Jump to content



Photo

Robert's Wine Cellar


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Old Ben

Old Ben

    Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:14 PM

Danakh:

Quote:
Response: After you win a challenge, kneel 3 influence and discard Robert's Wine Cellar from play (cannot be saved) to take control of a character controlled by the losing player.


As it doesn't say "choose" i ruled in the last tournament that it doesn't target anything.
But i am very unconfortable with this position, even if the FAQ is quiet clear about targeting, can you confirm it Ktom ?


ktom:

Danakh wrote:
Quote:
Response: After you win a challenge, kneel 3 influence and discard Robert's Wine Cellar from play (cannot be saved) to take control of a character controlled by the losing player.


As it doesn't say "choose" i ruled in the last tournament that it doesn't target anything.
But i am very unconfortable with this position, even if the FAQ is quiet clear about targeting, can you confirm it Ktom ?

Why is it so uncomfortable that without the word "choose," there is no defined target? As you say, the FAQ pretty much says that word for word.

So no, effects that look for targets as part of their play restrictions (like Put to the Question or The Saltspear) cannot cancel Robert's Wine Cellar.



karstark:

Oh, my God. That card is even more vicious than I though, then. Wow.



Danakh:

ktom wrote:
Danakh wrote:
Quote:
Response: After you win a challenge, kneel 3 influence and discard Robert's Wine Cellar from play (cannot be saved) to take control of a character controlled by the losing player.


As it doesn't say "choose" i ruled in the last tournament that it doesn't target anything.
But i am very unconfortable with this position, even if the FAQ is quiet clear about targeting, can you confirm it Ktom ?

Why is it so uncomfortable that without the word "choose," there is no defined target? As you say, the FAQ pretty much says that word for word.

So no, effects that look for targets as part of their play restrictions (like Put to the Question or The Saltspear) cannot cancel Robert's Wine Cellar.


There is several effect that effect a single card without choosing it that don't bother me. For example the save effects : because it is triggered by a moribond status and the target is implicit. You don't have choice on who you save (even if you choose between several trigger on a multiple claim). Or claim rempplacement, because the target is define by the claim resolution

I can't find the logic behind the "no choosing" of Robert's Wine Cellar. I feel more like there is a need for a card errata


karstark:

Danakh wrote:

I can't find the logic behind the "no choosing" of Robert's Wine Cellar. I feel more like there is a need for a card errata



I hope you're right. Me, I am worried that they deliberately worded it this way in order to prevent it being cancellable by Saltspear and Ptt?.


Bara, and anti-Bara, seems to have little middle ground. Their effects are incredibly strong, and the counters to them are incredibly strong.


ktom:

Danakh wrote:
There is several effect that effect a single card without choosing it that don't bother me. For example the save effects : because it is triggered by a moribond status and the target is implicit. You don't have choice on who you save (even if you choose between several trigger on a multiple claim). Or claim rempplacement, because the target is define by the claim resolution

I can't find the logic behind the "no choosing" of Robert's Wine Cellar. I feel more like there is a need for a card errata

This isn't making a ton on sense to me here. You are saying that these other effects have an implicit "target." But are you saying that as "implicit targets," the card that these effects act upon should be treated as "targets" for the purpose of play restrictions, like those on PttQ and Saltspear? They shouldn't.

BTW: Assassination claim replacement DOES use the word "choose," so there is an explicit target. And saves are NOT triggered by a moribund status - the whole point is that they act on a card BEFORE they become moribund.

I guess I'm just not seeing why you think RWC needs to have an explicit target. The only difference in terms of effect initiation and resolution is that of game status for the purpose of checking play restrictions on other effects. An effect doesn't need to have a defined "target" just to have a clear object that it acts upon. So the only thing that giving errata to RWC to include the word "choose" would do is extend the number of things that can cancel it a bit. Is that what you're after? If so, your discomfort makes sense. Otherwise, the idea that RWC isn't intuitive because it doesn't use the word "choose" to designate a character doesn't quite hit home for me. I mean, all those effects that require you to kill a character or discard a card (without the word "choose") as a cost seem intuitive enough, right?


Danakh:

ktom wrote:
Danakh wrote:
There is several effect that effect a single card without choosing it that don't bother me. For example the save effects : because it is triggered by a moribond status and the target is implicit. You don't have choice on who you save (even if you choose between several trigger on a multiple claim). Or claim rempplacement, because the target is define by the claim resolution

I can't find the logic behind the "no choosing" of Robert's Wine Cellar. I feel more like there is a need for a card errata

This isn't making a ton on sense to me here. You are saying that these other effects have an implicit "target." But are you saying that as "implicit targets," the card that these effects act upon should be treated as "targets" for the purpose of play restrictions, like those on PttQ and Saltspear? They shouldn't.

BTW: Assassination claim replacement DOES use the word "choose," so there is an explicit target. And saves are NOT triggered by a moribund status - the whole point is that they act on a card BEFORE they become moribund.

I guess I'm just not seeing why you think RWC needs to have an explicit target. The only difference in terms of effect initiation and resolution is that of game status for the purpose of checking play restrictions on other effects. An effect doesn't need to have a defined "target" just to have a clear object that it acts upon. So the only thing that giving errata to RWC to include the word "choose" would do is extend the number of things that can cancel it a bit. Is that what you're after? If so, your discomfort makes sense. Otherwise, the idea that RWC isn't intuitive because it doesn't use the word "choose" to designate a character doesn't quite hit home for me. I mean, all those effects that require you to kill a character or discard a card (without the word "choose") as a cost seem intuitive enough, right?


I really wish i speak english better, it is sometime hard to be understood on specific things

for save, i was speaking on "card that would become moribond du to the current effect resolution". I am fine with the fact that such card have no "choose" writen because their play restriction create an implicit target (and for most response that target the current cards currently affected by the effects in resolution)

Maybe i should read again a few cards to see that there is a lot of effects that target something without "choose" and stop worrying about RWC. But until that card (and previoulsy "from winter touch returned" but this card was already too much complicated) most of target effect i watch was either using "choose", either have a kind of automatic target from "response trigger"



ktom:


Danakh wrote:
Maybe i should read again a few cards to see that there is a lot of effects that target something without "choose" and stop worrying about RWC. But until that card (and previoulsy "from winter touch returned" but this card was already too much complicated) most of target effect i watch was either using "choose", either have a kind of automatic target from "response trigger"

You are correct that most effects that act on a single character (or card) use the word "choose." But not all of them do, particularly when a cost is involved. (Think of the "My Life for..." cycle, Executioner's Block, WED Jon Snow, Wildling Elder, Courier Captain, Paying the Iron Price, etc. There are others, not all involved in killing, too.)

What I'm really not understanding here is what you hope to ACHIEVE by asking for errata to RWC to include the word "choose." Is there a clarity of language issue? Are people really confused as to which character one takes control of? Or is it an issue of "PttQ should be able to cancel this, but because of a wording choice, it cannot?"


Danakh:

I think "PttQ should be able to cancel this" ^^

For all cost it doesn't bother me at all. It is not the "target" of the effect

In fact, i find the "target of effect = choose" rule of the FAQ a little dangerous for designers because each card that have an effect that target something must be properly worded

For "My life for conquest" (greyjoy power !) the choose word is not used and it seems perfectly fit the situation. When you sacrifice a character for bringing back your event, it is a cost, and you don't target anything with your event

For paying the iron price, there is a unique target, as the first part of the event is a save, which implicitly target the "trigger" of the response
(I would be fine if Paying the iron price was a two target event, but it seems that most response that affect the "trigger" doesn't choose it. Which seems a valid template, it is ok)

But it is almost the only effect that affect a specific card, that the player must choose between a lot of them, and doesn't "target" him in the rules way

It is the kind of cards that makes rules really different from intuition in my point of vue


Lars:

Danakh wrote:


In fact, i find the "target of effect = choose" rule of the FAQ a little dangerous for designers because each card that have an effect that target something must be properly worded


It is the kind of cards that makes rules really different from intuition in my point of vue


QFT, but unfortunately ~ktom ridiculed me for such an argument


ktom:

Danakh wrote:
It is the kind of cards that makes rules really different from intuition in my point of vue

Okay, now I think I understand your objection. You seem to be saying "when an effect works on a specific card, that effect has a 'target' by all intuitive rules of language and, as such, should satisfy all play restrictions that look for targets." An implied choice or selection should work the same as a specified choice. Is that the thrust of it?

If you are going to take that an intuitive definition of "target" should rule, there are two ways to look at this. One is that "if an effect has an object upon which it works, it has a 'target'." If that is the case, even indiscriminate, blanket effects have targets because they all have objects. A second is that "if an effect is applied to a card that must be chosen, it has a 'target' whether that choice is specific or implied." The problem with that, though, is that it is by no means uncommon for situations to arise where an effect specifies or implies a choice where no practical choice exists (such as an effect that works on an attacking character when there is ONLY one attacking character). So does intuition dictate that there is a choice or not?

See how messy this can get if you say that intuition should rule? It is actually LESS limiting for the designers/developers to make a rule like "a 'target' and an 'object of action' are not the same thing; only the object of an effect that specifically uses the word 'chose' is considered a 'target'." I say it is less limiting because now, they don't have to come up with every possible interpretation a player could have in every possible situation and make sure it works. Rather, it works within a defined framework, allowing both the effect and the environment to evolve on its own without constant supervision by game designers.

Now, that doesn't mean that I necessarily think the designers carefully and systematically asked themselves whether or not PttQ SHOULD cancel RWC and wrote the card accordingly. It also doesn't mean that I am against the idea of errata to RWC to include the word "choose" so that PttQ COULD cancel it. All I'm saying is that I think having a rule like the "choose" template is a good thing, and why I have no problem saying that PttQ DOESN'T cancel RWC, regardless of how someone may want the situation to play out "intuitively."


ktom:

Lars wrote:
~ktom ridiculed me for such an argument

~ Yeah, well, you deserved it.

He's an interesting example for "intuition:" Too Baseborn to Matter. "Any phase: choose a character without a icon. Discard all attachments and power from that character." The event chooses a character, but discards the attachments. What's the real target there?

Seriously, I agree that there are a lot of situations, RWC being one of them, where the effect has an "intuitive" or "relational" target, without meeting the game definition for a target. All I'm trying to say, though, is that once you start extending intuition or implicit definitions, you are more likely to find individual metas playing certain effects differently based on local interpretation.



Trump:

In the world of CCGs, intuitive interpretations don't count for much. I play a lot of VS and you have to see the word TARGET on the effect to consider it 'targetted' although there are plenty of cards that simple 'choose a character'. This sort of thing crops up in numerous CCGs where rules lawyering can make or break you.



Danakh:

ktom wrote:
See how messy this can get if you say that intuition should rule?


I totally agree. That why i speak about an errata (adding "choose" on RWC) and not a rule clarification/change

In fact i didn't think rules are so unintuitive. But you really need to know the mechanics to really see which template is used in a card / ability / sentence. It becomes more and more intuive as you learn the subtility of the games

(Too Baseborn to Matter obviously target the character )


ktom:

Danakh wrote:
(Too Baseborn to Matter obviously target the character )

Rules-wise, sure. But by the rules, it targets the character, but affects the attachments. ~Intuitive, huh?

Totally agree about an errata to RWC for the word "choose" making it fit a little better with the way that it is played. I was more questioning the original discomfort with making the ruling based on the current information. I was getting mixed up between "it doesn't feel like the correct ruling for the situation" and "it's the correct ruling, but it sure doesn't feel right given the nature of the situcation."



Jon Snow:

Since RWC doesn't target does that mean it can be used for to take ITE Littefinger?

Can I use the Greyjoy 2 influence save on Euron since it doesn't have 'choose'?

Edit: this is gonna be something like the difference between 'target' and 'triggered' effects. darn t's


ktom:


Jon Snow wrote:
Since RWC doesn't target does that mean it can be used for to take ITE Littefinger?

Can I use the Greyjoy 2 influence save on Euron since it doesn't have 'choose'?

Edit: this is gonna be something like the difference between 'target' and 'triggered' effects. darn t's

Well, it is more a question of immunity.

True, you cannot target an immune character with whatever they are immune to, but immunity is so much MORE than that. Immunity also make the card IGNORE the effects of whatever it is immune to. So while you don't need to know anything more than "you can't target the immune" to get the Arya's Revenge away from ITE-Littlefinger, you need "immunity ignores the complete effect" to get something like Westeros Bleeds away from him.

So no, you can't take ITE-LF with RWC or save Euron (with anything) because their own immunity ignores the effect's RESOLUTION as well as protecting them from being chosen as a target for other effects.



Jon Snow:

Euron Crowe's Eye can be saved by a duplicate

FAQ 3.17 : Quote:
A card with immunity is not immune to its own abilities


Rules for 5KE: Quote:
If one of your unique cards is about to be killed, discarded from play, or returned to your hand or deck, as a triggered Response: effect (see later), you may discard an attached duplicate to save the unique card from being killed, discarded, or returned to your hand or deck.
Duplicates, once they have been played, are not considered attachments. That is, although they are attached to a character, they are not affected by effects that specifically affect attachments.
Duplicates have no text, titles, or traits. Duplicates may only be played on unique cards that you control and own. A card attached in this way is thus only considered to be a “duplicate
card� while it is actually in play and attached to a version of itself.


wait, as I read this, duplicates cannot be used to save from claim as claim is not a triggered response



ktom:


Jon Snow wrote:
Euron Crowe's Eye can be saved by a duplicate

Yes, you are correct. I overlooked that when I said "(with anything)." Sorry.

Jon Snow wrote:
wait, as I read this, duplicates cannot be used to save from claim as claim is not a triggered response

You're misreading that. The duplicate saves AS a triggered Response, not FROM triggered Responses. All that stuff in the rules simply means that duplicate saves are triggered and used the same as any other save effect. You can use a dupe to save from claim by USING it as a triggered Response.

The real kicker, for those paying attention, is that duplicates are stopped in "cannot trigger Response" situations or can be canceled by things that cancel Responses/triggered effects.

 






© 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