OK, to bring everybody up to speed:
Out-of-Turn Masters are described as follows in the original rules:
[7.2.1] "Master Cards"
"Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play whenever appropriate in lieu of
your next master phase (see Master Phase, p. 19) for the next round of
play."
[13] "WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOU TURN"
[13.1] "Playing Out-of-turn Cards"
"See section 7.2.1"
Out-of-turn is defined (in these rules) as whenever appropriate, and by
Webster as "not in the proper sequence or order."
However, some people (including the Design Team) don't see it as clearly
as this.
They get hung up on the fact that out-of-turn includes the word "Turn", and
that is is allowable to play one when it is not your turn. This combination,
somehow, leads to the conclusion that you cannot play one on your own turn,
when such is simply not part of the original rules.
The fact that it contains the word "turn" is trampled by the fact that
"out-of-turn" is defined as whenever appropriate.
DT:
You can't play one on your own turn for the sole reason that you *can*
play one when it is not your turn.
The corrected rules describe Out-of-turn Masters as follows:
[7.2.1] "Master Cards"
"Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn;
however, if you play an out-of-turn card, you must sacrifice your master
phase (see Master Phase, Sec. 12.2) for the next round of play."
(Section 13. reads the same on the subject).
They almost made it unambiguous - although contrary to the original rules.
This change was based on the fact that Out-of-turn was described [13.1] as
something you could do when it is not your turn.
(Arguments on the above may be found in this newsgroup, please do not
repost what has already gone before - though new thought is welcome.
I'm sure I've seen too many "Everybody knows what a turn is" posts).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to the point:
*If* 13.1 is an argument as to why you can't play Master-Out-of-Turn cards on
your own turn (and I haven't seen a personality who argued the point without
ever stating that 13.1 made a valid argument)...
(If it is not - please do not argue why it is not. That is not the point of
this post).
... then, you also may not even attempt to block any action taken by a
Malkavian on your turn via the Madness Network.
Malkavian Madness Network:
After any Methuselah has finished with action during his or her turn,
any untapped Malkavian can take an action. Any minion can burn this
card with an action that any untapped Malkavian can attempt to block.
Go clockwise from the acting Methuselah if two or more Malkavians
attempt to take actions or block at the same time.
[13] "WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOU TURN"
[13.2] "Blocking an Action"
Since you can block when it is not your turn, then by the above logic, you
cannot block when it is your turn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time.
-----
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu)
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rules Monger.
In article <3mmmg2$8...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>... then, you also may not even attempt to block any action taken by a
>Malkavian on your turn via the Madness Network.
>>[13] "WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOU TURN"
>[13.2] "Blocking an Action"
>
>Since you can block when it is not your turn, then by the above logic, you
>cannot block when it is your turn.
I'm not addressing the out of turn issue (I'm outta that one,
thank you), but I think you make yet another excellent point on why the
MN is a broken card. This fact you mention comes from the poorly worded
effect generated by the MN. The MN breaks so many fundamental rules as
written that it cannot help but cause problems. I'd hate to see someone
who took it literally and said "since the MN doesn't say you can block
on your turn, you can't, so my +10 bleed gets through automatically."
That is something that we all agree is counter to the game's purposes (I
hope). If the card were worded differently, it would work fine. But
not enough thought went into it.
Fix the MN!
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
Peace Scott,
> Out-of-Turn Masters are described as follows in the original rules:
>
> [7.2.1] "Master Cards"
> "Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play whenever appropriate in lieu of
> your next master phase (see Master Phase, p. 19) for the next round of
> play."> The correct [sic] rules describe Out-of-turn Masters as follows:>
> [7.2.1] "Master Cards"
> "Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn;
> however, if you play an out-of-turn card, you must sacrifice your master
> phase (see Master Phase, Sec. 12.2) for the next round of play."> They almost made it unambiguous - although contrary to the original rules.
How is 7.2.1 "almost . . . unambiguous?" The revised rules aren't contrary
to the original rules. The are contrary to your interpretation of the original
rules.
> This change was based on the fact that Out-of-turn was described [13.1] as> something you could do when it is not your turn.
Pure speculation, unless you have evidence that I haven't seen, councelor (sp).
> Now, to the point:
Like there really is one. 8^)
> *If* 13.1 is an argument as to why you can't play Master-Out-of-Turn cards on
> your own turn (and I haven't seen a personality who argued the point without
> ever stating that 13.1 made a valid argument)...
Look again, Scott. My 'argument' has always been that it was blatantly obvious
to me that Out of Turn was _always_ intended to be played the way the revised
rules clarify them to be played [if this sentense makes sense]. I do not believe
that I have ever refered to 13.1 only to 7.2.1 and to the card itself.
[attempt to prove that p -> q therefore q -> p elided]
Scott, why can't you accept the fact that the MadNet is a very powerful
card and that it allows things that are "very unusual" to occur. A Malk
using MadNet may not use action cards, may use action mods, and the player
who's turn is interrupted may not play reaction cards. Yes, it is very
nasty, but even if the Malk player is going to use it to bleed you during
your turn, you will have _at least_ one full minion phase to destroy the
MadNet before it can "really affect" you [by "really affect" I mean that
the MadNet is most powerful when used during your prey's turn (since s/h/it
cannot block)]. If you can't destroy the MadNet, who's fault is that?
It's not like we're talking Gangrels and AoRs here! 8^)
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Out-of-turn is defined (in these rules) as whenever appropriate, and by
>Webster as "not in the proper sequence or order."
We defined "out of turn" as "not during your turn". What Webster does or
doesn't say about the meaning of "out of turn" is irrelevant. While it
can certainly be argued that we should refer to Webster to avoid choosing
confusing game terminology, we decide what the terms we pick do
or don't mean.
>...This combination,>somehow, leads to the conclusion that you cannot play one on your own turn,
>when such is simply not part of the original rules.
It should have been, which is why it appears in the corrected rules.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>Out-of-turn is defined (in these rules) as whenever appropriate, and by
>>Webster as "not in the proper sequence or order.">We defined "out of turn" as "not during your turn". What Webster does or
>doesn't say about the meaning of "out of turn" is irrelevant. While it
>can certainly be argued that we should refer to Webster to avoid choosing
>confusing game terminology, we decide what the terms we pick do
>or don't mean.
Then you should have made your definition public in the first place,
instead of publishing a definition that agreed with Webster's.
That you have subsequently re-definined Out-of-Turn is irrelevent to
the fact that the original definition was a better one.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>We defined "out of turn" as "not during your turn". What Webster does or
>doesn't say about the meaning of "out of turn" is irrelevant. While it
>can certainly be argued that we should refer to Webster to avoid choosing
>confusing game terminology, we decide what the terms we pick do
>or don't mean.
This has been my point all along. If you'd called them "usable on
Tuesday" cards, it would be bad, but "Out of Turn" is a good enough
generic name that no one should jump to any conclusion from just the
name.
Most of the conclusion-jumpers assume the name means you can't play
it during your turn. The whole dictionary argument is mostly to refute
that by saying, "if you really want to go by the name of the card, which
is a bad idea, it means 'not during your Master phase.' So stop it."
>>...This combination,
>>somehow, leads to the conclusion that you cannot play one on your own turn,
>>when such is simply not part of the original rules.>It should have been, which is why it appears in the corrected rules.
I'm sincerely interested to know if out-of-turn masters really were
initially intended to be played only on someone else's turn. Did anyone
care one way or another? Did someone actually decide not-on-your-turn
and forget? Or did they later realize on-your-turn was a problem and
change it?
There's no mention at all in the first draft of the rules about not
playing them on your turn. I'd think the second draft would just add the
sentence (which is a common form elsewhere in the rules) "Out-of-Turn
master cards may only be played on another Methuselah's turn." Instead,
the corrected draft reads worse in that section than the first one.
It looks a lot like parts of my thesis after I've rewritten it 6
times and realized the entire section is crap and needs to be done again
from scratch. I know how hard it is to proof something you've read a dozen
times before is -- even to proof for gramatical correctness and spelling.
It looks like it was just rewritten until someone saw "Hey, we sort
of just wrote that you can't play them during your turn. What do you think?"