Orun and votes
Ben Peal
> Put this card on a Laibon. For non-Orun cards played by
> Methuselahs other than this Laibon's controller, this Laibon
> is considered to have 2 additional capacity. A Laibon gets
> an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has. If this
> Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully
> performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or
> she burns one Orun. Burn this card if this Laibon has more
> Orun and Aye than his or her capacity.
Does each copy of Orun on that Laibon grant an additional
vote? Why or why not?
- Ben Peal
gpett...@gmail.com
Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default.
Further, Orun has already been ruled to stack here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61d58c166c560ea7?dmode=source
Fred Scott
news:1144370268.3...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Ben Peal wrote:
>> Text of Orun:
>> > Put this card on a Laibon. For non-Orun cards played by
>> > Methuselahs other than this Laibon's controller, this Laibon
>> > is considered to have 2 additional capacity. A Laibon gets
>> > an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has. If this
>> > Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully
>> > performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or
>> > she burns one Orun. Burn this card if this Laibon has more
>> > Orun and Aye than his or her capacity.
>>
>> Does each copy of Orun on that Laibon grant an additional
>> vote? Why or why not?
>>
>>
>> - Ben Peal
>
> Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default.
Er? All cards stack by default. But "every three Orun" has a
pretty clear meaning: one vote for three Orun. If you wanted
a second 'nother vote, you'd have to have six Orun cards.
Fred, permanent citizen of the state of confusion
CthuluKitty
> Further, Orun has already been ruled to stack here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61d58c166c560ea7?dmode=source
That URL refers to a topic about Orun and Wormwood. From what I can
tell it doesn't address the votes from Orun at all.
My guess to Ben's question is that each individual Orun does not
separately grant a vote. It looks like the intent of the card was to
give you 1 vote for every 3 copies as a bulk some. Of course, a
literal interpretation of text could lead to the opposite conclusion,
granting the vampire votes as follows.
Orun Votes
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 12
7 14
And so on.
But that just doesn't seem right. In any case, I hope it's not right.
gpett...@gmail.com
CthuluKitty wrote:
> > Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default.
> > Further, Orun has already been ruled to stack here:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61d58c166c560ea7?dmode=source
>
> That URL refers to a topic about Orun and Wormwood. From what I can
> tell it doesn't address the votes from Orun at all.
>
Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling
includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each*
trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different
sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text?
> My guess to Ben's question is that each individual Orun does not
> separately grant a vote. It looks like the intent of the card was to
> give you 1 vote for every 3 copies as a bulk some.
But card text differs, and no errata have been issued.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
mikewi...@gmail.com
is that even good? Is it worth it to throw 6-9 copies of Orun
into your deck?
- Ben Peal
James Coupe
"gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes:
>Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling
>includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each*
>trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different
>sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text?
Erm, because there's specific text.
The card text for the bonus capacity doesn't have text specifying that
the bonus is for every three copies of the card. The votes do.
Why do you think that text saying "for every three Orun he or she has"
is not different from the preceding sentence? You know, what with that
text not occurring in the previous sentence at all.
It's fairly trivially a case of "Oh look, I have these three Orun over
here. 1 vote. Another 3 Orun over here, 1 vote. Can I use 4 Orun to
get 4 votes? No, because these three cards notice they're being used to
grant a vote and this one is left over."
Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have
different wording, I guess.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Salem
> In message <1144373381.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling
>>includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each*
>>trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different
>>sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text?
>
> Erm, because there's specific text.
>
> The card text for the bonus capacity doesn't have text specifying that
> the bonus is for every three copies of the card. The votes do.
>
> Why do you think that text saying "for every three Orun he or she has"
> is not different from the preceding sentence? You know, what with that
> text not occurring in the previous sentence at all.
>
> It's fairly trivially a case of "Oh look, I have these three Orun over
> here. 1 vote. Another 3 Orun over here, 1 vote. Can I use 4 Orun to
> get 4 votes? No, because these three cards notice they're being used to
> grant a vote and this one is left over."
>
> Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have
> different wording, I guess.
I'm with James. The wording is 'this laibon gets' vs 'A laibon gets'.
The latter seeming to be not so stackey as the former.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Salem
No. Aye and Orun suck.
Jozxyqk
If this were true, then you'd be able to remove counters from every Web
of Knives Recruit during your untap phase, since each one would individually
allow you to remove from 2.
LSJ
> In message <1144373381.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling
> >includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each*
> >trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different
> >sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text?
>
> Erm, because there's specific text.
>
> The card text for the bonus capacity doesn't have text specifying that
> the bonus is for every three copies of the card. The votes do.
>
> Why do you think that text saying "for every three Orun he or she has"
> is not different from the preceding sentence? You know, what with that
> text not occurring in the previous sentence at all.
>
> It's fairly trivially a case of "Oh look, I have these three Orun over
> here. 1 vote. Another 3 Orun over here, 1 vote. Can I use 4 Orun to
> get 4 votes? No, because these three cards notice they're being used to
> grant a vote and this one is left over."
>
> Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have
> different wording, I guess.
Correct.
# Orun -> # votes from Orun
0 -> 0
1 -> 0
2 -> 0
3 -> 1
4 -> 1
5 -> 1
6 -> 2
7 -> 2
8 -> 2
9 -> 3
&c.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
Salem wrote:
> mikewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Even if you go with the literal interpretation of the card text,
> > is that even good? Is it worth it to throw 6-9 copies of Orun
> > into your deck?
>
> No. Aye and Orun suck.
Some players and deckbuilders also suck.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
CthuluKitty
> is that even good? Is it worth it to throw 6-9 copies of Orun
> into your deck?
Well, it's moot now. But if that were the case, you'd probably be the
one to answer the question experimentally, now wouldn't you?
Jesse
Ben Swainbank
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> >
> > No. Aye and Orun suck.
>
Orun is probably not so good.
Aye is actually really good.
Master: trifle.
Put this card on a Laibon. This Laibon may tap this card to cancel a
Frenzy card played on him or her as it is played.
Yeah, you can mostly ignore the 3 Aye stuff and High Aye. But its a
Trifle you can tap to cancel a frenzy. That's good. I've seen several
Laibon decks with Sire's Index Finger and been scratching my head.
Or what if someone had a crazy Malk OOT Rotschreck deck? A trifle that
stopped it cold would be pretty handy...
-Ben Swainbank
Ben Peal
mikewithdell ->AT< gmail ->DOT<- com ?!?!??
- Ben Peal
Atom Weaver
Ben Peal wrote:
> Uh...how the heck did I post with the email address
> mikewithdell ->AT< gmail ->DOT<- com ?!?!??
>
>
worth impersonating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dell
:-)
DaveZ
AW
Ben Peal
James Coupe wrote:
> Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have
> different wording, I guess.
You mean we shouldn't take the cards literally? When do we
assume a card is generating its own discrete effect and when don't
we?
I don't disagree with designer intent. What I take issue with is bad
templating.
- Ben Peal
Ben Peal
respect to the votes.
- Ben
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> > > No. Aye and Orun suck.
Note that I did not write this.
Aye and Orun don't suck.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Ben Peal
respect to the burn clause for bleeding for 2 or
more. From a conversation I just had with LSJ
on IRC (#vtes, sorcery.net), there is "stealth
errata" preventing all copies of Orun from burning
if you bleed for 2 or more.
- Ben Peal
Matthew T. Morgan
I'm not really seeing the controversy here.
"A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has."
How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun?
"If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully
performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one
Orun."
You bleed for more than 2. You burn one Orun. What's confusing?
Matt Morgan
Meej
Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> I'm not really seeing the controversy here.
> "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has."
> How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun?
Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch
burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of
Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each
copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? They're both cases
of multiple copies in play of cards which each produce an effect, at
least as far as the wording goes.
> "If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully
> performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one
> Orun."
>
> You bleed for more than 2. You burn one Orun. What's confusing?
The fact that there are multiple cards in play, each telling you to
burn one Orun.
It's not actually confusing, per se - the design intent is relatively
clear (clearer on the burning than on the votes), but the wording is
still quite ambiguous. By the Orun ruling above, if it's not strictly
errata, it starts to imply that you'd only take 1 pool from 4 AR's in
play.
The problem is, I'm not sure what better way there would be to format
it except, possibly, to introduce the concept of "fractions" of votes.
(i.e., "This Laibon gains one-third of a vote. Round fractions down.")
But that way lies madness.
- D.J.
gpett...@gmail.com
Meej wrote:
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>
> > "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has."
> > How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun?
>
> Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of
> Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each
> copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? They're both cases
> of multiple copies in play of cards which each produce an effect, at
> least as far as the wording goes.
>
> clear (clearer on the burning than on the votes), but the wording is
> still quite ambiguous. By the Orun ruling above, if it's not strictly
> errata, it starts to imply that you'd only take 1 pool from 4 AR's in
> play.
>
> The problem is, I'm not sure what better way there would be to format
> it except, possibly, to introduce the concept of "fractions" of votes.
> (i.e., "This Laibon gains one-third of a vote. Round fractions down.")
> But that way lies madness.
>
"This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an Additional vote until his next
untap phase."
Meej
gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
> Meej wrote:
>
> > The problem is, I'm not sure what better way there would be to format
> > it except, possibly, to introduce the concept of "fractions" of votes.
> > (i.e., "This Laibon gains one-third of a vote. Round fractions down.")
> > But that way lies madness.
> >
>
> "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an Additional vote until his next
> untap phase."
The problem there is that they wouldn't be usable for more than one
referendum in a given cycle of turns, which drops the power somewhat.
But I like the general idea.
"This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an additional vote in the current
referendum. Untap those Orun at the end of this referendum." would
cover it.
Ben Peal
>"A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three
>Orun he or she has."
>
>How can that mean anything other than one vote
>per three Orun?
You're correct here. The key words in this case
are "A Laibon..." as opposed to "This Laibon".
This means that it is a general rule with respect
to Orun cards on Laibon, as opposed to a discrete
effect generated by the Orun card for that specific
Laibon.
>"If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than
>2 or successfully performs a (D) action against a
>non-mortal minion, he or she burns one Orun."
>
>You bleed for more than 2. You burn one Orun.
>What's confusing?
Ah, but not in this case with this wording. In this
case, the Orun card is generating a discrete effect
for that specific Laibon. Taken as worded, each
Orun card on the vampire would burn "if this Laibon
successfully bleeds for more than 2...". Each Orun
card is generating that effect, as opposed to the
general rule with respect to additional votes.
At least according to LSJ in the conversation I had
with him, there is "stealth errata" for this card such
that only one Orun card burns after a successful
bleed for more than 2. LSJ?
- Ben Peal
Robert Scythe
Meej wrote:
> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an Additional vote until his next
> > untap phase."
>
> The problem there is that they wouldn't be usable for more than one
> referendum in a given cycle of turns, which drops the power somewhat.
> But I like the general idea.
>
> "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an additional vote in the current
> referendum. Untap those Orun at the end of this referendum." would
> cover it.
I think gpettigrew's wording is sufficient, where do you read in that
it wouldn't be usable for more than one referendum? And you don't have
to bother with all that extra tap/untap nonsense.
Fred Scott
news:1144441923.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It's not actually confusing, per se - the design intent is relatively
> clear (clearer on the burning than on the votes), but the wording is
> still quite ambiguous.
Wording is always ambiguous. That's the nature of language. If you
want to contort context or neglect well-understood conventions that
normally govern how a frequntly used pattern of words are interpreted,
you can twist the simplest sentence into something completely different.
Granted, cases can be shown where each copy of a card causes an
additional iteration in a stack of effects. But a card that reads,
"You gain one something for each X of this card" is much more commonly
understood to mean you divide the number of copies of this card by X
and that's how many iterations of the effect you get - not, you get
one iteration of effect for X cards multiplied by the total number
of cards. Likewise, it is much more common to understand, "If you
do this, burn one copy of this card" to mean burn only one copy out
of all the copies you have, not burn one card for however many copies
of this card are in play/apply to the situation.
The point is, sometimes you have to look for the obviously simplest
meaning to the card text rather than trying to basing your interpretation
on how other cards were written.
Bleh. Why do I suspect these word are gonna get thrown back in my
face some day? Oh, well...
Fred
gpett...@gmail.com
My wording is already slightly more powerful than Orun-as-intended. His
version's even cooler. I just wanted something similar in length to the
current system, its similarity to Aye's wording is coincidentally
aesthetic.
Robert Scythe
gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
> My wording is already slightly more powerful than Orun-as-intended. His
> version's even cooler. I just wanted something similar in length to the
> current system, its similarity to Aye's wording is coincidentally
> aesthetic.
Ah, for the burning of an Orun card would not affect yours had they
already been tapped. Bah, the original wording is just fine anyway.
James Coupe
<dj...@comcast.net> writes:
>Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch
>burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of
>Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each
>copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun?
Because the card text says it isn't one vote from every copy of Orun.
It's one vote for every three copies of Orun.
Comparisons with Anarch Revolt would apply if Anarch Revolt said "A
Methuselah burns one pool for every three copies of Anarch Revolt in
play."
But it doesn't. So, cleverly, Anarch Revolt's text applies to Anarch
Revolt and Orun's text applies to Orun. And Orun says 1 vote for every
three cards, not 1 vote for every card when there are at least three of
them in play.
James Coupe
Peal <ni...@ofdoom.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have
>> different wording, I guess.
>
> You mean we shouldn't take the cards literally?
I'm saying that pretending, as Gregory was, that you're taking the cards
literally because you can pretend that two different sentences aren't
different by shutting your eyes and ignoring what the text says isn't
the same as actually reading card text.
Nor is blindly applying a ruling from one effect of a card to a second
effect which is worded in a completely different fashion something that
is sensible to do.
I fail to see why anyone with a brain in their head would completely
take leave of their senses and pretend that two completely different
sentences are somehow the same.
Next up - let's apply Bum's Rush's text to Malkavian Time Auction.
Because, you know, they're worded just the same, so they wouldn't work
differently unless there was specific text. Oh, wait...
Meej
Robert Scythe wrote:
> I think gpettigrew's wording is sufficient, where do you read in that
> it wouldn't be usable for more than one referendum? And you don't have
> to bother with all that extra tap/untap nonsense.
Oh, hey. Yep, somehow I'd mis-processed the "until your next untap
phase" portion of it. Greg's wording did the trick. Oops.
- D.J.
Meej
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1144441923.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Meej
> <dj...@comcast.net> writes:
> >Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch
> >burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of
> >Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each
> >copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun?
>
> Because the card text says it isn't one vote from every copy of Orun.
> It's one vote for every three copies of Orun.
(Note at the start of this: James, we're on the same page that that is
the way it *should* be, and the way it's intended to be. I'm playing
devil's advocate, in a sense, in an effort to point out that in fact,
actually reading the cards and applying their text in the same manner
that every other card in the game gets applied leads to a different
answer, and suggesting that maybe that's a problem.)
Correct. Each copy of Orun states that a vampire gets one extra vote
for each three Orun he has. Each copy states that, right? And each
card that generates a condition or effect in any other portion of the
game gets its own iteration, doesn't it? You apply the text of each
Anarch Revolt; you count each instance of +1 bleed on a minion (say,
multiple Anima Gatherings at AUS); why wouldn't you apply the text of
each Orun?
Thus, if there are three Orun, each of them says that each vampire gets
one vote for every three Orun. Which implies three votes. If you're
taking a literalist reading. I'm not actually trying to argue it
*should* be that way, but based strictly on card text, it *could* be,
and that probably warrants fixing.
> Comparisons with Anarch Revolt would apply if Anarch Revolt said "A
> Methuselah burns one pool for every three copies of Anarch Revolt in
> play."
>
> But it doesn't. So, cleverly, Anarch Revolt's text applies to Anarch
> Revolt and Orun's text applies to Orun. And Orun says 1 vote for every
> three cards, not 1 vote for every card when there are at least three of
> them in play.
And Anarch Revolt says to burn one pool if you don't have any anarchs
in play. And you apply that for each Anarch Revolt. You're right that
it's not a perfect parallel, but the same vagaries exist in both of
them, and they're being interpreted a different way in each case.
I can see the case you're trying to make, but it relies on the idea
that sometimes a statement of "A (something) (does something)" as an
effect of a card sometimes means each copy generates that effect, and
sometimes means there's one standing effect that does that.
Hypothetically, to help clear this up: if, say, a card existed - let's
call it "Seniority" - with the text:
"A vampire gains votes equal to its capacity," and two copies were in
play, how many votes would each vampire gain? Because there are two
effects sitting there, giving vampires votes... but the wording's
analogous to Orun's. (Or Anarch Revolt's, for that matter.)
- D.J.
Ben Peal
>I'm saying that pretending, as Gregory was,
>that you're taking the cards literally because
>you can pretend that two different sentences
>aren't different by shutting your eyes and
>ignoring what the text says isn't the same as
>actually reading card text.
Had the sentence read:
"This Laibon gets an additional vote..."
Instead of the actual text of:
"A Laibon gets an additional vote..."
...then the vampire would gain one vote
per Orun card if it had at least 3 Orun
on it. It has nothing to do with the "...for
every three Orun..." part of the sentence,
but rather the "A Laibon" part of the
sentence.
So, when you take into consideration
the next sentence:
"If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more
than 2 or successfully performs a (D) action
against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns
one Orun."
...then you run into a problem that requires
errata, because the "this Laibon" part of the
sentence means that if this Laibon bleeds
for more than 2, every Orun card on that
Laibon will burn.
Or at least that's what LSJ told me.
Now, it's not a matter of not being able to
differentiate between two different sentences,
but rather a matter of not knowing the rules
templating difference between "A Laibon"
and "This Laibon". It's easy to confuse the
two when "conventional wisdom" says that
the rules would apply he same to the vote
clause and the bleed-burn clause, when in
fact they do not, and the bleed-burn clause
therefore requires errata.
Hence the question.
- Ben Peal
Meej
>
> The point is, sometimes you have to look for the obviously simplest
> meaning to the card text rather than trying to basing your interpretation
> on how other cards were written.
Of course, and I'm not arguing that Orun *should* play that way. But
if you're trying to design a quality game - and this is - you need to
be on the lookout for loopholes, right?
Look, if I were a judge in a tournament and this came up because some
rule-lawyering ninny were trying to argue the point so he could get it
to fly, I'd be ruling based on "obvious intent" in the absence of a
clarification. But I'd also be looking to get that clarification ASAP
so as to not have to hear about it for ages.
> Bleh. Why do I suspect these word are gonna get thrown back in my
> face some day? Oh, well...
*Shrug*; not by me. It's definitely the right standard to take when
trying to interpret card text, or to make a ruling on the fly, but it's
not always the standard that gets used in the final rulings, so it's
(IMO) only good as a stopgap measure, when precedent is vague.
By the way, I'd tried - before making the initial post - to think of
another card with similar wording (the "A (someone) (does something)"
sort of permanent-effect format) where multiple iterations were ruled
to *not* stack, and couldn't; can someone point me to one?
- D.J.
James Coupe
<dj...@comcast.net> writes:
>(Note at the start of this: James, we're on the same page that that is
>the way it *should* be, and the way it's intended to be. I'm playing
>devil's advocate, in a sense, in an effort to point out that in fact,
>actually reading the cards and applying their text in the same manner
>that every other card in the game gets applied leads to a different
>answer, and suggesting that maybe that's a problem.)
No, you see, it says for every three Orun he or she has.
So when I have five Orun, let's call them Orun A, Orun B, Orun C, Orun D
and Orun E. I have three Orun, A, B, and C. I also have three Orun, A,
B and D. And three Orun A, B and E. And three Orun A, C, D. And three
Orun A, C, E. And three Orun A, D, E. And three Orun B, C, D. And
three Orun B, C, E. And three Orun B, D, E. And three Orun C, D, E.
I want a vote for *every* three I have, and I have lots of threes! I
make that 10 votes for me.
This plainly ludicrous reading is no less bonkers than one that says
"For every three Orun" actually means "For each Orun, when you have a
minimum of three".
Now, since we have multiple interpretations, we have a clarification or
a ruling. Which LSJ has provided.
Robert Scythe
James Coupe wrote:
> So when I have five Orun, let's call them Orun A, Orun B, Orun C, Orun D
> and Orun E. I have three Orun, A, B, and C. I also have three Orun, A,
> B and D. And three Orun A, B and E. And three Orun A, C, D. And three
> Orun A, C, E. And three Orun A, D, E. And three Orun B, C, D. And
> three Orun B, C, E. And three Orun B, D, E. And three Orun C, D, E.
Damn, James, I admire your logic! I couldn't think of another way to
defend/dismantle Orun's wording but this was it!
Jozxyqk
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> > I'm not really seeing the controversy here.
> > "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has."
> > How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun?
> Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of
> Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each
> copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? They're both cases
> of multiple copies in play of cards which each produce an effect, at
> least as far as the wording goes.
By this logic, though (the one Ben has proposed), the Oruns on *this*
Laibon would also affect the number of votes on *other* Laibons with 3
or more Orun, since it does say "A Laibon" and not "This Laibon".
So if Eze and Aren each had 3 Orun, each would get +6 votes.
That's just silly.
The easiest "fix" (if you really need one) would be to add a
parenthetical phrase to the card text, something like:
"A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has
(this total is only counted once, not once per Orun)."
Or something like:
"A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has
(shut up, Ben)."
;)
Josh
Insubordinate, tired, Prince of Boston
Jozxyqk
> By this logic, though (the one Ben has proposed), the Oruns on *this*
> Laibon would also affect the number of votes on *other* Laibons with 3
> or more Orun, since it does say "A Laibon" and not "This Laibon".
> So if Eze and Aren each had 3 Orun, each would get +6 votes.
> That's just silly.
Oh, just one more thing to say on the subject:
Another parallel would be Vampiric Disease.
If I play Vampiric Disease, and then I play it again, it has introduced
the "Vampiric Disease" rule :TWICE:.
So, by Ben's logic, if two Vampiric Diseases have been played (on
different vampires, even), "afflicted vampires" would burn 2 blood for untapping.
PROPOSAL: What if there was a new Keyword called "Rule"?
A statement with the Keyword "Rule" would only be interpreted once, no
matter how many times the same card was played.
The "Rule" keyword would then be added to Orun (at least for the votey
bit), Web of Knives Recruit (the "remove only 2 counters" bit), Vampiric
Disease, Army of Rats, etc etc.
Thoughts?
Fred Scott
> Fred Scott wrote:
>>
>> The point is, sometimes you have to look for the obviously simplest
>> meaning to the card text rather than trying to basing your interpretation
>> on how other cards were written.
>
> Of course, and I'm not arguing that Orun *should* play that way. But
> if you're trying to design a quality game - and this is - you need to
> be on the lookout for loopholes, right?
I'm saying that if you look hard enough, you will always find loopholes.
They're always there because language is eternally ambiguous. So if
the only question you ask is, "Are there loopholes?", you've wasted
your time because the answer is always yes.
The only interesting question here is whether there's a loophole that
fairly reasonable people can fairly reasonably fall into. Of course,
the answer is subjective but in most cases, we should be able to
agree as long as we're being reasonable about linguistic conventions.
And when you start contending that "One vote for every three Orun"
should be interpreted to mean "one vote for every three Orun for
every Orun", here is where I think you're just not being very
reasonable about it.
> Look, if I were a judge in a tournament and this came up because some
> rule-lawyering ninny were trying to argue the point so he could get it
> to fly, I'd be ruling based on "obvious intent" in the absence of a
> clarification. But I'd also be looking to get that clarification ASAP
> so as to not have to hear about it for ages.
Well, I don't think this requires clarification, myself. I guess it
doesn't hurt anything to get it if it spins your buttons. But your
suggested alternative interpretation is pretty out there, in my book.
> By the way, I'd tried - before making the initial post - to think of
> another card with similar wording (the "A (someone) (does something)"
> sort of permanent-effect format) where multiple iterations were ruled
> to *not* stack, and couldn't; can someone point me to one?
I can't. As far as I know, this is the first expansion that had any
cards which use the template, "You get one (something) for every (number
more than one) copy of this card you have in play." Maybe someone else
can think of a prior example but I can't. Still, the intent and meaning
seem clear to me.
Fred
Meej
James Coupe wrote:
> I want a vote for *every* three I have, and I have lots of threes! I
> make that 10 votes for me.
>
> This plainly ludicrous reading is no less bonkers than one that says
> "For every three Orun" actually means "For each Orun, when you have a
> minimum of three".
It's definitely no less bonkers (I'm pretty certain it's more bonkers,
actually, but not worth debating). But as you say...
> Now, since we have multiple interpretations, we have a clarification or
> a ruling. Which LSJ has provided.
You're right, there's been a ruling. This whole thing was academic, in
a sense - Ben started the thread, and both James and Fred raised the
"How does that even get read as a possibility?" question. Which, for
some reason, I attempted to answer, since it was clear to me how that
was a possible reading, even if a somewhat asinine one. But there is a
double standard going on in these rulings. I think it's a valuable and
valid double standard, but there's no sense throwing nasty insults
around while pretending it's not there.
- D.J.
Salem
although i probably went further than I meant to. I kind of really meant
making a deck based on aye or based on orun would be difficult and not
very effective.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)