Imbued Incapacitated Question

If an Imbued gains life while incapacitated, do they automatically become ready? The rule is sort of vague in that it states that imbued only are incapacitated when they have no life. Raille

Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > If an Imbued gains life while incapacitated, do they automatically become > ready? No. > The rule is sort of vague in that it states that imbued only are > incapacitated when they have no life. An Imbued can be incapacitated and have life. It just gains a life when it becomes ready again if it didn't have any life already (because otherwise it would just fall back down into the Incapacitated region).

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:ep6dnXyv6--...@comcast.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well I was just doing the "If X=Y, the Y=X" sort of thing. The rule card states "When they have zero life, they are incapacitated instead of being burned." So a strict intepitation leads one to being that is an Imbued have life, then they are not incapacitated. The guidline on self rescue is just that, governing self rescue, what your saying is that an imbued cannot be rescued by anyone other than themselves, which seems rather odd. Raille

Raille wrote: > Well I was just doing the "If X=Y, the [sic] Y=X" sort of thing. > The rule card states "When they have zero life, they are incapacitated > instead of being burned." > > So a strict intepitation leads one to being that is an Imbued have life, > then they are not incapacitated. X=Y and Y=X works. "He [An Imbued] is placed in the incapacitated region when an Imbued has no life". The issue here is that "When" is a one-time event. The word you're thinking of is "while". -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Raille wrote: > Well I was just doing the "If X=Y, the Y=X" sort of thing. > The rule card states "When they have zero life, they are incapacitated > instead of being burned." > > So a strict intepitation leads one to being that is an Imbued have life, > then they are not incapacitated. Your 'strict interpretation' is incorrect (from a logic theory point of view). "If X then Y" does not also mean "If not X then not Y" - unless it is 'if and only if X then Y." Here's a counter example: If you were born in Los Angeles, you were born in California. If you were not born in Los Angeles, it does not logically follow that you were not born in California.. > Raille -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] The more direct flaw is not noticing that "are incapacitated" is being used as a change of state (note the "being burned" change of state that is mentioned as the alternative). Instead, the so-called strict interpretation mis-casts it as some sort of definition (which you go on to point would not be a "if and only if" defintion, even if it were a definition). That is, equivalently: When an imbued has zero life, he becomes incapacitated instead of becoming burned. Or When an imbued has zero life, he is moved to the incapacitated region instead of being moved to the ash heap. Not While an imbued has zero life, he is called incapacitated. Nor An incapacitated imbued is one with zero life.

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145200743.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] But at least Gregs reply makes some sort of game sense. Raille

"Greg" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145193837.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] LSJ, can I get a up/down on this for record? I can use that as the final word for our Game Thursday. Raille