[METW] some thoughts on Bane
BSatterley
Now that we have collected some rulings on Bane, I have some wording
suggestions for the 3rd edition. Assuming ICE is still happy with the
power level of the card, the wording could be changed to:
<stuff about Palantiri, then...>
Automatically cancels effects that cause any player to look at
any portion of any play deck or an opponent's discard
pile. Effects that cause any player to look at cards by virtue
of drawing them, or discarding them face up, are not affected by Bane of
the Ithil Stone.
We can toss that business about "searching through" a deck or discard
pile, because in order to "search" you have to "look at". So "look at"
covers it all. We can also toss out the problematic notion of "within the
normal sequence of play".
Great Secrets Buried There is prevented by Bane because it causes the
target player to look at the top ten cards of his deck. Revealed to all
Watchers is not prevented, because the cards that are revealed... are
revealed from the HAND, and the cards that are looked at...are looked at
by virtue of being DRAWN.
How about some potential future situations on new cards? An effect that
allowed a card to be removed from the discard pile or deck without looking
at that card, and then putting the card into/out of play face down, would
not be affected by Bane. If ICE wanted the card to be legally placed
into/out of play face up while Bane was out, there would need to be some
modifications to the wording on my version of BAne, or an exception on the
new card. ICE may eventually make a distinction based on the STAGE at
which a card is "looked at", thereby defining the Bane's ability to "see
the future"...pun intended. Because of the ruling that Bane will not stop
a card from being discarded face up, we know that Bane's prescience is
limited. It cannot see far enough into the future to tell that the card
in the discard pile will be looked at. Someone could be a rat and tell
Bane that the card is looked at in the hand, just before it is discarded,
but Bane doesn't care what goes on in the hand. Perhaps the wording
"..cancels effects that DIRECTLY cause any player to look at...." would
remedy the situation.
And now that I think of it, the word "Automatically" is not clear in the
card text. It should probably be expressed in the form "Cancels all
effects, BEFORE THEY ARE RESOLVED, that would..."
Brian
P.S. If you have made it this far and not fallen asleep, does anyone
recall with certainty whether you could MArvels Told Adunaphel AFTER she
had become a short event? I think I Jedi-mind tricked myself into
thinking I could do so, and forgot that regardless whether Adunaphel is
still in play, MArvels Told cannot target SHORT EVENTS. I will make a
hard copy of the sure ruling, and never ask again (I promise).
Ichabod
In article <19970401192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bsatt...@aol.com (BSatterley) wrote:
>Now that we have collected some rulings on Bane, I have some wording
>suggestions for the 3rd edition. Assuming ICE is still happy with the
>power level of the card, the wording could be changed to:
>
>
> <stuff about Palantiri, then...>
>
> Automatically cancels effects that cause any player to look at
>any portion of any play deck or an opponent's discard
>pile. Effects that cause any player to look at cards by virtue
>of drawing them, or discarding them face up, are not affected by Bane of
>the Ithil Stone.
Why switch it only to opponent's discard pile? This allows cards which
are currently not allowed, such as From the Pits of Angbad, the Nazgul
Are Abroad, and certain uses of An Unexpected Outpost.
Why spell out outside the normal sequence of play? Then if the rules
change the card will have to be erratad again. Just leave it the way
it is.
If this is about the Pallando ruling, there is no contradiction. Pallando
forces you to discard face up. This is not looking through anything,
it is discarding face up. Bane does not apply.
>P.S. If you have made it this far and not fallen asleep, does anyone
>recall with certainty whether you could MArvels Told Adunaphel AFTER she
>had become a short event? I think I Jedi-mind tricked myself into
>thinking I could do so, and forgot that regardless whether Adunaphel is
>still in play, MArvels Told cannot target SHORT EVENTS. I will make a
>hard copy of the sure ruling, and never ask again (I promise).
You may NOT Marvels Told a Nazgul after it becomes a short event. The
Nazgul becomes a short event on declaraction of the tapping for effect.
------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
--Self Proclaimed Most Mediocre Magic Player in the World--
BSatterley
Trevor Stone wrote:
>In article <19970401192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>bsatt...@aol.com (BSatterley) wrote:
>Now that we have collected some rulings on Bane, I have some wording
>suggestions for the 3rd edition. Assuming ICE is still happy with the
>power level of the card, the wording could be changed to:
>
>
> <stuff about Palantiri, then...>
>
> Automatically cancels effects that cause any player to look at
>any portion of any play deck or an opponent's discard
>pile. Effects that cause any player to look at cards by virtue
>of drawing them, or discarding them face up, are not affected by Bane of
>the Ithil Stone.
<Why switch it only to opponent's discard pile? This allows cards which
<are currently not allowed, such as From the Pits of Angbad, the Nazgul
<Are Abroad, and certain uses of An Unexpected Outpost.
oops. I didn't mean to change that from the original version. Replace my
"opponent's" with "any".
<Why spell out outside the normal sequence of play? Then if the rules
<change the card will have to be erratad again. Just leave it the way
<it is.
I get your point, and I am sensitive to the notion of planning ahead. But
"...outside the normal sequence of play" is not a well-defined phrase (and
that's being generous). You're not saying that phrase is intuitively
clear, are you? ICE has to weigh the benefit of using this
time-versatile phrase with the confusion it causes. Does the future value
of this vague phrase outweigh the confusion it's causing now? I guess I
dont know. I see it possible (?likely) that the intent of the designers
was simply to "prevent looking at", but in the interest of time they
picked a dysfunctionally sweeping phrase to convey the idea. The question
is, will there be more errata because of the changes I've suggested, or
because of how the card stands now...and all of it weighted by the cost of
each "errata"? The present form has the benefit of the doubt in a close
call, clearly. It's like a war of "top-down" clarification versus
"bottom-up" clarification.
"Within the normal sequence of play" needs to be spelled out
*somewhere*...if there is room on the card, and this card is probably only
one of a few where "the normal sequence of play" is an issue, then it
should be spelled out *on that card*. If many more cards come out with
similar effects, then maybe we can have a Normal Sequence of Play
Companion. And an Errata to the Normal Sequence of Play Companion <jk>.
Consider an extreme case, where each new mechanism, or new modification of
an old mechanism, will need to be accompied by a statement as to whether
it is within the normal sequence of play. How many times will the
definition of "within the normal sequence of play" change?
Thanks for your insight on this matter, Ichabod, and for your prompt
responses to other (and even repeated) questions.
Brian
BSatterley
Oops again...I was responding to Ichabod, not Trevor. Something in my
coffee, perhaps?
B
Ichabod
In article <19970402130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bsatt...@aol.com (BSatterley) wrote:
>
>"Within the normal sequence of play" needs to be spelled out
>*somewhere*...if there is room on the card, and this card is probably only
>one of a few where "the normal sequence of play" is an issue, then it
>should be spelled out *on that card*. If many more cards come out with
>similar effects, then maybe we can have a Normal Sequence of Play
>Companion. And an Errata to the Normal Sequence of Play Companion <jk>.
It has been repeated spelled out here on the net, and if it is not in
the current CRF it will be in the next one (work starts on that tommorow).
That's just about as good as errataing the card to say "not outlined
in the rulebook."
>Consider an extreme case, where each new mechanism, or new modification of
>an old mechanism, will need to be accompied by a statement as to whether
>it is within the normal sequence of play. How many times will the
>definition of "within the normal sequence of play" change?
It will only change if the mechanism is part of the rules (as in the
rule book). And then the definition doesn't change, just the referent
of the definition.
------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
The War on Drugs Will Kill America Praise "Bob"