What?! I'm very active!!! Jumping around, looking for people in distress, defeating evil-doers...
Oh, you mean here, on the forums? Eh, too much going on. Like I said, there's all that jumping around, looking for people in distress, defeating evil-doers... Besides, you people just don't play well. You're all engrossed in your game and assume I'm not me. Which is just weird - of course I'm me. Who else would I be? Who else would I want to be?!
We're going to fight EEEEEEEVIL! Because, you know, EEEEEEEVIL!
It's important to remember that Christopher *can* be convinced to modify a ruling he's made. It's pretty rare, but I've seen it happen. So the picky arguments we have may occasionally lead to a change in the game, if we form persuasive enough arguments.
Huh, this thread really blew up in the last day. Thanks Pydro for posting the link to the ruling on how modifiers and redirection works.
I hope my gaming group accepts the consensus on Time of Tribualations and the argument that if that was what it meant it would have said "if you do". IIRC, I think their argument was that since it was all the same sentence it was all the same effect, so you treated it as all the same action, and if you couldn't do part of it you didn't do any of it.
Which I think brings up a more general disagreement we have about how the cards work. As best I can tell, they think that if you can't do an effect on a card completely you don't do it at all. For example, they thought that if you only have one token when you play "Plucky Break", you don't remove that one token. I, however, think that you're supposed to fulfill effect on cards as much as possible, unless they have a conditional like "if able" or "if you do (some other thing)".
So it would be really nice if I could get a ruling or evidence that it's meant to work the way I think it does, if that's the case.
Keep in mind the reverse, if a card says to destroy X equipment/ongoing cards, is someone really saying that if there are less than X in play you don't destroy anything? Mad Bomber Blade just got MUCH easier.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
Which I think brings up a more general disagreement we have about how the cards work. As best I can tell, they think that if you can't do an effect on a card completely you don't do it at all. For example, they thought that if you only have one token when you play "Plucky Break", you don't remove that one token. I, however, think that you're supposed to fulfill effect on cards as much as possible, unless they have a conditional like "if able" or "if you do (some other thing)".So it would be really nice if I could get a ruling or evidence that it's meant to work the way I think it does, if that's the case.
I don't think you are going to get Christopher chiming in to give you the official ruling everytime. We've been over situations like this already in the thread. If you want to see official ruling then I would suggest looking up Spiff's FAQ that I linked earlier if you have questions. It should cover quite a bit.
Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31
I don't think you are going to get Christopher chiming in to give you the official ruling everytime.
I know, and I'm not expecting that. (Though that would be nice. ^.^) What I'd like is an official source that states or implies that it works how I think it does.
Powerhound_2000 wrote:
We've been over situations like this already in the thread.
Yes, but that's just forumites saying how they think it works. It's not an official source and I don't think the people I play with would accept that as proof.
Powerhound_2000 wrote:
If you want to see official ruling then I would suggest looking up Spiff's FAQ that I linked earlier if you have questions. It should cover quite a bit.
As I said at the beginning of my first post, I already looked. It doesn't say anything about that, except the specific case of discarding cards.
I don't think you are going to get Christopher chiming in to give you the official ruling everytime.
I know, and I'm not expecting that. (Though that would be nice. ^.^) What I'd like is an official source that states or implies that it works how I think it does.
Then I have no idea what more we can do for you. These forums have a lot of topics that are a bit too hard to dig into to give you anything official outside of Spiffs FAQ.
Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31
I hope my gaming group accepts the consensus on Time of Tribualations and the argument that if that was what it meant it would have said "if you do". IIRC, I think their argument was that since it was all the same sentence it was all the same effect, so you treated it as all the same action, and if you couldn't do part of it you didn't do any of it.
Maybe this will help your argument, if they are correct, many cards should be reworded. Here are some examples:
RPG Launcher wrote:
Destroy 1 Ongoing or Environment card. If you do, Expatriette deals up to 2 Targets 2 Fire Damage each.
If they are right, it should have said:
RPG Launcher Should Have wrote:
Destroy 1 Ongoing or Environment card, Expatriette deals up to 2 Targets 2 Fire Damage each.
According to them, both cards work the same, yet, it actually has more words. It must be because without those words, you would activate the second part even without activating the first part. Here is another example:
Wrathful Retribution wrote:
Discard 3 cards.
If you do, Fanatic deals 1 Target X Radiant Damage, where X = Fanatic's maximum HP minus her current HP.
If they are right, it should have said:
Wrathful Retribution Should Have wrote:
Discard 3 cards, Fanatic deals 1 Target X Radiant Damage, where X = Fanatic's maximum HP minus her current HP.
There are over 20 cards that say "if you do" that should not have said it if that was true. If this card didn't say it, it is because it is different.
CharType wrote:
Which I think brings up a more general disagreement we have about how the cards work. As best I can tell, they think that if you can't do an effect on a card completely you don't do it at all. For example, they thought that if you only have one token when you play "Plucky Break", you don't remove that one token. I, however, think that you're supposed to fulfill effect on cards as much as possible, unless they have a conditional like "if able" or "if you do (some other thing)".So it would be really nice if I could get a ruling or evidence that it's meant to work the way I think it does, if that's the case.
Actually, we do have a ruling that you can Experiment with one card in the deck. It gets revealed, but then discarded because it doesn't match the second card.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
The best way to think about it is that you should do everything on the card, literally, in the order it says.
So if it says to do one thing and then do another thing, you resolve the two things in that order. If you couldn't do the first thing, then you just go on to the second. It's almost like there were two separate cards, with two separate instructions on them.
If it says to do one thing and "if you do" to do another thing, then and only then is the second resolution conditional on the first.
Does your group play Dominion? That's a game where this sort of literal card interpretation is similarly important. There, as here, conditional actions are the exception rather than the rule, and as such they specifically say "if you do..." or something similar. But otherwise, you just do it like it says!
I don't think you are going to get Christopher chiming in to give you the official ruling everytime.
I know, and I'm not expecting that. (Though that would be nice. ^.^) What I'd like is an official source that states or implies that it works how I think it does.
Then I have no idea what more we can do for you. These forums have a lot of topics that are a bit too hard to dig into to give you anything official outside of Spiffs FAQ.
And Spiff's FAQ has links for each topic to official forum posts covering that information. Thanks again, Spiff!
"Deja-fu? You've heard of that?"
- Lu Tze, Sweeper, Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett
Oh, I see.
Well, I'm glad Unity supports Futurama jokes!
Methinks they should have named the engine Omnitron.
"Deja-fu? You've heard of that?"
- Lu Tze, Sweeper, Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett
Omnitron is the name of the thing that post the feedback from Mega Computer to the Trello boards.
Unity 5, hmm. . .
So 5 more before she can travel through time and become a villain?
Oh, you mean here, on the forums? Eh, too much going on. Like I said, there's all that jumping around, looking for people in distress, defeating evil-doers... Besides, you people just don't play well. You're all engrossed in your game and assume I'm not me. Which is just weird - of course I'm me. Who else would I be? Who else would I want to be?!
We're going to fight EEEEEEEVIL! Because, you know, EEEEEEEVIL!
It's important to remember that Christopher *can* be convinced to modify a ruling he's made. It's pretty rare, but I've seen it happen. So the picky arguments we have may occasionally lead to a change in the game, if we form persuasive enough arguments.
Huh, this thread really blew up in the last day. Thanks Pydro for posting the link to the ruling on how modifiers and redirection works.
I hope my gaming group accepts the consensus on Time of Tribualations and the argument that if that was what it meant it would have said "if you do". IIRC, I think their argument was that since it was all the same sentence it was all the same effect, so you treated it as all the same action, and if you couldn't do part of it you didn't do any of it.
Which I think brings up a more general disagreement we have about how the cards work. As best I can tell, they think that if you can't do an effect on a card completely you don't do it at all. For example, they thought that if you only have one token when you play "Plucky Break", you don't remove that one token. I, however, think that you're supposed to fulfill effect on cards as much as possible, unless they have a conditional like "if able" or "if you do (some other thing)".
So it would be really nice if I could get a ruling or evidence that it's meant to work the way I think it does, if that's the case.
Keep in mind the reverse, if a card says to destroy X equipment/ongoing cards, is someone really saying that if there are less than X in play you don't destroy anything? Mad Bomber Blade just got MUCH easier.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
I was expecting someone else.
I don't think you are going to get Christopher chiming in to give you the official ruling everytime. We've been over situations like this already in the thread. If you want to see official ruling then I would suggest looking up Spiff's FAQ that I linked earlier if you have questions. It should cover quite a bit.
Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31
I know, and I'm not expecting that. (Though that would be nice. ^.^) What I'd like is an official source that states or implies that it works how I think it does.
Yes, but that's just forumites saying how they think it works. It's not an official source and I don't think the people I play with would accept that as proof.
As I said at the beginning of my first post, I already looked. It doesn't say anything about that, except the specific case of discarding cards.
Then I have no idea what more we can do for you. These forums have a lot of topics that are a bit too hard to dig into to give you anything official outside of Spiffs FAQ.
Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31
Maybe this will help your argument, if they are correct, many cards should be reworded. Here are some examples:
If they are right, it should have said:
According to them, both cards work the same, yet, it actually has more words. It must be because without those words, you would activate the second part even without activating the first part. Here is another example:
If they are right, it should have said:
There are over 20 cards that say "if you do" that should not have said it if that was true. If this card didn't say it, it is because it is different.
Actually, we do have a ruling that you can Experiment with one card in the deck. It gets revealed, but then discarded because it doesn't match the second card.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
The best way to think about it is that you should do everything on the card, literally, in the order it says.
So if it says to do one thing and then do another thing, you resolve the two things in that order. If you couldn't do the first thing, then you just go on to the second. It's almost like there were two separate cards, with two separate instructions on them.
If it says to do one thing and "if you do" to do another thing, then and only then is the second resolution conditional on the first.
Does your group play Dominion? That's a game where this sort of literal card interpretation is similarly important. There, as here, conditional actions are the exception rather than the rule, and as such they specifically say "if you do..." or something similar. But otherwise, you just do it like it says!
And Spiff's FAQ has links for each topic to official forum posts covering that information. Thanks again, Spiff!
"Deja-fu? You've heard of that?"
- Lu Tze, Sweeper, Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett
Thanks everyone. That was more or less what I was looking for.
Pages