Jyhad_addict wrote:
> So, i have finaly come up with a final reccomendation for a small
> addition to the mandatory action rule, that is going to improve things
> in my humble opinion.
>
> (note that this is the final thread i create for this topic, so no
> need to get mean again Derek and try to offend me)
>
> This small addition to the rule, that i am suggesting, has the
> purpose of allowing a minion with 2+ lunatic eruptions on him (or 2+
> cards on him with each one forcing the minion to do an action, that is
> meant to and indeed does have exactly the same effect with the
> others) to actualy be able to take an action and not get stuck.
>
> So, the minion will not get stuck, take a mandatory action and if
> by any means untaps, he is forced to take another mandatory action. If
> he is not able due to the NRA rule, then he is allowed to act as
> normal, exactly as when a minion wearing 1 lunatic eruption untaps due
> to Majesty. NRA does not allow him to enter combat via the same LE
> again, so the minion is free to act as normal as LSJ has wisely ruled
> before.
>
>
> The existing rules for mandatory actions at the CE rulebook, section
> 6: Minion phase, page 20 state the following:
>
> "If a single minion has two or more different mandatory actions, then
> he is "stuck" and cannot take any action (this doesn't prevent your
> other minions from taking non-mandatory actions, however)"
>
> So, my final suggestion is to add directly under this a sentence-rule
> with the following text:
>
> "If all the different mandatory actions mean to and are going to
> produce the exact same effect, then he is not stuck and must take the
> actions"
>
> Simple and to the point in my opinion...
>
> But what counts more than my opinion is your opinion and what LSJ
> says.
>
> These are welcome as any other comment you may have that concerns this
> subject.
This looks a great deal like the post I just responded to in the
other thread, so I refer you to that response.
--
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/
On 11 Nov 2004 04:02:06 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict)
scrawled:
>normal, exactly as when a minion wearing 1 lunatic eruption untaps due
>to Majesty. NRA does not allow him to enter combat via the same LE
>again, so the minion is free to act as normal as LSJ has wisely ruled
>before.
It's not the NRA rule preventing him from re-using the Lunatic
Eruption that allows him to act normally. It's the fact that for that
turn, the minion has satisfied Lunatic Eruption's requirement that he
attack someone. So when he ends up untapped, you check 'has he
attacked someone like LE asked? yes. fine, go off and do what you
want'
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
news:c6a50f81.04111...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> So, initialy trying to make a point, i used this terminology
> without knowing what it realy was ruled to mean in the game. I used
> the "same action" term as you use it in your everyday life, without
> having knowledge of the whole "same action" terminology story. Thus,
> what i wanted to say was completely misunderstood and there is none to
> blame for this.
>
> Thus, i ask for your understanding in future discussions/postings
> and when you believe that i am unaware of a detail, rule or certain
> special terminology, please explain this to me or tell me where to
> look. I am sure that this occurences will be very few, as i am sure i
> am aware of the 95% of the current rules, clarifications, errata,
> rulings, migrations, e.t.c.
Will do.
[...]
> I realize that i may have spent some of your time, or even bored
> you or pissed you off with my tenacity and postings, but sometimes it
> is better to give the chance to a person (like me in this case) to
> dissagree and state his point of view, even when you believe that he
> is completely wrong or irrational.
My time here is part of the duties as Net.Rep., so it is yours to spend
(at least as long as I'm answering. If I stop answering a given
thread, you'll know that you're overdrawn at the LSJ Time Bank :-).
[...]
--
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 <bqs8p0dnapunfvgtv...@4ax.com>, salem
<salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>It's the fact that for that
>turn, the minion has satisfied Lunatic Eruption's requirement that he
>attack someone. So when he ends up untapped, you check 'has he
>attacked someone like LE asked? yes. fine, go off and do what you
>want'
IIRC, this first came to light on here when I pointed out Lunatic
Eruption used a "During X, do Y" formulation which means *ONCE* during
X, do Y.
This makes it a little easier to glean from card text.
--
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.
>
> This looks a great deal like the post I just responded to in the
> other thread, so I refer you to that response.
I've read your post.
So, ending this discussion, i want to say that in my opinion if a
formulation of this kind was used (mean to and are going to produce
the exact same effect), then the outcome would be clear and
acceptable, but i am not sure because English is not my native
language.
However what i understand is that the formulation of the new
addition/rule, i have been suggesting, is not the real obstacle as you
could be able to easily find a proper one. The real obstacle is that
in your opinion there is no need for a "fix" to the effect produced by
2+ lunatic eruptions on the same minion, opinion that is respected and
accepted.
When i say "same effect" i mean that all the different options
given by the mandatory actions must result in a single effect and not
to different effects (condition checked once, before attempting the
actions and not during).
e.g. all actions must have the same cost, the same inherent stealth,
the same conditions (e.g. according to what i had in mind, "enter
combat with a minion controlled by your prey" MEAN TO produce a
different effect than "enter combat with a ready minion", in other
cases the MEAN TO condition, makes sure that "It is not possible a
different effect to be produced" and maybe that should have replace
the "mean to and are to" condition i used in my suggestion.
Anyway, all these belong to the past, my intention is not to
further discuss the matter, but to end the discussion and say some
more general things about how i believe discussion should be conducted
in this group.
As you can understand, English is not my native language and i
can't always express my "intentions" clearly. I don't think i am the
only one in here with this kind of problem. So, maybe sometimes the
words i use lead the reader to different assumptions from those i
wanted to point out.
Additionaly, i have just completed 2 full years of involvement with
Vtes and almost everyday play. In these 2 years i have gathered a lot
of cards, experience and i have learned a lot of rules, errata,
clarifications. Maybe more than other guys, who are in the game for
over 5-6 years, know. But i can't know every rule in the game. E.g. i
knew exactly how NRA works, meaning i know what NRA allows and what it
prohibits. But i never knew that there was a discussion about the
"same action" terminology and the problems that come when a such a
terminology is used.
So, initialy trying to make a point, i used this terminology
without knowing what it realy was ruled to mean in the game. I used
the "same action" term as you use it in your everyday life, without
having knowledge of the whole "same action" terminology story. Thus,
what i wanted to say was completely misunderstood and there is none to
blame for this.
Thus, i ask for your understanding in future discussions/postings
and when you believe that i am unaware of a detail, rule or certain
special terminology, please explain this to me or tell me where to
look. I am sure that this occurences will be very few, as i am sure i
am aware of the 95% of the current rules, clarifications, errata,
rulings, migrations, e.t.c.
I can understand that for the time being, the only real problem
(always in my opinion) is with 2+ Lunatic Eruptions, (originaly i
thought that there was a stuck-minion-occurence with 2+ XTC laced
blood, too. Then you explained to me that this is not what happens
with 2+ XTC LB and why, so i understand that there is no real need for
a new rule, or an addition to the new rule that deals with a minion
having 2+ mandatory actions.
Maybe there will be a need in the future if you release more cards
that give minions mandatory actions, that can be put multiple times on
a minion.
But this can be avoided if you pay the required attention to any new
mandatory-action-enforcing cards you release, which i am sure is
exactly what you do anyway for the 99% of all cases (i judge from the
past 4 years).
Finaly, thanks for all the time you spend on this subject by
answering my posts and disagreeing with me, your point of view is
accepted and respected by me, this time and always.
I realize that i may have spent some of your time, or even bored
you or pissed you off with my tenacity and postings, but sometimes it
is better to give the chance to a person (like me in this case) to
dissagree and state his point of view, even when you believe that he
is completely wrong or irrational.
Giving him the chance to do so, can lead to him learning certain
things and finaly agree with you, which is what happened with me in
this case. As i have learned some new things i wasn't aware of and i
finaly have come around to agree with you, that practicaly there is no
real need for a new rule or addition to the existing rule.
Mainly because that would uneccesarily lead to even more rules /
errata / clarifications / e.t.c. that are already too many and are the
greatest disadvatage (in my opinion) of the current best CCG.
This chance wasn't given to me by Derek, who was very fast to
offend me like some time ago in the "Deals" thread. I don't know what
is wrong with this guy, but i believe he should learn that we are here
to discuss and discussion leads to different opinions. That should be
acceptable, as every person has a right to agree, disagree and state
his opinion. One must be able to do so without having to deal with
offensive behaviours like Derek's.
Discussion, as i have mentioned above, many times leads to
disagreement. However it should not lead to one offendind the other,
So as long as Derek keeps offending me, while i just state my view of
a subject, i will keep offending him (i can't help it and not respond)
and thus we'll both keep spoiling the nice "spirit" of the group.
Ending i want to point out, that there is nothing wrong with
conducting polls, when people posting in a "poll thread" just vote and
say only a few things on which their vote was based, without making
repeated posts or long discussions. In this way, all the people in the
group that are concerned on a certain subject can learn what is the
opinion of the others and on what they base their opinion, just with a
quick browse in the poll thread.
I can understand that voting do not engourage discussion in that
particular thread, but can largely encourage discussion on a different
thread "open" at the same time and even make the discussion in that
thread faster and more efficient. Because each one participating,
would know (by conducting a fast browse in the poll thread) which are
the main arguments of the people agreeing with him and which of those
that disagree with him. Thus discussion would be more efficient and
would get faster to the point.
Of course, Polls should not be a regular occurence and the number
of them should be kept at a certain level. This is what i think.
G.T. (jyhad addict)
salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bqs8p0dnapunfvgtv...@4ax.com>...
> On 11 Nov 2004 04:02:06 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict)
> scrawled:
>
> >normal, exactly as when a minion wearing 1 lunatic eruption untaps due
> >to Majesty. NRA does not allow him to enter combat via the same LE
> >again, so the minion is free to act as normal as LSJ has wisely ruled
> >before.
>
> It's not the NRA rule preventing him from re-using the Lunatic
> Eruption that allows him to act normally. It's the fact that for that
> turn, the minion has satisfied Lunatic Eruption's requirement that he
> attack someone. So when he ends up untapped, you check 'has he
> attacked someone like LE asked? yes. fine, go off and do what you
> want'
>
you are right, thanks for the clarification.