Various questions (weapon maneuver cancel, Fragments, etc)
Petri Wessman
a) If a maneuver from a weapon is cancelled (via Rigor Mortis, for example),
does that still bind the minion with the weapon to using that weapon as a
strike? Not sure about this one.
b) Battle of the fragments: If someone uses Sargon Fragment to move a card
from their ash heap to their library, can their predator tap Erciyes
Fragments to steal that card, effectively making the SF action fizzle? I
suspect not, but it depends on whether there is a timing window in the SF
action where EF can be tapped.
Secondary question: do you need to tell other players what card you are
moving with SF? Same question applies to other "search for card and do
something" card effects that don't specifically say "show players the card"
or "search by name".
c) Ok, this one is probably due to English not being my native language
(though I am fluent). I've always been confused about what the "...since
your last turn" expression in some cards means precisely.
- Does it mean "after (and including) your last untap phase"?
- Does it mean "after your last turn ended"?
- Does it mean something totally different?
//Petri
Daneel
Some of these got me thinking... If my answers are incorrect, they shall
be corrected.
> a) If a maneuver from a weapon is cancelled (via Rigor Mortis, for
> example),
> does that still bind the minion with the weapon to using that weapon as a
> strike? Not sure about this one.
I was always under the impression that "canceling a Manoeuvre" is basically
the same as using another Manoeuvre to move in/out as required. I think
that the "canceled" manoeuvre has still been used, and as such commit to
striking with the weapon.
> b) Battle of the fragments: If someone uses Sargon Fragment to move a
> card
> from their ash heap to their library, can their predator tap Erciyes
> Fragments to steal that card, effectively making the SF action fizzle? I
> suspect not, but it depends on whether there is a timing window in the SF
> action where EF can be tapped.
I fear the answer is yes. I think that you need to name all retrievals by
card name, so if there is more than one copy of the card in your ash heap,
your predator cannot screw you like this.
> Secondary question: do you need to tell other players what card you are
> moving with SF? Same question applies to other "search for card and do
> something" card effects that don't specifically say "show players the
> card" or "search by name".
Well, I think you need to name the card. If for nothing else, then the
fact that each ash heap is public knowledge (and cards entering/
leaving can be pinpointed). The other players are free to forget the
card once it has been moved and announced, though. ;)
> c) Ok, this one is probably due to English not being my native language
> (though I am fluent). I've always been confused about what the "...since
> your last turn" expression in some cards means precisely.
>
> - Does it mean "after (and including) your last untap phase"?
> - Does it mean "after your last turn ended"?
> - Does it mean something totally different?
Yes, it is one of those concepts. Kind of like "if there are five Gehenna
cards in play" stuff, the "During this and that stuff" (though in KMW I
think I once again saw "once each referendum"-type texts).
Sorry for digressing. ;) It means "during the time window that started
when you ended your last/previous turn, and ends now" (basically your
second pick). Meaning, that your current turn alwas fits into "since
your last turn", but your previous one does not.
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:27:43 +0200, Petri Wessman <nos...@orava.org> wrote:
> Some of these got me thinking... If my answers are incorrect, they shall
> be corrected.
>> a) If a maneuver from a weapon is cancelled (via Rigor Mortis, for
>> example),
>> does that still bind the minion with the weapon to using that weapon as a
>> strike? Not sure about this one.
>
> I was always under the impression that "canceling a Manoeuvre" is basically
> the same as using another Manoeuvre to move in/out as required. I think
> that the "canceled" manoeuvre has still been used, and as such commit to
> striking with the weapon.
Correct. Similarly, if the maneuver from the gun is canceled, you cannot
use the same maneuver from the gun again. It was still "used".
>> b) Battle of the fragments: If someone uses Sargon Fragment to move a
>> card
>> from their ash heap to their library, can their predator tap Erciyes
>> Fragments to steal that card, effectively making the SF action fizzle? I
>> suspect not, but it depends on whether there is a timing window in the SF
>> action where EF can be tapped.
>
> I fear the answer is yes. I think that you need to name all retrievals by
> card name, so if there is more than one copy of the card in your ash heap,
> your predator cannot screw you like this.
Correct.
>> Secondary question: do you need to tell other players what card you are
>> moving with SF? Same question applies to other "search for card and do
>> something" card effects that don't specifically say "show players the
>> card" or "search by name".
>
> Well, I think you need to name the card. If for nothing else, then the
> fact that each ash heap is public knowledge (and cards entering/
> leaving can be pinpointed). The other players are free to forget the
> card once it has been moved and announced, though. ;)
You name the card(s) retrieved/moved from the ash heap.
Actions to "search" your library (or crypt or whatever) are not
further declared -- the search is the declaration.
>> c) Ok, this one is probably due to English not being my native language
>> (though I am fluent). I've always been confused about what the "...since
>> your last turn" expression in some cards means precisely.
>>
>> - Does it mean "after (and including) your last untap phase"?
>> - Does it mean "after your last turn ended"?
>> - Does it mean something totally different?
>
> Yes, it is one of those concepts. Kind of like "if there are five Gehenna
> cards in play" stuff, the "During this and that stuff" (though in KMW I
> think I once again saw "once each referendum"-type texts).
"since your last turn" is unambiguous in English.
"Have you eaten since breakfast?"
"Have you seen Charley since the last game?"
etc.
You're welcome to continue to try to make a case out of having six
mean that you don't have five if you like. The counters to that
have already been provided to you.
"During this and that" is a new one -- what's the issue there?
> Sorry for digressing. ;) It means "during the time window that started
> when you ended your last/previous turn, and ends now" (basically your
> second pick). Meaning, that your current turn alwas fits into "since
> your last turn", but your previous one does not.
Correct.
--
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/
Darky
> >> b) Battle of the fragments: If someone uses Sargon Fragment to
move a
> >> card
> >> from their ash heap to their library, can their predator tap
Erciyes
> >> Fragments to steal that card, effectively making the SF action
fizzle? I
> >> suspect not, but it depends on whether there is a timing window in
the SF
> >> action where EF can be tapped.
> >
> > I fear the answer is yes. I think that you need to name all
retrievals by
> > card name, so if there is more than one copy of the card in your
ash heap,
> > your predator cannot screw you like this.
>
> Correct.
I was under the impression you had to choose a card specifically, and
that the person using the erciyes fragments could target the same card,
even if you do have another card of the same name in there. Am I
mistaken?
(IMO roughly similar to, say, someone has 2 aabt kindred in play, both
tapped. You ambush one, and it untaps for some reason. Your action
fizzles, you don't get to ambush the other one instead.)
-Bram Vink
LSJ
news:1109591577.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
> > >> b) Battle of the fragments: If someone uses Sargon Fragment to
> move a
> > >> card
> > >> from their ash heap to their library, can their predator tap
> Erciyes
> > >> Fragments to steal that card, effectively making the SF action
> fizzle? I
> > >> suspect not, but it depends on whether there is a timing window in
> the SF
> > >> action where EF can be tapped.
> > >
> > > I fear the answer is yes. I think that you need to name all
> retrievals by
> > > card name, so if there is more than one copy of the card in your
> ash heap,
> > > your predator cannot screw you like this.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> I was under the impression you had to choose a card specifically, and
> that the person using the erciyes fragments could target the same card,
> even if you do have another card of the same name in there. Am I
> mistaken?
Yes. You name the card.
> (IMO roughly similar to, say, someone has 2 aabt kindred in play, both
> tapped. You ambush one, and it untaps for some reason. Your action
> fizzles, you don't get to ambush the other one instead.)
Cards in play are targeted by instance of the card, yes.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Daneel
wrote:
> "since your last turn" is unambiguous in English.
> "Have you eaten since breakfast?"
> "Have you seen Charley since the last game?"
> etc.
>
> You're welcome to continue to try to make a case out of having six
> mean that you don't have five if you like. The counters to that
> have already been provided to you.
I'm in a rather merry mood so picking on me won't work. Not today. ;)
> "During this and that" is a new one -- what's the issue there?
I was referring to the "During X do Y" phrase. My lack of clarity was
obviously enough to make the reference unrecognizable. ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Petri Wessman
> "since your last turn" is unambiguous in English.
> "Have you eaten since breakfast?"
> "Have you seen Charley since the last game?"
Funny, when you give those sentences as examples the meaning is totally
clear, but somehow I wasn't parsing "since your last turn" correctly. I
blame space aliens :).
Thanks for the answers.
//Petri
LSJ
> > "During this and that" is a new one -- what's the issue there?
>
> I was referring to the "During X do Y" phrase. My lack of clarity was
> obviously enough to make the reference unrecognizable. ;)
AFAIK, there is no discrepancy in the "during X, do Y" usage --
every instance of that template means "once", and has been
ruled since the beginning to mean "once".
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Daneel
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsmwuai...@news.chello.hu...
>> > "During this and that" is a new one -- what's the issue there?
>>
>> I was referring to the "During X do Y" phrase. My lack of clarity was
>> obviously enough to make the reference unrecognizable. ;)
>
> AFAIK, there is no discrepancy in the "during X, do Y" usage --
> every instance of that template means "once", and has been
> ruled since the beginning to mean "once".
You are of course quite right. There is no ambiguity as far as the
official interpretation is concerned. It is quite uniform. What I
originally referred to was the fact that the phrase itself,
without adding knowledge of the rulings, is not completely
unambiguous, and at least allows some doubt concerning the
interpretation (as shown by some earlier threads on this matter).
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> You are of course quite right. There is no ambiguity as far as the
> official interpretation is concerned. It is quite uniform. What I
> originally referred to was the fact that the phrase itself,
> without adding knowledge of the rulings, is not completely
> unambiguous, and at least allows some doubt concerning the
> interpretation (as shown by some earlier threads on this matter).
Ah, yes. It can be ambiguous (in the English sense) for the cases
where the Y part doesn't include a fixed amount.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > every instance of that template means "once", and has been
> > ruled since the beginning to mean "once".
>
> You are of course quite right. There is no ambiguity as far as the
> official interpretation is concerned. It is quite uniform. What I
> originally referred to was the fact that the phrase itself,
> without adding knowledge of the rulings, is not completely
> unambiguous, and at least allows some doubt concerning the
> interpretation (as shown by some earlier threads on this matter).
>
If you assume it to mean otherwise, the following effects will occur:
1. You will only ever need one Hunting Ground, since it can give a blood
to each of your minions.
2. You can freely move as much blood as you want to and from each of your
Blood Dolls.
3. You can gain infinite pool with a Blood Puppy.
4. The first person to have Brothers Grimm during their untap phase gains
5 pool.
And that's only looking at cards that start with A and B. There is no
doubt if you look at all the cards that use that wording.
Daneel
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsmwxew...@news.chello.hu...
>> You are of course quite right. There is no ambiguity as far as the
>> official interpretation is concerned. It is quite uniform. What I
>> originally referred to was the fact that the phrase itself,
>> without adding knowledge of the rulings, is not completely
>> unambiguous, and at least allows some doubt concerning the
>> interpretation (as shown by some earlier threads on this matter).
>
> Ah, yes. It can be ambiguous (in the English sense) for the cases
> where the Y part doesn't include a fixed amount.
Especially for non-native speakers. There are typical questions that
get asked on local VTES forums that have to do with these language
issues. Language - the way people phrase stuff - has an impact on
understanding. So while a local player may have a decent english
vocabulary, he or she may still have trouble fully understanding
these phrases. Of course, a ruling (or clarification) and uniform
usage helps (that way the answer does not need to rely on semantics
alone). I listed these issues because they seem to be the most common
misunderstandings I encounter (on a local level, of course).
By the way, from my perspective, the key issue with this particular
phrasing is "payment". That is, if something allows you to *get* X
during Y, then most people I know understand that to be only once. But
if you can *buy* X during Y, most people that have trouble with this
assume that the payment is the compensation for the ability, and the
"during" part only restricts the timing window. I'm not arguing or
bitching, by the way - just sharing my experience.
Peace,
Daneel
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:38gillF...@individual.net...
> "Darky" <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:1109591577.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[Petri wrote]
> > > >> b) Battle of the fragments: If someone uses Sargon Fragment to
> > move a
> > > >> card
> > > >> from their ash heap to their library, can their predator tap
> > Erciyes
> > > >> Fragments to steal that card, effectively making the SF action
> > fizzle? I
> > > >> suspect not, but it depends on whether there is a timing window
in
> > the SF
> > > >> action where EF can be tapped.
[Daneel wrote]
> > > > I fear the answer is yes. I think that you need to name all
> > retrievals by
> > > > card name, so if there is more than one copy of the card in
your
> > ash heap,
> > > > your predator cannot screw you like this.
[LSJ wrote]
> > > Correct.
[Bram wrote]
> > I was under the impression you had to choose a card specifically,
and
> > that the person using the erciyes fragments could target the same
card,
> > even if you do have another card of the same name in there. Am I
> > mistaken?
>
> Yes. You name the card.
This is interesting. I also would probably have assumed the opposite
(that cards not in play are like cards in play, in being targeted by
instance rather than name).
I guess, then, Daemonic Possession and Compel the Spirit (and the like)
are limited to retrieving a specific instance of a card in an ash heap
(the one that was burned since time T) only because they say they are?
By default they would consider all copies of Shambling Hordes in an ash
heap to be equivalent to each other (cards are washed clean by the ash
heap, unlike cards in play which are distinct by instance), but because
of Compel the Spirit's text "Only usable if a retainer or ally you
control has been burned since your last turn" and "Move the -{ally or
retainer}- card from your ash heap to your ready region", it can only
move that particular copy, not other copies with the same name (and
unlike Sargon Fragment's action or Whispers from the Dead, this can be
prevented by tapping an Erciyes Fragment during the Compel the Spirit
action)?
Josh
dead dead dead dead dead undead
LSJ
> > Yes. You name the card.
>
> This is interesting. I also would probably have assumed the opposite
> (that cards not in play are like cards in play, in being targeted by
> instance rather than name).
See also Delaying Tactics vs. one of the two KRC in hand as opposed to
Delaying Tactics vs. one of the two Anarch Revolts on the table.
> I guess, then, Daemonic Possession and Compel the Spirit (and the like)
> are limited to retrieving a specific instance of a card in an ash heap
> (the one that was burned since time T) only because they say they are?
They have to track it from play, yeah.
> By default they would consider all copies of Shambling Hordes in an ash
> heap to be equivalent to each other (cards are washed clean by the ash
> heap, unlike cards in play which are distinct by instance), but because
> of Compel the Spirit's text "Only usable if a retainer or ally you
> control has been burned since your last turn" and "Move the -{ally or
> retainer}- card from your ash heap to your ready region", it can only
> move that particular copy, not other copies with the same name (and
> unlike Sargon Fragment's action or Whispers from the Dead, this can be
> prevented by tapping an Erciyes Fragment during the Compel the Spirit
> action)?
Yes.
talonz
LSJ wrote:
>
> AFAIK, there is no discrepancy in the "during X, do Y" usage --
> every instance of that template means "once", and has been
> ruled since the beginning to mean "once".
>
Maris Streck.
G
LSJ
... does not use "during X, do Y", so is irrelevant to
the topic.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
John Flournoy
> > where the Y part doesn't include a fixed amount.
>
> Especially for non-native speakers. There are typical questions that
> get asked on local VTES forums that have to do with these language
> issues. Language - the way people phrase stuff - has an impact on
> understanding. So while a local player may have a decent english
> vocabulary, he or she may still have trouble fully understanding
> these phrases.
Excellent point - it's very easy to forget when reading people's posts
that some people have trouble with the finer points of English as their
second (or third, or Nth) language, especially understanding some
slightly convoluted wordings.
> Daneel
-John Flournoy
talonz
be whether she should use 'during x/y' for her ability.
I would think that the majority of players would say yes.
G
LSJ
> Accepting for the moment that is the case, perhaps the question should
> be whether she should use 'during x/y' for her ability.
>
> I would think that the majority of players would say yes.
That what is the case?
Who she?
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
John Flournoy
LSJ wrote:
> "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1109883011....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Accepting for the moment that is the case, perhaps the question
should
> > be whether she should use 'during x/y' for her ability.
> >
> > I would think that the majority of players would say yes.
>
>
> That what is the case?
That Maris Streck does not and never has been limited to 1/action on
her special due to a lack of 'during x/do y' text.
> Who she?
Maris.
Personally, I think that the majority of players would base their
answer as to whether or not she 'should' be 'during x/do y' on whether
or not they had Maris Streck in play or not. :P
More seriously, without that ability being usable as written, she'd be
hideously underpowered. She pays a LOT for that ability, in terms of
balance against other 9-caps, epscially considering how little she has
comparatively in terms of disciplines.
> LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap
to reply).
-John Flournoy