Propaganda Question

I was looking at the Card errata at:http://www.mich.com/~raille/Jyhad/vtesrule.htm and I noticed that Propaganda said: "The Methuselah being bled with Propaganda can choose a tapped minion to tap if the action is successful." Is this a typo? What purpose does this card serve if my prey can just name a tapped vampire. The card becomes totaly useless. Let me know if this was a mistake, or what. If it wasn't maybe someone could enlighten me on the subject. Jason P.S. This one could be one to look at for that template project.

SirTemple wrote: > > I was looking at the Card errata > at:http://www.mich.com/~raille/Jyhad/vtesrule.htm > and I noticed that Propaganda said: "The Methuselah being bled with Propaganda > can choose a tapped minion to tap if the action is successful." Is this a > typo? What purpose does this card serve if my prey can just name a tapped > vampire. The card becomes totaly useless. Let me know if this was a mistake, > or what. If it wasn't maybe someone could enlighten me on the subject. It is correct. It follows from card text, even though the card was intended for something greater. Intented use of a card takes second place to card text now (starting around the release of the Sabbat). > > P.S. This one could be one to look at for that template project. Possibly, but the card text is clear for the official effect. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >SirTemple wrote: >> >> I was looking at the Card errata >> at:http://www.mich.com/~raille/Jyhad/vtesrule.htm >> and I noticed that Propaganda said: "The Methuselah being bled with Propaganda >> can choose a tapped minion to tap if the action is successful." Is this a >> typo? What purpose does this card serve if my prey can just name a tapped >> vampire. The card becomes totaly useless. Let me know if this was a mistake, >> or what. If it wasn't maybe someone could enlighten me on the subject. >It is correct. It follows from card text, even though the card was >intended for something greater. Intented use of a card takes second >place to card text now (starting around the release of the Sabbat). >> >> P.S. This one could be one to look at for that template project. >Possibly, but the card text is clear for the official effect. As an exercise, the template for the _intended_ effect (of tapping an untapped minion) would include the sentence "The Methuselah being bled may not select a tapped minion." This is an example of the intended effect having to make an exclusion to the general rule that a Player may choose freely the target of the effect generated by the card. In a good template, such exclusions should be stated explicitly... As it is, this is a clearly stated, but underpowered, card. I suppose though, that it would be a bit overpowered if it could actually tap minions during a bleed action. Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver...

Have you all gone MAD? Are rulings being made by Malkavians? Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? It isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card be untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to mean. Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? Well, I suppose I should be happy, now that my Nossies can gain unlimitted stealth with "The Labyrinth" with a cost of only 1 pool. Since it is no longer required that a card be untapped in order to tap it, then I presume that The Labyrinth can be used an unlimitted number of times during a given minion phase. No more need to put stealth cards in my nossie decks--they are all unblockable. Unless, of course, my opponent has KRCG News Radio, in which case he may gain unlimitted intercept. No limit is placed on how many times one may continue to tap a tapped KRCG News. Richard D. Zopf (guenh...@mindspring.com) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

John Whelan wrote: > Have you all gone MAD? Are rulings being made by Malkavians? Another good discussion starter. Seems like a pattern developing. > Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? It > isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card be > untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to mean. > Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? The old meaning. See Disarming Presence: a tapped vampire can still vote, even though he would be tapped by Disarming Presence. If you can follow how this tapped vampire is affected by Disarming Presence, you should be able to understand the ruling on Propaganda. (The Methuselah being bled choses a minion to be tapped. If she chooses a tapped minion, then nothing happens, just like if it had voted during a Disarming Presence) > Well, I suppose I should be happy, now that my Nossies can gain unlimitted > stealth with "The Labyrinth" with a cost of only 1 pool. Since it is no > longer required that a card be untapped in order to tap it, then I presume > that The Labyrinth can be used an unlimitted number of times during a > given minion phase. No more need to put stealth cards in my nossie > decks--they are all unblockable. No. Labyrinth must be tapped "to" do something. The tapped minion chosen by Propaganda isn't successfully tapped, Tapping a tapped minion simply has no effect, like burning blood from an empty vampire. Even though you can target an empty vampire with superior Cryptic Mission and still gain a blood if successful, that doesn't mean that the empty vampire can play Telepathic Misdirection for +1 intercept to block you. Doing something "to" achieve some effect is not the same as being made to do something that you cannot do. [ quoted text not captured ]

jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote: >Have you all gone MAD? Are rulings being made by Malkavians? >Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? It >isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card be >untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to mean. >Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? >Well, I suppose I should be happy, now that my Nossies can gain unlimitted >stealth with "The Labyrinth" with a cost of only 1 pool. Since it is no >longer required that a card be untapped in order to tap it, then I presume >that The Labyrinth can be used an unlimitted number of times during a >given minion phase. No more need to put stealth cards in my nossie >decks--they are all unblockable. >Unless, of course, my opponent has KRCG News Radio, in which case he may >gain unlimitted intercept. No limit is placed on how many times one may >continue to tap a tapped KRCG News. LSJ addressed the issue of ruling clarifiaction. To re-iterate my slant on this... In order to generate the effect of excluding already tapped minions, ideal card writing would call for such an exclusion to be explicitly stated. You start with this general ruling; if you are forced to select a minion of yours as the target of an effect, then you can choose any minion, regardless of what their current status is (tapped/untapped, full capacity/dmaged/empty, etc) unless there are rules to the contrary, either explicitly stated in the rulebook, or as a part of card text. This is, I suspect, the grounds for the Rules Team ruling as they did on this particular example... I'm forced (by fear of the spectre of implied logic) to agree with the RT on this, despite it's being silly... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <34D07A...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > John Whelan wrote: > > Have you all gone MAD? Are rulings being made by Malkavians? > > Another good discussion starter. Seems like a pattern developing. > > > Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? It > > isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card be > > untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to mean. > > Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? > > The old meaning. See Disarming Presence: a tapped vampire can still > vote, even though he would be tapped by Disarming Presence. > > If you can follow how this tapped vampire is affected by Disarming > Presence, you should be able to understand the ruling on Propaganda. > > (The Methuselah being bled choses a minion to be tapped. If she > chooses a tapped minion, then nothing happens, just like if it > had voted during a Disarming Presence) > The rulesbook clearly states: only untapped cards may be tapped. Disarming Presence says: Tap any vampire who casts a vote. And: Tapped vampires normally are still able to cast votes. So: If a tapped vampire casts a vote under the influence of Disarming Presence, he must be tapped by card text. Trigger for tapping is casting its votes, so voting is 1st, tapping is 2nd. Tapped cards cannot be tapped, so card text of Disarming Presence cannot be followed if a tapped vampire attempts to cast its votes during the influence of DP. Currently a tapped vampire is allowed to cast its votes during DP, most of all IMHO because of the impossibility to tap the vampire and because the card clearly states that the vampire FIRST has to vote. But this has the character of a clarification: If a card is played but the effect of the card is by the rules "illegal", the effect fizzles. DP: If the vampire who casts votes is tapped, he cannot be tapped once more. He casts his votes and still is tapped. Propaganda says in short in the superior version: You bleed. If successful, the Methusalah being bled taps one of his ready minions. By the rules, only tapped cards may be tapped. So: If he has an untapped minions, he has to tap him (or her) If he has untapped and tapped minions, tapping of untapped minions is legal and tapping of tapped minions is illegal (Minions are STILL cards in play) So IMHO he has to tap an UNTAPPED minions because this is the only legal possibility to follow Propaganda's card text. Remember: only untapped cards may be legally tapped. When it is legally possible to follow the card text, you should. You should NOT be allowed to choose an option which violates a basic rule of the game when you have the option to do it legally. If he (or she) has only tapped minions, the card text of the superior form of Propaganda cannot be followed because there are no untapped minions left to tap. The effect fizzles. (Or: The Methusalah "taps one of his tapped minions". But I don't want to use this phrase) Michael Beer -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

John Whelan wrote: > Have you all gone MAD? Are rulings being made by Malkavians? > > Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? > It > isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card > be > untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to > mean. > Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? > In my opinion, you may be right :( VTES Rulesbook, page 5 states: "2. IMPORTANT TERMS IN THE GAME Tapping and Untapping Cards. The concept of tapping and untapping is a unique feature in Deckmaster games. During the course of play, you *tap* cards by turning them 90 degrees. This procedure indicates that the card has been activated to perform a particular action and cannot be used again until it is *untapped*. Untapping a card restores it in its original position; this indicates that the card is reset and can be tapped again to take another action at a later time...." This indicates: a) The state of the card is defined by its position on the table: 1) untapped 2) tapped, that is turned by 90 degrees compared to the untapped state. b) A tapped card marks an activated, "used" card and cannot be used, "tapped" again until it is untapped c) Only those *tapped* cards which were *first untapped* may be *tapped* again. Card text of Propaganda is: "(D) Bleed with +1 bleed. Vampires with titles cannot block this action. As above, and the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his or her ready minions." The superior version says: The methusalah taps one of his or her ready minions. This means: He turns one of the cards by 90 degrees. According to the rulesbook, tapping is only allowed when the card was untapped before. So: The Methusalah being bled may freely choose one of his minions to be tapped. If he or she does not control an untapped ready minion, the superior version of Propaganda should not be allowed to be used (like Bonding: you cannot use the superior version if there is no stealth required) So a ruling (an errata) that says that the Methusalah may tap a tapped Minion directly violates the basics of the game. Michael Beer

>So: If he has an untapped minions, he has to tap him (or her) >If he has untapped and tapped minions, tapping of untapped minions >is legal and tapping of tapped minions is illegal (Minions are STILL >cards in play) > > This is the way I thought it should be played. The card is useless otherwise. Jason

Mi...@leila.ping.de wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > John Whelan wrote: > > > Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? It > > > isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card be > > > untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to mean. > > > Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? > > > > If you can follow how this tapped vampire is affected by Disarming > > Presence, you should be able to understand the ruling on Propaganda. > > > > (The Methuselah being bled choses a minion to be tapped. If she > > chooses a tapped minion, then nothing happens, just like if it > > had voted during a Disarming Presence) > > The rulesbook clearly states: only untapped cards may be tapped. My rulebook states no such thing. Nor is such a thing implied nor alluded to by my rulebook. Also, the Jyhad rulebook and the corrected Jyhad rulebook (from Duelist) do not have such a rule. Care to cite your reference? [Remainder of argument moot without this rule. Clipped] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <34D1CB...@wizards.com>, LSJ wrote: >Mi...@leila.ping.de wrote: >> The rulesbook clearly states: only untapped cards may be tapped. > >My rulebook states no such thing. Nor is such a thing implied >nor alluded to by my rulebook. Also, the Jyhad rulebook and the >corrected Jyhad rulebook (from Duelist) do not have such a >rule. Care to cite your reference? > >[Remainder of argument moot without this rule. Clipped] You yourself stated in your last post that only untapped cards may be "successfully" tapped. That is, in the final analysis, identical to stating that only untapped cards may be tapped. It may (or may not) be meaningful to speak of an unsuccessful tap attempt, but the bottom line is: If it can't be done it can't be done. His argument is not moot. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : John Whelan wrote: : > Have you all gone MAD? Are rulings being made by Malkavians? : Another good discussion starter. Seems like a pattern developing. Ok, Ok! Sorry. The three posts in this thread came as rather a shock to my sensibilities. In the first post I read of a ruling that to me seemed almost incomprehensible. Next I read you remarking (without explanation) that the ruling "follows from card text" which is "clear for the official effect." Finally, when Mr. R.D.Zopf remarked, with reference to the official ruling, that Propaganda is "a clearly stated yet underpowered card," I was truly amazed. : > Since when has it been possible to tap a card that is already tapped? It : > isn't. The concept of tapping requires, by definition, that the card be : > untapped before you tap it. Or at least, that is what it used to mean. : > Someone please tell me what the new meaning is? : The old meaning. See Disarming Presence: a tapped vampire can still : vote, even though he would be tapped by Disarming Presence. : If you can follow how this tapped vampire is affected by Disarming : Presence, you should be able to understand the ruling on Propaganda. I'm afraid not. I can follow perfectly the ruling on Disarming Presence, but this has no relevance to Propaganda as the latter card is worded. The relevant text of Disarming Presence (Jyhad) is: "All vampires that cast votes are tapped." This is properly interpreted as an instruction to be carried out. Unlike The Labyrinth, they do not have to tap in order to do something, but rather are tapped as a result of doing something. First, they vote; next they are tapped as a result. This is a reverse of the normal situation where a card must be tapped in order to produce an effect or start an action. As a result, there is nothing to forbid a tapped vampire from voting, even though it will make it impossible to fully implement card instructions afterwards with respect to that vampire. Notheless, once voting has been completed, card text is still executed to the extent that this is possible. Analagous rulings to the above might include such rulings as it being legal to play Day Op on a RTI action. The minion is able to play Day Op even though he will be unable to implement text instructions telling him to go into torpor afterwards. Similarly, I may play Forced Awakening even if I have no blood, even though I might know I will not be able to block and will by ask to burn one blood afterward--an instruction I will be unable to comply with. In each case, the effects in question are thought of as side effects, rather than being costs or requirements. He obeys card requirements and costs, and afterwards finds himself unable to comply with card instructions. However, instructions are disobeyed in these cases because, under the circumstances, they are truly impossible to implement. The same is not true for the ruling on superior Propaganda as worded. Suppose superior Propaganda had been worded "As above, and the Methuselah you are bleeding chooses one of his or her ready minions; that minion is tapped." In this case you might have an an analogous situation to Disarming Presence. FIRST my Prey chooses one of his minions, THEN he taps that minion. One might in this case give the player the option of deliberately maneuvering himself into a corner he cannot escape from by following card instructions one at a time without regard to whether he will be able to follow instructions that come after. In this case one COULD argue that the precedent of Disarming Presence is relevant. But what Propaganda actually says is: "...the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his ready minions." He is instructed merely to tap one of his minions. He is not required to choose one first. His instruction ("tap a minion") is one that he is clearly capable of carrying out provided he has ready untapped minions that *can* be tapped. If he fails to carry out this instruction, it will not be because he was unable, as in the previous example. He has simply ignored what the card instructed him to do. : (The Methuselah being bled choses a minion to be tapped. If she : chooses a tapped minion, then nothing happens, just like if it : had voted during a Disarming Presence) The above description is incorrect for Propaganda. Propaganda does not require one to "choose a minion to be tapped", but merely to "tap a minion". : > Well, I suppose I should be happy, now that my Nossies can gain unlimitted : > stealth with "The Labyrinth" with a cost of only 1 pool. Since it is no : > longer required that a card be untapped in order to tap it, then I presume : > that The Labyrinth can be used an unlimitted number of times during a : > given minion phase. No more need to put stealth cards in my nossie : > decks--they are all unblockable. : No. Labyrinth must be tapped "to" do something. Yes. I understand that part. : The tapped minion chosen by Propaganda isn't successfully tapped, Meaning, in the final analysis, that it is not tapped at all. : Tapping a tapped minion simply has no effect, like burning blood : from an empty vampire. Right. Imagine my 7 capacity vampire has 5 blood left, due to having burnt two blood in a previous combat. Suppose a card effect is played that requires me to burn two blood. I can choose two burn any two of the five blood I have remaining, but I cannot choose to "unsuccessfully" burn the two blood that have been burnt already, leaving the five untouched. If I am ordered to burn blood, then only if I have no blood left to burn is it legitimate for me to be "unsuccessful" in burning blood. Likewise, if I am ordered to "tap one of your vampires", then only if I have no untapped vampires left to tap is is legitimate for me to be "unsuccessful" in tapping a vampire. In each case I am given an order I am clearly capable of carrying out, but I fail to do so. I break the rules, but cannot excuse myself on the grounds of incapablility. That is the prime difference between Propaganda and the other examples you mention. : Even though you can target an empty vampire with superior Cryptic : Mission and still gain a blood if successful, that doesn't mean that : the empty vampire can play Telepathic Misdirection for +1 intercept : to block you. True or False? Q: An empty vampire successfully targetted by superior Cryptic Mission does not have to burn a blood as instructed because he is clearly incapable of doing so. (A: True) Q: A methuselah with 2 tapped and 3 untapped ready minions who is successfully targetted by Propaganda cannot tap a ready minion as instructed because he is clearly incapable of doing so. (A: False) : Doing something "to" achieve some effect is not the same as : being made to do something that you cannot do. Sure, fine. I understand this part. But the ruling on Propaganda still makes no sense to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

GO LUPUS! GO LUPUS! IT"S YOUR BIRTHDAY!!! GET BUSY!!!

In article <6aqgln$f...@camel19.mindspring.com>, Richard D. Zopf wrote: >LSJ addressed the issue of ruling clarifiaction. To re-iterate my >slant on this... In order to generate the effect of excluding already >tapped minions, ideal card writing would call for such an exclusion to >be explicitly stated. >You start with this general ruling; I would be interested in other examples of this general ruling in application. >if you are >forced to select a minion of yours as the target of an effect, then >you can choose any minion, regardless of what their current status is Propaganda doesn't require you to "select" a minion at all. It merely requires you to tap one. If you are unable to obey this instruction because there are no minions that can be tapped, then you are off the hook. If you "select" a minion to be tapped, and then find you cannot "successfully" tap it, are you then off the hook? You are not. Why? Because you were told to "tap a minion", you have not yet done so (successfully), and it is still possible for you to do so. Had you been given a set of sequential instructions (ie. 1) select a minion; 2) tap that minion) you might be off the hook should the first instruction lead you to a dead end that prevents you from implementing the second. But that is not the case with Propaganda. >(tapped/untapped, full capacity/dmaged/empty, etc) unless there are >rules to the contrary, either explicitly stated in the rulebook, or as >a part of card text. This is, I suspect, the grounds for the Rules >Team ruling as they did on this particular example... Perhaps, but whatever crooked path has them to this strange limbo, 'twould be best that they start retracing their steps. >I'm forced (by >fear of the spectre of implied logic) to agree with the RT on this, >despite it's being silly... I only agree that it is silly. -- It violate the clear intent of the card, making that card effectively wallpaper. -- It gives players, for the first time, the option of being "unsuccessful" in following card instructions, even when they clearly could have obeyed them successfully. In other words, they have the option of wilfully disobeying by choosing to "obey unsuccessfully". -- It makes the Spectre of Implied Logic real mad! regards [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > In article <34D1CB...@wizards.com>, LSJ wrote: > >Mi...@leila.ping.de wrote: > >> The rulesbook clearly states: only untapped cards may be tapped. > > > >My rulebook states no such thing. Nor is such a thing implied > >nor alluded to by my rulebook. Also, the Jyhad rulebook and the > >corrected Jyhad rulebook (from Duelist) do not have such a > >rule. Care to cite your reference? > > My reference is the Jyhad Rules Booklet, page 5, Section 2: Important Terms in the game, ll. 2-9 Here the process of tapping (and untapping) is clearly defined. By the way: I cited exactly this reference in another post to this tread. Go to Dejanews, search for propaganda and view this thread. I fully posted the text of the reference there (word by word from the rules booklet).

Michael Beer wrote: > My reference is the Jyhad Rules Booklet, page 5, Section 2: Important > Terms in the game, ll. 2-9 Ups. The V:TES Rules Booklet. Not the Jyhad Version. Michael Beer

John Whelan (jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote: : Suppose superior Propaganda had been worded : "As above, and the Methuselah you are bleeding chooses one of his or her : ready minions; that minion is tapped." : But what Propaganda actually says is: : "...the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his ready minions." I have to say, this line of reasoning makes sense to me. Suppose we had a card called Disinformation which included the text "...and the Methuselah you are bleeding burns a blood from one of his or her ready minions." I don't think we'd interpret that to mean that they could attempt and fail to burn a blood from an empty minion, if they had a vamp with blood on it. Josh just chiming in....

Michael Beer wrote: > > John Whelan wrote: > > > In article <34D1CB...@wizards.com>, LSJ wrote: > > >Mi...@leila.ping.de wrote: > > >> The rulesbook clearly states: only untapped cards may be tapped. > > > > > >My rulebook states no such thing. Nor is such a thing implied > > >nor alluded to by my rulebook. Also, the Jyhad rulebook and the > > >corrected Jyhad rulebook (from Duelist) do not have such a > > >rule. Care to cite your reference? > > > > > My reference is the [VTES] Rules Booklet, page 5, Section 2: Important > Terms in the game, ll. 2-9 > > Here the process of tapping (and untapping) is clearly defined. Yes, it is. And it in no way "clearly states" that only untapped cards may be tapped. 2. Important Terms in the Game Tapping and Untapping Cards: The concept of tapping and untapping is a unique feature in Deckmaster games. During the course of play, you tap cards by turning them 90 degrees. This procedure indicates that the card has been activated to perform a particular action and cannot be used again until it is untapped. Untapping a card restores it to its original position; this indicates that the card is reset and can be tapped again to take another action at a later time. Your untapped minions may block, take actions, or play reaction cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > Suppose superior Propaganda had been worded > "As above, and the Methuselah you are bleeding chooses one of his or her > ready minions; that minion is tapped." > > In this case you might have an an analogous situation to Disarming > Presence. FIRST my Prey chooses one of his minions, THEN he taps that > minion. One might in this case give the player the option of deliberately > maneuvering himself into a corner he cannot escape from by following card > instructions one at a time without regard to whether he will be able to > follow instructions that come after. In this case one COULD argue that > the precedent of Disarming Presence is relevant. > > But what Propaganda actually says is: > > "...the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his ready minions." > > He is instructed merely to tap one of his minions. He is not required to > choose one first. His instruction ("tap a minion") is one that he is > clearly capable of carrying out provided he has ready untapped minions > that *can* be tapped. If he fails to carry out this instruction, it will > not be because he was unable, as in the previous example. He has simply > ignored what the card instructed him to do. Good point. I'll run this one by the RT and see if it convinces them as well. Thanks. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] So when you tap a tapped card, then, you rotate it by 90 degrees, as clearly stated above. The card is then either inverted (rotated 180 degrees) or returned to its original position. Since the latter is clearly defined as "untapping" and you are "tapping," the card ends up rotated by 180 degrees. But in Jyhad game play, having a card upside down is the same as having it rightside up, so this position is the equivalent of the original position, and moving the card to this position is therefore the same as untapping, and not tapping. So how, then, can you tap a card which is already tapped? Stand it on edge? Rotate it in time, removing it from when the game is being played? Since I don't want to hold my cards on edge, and I don't know how to do the latter, I refuse to play that way, so if the official ruling is to do one of these things, I'll just use a house rule. What else could you do to tap a tapped card which doesn't violate the rules? Any ideas? -Dave Green

[ quoted text not captured ] You take it and try to rotate it 90 degrees. Since it is already rotated 90 degrees, you do nothing. You "mark it as tapped" by setting it at a 90 degree angle. For instance, when a tapped vampire votes during a Disarming Presence-affected vote, you do not rotate the vampire another 90 degrees (leaving him upside down), you leave it at 90 degrees, which is where it was. Or did you use your house rule for that as well? [ quoted text not captured ]

jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote: >In article <6aqgln$f...@camel19.mindspring.com>, Richard D. Zopf wrote: >>LSJ addressed the issue of ruling clarifiaction. To re-iterate my >>slant on this... In order to generate the effect of excluding already >>tapped minions, ideal card writing would call for such an exclusion to >>be explicitly stated. >>You start with this general ruling; >I would be interested in other examples of this general ruling in >application. "Ruling" was erroneous verbage. This method of looking at how effects are resolved doesn't have any such official status...my bad. My involvement in this debate was only to point out that neither the card, nor the rulebook state that you cannot select an already tapped minion to be the target of a tapping effect/requirement, like the one on Propaganda. Such a result requires either explicit card text, or errata to the basic rules from the Rules Team. As of right now, that clarification/errata/ruling isn't in existence (although it should be, IMHO) >>if you are >>forced to select a minion of yours as the target of an effect, then >>you can choose any minion, regardless of what their current status is >Propaganda doesn't require you to "select" a minion at all. It merely >requires you to tap one. If you are unable to obey this instruction >because there are no minions that can be tapped, then you are off the >hook. Any effect that has the target Player doing a required "something" to one of his minions results in that Player selecting a minion before the effect occurs. You can't proceed to the consequence of the effect before then, and you can't avoid selecting one before card text is to be fulfilled... You want to limit the field of minions from which the Player can select. Well, fine, but what I'm saying is that such a limitation must be part of the rules or card text, and it isn't. >If you "select" a minion to be tapped, and then find you cannot >"successfully" tap it, are you then off the hook? You are not. Why? >Because you were told to "tap a minion", you have not yet done so >(successfully), and it is still possible for you to do so. >Had you been given a set of sequential instructions (ie. 1) select a >minion; 2) tap that minion) you might be off the hook should the first >instruction lead you to a dead end that prevents you from implementing the >second. But that is not the case with Propaganda. Yes, yes... Your arguments hold weight, and are sound. I said that the card itself is clearly worded, which it is, and that the current rulings make it underpowered, which they do. My comments were meant only to demonstrate how a proper template should read in order to have the card work as intended, given the current set of rulings by the Rules Team. Again, someone asked me to look at this for template problems, and I posted how card wording might be changed to correct the problem. I also feel that you should not be able to select a tapped minion, because it doesn't follow from written rules or card text that you can't. >>(tapped/untapped, full capacity/dmaged/empty, etc) unless there are >>rules to the contrary, either explicitly stated in the rulebook, or as >>a part of card text. This is, I suspect, the grounds for the Rules >>Team ruling as they did on this particular example... >Perhaps, but whatever crooked path has them to this strange limbo, 'twould >be best that they start retracing their steps. I don't know. The idea that exclusions should be explicitly stated is a fairly reasonable one... They fell on their faces when they failed to issue explicit errata/clarification excluding tapped minions from being selected. >>I'm forced (by >>fear of the spectre of implied logic) to agree with the RT on this, >>despite it's being silly... >I only agree that it is silly. >-- It violate the clear intent of the card, making that card effectively > wallpaper. >-- It gives players, for the first time, the option of being > "unsuccessful" in following card instructions, even when they > clearly could have obeyed them successfully. In other words, they > have the option of wilfully disobeying by choosing to "obey > unsuccessfully". >-- It makes the Spectre of Implied Logic real mad! Let me re-state this, and realize that I'm not (and wasn't) referring to Propaganda rulings directly, but to how the rules of V:tES or any other game, _should_ be structured. If an effect is generated in the game, then any limitations to how that effect resolves must be explicitly stated, either as a part of card text or as part of the written rules. Back to the specific problem; As of right now, there is no ruling that says that if card text requires that you tap one of your minions, that minion must have been previously untapped. If there was such a ruling or clarification, then this whole mess would go away. However, that would mean the admission on the part of the Rules Team that there was an impled limitation to the card text of Propaganda, and that in turn would open the floor for future implied limitations. I really think that this is the RT saying "Oops. We didn't word the card carefully enough, but are reluctant to issue errata, which we want to keep to a minimum. We'll issue rulings to allow for the most options to the target Player, to provide for future flexibility, and let this card go as wallpaper." And I honestly don't think you'll see this effect ever written into V:tES again, as it is too powerful, when used as intended. Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver & V:EKN Prince of Boston

> > But what Propaganda actually says is: > > > > "...the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his ready minions." > > > > He is instructed merely to tap one of his minions. He is not required to > > choose one first. His instruction ("tap a minion") is one that he is > > clearly capable of carrying out provided he has ready untapped minions > > that *can* be tapped. If he fails to carry out this instruction, it will > > not be because he was unable, as in the previous example. He has simply > > ignored what the card instructed him to do. > > Good point. I'll run this one by the RT and see if it convinces them > as well. > I don't agree. To tap a minion, that minion need not be untapped. You can tap a tapped minion as easily as you can tap an untapped minion. The verb "to tap" means "cause something to be tapped." If you tap a tapped minion, you cause that minion to be tapped. Okay. In general, this has no real effect. The minion is tapped before you tap it, and is still tapped after you tap it. Tapping a card to get an effect, however, can only be done with an untapped card. By the rules, an untapped minion can take actions, a tapped minino cannot take actions. A minion who plays Movement of the Slowed Body to untap can still modify the action with Freak Drive to untap yet again. He was untapped before playing Freak Drive, and he'll still be untapped, but he can play the card if he wants. I do, however, think that Propagand should have errata saying that it can only tap an untapped minion. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Chris Berger wrote: > I don't agree. To tap a minion, that minion need not be untapped. You > can tap a tapped minion as easily as you can tap an untapped minion. The > verb "to tap" means "cause something to be tapped." Yes, and the verb "to murder" means "cause someone to be murdered." This is not much of a clarification. > If you tap a tapped > minion, you cause that minion to be tapped. If you murder a murdered man, do you cause that man to be murdered? Or is the cause of his murder to be found elsewhere, seeing as he was already dead when you "murdered" him? > Okay. In general, this has > no real effect. No kidding. Not only has it no real effect, but the process in indescribable in a physical sense. When dealing with a tapped card can you turn that tapped card 90 degrees so that it is horizontal? Clearly you cannot. Does "to tap" mean to turn a card 90 degrees so that it is horizontal? I thought it did. > The minion is tapped before you tap it, and is still > tapped after you tap it. Yes, and a murdered man is still murdered after you "murder" him. But is it not meaningless and nonsensical to speak of "murdering" an already murdered man? > Tapping a card to get an effect, however, can > only be done with an untapped card. Sure, but I still think this applies regardless of why one is tapping. > By the rules, an untapped minion can > take actions, a tapped minino cannot take actions. A minion who plays > Movement of the Slowed Body to untap can still modify the action with > Freak Drive to untap yet again. > He was untapped before playing Freak > Drive, and he'll still be untapped, but he can play the card if he wants. I don't know if he can play Freak Drive or not (LSJ?). However, if he can, then I would say that the card instruction fizzles, since an untapped vampire cannot successfully untap. By which I mean that an untapped card clearly cannot turn 90 degrees to end up in a vertical position. That is what untapping means, isn't it? > I do, however, think that Propagand should have errata saying that it > can only tap an untapped minion. Sure, why not. And while we're at it, lets add errata to The Labyrinth that it will work only if it was untapped before you tap it. Or errata stating that one cannot rescue a vampire from torpor if it is already out of torpor. Or errata stating that when you burn blood, you must burn the blood you still have left, rather than the blood that you already burned last turn. Or errata stating that you cannot use bounce a bleed to a Methuselah who is not in the game. On the other hand, perhaps card wordings might get too complicated after a while. Perhaps some things are sufficiently obvious to be taken for granted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Chris Berger wrote: >> I don't agree. To tap a minion, that minion need not be untapped. You >> can tap a tapped minion as easily as you can tap an untapped minion. The >> verb "to tap" means "cause something to be tapped." >Yes, and the verb "to murder" means "cause someone to be murdered." This >is not much of a clarification. Invalid analogy. Murder can only happen once per individual... Tapping and untapping can occur many times. Lupus sees a necessary alternation between the two , Chris Berger doesn't... (Do you both agree? That's an extrapolation...) What do others think? I'd say that there's isn't a necessary relation between them, meaning you don't need to be untapped in order to tap, and a tapped vamp may tap again (Waked Vamp blocks and is hit with Sup. Faceless Night). >> If you tap a tapped >> minion, you cause that minion to be tapped. >If you murder a murdered man, do you cause that man to be murdered? Or is >the cause of his murder to be found elsewhere, seeing as he was already >dead when you "murdered" him? A possible better analogy; If I dial a friend on the phone, and while on the phone talking, dial her again, what's the end result? Nothing, as they're already on the line. (although they're probably upset, unless I play Jingle Bells ;-) >> Okay. In general, this has >> no real effect. >No kidding. Not only has it no real effect, but the process in >indescribable in a physical sense. When dealing with a tapped card can >you turn that tapped card 90 degrees so that it is horizontal? Clearly >you cannot. Does "to tap" mean to turn a card 90 degrees so that it is >horizontal? I thought it did. The sideways position of a card is a method of marking it "as tapped." To tap means; 1. To use a card for it's effect, and mark it as unusable until untapped. 2. To mark a card as unusable as a reult of another game effect. The en vogue method of marking cards as tapped is to turn them 90 degrees. You wouldn't let a player who forgot to turn a used card sideways to use that same card again, would you? Of course not... because it was already used for it's effect. Propaganda marks a card as tapped in the same way. Since it's the Target player who gets to choose which minion is marked as tapped, the RT says that player may choose any minon he has, including an already tapped one. >> The minion is tapped before you tap it, and is still >> tapped after you tap it. >Yes, and a murdered man is still murdered after you "murder" him. But is >it not meaningless and nonsensical to speak of "murdering" an already >murdered man? >> Tapping a card to get an effect, however, can >> only be done with an untapped card. >Sure, but I still think this applies regardless of why one is tapping. >> By the rules, an untapped minion can >> take actions, a tapped minino cannot take actions. A minion who plays >> Movement of the Slowed Body to untap can still modify the action with >> Freak Drive to untap yet again. >> He was untapped before playing Freak >> Drive, and he'll still be untapped, but he can play the card if he wants. >I don't know if he can play Freak Drive or not (LSJ?). I'd guess they could. It's just an action mod. and it shouldn't "check" the text of the action being attempted to see if its in conflict in order to be ruled unusable. >However, if he can, then I would say that the card instruction fizzles, >since an untapped vampire cannot successfully untap. Yes. >By which I mean that an untapped card clearly cannot turn 90 degrees to >end up in a vertical position. That is what untapping means, isn't it? No. >> I do, however, think that Propagand should have errata saying that it >> can only tap an untapped minion. >Sure, why not. Propaganda isn't the real focus here. The issue is whether tapping an already tapped minion can fulfill the obligation. Precedents exist to rule either way. In favor of Lupus, the best argument I've seen is that tapping an already tapped vampire should be considered an "redundant" tap, and thus the player must reselect a different vamp until the obligation to tap a vamp is fulfilled, or the player runs out of target minions (meaning they're all already tapped). On the other side, no rule exists that says a redundant tap doesn't fulfill the obligation to tap a minion. (I think that there should be such a rule.) It's just another effect that the player must choose a minion that suffers the consequence of. >And while we're at it, lets add errata to The Labyrinth that it will work >only if it was untapped before you tap it. There's already a rule that make this redundant;-) >Or errata stating that one cannot rescue a vampire from torpor if it is >already out of torpor. There's already a rule that make this redundant.;-) >Or errata stating that when you burn blood, you must burn the blood you >still have left, rather than the blood that you already burned last turn. There's already a rule that make this redundant.;-) >Or errata stating that you cannot use bounce a bleed to a Methuselah who >is not in the game. There's already a rule that make this redundant;-) >On the other hand, perhaps card wordings might get too complicated after a >while. Perhaps some things are sufficiently obvious to be taken for >granted. I say keep it off of the cards, and include a rule like the oneabove about redundant taps not fulfilling obligations. That would cover current and future complications... [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Invalid analogy. Murder can only happen once per individual... >Tapping and untapping can occur many times. Lupus sees a necessary >alternation between the two , Chris Berger doesn't... (Do you both >agree? That's an extrapolation...) What do others think? I'd say >that there's isn't a necessary relation between them, meaning you >don't need to be untapped in order to tap, and a tapped vamp may tap >again (Waked Vamp blocks and is hit with Sup. Faceless Night). > > Once Tapped, you can NOT be tapped again. It is physically impossible. Some effect that states that it taps you,even though your already taped, such as the Feaceless night example, fail. The effect fails, because it is impossible to tap a tapped minion. Saying you can tap a tapped card allows one to tap a tapped parthenon for an additional master phase action repeatedly. >A possible better analogy; If I dial a friend on the phone, and while >on the phone talking, dial her again, what's the end result? Nothing, >as they're already on the line. (although they're probably upset, >unless I play Jingle Bells ;-) you are prssing buttons on the phone, not dialing. Dialing requires a dial tone. In other words, the phone must be in a condition that allows you to dial. Similarly a card must be in a possition to allow it to be taped, as of now that is caled "untapped" >The sideways position of a card is a method of marking it "as tapped." >To tap means; 1. To use a card for it's effect, and mark it as >unusable until untapped. 2. To mark a card as unusable as a reult of >another game effect. The en vogue method of marking cards as tapped >is to turn them 90 degrees. You wouldn't let a player who forgot to >turn a used card sideways to use that same card again, would you? Of >course not... because it was already used for it's effect. Propaganda >marks a card as tapped in the same way. Since it's the Target player >who gets to choose which minion is marked as tapped, the RT says that >player may choose any minon he has, including an already tapped one. > > The card does not say all of that. it says "as above and the methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his or her ready minions" The arguement results from the card not saying ...taps one of his or her untapped ready minions. This would be explicitly clear, however it is logical to rule out tapping a tapped minion, so he or she should only be allowed to tap one of their untapped minions. just my two cents, Jason

sirt...@aol.com (SirTemple) wrote: >> >>Invalid analogy. etc. snipped... >> >Once Tapped, you can NOT be tapped again. It is physically impossible. Some >effect that states that it taps you,even though your already taped, such as the >Feaceless night example, fail. The effect fails, because it is impossible to >tap a tapped minion. Saying you can tap a tapped card allows one to tap a >tapped parthenon for an additional master phase action repeatedly. > I never said that redundantly tapping a card would generate it's effect a second time. You're last sentence doesn't follow from my argument. You say "the effect fails, because it is impossible to tap a tapped minion" I say the effect succeeds, without consequence, as per the phone analogy below... > >A possible better analogy; If I dial a friend on the phone, and while >>on the phone talking, dial her again, what's the end result? Nothing, >>as they're already on the line. (although they're probably upset, >>unless I play Jingle Bells ;-) >you are prssing buttons on the phone, not dialing. Dialing requires a dial >tone. In other words, the phone must be in a condition that allows you to >dial. Similarly a card must be in a possition to allow it to be taped, as of >now that is caled "untapped" This is getting into a degenerate circle, so I'll just state the two viewpoints one last time... 1. One can never tap something which wasn't first untapped...(the theory of one tap) 2. One can tap something as many times as one would like, but if an effect is generated by tapping, it only occurs when a tap occurs from a previously untapped state.(the infinite tap theory) I and (for now) the RT support the infinite tap thoery... I believe Lupus and Jason (Sir Temple) support the one tap theory (correct me if I'm wrong...) >>The sideways position of a card is a method of marking it "as tapped." >>To tap means; 1. To use a card for it's effect, and mark it as >>unusable until untapped. 2. To mark a card as unusable as a reult of >>another game effect. The en vogue method of marking cards as tapped >>is to turn them 90 degrees. You wouldn't let a player who forgot to >>turn a used card sideways to use that same card again, would you? Of >>course not... because it was already used for it's effect. Propaganda >>marks a card as tapped in the same way. Since it's the Target player >>who gets to choose which minion is marked as tapped, the RT says that >>player may choose any minon he has, including an already tapped one. >> >The card does not say all of that. it says "as above and the methuselah you >are bleeding taps one of his or her ready minions" There are two seperate issue in the above paragraph... The nature of tapping, and how it relates to Propaganda. I know what the card text says, but what tapping exactly is and does needs a clearer definition for this to ever be resolved... >The arguement results from the card not saying ...taps one of his or her >untapped ready minions. This would be explicitly clear, however it is logical >to rule out tapping a tapped minion, so he or she should only be allowed to tap >one of their untapped minions. I actually think that one of the most important considerations here is that it is the Player who is the _target_ of the Propaganda bleed that selects the minion of his/her choice. Unless there are rules to govern their choices, they should be left free to choose whatever minion they want to. Limiting those choices should be explicit. While not being allowed to tap an already tapped minion might be logical, leave it to a bunch of CCG players to find the illogical... On a different line here, we've yet to discuss the consequences of a reversal on the part of the RT. When the RT was asked previously if one could select a tapped minion to tap again, they said "yes, you can." There could be several reasons for this... 1. They were thinking of M:t$ when they made the Propaganda effect, wherein tapping a single minion is no big deal, as there is only one attack phase, not the multiple minion actions in V:tES. The impact on the meta-game of Propaganda as intended would require very large amounts of untaps in every deck, just to provide for this one card in a NL environment. They didn't want that, so decided to do us a favor and make it wallpaper, instead of shafting us with another Thoughts Betrayed-like situation... 2. There really is a reason for being able to tap an already tapped minion(or to provide for it in the rules), and this discussion just hasn't found out what that is yet.. Any others??? Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver....

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, R. David Zopf wrote: > This is getting into a degenerate circle, so I'll just state the two > viewpoints one last time... > 1. One can never tap something which wasn't first untapped...(the > theory of one tap) > > 2. One can tap something as many times as one would like, but if an > effect is generated by tapping, it only occurs when a tap occurs from > a previously untapped state.(the infinite tap theory) > > I and (for now) the RT support the infinite tap thoery... I believe > Lupus and Jason (Sir Temple) support the one tap theory (correct me if > I'm wrong...) I think the above summary of the two positions demonstrates admirably why postion #1 is superior: It is short, simple and easy to remember. Position number two adds nothing to the game, but necessitates the addition of a special clause without which cards like "The Labyrinth" would not work as intended. Even with this correction, it's ONLY significant effect on the game is to cause one card (Propaganda) NOT to work as intended. You say you support position #2. For God's sake, why? [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, R. David Zopf wrote: : > 1. One can never tap something which wasn't first untapped...(the : > theory of one tap) : > : > 2. One can tap something as many times as one would like, but if an : > effect is generated by tapping, it only occurs when a tap occurs from : > a previously untapped state.(the infinite tap theory) : > : I think the above summary of the two positions demonstrates admirably why : postion #1 is superior: It is short, simple and easy to remember. : You say you support position #2. For God's sake, why? If you do not allow tapped things to be retapped what happens when a Letter from Vienna is played while tapped Tremere are ready? Do you just end the game rather than wait for Astrid to untap herself so you can finish the card text? -- -steve

R. David Zopf (guenh...@mindspring.com) wrote: : sirt...@aol.com (SirTemple) wrote: : >The arguement results from the card not saying ...taps one of his or her : >untapped ready minions. This would be explicitly clear, however it is logical : >to rule out tapping a tapped minion, so he or she should only be allowed to tap : >one of their untapped minions. : I actually think that one of the most important considerations here : is that it is the Player who is the _target_ of the Propaganda bleed : that selects the minion of his/her choice. Unless there are rules to : govern their choices, they should be left free to choose whatever : minion they want to. Limiting those choices should be explicit. : While not being allowed to tap an already tapped minion might be : logical, leave it to a bunch of CCG players to find the illogical... Propaganda's actual card text doesn't say anything about selecting a minion. It says "...and the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his or her ready minions." The argument I support says that this Methuselah is being asked to tap a minion in the sense of fulfilling an instruction. If the card said "...and the Methuselah you are bleeding burns a blood from one of his or her ready vampires" my understanding of the current rules is that they would not get the option to 'select' an empty vampire and fail to burn the blood. If they can fulfill the instructions, they have to do so. This does sort of rely on the single-tap interpretation though. : On a different line here, we've yet to discuss the consequences of a : reversal on the part of the RT. When the RT was asked previously if : one could select a tapped minion to tap again, they said "yes, you : can." There could be several reasons for this... : 1. They were thinking of M:t$ when they made the Propaganda effect, : wherein tapping a single minion is no big deal, as there is only one : attack phase, not the multiple minion actions in V:tES. The impact on : the meta-game of Propaganda as intended would require very large : amounts of untaps in every deck, just to provide for this one card in : a NL environment. They didn't want that, so decided to do us a favor : and make it wallpaper, instead of shafting us with another Thoughts : Betrayed-like situation... : 2. There really is a reason for being able to tap an already tapped : minion(or to provide for it in the rules), and this discussion just : hasn't found out what that is yet.. I don't think Propaganda as intended would really have that big an impact on the metagame. The tap-effect only goes off if the action is performed at superior and successfully, and it does cost 2 blood. (I believe Mind Rape also costs 2, and that's a far ruder card in my opinion.) Josh ...once I had one of my vampires Mind Raped and sacrificed for the Antediluvian Awakening I had played... how annoying...

On 5 Feb 1998, Stephen T Kertes wrote: > If you do not allow tapped things to be retapped what happens when > a Letter from Vienna is played while tapped Tremere are ready? Do > you just end the game rather than wait for Astrid to untap herself so > you can finish the card text? No. If, (as I have argued) tapped minions cannot be tapped, then card instructions simply fizzle with respect to those Tremere that are already tapped. Card instructions often fizzle in Jyhad. For instance, if a Nosferatu plays Mask of 1000 Faces on a Ritual Challenge played by a Gangrel, then the instruction to place the card on the acting Gangrel fizzles, since there is no acting Gangrel on which the card can be placed. Similarly, if a card instructs each ready Ventrue to burn 1 blood, this instruction is carried out to the extent possible, though it may be that some ready Ventrue have no blood to burn. If you are told to burn two blood, and you have 1 blood left, you burn that blood. The game does not come to a crashing end when it proves impossible to completely fulfil card instructions. [ quoted text not captured ]