Jump to content



Photo

Val's interaction w/ Draw Cap


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:35 PM

This also supports that Val's ability is a single effect (not additional effects) and all aspects would be nullified at failure to initiate as such.

 

I see what you're getting at there. I'll admit I didn't understand it when I initially read your hypothetical card. If it were real, I'd suggest sending it to FFG directly, but I would argue that they are still "separate," despite not being in separate sentences, because there are two different verbs ("draw" and "stand") that are independently acting upon completely different objects (the top card of your deck and all characters in play). This is very different from Val where, despite there being two different verbs ("reveal" and "draw"), they are acting on the exact same object (the top card of your deck) in such a way that, while technically independent, forms a single "motion," if you will. Kind of a "draw so that everyone can see what you drew."

 

There is just no way of reading "draw a card and kneel every character in play" as a "single" effect because the two things the statement does are so dissimilar. It might need errata to correct it (I'd be shocked to see a card worked this way instead of "Draw a card. Kneel every character in play," really), though, which is why if it were real, I'd say to send it directly to FFG.

 

 

I don't even want to get into this, but page 14 also says, "Treat each separate effect as its own card." This would seem to imply that it would even get it's own save/cancel window as it says to treat each separate effect as it's own card. Unrelated, but unsettling to me.

 

OK, we won't get into it, but you are unsettling yourself. "Treat each separate effect as its own card" is illustrative. The only way that this implies that each would get its own save/cancel step is if you considered them to be triggered separately. Obviously, despite the separate effects, there is a single trigger - a single point of initiation. They initiate at the same time - so there is only one save/cancel step available, but they resolve separately (as if each were on its own card). I think you might be jumping at shadows with this one.


Edited by ktom, 10 September 2013 - 04:38 PM.


#22 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:54 PM

Wait, that passage about separate effects is about multiple blocks of text, each with its own triggers. In other words, this is about cards like The Weasel's Way. Here's the complete paragraph (Additional Notes under Events, repeated under Character abilities).

 

Some event cards may have two or more completely separate effects, each with its own play restrictions, cost, or targets. Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph. Treat each separate effect as its own card. Unless the event card specifically says otherwise, one effect has no impact upon the other.


  • Ratatoskr likes this

#23 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 12:52 AM

Sorry. I thought he was referring to the entry on the word "then," which used to use wording similar to that at some point in the history of the document. 

 

Yes, "completely separate effects" that have their own "play restrictions, cost, or targets" indicates that the entry is referring to two separate initiations and two separate actions to trigger them. So yes, there would be separate opportunities for save/cancel because there are separate initiations.

 

The important thing, though, is that the hypothetical "draw a card and kneel all characters in play" is not an example of this because there is a single initiation of a single card effect that does more than one thing when it resolves. That doesn't change the fact that, because it does more than one thing when it resolves, most people would call this a single ability with multiple effects. Don't get confused by the fact that the word "effect" can mean "the text on a card that tells you what that card does" or "thing that happens during the resolution step(s) of an action window."



#24 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:12 AM

I was pointing out the big flaw in Mdc's argument: applying an out-of-context quotation to a case it doesn't apply to. The passage that applies here is 4.9:

(4.9) The word "then"

If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the card are resolved, if possible, independently of whether any other effects of the card are successful, with the following important exception:
If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved.

 

I am not aware of a passage about whether a multiple effect can be triggered if one of them is under a non-targeted (a targeted one would make it illegal for sure) "cannot" prohibition (this one is about resolution). A related question might be "is it legal to play Westeros Bleeds if all characters in play are either immune to events or 'cannot be discarded'?"



#25 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:27 PM

@Ktom - Hmmm... I like the interpretation that because it acts on a single subject that it's a single effect. Is that codified anywhere in the rules? My main point of contention is that playing convention effectively divides effects up by periods when the rules divide effects up by paragraph and they just don't jive. Here's the full text from page 14:

 

"Additional Notes
Some event cards may have two or more completely separate effects, each with its own play restrictions, cost, or targets.  Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph. Treat each separate effect as its own card. Unless the  event card specifically says otherwise, one effect has no impact upon the other."

 

Emphasis mine. Technically this is in direct conflict with periods denoting separate effects due to the use of the word "always."

 

Again, this has nothing to do with playing convention and everything to do with properly outlining the argument and means by which to fix the text within the rules to match playing convention (as do most of my posts).

 

@Khudzlin - Why does 4.9 apply here? Val doesn't have the word "then" in the text and neither does my hypothetical effect. Did I miss a "then" effect somewhere?



#26 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:43 PM

@Ktom - Hmmm... I like the interpretation that because it acts on a single subject that it's a single effect. Is that codified anywhere in the rules? My main point of contention is that playing convention effectively divides effects up by periods when the rules divide effects up by paragraph and they just don't jive. Here's the full text from page 14:

 

"Additional Notes
Some event cards may have two or more completely separate effects, each with its own play restrictions, cost, or targets.  Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph. Treat each separate effect as its own card. Unless the  event card specifically says otherwise, one effect has no impact upon the other."

 

Emphasis mine. Technically this is in direct conflict with periods denoting separate effects due to the use of the word "always."

 

Again, this has nothing to do with playing convention and everything to do with properly outlining the argument and means by which to fix the text within the rules to match playing convention (as do most of my posts).

 

@Khudzlin - Why does 4.9 apply here? Val doesn't have the word "then" in the text and neither does my hypothetical effect. Did I miss a "then" effect somewhere?

at this point, I am forced to come to the conclusion that you argue for the simple point of arguing and stirring the pot. The whole point of the OP was whether you could trigger Val if you had already reached your draw cap for the round. The answer is no, because her ability tells you to reveal and draw a card. You can't do half an action that tells you to do something like this. Also, as a side note, Val was errata'd to be 3 times a round anyway, to coincide with draw cap, in case a player does not have other means of drawing on the table.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#27 Crevic

Crevic

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:11 PM

Also, as a side note, Val was errata'd to be 3 times a round anyway, to coincide with draw cap,

 

No it wasn't.



#28 doulos2k

doulos2k

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:16 PM

Crevic is right. There is no such errata for Val. That said, stormwolf's base point is still valid. 


Austin AGoT Players

http://agotaustin.com


#29 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 08:53 AM

My bad. No FAQ in front of me when I made the statement. She was ruled, however to only be able to be triggered as many times as you have card draw left before cap.


Edited by stormwolf27, 13 September 2013 - 08:54 AM.

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS