This one doesn't seem to have been considered yet, at least that I can
find.
Imagine you have Rachel Brandywine, a Dual Form created by her
(Rachel'), and a Dual Form created by that Dual Form (Rachel'').
If Rachel' goes to torpor, that burns Rachel and Rachel''. But it
should also burn Rachel', it seems, because Rachel' isn't the only Dual
Form that's trying to burn things here. Rachel'' also has cardtext
saying that if Rachel'' leaves the ready region, Rachel' is burned. (So
in the "chained Dual Forms" case, the first unreadied vampire *does* get
burned in addition to the rest of the chain.) Correct?
Josh
de-formed
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Imagine you have Rachel Brandywine, a Dual Form created by her
> (Rachel'), and a Dual Form created by that Dual Form (Rachel'').
>
> If Rachel' goes to torpor, that burns Rachel and Rachel''. But it
> should also burn Rachel', it seems, because Rachel' isn't the only
Dual
> Form that's trying to burn things here. Rachel'' also has cardtext
> saying that if Rachel'' leaves the ready region, Rachel' is burned.
(So
> in the "chained Dual Forms" case, the first unreadied vampire *does*
get
> burned in addition to the rest of the chain.) Correct?
The Dual Form Rachel played burns Rachel. The Dual Form Rachel' played
burns Rachel''. Both Dual Form's burn clauses are now fulfilled, so
Rachel' is not burned.
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:357881F...@individual.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. That's been covered.
Rachel - Rachel' pair: "Oh, Rachel' is going to torpor. OK. Burn Rachel"
Rachel' - Rachel'' pair: "Oh, Rachel' is going to torpor. OK. Burn
Rachel''"
End
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3578kvF...@individual.net...
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:357881F...@individual.net...
> > This one doesn't seem to have been considered yet, at least that I
can
> > find.
> >
> > Imagine you have Rachel Brandywine, a Dual Form created by her
> > (Rachel'), and a Dual Form created by that Dual Form (Rachel'').
> >
> > If Rachel' goes to torpor, that burns Rachel and Rachel''. But it
> > should also burn Rachel', it seems, because Rachel' isn't the only
Dual
> > Form that's trying to burn things here. Rachel'' also has cardtext
> > saying that if Rachel'' leaves the ready region, Rachel' is burned.
(So
> > in the "chained Dual Forms" case, the first unreadied vampire *does*
get
> > burned in addition to the rest of the chain.) Correct?
>
> No. That's been covered.
>
> Rachel - Rachel' pair: "Oh, Rachel' is going to torpor. OK. Burn
Rachel"
> Rachel' - Rachel'' pair: "Oh, Rachel' is going to torpor. OK. Burn
> Rachel''"
> End
Man. I thought I was unconfused, and then I reread the example again,
and then I was confused again.
OK.
1. Rachel' goes to torpor.
2. Rachel'' sees (1) and says "I need to burn myself." Rachel'' burns.
2A. Simultaneously Rachel' sees (1) and says "I need to burn Rachel."
Rachel burns.
3. Rachel'' sees itself burning at (2) and says "I need to burn
Rachel'." Rachel' burns.
Why is this not the case?
VTES is normally a game where triggered events form sequences and can
trigger other events. It doesn't make sense to me that Dual Form should
be a special case where you work out all the vampires that ought to be
burned by "the initial event" and don't burn any beyond that. After
all, some of them are only burned because of being chained from burns
that are, as far as I can see, earlier - not simultaneous. It doesn't
really make sense to me that each Dual Form card can only cause one
burning "per event" either - that's forcing the cards to somehow "know"
what it is that's setting them off, and whether it was the kind of event
that should make them only burn themselves without re-triggering to burn
their partners.
If Rachel'' were burned in combat, her own card text would still apply
and cause Rachel' to be burned, even though Rachel'' was already in the
ash heap at that point. Why would the fact that Rachel'' is being
burned by its own card text (or the fact that this burn was because
Rachel' had been torporized) change the view of the Rachel'' card that
it has just been burned and needs to generate another "burn the other
vampire because this one was unreadied" event?
The only way I can see for it to "know" that is designer intent for the
originally-unreadied vampire not to be burned. But just the card text
saying "the other" doesn't seem to accomplish that on its own - that is,
the fact that the card failed to use the word "both" tells us what the
designer had in mind, but it doesn't tell us any logical method of
implementing the sequence of events to accomplish that. It just tells
us "this is how it ought to come out, don't pay attention to the
timing." Unless Dual Form is an exception to its own text, a single
Dual Form card should be able to both burn itself in response to seeing
its partner leave the ready region, and then react to that by burning
its partner when the Dual Form card itself leaves the ready region.
That is, the effect of the ruling you're making is effectively a change
to the text to say "If either minion leaves the ready region, unless it
was burned by this Dual Form, the other is burned."
Which is an understandable way for the card to work, I guess. But it's
not derivable just from card text and the rules of the game. I think it
rises to the level of errata (or ruling, if you prefer, though I can't
see a logical interpretation of existing text to accomplish the desired
effect).
Josh
suffering from textual dysfunction
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:357efjF...@individual.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Try not using primes.
Bob Dual Forms. Call that new vampire Sue.
Sue Dual Forms. Call that new vampire Pat.
There is now a Dual Form pairing Bob-Sue. (That is, Sue
remembers who created her). And another pairing Sue-Pat.
In any pair, if one gets undreadied, the other (not both) is
burned.
Sue goes to torpor. Bob-Sue notices and burns the other (Bob).
Bob-Sue is done. (That is, Sue's card text notices and burns
Bob, but it doesn't then circle around and burn Sue. That effect,
the "lose a buddy, burn a buddy" effect is done).
Sue-Pat also noticed that Sue is unreadied. Sue-Pat sends the other
(Pat) to the ash heap. Sue-Pat is done. (As above)
> OK.
>
> 1. Rachel' goes to torpor.
> 2. Rachel'' sees (1) and says "I need to burn myself." Rachel'' burns.
> 2A. Simultaneously Rachel' sees (1) and says "I need to burn Rachel."
> Rachel burns.
> 3. Rachel'' sees itself burning at (2) and says "I need to burn
> Rachel'." Rachel' burns.
>
> Why is this not the case?
Because your 3 doesn't get done. Rachel'' has already finished in step 2,
by burning Rachel''. That effect doesn't circle back around for another
pass.
Similarly, 2A doesn't circle back around to burn Rachel', either.
> VTES is normally a game where triggered events form sequences and can
> trigger other events.
Yes. And you're trying to make one effect into two.
The effect only burns the other.
> It doesn't make sense to me that Dual Form should
> be a special case where you work out all the vampires that ought to be
> burned by "the initial event" and don't burn any beyond that.
That's not the foundation upon which the ruling is based, no.
> After
> all, some of them are only burned because of being chained from burns
> that are, as far as I can see, earlier - not simultaneous.
Correct.
> It doesn't
> really make sense to me that each Dual Form card can only cause one
> burning "per event" either - that's forcing the cards to somehow "know"
> what it is that's setting them off, and whether it was the kind of event
> that should make them only burn themselves without re-triggering to burn
> their partners.
Then you and I will have to agree to disagree.
The "the other" implies this, and can be used to see how the ruling
"makes sense".
> If Rachel'' were burned in combat, her own card text would still apply
> and cause Rachel' to be burned, even though Rachel'' was already in the
> ash heap at that point. Why would the fact that Rachel'' is being
> burned by its own card text (or the fact that this burn was because
> Rachel' had been torporized) change the view of the Rachel'' card that
> it has just been burned and needs to generate another "burn the other
> vampire because this one was unreadied" event?
> The only way I can see for it to "know" that is designer intent for the
> originally-unreadied vampire not to be burned. But just the card text
> saying "the other" doesn't seem to accomplish that on its own - that is,
> the fact that the card failed to use the word "both" tells us what the
> designer had in mind, but it doesn't tell us any logical method of
> implementing the sequence of events to accomplish that.
Correct.
And now you have the ruling.
> It just tells
> us "this is how it ought to come out, don't pay attention to the
> timing."
Pay attention to the timing all you want. The ruling doesn't
involve ignoring the timing.
Just don't use the a single Dual Form effect to circle back
around and burn a second vampire.
> Unless Dual Form is an exception to its own text, a single
> Dual Form card should be able to both burn itself in response to seeing
> its partner leave the ready region, and then react to that by burning
> its partner when the Dual Form card itself leaves the ready region.
If it circled around, yes. It doesn't.
> That is, the effect of the ruling you're making is effectively a change
> to the text to say "If either minion leaves the ready region, unless it
> was burned by this Dual Form, the other is burned."
The effect of the ruling is to tell you not to have the single effect
circle around, resolving the ambiguity as to whether the single
effect would circle around and burn two vampires.
> Which is an understandable way for the card to work, I guess. But it's
> not derivable just from card text and the rules of the game. I think it
> rises to the level of errata (or ruling, if you prefer, though I can't
> see a logical interpretation of existing text to accomplish the desired
> effect).
? It's the ruling, yes. I have never said it didn't rise to the
level of a ruling.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:357g5pF...@individual.net...
> Try not using primes.
>
> Bob Dual Forms. Call that new vampire Sue.
> Sue Dual Forms. Call that new vampire Pat.
>
> There is now a Dual Form pairing Bob-Sue. (That is, Sue
> remembers who created her). And another pairing Sue-Pat.
>
> In any pair, if one gets undreadied, the other (not both) is
> burned.
>
> Sue goes to torpor. Bob-Sue notices and burns the other (Bob).
> Bob-Sue is done. (That is, Sue's card text notices and burns
> Bob, but it doesn't then circle around and burn Sue. That effect,
> the "lose a buddy, burn a buddy" effect is done).
>
> Sue-Pat also noticed that Sue is unreadied. Sue-Pat sends the other
> (Pat) to the ash heap. Sue-Pat is done. (As above)
I see what you're saying. But it's not "circling around". There is a
new event: Pat has been burned, which Sue-Pat should *also* notice and
declare that it means Sue gets burned. Sue *is* "the other" to Pat's
burning. Since Pat's burning is not the same event as Sue's unreadying,
the Sue/Pat Dual Form should see that event and burn Sue. The words
"the other" do imply that the writer didn't think the unreadied vampire
would ever get burned for its troubles, but those words don't actually
accomplish that result.
You're saying that the card does know and care what kind of unreadying
it has just witnessed (it won't do anything if the unreadying was caused
by the card itself but will if it was from some other effect). Which is
unintuitive. But okay, we can agree to disagree on whether this is the
better ruling. (I think it would be better, because more logical, to
drop the argument from "the other" and allow all Dual Formed vampires to
be burned if one is. It wouldn't affect the power of Dual Form very
much and would produce a more consistent set of VTES rules.)
Josh
why should dogs sleep when i'm awake?
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:357h98F...@individual.net...
> I see what you're saying. But it's not "circling around". There is a
> new event: Pat has been burned, which Sue-Pat should *also* notice and
> declare that it means Sue gets burned. Sue *is* "the other" to Pat's
> burning. Since Pat's burning is not the same event as Sue's unreadying,
> the Sue/Pat Dual Form should see that event and burn Sue. The words
> "the other" do imply that the writer didn't think the unreadied vampire
> would ever get burned for its troubles, but those words don't actually
> accomplish that result.
I see what you're saying.
But that still involves activating the same effect within itself
(i.e., circling around). Which the ruling says is not done.
> You're saying that the card does know and care what kind of unreadying
> it has just witnessed (it won't do anything if the unreadying was caused
> by the card itself but will if it was from some other effect). Which is
> unintuitive. But okay, we can agree to disagree on whether this is the
> better ruling. (I think it would be better, because more logical, to
> drop the argument from "the other" and allow all Dual Formed vampires to
> be burned if one is. It wouldn't affect the power of Dual Form very
> much and would produce a more consistent set of VTES rules.)
Losing two vampires instead of one is roughly the same?
I don't think so.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:357hmoF...@individual.net...
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:357h98F...@individual.net...>> I see what you're saying. But it's not "circling around". There is a
>> new event: Pat has been burned, which Sue-Pat should *also* notice and
>> declare that it means Sue gets burned. Sue *is* "the other" to Pat's
>> burning. Since Pat's burning is not the same event as Sue's unreadying,
>> the Sue/Pat Dual Form should see that event and burn Sue. The words
>> "the other" do imply that the writer didn't think the unreadied vampire
>> would ever get burned for its troubles, but those words don't actually
>> accomplish that result.>
> I see what you're saying.
> But that still involves activating the same effect within itself
> (i.e., circling around). Which the ruling says is not done.
>>> You're saying that the card does know and care what kind of unreadying
>> it has just witnessed (it won't do anything if the unreadying was caused
>> by the card itself but will if it was from some other effect). Which is
>> unintuitive. But okay, we can agree to disagree on whether this is the
>> better ruling. (I think it would be better, because more logical, to
>> drop the argument from "the other" and allow all Dual Formed vampires to
>> be burned if one is. It wouldn't affect the power of Dual Form very
>> much and would produce a more consistent set of VTES rules.)>
> Losing two vampires instead of one is roughly the same?
> I don't think so.
I think what has confused both myself and Josh is that most card effects are
applied
immediately, and with this effect then it makes sense that both vampires
would burn.
And its probably part of the reason there has been so much discussion on the
newsgroup
about it.
Just my 2 cents
Raille