I play a Ghenna card that doesnt get replaced (like "Veil of
darkness"), so i am currently holding 6 cards in my hand. If I draw a
card by other mean that discarding (like "fragment of the book of
nod"), would I recover the card and hold 7 cards again?
If I use a temporary effect to make my hand larger (for example, with
Shashid special ability), and then the effect ends, would I go back to
7 or to 6 cards?
gabusanvtes wrote:
> I play a Ghenna card that doesnt get replaced (like "Veil of
> darkness"), so i am currently holding 6 cards in my hand. If I draw a
> card by other mean that discarding (like "fragment of the book of
> nod"), would I recover the card and hold 7 cards again?
No. Your hand size stays at 6.
> If I use a temporary effect to make my hand larger (for example, with
> Shashid special ability), and then the effect ends, would I go back to
> 7 or to 6 cards?
6.
--Colin McGuigan
gpa...@hotmail.com (gabusanvtes) wrote in message news:<2687136c.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> I play a Ghenna card that doesnt get replaced (like "Veil of
> darkness"), so i am currently holding 6 cards in my hand. If I draw a
> card by other mean that discarding (like "fragment of the book of
> nod"), would I recover the card and hold 7 cards again?
No. You'd draw the card(s) and then discard down to 6.
> If I use a temporary effect to make my hand larger (for example, with
> Shashid special ability), and then the effect ends, would I go back to
> 7 or to 6 cards?
6.
Cards you are not replacing count against your hand size. (Otherwise,
you'd draw up to your hand size anyhow).
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec1_6_1
--
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/
gpa...@hotmail.com (gabusanvtes) wrote in message news:<2687136c.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> I play a Ghenna card that doesnt get replaced (like "Veil of
> darkness"), so i am currently holding 6 cards in my hand. If I draw a
> card by other mean that discarding (like "fragment of the book of
> nod"), would I recover the card and hold 7 cards again?
Think of the 'do not replace this card' as a 'this card still is
counted against your hand size until this condition no longer
applies'.
If you for instance played Veil of Darkness, you'd hold 6 cards.
Tapping the Fragment would let you draw two cards to a hand of 8, but
you still wouldn't draw a ninth card as you would were Veil of
Darkness not in play.
Similarly, if you played an Aura Reading (which makes your hand size 9
instead of telling you to draw a number of cards), you'd only draw up
to 8 cards in your hand, because you still have Veil of Darkness in
play with its 'do not replace' effect.
> If I use a temporary effect to make my hand larger (for example, with
> Shashid special ability), and then the effect ends, would I go back to
> 7 or to 6 cards?
6, as people have noted.
-John Flournoy
I am going to have to disagree...
not at the ruling or decision, but at the logic used to reach that decision.
I see and read that "hand size" and "not replacing" cards as two separate
and distinct entities.
As was referenced, the rule states:
Drawing Cards. Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you
immediately draw another from your library to replace it (unless card text
says otherwise, of course). If your library is empty, then you do not draw
to replenish your hand, but you continue to play. The number of cards in
your hand should always match your hand size (less any cards you are not
replacing until later). Whenever they don't match (when an effect changes
your hand size or adds or removes cards from your hand, for example),
immediately discard down to or draw up to your hand size.
I believe the rule supports the fact that hand size is and can be
independent of replacing cards in your hand.
Your hand size is a discrete state. The replacing of cards in your hand is
an event.
If anything the rule is ambiguous:
"The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (less
any cards you are not replacing until later)."
This sentence does not state that your hand size is effected by DNR events.
It just illustrates the distinction between the two. This sentence
effectively says "your hand size is X. the number of cards in your hand
should always match your hand size (of X) less any cards any cards you are
not replacing until later."
Maybe the rule (or cards) should state that the hand size is effected and
not rely upon the event text of "Do not replace until ...". There is no
ambiguity in a discrete state. There is confusion in an event; timing has
always been an issue, in every CCG. There are currently cards that directly
effect your hand size, Weeping Stone, Tabriz Assembly, Aggressive Tactics,
Advanced Beckett, Spirit Summoning Chamber,Visit from the Capuchin (to name
just a few); why not be consistent about the matter.
Or maybe the event of replacing a cards needs to be better defined. The
current implicitly loose definition does not preclude another event or
effect from replacing a card in hand. for example: if we take the card
"Becoming of Ennoia", which has a "Do not replace until your next discard
phase." clause in it. The event of replacing THAT card until such event
happens, does not prevent some other event or action from replenishing the
NUMBER of cards in your hand.
The Fragments of the Book of Nod states:
Tap to draw 2 cards from your library. Discard down to your hand size. Any
vampire can take control of the Fragment for his or her controller as a (D)
action.
Since we have established that the current rule wording does not change your
hand size, then the book of nod could be used to "draw 2 cards" and then to
"Discard down to your hand size" (of 7).
A later event of "Do not replace until your next discard phase" can and
will still happen! By a strict interpretation, you would replenish THAT
card (i.e. Becoming of Ennoia) by drawing, and then because of the rules,
have to immediately discard down to you hand size.
I know there are some that will view this argument as Heresy... but then
again, I never was very fond of The Inquisition.
Until then,
-- RR, Chief Heretic
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dear sir,
Thanks for your prompt answer, I am sure you are right. However, I
fear I need some kind of hard explanation to convince my play group
that, as you suggest in no uncertain terms, a card that isn't replaced
is exactly the same as having your hand size reduced by one, and there
are no other ways to "replace" the card than fulfilling his condition.
Could you please direct me to the rule that confirms that, so I can
shove it in their stubborn faces?
By the way, ¿what would happen with "Visit from the Capuchin"? ¿What
happens if you play a non-replacing gehenna card while it is in play?
An example (long and boring, skip if you already understand what my
doubt is):
Lets say that I have that card in play with one counter on it. My hand
is, therefore, 8. Then i play a gehenna card that is not replaced. I
lose 1 counter from "Visit from the Capuchin", as usual, and my hand
would be back to 7. However, since the card played was a "do not
replace" one, would the hand size be further reduced to 6, or would it
stay at 7, since it was not replaced already?
Please notice a clarification says "Cards played by the controller of
Visit from the Capuchin are not replaced at all - this overrides any
"Do Not Replace Until " clause on the cards played. [LSJ 20010913]" I
am wondering about that override part.
Thanks a lot
RodRaw wrote:
> I am going to have to disagree...
>
> not at the ruling or decision, but at the logic used to reach that decision.
>
> I see and read that "hand size" and "not replacing" cards as two separate
> and distinct entities.
>
> As was referenced, the rule states:
[snipping all but the relevent part]
> The number of cards in
> your hand should always match your hand size (less any cards you are not
> replacing until later).> I believe the rule supports the fact that hand size is and can be> independent of replacing cards in your hand.
It is explicitly tied to the number of cards you are not replacing.
> Your hand size is a discrete state. The replacing of cards in your hand is
> an event.
And your hand size is effectively reduced by the number of cards you
are not replacing, by the rule you quoted.
> If anything the rule is ambiguous:
> "The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (less
> any cards you are not replacing until later)."
> This sentence does not state that your hand size is effected by DNR events.
It says so explicitly.
> It just illustrates the distinction between the two. This sentence
> effectively says "your hand size is X. the number of cards in your hand
> should always match your hand size (of X) less any cards any cards you are
> not replacing until later."
Right. You have a hand size of 7 and are not replacing 1, so you should
always have six cards in your hand (for as long as you aren't replacing
1 and have a hand size of 7). Which means your hand size is effectively
six.
> Maybe the rule (or cards) should state that the hand size is effected and
> not rely upon the event text of "Do not replace until ...". There is no
> ambiguity in a discrete state. There is confusion in an event; timing has
There is no ambiguity in the current state, either.
> always been an issue, in every CCG. There are currently cards that directly
> effect your hand size, Weeping Stone, Tabriz Assembly, Aggressive Tactics,
> Advanced Beckett, Spirit Summoning Chamber,Visit from the Capuchin (to name
> just a few); why not be consistent about the matter.
There are cards that generate stealth.
And other effects exist. Not just stealth. 100% consistency in this regard
would make a pretty dull game. Variety in effects and consistency in
application of card text and rules text is a good goal, though.
> Or maybe the event of replacing a cards needs to be better defined. The
> current implicitly loose definition does not preclude another event or
> effect from replacing a card in hand. for example: if we take the card
> "Becoming of Ennoia", which has a "Do not replace until your next discard
> phase." clause in it. The event of replacing THAT card until such event
> happens, does not prevent some other event or action from replenishing the
> NUMBER of cards in your hand.
Right. You can draw cards. And then discard down to your hand size (less
any cards you are not replacing).
> The Fragments of the Book of Nod states:
> Tap to draw 2 cards from your library. Discard down to your hand size. Any
> vampire can take control of the Fragment for his or her controller as a (D)
> action.
>
> Since we have established that the current rule wording does not change your
> hand size, then the book of nod could be used to "draw 2 cards" and then to
> "Discard down to your hand size" (of 7).
... of seven less the one you aren't replacing, which makes six.
> A later event of "Do not replace until your next discard phase" can and
> will still happen! By a strict interpretation, you would replenish THAT
> card (i.e. Becoming of Ennoia) by drawing, and then because of the rules,
> have to immediately discard down to you hand size.
You lost me.
> I know there are some that will view this argument as Heresy... but then
> again, I never was very fond of The Inquisition.
Don't know what you're saying here, either.
[ quoted text not captured ]
gabusanvtes wrote:
> Thanks for your prompt answer, I am sure you are right. However, I
> fear I need some kind of hard explanation to convince my play group
> that, as you suggest in no uncertain terms, a card that isn't replaced
> is exactly the same as having your hand size reduced by one, and there
> are no other ways to "replace" the card than fulfilling his condition.
> Could you please direct me to the rule that confirms that, so I can
> shove it in their stubborn faces?http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec1_6_1> By the way, ¿what would happen with "Visit from the Capuchin"? ¿What
> happens if you play a non-replacing gehenna card while it is in play?
You would effectively circumvent that event's replacement clause.
> An example (long and boring, skip if you already understand what my
> doubt is):
>
> Lets say that I have that card in play with one counter on it. My hand
> is, therefore, 8. Then i play a gehenna card that is not replaced. I
> lose 1 counter from "Visit from the Capuchin", as usual, and my hand
> would be back to 7. However, since the card played was a "do not
> replace" one, would the hand size be further reduced to 6, or would it
> stay at 7, since it was not replaced already?
It would remain at 7.
> Please notice a clarification says "Cards played by the controller of
> Visit from the Capuchin are not replaced at all - this overrides any
> "Do Not Replace Until " clause on the cards played. [LSJ 20010913]" I
> am wondering about that override part.
It overrides the replacement clause.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> You would effectively circumvent that event's replacement clause.
So _that's_ how you use Dragonbound in a combat deck...
--Colin McGuigan
Hmm... I think I understand how this posting thing works now. Since
the posts are published with a delay, I should wait for more people's
answers before asking for further explanations. Got it. Sorry about
the inconvenience, I am new to the forum.
flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<57327a82.04060...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
gabusanvtes wrote:
> Hmm... I think I understand how this posting thing works now. Since
> the posts are published with a delay, I should wait for more people's
> answers before asking for further explanations. Got it. Sorry about
> the inconvenience, I am new to the forum.
Yeah, while we're on the subject, don't top post.
--Colin McGuigan
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:qmqxc.49202$_k3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Okay, I understand your ruling. I understand your interpretation of the
rule. I understand your logical process too. I understand completely where
you are coming from.
Now with that said- I wanted to illustrate that there may be a reason why
people are misreading or misinterpreting the rule 1.6.1.2. I am not asking
for a reversal of any ruling. I am merely asking for the acknowledgement
that there might be a legitimate reason for this confusion and thusly a need
for a potential change in the wording of the rule.
They axiom and key confusion surrounding this debate is this sentence of the
rule:
"The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (less
any cards you are not replacing until later)."
You say:
the number of cards in your hand equals and only equals your hand size.
I say:
the number of cards in my hand may not equal my hand size.
You say:
Your hand size is reduced by DNR effects. That if I have a hand size of 7
and I play a card with a DNR effect, that my hand size is reduced by one,
giving me a new hand size of 6.
I say:
My hand size is not reduced by DNR effects, but rather the number of cards
in-my-hand is limited by a DNR. This treats a hand size of 7 as a potential
upper limit, but because of a DNR effect, the actual number of cards in my
hand is 6. Stated another way; I currently only have 6 cards in my hand
[even thought my hand size is 7!].
You say:
the current rule is clear enough to illustrate and convey your intended
meaning.
I say:
there is the possibility for ambiguity or as you might call it, a
misinterpretation, of the intended meaning. This ambiguity is fully
quantified by the simple fact that we are having this discussion, and that I
am obviously not alone in this confusion.
I say:
the current wording of rule 1.6.1.2 could be better defined to remove the
ambiguity or potential for misinterpretation.
Something like: "Each DNR effects reduce your handsize by one until the
qualifying conditions stated on the card are fulfilled."
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right. Most of this supplimental text is moot if the axiom of the debate is
not grasped.
>
> > I know there are some that will view this argument as Heresy... but then
> > again, I never was very fond of The Inquisition.
>
> Don't know what you're saying here, either.
There wasn't much being said here. Just some 'clicky' attempt at a non
flaming clause that sounded cool and bizarre. There was no implied
reference to you as "The Grand Inquisitor" either. :)
Until then,
--RR, Excommunication Initiate
RodRaw wrote:
>
> I say:
> the current wording of rule 1.6.1.2 could be better defined to remove the
> ambiguity or potential for misinterpretation.
I say:
You have a good point there.
> Something like: "Each DNR effects reduce your handsize by one until the
> qualifying conditions stated on the card are fulfilled."
I say:
Close, but no cigar. SOmeone can probably come up with a better one.
Good try though.
Might also be a plan to simply replace 'DNR' text in cards with 'Your
handsize is reduced by one untill <condition>' for the next print?
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje
begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt
"RodRaw" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> They axiom and key confusion surrounding this debate is this sentence of
the
> rule:
> "The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (less
> any cards you are not replacing until later)."
>
> You say:
> the number of cards in your hand equals and only equals your hand size.
No.
There seems to be some disconnect here over the use of "hand size"
and "effective hand size".
The only time "hand size" matters is when one is drawing up to or discarding
down to it, which only happens when the number of cards one is holding is
different than the "hand size".
But, by the rules, the number of cards in one's hand isn't supposed to
be equal to one's base, true, absolute, underlying hand size. By the rules:
"The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (less
any
cards you are not replacing until later)."
That is, the number of cards in one's hand equals and only equals one's
effective hand size ("effective hand size" being coined for the sole purpose
of expressing this exact quantity, in fact).
> I say:
> the number of cards in my hand may not equal my hand size.
This is true only when you are currently not replacing some cards (and
are holding a number of cards equal to your effective hand size) or have
exhausted your library. (Or are in the process of drawing up or discarding
down to your effective hand size, of course.)
> You say:
> Your hand size is reduced by DNR effects. That if I have a hand size of 7
> and I play a card with a DNR effect, that my hand size is reduced by one,
> giving me a new hand size of 6.
With appropriate substitutions of "effective hand size", yes, this is what
the rules say and I have resaid.
> I say:
> My hand size is not reduced by DNR effects, but rather the number of cards
> in-my-hand is limited by a DNR. This treats a hand size of 7 as a
potential
> upper limit, but because of a DNR effect, the actual number of cards in my
> hand is 6. Stated another way; I currently only have 6 cards in my hand
> [even thought my hand size is 7!].
Right. This is another way of saying what I said: that your effective hand
size is 6.
> You say:
> the current rule is clear enough to illustrate and convey your intended
> meaning.
>
> I say:
> there is the possibility for ambiguity or as you might call it, a
> misinterpretation, of the intended meaning. This ambiguity is fully
> quantified by the simple fact that we are having this discussion, and that
I
> am obviously not alone in this confusion.
There is always the possibility. The tendency to misunderstand this point
is not so great as to warrant making the rules more stilted to reduce
that tendency.
> I say:
> the current wording of rule 1.6.1.2 could be better defined to remove the
> ambiguity or potential for misinterpretation.
> Something like: "Each DNR effects reduce your handsize by one until the
> qualifying conditions stated on the card are fulfilled."
This has problems with what it means to "replace" a card.
> > > A later event of "Do not replace until your next discard phase" can
and
> > > will still happen! By a strict interpretation, you would replenish
THAT
> > > card (i.e. Becoming of Ennoia) by drawing, and then because of the
> rules,
> > > have to immediately discard down to you hand size.
> >
> > You lost me.
>
> Right. Most of this supplimental text is moot if the axiom of the debate
is
> not grasped.
What I meant was: please provide that meaning, for my edification, of the
above paragraph. It skips too many steps for me to follow it as written.
LSJ wrote:
>>>I say:
>>the current wording of rule 1.6.1.2 could be better defined to remove the
>>ambiguity or potential for misinterpretation.
>>Something like: "Each DNR effects reduce your handsize by one until the
>>qualifying conditions stated on the card are fulfilled.">
> This has problems with what it means to "replace" a card.
Simply toss the entire 'replace' term.
Current DNR cards can be rephrased to read 'your hand size is reduced by
one until <condition>', and cards are not longer replaced, but you have
to draw up to your hand size all the time.
Draw cards up to hand size, not replace :)
Yeah it'd need some fleshing out, but it can simplify things.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > You say:
> > the current rule is clear enough to illustrate and convey your intended
> > meaning.
> >
> > I say:
> > there is the possibility for ambiguity or as you might call it, a
> > misinterpretation, of the intended meaning. This ambiguity is fully
> > quantified by the simple fact that we are having this discussion, and
that
> I
> > am obviously not alone in this confusion.
>
> There is always the possibility. The tendency to misunderstand this point
> is not so great as to warrant making the rules more stilted to reduce
> that tendency.
Awesome. I like your word usage better. The use of "effective hand size"
was a great way to clarify the distinction I was trying to edify. I am
content that you understood my points. I am equally acquiescent with your
decision on the rule and its wording.
Thank you for taking the time to appease an anal, aging, neurotic man's
mind.
--RR
The Doctor wrote:
> Yeah it'd need some fleshing out, but it can simplify things.
The current system is well fleshed out and yet remains simplified.
Replacing it with an less intuitive and more complicated set of rules
isn't likely.
If you have a "fleshed out" *workable* version that is simpler and no
less intuitive than the current, I'd be happy to hear it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
RodRaw wrote:
> Awesome. I like your word usage better. The use of "effective hand size"
> was a great way to clarify the distinction I was trying to edify. I am
> content that you understood my points. I am equally acquiescent with your
> decision on the rule and its wording.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to appease an anal, aging, neurotic man's
> mind.
Relatively painless, by historical standards :-)
Glad we could have this little meeting of the minds.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:QsOxc.53620$_k3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The Doctor wrote:
> > Yeah it'd need some fleshing out, but it can simplify things.
>
> The current system is well fleshed out and yet remains simplified.
>
> Replacing it with an less intuitive and more complicated set of rules
> isn't likely.
>
> If you have a "fleshed out" *workable* version that is simpler and no
> less intuitive than the current, I'd be happy to hear it.
despite what i think about some of your rulings (*), i bet you're far from
being replace by some newsgroup cockroach =)
(*how the hell can a reaction card be played during combat ? yeah, you know
which one ;D )