Jump to content

Tinathir

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tinathir

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the ruling, yes, but not in the rules. I think we're reaching diminish returns here, since we have different views of what rules should do. You've shown that it is possible, once you've been given the ruling, to interpret the rules (with considerable effort, imv) to match the ruling; but what I'm looking for is a rulebook you can play from directly.
  2. If the rules said that, we'd be set. (Assuming by "qualified" you mean: a use that is allowed only if there's another permitted use.)
  3. Right. If you can always use, independent of having any action to use for, then you're set, but the rules and logic say otherwise. If I have some other permitted use for the hammer, then no problem. (We're taking about an off house creature with no valid target to fight: it has no other permitted use.)
  4. Right, so if fight is ignored, so is use. The unstun rules say what happens when I use the hammer — but without nails I'm not using the hammer.
  5. The card causes the creature to fight; actually, gives it permission to fight, while failing to cause it to fight. Where we disagree is whether that also causes it to be used. It may, but that either requires an unconventional definition of the word "cause", or a new rule saying so — specifically either (a) that being given permission to fight alone, while ignoring fight itself, is sufficient to nonetheless cause use, or (b) that whenever a stunned card has permission to do something, it also gets permission to unstun. I allow you to use the hammer to hammer some nails. But there are no nails. Even so, you've still used the hammer?
  6. Well we certainly see that differently, both as a fundamental point of logic, and as clearly stated in the rules' discussion of the relationship between "use" and fight, etc.: "When a player uses a creature, that player must exhaust the creature, and the player has the option to ..." (Not relevant, only "fight" is mentioned on Anger). "Any card effect that causes a creature to fight... is causing that creature to be used." (Anger fails to cause the creature to fight, that part of the instruction is "ignored", so it does not cause it to be used). "There are two types of abilities that enable a player to use an artifact..." (Corroborating evidence: it is the performance of an ability that causes use, not the other way around.) It certainly could be the case that "whenever a card has permission to be used for an action, it has permission to be used even if the card cannot take that action"; but if that's the case, the rules just need to say so.
  7. In mentioning "cancelling" I'm referring to the proposed set 4, which is an invention not in the rules. The substitution you cite is not in dispute. Can something be used if the only thing allowing its use is prohibited? English and the rules say no. So this sequence is also invented. I'm not saying that's the wrong explanation (we're all left guessing, so it easily could be that the rules will be changed to make it so); but I do think its more complex and hard to accept than the proposed change.
  8. This is just repeating the disputed step by introducing some new notions of declaring and aborting that aren't in the rules: The issue isn't what happens when a creature that's stunned is used, it's about when a stunned creature can be used in the first place, specifically that it is — apparently — allowed to be used to remove stun if it is allowed to do some other actions, even it doesn't meet the conditions for those actions. That seems to necessitate a rules change, for example, replacing "The next time that creature is used, the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening." with "Whenever that creature has permission to be used, that permission is replaced by the option to use to remove the stun status card instead of anything else happening." Something like that seems a lot simpler and less disruptive of the rules as they are than the new sequencing, checking, attempting and subsequent aborting of actions that has been suggested.
  9. Yes, we've been over that. That's exactly what I thought at first. but it leaves an creature that's not stunned with no targets to fight exhausted, unless you introduce some new concept of cancelling or reverting or whatever, which definitely isn't in the book; still isn't really satisfactory given that "fight" is ignored, and no particular sequence (like the one we're inferring from the "use then choose" interpretation) is provided that would suggest overriding the English meaning of "use to" (especially in light of the way using Artifacts explicitly works: "abilities that enable a player to use an artifact"); and actually isn't true: "when a player uses a creature, that player ... has the option to..." doesn't mean "use then choose an option" any more than "when I use a hammer, I have the option to ..." means "use a hammer, I then have the option to" (use is a consequence of exercising the option). I'm not saying this isn't how it will turn out to work in the end, but it is simply not possible to honestly get there with the rules as written.
  10. A lot hinges on whether you're willing to accept that the rules already contain something that helps you interpret "use to fight" to mean that you can use even if you are prevented from (and thus "ignore" the instructions for) fighting. In the absence of such help from the rules, it has to come from new rules, which we haven't been given. Until then I'm pretty sure that if I have a hammer, and I can't use it to hit nails, or pull out nails, or any of the other options I have for using a hammer, then I haven't used the hammer.
  11. That's pretty much exactly the reasoning I used when I first heard the ruling, and it's exactly what I meant above by interpreting "use to fight" to mean "use, with your options restricted to fight". It's the justification of the ruling that doesn't match. (Also, this interpretation does open up a bit of a problem: if the creature isn't stunned, then this reasoning means you must still use it: do as much as you can, but to no effect other than to exhaust it.) There's no question the rules, in light of this ruling, need some reworking and clarification, and the concept of use as something that can happen distant from any of the options of which it is a "superset" is new.
  12. I was also hoping I could make the rules agree with that interpretation: it's clearly — given the rational of the ruling — the close to the intent. But it's not present in the rules. The core problem with the rules as written remains: Anger says "fight with" (which expands to "permission use to fight with") but since you can't fight, the "fight with" part of the instruction is ignored, so you can't use, and never get to "when using". I'm not saying your logic is wrong (I expect it will be confirmed), I'm just saying that the rules as written don't get you to the justification provided in the ruling. (Also note that "fight is a subset of use" (from the video) is part of what gets in the way of using the rules to justify the ruling, since, if that's true, ignoring fight means you don't use.) A better stab at making the rules work to explain the ruling is the interpret "use to fight" to mean (as you suggest) "use, with your options restricted to fight" which lets you use, ignoring fight (but that's not the justification given in the video).
  13. No, but you've correctly spotted where the issue is. ”If a card causes a creature to be used while it is stunned” (anger does) “the creature is exhausted and the stun card removed” For that to work, fight would have to cause use, even when the instruction to fight is "ignored".
  14. That's what the rules say. Correct. There's never been any dispute that the same outcome can be arrived at with the rules as printed (there are lots of good demonstrations of that here, on Reddit, and on BGG). The issue, as has been pointed out, is that the explanation provided in the ruling (in the video) is absent from the rule book. The mechanisms in that explanation allow for "attempting" to fight when it is not possible (and therefore would otherwise be "ignored") and for that attempt to be considered a form of "use", thus removing stun. All that's needed is for an update to incorporate those new mechanisms and we're all set.
  15. New an updated rule book that incorporates the additions and changes implicit in the ruling. Or even just a statement of what those are (rather than just assuming that mentioning them implicit in passing is sufficient).
×
×
  • Create New...