Pentoshi Manor and keywords

[db123456 0]

 lose all keywards on pentoshi manor means the char lose 1 renown of 2 that it always take a power after win a chall? or it just lose the renown twice?

[Amuk 9]

db123456 said:

 lose all keywards on pentoshi manor means the char lose 1 renown of 2 that it always take a power after win a chall? or it just lose the renown twice?

I'm not sure what you're asking but I think your question is "If a character with renown is given renown a second time, does Pentoshi Manor strip both instances of the keyword or just one?"

Pentoshi Manor: Challenges: Kneel Pentoshi Manor to choose an opponent's attacking character. The controller of that character chooses to either have that character claim 1 power and remove it from the challenge, or that character gets -2 STR and loses all keywords until the end of the phase.

One could interpret "loses all keywords until the end of the phase" as meaning that it literally takes them all, even duplicated ones. But that's not how such stripping effects typically work. Ordinarily, a stripping effect only takes one instance of whatever it takes away, leaving any 'extra copies.' Absent a ruling from FFG that this effect is different, that's how I've been playing it.

That said, PM is worded somewhat differently from how these effects tend to be written. It says "all" whereas most of these effects tend to be written in the singular. So it might well be worth asking FFG for a ruling on it if you want something more definitive.

[db123456 0]

 is it remove keywords like Condemned remove trait?

[ktom 598]

db123456 said:

 is it remove keywords like Condemned remove trait?

As in "does it remove all keywords one time each, the way that Condemned removes all traits one time each?" Yes. Yes it does.

[Khudzlin 734]

Wait… wasn't it ruled that King Balon's Host stripped all instances rather than just one instance of each?

While King Balon's Host is standing,opponent's characters lose all non-immunity keywords.

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

As in "does it remove all keywords one time each, the way that Condemned removes all traits one time each?" Yes. Yes it does.

 

Khudzlin is right. In this old thread, you say that Balon's Host causes the characters in question to lose all instances of the keywords. Has something changed since then, or is the matter simply unclear?

[dcdennis 39]

 I had been told the same ruling regarding balon's host (that all really is all regardless of multiple instances) though not from ktom so i wasn't fully sold. Was surprised to see the opposite here now (especially after reading the official original ruling.

[ktom 598]

Sorry. This issue gets confusing because FFG has ruled it a number of ways in a number of situations and it gets confusing trying to keep them straight.

For example, we know that "gains all traits" is "gains each trait 1 time," not "gains each trait enough times that the card always has that effective trait." We know this because a "loses X trait" will counter-balance the character if it only has X trait by virtue of Rhaegar's Harp. 

Similarly, we know there is a difference between "loses stealth" and "loses all stealth." The first can be overcome by enough "gains stealth" effects, the second cannot. (IIRC, there was a CCG card that really did say "loses all stealth.")

We also know that when a card like CS-Arya says "loses those keywords," referring to Stealth and Renown, that the character only loses once instance of the keyword and can be overcome by enough "gains stealth" or "gains renown" effects. (Relevance: what if she instead said "loses all those keywords"?)

However, we know that "loses all immunities" on cards like Den of the Wolf results in no immunity whatsoever, and cannot be overcome by any amount of "gains immunity" effects.

 

The common thread defining the difference seems to be what the "all" is referring to. If "all" is referring to a specific keyword or trait (ie, "immunity" - which really is a single keyword in the Core Set rule book, even though it comes in different "flavors" or variations on the cards), then the card keeps losing instances of that specific keyword so that it never has that effective keyword. However, if "all" is referring to keywords or traits as a collective "class" of card effects or characteristics, the card only loses a single instance, allowing the loss to be overcome with enough "gains" effects.

Condemned is kind of a pain because "all" modifies "traits" and "immunities" in different ways. It modifies "traits" as a collective, meaning that the card can "regain" a trait, but it modifies "immunities" specifically, or "individually" if you like, so that the card can never "regain" immunity.

The ruling on Balon's Host also creates a weird situation. Effectively, FFG has said that because it refers to "non-immunity keywords," that is specific enough to "single out" every keyword that is not immunity - resulting in the loss of keywords that cannot be overcome.

In short, I see a difference between Balon's Host and Pentoshi Manor. Balon's Host separates and singles out some keywords from others ("non-immunity"), then says to lose "all" of those particular keywords - so it cannot be overcome by any amount of "gains". The fact that the Manor lacks any sort of modification that singles out one or more particular keywords from "all keywords" means that it will act more like "all traits," which can be overcome by enough "gains".

Granted, I could be wrong, and it may be a mistake to look at "all (non-specific) keywords" the way that we would look at "all (non-specific) traits." But that's my reasoning. It might be a good idea to send it to FFG for an official word, given the difference in the way that "all traits" and "all keywords" have been treated historically.

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

But that's my reasoning. It might be a good idea to send it to FFG for an official word, given the difference in the way that "all traits" and "all keywords" have been treated historically.

I did. Unfortunately, that was before your response, or I could've reiterated the technicalities in my inquiry.

Boy, I do hope they come up with some kind of unified theory, because if you're right, and the immunities part on Condemned works differently from the traits part on Condemned, and Balon's Host works differently from Pentoshi Manor, that would be counter-intuitive and, frankly, maddening as hell. Try explaining that to a player at a tournament.

[mdc273 29]

Yes… Sorry, ktom, but can you give a TLDR version of what we should expect the ruling to be at tourneys you judge? I didn't get your "in short". Either something that can be generically applied or your specific ruling on each card maybe? Preferably something like:

Lose All Traits - Lose a single instance of each trait.

Lose All Keywords - Lose all instances of Keywords

or

King Balon's Host - Lose all instances of Keywords

Condemned - Lose a single instance of all traits. Lose all instances of all immunities.

or

Lose/Gain Keywords - Lose or Gain an infinite number of said keyword.

Lose/Gain Immunity - Lose or Gain one instance of immunity.

[ktom 598]

 "Lose all traits/keywords" : lose a single instance of each individual trait or keyword.

"Lose all (specific) trait/keyword" : lose enough instances of the specific trait/keyword to leave the card functionally without it.

"Specific" does not necessarily need to be a single named trait/keyword. It only needs to separate some traits/keywords from every possible trait/keyword (eg, "lose all non-immunity keywords" or "lose all non-Army traits").

[Bomb 66]

Bah.  This game is really starting to hurt my brain.

Lose All Eggs in Your Basket  = Lose 1 of each type of egg?

Lose All non-Rotten Eggs in Your Basket = Lose All non-Rotten type eggs(even if you have more than 1 of any type)?

Ahhhh!!

 

That makes about as much sense as a person trying to speak with their fist stuffed inside their mouth.

[ktom 598]

It's not a good analogy since each individual egg is not really separate or distinct from one another the way that individual traits and keywords are.

All the eggs in your basket are more like the multiple iterations of a single trait or keyword, so "lose all eggs" is more like "lose all stealth" than "lose all keywords."

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

It's not a good analogy since each individual egg is not really separate or distinct from one another the way that individual traits and keywords are.

All the eggs in your basket are more like the multiple iterations of a single trait or keyword, so "lose all eggs" is more like "lose all stealth" than "lose all keywords."

Haha.  I don't see the difference in universal quantification between analogies.

Let me ask you this then.  Could it the difference between the terms "lose" and "loses"?

Pentoshi Manor: "loses all keywords"
King Balon's Host: "lose all non-immunity keywords"
Condemed: "loses all traits and immunities"
Veteran Knight: "lose all WAR crests"
Den of the Wolf: "lose all immunities"

Perhaps where loses means you are hit one time and lose means you are hit for all. 

I just can't see the difference otherwise…

Losing all of a set and losing all of a subset means the same thing logically unless I am missing something.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

Let me ask you this then.  Could it the difference between the terms "lose" and "loses"?

Pentoshi Manor: "loses all keywords"
King Balon's Host: "lose all non-immunity keywords"
Condemed: "loses all traits and immunities"
Veteran Knight: "lose all WAR crests"
Den of the Wolf: "lose all immunities"

Perhaps where loses means you are hit one time and lose means you are hit for all.

No. The difference between "lose" and "loses" is one of grammar, not function. Look again:

Pentoshi Manor: "that character loses all keywords"
King Balon's Host: "opponent's characters lose all non-immunity keywords"
Condemed: "attached character loses all traits and immunities"
Veteran Knight: "opponent's participating characters lose all WAR crests"
Den of the Wolf: "characters lose all immunities"

The difference between "lose" and "loses" is whether the subject of the sentence is singular (loses) or plural (lose).

 

 

Bomb said:

Losing all of a set and losing all of a subset means the same thing logically unless I am missing something.

Losing the entire set runs you up against the "nil" factors of the game. Characters always have the potential for traits and keywords, whether they appear on the card or not. To remove the entire set leaves the characters without the potential, which is a bit further than I think we should be willing to go. Do these effects really change the fundamental definitions of character cards? On the flip side, you can lose the potential to effectively "possess" a single trait or keyword without fundamentally changing the definitions of the cards.

It's kind of like discarding your "hand." If you discard your hand, you still have a hand (of 0), right? But if you discard the cards from your hand, those cards are gone completely.

[mdc273 29]

Awesome, thanks! I get it now. >.>

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

Losing the entire set runs you up against the "nil" factors of the game. Characters always have the potential for traits and keywords, whether they appear on the card or not. To remove the entire set leaves the characters without the potential, which is a bit further than I think we should be willing to go. Do these effects really change the fundamental definitions of character cards? On the flip side, you can lose the potential to effectively "possess" a single trait or keyword without fundamentally changing the definitions of the cards.

 

It's kind of like discarding your "hand." If you discard your hand, you still have a hand (of 0), right? But if you discard the cards from your hand, those cards are gone completely.

I follow you, but still feel it should have the same meaning, one way or the other. 

I also wouldn't see a problem with "lose all" removing the potential to receive traits or keywords.

I mean, we'd have no issue if the language was not the same.  "lose all" is as clear as "lose one of each".  See almost any icon removing effect where in the end you are removing 1 of each icon.  If they ever created "lose all icons", we'd eliminate all icons on a character and not just 1 of each.  If the effect stated "lose all POW icons", it would mean the same thing, however based on the above precedent, "lose all icons" would mean lose 1 of each.

Honestly, I did not know that it was ruled that "lose all of subset X" meant ALL after I have read several rulings that "lose all of X" means 1 instance of each only.  How can I use any other rulings as a precedent in this game without consistency or an entry in the FAQ?  How can I actually think to ask such questions if it is not one that is literally frequently asked?  To me, there is little confusion on the surface but I am beginning to think I will need to just ask how a card works to make sure there is not some unusual and far from obvious contextual dependency that makes the effect work differently than cards that have identical effects.  The other one that boggled my mind was how Burning Bridges only stopped printed effects and that it is not frequently asked enough to know how the card really worked.

[mdc273 29]

Welcome to my world, Bomb. Lmao. That's been my complaint all along. They create logical inconsistencies and don't take swift action to remedy those inconsistencies. I can't imagine it takes all that long to add a line in the FAQ that spells this out. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Under the assumption it doesn't, why they choose to not clear up these inconsistencies with firm language is beyond me.

But all in all, you have to appreciate ktom's incredible effort to maintain the consistency of the rules in the game, whether or not you agree with their logic. That winds up being the more critical aspect of the game, just that everyone plays by the same rules. Even if 1 + 1 = 3 because the rules say so… <.<

Btw, why don't you have a special account, ktom? I mean you're the rules guy and yet you have nothing on your account to indicate that you actually are the rules guy second only to the actual designers. Or is that not the case?

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

Btw, why don't you have a special account, ktom? I mean you're the rules guy and yet you have nothing on your account to indicate that you actually are the rules guy second only to the actual designers. Or is that not the case?

I don't have any official authority. Any credibility I have on rules issues comes from people deciding I make sense - or getting tired of arguing with me and deciding to humor me. So, no special account because there's nothing official about me.

Officious? Sure. Official? No.

[Slothgodfather 270]

We perceive ktom to be right, so that is the reality of it.   

 

 

[mdc273 29]

Man. Judge at GenCon isn't official enough? I find that hard to believe, sir. D:

But I guess if you say so…

Can we at least get you the title of Officially Unofficial Officiator of Unofficial Rules?

[WWDrakey 5]

mdc273 said:

 

Man. Judge at GenCon isn't official enough? I find that hard to believe, sir. D:

But I guess if you say so…

Can we at least get you the title of Officially Unofficial Officiator of Unofficial Rules?

 

 

Hmm… I'd think that for most AGoT players "Ktom" is title enough. I've even seen it used as a verb: "to be ktom'd".

[dcdennis 39]

 There is no spoon!

[ktom 598]

dcdennis said:

There is no spoon!

Fork it.

WWDrakey said:

Hmm… I'd think that for most AGoT players "Ktom" is title enough.

Like "Cher." Or "Madonna." Wait a minute…. 

dcdennis said:

I've even seen it used as a verb: "to be ktom'd".

   Beyond a doubt, the most unsettling thing I've heard this week.

[livingEND 4]

WWDrakey said:

I've even seen it used as a verb: "to be ktom'd".

 

E

P

I

C