Vox Senis and Sudden Reversal
Dieter
Unique Master
Put this card in play. Each Methuselah gets 1 additional vote during
each referendum. Alternatively during a referendum, you may
!!DISCARD!!
this card from your hand as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes in
that referendum.
Sudden Reversal
Master: out-of-turn.
Burn a master card !!played!! by another Methuselah as that card is
played. That card has no effect (no cost is paid).
The question that came up in the german vekn forum is this:
Can you cancel an OOT "discarded" Vox Senis by a Sudden Reversal?
Two opnions are:
a) No, 'cause the card is not played and therefore can't be burned by
a Sudden.
b) Yes, 'cause the word "discard" was only choosen to avoid
misunderstandings regarding the uniqueness of Vox Senis and doesn't
change the fact that it is still used as an OOT Master Card.
Since both points of view sound logically correct a statement from LSJ
would be great.
btw. my guess is b)
Cheers,
Dieter Ahrweiler
LSJ
b).
--
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/
salem
scrawled:
>Dieter wrote:
>> Vox Senis
>> Unique Master
>> Put this card in play. Each Methuselah gets 1 additional vote during
>> each referendum. Alternatively during a referendum, you may
>> !!DISCARD!!
>> this card from your hand as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes in
>> that referendum.
>>
>> Sudden Reversal
>> Master: out-of-turn.
>> Burn a master card !!played!! by another Methuselah as that card is
>> played. That card has no effect (no cost is paid).
>>
>> The question that came up in the german vekn forum is this:
>>
>> Can you cancel an OOT "discarded" Vox Senis by a Sudden Reversal?
>> Two opnions are:
>>
>> a) No, 'cause the card is not played and therefore can't be burned by
>> a Sudden.
>>
>> b) Yes, 'cause the word "discard" was only choosen to avoid
>> misunderstandings regarding the uniqueness of Vox Senis and doesn't
>> change the fact that it is still used as an OOT Master Card.
>>
>> Since both points of view sound logically correct a statement from LSJ
>> would be great.
>>
>> btw. my guess is b)
>
>b).
so can someone Sudden Reversal a master card discarded to fail Chas
Giovanni Tello's action? :/
can someone Sudden Reversal the two masters discarded as Master out of
Turn to burn Tension in the Ranks?
Can someone Sudden Reversal the master card discarded as an oot to
steal the Brothers Grimm?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
LSJ
> so can someone Sudden Reversal a master card discarded to fail Chas
> Giovanni Tello's action? :/
No.
> can someone Sudden Reversal the two masters discarded as Master out of
> Turn to burn Tension in the Ranks?
No.
> Can someone Sudden Reversal the master card discarded as an oot to
> steal the Brothers Grimm?
No.
Reyda
and the logic behind this, is ... ???
LSJ
> and the logic behind this, is ... ???
The logic behind a post with no context is... ???
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3FCCC462...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> > and the logic behind this, is ... ???
>
> The logic behind a post with no context is... ???
my dad is stronger than yours !
salem
scrawled:
>Reyda wrote:
>> and the logic behind this, is ... ???
>
>The logic behind a post with no context is... ???
just to get back to things..(despite Reyda's amusing follow-up), is it
because Vox Senis says to discard as a out-of-turn master, meaning Vox
Senis itself is an out of turn master card when discarded thusly,
rather than 'as a master out of turn master action', you can discard
Vox Senis...which has a subtle difference that i am not sure i am
conveying correctly.
LSJ
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:57:06 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:
>
>
>>Reyda wrote:
>>
>>>and the logic behind this, is ... ???
>>
>>The logic behind a post with no context is... ???
>
>
> just to get back to things..(despite Reyda's amusing follow-up), is it
> because Vox Senis says to discard as a out-of-turn master, meaning Vox
> Senis itself is an out of turn master card when discarded thusly,
> rather than 'as a master out of turn master action', you can discard
> Vox Senis...which has a subtle difference that i am not sure i am
> conveying correctly.
The thing which allows Vox Senis to be used as a oot master is card text
on Vox Senis itself - no other effect.
Henrik Isaksson
> salem wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:57:06 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> > scrawled:
> >
> >
> >>Reyda wrote:
> >>
> >>>and the logic behind this, is ... ???
> >>
> >>The logic behind a post with no context is... ???
> >
> >
> > just to get back to things..(despite Reyda's amusing follow-up), is it
> > because Vox Senis says to discard as a out-of-turn master, meaning Vox
> > Senis itself is an out of turn master card when discarded thusly,
> > rather than 'as a master out of turn master action', you can discard
> > Vox Senis...which has a subtle difference that i am not sure i am
> > conveying correctly.
>
> The thing which allows Vox Senis to be used as a oot master is card text
> on Vox Senis itself - no other effect.
>
Vox senis:
Alternatively, during a referendum, you may discard this card from your hand as an out-of-turn
master to gain 3 votes in that referendum.
Chas:
When Chas announces an action, any other Methuselah can discard a master card as an out-of-turn
master to cause the action to fail. Chas gets +1 strength when in combat with a titled vampire.
/henrik isaksson
LSJ
Here's a difference:
The thing which allows Vox Senis to be used as a oot master is card text
on Vox Senis itself - no other effect.
Eric Simon
> and the logic behind this, is ... ???
In all of the cases LSJ said "No" to, there is no master card being
"played". By card text of Sudden Reversal ("Burn a master card played
by another Methuselah as the card is played."), there must be
something PLAYED for it to be cancelled. Yes, you are discarding
cards in each of those cases, but when it's during the Master phase,
you are doing so only as a Master Phase Action, which does not
automatically render the discarded card "played". How does this
compare to Vox Senis? Let's read two card texts:
Brothers Grimm
Blah blah blah...Any Methuselah can use a master phase action and
discard a master card from his or her hand to take control of the
Brothers Grimm...Blah blah.
Vox Senis
Blah blah...Alternatively, during a referendum, you may discard this
card from your hand as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes in that
referendum.
So the original question was, does this wording mean Vox Senis is
"played"? To which the answer is "Yes". This does not change any
previously existing situations, because the wordings are not similar.
The difference is that Brothers Grimm and Tension in the Ranks refer
to "Master Phase Action" (not cancellable) while Vox Senis refers to
"Out-of-turn Master" (cancellable).
Eric Simon
Prince of Chicago
salem
wha...?
Chas:
When Chas announces an action, any other Methuselah can discard a
master card as an out-of-turn master to cause the action to fail.
Vox Senis:
Alternatively, during a referendum, you may discard this
card from your hand as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes in that
referendum.
So Chas is cancellable? no, he's not, according to LSJ.
Discarded is NOT played. I don't see why Vox can be SR'd but Chas
can't.
Can I DI someone ditching a combat card to burn Chiram's Hold? No.
Discarding is not playing.
The only difference i can see is Vox Senis makes itself an oot master
card when you discard it. the other effects are not oot master cards.
they're just oot effects, which happen to require master cards.
I'd be all happy and less confused if Vox Senis said
'Alternatively, during a referendum, you may *play* this card from
your hand (to the ash heap) as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes
in that referendum.'
...then i'd see why it's SR-able.
i guess it was writen it's current way to stop people thinking it goes
in play when you play it as an oot.
Charles Lechasseur
wrote:
>Henrik Isaksson wrote:
>> I fail to see the difference between the card text on Vox senis and the
cards that salem listed...
>>
>> Vox senis:
>> Alternatively, during a referendum, you may discard this card from your
hand as an out-of-turn
>> master to gain 3 votes in that referendum.
>>
>> Chas:
>> When Chas announces an action, any other Methuselah can discard a
master card as an out-of-turn
>> master to cause the action to fail. Chas gets +1 strength when in
combat with a titled vampire.
>
>Here's a difference:
>
>The thing which allows Vox Senis to be used as a oot master is card text
>on Vox Senis itself - no other effect.
sorry to push this point still, but i think it's not yet perfectly clear.
you say that it's "card text on Vox Senis itself" - fine. could you tell
us *exactly* the part of Vox Senis' text that makes it a legal target for
Sudden Reversal? highlighting the important part would help determine the
difference. because i still see two texts that use the exact same words to
describe their effect...
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
LSJ
> sorry to push this point still, but i think it's not yet perfectly clear.
> you say that it's "card text on Vox Senis itself" - fine. could you tell
> us *exactly* the part of Vox Senis' text that makes it a legal target for
> Sudden Reversal? highlighting the important part would help determine the
> difference. because i still see two texts that use the exact same words to
> describe their effect...
They use the same words. One is already in play.
LSJ
> I'd be all happy and less confused if Vox Senis said
> 'Alternatively, during a referendum, you may *play* this card from
> your hand (to the ash heap) as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes
> in that referendum.'
>
> ...then i'd see why it's SR-able.
>
> i guess it was writen it's current way to stop people thinking it goes
> in play when you play it as an oot.
True. The original "play" wording was changed to "discard" in order
to avoid the possible confusion you note. At the expense of other
confusion, apparently.
Angus, the Unruled
> Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i meddelandet news:3FCDDC7E...@white-wolf.com...
> >>salem wrote:
> >>The thing which allows Vox Senis to be used as a oot master is card text
> >>on Vox Senis itself - no other effect.
> >
> > I fail to see the difference between the card text on Vox senis and the cards that salem listed...
> >
> > Vox senis:
> > Alternatively, during a referendum, you may discard this card from your hand as an out-of-turn
> > master to gain 3 votes in that referendum.
> >
> > Chas:
> > When Chas announces an action, any other Methuselah can discard a master card as an out-of-turn
> > master to cause the action to fail. Chas gets +1 strength when in combat with a titled vampire.
>
> Here's a difference:
>
> The thing which allows Vox Senis to be used as a oot master is card text
> on Vox Senis itself - no other effect.
And i always thought that all card texts are under the same rules, no
matter on which cards they appear ...
Sorry for the sarcasm, but i fail to see the difference between a card
with the text on it that makes it useable as an oot master and a card
which is used as an oot master due to another cards's text.
LSJ
> And i always thought that all card texts are under the same rules, no
> matter on which cards they appear ...
You mean like the rule that the text on cards that aren't in play and aren't
being played doesn't apply?
> Sorry for the sarcasm, but i fail to see the difference between a card
No need for apology; sarcasm only stings when it is flies true.
> with the text on it that makes it useable as an oot master and a card
> which is used as an oot master due to another cards's text.
The text doesn't have any power if it isn't being played or in play.
Charles Lechasseur
wrote:
>Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>> sorry to push this point still, but i think it's not yet perfectly clear.
>> you say that it's "card text on Vox Senis itself" - fine. could you tell
>> us *exactly* the part of Vox Senis' text that makes it a legal target for
>> Sudden Reversal? highlighting the important part would help determine the
>> difference. because i still see two texts that use the exact same words to
>> describe their effect...
>
>They use the same words. One is already in play.
the Master discarded to cancel Chas' action is not already in play... but
it is indeed a difference, because that master is not discarded because of
its own text, but because of the text of another card, thus cannot be
considered "played", i guess.
i know that you're not a big fan of unneeded erratas, but maybe a simple
replacement of "discarded" by "played" in the online card texts would
clear things up?
LSJ
>>>sorry to push this point still, but i think it's not yet perfectly clear.
>>>you say that it's "card text on Vox Senis itself" - fine. could you tell
>>>us *exactly* the part of Vox Senis' text that makes it a legal target for
>>>Sudden Reversal? highlighting the important part would help determine the
>>>difference. because i still see two texts that use the exact same words to
>>>describe their effect...
>>
>>They use the same words. One is already in play.
>
> the Master discarded to cancel Chas' action is not already in play... but
And it (the discarded master card) doesn't use the exact same words as
Vox Senis (in general, at any rate).
> it is indeed a difference, because that master is not discarded because of
> its own text, but because of the text of another card, thus cannot be
> considered "played", i guess.
>
> i know that you're not a big fan of unneeded erratas, but maybe a simple
> replacement of "discarded" by "played" in the online card texts would
> clear things up?
That would be a clarification, not errata.
Reyda
> Angus, the Unruled wrote:
> > And i always thought that all card texts are under the same rules, no
> > matter on which cards they appear ...
>
> You mean like the rule that the text on cards that aren't in play and
aren't
> being played doesn't apply?
If we stick clearly to your definition, Sybil's tongue cost should always be
zero ? =)
At least if the name of a card is part of the text on the card.
LSJ
> If we stick clearly to your definition, Sybil's tongue cost should always be
> zero ? =)
> At least if the name of a card is part of the text on the card.
No, clearly. See the myriad of other examples that show this to be a spurious
argument, as I'm sure you knew already.
Eric Simon
> >"played"? To which the answer is "Yes". This does not change any
> >previously existing situations, because the wordings are not similar.
> >The difference is that Brothers Grimm and Tension in the Ranks refer
> >to "Master Phase Action" (not cancellable) while Vox Senis refers to
> >"Out-of-turn Master" (cancellable).
> So Chas is cancellable? no, he's not, according to LSJ.
Well, I specifically only referred to Grimm and Tension, because
they're the ones that have clear differences. Because of your
explanation, I can also see the problem with the textual similarity
with Chas.
> The only difference i can see is Vox Senis makes itself an oot master
> card when you discard it. the other effects are not oot master cards.
> they're just oot effects, which happen to require master cards.
Right. The real problem is that the wording on Chas and Vox Senis IS
similar, but Vox Senis is its own card, whereas Chas allows ANY card
to become an OOT master. I think the intention that LSJ is trying to
express is that because the card text is ON Vox Senis and therefore
can only be played with that card, it's different. Unfortunately,
there are no clear rules or cardtext reasons that this should be so,
so some sort of adjustment and arbitrary clarification seems
necessary.
> I'd be all happy and less confused if Vox Senis said
> 'Alternatively, during a referendum, you may *play* this card from
> your hand (to the ash heap) as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes
> in that referendum.'
Agreed. Another thing that might clarify the situation is if Chas'
text added a specific reference to "master phase action" rather than
just "master".
Angus, the Unruled
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3FCF388B...@white-wolf.com...
> Angus, the Unruled wrote:
> > And i always thought that all card texts are under the same rules, no
> > matter on which cards they appear ...
>
> You mean like the rule that the text on cards that aren't in play and
aren't
> being played doesn't apply?
>
Actually, yes!
At least .. this rule too.
You seem to misunderstand me.
The rule is still the same. Both cards, the one in play and the one out of
play are under the same rule which says that a card's text doesn't apply if
the card is not in play and not being played.
What i was refering to was that in the Vox-case, the vox's text says that
you can discard it as an oot master for an effect, whereas in the chas-case
chas's text says that another methuselah can discard a master as an oot
master for an effect.
Same texts, but as it seems with different ruling.
> > Sorry for the sarcasm, but i fail to see the difference between a card
>
> No need for apology; sarcasm only stings when it is flies true.
>
> > with the text on it that makes it useable as an oot master and a card
> > which is used as an oot master due to another cards's text.
>
> The text doesn't have any power if it isn't being played or in play.
Chas is in play.
Angus, the Unruled
"Eric Simon" <vol...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6f81fa2c.03120...@posting.google.com...
Exactly what i was saying.
>
> > I'd be all happy and less confused if Vox Senis said
> > 'Alternatively, during a referendum, you may *play* this card from
> > your hand (to the ash heap) as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes
> > in that referendum.'
>
> Agreed. Another thing that might clarify the situation is if Chas'
> text added a specific reference to "master phase action" rather than
> just "master".
I don't think any card needs alteration. It's not like it would have any
mayor impact on game balance if a sudden would be possible or not.
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3FCF388B...@white-wolf.com...
>>Angus, the Unruled wrote:
>>>And i always thought that all card texts are under the same rules, no
>>>matter on which cards they appear ...
>>
>>You mean like the rule that the text on cards that aren't in play and aren't
>>being played doesn't apply?
>
> Actually, yes!
> At least .. this rule too.
> You seem to misunderstand me.
You seem to misunderstand me.
> The rule is still the same. Both cards, the one in play and the one out of
> play are under the same rule which says that a card's text doesn't apply if
> the card is not in play and not being played.
Then what allows you to gain 3 votes with Vox Senis?
> What i was refering to was that in the Vox-case, the vox's text says that
> you can discard it as an oot master for an effect, whereas in the chas-case
> chas's text says that another methuselah can discard a master as an oot
> master for an effect.
But you agree that Vox's card text (the text that allows you to discard it
as an oot master) doesn't apply if it isn't played. Yet it applies.
Conclusion: ...
> Same texts, but as it seems with different ruling.
The ruling keys on whether the card is played or not.
If it is played, it can be reversed. Since it must be played to have an
effect, then, when used for that effect, it must be played and
therefore can be canceled.
Charles Lechasseur
wrote:
>Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>> In article <3FCF2F2A...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>>>They use the same words. One is already in play.
>>
>> the Master discarded to cancel Chas' action is not already in play... but
>
>And it (the discarded master card) doesn't use the exact same words as
>Vox Senis (in general, at any rate).
although it's true, i don't understand why it matters here.
>> i know that you're not a big fan of unneeded erratas, but maybe a simple
>> replacement of "discarded" by "played" in the online card texts would
>> clear things up?
>
>That would be a clarification, not errata.
sorry, not used to the terms you use. so, any chance of seeing a
clarification then?
Angus, the Unruled
> The ruling keys on whether the card is played or not.
> If it is played, it can be reversed. Since it must be played to have an
> effect, then, when used for that effect, it must be played and
> therefore can be canceled.
>
Now it's clear. Thanks.
Reyda
>
> The ruling keys on whether the card is played or not.
> If it is played, it can be reversed. Since it must be played to have an
> effect, then, when used for that effect, it must be played and
> therefore can be canceled.
Thank you for the explanation : the confusion here just comes from the word
"discard" which is maybe inappropriate. In many cases the word "discard" =
throw from your hand, and has not the meaning of "playing" a card. This is
why most people thought you could not play reversal on a card that is not
"played" in the regular fashion. The wording on Vox senis could have been
better formuled to avoid confusion though =/
hawk_the_demon
> salem wrote:
> > I'd be all happy and less confused if Vox Senis said
> > 'Alternatively, during a referendum, you may *play* this card from
> > your hand (to the ash heap) as an out-of-turn master to gain 3 votes
> > in that referendum.'
> >
> > ...then i'd see why it's SR-able.
> >
> > i guess it was writen it's current way to stop people thinking it goes
> > in play when you play it as an oot.
>
> True. The original "play" wording was changed to "discard" in order
> to avoid the possible confusion you note. At the expense of other
> confusion, apparently.
the most feasible solution at the momend seems to be to issue a
clarification:
'when vox senis is discarded to gain 3 votes, it is considered
played.'
which is basically what LSJ has been saying.
a possible way of dealing with similar cases in the future might be to
have two different effects listed on the card under different
headings.
this would obviously need a new rules clause to describe how these
cards work.
some examples:
Some Master Card
Master: unique location
Tap and burn one pool to produce an effect.
Master
Produce an effect.
this could even simplify minion cards that have no discipline
requirements:
A Dual Purpose Minion Card
Reaction/Combat
Reaction
Do something.
Combat
Do something slightly different but related.
it would even be possible to use the card type icons:
A Dual Purpose Minion Card
Reaction/Combat
[REACTION ICON] Do something.
[COMBAT ICON] Do something slightly different but related.
under this template, vox senis would be worded:
Vox Senis
Unique Master
Put this card in play. Each Methuselah gets 1 additional vote during
each referendum.
Master: out-of-turn
Only usable during a referendum. Gain 3 votes.
LSJ
> Thank you for the explanation : the confusion here just comes from the word
> "discard" which is maybe inappropriate. In many cases the word "discard" =
> throw from your hand, and has not the meaning of "playing" a card. This is
> why most people thought you could not play reversal on a card that is not
> "played" in the regular fashion. The wording on Vox senis could have been
> better formuled to avoid confusion though =/
Correct. [LSJ 04-DEC-2003]
LSJ
> In article <3FCF3CA0...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>>Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>>>In article <3FCF2F2A...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>>>>They use the same words. One is already in play.
>>>the Master discarded to cancel Chas' action is not already in play... but
>>And it (the discarded master card) doesn't use the exact same words as
>>Vox Senis (in general, at any rate).
> although it's true, i don't understand why it matters here.
The topic at hand was the two cards that used the same words.
You non-sequitur'ed that into "The Master discarded for Chas is not already
in play", which doesn't matter here (re: cards that use the same words), so
I pointed that out.
>>>i know that you're not a big fan of unneeded erratas, but maybe a simple
>>>replacement of "discarded" by "played" in the online card texts would
>>>clear things up?
>>
>>That would be a clarification, not errata.
>
> sorry, not used to the terms you use. so, any chance of seeing a
Errata: functional change to card text.
Ruling: resolution of ambiguity in card text.
Clarification: restatement of card text.
So probably this would be a ruling rather than either of the other two.
> clarification then?
Of course.
Charles Lechasseur
wrote:
>Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>> In article <3FCF3CA0...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>>>>In article <3FCF2F2A...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>>>>>They use the same words. One is already in play.
>>>>the Master discarded to cancel Chas' action is not already in play... but
>>>And it (the discarded master card) doesn't use the exact same words as
>>>Vox Senis (in general, at any rate).
>> although it's true, i don't understand why it matters here.
>
>The topic at hand was the two cards that used the same words.
>You non-sequitur'ed that into "The Master discarded for Chas is not already
>in play", which doesn't matter here (re: cards that use the same words), so
>I pointed that out.
ok, i see that now. sorry, sometimes it's a bit difficult to follow these
kinds of threads.