Q: Ashur Tablets
Cantila
heap, do you have to tell which one you draw to your hand? If not, do
you have to say whcih 12 to shuffle into the library?
LSJ
Yes.
Blooded Sand
If you only have 10 cards, the tablets will still trigger though, and
you will move 9 to library and 1 to hand, correct?
James Coupe
.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes:
>If you only have 10 cards, the tablets will still trigger though, and
>you will move 9 to library and 1 to hand, correct?
Which part of "choose UP TO thirteen cards... move one of those cards to
your hand" is causing you trouble?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> In message <4e73b695-4128-4a89...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups
> .com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes:
> >If you only have 10 cards, the tablets will still trigger though, and
> >you will move 9 to library and 1 to hand, correct?
>
> Which part of "choose UP TO thirteen cards... move one of those cards to
> your hand" is causing you trouble?
Perhaps it was the odd English phrase "up to", whose meaning is
perhaps not so logical or self-evident as those used to it may
assume. A logical mind might think: 10 is not "up to" 13, but rather
"down from" 13.
LSJ
While your contortions are indeed odd turns of the phrase, the card text phrase
is not odd.
"Choose up to 13 widgets" is very clear, never means anything else, and is not
an odd phrase nor an idiomatic expression. The individual words each use exactly
their individual meanings. A logical mind would not try illogical contortions of
the language to wring other meanings from the text.
You may choose 1. You may choose 2. Indeed, you may choose any number up to 13.
You may not choose 14, of course, since 14 is not found on your way up to 13.
You may choose 10, of course, since 10 is found on the way up to 13.
Earnest question:
If 10 is "down from" 13 and so is not one of the options for "choose up to 13",
then what, exactly, does the phrase "Choose up to 13 card" mean? What exactly
are the options for the choices, even to a reader "not used" to the phrase but
who understands English?
Now there are occasional ambiguous cases like "then draw up to seven cards" for
games where your hand size is seven, but only because there are two choices for
what you're counting (cards drawn or cards in hand), not for what "up to" means.
The English-speaking world seems to agree that is it not odd:
Save up to 60%!
Receive up to 2% cash back, up to $1000 annually.
Games for children up to 10 years old. (www.uptoten.com)
Thank you for your purchase. You may download this PDF up to five times.
Up to seven of the gunmen were British.
Fed to buy up to $600B in mortgage assets.
The world's largest steelmaker plans to slash up to 9000 more jobs.
Snow depths in Switzerland are up to five times normal depths.
Email intruder faces up to five years in prison.
Darby Keeney
> The English-speaking world seems to agree that is it not odd:
Correct.
Darby Keeney
Sorry, couldn't resist that :)
Normally, I am one of the more long-winded folks around.
It felt strangely gratifying to offer LSJ's trademark phrase in
response to his minor rant :)
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > James Coupe wrote:
> >> In message <4e73b695-4128-4a89...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups
> >> .com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> If you only have 10 cards, the tablets will still trigger though, and
> >>> you will move 9 to library and 1 to hand, correct?
> >> Which part of "choose UP TO thirteen cards... move one of those cards to
> >> your hand" is causing you trouble?
> >
> > Perhaps it was the odd English phrase "up to", whose meaning is
> > perhaps not so logical or self-evident as those used to it may
> > assume. A logical mind might think: 10 is not "up to" 13, but rather
> > "down from" 13.
>
> While your contortions are indeed odd turns of the phrase, the card text phrase
> is not odd.
No. Not from the perspective of a native or fluent English speaker,
or anyone else who happens to be fully familiar what the expression
means.
I was not criticizing the card text, which is quite correct. However,
there are a significant number of persons reading this forum who are
not native English speakers. I was, therefore, slightly uncomfortable
with tone of James Coupe's response to Blooded Sand.
> "Choose up to 13 widgets" is very clear, never means anything else, and is not
> an odd phrase [...]
So far I agree (from my perspective as a native English speaker who is
fully familiar with the phrase).
> [...] nor an idiomatic expression.
I disagree. It is indeed an idiomatic expression. Its meaning would
not be self evident to one not familiar with the expression.
> The individual words each use exactly
> their individual meanings. A logical mind would not try illogical contortions of
> the language to wring other meanings from the text.
Really? And how does telling me to go "up to" a certain number inform
me that I am allowed to stop before I reach the stated goal?
> You may choose 1. You may choose 2. Indeed, you may choose any number up to
> 13. You may not choose 14, of course, since 14 is not found on your way up to 13.
> You may choose 10, of course, since 10 is found on the way up to 13.
Yes, I understand what the expression means. I merely disagree that
its meaning is self evident and not idiomatic.
If I were dealing with widgets, all of which were identical, and
someone ordered me to "CHOOSE up to 13 widgets", this might give me a
small clue that I was expected to choose the quantity of widgets,
since my choice would not amount to much of a choice otherwise. But
if there were an assortment of non-identical widgets, I might well
conclude that I was merely expected to "Choose 13 widgets". The rule
of construction against redundancy might give me slight pause, but not
much, since redundancy is quite common in language. If anything, I
might conclude that the phrase "up to" was intended to make doubly
clear that I must go as high as 13, and was not free to choose a
lesser quantity.
> Earnest question:
> If 10 is "down from" 13 and so is not one of the options for "choose up to 13",
> then what, exactly, does the phrase "Choose up to 13 card" mean? What exactly
> are the options for the choices, even to a reader "not used" to the phrase but
> who understands English?
"Choose" in this context need not mean "choice of quantity". I am
likely to find plenty of choice among the available cards, even if I
am not permitted to choose the quantity of cards to be chosen.
> Now there are occasional ambiguous cases like "then draw up to seven cards" for
> games where your hand size is seven, but only because there are two choices for
> what you're counting (cards drawn or cards in hand), not for what "up to" means.
"Draw up to seven cards" could be read (by someone unfamiliar with the
phrase) as an order to keep drawing, and not stop, until you have
drawn seven cards. The only logical objection to this interpretation
is the slight redundancy.
> The English-speaking world seems to agree that is it not odd:
Sure, but that's because the "English speaking world" is familiar with
the expression.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Earnest question:
>> If 10 is "down from" 13 and so is not one of the options for "choose up to 13",
>> then what, exactly, does the phrase "Choose up to 13 card" mean? What exactly
>> are the options for the choices, even to a reader "not used" to the phrase but
>> who understands English?
>
> "Choose" in this context need not mean "choice of quantity". I am
> likely to find plenty of choice among the available cards, even if I
> am not permitted to choose the quantity of cards to be chosen.
Indeed, but that is not at issue.
"Choose up to thirteen cards from your ash heap."
You claim this whole directive (not just the word "choose") "could be"
equivalent to "Choose thirteen cards from your ash heap."
That claim is patently false.
"Choose" in this context does indeed mean select from the available choice in
your ash heap, yes.
But, and this is the issue, the number of selections to be made is stated as well:
"up to 13".
"Choose a card" is not the same as "choose two cards", even though "choose" in
both of those contexts does not mean "choice of quantity", but a choice among
the available cards.
Exactly likewise, "choose a card" is not the same as "choose one or two cards".
Exactly likewise, "choose 13 cards" is not the same as "choose up to 13 cards".
>> The English-speaking world seems to agree that is it not odd:
>
> Sure, but that's because the "English speaking world" is familiar with
> the expression.
It's because that's the meaning found by parsing those words in accordance with
standard English vocabulary and grammar.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
LSJ wrote:
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> >> Earnest question:
> >> If 10 is "down from" 13 and so is not one of the options for "choose up to 13",
> >> then what, exactly, does the phrase "Choose up to 13 card" mean? What exactly
> >> are the options for the choices, even to a reader "not used" to the phrase but
> >> who understands English?
> >
> > "Choose" in this context need not mean "choice of quantity". I am
> > likely to find plenty of choice among the available cards, even if I
> > am not permitted to choose the quantity of cards to be chosen.
>
> Indeed, but that is not at issue.
>
> "Choose up to thirteen cards from your ash heap."
>
> You claim this whole directive (not just the word "choose") "could be"
> equivalent to "Choose thirteen cards from your ash heap."
Wrong. I concede that it is unambiguous. I merely maintained that
familiarity with the normal usage of this specific English phrase is
required to get to the point where it can be considered unambiguous.
> That claim is patently false.
It would indeed be "false" to claim that the expression means other
than you say. But that was not my claim. I merely maintain that it
is an idiomatic expression. If, by "patently false" you mean that the
expression is not idiomatic, I disagree.
> "Choose" in this context does indeed mean select from the available choice in
> your ash heap, yes.
Right.
> But, and this is the issue, the number of selections to be made is stated as well:
> "up to 13".
Right, and I agree that the above-quoted idiomatic expression means,
in this context, exactly what you say it does.
> "Choose a card" is not the same as "choose two cards", even though "choose" in
> both of those contexts does not mean "choice of quantity", but a choice among
> the available cards.
Sure.
> Exactly likewise, "choose a card" is not the same as "choose one or two cards".
Right.
> Exactly likewise, "choose 13 cards" is not the same as "choose up to 13 cards".
I agree 100%. I know this; you know this. We both know this because
of our familiarity with the peculiarities of idiomatic English.
> >> The English-speaking world seems to agree that is it not odd:
> >
> > Sure, but that's because the "English speaking world" is familiar with
> > the expression.
>
> It's because that's the meaning found by parsing those words in accordance with
> standard English vocabulary and grammar.
I disagree ... unless you merely mean that the expression itself has a
standard English meaning in certain contexts, which of course it does.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> Earnest question:
>>>> If 10 is "down from" 13 and so is not one of the options for "choose up to 13",
>>>> then what, exactly, does the phrase "Choose up to 13 card" mean? What exactly
>>>> are the options for the choices, even to a reader "not used" to the phrase but
>>>> who understands English?
>>> "Choose" in this context need not mean "choice of quantity". I am
>>> likely to find plenty of choice among the available cards, even if I
>>> am not permitted to choose the quantity of cards to be chosen.
>> Indeed, but that is not at issue.
>>
>> "Choose up to thirteen cards from your ash heap."
>>
>> You claim this whole directive (not just the word "choose") "could be"
>> equivalent to "Choose thirteen cards from your ash heap."
>
> Wrong. I concede that it is unambiguous. I merely maintained that
> familiarity with the normal usage of this specific English phrase is
> required to get to the point where it can be considered unambiguous.
>
>> That claim is patently false.
>
> It would indeed be "false" to claim that the expression means other
> than you say. But that was not my claim. I merely maintain that it
> is an idiomatic expression. If, by "patently false" you mean that the
> expression is not idiomatic, I disagree.
You claimed that it is ambiguous insofar as you claimed that it could have some
other meaning that excludes the option of choosing 10 cards.
Namely (your example) that 10 is not "up to" 13, and therefore "choose up to 13
cards" precludes choosing 10 cards.
If you wish to yield that claim, fine. I accept. End of line and all that.
If not, please respond to the request for what, exactly, the phrase "choose up
to 13 cards" could mean that precludes 10.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It would indeed be "false" to claim that the expression means other
> > than you say. But that was not my claim. I merely maintain that it
> > is an idiomatic expression. If, by "patently false" you mean that the
> > expression is not idiomatic, I disagree.
>
> You claimed that it is ambiguous insofar as you claimed that it could have some
> other meaning that excludes the option of choosing 10 cards.
I claimed that it is meaning was not self-evident from the perspective
of one not familiar with the expression and its standard meaning. I
never called the wording "ambiguous", but even if I had, the fact is
that "ambiguity" is a matter of perspective. A message that is clear
from the perspective of one with enough information to interpret it
can seem less clear to one without such advantages.
> Namely (your example) that 10 is not "up to" 13, and therefore "choose up to 13
> cards" precludes choosing 10 cards.
Right. I explained how a logical, reasonable person could reach an
INCORRECT conclusion, because he lacks sufficient familiarity with
certain oddities of standard English usage. I suggested this as a
possible source of confusion.
> If you wish to yield that claim, fine. I accept. End of line and all that.
There is nothing to yield. I have not budged an inch.
> If not, please respond to the request for what, exactly, the phrase "choose up
> to 13 cards" could mean that precludes 10.
As already explained, a person unfamiliar with the oddities of
standard English could reach the conclusion that "choose up to 13
cards" is simply another way of saying "choose 13 cards". This would
be an incorrect conclusion, but it would be neither illogical nor
unreasonable from the perspective of one without knowledge of the
correct and standard interpretation. At least, if a non-native
English speaker were to ask for clarification on this, I think a
respectful response would be more appropriate than a contemptuous one
that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the question.
Teeka
> As already explained, a person unfamiliar with the oddities of
> standard English could reach the conclusion that "choose up to 13
> cards" is simply another way of saying "choose 13 cards".
Nonsense. If the card was meant to say "choose 13 cards", it would
have said "choose 13 cards". Why on earth would a card designer choose
any more complex wordings to say something that simple?
This would
> be an incorrect conclusion, but it would be neither illogical nor
> unreasonable from the perspective of one without knowledge of the
> correct and standard interpretation.
I'm sorry, but this game is in English. To be able to play it, you
need to understand English. If your English is not good enough, then
any misunderstandings you might have about card text are very likely
due to your own limited knowledge of perfectly normal wordings. Don't
blame a native speaker for using perfectly normal wordings just
because you're unsure what they mean.
At least, if a non-native
> English speaker were to ask for clarification on this, I think a
> respectful response would be more appropriate than a contemptuous one
> that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the question.
You're getting upset over nothing.
I think Blooded Sand just misread the card (or maybe he'd just ate too
much popcorn, I dunno).
I also think James didn't mean to be rude at all, he just pointed out
the bit that Blooded Sand misread in a blunt but straightforward
manner. He never called Blooded Sand an idiot.
I'm pretty sure Blooded Sand didn't mind James' response one bit.
Let it go.
-Teeka
not a native English speaker
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On 30 nov, 03:59, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As already explained, a person unfamiliar with the oddities of
> > standard English could reach the conclusion that "choose up to 13
> > cards" is simply another way of saying "choose 13 cards".
>
> Nonsense. If the card was meant to say "choose 13 cards", it would
> have said "choose 13 cards". Why on earth would a card designer choose
> any more complex wordings to say something that simple?
I already addressed this objection.
> This would
> > be an incorrect conclusion, but it would be neither illogical nor
> > unreasonable from the perspective of one without knowledge of the
> > correct and standard interpretation.
>
> I'm sorry, but this game is in English. To be able to play it, you
> need to understand English. If your English is not good enough, then
> any misunderstandings you might have about card text are very likely
> due to your own limited knowledge of perfectly normal wordings. Don't
> blame a native speaker for using perfectly normal wordings just
> because you're unsure what they mean.
Why are you telling me this? Is it because you think I don' t know
it?
> At least, if a non-native
> > English speaker were to ask for clarification on this, I think a
> > respectful response would be more appropriate than a contemptuous one
> > that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the question.
>
> You're getting upset over nothing.
I was not upset.
> I think Blooded Sand just misread the card (or maybe he'd just ate too
> much popcorn, I dunno).
Perfectly possible.
> I also think James didn't mean to be rude at all, he just pointed out
> the bit that Blooded Sand misread in a blunt but straightforward
> manner. He never called Blooded Sand an idiot.
> I'm pretty sure Blooded Sand didn't mind James' response one bit.
I did not claim that James was rude, nor did I accuse him of calling
Blooded Sand an idiot, nor did I make any assumptions about why
Blooded Sand had misunderstood the card. I merely pointed out to
James that the idiomatic expression in question was not as self-
evident, to those unfamiliar with it, as he seemed to be assuming.
> Let it go.
I advise you do the same.
Blooded Sand
And all of the above, Cantilla, is a perfectly good and rational
explanation as to why including card text is very good if posting
queries regarding a card :)
PS If being completely didactic about it, "up to 13" would mean any
number less than 13. up to and including 13 would any number less than
14. Up to is defined mathematically as not including the stated number
in the selection set, whereas up to and including odes include the
stated number
Teeka
> > I'm sorry, but this game is in English. To be able to play it, you
> > need to understand English. If your English is not good enough, then
> > any misunderstandings you might have about card text are very likely
> > due to your own limited knowledge of perfectly normal wordings. Don't
> > blame a native speaker for using perfectly normal wordings just
> > because you're unsure what they mean.
>
> Why are you telling me this? Is it because you think I don' t know
> it?
>
Because you said
"Its meaning would not be self evident to one not familiar with the
expression.".
Which is of course true, but the designers write texts in English.
Meaning they need to assume the players understand English. What else
can they do?
I don't think any used expression needs to be clear or self-evident.
It's English, so the designers are allowed to use it. And for the
record, IMHO the language used is already as simple as it can get
without causing problems.
> > At least, if a non-native
> > > English speaker were to ask for clarification on this, I think a
> > > respectful response would be more appropriate than a contemptuous one
> > > that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the question.
>
> > You're getting upset over nothing.
>
> I was not upset.
>
Ok, you wrote "slightly uncomfortable". Sorry for exaggerating.
>
> I did not claim that James was rude, nor did I accuse him of calling
> Blooded Sand an idiot,
You did say you thought he implied it by responding to Blooded Sand's
question in the chosen manner. You wrote:
"I think a respectful response would be more appropriate than a
contemptuous one that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the
question."
I think you're seeing some meaning to James' response that very likely
wasn't there. I for one didn't see his response as contemptuous, or
suggesting anything negative views on the person asking the question.
It was a blunt response that could've been worded more politely, sure,
but you're making way too much of it.
> I merely pointed out to
> James that the idiomatic expression in question was not as self-
> evident, to those unfamiliar with it, as he seemed to be assuming.
>
Again, I think it's totally normal to assume a certain level of
knowledge of English among Vtes players, simply because it's a game in
English.
Note: No offense meant to anyone having trouble with the English
language, in any way.
Teeka
> And all of the above, Cantilla, is a perfectly good and rational
> explanation as to why including card text is very good if posting
> queries regarding a card :)
>
lol
> PS If being completely didactic about it, "up to 13" would mean any
> number less than 13. up to and including 13 would any number less than
> 14. Up to is defined mathematically as not including the stated number
> in the selection set, whereas up to and including odes include the
> stated number
That's true in Dutch ("tot X" vs "tot en met X"), and maybe Afrikaans
as well (?), but in English "up to X" means "any number, but no more
than X".
So it does mean 'including the given limiting value X'.
Blooded Sand
Actually, no. According to a few maths textbooks I went and checked,
up to n means all values <n, with up and including x meaning all
values <=n
Teeka
>
Ok. Apparently scientific wordings differ from everyday language in
that matter. Didn't know that (I never took math in English).
I stand corrected, sir. :-)
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On 30 nov, 15:26, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but this game is in English. To be able to play it, you
> > > need to understand English. If your English is not good enough, then
> > > any misunderstandings you might have about card text are very likely
> > > due to your own limited knowledge of perfectly normal wordings. Don't
> > > blame a native speaker for using perfectly normal wordings just
> > > because you're unsure what they mean.
> >
> > Why are you telling me this? �Is it because you think I don' t know
> > it?
>
> Because you said
> "Its meaning would not be self evident to one not familiar with the
> expression.".
>
So you agree with me then.
> [...] but the designers write texts in English.
> Meaning they need to assume the players understand English.
> What else can they do?
Did some one suggest they do differently?
> I don't think any used expression needs to be clear or self-evident.
> It's English, so the designers are allowed to use it. And for the
> record, IMHO the language used is already as simple as it can get
> without causing problems.
I was not criticizing the language. I thought I made that clear
already.
> > > � At least, if a non-native
> > > > English speaker were to ask for clarification on this, I think a
> > > > respectful response would be more appropriate than a contemptuous one
> > > > that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the question.
> >
> > > You're getting upset over nothing.
> >
> > I was not upset.
>
> Ok, you wrote "slightly uncomfortable". Sorry for exaggerating.
What are you getting at?.
> > I did not claim that James was rude, nor did I accuse him of calling
> > Blooded Sand an idiot,
>
> You did say you thought he implied it by responding to Blooded Sand's
> question in the chosen manner. You wrote:
> "I think a respectful response would be more appropriate than a
> contemptuous one that suggests the person is an idiot for asking the
> question."
This was a hypothetical.
> I think you're seeing some meaning to James' response that very likely
> wasn't there. I for one didn't see his response as contemptuous, or
> suggesting anything negative views on the person asking the question.
> It was a blunt response that could've been worded more politely, sure,
> but you're making way too much of it.
Well, let's just say that SOMEONE is making way too much of this.
> > �I merely pointed out to
> > James that the idiomatic expression in question was not as self-
> > evident, to those unfamiliar with it, as he seemed to be assuming.
>
> Again, I think it's totally normal to assume a certain level of
> knowledge of English among Vtes players, simply because it's a game in
> English.
I agree completely.
LSJ
In some math contexts, "up to" is inclusive. For example summation of i for i
from 1 up to 13, for example. But generally, mathematicians use "<" or "<="
rather than cumbersome words.
Anyway, you should check the English textbooks (dictionaries) instead, since the
expression is given in an English context, not a math context.
up to: c. "as many as; to the limit of" (dictionary.com -- but watch out for 93)
up to: 4. "as much as; no more than" (wiktionary.org)
Or see all the examples in English print, such as ones already given earlier in
this thread.
Blooded Sand
okay. Unederstood. It is a second language so i do sometimes get
somewhat confused.
Thanks ;)
Brum
>
> - Show quoted text -
And now something about vtes:
Does one have to show to the other players the cards one chooses from
the ash heap?
Sorry, but I am not a native english speaker and I found the original
question to be unclair.
About what this thread has turned into:
Bundi (and until recently Stuter-Step) already show that the wording
of cards does not take the same rules of construction as Math and
Science in general.
Funny that its a game that was built by a Mathematics University
Theacher. :)
Cheers,
Tiago
LSJ
> Does one have to show to the other players the cards one chooses from
> the ash heap?
Yes.
> Sorry, but I am not a native english speaker and I found the original
> question to be unclair.
>
> About what this thread has turned into:
> Bundi (and until recently Stuter-Step) already show that the wording
> of cards does not take the same rules of construction as Math and
> Science in general.
> Funny that its a game that was built by a Mathematics University
> Theacher. :)
Well, I agree that it isn't universally true that math people are also language
people, so I guess that could be funny odd, yeah.
Brum
> Brum wrote:
> > Does one have to show to the other players the cards one chooses from
> > the ash heap?
>
> Yes.
>
Does the same apply to other cards that to not explicitly say "...and
reveal / show them to the other players...", like Sudario Refraction,
Sargon Fragment, Waste Management Operation, etc.?
How about Erciyes Fragments?
Thanks,
Tiago
Brum
> people, so I guess that could be funny odd, yeah.
Thing is, you have to be very deterministic when you write laws, in
this case, card texts. No space for subjectivity. True or False. Zero
or One.
Mathematics.
(or Sith talk) :)
Tiago,
Thrall of Stanislava (Arika is taken, already)
LSJ
There are two things: The ash heap is not hidden information. So cards you
retrieve from it are known.
The other thing is: effects are announced.
Each of those apply to the effects you list. And either one by itself would suffice.
Brum
I understand, but you see the strategic difference between one having
to remeber the difference in opponent's ash heap after the effect, and
forcing the player doing the effect to anounce what cards he is
getting, without explicit text from card allowing the effect.
Is he forced to show the cards he is getting from Sudario Refraction
et all (if the come from the ash heap), or not?
I'm sorry for insisting, but its rather important, because it may
change how we play here. (nobody lists the cards they are getting in
this way)
Tiago
LSJ
> On Dec 1, 4:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Brum wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 3:37 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Brum wrote:
>>>>> Does one have to show to the other players the cards one chooses from
>>>>> the ash heap?
>>>> Yes.
>>> Does the same apply to other cards that to not explicitly say "...and
>>> reveal / show them to the other players...", like Sudario Refraction,
>>> Sargon Fragment, Waste Management Operation, etc.?
>>> How about Erciyes Fragments?
>> There are two things: The ash heap is not hidden information. So cards you
>> retrieve from it are known.
>>
>> The other thing is: effects are announced.
>>
>> Each of those apply to the effects you list. And either one by itself would suffice.
>
> I understand, but you see the strategic difference between one having
> to remeber the difference in opponent's ash heap after the effect, and
> forcing the player doing the effect to anounce what cards he is
> getting, without explicit text from card allowing the effect.
That's one reason for the way things are as they are, in fact. Since the ash
heap is known, there's no reason to turn the card play into a 15-minute
"memorize this set and then look away while I make a change and then identify
the changes" exerecize for each of the other players.
The other reason, as stated, is that effects are announced.
> Is he forced to show the cards he is getting from Sudario Refraction
> et all (if the come from the ash heap), or not?
Is.
> I'm sorry for insisting, but its rather important, because it may
> change how we play here. (nobody lists the cards they are getting in
> this way)
Have them list the cards they are getting.
Chris Berger
> On Dec 1, 4:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Brum wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 3:37 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > >> Brum wrote:
> > >>> Does one have to show to the other players the cards one chooses from
> > >>> the ash heap?
> > >> Yes.
>
>
> > retrieve from it are known.
>
> > The other thing is: effects are announced.
>
> > Each of those apply to the effects you list. And either one by itself would suffice.
>
> I understand, but you see the strategic difference between one having
> to remeber the difference in opponent's ash heap after the effect, and
> forcing the player doing the effect to anounce what cards he is
> getting, without explicit text from card allowing the effect.
>
expect someone to keep track of what is in everyone's ash heap at all
times, and if someone were to try it, it would slow down the game and
annoy everyone at the table.
> Is he forced to show the cards he is getting from Sudario Refraction
> et all (if the come from the ash heap), or not?
>
Yes, because you have to declare what cards you are getting when you
take the action. How am I supposed to know if I should block you if
you don't tell me whether you're getting Aranthebes, Carlton Van Wyk,
and a National Guard Support or alternately a Govern the Unaligned,
Conditioning, and Call the Hungry Dead?
> I'm sorry for insisting, but its rather important, because it may
> change how we play here. (nobody lists the cards they are getting in
> this way)
>
They are cheating.
The Name Forgotten
> Brum wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 4:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Brum wrote:
> >>> On Dec 1, 3:37 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> Brum wrote:
> >>>>> Does one have to show to the other players the cards one chooses from
> >>>>> the ash heap?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>> Does the same apply to other cards that to not explicitly say "...and
> >>> reveal / show them to the other players...", like Sudario Refraction,
> >>> Sargon Fragment, Waste Management Operation, etc.?
> >>> How about Erciyes Fragments?
> >> There are two things: The ash heap is not hidden information. So cards you
> >> retrieve from it are known.
>
> >> The other thing is: effects are announced.
>
Just a clarification: when is the effect announced? Must I announce it
as the action card is played (e.g. with Sudario Refraction)? When the
card is tapped (with WMO)? When the terms of the referendum is
announced (with Reinforcements)?
Or: Only as I'm moving the cards from the ash-heap to my hand/library?
Also: For Ashur Tablets, do I have to reveal which card is going into
my hand and which card/s into my library?
James Coupe
s.com>, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>Just a clarification: when is the effect announced?
For cards you're playing, it's when the card is played, before you move
on to anything else, before the card gets a chance to be cancelled -
DI/SR etc. sneak in just before all the things like "as action is
announced" phases, like Seduction.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fa5888976af78d90
***
No. You play [Direct Intervention] when [the card being cancelled] is
played, after it (the card play) is announced (which includes stuff like
the level of the Discipline, the target if any, the minion who plays it,
etc.) but before the action is considered to be begun/announced.
***
Examples:
- Before I play Sudden Reversal on your Minion Tap, you say who you're
targeting and how much blood.
- Before I play Direct Intervention on your Magic of the Smith, you tell
me what equipment you're fetching and what level you're playing it at
(for the stealth). (There might be a non-obvious choice if, say, you
had a vampire with tha who also had an Infernal Pact for THA for some
reason.) And the DI comes before Seduction.
- If an event card had a choice (I can't think of any that do), you'd
tell me what you'd chosen before I play Not to Be.
- Before I Dark Influences your Bloodlust, you tell me what X is and
which minions you're choosing (and whether that's X or X+1, depending
on the level). And the DI2 comes before you get the chance to tap
Creepshow Casino for +1 stealth.
- Before I cancel your Govern the Unaligned, you tell me if you're
bleeding or moving counters to the uncontrolled vampire.
- Before I DI your Bum's Rush, you tell me which vampire you're
entering combat with. And the DI comes before you get the chance to
play Repulsion at [pre].
- Before I DI your Coagulated Entity, you tell me which Blood Brothers
you're selecting (and hence what X is). The DI comes before I can
play Shell Game to get stealth.
- Before I DI your Summon Spirit Beast, you announce what X is, and
which level you're playing it at. At [ani], you should probably
select which cards you're going to discard (in case my DI makes any
difference to that), although they won't be revealed, so it won't
inform my choice. At [spi], you should announce which retainers
you're getting before I DI.
And so on.
One thing that has sometimes confused players in the past is Vast Wealth
- you don't announce the piece of equipment you're retrieving (because
it's not your choice). You just go through the library when the action
is successful, and get the first one.
In some situations, such as between experienced players or players
who've seen the same card 75 times in this one game, you might resort to
shorthand rather than formally announcing everything in a long-winded
fashion, but you should make sure that everyone understands what's going
on. And if something takes no effort, just announce it. e.g. it's
almost always better to say "Arika bleeds you for 4 with Scouting
Mission" or "Zack North strikes hands for 2", because the "for X" takes
no time at all.
For political actions, you set the terms of the referendum once you get
there - that's the only real exception to the general rule. However,
since The Eldest Command Undeath has a variable blood cost, you'd need
to announce that when you play the card. Typically, that might reveal
your intended target (e.g. paying 8 blood might suggest you're going to
hit the 7 cap on the table!), but it might not, and you can use
diversion tactics e.g. paying 9 blood making your wall predator think
you're hitting your prey's 8 cap, but actually hitting your predator's 7
cap.
For effects from cards in play, like tapping a Waste Management
Operation, the announcement is "I'm going to tap this to put card X on
the bottom of my library." In practice, there isn't any way of
cancelling that that I can think of.
>Or: Only as I'm moving the cards from the ash-heap to my hand/library?
Way before that.
>Also: For Ashur Tablets, do I have to reveal which card is going into
>my hand and which card/s into my library?
Yes - LSJ confirmed that in his reply to the first post in this thread.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Petri Wessman
>
> - Before I play Direct Intervention on your Magic of the Smith, you tell
> me what equipment you're fetching and what level you're playing it at
> (for the stealth). (There might be a non-obvious choice if, say, you
> had a vampire with tha who also had an Infernal Pact for THA for some
> reason.) And the DI comes before Seduction.
Hmm, I'm pretty sure you don't have to announce what you're getting
with Magic of the Smith, since it has wording "Search your library for
an equipment card" (with emphasis on "search"). You can "search" and
fail to find anything, iirc, even if there was an equipment card
there.
To add to the theme of this thread, a couple of related questions from
me:
- do you have to announce the weapon you're equipping via Concealed
Weapon?
- do you have to announce the equipment you're equipping via Anonymous
Freight?
//Petri
James Coupe
s.com>, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> writes:
>Hmm, I'm pretty sure you don't have to announce what you're getting
>with Magic of the Smith, since it has wording "Search your library for
>an equipment card" (with emphasis on "search"). You can "search" and
>fail to find anything, iirc, even if there was an equipment card
>there.
Sorry, my mistake. I had something in the back of my mind saying you
said which card you were searching for (even if you then failed to find
it etc.), but that appears to be me hallucinating.
>To add to the theme of this thread, a couple of related questions from
>me:
>
>- do you have to announce the weapon you're equipping via Concealed
>Weapon?
Yes.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f397c50d919990da?pli=1
As LSJ says, in practice, you end up playing both together, but the
strict sequence of events is to play the Concealed Weapon, name the card
you're using it with (e.g. .44 Magnum), wait for DI, then bring the .44
out.
>- do you have to announce the equipment you're equipping via Anonymous
>Freight?
Yes - equivalent to Jack of Both Sides, named in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0f7a279795805cda
Jack: "This vampire equips or employs an equipment or retainer from your
hand."
Freight: "Equip this vampire with a non-location equipment card from
your hand..."