Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>Cards which prevent damage can only prevent damage to the minion playing
>the card. Equipment and retainers which prevent damage can only prevent
>damage dealt to the minion with the equipment or retainer (in VTES, this is
>made explicit for cards like Flak Jacket and Resplendent Protector).
>As always, cards can make exceptions; there's no reason why there couldn't
>be a card that prevented damage to retainers, but the card would have to
>say so.
Then why put it into the rules? Your explanation means that (20.1) is
simply restating the Golden Rule of Cards (12).
Since the same section of rules denies the strike being dodged, and I can
"see no reason why there couldn't be a card that <dodged a strike directed
at> retainers <if> the card <said> so", does that mean that this section of
the VTES rules is overruling such hypothetical card text? Of course not.
Card text overrides rules, when in conflict.
Therefore you do not put card text-induced effects into the rules, unless you
are trying to confuse the reader/player.
A normal, intelligent reader would interpret section 20.1 as saying that you
can use damage prevention cards to prevent damage done to reatiners, since
that is almost verbatim to how the section is written.
Why not just correct the rules instead of getting into a(nother) big, involved
song-and-dance trying to validate the oversight?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:: >A normal, intelligent reader would interpret section 20.1 as saying that you: >can use damage prevention cards to prevent damage done to reatiners, since
: >that is almost verbatim to how the section is written.: Section 20.1 does not say anything explicit, either way, on whether damage
: can be prevented to retainers or not.
The section to which he is referring (I believe) is this one:
--
20.1. Retainers and Combat
Note: Once the retainer has been chosen as the victim, the damage cannot be
circumvented with dodge cards or any other intervention (other than damage
prevention cards).
--
This says, _quite_ clearly, that the only way to prevent damage to
retainers is with a damage prevention card. No dodges, no other effects -
but Damage prevention is okay. Quite explicit to me...
: so an intelligent person who was just reading the section and was not trying
: to make it say what they wanted it to say would probably assume, if anything,
: that their retainers could not protect themselves.
The _current_ wording on Resplendent Protector (for example) is:
Resplendent Protector Retainer Toreador
1 Life.
Protector prevents up to 1 damage each combat.
Similarly, Skin of Rock also says simply 'Prevent One/Two damage.' Had
someone suggested to me that they could use these cards to prevent damage
to a retainer, I'd have laughed in their face, but there it is _right in
the rules_ : Damage prevention cards work for retainers.
Had they said, "Only specialized damage prevention cards which
specifically say on them that they target damage aimed at retainers can
prevent damage aimed at retainers," then I'd have scratched my head. All
that says is that card text overrides the rules, namely in this case, the
rule that damage cannot be prevented. I'd have wondered why they put it
there, since it is a restatement of the Golden Rule of Cards, but
otherwise passed it by.
But that isn't what it says.
As it reads, it says: "Damage prevention can prevent damage targeted at
retainers." I don't like it, but I can read.
: Because the rules don't need correcting, or at least, they don't need to
: be corrected/changed to allow retainers to protect themselves.
No, they don't. What they need correcting for is so that retainers
_cannot_ protect themselves, as the rules (now) say they can.
: And, as I
: said in the post you replied to, this is stated on the VTES versions of the
: cards (basically as a reminder).
But nothing is forcingme to play with the VTES versions... Even in a
tournament, I could still stock only Jyhad Resplendent protectors... and
thus get around the reminder, no?
Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>>Cards which prevent damage can only prevent damage to the minion playing
>>>the card. Equipment and retainers which prevent damage can only prevent
>>>damage dealt to the minion with the equipment or retainer (in VTES, this is
>>>made explicit for cards like Flak Jacket and Resplendent Protector).
>>>As always, cards can make exceptions; there's no reason why there couldn't
>>>be a card that prevented damage to retainers, but the card would have to
>>>say so.>>Then why put it into the rules? Your explanation means that (20.1) is
>>simply restating the Golden Rule of Cards (12).>Since what I said isn't really restating Section 20.1, I'm not sure what
>you're asking.
I'm saying that your explanation means that section 20.1 is simply saying
that "cards which say they can do X can do X", where X is prevent damage
directed at retainers. This is a re-iteration of the Golden Rule (12),
which says that "cards which say they can do X can do X", even in conflict
with the rules.
No one said you were re-iterating 20.1, just that your explanation makes
20.1 redundant with 12.
>>Since the same section of rules denies the strike being dodged, and I can
>>"see no reason why there couldn't be a card that <dodged a strike directed
>>at> retainers <if> the card <said> so", does that mean that this section of
>>the VTES rules is overruling such hypothetical card text? Of course not.
>>Card text overrides rules, when in conflict.>Yes. Your point?>I was stating the general rule about equipment and retainers not helping
>themselves. I then pointed out the golden rule because (I think) I was
>replying to a message wondering whether, or assering that, retainers could
>prevent damage to themselves. The golden rule is not reiterated in the
>rules, but because I was replying to a post that was wrong, or at least
>unsure, I felt it helpful to reiterate.>>Therefore you do not put card text-induced effects into the rules, unless you
>>are trying to confuse the reader/player.>Well, duh. But you do reiterate them when a player says she's confused, or
>says something that is confused.
Then why put the dameg-prevention-for-retainers into the rules (20.1) when it
only applies to an effect that is card-text induced (since you say that
you cannot prevent damage to retainers as normal, despite the wording of
20.1)?
>>A normal, intelligent reader would interpret section 20.1 as saying that you
>>can use damage prevention cards to prevent damage done to reatiners, since
>>that is almost verbatim to how the section is written.>Section 20.1 does not say anything explicit, either way, on whether damage>can be prevented to retainers or not. In fact, the only clue as to which
Eh?
"X cannot be done by anything (other than Y)" means that X can be done by Y.
I mean section 20.1 of the rulebook, if that helps. I can't find your
error here, so I'll just quote that section for you:
20.1:
[...]
Note: Once the retainer has been chosen as the victim, the damage
cannot be circumvented with dodge cards or any other intervention
(other than damage prevention cards).
That's pretty explicitly saying that "damage can be prevent by damage
prevention cards".
>>Why not just correct the rules instead of getting into a(nother) big, involved
>>song-and-dance trying to validate the oversight?>Because the rules don't need correcting, or at least, they don't need to
>be corrected/changed to allow retainers to protect themselves. And, as I>said in the post you replied to, this is stated on the VTES versions of the
>cards (basically as a reminder).
Correct. But the rules already allow retiners to protect themselves.
If the damage prevention cards dissallow their own use on retainers
by card text in VTES, you still need to change the rules to allow
Jyhad cards to function properly, unless you're finally letting go
of that never-intended-to-be-anything-but-a-pacifier ideal.
If you intend for Retainers not to be protected with damage prevention
cards, then the rules need to be changed, since they explicitly
contradict that statement. The rules currently allow Skin of Rock, for
example, to prevent up to two damage done to a retainer, at least by
the Jyhad wording of the card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: OK, part of the length of this thread resulted from the fact that I'd
: been talking about Section 21 (under damage prevention), not Section 20.1.
: Grr!
This might explain things... :-)
: You cannot, normally, use damage prevention cards to protect your retainers.
: A card would have to specifically allow for this (i.e., break the rules).
: Yes, the text in section 20.1 is misleading at best and in error at worst.
Thank you. That is about all I was looking for here - that, and the hope
that maybe it would get fixed/errata'd so that it was neither misleading
nor erroneous...
: However, I will note that I don't see any problem with a rule being restated
: in various points of the rulebook, as long as it's relevant to the sections
: in questions. Redundancy is fine, to an extent; there's no reason why people
: should always have to go to some specific place to find an answer.
I don't see a problem with redundancy either, _except_ when it is
masquerading as a new rule as it does in 20.1.
Why be redundant in this trivial thing, though, and not in some larger and
much more important things that are often missed by people? (i.e. allies
cannot act on the turn they are brought out' is buried pretty deep and
easily missed the first, second or even third read through the rules - it
could _use_ some redundancy.) The Golden Rule has its own entire _section_,
which is not usually missed by most people.
Either way, glad to hear that it _is_ a mistake, and hope that it will be
corrected at some point soon.
[ quoted text not captured ]