Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Filippo

Syphon Strength + Nuadu's Torc

Recommended Posts

Syphon Strength

Cast on any character with at least 1 Strength counter at the start of his turn.
The character must lose 1 Strength, and your character gains 1 Strength.

 

Nuadu's Torc

No character with less than 5 Strength may have Nuadu's Torc.

Add 1 to your Strength.
You cannot lose your Strength or be turned into a Toad.

 

Player B has Nuadu's Torc and 1 Strenght counter.

 

Can player A cast Syphon Strenght on Player B?

If yes, how does it work? Because the description words two different effects:

The character must lose 1 Strength

your character gains 1 Strength

 

They don't seem related... althought it would be logical

 

Edited by Filippo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaining strength is not conditional on losing it here. 

Player A can cast syphon on player B. The only effect will be that player A gains 1 Strength counter.

 

You can even syphon yourself while having the Torc to simply gain 1 S.C.

Edited by Bludgeon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaining strength is not conditional on losing it here. 

Player A can cast syphon on player B. The only effect will be that player A gains 1 Strength counter.

 

You can even syphon yourself while having the Torc to simply gain 1 S.C.

Every single sentence here is incorrect.

 

Gaining strength is not conditional on losing it here.

Yes, it is.  The condition of the spell is, "The character must lose 1 strength, and your character gains 1 strength."  If 1 strength is not lost, then 1 strength cannot be gained.  And with it being a "must" condition, gaining 1 strength is absolutely conditional upon 1 strength being lost.  This is why you cannot cast it on someone who has not gained any strength above their strength value.

 

Player A can cast syphon on player B.

No, he can't.

 

The only effect will be that player A gains 1 Strength counter.

There can never be an instance where Syphon Strength is cast and no one loses a strength.  If no one can lose a strength then the spell cannot be cast.  There would be no effect because the spell was not cast.

 

You can even syphon yourself while having the Torc to simply gain 1 S.C.

No, you can't.  As previously stated, you cannot cast Syphon Strength on someone who cannot lose a strength.

 

Furthermore, even though the spell states, "Cast on any character with at least 1 strength counter at the start of his turn," it is illogical to cast this on yourself.  The spell ultimately does nothing in that scenario.  The obvious intent of the spell is to cause your character to gain 1 strength while simultaneously causing a different character to lose 1 strength.  As such, you cannot cast Syphon Strength on yourself.

Edited by Osbo25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syphon Strength

Cast on any character with at least 1 Strength counter at the start of his turn.

The character must lose 1 Strength, and your character gains 1 Strength.

 

Nuadu's Torc

No character with less than 5 Strength may have Nuadu's Torc.

Add 1 to your Strength.

You cannot lose your Strength or be turned into a Toad.

 

Player B has Nuadu's Torc and 1 Strenght counter.

 

Can player A cast Syphon Strenght on Player B?

If yes, how does it work? Because the description words two different effects:

The character must lose 1 Strength

your character gains 1 Strength

 

They don't seem related... althought it would be logical

They are related, as noted by the conjunction "and" in the middle of the sentence.

 

The spell has two parts, both of which must be fulfilled in order for the spell to be cast:

 

1) The target MUST lose 1 strength.

2) Your characters gains 1 strength.

 

If part 1 cannot be fulfilled, then the spell cannot be cast.  This is why it cannot be cast on characters who have not gained any strength.

 

If a character's strength cannot be syphoned, then SYPHON Strength cannot be cast.

 

Ergo, if a character has Nuadu's Torc, then Syphon Strength cannot be cast against him.

Edited by Osbo25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue you, I stated my reasoning clearly and stand by it.

And I demonstrated why your reasoning is incorrect--not for the sake of arguing with you but for the sake of giving the correct answer.  But, of course, you may stand by your demonstrably incorrect opinion if you like.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Osbo25 is right it's one sentence.

 

Syphon Strength

"The character must lose 1 Strength, and your character gains 1 Strength".

 

If it was the way Bludgeon says there would be a full stop between both effects. But Syphon Strength can be cast on yourself. It's unlikely because it's such a good spell but it's possible if a player really needed to get rid of the spell (they still need at least 1 Strength counter, though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I side with bludgeon on this one. To infer that just because they used a comma instead of a period means that both must occur for the spell to be cast introduces something to the rules that has no backing officially anywhere. You might say it doesn't make sense, but I would see it as the torc imbues a certain amount of never failing strength, so the syphon strength spell is able to suck a strength away from the player but the torc instantaneously replaces it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I side with bludgeon on this one. To infer that just because they used a comma instead of a period means that both must occur for the spell to be cast introduces something to the rules that has no backing officially anywhere. You might say it doesn't make sense, but I would see it as the torc imbues a certain amount of never failing strength, so the syphon strength spell is able to suck a strength away from the player but the torc instantaneously replaces it.

That wasn't my statement at all.  I demonstrated that they are connected on account of the conjunction, but my whole argument as to the necessity of the target losing a strength comes from the text of the spell itself:

 

"The character MUST lose 1 strength."

 

"MUST" is the key word.  If the character does not/cannot lose a strength then the conditions of the spell have not been met and it cannot be cast.  That has nothing to do with whether or not they used a compound sentence or divided it into two sentences.  It could have been structured either way and have the same meaning:

 

"The character must lose 1 strength.  Your character gains 1 strength."

 

That means the same as:

 

"The character must lose 1 strength, and your character gains 1 strength."

 

So the comma and the conjunction don't change the overall meaning and usage of the spell.  I just pointed it out to show the connection because the OP suggested that they were not connected at all.

 

This spell has two parts, both of which must be satisfied:

 

1) The target loses 1 strength.

2) The caster gains 1 strength.

 

If the target cannot lose 1 strength then the caster cannot gain 1 strength.  Both are necessary.

 

This spell is ultimately a math equation.  Both sides must balance out.  There is a subtraction from one total and an addition to another total.  This isn't the spell Strength.  It doesn't create a strength out of nothing.  It takes from one and gives to another.  If you cannot take then you cannot give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

That wasn't my statement at all.  I demonstrated that they are connected on account of the conjunction, but my whole argument as to the necessity of the target losing a strength comes from the text of the spell itself:

 

"The character MUST lose 1 strength."

 

"MUST" is the key word.  If the character does not/cannot lose a strength then the conditions of the spell have not been met and it cannot be cast. 

 

You know what? When you put it like this I have no choice but to agree with your argumentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep since the target has the Torg they cannot lose strength, thus the spell cannot be cast on them because they "must' lose a strength and cannot thus they are not a valid target for the spell.

 

I side with bludgeon on this one. To infer that just because they used a comma instead of a period means that both must occur for the spell to be cast introduces something to the rules that has no backing officially anywhere. You might say it doesn't make sense, but I would see it as the torc imbues a certain amount of never failing strength, so the syphon strength spell is able to suck a strength away from the player but the torc instantaneously replaces it.

Er..... What? "no backing officially anywhere"?

Try this:

 

FAQ:

 

Spell Targets
Characters cannot cast Spells unless the Spells have a valid
target. Characters may not discard Spells just to get rid of
them.

 

Nullify

Q1: Can a character cast the Nullify Spell on himself?
A: Yes, as long as you have at least one Spell at the time that
Nullify is cast.

Q2: Can a character cast the Nullify Spell on a character
who does not have any Spells?
A: No.

 

And of course one of the Golden Rules

 

Can vs. Cannot
In any instance where a card’s effect indicates that a character
cannot perform an action or use an ability (such as casting a
Spell or using an Object), the character cannot do so.

 

They just a comma because it's the same sentence, not a new sentence. "Magically sucking strength counters being instantaneously replaced" where in the rules does it mention this?

 

Anyway looks like bludgeon now agrees so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might say it doesn't make sense, but I would see it as the torc imbues a certain amount of never failing strength, so the syphon strength spell is able to suck a strength away from the player but the torc instantaneously replaces it.

Uvatha touched on this.  I completely overlooked it my first time responding to it.  But I think this deserves some additional attention.

 

You are attributing to Nuadu's Torc characteristics that actually contradict the wording of the card.  Nuadu's Torc prevents a character from losing strength.  How you "see it" describes Nuadu's Torc as permitting strength to be lost, only to "instantaneously replace" it.

 

First of all, that's not what the card says.

 

Secondly, that stands in complete contradiction to what the card actually says.

 

Nuadu's Torc prevents strength from being lost.  It doesn't "instantaneously replace" lost strength.  Strength is never lost to begin with.

 

And since strength is never lost to begin with, someone who has Nuadu's Torc cannot have Syphon Strength cast against him.

 

No one's being a jerk here.  We're just pointing out that your understanding of Nuadu's Torc and Syphon Strength is incorrect.  Whether you choose to agree with that assessment or not is up to you.  But for anyone else reading along, we're simply presenting the case from the text of the cards and the rules of the game as to why Syphon Strength cannot be used in this manner.

Edited by Osbo25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for demonstrating you're a jerk yet again

 

On the other hand, I do not believe in adolescent name calling it makes a simple rule question into a personal attack. Instead, I will let the rules speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talisman is supposed to be a lighthearted game. The spell clearly intends for you to suck out my strength and move it to your body. If I'm wearing a charm that prevents you from sucking out my strength, how can you even transfer it to your body? I wouldn't get too caught up in the words and punctuation. If you do what feels right in a thematic game, it's probably the right choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bludgeon & Joker seriously? How about you're both completely wrong on this matter! Give me strength......

Bludgeon at least acknowledged the ruling its Jokers "Magically sucking strength counters being instantaneously replaced" that has me stumped :).Still, have not heard anything "of substance" from him concerning how and why this happens in the game.

 

I suppose its a case of "can't discuss/argue it - ignore it" he seems to be more interested in name calling and otherwise denying for denying sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...