Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

The Dark Pharaoh Herald

26 posts in this topic

dkw said:


Apparently, we both have different definitions of verbatum.

Is M.A. a Spell or not?  Rhetorical question.  Since it is not a Spell, it can't benefit from the extra Spell Only Hand granted from Third Eye.  Think like this, are you going to be able to hit someone harder because you can concentrate on more then 1 thing, no you won't.  But that debate is for other threads.



I'm pretty sure we both agree that "verbatim" is the raw semantics of the text. Where we differ though is our logical conclusions on some issues.

To bring this back to the relevant topic, the Dark Pharaoh herald actually says this:
At the start of the Upkeep Phase, before rolling to get rid of Curses, each Cursed investigator loses 1 Stamina.

It does not say this:
1) At the start of the Upkeep Phase, before any upkeep actions are performed, each Cursed investigator loses 1 Stamina. This occurs before rolls to remove the Curse, if any.

Nor does it say this:
2) At the start of the Upkeep Phase, any investigator who is able to roll to get rid of a Curse loses 1 Stamina before rolling.

The clause labeled (1) is my interpretation. The clause labeled (2) is your interpretation. Both could be concluded by the text as written. Yet neither of these are what the herald says verbatim, and they're both different from each other. So saying one is the "correct" interpretation, or that one is identical to the "rules as written" is patently untrue.

There are two obtainable cards from the Curse of the Dark Pharaoh expansion: Tainted and Anointed. Both cause a Cursed investigator to roll twice. Reading these cards and the Dark Pharaoh herald verbatim concludes that the investigator will lose multiple stamina in one upkeep, because the investigator is rolling multiple times. Clearly the effects of the Tainted and Anointed cards are only to have the investigator keep the curse longer or discard it earlier, respectively. Such is the pitfalls of literal reading, and care has to be taken--especially when dealing with mixed expansions.

dkw said:



Bad writting is a problem of the designers. The rules are sound, while their choice of words is what causes problems. But, follow what is written, apply a little logic and common sense, and you shouldn't have any problems.




I like one of these notions--"follow what is written, but apply logic and common sense." Unfortunately, sometimes the necessary "common sense" overrides some of what is written, rather than just to expand upon it.

However I don't agree with your notion about the rules being sound when the words are sometimes poor. How can any rule be sound when the words that communicate it are poorly chosen? The rule does not exist without the words. Therefore, a rule can never be axiomatic when its wording is ambiguous.

A lot of people use common sense when applying written rules. And we ideally shouldn't have problems, but we clearly do--just look at all these forum topics!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0