Orun and votes

Text of Orun: > Put this card on a Laibon. For non-Orun cards played by > Methuselahs other than this Laibon's controller, this Laibon > is considered to have 2 additional capacity. A Laibon gets > an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has. If this > Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully > performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or > she burns one Orun. Burn this card if this Laibon has more > Orun and Aye than his or her capacity. Does each copy of Orun on that Laibon grant an additional vote? Why or why not? - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default. Further, Orun has already been ruled to stack here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61d58c166c560ea7?dmode=source

<gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1144370268.3...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Ben Peal wrote: >> Text of Orun: >> > Put this card on a Laibon. For non-Orun cards played by >> > Methuselahs other than this Laibon's controller, this Laibon >> > is considered to have 2 additional capacity. A Laibon gets >> > an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has. If this >> > Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully >> > performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or >> > she burns one Orun. Burn this card if this Laibon has more >> > Orun and Aye than his or her capacity. >> >> Does each copy of Orun on that Laibon grant an additional >> vote? Why or why not? >> >> >> - Ben Peal > > Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default. Er? All cards stack by default. But "every three Orun" has a pretty clear meaning: one vote for three Orun. If you wanted a second 'nother vote, you'd have to have six Orun cards. Fred, permanent citizen of the state of confusion

> Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default. > Further, Orun has already been ruled to stack here: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61d58c166c560ea7?dmode=source That URL refers to a topic about Orun and Wormwood. From what I can tell it doesn't address the votes from Orun at all. My guess to Ben's question is that each individual Orun does not separately grant a vote. It looks like the intent of the card was to give you 1 vote for every 3 copies as a bulk some. Of course, a literal interpretation of text could lead to the opposite conclusion, granting the vampire votes as follows. Orun Votes 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 12 7 14 And so on. But that just doesn't seem right. In any case, I hope it's not right.

CthuluKitty wrote: > > Yes (assuming they have 3-5 Orun on them). All cards stack by default. > > Further, Orun has already been ruled to stack here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61d58c166c560ea7?dmode=source > > That URL refers to a topic about Orun and Wormwood. From what I can > tell it doesn't address the votes from Orun at all. > Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each* trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text? > My guess to Ben's question is that each individual Orun does not > separately grant a vote. It looks like the intent of the card was to > give you 1 vote for every 3 copies as a bulk some. But card text differs, and no errata have been issued. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Even if you go with the literal interpretation of the card text, is that even good? Is it worth it to throw 6-9 copies of Orun into your deck? - Ben Peal

In message <1144373381.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: >Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling >includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each* >trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different >sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text? Erm, because there's specific text. The card text for the bonus capacity doesn't have text specifying that the bonus is for every three copies of the card. The votes do. Why do you think that text saying "for every three Orun he or she has" is not different from the preceding sentence? You know, what with that text not occurring in the previous sentence at all. It's fairly trivially a case of "Oh look, I have these three Orun over here. 1 vote. Another 3 Orun over here, 1 vote. Can I use 4 Orun to get 4 votes? No, because these three cards notice they're being used to grant a vote and this one is left over." Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have different wording, I guess. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1144373381.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: >>Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling >>includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each* >>trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different >>sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text? > > Erm, because there's specific text. > > The card text for the bonus capacity doesn't have text specifying that > the bonus is for every three copies of the card. The votes do. > > Why do you think that text saying "for every three Orun he or she has" > is not different from the preceding sentence? You know, what with that > text not occurring in the previous sentence at all. > > It's fairly trivially a case of "Oh look, I have these three Orun over > here. 1 vote. Another 3 Orun over here, 1 vote. Can I use 4 Orun to > get 4 votes? No, because these three cards notice they're being used to > grant a vote and this one is left over." > > Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have > different wording, I guess. I'm with James. The wording is 'this laibon gets' vs 'A laibon gets'. The latter seeming to be not so stackey as the former. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Aye and Orun suck. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If this were true, then you'd be able to remove counters from every Web of Knives Recruit during your untap phase, since each one would individually allow you to remove from 2.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1144373381.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: > >Correct, it is a ruling on the sentence before. And that ruling > >includes the fact that that sentence on *each* Orun applies to *each* > >trigger - each Orun provides 2 "bonus" Capacity. Why would different > >sentences on the same card behave differently without specific text? > > Erm, because there's specific text. > > The card text for the bonus capacity doesn't have text specifying that > the bonus is for every three copies of the card. The votes do. > > Why do you think that text saying "for every three Orun he or she has" > is not different from the preceding sentence? You know, what with that > text not occurring in the previous sentence at all. > > It's fairly trivially a case of "Oh look, I have these three Orun over > here. 1 vote. Another 3 Orun over here, 1 vote. Can I use 4 Orun to > get 4 votes? No, because these three cards notice they're being used to > grant a vote and this one is left over." > > Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have > different wording, I guess. Correct. # Orun -> # votes from Orun 0 -> 0 1 -> 0 2 -> 0 3 -> 1 4 -> 1 5 -> 1 6 -> 2 7 -> 2 8 -> 2 9 -> 3 &c.

Salem wrote: > mikewi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Even if you go with the literal interpretation of the card text, > > is that even good? Is it worth it to throw 6-9 copies of Orun > > into your deck? > > No. Aye and Orun suck. Some players and deckbuilders also suck. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

> Even if you go with the literal interpretation of the card text, > is that even good? Is it worth it to throw 6-9 copies of Orun > into your deck? Well, it's moot now. But if that were the case, you'd probably be the one to answer the question experimentally, now wouldn't you? Jesse

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > > > > No. Aye and Orun suck. > Orun is probably not so good. Aye is actually really good. Master: trifle. Put this card on a Laibon. This Laibon may tap this card to cancel a Frenzy card played on him or her as it is played. Yeah, you can mostly ignore the 3 Aye stuff and High Aye. But its a Trifle you can tap to cancel a frenzy. That's good. I've seen several Laibon decks with Sire's Index Finger and been scratching my head. Or what if someone had a crazy Malk OOT Rotschreck deck? A trifle that stopped it cold would be pretty handy... -Ben Swainbank

Uh...how the heck did I post with the email address mikewithdell ->AT< gmail ->DOT<- com ?!?!?? - Ben Peal

Ben Peal wrote: > Uh...how the heck did I post with the email address > mikewithdell ->AT< gmail ->DOT<- com ?!?!?? > > Hell, if you're going to impersonate someone online... Go for someone worth impersonating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dell :-) DaveZ AW

James Coupe wrote: > Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have > different wording, I guess. You mean we shouldn't take the cards literally? When do we assume a card is generating its own discrete effect and when don't we? I don't disagree with designer intent. What I take issue with is bad templating. - Ben Peal

Answer: "A Laibon..." not "This Laibon..." with respect to the votes. - Ben

> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > > > No. Aye and Orun suck. Note that I did not write this. Aye and Orun don't suck. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

However, there appears to still be an issue with respect to the burn clause for bleeding for 2 or more. From a conversation I just had with LSJ on IRC (#vtes, sorcery.net), there is "stealth errata" preventing all copies of Orun from burning if you bleed for 2 or more. - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not really seeing the controversy here. "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has." How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun? "If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one Orun." You bleed for more than 2. You burn one Orun. What's confusing? Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > I'm not really seeing the controversy here. > "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has." > How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun? Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? They're both cases of multiple copies in play of cards which each produce an effect, at least as far as the wording goes. > "If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully > performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one > Orun." > > You bleed for more than 2. You burn one Orun. What's confusing? The fact that there are multiple cards in play, each telling you to burn one Orun. It's not actually confusing, per se - the design intent is relatively clear (clearer on the burning than on the votes), but the wording is still quite ambiguous. By the Orun ruling above, if it's not strictly errata, it starts to imply that you'd only take 1 pool from 4 AR's in play. The problem is, I'm not sure what better way there would be to format it except, possibly, to introduce the concept of "fractions" of votes. (i.e., "This Laibon gains one-third of a vote. Round fractions down.") But that way lies madness. - D.J.

Meej wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has." > > How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun? > > Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch > burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of > Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each > copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? They're both cases > of multiple copies in play of cards which each produce an effect, at > least as far as the wording goes. > > It's not actually confusing, per se - the design intent is relatively > clear (clearer on the burning than on the votes), but the wording is > still quite ambiguous. By the Orun ruling above, if it's not strictly > errata, it starts to imply that you'd only take 1 pool from 4 AR's in > play. > > The problem is, I'm not sure what better way there would be to format > it except, possibly, to introduce the concept of "fractions" of votes. > (i.e., "This Laibon gains one-third of a vote. Round fractions down.") > But that way lies madness. > "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an Additional vote until his next untap phase."

gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > Meej wrote: > > > The problem is, I'm not sure what better way there would be to format > > it except, possibly, to introduce the concept of "fractions" of votes. > > (i.e., "This Laibon gains one-third of a vote. Round fractions down.") > > But that way lies madness. > > > > "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an Additional vote until his next > untap phase." The problem there is that they wouldn't be usable for more than one referendum in a given cycle of turns, which drops the power somewhat. But I like the general idea. "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an additional vote in the current referendum. Untap those Orun at the end of this referendum." would cover it.

Matt Morgan asks: >"A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three >Orun he or she has." > >How can that mean anything other than one vote >per three Orun? You're correct here. The key words in this case are "A Laibon..." as opposed to "This Laibon". This means that it is a general rule with respect to Orun cards on Laibon, as opposed to a discrete effect generated by the Orun card for that specific Laibon. >"If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than >2 or successfully performs a (D) action against a >non-mortal minion, he or she burns one Orun." > >You bleed for more than 2. You burn one Orun. >What's confusing? Ah, but not in this case with this wording. In this case, the Orun card is generating a discrete effect for that specific Laibon. Taken as worded, each Orun card on the vampire would burn "if this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2...". Each Orun card is generating that effect, as opposed to the general rule with respect to additional votes. At least according to LSJ in the conversation I had with him, there is "stealth errata" for this card such that only one Orun card burns after a successful bleed for more than 2. LSJ? - Ben Peal

Meej wrote: > gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > > "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an Additional vote until his next > > untap phase." > > The problem there is that they wouldn't be usable for more than one > referendum in a given cycle of turns, which drops the power somewhat. > But I like the general idea. > > "This Laibon may tap 3 Orun to gain an additional vote in the current > referendum. Untap those Orun at the end of this referendum." would > cover it. I think gpettigrew's wording is sufficient, where do you read in that it wouldn't be usable for more than one referendum? And you don't have to bother with all that extra tap/untap nonsense.

"Meej" <dj...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1144441923.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > It's not actually confusing, per se - the design intent is relatively > clear (clearer on the burning than on the votes), but the wording is > still quite ambiguous. Wording is always ambiguous. That's the nature of language. If you want to contort context or neglect well-understood conventions that normally govern how a frequntly used pattern of words are interpreted, you can twist the simplest sentence into something completely different. Granted, cases can be shown where each copy of a card causes an additional iteration in a stack of effects. But a card that reads, "You gain one something for each X of this card" is much more commonly understood to mean you divide the number of copies of this card by X and that's how many iterations of the effect you get - not, you get one iteration of effect for X cards multiplied by the total number of cards. Likewise, it is much more common to understand, "If you do this, burn one copy of this card" to mean burn only one copy out of all the copies you have, not burn one card for however many copies of this card are in play/apply to the situation. The point is, sometimes you have to look for the obviously simplest meaning to the card text rather than trying to basing your interpretation on how other cards were written. Bleh. Why do I suspect these word are gonna get thrown back in my face some day? Oh, well... Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] My wording is already slightly more powerful than Orun-as-intended. His version's even cooler. I just wanted something similar in length to the current system, its similarity to Aye's wording is coincidentally aesthetic. [ quoted text not captured ]

gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > My wording is already slightly more powerful than Orun-as-intended. His > version's even cooler. I just wanted something similar in length to the > current system, its similarity to Aye's wording is coincidentally > aesthetic. Ah, for the burning of an Orun card would not affect yours had they already been tapped. Bah, the original wording is just fine anyway.

In message <1144441923.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> writes: >Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch >burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of >Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each >copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? Because the card text says it isn't one vote from every copy of Orun. It's one vote for every three copies of Orun. Comparisons with Anarch Revolt would apply if Anarch Revolt said "A Methuselah burns one pool for every three copies of Anarch Revolt in play." But it doesn't. So, cleverly, Anarch Revolt's text applies to Anarch Revolt and Orun's text applies to Orun. And Orun says 1 vote for every three cards, not 1 vote for every card when there are at least three of them in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1144433945.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ben Peal <ni...@ofdoom.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Unless you pretend that two sentences with different wording don't have >> different wording, I guess. > > You mean we shouldn't take the cards literally? I'm saying that pretending, as Gregory was, that you're taking the cards literally because you can pretend that two different sentences aren't different by shutting your eyes and ignoring what the text says isn't the same as actually reading card text. Nor is blindly applying a ruling from one effect of a card to a second effect which is worded in a completely different fashion something that is sensible to do. I fail to see why anyone with a brain in their head would completely take leave of their senses and pretend that two completely different sentences are somehow the same. Next up - let's apply Bum's Rush's text to Malkavian Time Auction. Because, you know, they're worded just the same, so they wouldn't work differently unless there was specific text. Oh, wait... [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Scythe wrote: > I think gpettigrew's wording is sufficient, where do you read in that > it wouldn't be usable for more than one referendum? And you don't have > to bother with all that extra tap/untap nonsense. Oh, hey. Yep, somehow I'd mis-processed the "until your next untap phase" portion of it. Greg's wording did the trick. Oops. - D.J.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1144441923.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Meej > <dj...@comcast.net> writes: > >Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch > >burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of > >Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each > >copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? > > Because the card text says it isn't one vote from every copy of Orun. > It's one vote for every three copies of Orun. (Note at the start of this: James, we're on the same page that that is the way it *should* be, and the way it's intended to be. I'm playing devil's advocate, in a sense, in an effort to point out that in fact, actually reading the cards and applying their text in the same manner that every other card in the game gets applied leads to a different answer, and suggesting that maybe that's a problem.) Correct. Each copy of Orun states that a vampire gets one extra vote for each three Orun he has. Each copy states that, right? And each card that generates a condition or effect in any other portion of the game gets its own iteration, doesn't it? You apply the text of each Anarch Revolt; you count each instance of +1 bleed on a minion (say, multiple Anima Gatherings at AUS); why wouldn't you apply the text of each Orun? Thus, if there are three Orun, each of them says that each vampire gets one vote for every three Orun. Which implies three votes. If you're taking a literalist reading. I'm not actually trying to argue it *should* be that way, but based strictly on card text, it *could* be, and that probably warrants fixing. > Comparisons with Anarch Revolt would apply if Anarch Revolt said "A > Methuselah burns one pool for every three copies of Anarch Revolt in > play." > > But it doesn't. So, cleverly, Anarch Revolt's text applies to Anarch > Revolt and Orun's text applies to Orun. And Orun says 1 vote for every > three cards, not 1 vote for every card when there are at least three of > them in play. And Anarch Revolt says to burn one pool if you don't have any anarchs in play. And you apply that for each Anarch Revolt. You're right that it's not a perfect parallel, but the same vagaries exist in both of them, and they're being interpreted a different way in each case. I can see the case you're trying to make, but it relies on the idea that sometimes a statement of "A (something) (does something)" as an effect of a card sometimes means each copy generates that effect, and sometimes means there's one standing effect that does that. Hypothetically, to help clear this up: if, say, a card existed - let's call it "Seniority" - with the text: "A vampire gains votes equal to its capacity," and two copies were in play, how many votes would each vampire gain? Because there are two effects sitting there, giving vampires votes... but the wording's analogous to Orun's. (Or Anarch Revolt's, for that matter.) - D.J.

James Coupe: >I'm saying that pretending, as Gregory was, >that you're taking the cards literally because >you can pretend that two different sentences >aren't different by shutting your eyes and >ignoring what the text says isn't the same as >actually reading card text. Had the sentence read: "This Laibon gets an additional vote..." Instead of the actual text of: "A Laibon gets an additional vote..." ...then the vampire would gain one vote per Orun card if it had at least 3 Orun on it. It has nothing to do with the "...for every three Orun..." part of the sentence, but rather the "A Laibon" part of the sentence. So, when you take into consideration the next sentence: "If this Laibon successfully bleeds for more than 2 or successfully performs a (D) action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one Orun." ...then you run into a problem that requires errata, because the "this Laibon" part of the sentence means that if this Laibon bleeds for more than 2, every Orun card on that Laibon will burn. Or at least that's what LSJ told me. Now, it's not a matter of not being able to differentiate between two different sentences, but rather a matter of not knowing the rules templating difference between "A Laibon" and "This Laibon". It's easy to confuse the two when "conventional wisdom" says that the rules would apply he same to the vote clause and the bleed-burn clause, when in fact they do not, and the bleed-burn clause therefore requires errata. Hence the question. - Ben Peal

Fred Scott wrote: > > The point is, sometimes you have to look for the obviously simplest > meaning to the card text rather than trying to basing your interpretation > on how other cards were written. Of course, and I'm not arguing that Orun *should* play that way. But if you're trying to design a quality game - and this is - you need to be on the lookout for loopholes, right? Look, if I were a judge in a tournament and this came up because some rule-lawyering ninny were trying to argue the point so he could get it to fly, I'd be ruling based on "obvious intent" in the absence of a clarification. But I'd also be looking to get that clarification ASAP so as to not have to hear about it for ages. > Bleh. Why do I suspect these word are gonna get thrown back in my > face some day? Oh, well... *Shrug*; not by me. It's definitely the right standard to take when trying to interpret card text, or to make a ruling on the fly, but it's not always the standard that gets used in the final rulings, so it's (IMO) only good as a stopgap measure, when precedent is vague. By the way, I'd tried - before making the initial post - to think of another card with similar wording (the "A (someone) (does something)" sort of permanent-effect format) where multiple iterations were ruled to *not* stack, and couldn't; can someone point me to one? - D.J.

In message <1144460081.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> writes: >(Note at the start of this: James, we're on the same page that that is >the way it *should* be, and the way it's intended to be. I'm playing >devil's advocate, in a sense, in an effort to point out that in fact, >actually reading the cards and applying their text in the same manner >that every other card in the game gets applied leads to a different >answer, and suggesting that maybe that's a problem.) No, you see, it says for every three Orun he or she has. So when I have five Orun, let's call them Orun A, Orun B, Orun C, Orun D and Orun E. I have three Orun, A, B, and C. I also have three Orun, A, B and D. And three Orun A, B and E. And three Orun A, C, D. And three Orun A, C, E. And three Orun A, D, E. And three Orun B, C, D. And three Orun B, C, E. And three Orun B, D, E. And three Orun C, D, E. I want a vote for *every* three I have, and I have lots of threes! I make that 10 votes for me. This plainly ludicrous reading is no less bonkers than one that says "For every three Orun" actually means "For each Orun, when you have a minimum of three". Now, since we have multiple interpretations, we have a clarification or a ruling. Which LSJ has provided. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > So when I have five Orun, let's call them Orun A, Orun B, Orun C, Orun D > and Orun E. I have three Orun, A, B, and C. I also have three Orun, A, > B and D. And three Orun A, B and E. And three Orun A, C, D. And three > Orun A, C, E. And three Orun A, D, E. And three Orun B, C, D. And > three Orun B, C, E. And three Orun B, D, E. And three Orun C, D, E. Damn, James, I admire your logic! I couldn't think of another way to defend/dismantle Orun's wording but this was it!

Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > I'm not really seeing the controversy here. > > "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has." > > How can that mean anything other than one vote per three Orun? > Anarch Revolt reads "A Methuselah who does not control a ready anarch > burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase." And yet, each copy of > Anarch Revolt causes each Methuselah to burn a pool. Why doesn't each > copy of Orun give a Laibon one vote per three Orun? They're both cases > of multiple copies in play of cards which each produce an effect, at > least as far as the wording goes. By this logic, though (the one Ben has proposed), the Oruns on *this* Laibon would also affect the number of votes on *other* Laibons with 3 or more Orun, since it does say "A Laibon" and not "This Laibon". So if Eze and Aren each had 3 Orun, each would get +6 votes. That's just silly. The easiest "fix" (if you really need one) would be to add a parenthetical phrase to the card text, something like: "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has (this total is only counted once, not once per Orun)." Or something like: "A Laibon gets an additional vote for every three Orun he or she has (shut up, Ben)." ;) Josh Insubordinate, tired, Prince of Boston

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > By this logic, though (the one Ben has proposed), the Oruns on *this* > Laibon would also affect the number of votes on *other* Laibons with 3 > or more Orun, since it does say "A Laibon" and not "This Laibon". > So if Eze and Aren each had 3 Orun, each would get +6 votes. > That's just silly. Oh, just one more thing to say on the subject: Another parallel would be Vampiric Disease. If I play Vampiric Disease, and then I play it again, it has introduced the "Vampiric Disease" rule :TWICE:. So, by Ben's logic, if two Vampiric Diseases have been played (on different vampires, even), "afflicted vampires" would burn 2 blood for untapping. PROPOSAL: What if there was a new Keyword called "Rule"? A statement with the Keyword "Rule" would only be interpreted once, no matter how many times the same card was played. The "Rule" keyword would then be added to Orun (at least for the votey bit), Web of Knives Recruit (the "remove only 2 counters" bit), Vampiric Disease, Army of Rats, etc etc. Thoughts?

"Meej" <dj...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1144460649.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> >> The point is, sometimes you have to look for the obviously simplest >> meaning to the card text rather than trying to basing your interpretation >> on how other cards were written. > > Of course, and I'm not arguing that Orun *should* play that way. But > if you're trying to design a quality game - and this is - you need to > be on the lookout for loopholes, right? I'm saying that if you look hard enough, you will always find loopholes. They're always there because language is eternally ambiguous. So if the only question you ask is, "Are there loopholes?", you've wasted your time because the answer is always yes. The only interesting question here is whether there's a loophole that fairly reasonable people can fairly reasonably fall into. Of course, the answer is subjective but in most cases, we should be able to agree as long as we're being reasonable about linguistic conventions. And when you start contending that "One vote for every three Orun" should be interpreted to mean "one vote for every three Orun for every Orun", here is where I think you're just not being very reasonable about it. > Look, if I were a judge in a tournament and this came up because some > rule-lawyering ninny were trying to argue the point so he could get it > to fly, I'd be ruling based on "obvious intent" in the absence of a > clarification. But I'd also be looking to get that clarification ASAP > so as to not have to hear about it for ages. Well, I don't think this requires clarification, myself. I guess it doesn't hurt anything to get it if it spins your buttons. But your suggested alternative interpretation is pretty out there, in my book. > By the way, I'd tried - before making the initial post - to think of > another card with similar wording (the "A (someone) (does something)" > sort of permanent-effect format) where multiple iterations were ruled > to *not* stack, and couldn't; can someone point me to one? I can't. As far as I know, this is the first expansion that had any cards which use the template, "You get one (something) for every (number more than one) copy of this card you have in play." Maybe someone else can think of a prior example but I can't. Still, the intent and meaning seem clear to me. Fred

James Coupe wrote: > I want a vote for *every* three I have, and I have lots of threes! I > make that 10 votes for me. > > This plainly ludicrous reading is no less bonkers than one that says > "For every three Orun" actually means "For each Orun, when you have a > minimum of three". It's definitely no less bonkers (I'm pretty certain it's more bonkers, actually, but not worth debating). But as you say... > Now, since we have multiple interpretations, we have a clarification or > a ruling. Which LSJ has provided. You're right, there's been a ruling. This whole thing was academic, in a sense - Ben started the thread, and both James and Fred raised the "How does that even get read as a possibility?" question. Which, for some reason, I attempted to answer, since it was clear to me how that was a possible reading, even if a somewhat asinine one. But there is a double standard going on in these rulings. I think it's a valuable and valid double standard, but there's no sense throwing nasty insults around while pretending it's not there. - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] I said it! me! although i probably went further than I meant to. I kind of really meant making a deck based on aye or based on orun would be difficult and not very effective. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)