Mukhtar Bey

Mukhtar Bey [Gehenna:U] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Caitiff Group: 4 Capacity: 7 Discipline: obf pot FOR PRE QUI Camarilla Prince of Cairo: Mukhtar cannot use presses to continue combat. If there are five Gehenna cards in play during your untap phase, burn Mukhtar. What happens, if during my untap phase there are six Gehenna cards in play? -- Bye, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] If there are six Gehenna cards in play, there are five as well (plus one). In fact, Mukhtar doesn't want to say "exactly" five, but "at least" five, imho.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, the current wording does not even hint at any sort of "at least" clause. 10 GET#GEHENNA 20 IF #GEHENNA=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY ...is worded, if there are five Gehenna cards in play. 20 IF #GEHENNA>=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY ...would be worded, if there are (i) five or more, or (ii) more than four Gehenna cards in play. Five or more seems logical, but logic has proven to be a poor interpreter of cards and rules on many occasions. I mean, it sucks when you need to interpret "Five" as "Five or more" in certain cases _but_ not in others... ;( -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsgk8z8...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:57:23 +0200, Miller Delmardigan > > Daneel wrote: > >> If there are five Gehenna cards in play during your untap > >> phase, burn Mukhtar. > >> > >> What happens, if during my untap phase there are six Gehenna cards in > >> play? > >> > > If there are six Gehenna cards in play, there are five as well (plus > > one). In fact, Mukhtar doesn't want to say "exactly" five, but "at > > least" five, imho. Correct. > Well, the current wording does not even hint at any sort of "at least" > clause. Yes, it does, as Miller pointed out. > > 10 GET#GEHENNA > 20 IF #GEHENNA=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY > > ...is worded, if there are five Gehenna cards in play. No. That is worded, "If the number of Gehenna cards in play is five." > 20 IF #GEHENNA>=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY > > ...would be worded, if there are (i) five or more, or (ii) more than > four Gehenna cards in play. ... or equivalently, "if there are five gehenna cards in play". > Five or more seems logical, but logic has proven to be a poor interpreter > of cards and rules on many occasions. I mean, it sucks when you need to > interpret "Five" as "Five or more" in certain cases _but_ not in others... > ;( When asking if a value (e.g. capacity) "is" a certain number, equality is assumed, yes. Please show a case in card text where a quantity is sought but an excess will not do. -- 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

In message <opsgk8z8...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Well, the current wording does not even hint at any sort of "at least" >clause. Sure it does. You are a shopkeeper. You have five apples. A customer comes in and asks "Excuse me, do you have three apples?" Yes, you do. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:35:30 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> 10 GET#GEHENNA >> 20 IF #GEHENNA=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY >> >> ...is worded, if there are five Gehenna cards in play. > > No. That is worded, "If the number of Gehenna cards in play is five." Semantic pondering: Q: Are there five Gehenna cards in play? A: Yes, there are. There are six Gehenna cards in play. Q: How many Gehenna cards are in play? A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. Q: Are there five, or six Gehenna cards in play? A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. > When asking if a value (e.g. capacity) "is" a certain number, equality > is assumed, yes. > > Please show a case in card text where a quantity is sought but an > excess will not do. This is not necessarily a player-friendly logic. Sure you can explain the difference between quantity and value, but I still find it hard to believe that your logic is intuitive for most non-native english speaking players. Especially since most cards use "or more" type phrases. I guess this is quite similar to the issue I had with Telepathic Tracking. If most of the cards have a type of text to define (or even just to clarify) their effects, and a few cards lack that text (even though designer intent would be that they mean the same thing), then players might logically assume that the wording is different because there is a difference in effect. Take for example everyone's favourite, RttF. Recalled to the Founder [Gehenna:R] Cardtype: Event Gehenna. Do not replace as long as this card is in play. Requires at least two other Gehenna cards in play. During each Methuselah's untap phase, if he or she controls more than two vampires of the same clan, he or she burns one such vampire. If that vampire's capacity is above 5, this Methuselah becomes immune to the effects of this card for the remainder of the game. It requires "at least" two other Gehenna cards in play. Its effect triggers when the Methuselah controls "more than two" vampires of the same clan. Both phrases are completely lacking in ambivalence. Given the abundant usage of such wording, one can't help but wonder whether the lack of the phraseology used to confirm the acceptance of quantities greater than listed ("more than", "at least", "or more", etc.) also means the lack of the acceptance itself. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsglf0a...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:35:30 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> 10 GET#GEHENNA > >> 20 IF #GEHENNA=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY > >> > >> ...is worded, if there are five Gehenna cards in play. > > > > No. That is worded, "If the number of Gehenna cards in play is five." > > Semantic pondering: > > Q: Are there five Gehenna cards in play? > A: Yes, there are. There are six Gehenna cards in play. Does March have 28 days? http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/content/jokes/answer?d=20010413 Did Noah have a son? Did Noah have two sons? I'm making a cake and need two eggs. Do you have two eggs? If you have two eggs, I can make a cake. > Q: How many Gehenna cards are in play? > A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. Asking what the value (number in play) is. > Q: Are there five, or six Gehenna cards in play? > A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. Asking what the value (number in play) is. > > When asking if a value (e.g. capacity) "is" a certain number, equality > > is assumed, yes. > > > > Please show a case in card text where a quantity is sought but an > > excess will not do. > > This is not necessarily a player-friendly logic. Sure you can explain the > difference between quantity and value, but I still find it hard to believe > that your logic is intuitive for most non-native english speaking players. ? That doesn't change what it means. > Especially since most cards use "or more" type phrases. I guess this is > quite similar to the issue I had with Telepathic Tracking. Ah. If you can't be verbose on all cards, then you should be verbose on no cards -- all cards should get by with as few clarifying phrases as possible. > If most of the cards have a type of text to define (or even just to > clarify) their effects, and a few cards lack that text (even though > designer intent would be that they mean the same thing), then players > might logically assume that the wording is different because there is a > difference in effect. > > Take for example everyone's favourite, RttF. > > Recalled to the Founder [Gehenna:R] > Cardtype: Event [...] > abundant usage of such wording, one can't help but wonder whether the lack > of the phraseology used to confirm the acceptance of quantities greater > than listed ("more than", "at least", "or more", etc.) also means the lack > of the acceptance itself. Or perhaps the text box on Mukhtar is smaller than the text box on the event cards, and therefore brevity is weighted more highly on Mukhtar.

Daneel wrote: > This is not necessarily a player-friendly logic. Sure you can explain > the difference between quantity and value, but I still find it hard to > believe that your logic is intuitive for most non-native english > speaking players. Especially since most cards use "or more" type > phrases. I guess this is quite similar to the issue I had with > Telepathic Tracking. I'm not a native english speaker, and I understood these cards the way they are to be understand... This is just logic.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:57:23 +0200, Miller Delmardigan <sabbati...@free.fr> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] ummm.. no... the text says if there are five in pay. please point out this "at least" that he supposedly wants on his card.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:15:54 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Semantic pondering: >> >> Q: Are there five Gehenna cards in play? >> A: Yes, there are. There are six Gehenna cards in play. > > Does March have 28 days? > http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/content/jokes/answer?d=20010413 ;) >> This is not necessarily a player-friendly logic. Sure you can explain >> the >> difference between quantity and value, but I still find it hard to > believe >> that your logic is intuitive for most non-native english speaking > players. > > ? > That doesn't change what it means. Some phrases have underlying rulings, clarifications, implications, etc. The phrase "during X do Y" is, to most, intuitively a constraint in timing alone and not repetition. Yet it means not entirely what it means. ;) >> Especially since most cards use "or more" type phrases. I guess this is >> quite similar to the issue I had with Telepathic Tracking. > > Ah. If you can't be verbose on all cards, then you should be verbose on > no cards -- all cards should get by with as few clarifying phrases > as possible. If you must put it this way... Yes. There are unique effects that need a more or less verbose explanation, but even those effects often use expressions from a terminology. Just as all Strike cards say "Strike:" instead of "Punch:", "Kick:", "Slash:" or "Kaboom:", using a well-defined term ("Strike"), most cards probably should - where possible - use the same words to mean the same thing, be it an actual defined term, or just concerted usage. It may be logical to assume that if two effects are the same, they are worded the same way, and likewise, if there is a difference in wording on some cards, those cards may have different effects. >> If most of the cards have a type of text to define (or even just to >> clarify) their effects, and a few cards lack that text (even though >> designer intent would be that they mean the same thing), then players >> might logically assume that the wording is different because there is a >> difference in effect. >> >> Take for example everyone's favourite, RttF. >> >> Recalled to the Founder [Gehenna:R] >> Cardtype: Event > > [...] > >> abundant usage of such wording, one can't help but wonder whether the > lack >> of the phraseology used to confirm the acceptance of quantities greater >> than listed ("more than", "at least", "or more", etc.) also means the > lack >> of the acceptance itself. > > Or perhaps the text box on Mukhtar is smaller than the text box on the > event cards, and therefore brevity is weighted more highly on Mukhtar. Quite possible. Brevity may be the father of wit, but card texts should (IMHO) be clear above all else, and not just in themselves, but also when compared to other, similar cards. Kind of like how Derek Ray sort of pointed out that very few cards use the phrase "spend", and it, in all cases, can be basically made equivalent to "burn" - which, if that is the case, should probably be the uniform term used for all "burn" effects, not just the vast majority. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:15:54 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Some phrases have underlying rulings, clarifications, implications, etc. And some do not need it. For example, I control two ready Brujah. My predator used Ranjan Rishi to bleed me. Does Ranjan get +1 bleed? Given how confusing you think this is, it's surprising that the question hasn't been asked more often (say, at all) in the years since Ranjan has appeared. > The phrase "during X do Y" is, to most, intuitively a constraint in timing > alone and not repetition. Yet it means not entirely what it means. ;) This expired equine has already been pummeled. The statement "During your lunch hour, you get a free ice cream." means, to most, that you get a free ice cream only once during each lunch hour. See google for more -- I'll not be spending any additional time on this one. >>> Especially since most cards use "or more" type phrases. I guess this is >>> quite similar to the issue I had with Telepathic Tracking. >> >> >> Ah. If you can't be verbose on all cards, then you should be verbose on >> no cards -- all cards should get by with as few clarifying phrases >> as possible. > > If you must put it this way... Yes. You are in a severe minority, I think (and I hope). When text can be clarified in-line (i.e., when card space allows clearer verbiage), then the clearer verbiage should be used. [snip tangent]. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> a écrit dans le message de news:opsglf0a...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:35:30 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> 10 GET#GEHENNA > >> 20 IF #GEHENNA=5 THEN BURN MUKHTAR BEY > >> > >> ...is worded, if there are five Gehenna cards in play. > > > > No. That is worded, "If the number of Gehenna cards in play is five." > > Semantic pondering: > > Q: Are there five Gehenna cards in play? > A: Yes, there are. There are six Gehenna cards in play. > > Q: How many Gehenna cards are in play? > A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. > > Q: Are there five, or six Gehenna cards in play? > A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. I totally agree with you and regret the poor wording choice on Muktar, as well as several other cards.

>>If there are six Gehenna cards in play, there are five as well (plus >>one). In fact, Mukhtar doesn't want to say "exactly" five, but "at >>least" five, imho. > > ummm.. no... the text says if there are five in pay. please point out > this "at least" that he supposedly wants on his card. > You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna cards equals any number between 1 and 6. By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals more than 5. -- Colin "Eryx" Goodman Cambridge UK http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:fLegd.39226$OD2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Daneel wrote: >> The phrase "during X do Y" is, to most, intuitively a constraint in >> timing >> alone and not repetition. Yet it means not entirely what it means. ;) > > This expired equine has already been pummeled. ...a horse is a horse, unless of course... > The statement "During your lunch hour, you get a free ice cream." means, > to most, that you get a free ice cream only once during each lunch hour. > See google for more -- I'll not be spending any additional time on this > one. Here's one: "THIS WEEKEND! Buy one, get one free!" I heard it on the radio. Question 1) How many times may I expect to be able to get one free if I buy one? Question 2) Why do think the little diclaimer, "Limit 3 per customer" (or whatever) got invented? Answer to the second question: the same reason this subject comes up over and over. It isn't just that Jyhad players have a perverse desire to punish deceased ponies. There really is a small ambiguity. USUALLY, in our language a "continual capability" is announced in a pretty clear way ("During Happy Hour, all beers cost 1$.") - but not always. The way we talk about "proper English" sometimes, you'd think it wasn't just a collection of mispronounced French words tied together using poorly understood French grammar. Fred

In message <41818a0b$0$15842$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> a écrit dans le message de >news:opsglf0a...@news.chello.hu... >> >> Semantic pondering: >> >> Q: Are there five Gehenna cards in play? >> A: Yes, there are. There are six Gehenna cards in play. >> >> Q: How many Gehenna cards are in play? >> A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. >> >> Q: Are there five, or six Gehenna cards in play? >> A: There are five Gehenna cards in play. > >I totally agree with you and regret the poor wording choice on Muktar, as >well as several other cards. Except that in English, it is the correct (albeit brief) wording. (Assume that the following Gehenna cards are in play: The Slow Withering, Absimilard's Army, Nightmares upon Nightmares, The Unmasking, Becoming of Ennoia, Thirst. This totals six. ...Further assume that the players have not thrown their hands up in the air and walked away from the completely wrecked game yet, given those particular events.) The following statements are TRUE: 1. There are five Gehenna cards in play. 2. There are at least five Gehenna cards in play. 3. There are some Gehenna cards in play. 4. There are six Gehenna cards in play. The following statements are FALSE: 1. There are exactly five Gehenna cards in play. 2. There are only five Gehenna cards in play. 3. Five Gehenna cards are not in play. The clearest wording for Mukhtar would have been to use the "at least" terminology. However, the current wording is shorter while remaining equally accurate. When space is at a premium, sometimes niceties must be left by the wayside -- unless you'd like to see more cards like Fata Amria printed? -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:jmj3o0tpu4brkjluj...@4ax.com... > The clearest wording for Mukhtar would have been to use the "at least" > terminology. However, the current wording is shorter while remaining > equally accurate. When space is at a premium, sometimes niceties must > be left by the wayside -- unless you'd like to see more cards like Fata > Amria printed? There are many cards where the wording is at the same time quite bad and interpreted in a robotic way in term of rules (guard duty, abandoning the flesh) so they are not playable, i don't understand why we should see "At least" when there is none here.

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:iiggd.508$ni...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... > >>If there are six Gehenna cards in play, there are five as well (plus > >>one). In fact, Mukhtar doesn't want to say "exactly" five, but "at > >>least" five, imho. > > > > ummm.. no... the text says if there are five in pay. please point out > > this "at least" that he supposedly wants on his card. > > > > You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna cards > equals any number between 1 and 6. > > By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get > around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals more > than 5. the problem is : why *assume* things in the case of Mukhtar's card text where other cards tell you not to assume anything ? -_-;

>> You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna > cards equals any number between 1 and 6. >> >> By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get >> around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals >> more than 5. > > the problem is : why *assume* things in the case of Mukhtar's card text > where other cards tell you not to assume anything ? -_-; > Simply because its obvious what the card means. I don't think anyone can really argue that. Saying that having 6 gehenna cards already in play before Mukhtar himself comes into play ignores his card text is wrong. Its using the letter of the card to defeat the spirit of the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:12:14 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [snip] >(Assume that the following Gehenna cards are in play: The Slow >Withering, Absimilard's Army, Nightmares upon Nightmares, The Unmasking, >Becoming of Ennoia, Thirst. This totals six. ...Further assume that >the players have not thrown their hands up in the air and walked away >from the completely wrecked game yet, given those particular events.) [snip] >The following statements are FALSE: > >1. There are exactly five Gehenna cards in play. >2. There are only five Gehenna cards in play. >3. Five Gehenna cards are not in play. can i dispute 3.? i could name 5 gehenna cards that weren't in play: Veil of darkness anthelios conquest of humanity wormwood the new inquisition 3. does not state 'exactly 5 gehenna cards are not in play' or 'at most 5 gehenna cards are not in play' or any of that. ok, now i am left wondering what my objection actually helps with. and my conclusion is nothing. but still, go pedants! salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:OXmgd.21$2J...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... > >> You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna > > cards equals any number between 1 and 6. > >> > >> By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get > >> around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals > >> more than 5. > > > > the problem is : why *assume* things in the case of Mukhtar's card text > > where other cards tell you not to assume anything ? -_-; > > > > Simply because its obvious what the card means. I don't think anyone can > really argue that. since i heard the question at least 3 times from 3 different playgroups, i don't think it is so obvious. there is a wording issue, even if your logic is not to blame. > Saying that having 6 gehenna cards already in play before Mukhtar himself > comes into play ignores his card text is wrong. Its using the letter of the > card to defeat the spirit of the card. i can't understand why. the spirit of the card is not as clear as you say it is. and if it is the case, then some cards have been designed not to be played at all.

In message <4181e932$0$14620$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de [ quoted text not captured ] Because the statement is true, even without adding "at least". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <7cv3o09fdg6f37vrg...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:12:14 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >scrawled: >>3. Five Gehenna cards are not in play. > >can i dispute 3.? > >i could name 5 gehenna cards that weren't in play: So you can. >Veil of darkness >anthelios >conquest of humanity >wormwood >the new inquisition > >3. does not state 'exactly 5 gehenna cards are not in play' or 'at >most 5 gehenna cards are not in play' or any of that. Point taken, and actually serves to illustrate the original point even more -- 3. didn't say "At least" Five Gehenna cards are not in play, it didn't say "No more than five" Gehenna cards are in play. It's a remarkably stilted wording of English, but read literally (as all cards are), it says exactly what it says. (I was scraping for a third example to use that was at least somewhat ambiguous; negatives are harder to be vague with). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <iiggd.508$ni...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, "Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> mumbled something about: >>>If there are six Gehenna cards in play, there are five as well (plus >>>one). In fact, Mukhtar doesn't want to say "exactly" five, but "at >>>least" five, imho. >> >> ummm.. no... the text says if there are five in pay. please point out >> this "at least" that he supposedly wants on his card. > >You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna cards >equals any number between 1 and 6. Not true. 6 equals 6. A set of 6, however, includes a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. >By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get >around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals more >than 5. Please don't try to continue this line of argument any further; you're distorting the issue and misleading people. There's no assumption, there's no letter-of-intent on the card, there's simply what the card says. Assuming that 5 equals more than 5 is patently ridiculous. However, assuming that because there are 5, there are NOT 6 is ALSO patently ridiculous, and is the entire point of the argument. And it is simple math to say that if there are 6, there are also 5 and 1. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4181e932$0$14620$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] But I don't understand why you see "exactly" when there is none there. You don't have to see "at least"; you just need to avoid seeing "exactly". You cannot have 6 X without having 5 X too. There's no "at least" needed. "One ticket, please." "That'll be $5." "Uh oh! I have $6!" <rips one up> "There you go." Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:52:59 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:15:54 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Some phrases have underlying rulings, clarifications, implications, etc. > > And some do not need it. > > For example, I control two ready Brujah. > My predator used Ranjan Rishi to bleed me. > Does Ranjan get +1 bleed? No, he gets +2 (+1 each for the 2 Brujah). But everyone knows that, right? This was a joke, by the way. > Given how confusing you think this is, it's surprising that the question > hasn't been asked more often (say, at all) in the years since Ranjan has > appeared. Allow me to expand on your example. And believe me, I feel extremely silly arguing english semantics with a native speaker, myself not being one. Ranjan Rishi, Camarilla Scholar [DS:V, CE:PV] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Ventrue Group: 2 Capacity: 5 Discipline: for DOM PRE Camarilla: Ranjan gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Brujah. How would changing his text to be more in line with Mukhtar's (switching the indefinite article with a numeral) cause confusion? Camarilla: Ranjan gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls one ready Brujah. I'm curious. I think you know the answer. ;) >> The phrase "during X do Y" is, to most, intuitively a constraint in >> timing >> alone and not repetition. Yet it means not entirely what it means. ;) > > This expired equine has already been pummeled. I'm a big champion of necroequestripugilism, didn't you know? > The statement "During your lunch hour, you get a free ice cream." means, > to most, that you get a free ice cream only once during each lunch hour. > See google for more -- I'll not be spending any additional time on this > one. Sure. And few folks would think that "During your lunch hour, you can buy icecream." means that you can only buy ONE icecream. Yes, see the other replies on this matter. You may say that you have a firm position in assessing the meaning of this phrase, but AFAIK you're not a linguist any more than the rest of the posters, which leaves the common sense part - and since the phrase is, in practice, widely used for the "time constraint only" meaning, the ambiguity is undeniable. This is where the rulings come in. (By the way, there would not have been any necessity for a ruling were the phrase not ambiguous.) The ruling says, this is how we interpret it, and we mean this when designing cards. No more needs to be said, basically, as for VTES the phrase is defined. >>>> Especially since most cards use "or more" type phrases. I guess this >>>> is >>>> quite similar to the issue I had with Telepathic Tracking. >>> >>> Ah. If you can't be verbose on all cards, then you should be verbose on >>> no cards -- all cards should get by with as few clarifying phrases >>> as possible. >> >> If you must put it this way... Yes. > > You are in a severe minority, I think (and I hope). There are two different issues here, both relevant to the case. There is the logical issue and there is the language issue. The logical issue says that since the prime requirement for card texts is clarity, different texts will probably mean different things. If you strive for brevity, then you will do so on all cards to avoid the confusion. If something needs to be clarified, then clarify it on all cards or no card (and supply the rulebook or rulings). Kind of like saying "Strike: Steal 2 Blood" on one card, and saying "Strike: Steal 2 Blood. The blood lost due to this steal blood strike cannot be prevented." Both are correct, and both can be used separately, but seeing the two cards together creates confusion. The language issue kind of enhances this problem. Players in some countries may be native english speakers, but the rest of the world only speaks english as a secondary (tertiary, etc.) language. In fact, a lot of players do not speak english at all (except for the RPG/CCG jargon). So if the "minority" refers to the part of the world which does not speak english as a primary language, then yes, I'm possibly representing a minority here... ;) > When text can be clarified in-line (i.e., when card space allows clearer > verbiage), then the clearer verbiage should be used. -- Bye, Daneel

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna >>cards >>equals any number between 1 and 6. > > Not true. 6 equals 6. > > A set of 6, however, includes a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Yes, 6 does equal 6. However in relation to this discussion, 6 gehenna cards in play would also trigger Mukhtar's card text, just as 5 would. > >>By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get >>around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals >>more >>than 5. > > Please don't try to continue this line of argument any further; you're > distorting the issue and misleading people. There's no assumption, > there's no letter-of-intent on the card, there's simply what the card > says. What? I'm not distorting nor misleading anything here. If there are 6 gehenna cards in play, there are also 5, and thats the point here. > > Assuming that 5 equals more than 5 is patently ridiculous. Why? > > However, assuming that because there are 5, there are NOT 6 is ALSO > patently ridiculous, and is the entire point of the argument. And it is > simple math to say that if there are 6, there are also 5 and 1. Then I'm confused, because that is the argument as I read this thread. That if there are 6 gehenna cards in play, it somehow bypasses the card text on the vampire? It doesn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:15:54 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Some phrases have underlying rulings, clarifications, implications, etc. > > > And some do not need it. > > For example, I control two ready Brujah. > My predator used Ranjan Rishi to bleed me. > Does Ranjan get +1 bleed? > > Given how confusing you think this is, it's surprising that the question > hasn't been asked more often (say, at all) in the years since Ranjan has > appeared. > >> The phrase "during X do Y" is, to most, intuitively a constraint in >> timing >> alone and not repetition. Yet it means not entirely what it means. ;) > > > This expired equine has already been pummeled. > > The statement "During your lunch hour, you get a free ice cream." means, > to most, that you get a free ice cream only once during each lunch hour. If you omit the article 'a' and simply state "During your lunch hour, you get free ice cream", I think most people read you can get an indefinite amount of ice cream (because English has no partitive article indicating an indefinite amount anyway). Also, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_article) I got this example: >> H.S. Wall, a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, once said that in a mathematical proof, the little words are important, and illustrated it with the statement I have a son ***which he noted does not necessarily mean that he has only one son.*** << Flux

In message <Dosgd.1386$2J6....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, "Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>You don't need it. As has been pointed out its obvious that 6 gehenna >>>cards >>>equals any number between 1 and 6. >> >> Not true. 6 equals 6. >> >> A set of 6, however, includes a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. > >Yes, 6 does equal 6. However in relation to this discussion, 6 gehenna cards >in play would also trigger Mukhtar's card text, just as 5 would. Because the set of 6 includes the set of 5. This does not mean that 6 equals any number between 1 and 6. >>>By saying that 6 gehenna cards does not count as 5, you are trying to get >>>around the intent of the card. Its logical to assume that 5 also equals >>>more >>>than 5. >> >> Please don't try to continue this line of argument any further; you're >> distorting the issue and misleading people. There's no assumption, >> there's no letter-of-intent on the card, there's simply what the card >> says. > >What? I'm not distorting nor misleading anything here. In discusing an issue with others and, as part of that discussion, trying to explain why it's important to read things literally in order to AVOID semantic issues, it is very misleading and distorting to say things like: "It's logical to assume that 5 also equals more than 5." Read literally, that sentence is nonsense. How will you convince people to read things literally this way? >If there are 6 gehenna cards in play, there are also 5, and thats the point >here. >> >> Assuming that 5 equals more than 5 is patently ridiculous. > >Why? Because 5 == 5, and 5 != 6. You're looking for the concept "the set of six includes the set of five", which is NOT described by equals. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsgmxb4...@news.chello.hu... > Camarilla: Ranjan gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a > ready Brujah. > > How would changing his text to be more in line with Mukhtar's (switching > the > indefinite article with a numeral) cause confusion? > > Camarilla: Ranjan gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls > one ready Brujah. It would not change the functionality at all. "a Brujah" = "one Brujah". -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:2uf8u1F...@uni-berlin.de... > LSJ wrote: > > The statement "During your lunch hour, you get a free ice cream." means, > > to most, that you get a free ice cream only once during each lunch hour. > > If you omit the article 'a' and simply state "During your lunch hour, you > get free ice cream", I think most people read you can get an indefinite > amount of ice cream (because English has no partitive article indicating an > indefinite amount anyway). You've made use of the fact that "ice cream" can be used as an uncountable noun and as a plural countable. Dropping the 'a' switches from the latter usage to the former. Try "candy bar" instead, to maintain usage. > Also, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_article) I got > this example: > > >> > H.S. Wall, a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, once said > that in a mathematical proof, the little words are important, and > illustrated it with the statement > > I have a son > > ***which he noted does not necessarily mean that he has only one son.*** > << That conforms to the point, yes. Note the introduction of the word "only" there to change from "I have one son" (I may have more) to "I have only one son" (I don't have more). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:OXmgd.21$2J...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... > Saying that having 6 gehenna cards already in play before Mukhtar himself > comes into play ignores his card text is wrong. Its using the letter of the > card to defeat the spirit of the card. It's *attempting* to use the letter of the card in such a fashion. The attempt fails, however, since the letter of the card supports the spirit. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:19:39 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsgmxb4...@news.chello.hu... >> Camarilla: Ranjan gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls >> one ready Brujah. > > It would not change the functionality at all. > > "a Brujah" = "one Brujah". Indeed. But it would raise the confusion ratio to match that of the more problematic issues (like the "during..." stuff). If you wish to design an untranslated card game for multiple language markets, you might wish to do so. You might also consider publishing the pieces "My version of the English Language" and "My version of Objective Logic" and advertise them in the upcoming rulebooks. -- Best Regards, Daneel

>> Saying that having 6 gehenna cards already in play before Mukhtar himself >> comes into play ignores his card text is wrong. Its using the letter of > the >> card to defeat the spirit of the card. > > > It's *attempting* to use the letter of the card in such a fashion. > The attempt fails, however, since the letter of the card supports the > spirit. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Exactlly, that was my point throughout all this. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2umrptF...@uni-berlin.de... > > H.S. Wall, a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, once > said > > that in a mathematical proof, the little words are important, and > > illustrated it with the statement > > > > I have a son > > > > ***which he noted does not necessarily mean that he has only one son.*** > > << > > That conforms to the point, yes. Note the introduction of the word > "only" there to change from "I have one son" (I may have more) to "I > have only one son" (I don't have more). note the introduction of the locution "or more" in the innocuous example below : During your untap phase, if there are 5 OR MORE gehenna cards in play, burn Mukthar Bey.

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:418753f3$0$22386$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net... > note the introduction of the locution "or more" in the innocuous example > below : > > During your untap phase, if there are 5 OR MORE gehenna cards in play, burn > Mukthar Bey. Note that this has already been covered. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:25 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:418753f3$0$22386$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net... >> note the introduction of the locution "or more" in the innocuous example >> below : >> >> During your untap phase, if there are 5 OR MORE gehenna cards in play, >burn >> Mukthar Bey. > > >Note that this has already been covered. and does a good job of rendering the vamp useless... considering the number of vamps that have been released since Jyhad first came out.. it's rather telling that at most, there are less than 2 dozen that get used...

In message <fqrno0tp3ql3greak...@4ax.com>, Blackheart <le...@leech.com> writes: >considering the number of vamps that have been released since Jyhad >first came out.. it's rather telling that at most, there are less than >2 dozen that get used... Demonstrably not true - the tournament winning deck archive, for a start. Certainly, there are some very popular vampires which will show up in a lot of decks devoted to e.g. their clan (Arika, say, in a big Ventrue deck) or that archetype (Jimmy Dunn in various forms of combat), and so on. But there are a wide and various scattering of vampires to be found all over the place. Indeed, in situations where it is only 2 dozen that get used, assuming each Methuselah on a 5 player table brings out 3, you have a *lot* of contestation possibilities. (Birthday Paradox maths fun, if you care to investigate the odds.) In which case, picking the less obviously popular vampires has a less obvious benefit than the vampire would originally show. Also, some vampires make very good "single vampire" possibilities. The Fatima multi-rush deck, say, or the Turbo-Arika deck. These vampires are the ones that tend to stick in people's memories - very much "signature" vampires. Additionally, I don't see any reason why all vampires should be equally played. Some very niche vampires lurk around who are incredibly useful when you need them in a deck, though you wouldn't necessarily use them much anywhere else. And a fair few of the Bloodlines vampires are good for spicing up other decks. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.