're insisting on pushing the issue I haven't a
clue. It's a dead nuts time-waster.
Has the card been used successfully against you recently? (I'll bet
'yes'.) Are you particularly interested in trying to make the card less
usable for other reasons? Just feel like subverting designer intent?
Noticeably obstreperous today? That time of the month?
What, honestly, is the motivating factor here?
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
Ira
Regarding your point about an additional rule, I would certainly
support it.
Regarding your questions to me, see below.
> Ira, I really hate to single you out,
> and understand that it's nothing personal.
Fair enough - I'm happy to be a good example case for you. :)
> Your last message in that thread contains
> nothing but absolute bollocks.
I'm sorry you perceived it that way. I suspect if you perceived it
that way, many other people also perceived it the same way. I assure
you that's not my intention - I don't write just because I like to
hear the little clicks of the keyboard. As difficult as this may be
for you to believe, I actually do not understand why LSJ ruled the way
he did given the card text.
> Designer intent is clear;
This is clear to me only after LSJ made the ruling.
> card text is clear;
This isn't clear to me currently.
> the net.rep has made a ruling;
I'm not in any way debating the ruling - the ruling is crystal clear.
I'm trying to understand the reasoning *behind* the ruling so that I
can apply the idea to other similar situations.
Maybe I've just phrased my confusion poorly. I think my last post
communicated why I am confused about the reasoning behind the ruling,
and I'll await LSJ's response before repeating myself any more.
> Has the card been used successfully against you recently?
> (I'll bet 'yes'.)
You owe me $1. :) As far as I can remember, it has never been used
(successfully or unsuccessfully) in any game I've played, and I've
played about 15 games since that card has become legal.
> Are you particularly interested in trying to make the card less
> usable for other reasons?
Couldn't be farther from the truth! Before this clarification, I
thought the card was below average because I truly believed that if
the initial referendum failed, the vamp would go to torpor. I was
pleasantly surprised to learn I had misunderstood the card, and now
I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the ruling.
Obviously it's trivially easy to understand the correct ruling. A
good judge doesn't simply understand a given ruling, he understands
the reasoning behind the ruling. That's why I've continued to post -
I still don't understand the reasons guiding the ruling.
The ruling itself is clear, and I definitely support it and
understand it.
> Just feel like subverting designer intent?
Not at all.
> What, honestly, is the motivating factor here?
Hopefully I've explained my motivation to you.
I know it's difficult to imagine someone as brilliant as me can't see
why LSJ ruled the way he did, but unfortunately it's true in this
case. ;)
I asked one question in my most recent post in that Aura of
Invincibility thread. If you (or anyone) could answer it in a way I
can understand, I would be both appreciative and satisfied.
Thanks for giving me the chance to explain,
Ira
Derek Ray
ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) mumbled something about:
> I'm sorry you perceived it that way. I suspect if you perceived it
>that way, many other people also perceived it the same way. I assure
>you that's not my intention - I don't write just because I like to
>hear the little clicks of the keyboard. As difficult as this may be
>for you to believe, I actually do not understand why LSJ ruled the way
>he did given the card text.
In general, it is probably safe to assume that if you've got to bend and
twist words and concepts in an unnatural fashion in order to make
something work in a certain way, it's not the way it was intended.
There are obviously exceptions (Blood of the Cobra). But again, it is
really safest to come from the "common sense" perspective. And this is
also something that the proposed rule is intended to address -- if
something is discovered to be well beyond the bounds of common sense
that would be tremendously unfair to a player, it can be passed over.
In this case, your objection is that the sentence "burn this card and
send this vampire to torpor" should apply even though the card isn't on
the vampire, because the card is somehow in play even though the
referendum has failed and the initial statement is false.
Now reread what you said. And think about it. Do you see how many
non-obvious things have to happen for this to be true?
Common sense and previous card examples tell us that the initial
sentence "If this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire
and put a counter on this card." indicates that the rest of the card
text will apply once the card is in play. For this to NOT work in this
fashion would be non-intuitive... so we already have an indicator of
designer intent.
The phrase "burn this card" now comes under review. For it to work the
way you believe, the card must be burnable. If the card isn't burnable,
the rest of the text can't apply. This is also relatively obvious.
-- A card can't be burned that isn't in play in some fashion (hand,
ready region, on a vamp, uncontrolled region).
-- A card played which has a later effect is counted as played, but 'in
limbo' until the later effect resolves.
-- A card 'in limbo' is definitely not in play; it is pending future
resolution. The card doesn't mysteriously land in some "in play" region
in the meantime.
-- A card which is not 'in limbo' is either in play, in the ash heap, or
removed from the game. The initial sentence, once proven false (by the
referendum failing), puts the card squarely in the ash heap as there are
no more pending effects.
Any of these would have to be false in order for the card to have the
effect you believed it did.
Common sense tells us, therefore, that the card works the way it does.
> I'm not in any way debating the ruling - the ruling is crystal clear.
> I'm trying to understand the reasoning *behind* the ruling so that I
>can apply the idea to other similar situations.
The reasoning is "common sense". :) If it would be absolutely
ridiculous for the card to work in any other fashion, then generally
it's safe to assume that it doesn't work in those other fashions.
=)
Daneel
> The rule is as follows (paraphrased):
>
> "Occasionally, sufficiently unusual circumstances may dictate that the
> technically exact interpretation of the rules be passed over in the
> interest of fairness. The floorperson's decision is final."
>
> (Replace 'floorperson' with 'judge', of course.)
>
> I suggest that this be added to the V:EKN tournament rules.
If the situation in question is a newly found loophole or something,
then the judge is free to judge in the way he considers fair (as
he/she is right now).
If the situation is an existing phenomenon, on which there is already
a ruling, then ignoring that ruling implies that VEKN judges have
case-by-case authority over the official VTES rules. As much as there
are some rulings I might currently disagree with, I would hate to see
such a scenario.
> Why? To screw the rules lawyers who waste years upon years of playing
> time attempting to nitpick text or a situation in order to mickey-mouse
> something to their favor when their position clearly is an unsustainable
> crock of shit, and allow the judge a simple recourse to tell them "Shut
> up and play".
Rules-lawyer-type folk could simply take a new spin on arguing -
fairness. Instead of closing a bottle, I feel this to open one. "How
come he can make me spend the blood for the rescue, when it was him
who put Fame on my vampire and pummel her into torpor? This is not
FAIR!".
Also, common sense is "common"... But not uniform. In fact, (almost)
everyone has issues that are not intuitive to them. Most people get
most of the stuff, and therefor all the stuff is intuitive to most of
the people, but everything is not intuitive to anyone. Common sense is
an excellent Rearguard but an awful Goalkeeper.
Some things are just the way they are with no particular cause except
that things have to be one way or another.
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kvklg01p7ttietqq4...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> "Occasionally, sufficiently unusual circumstances may dictate that the
>> technically exact interpretation of the rules be passed over in the
>> interest of fairness. The floorperson's decision is final."
>>
>> (Replace 'floorperson' with 'judge', of course.)
>>
>> I suggest that this be added to the V:EKN tournament rules.
>
>If the situation in question is a newly found loophole or something,
>then the judge is free to judge in the way he considers fair (as
>he/she is right now).
This is a rule to cut short the arguments over 'card text' which
invariably ensue in these situations, with the lawyer attempting to
convince the judge of what card text does or doesn't say, and whether or
not some certain rule does what it claims. It is a ham-fisted bludgeon;
some people need to be bludgeoned occasionally.
>If the situation is an existing phenomenon, on which there is already
>a ruling, then ignoring that ruling implies that VEKN judges have
>case-by-case authority over the official VTES rules. As much as there
>are some rulings I might currently disagree with, I would hate to see
>such a scenario.
Why? Do you not trust your judges?
If you do not trust your judges to accurately interpret the official
V:TES rules and rulings, then I think you have a much bigger problem
than whether or not my proposed rule should be included.
>> Why? To screw the rules lawyers who waste years upon years of playing
>> time attempting to nitpick text or a situation in order to mickey-mouse
>> something to their favor when their position clearly is an unsustainable
>> crock of shit, and allow the judge a simple recourse to tell them "Shut
>> up and play".
>
>Rules-lawyer-type folk could simply take a new spin on arguing -
>fairness. Instead of closing a bottle, I feel this to open one. "How
>come he can make me spend the blood for the rescue, when it was him
>who put Fame on my vampire and pummel her into torpor? This is not
>FAIR!".
Judge's response: "Acting minion's controller determines the parameters
of the action. I think it's fair; shut up and play."
Again, this is an issue of whether or not you trust your judges to be
capable of determining "fair". After all, why do we have judges? In
order to enforce the rules, such that a fair game is played.
By default, we are already accepting the judge's decision as to what is
fair and what isn't. This rule simply puts it right out in the open and
reminds those people who need reminding... as well as forcing a rules
lawyer to directly challenge the judge's definition of fair, something
most of them are not willing to do.
>Also, common sense is "common"... But not uniform. In fact, (almost)
Again, if you do not trust your judge's definition of common sense, then
you do not have a "fairness" issue; you have a judge selection issue.
If you seem to be the only person who is incapable of trusting your
local judge, then it is time for you to go look in the mirror and do
some serious contemplation.
>Some things are just the way they are with no particular cause except
>that things have to be one way or another.
Isn't it much easier to have that stated out front? "Look, forcing
someone to end their turn early and skip their influence and discard
phases simply because they untapped with a Leather Jacket is obviously
bullshit. Shut up and play."
Daneel
> Isn't it much easier to have that stated out front? "Look, forcing
> someone to end their turn early and skip their influence and discard
> phases simply because they untapped with a Leather Jacket is obviously
> bullshit. Shut up and play."
Nice example. The opponents reason that since the Jacket can only
untap at the end of the turn, it must be the end of the turn (since
the Jacket just untapped its minion). Another line of thought says
that since the Jacket can only untap at the end of the turn, the
untapping was illegal (since the player did not announce to skip the
phases in-between). So without supervising any rules the judge can
simply rule that the minion must be un-untapped as the current phase
does not allow the Jacket to untap it (and must remain tapped until
the end of the player's turn). Same goes for other temporal beasties
like The Coven.
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<48drg0hp950h5t5m8...@4ax.com>...
I selected this example because it is one which a ruling has already
been made on. There will be more examples in the future, in real life,
at tournaments, and we will not have the benefit of past experience to
indicate the correct ruling. In fact, some judges may not be already
aware of this particular example, and might allow themselves to be
bullied into the incorrect ruling by a particularly forceful
personality... as even though they know what SHOULD happen, they can't
come up with a justification from the rules in a short time period.
It is clearly a better choice to have a rule in place that allows judges
to NOT have to craft such a complicated ruling on a moment's notice, and
instead allows them to use common sense in their determination, skip
over all the rules-lawyering crap, and spend 30 seconds to say
"Ridiculous. Shut up and play."
Damnans
Derek Ray wrote:
> So I've been unable so far to find the exact text of the rule on the
> casino wall at the poker room. Phone attempts keep bonking into
> voicemail; not so tidy. In any case, a proper wording could be easily
> hashed out, I just wanted to save the work as it was quite eloquently
> phrased.
>
> The rule is as follows (paraphrased):
>
> "Occasionally, sufficiently unusual circumstances may dictate that the
> technically exact interpretation of the rules be passed over in the
> interest of fairness. The floorperson's decision is final."
>
> (Replace 'floorperson' with 'judge', of course.)
>
> I suggest that this be added to the V:EKN tournament rules.
>
> Why? To screw the rules lawyers who waste years upon years of playing
> time attempting to nitpick text or a situation in order to mickey-mouse
> something to their favor when their position clearly is an unsustainable
> crock of shit, and allow the judge a simple recourse to tell them "Shut
> up and play".
I think the current V:EKN Tournament Rules already cover that:
2.5. Judge Responsibilities
All judges have the responsibility to deliver *FAIR*, impartial rulings
and [...]. Judges must take action to resolve any rules infraction (whether
a violation of the V:EKN Tournament Rules or the game rules) they notice or
that is brought to their attention.
2.6. Head Judge Responsibilities
Officially sanctioned competition requires the physical presence of a
head judge during play to adjudicate disputes, interpret rules, assign
penalties, and make other official decisions. [...]
The head judge is the final judicial authority at any V:EKN-sanctioned
tournament (see section 2.5 - Judge Responsibilities).
[...]
I.e, judges must be fair, and one of their duties is to interpret
the rules ;-)
Greetings,
Damnans
Joshua Duffin
> In message <500e74e.04073...@posting.google.com>,
> ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) mumbled something about:
>
> > I'm sorry you perceived it that way. I suspect if you perceived it
> >that way, many other people also perceived it the same way. I assure
> >you that's not my intention - I don't write just because I like to
> >hear the little clicks of the keyboard. As difficult as this may be
> >for you to believe, I actually do not understand why LSJ ruled the
way
> >he did given the card text.
>
> In general, it is probably safe to assume that if you've got to bend
and
> twist words and concepts in an unnatural fashion in order to make
> something work in a certain way, it's not the way it was intended.
Well, I think the twisting probably originates with the newish class of
"action modifiers that go into play". Since there's no symbol for that,
it was probably not 100% obvious that the phrase "this vampire", which
on "normal" action modifiers has always meant "the acting vampire" (not
caring that the card wasn't going into play) *only* means "the vampire
with this card once it is put in play" and not "the acting vampire, even
before this card is put in play".
It had never occurred to me that that clause on Aura of Invincibility
could be read as an effect that applied even before the card was put in
play. But the correct reading relies basically on the fact that the
phrase "if this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire"
precedes the "torpor" clause in the text.
Sure, it's reasonable and sensible for card text to be read assuming
that anything after "put this card in play" on an action modifier only
applies once the card is in play. But it's not something that's
explicitly stated in the rulebook, so I can understand someone not
coming up with it on their own.
Your "limbo" explanation, by the way, while sensible, (and I think it is
supported by recent rulings) is also not actually stated in the rulebook
that I know of...
Josh
has some sense some of the time
Derek Ray
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> mumbled something about:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nqing0tpqlupbvq72...@4ax.com...
>> In general, it is probably safe to assume that if you've got to bend
>and
>> twist words and concepts in an unnatural fashion in order to make
>> something work in a certain way, it's not the way it was intended.
>
>Well, I think the twisting probably originates with the newish class of
>"action modifiers that go into play". Since there's no symbol for that,
>it was probably not 100% obvious that the phrase "this vampire", which
Sure, but 95% obvious should do. ;)
>Your "limbo" explanation, by the way, while sensible, (and I think it is
>supported by recent rulings) is also not actually stated in the rulebook
>that I know of...
I was drawing from recent rulings; the rulebook definitely doesn't say
anything about all that.
Derek Ray
Damnans <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> The rule is as follows (paraphrased):
>>
>> "Occasionally, sufficiently unusual circumstances may dictate that the
>> technically exact interpretation of the rules be passed over in the
>> interest of fairness. The floorperson's decision is final."
>
>I think the current V:EKN Tournament Rules already cover that:
>
>2.5. Judge Responsibilities
>
> All judges have the responsibility to deliver *FAIR*, impartial rulings
>and [...]. Judges must take action to resolve any rules infraction (whether
>a violation of the V:EKN Tournament Rules or the game rules) they notice or
>that is brought to their attention.
However, what if a person is able to make a sufficiently valid-sounding
case under the rules, and cite those rules? We really do not want to
give any leeway to wordsmiths and semantic artists; we would like people
to just shut up and play. =)
It's worth noting that if this works for a casino, where there are many,
many, MANY more serious arguments than any V:TES tournament ever, then
I'm confident it will work just fine for us. There's no way V:TES
players could ever match up to hardcore gamblers when it comes to
getting one's whine on in an effort to get their way; after all, it's
real money those guys are shooting for and sometimes it's quite a lot.
>2.6. Head Judge Responsibilities
>
> Officially sanctioned competition requires the physical presence of a
>head judge during play to adjudicate disputes, interpret rules, assign
>penalties, and make other official decisions. [...]
> The head judge is the final judicial authority at any V:EKN-sanctioned
>tournament (see section 2.5 - Judge Responsibilities).
That's the second sentence, but not the first one.
>I.e, judges must be fair, and one of their duties is to interpret
>the rules ;-)
Of course. So why not flat out say it? =)
LSJ
> Well, I think the twisting probably originates with the newish class of
> "action modifiers that go into play". Since there's no symbol for that,
> it was probably not 100% obvious that the phrase "this vampire", which
> on "normal" action modifiers has always meant "the acting vampire" (not
> caring that the card wasn't going into play) *only* means "the vampire
> with this card once it is put in play" and not "the acting vampire, even
> before this card is put in play".
On cards that go into play (actions, action modifiers, reactions, etc.),
"this vampire" has uniformly meant "the vampire with this card", TTBOMK.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Rogar
> Sure, it's reasonable and sensible for card text to be read assuming
> that anything after "put this card in play" on an action modifier only
> applies once the card is in play. But it's not something that's
> explicitly stated in the rulebook, so I can understand someone not
> coming up with it on their own.
And if it was stated explicitly, it would change the way The Coven works. Or
maybe I've been playing The Coven wrong the whole time...
Rogar
Damnans
Derek Ray wrote:
> In message <GrrPc.421$Ul5.1...@news.ono.com>,
> Damnans <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> mumbled something about:
>
>
>>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The rule is as follows (paraphrased):
>>>
>>>"Occasionally, sufficiently unusual circumstances may dictate that the
>>>technically exact interpretation of the rules be passed over in the
>>>interest of fairness. The floorperson's decision is final."
>>
>>I think the current V:EKN Tournament Rules already cover that:
[...]
>>I.e, judges must be fair, and one of their duties is to interpret
>>the rules ;-)
>
>
> Of course. So why not flat out say it? =)
Well, why not? :) As you said before, this tournament rules
clarification would keep some mouths shut >:-)
Greetings,
Damnans
--
David Cherryholmes
> It's worth noting that if this works for a casino, where there are many,
> many, MANY more serious arguments than any V:TES tournament ever, then
> I'm confident it will work just fine for us. There's no way V:TES
> players could ever match up to hardcore gamblers when it comes to
> getting one's whine on in an effort to get their way; after all, it's
> real money those guys are shooting for and sometimes it's quite a lot.
But what if we're, like, the Karate Kid of whine? :)
__
David Cherryholmes
wax on, wax off!
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:2n9c8qF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:2n7qj8F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > Well, I think the twisting probably originates with the newish class
of
> > "action modifiers that go into play". Since there's no symbol for
that,
> > it was probably not 100% obvious that the phrase "this vampire",
which
> > on "normal" action modifiers has always meant "the acting vampire"
(not
> > caring that the card wasn't going into play) *only* means "the
vampire
> > with this card once it is put in play" and not "the acting vampire,
even
> > before this card is put in play".
>
> On cards that go into play (actions, action modifiers, reactions,
etc.),
> "this vampire" has uniformly meant "the vampire with this card",
TTBOMK.
Well, on Darksight, and Melange, at least one use of "this vampire"
means "the reacting vampire" and not "the vampire that this card goes
onto".
Also see Sins of the Cauchemar for a card written to avoid any ambiguity
(while acknowledging the issues of space that you pointed out earlier in
the thread, regarding Aura of Invincibility specifically). :-)
My only point here, really (and I think it's what Ira's confusion
originated from), is that card types that don't *normally* go into play
can benefit from being written with more explicit delineation of "in
play" versus "as played" effects, compared to card types that *do*
normally go into play (like equipment).
Josh
there's no black ops
yeah nobody's reading your mail
Joshua Duffin
"Rogar" <MYNICKN...@phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:slrncguvv8.29sp...@toad.stack.nl...
hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. :-) The Coven is a master
card, not an action modifier. Master cards have a long tradition of
examples that start their text with "put this card in play". My
speculation above was about action modifiers, and how to read/write
their texts, since the "usual" or "traditional" case for action
modifiers is that their effects apply only for the duration of the
action they're played in, and that they don't get put into play.
Josh
haven uncovened
LSJ
> > On cards that go into play (actions, action modifiers, reactions,
> etc.),
> > "this vampire" has uniformly meant "the vampire with this card",
> TTBOMK.
>
> Well, on Darksight, and Melange, at least one use of "this vampire"
> means "the reacting vampire" and not "the vampire that this card goes
> onto".
OK. Overstated.
Darksight: "this vampire" before being put into play; clear in context
("this vampire blocks"), and the card text goes on to avoid repeating
the term to avoid confusion after the card is in plau.
Melange: Written by other company. Again context makes it clear, though.
> My only point here, really (and I think it's what Ira's confusion
> originated from), is that card types that don't *normally* go into play
> can benefit from being written with more explicit delineation of "in
> play" versus "as played" effects, compared to card types that *do*
> normally go into play (like equipment).
Whether a card type typically goes into play or not doesn't matter.
It's whether the individual card goes into play or not. Focussing
on Aura's modfierness is being distracted.
The current card writers try to avoid ambiguity in all cases, of course.
"This vampire" and "the vampire with this card" and "this reacting
vampire" and so forth being chosen specifically for their suitability
to the purpose (in each individual context).
The Doctor
>
> Well, I think the twisting probably originates with the newish class of
> "action modifiers that go into play". Since there's no symbol for that,
Since cards like Spying Mission have been with us since Jyhad, what's so
new about this class ?
//Doc.
Joshua Duffin
"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message
news:410fa8b1$0$21106$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
"Newish" = "kind of like new". Not "totally new".
Spying Mission was the only action modifier that went on the acting
vampire at least until Sabbat. There were none that went onto the
acting vampire for an immediate effect (as opposed to a delayed effect)
until Bloodlines. Not that any of those matter to you. :-)
Josh
obliging
Rogar
> "Rogar" <MYNICKN...@phreaker.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncguvv8.29sp...@toad.stack.nl...
> > works. Or maybe I've been playing The Coven wrong the whole time...
>
> hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. :-) The Coven is a master
> card, not an action modifier. Master cards have a long tradition of
> examples that start their text with "put this card in play". My
> speculation above was about action modifiers, and how to read/write
> their texts, since the "usual" or "traditional" case for action
> modifiers is that their effects apply only for the duration of the
> action they're played in, and that they don't get put into play.
Okay, maybe it is not exactly the same thing. I was just noting that some
cards, in particular The Coven, can be read in different ways. The clause
"At the end of your turn, your predator takes control of The Coven."
could, strictly seen, apply to the one time playing of the card, to the
tap effect alone, or to the being in play. Most of the time, the meaning
seems to be clear to most people, so it's not worth rephrasing it into
a ten liner. If people disagree... we'll always have LSJ. ;)
Rogar
Derek Ray
David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> mumbled something
about:
Then we'll sweep the leg. =)