Definition of "set"

I have a question about card wording. Once, a while back, I was playing with some friends and I called for a Rumors of Gehenna vote. I named myself as the person who would get to play 2 masters if the vote passed, and my friends complained. They said I had to name at least 2 players to get the benefit, because the card said "Name a set of Methuselahs..." Now, as a math minor, I know a set can consist of any number of things, including only 1 thing or even 0 things, but they argued that it meant more than 1. Later that night we could WotC customer service for their opinion, and the rep on the phone said, "Well, set would usually refer to more than 1, so it has to be more than 1." I thought this was pretty silly, because what something >usually< means doesn't really matter; in a CCG you're probably gonna be pushing a card's wording to extremes. But we've played it that way without problem. Now I'm unhappy, though, 'cause i just opened my first booster of V:TES and I see the new Sabbat Threat says "Choose a set..." Does this mean I can't call ST to give a threat counter to just 1 person? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

In article <s291.115...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) spammed: # #I have a question about card wording. Once, a while back, I was playing with #some friends and I called for a Rumors of Gehenna vote. I named myself as the #person who would get to play 2 masters if the vote passed, and my friends #complained. They said I had to name at least 2 players to get the benefit, #because the card said "Name a set of Methuselahs..." (blah, blah, blah...) Now I'm #unhappy, though, 'cause i just opened my first booster of V:TES and I see the #new Sabbat Threat says "Choose a set..." Does this mean I can't call ST to #give a threat counter to just 1 person? Yes. I understand the fact that math may tell us that a set can mean any number, however, the common interpretation for the great mass of the population is that number means 2. As in a pair... a set. It has been interpreted as meaning 2 or more in this case. This also serves as a safety valve for game balance since you can't just shalack whoever you want without carefully considering your move, unlike Magic which involves no thought what so ever. Besides, by requiring 2 or more you just might have to do some political negotiating to get your vote passed if there are other votes on the table... which adds more intrigue to the game, non? -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com

In article <4a719k$l...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >In article <s291.115...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) spammed: ># >#I have a question about card wording. Once, a while back, I was playing with >#some friends and I called for a Rumors of Gehenna vote. I named myself as the >#person who would get to play 2 masters if the vote passed, and my friends >#complained. They said I had to name at least 2 players to get the benefit, >#because the card said "Name a set of Methuselahs..." > >(blah, blah, blah...) > >Now I'm >#unhappy, though, 'cause i just opened my first booster of V:TES and I see the >#new Sabbat Threat says "Choose a set..." Does this mean I can't call ST to >#give a threat counter to just 1 person? > >Yes. I understand the fact that math may tell us that a set can mean >any number, No. A set (in Jyhad and anywhere else) is zero, one, or more things. You may name zero Methuselahs with either Rumors or Sabbat Threat (this will result in a NULL vote - a vote that does nothing but pass or fail). You may name exactly one Methuselah, and the expected result will be true - SVM means that the named Methuselah has (two Master/another Threat counter). Or you may name two or more Methuselahs with the unarguable result. Generally (in the real world) a set of zero or one isn't interesting to call a set - too many words. A set of zero is nothing, and usaully refered to as such. A set of one thing is simply referred to as that one thing. That brevity is the norm should not be taken as an indication that the verbose is untrue. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Our group has always used the Mathematical definition of 'set' when playing any card that requires one to 'choose a set' and there has never been any problem. Of course, our group consists of people with the following areas of studies; English/Computers Accounting/Computers Engineering/Computers (two of these) Physics/Engineering History/Computers Thus, we are all pretty well versed in what a set _really_ means... :-) 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

Grrr.... As a math _major_, this gets me upset. What "people usually think something is becuase they don't know better" and what "something actually is" are two different things. I would _really_ like to see an official ruling using the (mathematical) definition of set, i.e. a collection of distinct (different) objects. Thus, the same Methuselah could not be included twice in the same set, and you could, of course, choose 0 or 1 Methuselah for your set. Tom? --James jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu http://www-sunlab.cit.cornell.edu/Info/People/jhamblin/index.html

-> You may name zero Methuselahs with either Rumors or Sabbat Threat -> (this will result in a NULL vote - a vote that does nothing but pass -> or fail). -> You may name exactly one Methuselah, and the expected result will be -> true - SVM means that the named Methuselah has (two Master/another -> Threat counter). -> Or you may name two or more Methuselahs with the unarguable result. This reminds me... last game, I called a Rumors. After the action was unblocked, I named myself (duh) and then offered to include any players who would give me 2 blood each on my next turn via the Succubus Club. Result - 8 blood. :-)'

In article <4a719k$l...@symiserver2.symantec.com> gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: >Yes. I understand the fact that math may tell us that a set can mean any number,>however, the common interpretation for the great mass of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Interpretations may be helpful, but what matters is the definition of the word on the card. It must be played as written, not interpreted. If we start going by interpretations and what we *think* a card should do instead of what a card says, then things will get awfully confusing. population is that>number means 2. As in a pair... a set. It has been interpreted as meaning 2 or>more in this case. This also serves as a safety valve for game balance since you>can't just shalack whoever you want without carefully considering your move,>unlike Magic which involves no thought what so ever. Besides, by requiring 2 or>more you just might have to do some political negotiating to get your vote passed>if there are other votes on the table... which adds more intrigue to the game,>non? >-- >Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

in VTES, "a set of Methuselahs" means "two or more Methuselahs." Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <4a8d0p$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) spammed: # #Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: #>in VTES, "a set of Methuselahs" means "two or more Methuselahs." # #Gah! Ignore that; my brain took a trip to left field. It is perfectly #possible to choose only yourself for Rumors of Gehenna, for example. So, what are you saying here Tom? Is a set "two or more Methuselahs" or not? -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: : >in VTES, "a set of Methuselahs" means "two or more Methuselahs." : Gah! Ignore that; my brain took a trip to left field. It is perfectly : possible to choose only yourself for Rumors of Gehenna, for example. Phew! As many of the games I play are 2-player, I was afraid I'd have to scrap my Sabbat Threats... -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : : Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: : : >in VTES, "a set of Methuselahs" means "two or more Methuselahs." : : Gah! Ignore that; my brain took a trip to left field. It is perfectly : : possible to choose only yourself for Rumors of Gehenna, for example. : Glad to hear that. (About the set, not about your brain... :-) : Is a set a _true_ set, wherein it is possible to name 0 people? Someone : might want to try this to cycle cards, or to slip a Cryptic rider : through, or to use Voter Captivation...) They may be trying to cycle, but when everyone sees that's he's trying to do, they may all vote against and someone annihilate him with an Elder Kindred Network or so... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4a75bd$1...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) spammed: #In article <4a719k$l...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, #Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: #>In article <s291.115...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) spammed: #># #>#I have a question about card wording. Once, a while back, I was playing with # #>#some friends and I called for a Rumors of Gehenna vote. I named myself #as the #>#person who would get to play 2 masters if the vote passed, and my friends #>#complained. They said I had to name at least 2 players to get the benefit, #>#because the card said "Name a set of Methuselahs..." #> #>(blah, blah, blah...) #> #>Now I'm #>#unhappy, though, 'cause i just opened my first booster of V:TES and I see the # #>#new Sabbat Threat says "Choose a set..." Does this mean I can't call ST to #>#give a threat counter to just 1 person? #> #>Yes. I understand the fact that math may tell us that a set can mean #>any number, # #No. A set (in Jyhad and anywhere else) is zero, one, or more things. (quote bitz ommitted...) What part of "I understand" didn't we get here? Since this type of spam will get us no where, I suggest get Tom to "define" this in wotc terms for us. Tom?... -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >in VTES, "a set of Methuselahs" means "two or more Methuselahs." Gah! Ignore that; my brain took a trip to left field. It is perfectly possible to choose only yourself for Rumors of Gehenna, for example. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. who hates the fact that this system won't let him cancel messages

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: >In article <4a75bd$1...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) spammed: >#In article <4a719k$l...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, >#Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >#>In article <s291.115...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) spammed: >#>Yes. I understand the fact that math may tell us that a set can mean >#>any number, ># >#No. A set (in Jyhad and anywhere else) is zero, one, or more things. >(quote bitz ommitted...) >What part of "I understand" didn't we get here? Since this type of spam will get >us no where, I suggest get Tom to "define" this in wotc terms for us. Tom?... Explanation of the breakdown in communication has been taken to e-mail, thank you. Incidentally, for those who are confused, "spamming" is posting a message (usu. "get rich quick" schemes or other questionable advertisement) to *many* (in some cases *all*) news.groups, flooding the bandwidth with something that is not relevant to >99% of the audience it reaches. (The latest spamming methods even circumvent the "moderated" status of some groups). What this has to do with a single post to an appropriate news.group, I do not know. -- 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: : Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: : >in VTES, "a set of Methuselahs" means "two or more Methuselahs." : Gah! Ignore that; my brain took a trip to left field. It is perfectly : possible to choose only yourself for Rumors of Gehenna, for example. Glad to hear that. (About the set, not about your brain... :-) Is a set a _true_ set, wherein it is possible to name 0 people? Someone might want to try this to cycle cards, or to slip a Cryptic rider through, or to use Voter Captivation...) Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, [ quoted text not captured ]

Nicole Janine Purvis (npu...@tiger.lsu.edu) wrote: : Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : : Is a set a _true_ set, wherein it is possible to name 0 people? Someone : : might want to try this to cycle cards, or to slip a Cryptic rider : : through, or to use Voter Captivation...) : They may be trying to cycle, but when everyone sees that's he's trying : to do, they may all vote against and someone annihilate him with an Elder : Kindred Network or so... If it is the only Vote deck at the table, however, there isn't gong to be much anyone (even a gang-up of everyone) can do to stop the person (assuming they can get the vote called, that is.) So the question remains open; We now have official confirmation that a set is 1 or more people - can we get confirmation/denial on whether it can be 0 people also? [ quoted text not captured ]

Shane Travis wrote: > > Nicole Janine Purvis (npu...@tiger.lsu.edu) wrote: > : Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: > > : : Is a set a _true_ set, wherein it is possible to name 0 people? Someone > : : might want to try this to cycle cards, or to slip a Cryptic rider > : : through, or to use Voter Captivation...) > > : They may be trying to cycle, but when everyone sees that's he's trying > : to do, they may all vote against and someone annihilate him with an Elder > : Kindred Network or so... > > If it is the only Vote deck at the table, however, there isn't gong to be > much anyone (even a gang-up of everyone) can do to stop the person > (assuming they can get the vote called, that is.) > > So the question remains open; We now have official confirmation that a > set is 1 or more people - can we get confirmation/denial on whether it > can be 0 people also? If its the only vote deck at the table,even if he just wants to cycle cards, he'll through the effect on someone anyway. I don't see any way that using these cards as a set of zero can abuse their purpose or unbalance them. I agree with the Mathematical definition (I have to. I'm an engineering major) a set of 0 is still a set. (The null set).

I have always played with the house rule that you can't play cards just to burn them. They must have some effect. No, allowing sets of zero does not unbalance the game, but it does not add anything to the game either(IMO). It would have been very nice if wizards of the cost defined set in the rules but there are a lot of things left unsaid in the rules. I also don't play with the rule on extra-strike cards that lets you use as many as you wanted, with only the first having any effect. I also don't play with the rule that you can use wake's to untap with out an intention to block or use intercept. --Steve

[ quoted text not captured ] Do you disallow naming a clan not in the game for Cons. Boon? Or disallow naming a clan whose only representatives in play are already atpped for Cons. Condemn? Or Doging a dodge? Or bleeding a Methuselah with Threats when that Methuselah has only one pool and no auspex under his control? Or playing Dread gaze to a failing vote? Or playing Change of Target when no cards were played for the action nor the block? Where do you draw the line? [ quoted text not captured ]