I ask this question because I'm being whipsawed by two different playgroups
and the wording of Undead Persistence is clearly weird.
Undead Persistence
Combat
Requires Fortitude
(inf) Only usable when this vampire should go into torpor. This vampire
gets an optional press and will not go to torpor until combat ends (although
he or she is still considered wounded and can be burned as normal). If three
rounds of combat pass with no cards played, combat ends. This vampire is sent
into torpor after combat.
(SUP) Prevent 2 damage.
In the inferior version, notice that only a single "optional press" is granted,
not an optional press PER ROUND. Yet the penultimate sentence in the inferior
power is worded just like a trap or actually most akin to superior Conquer the
Beast. In fact, that sentence makes no sense if the optional press isn't
granted every round - why do you need to wait three rounds to end combat? Combat
should end as soon as presses are insufficient to continue (unless the rules are
being altered by the text of the card in some other manner which isn't made clear
from the wording). Could somebody please explain this card to me so I can
illuminate whichever group is playing it wrong? I either want to use it like a
trap in one of my own decks or stop another guy from using it like a trap,
depending on the right answer.
Could somebody please fix the wording on this card? :-P
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> I ask this question because I'm being whipsawed by two different playgroups
> and the wording of Undead Persistence is clearly weird.
>
> Undead Persistence
> Combat
> Requires Fortitude
> (inf) Only usable when this vampire should go into torpor. This vampire
> gets an optional press and will not go to torpor until combat ends (although
> he or she is still considered wounded and can be burned as normal). If three
> rounds of combat pass with no cards played, combat ends. This vampire is sent
> into torpor after combat.
> (SUP) Prevent 2 damage.
The brief answer:
Note that presses may occur in a round without cards being played in that round.
> In the inferior version, notice that only a single "optional press" is granted,
> not an optional press PER ROUND.
Correct.
> Yet the penultimate sentence in the inferior
> power is worded just like a trap or actually most akin to superior Conquer the
> Beast. In fact, that sentence makes no sense if the optional press isn't
> granted every round - why do you need to wait three rounds to end combat?
In case three rounds occur.
> Combat
> should end as soon as presses are insufficient to continue (unless the rules are
> being altered by the text of the card in some other manner which isn't made clear
> from the wording).
Combat will end when presses are insufficient, sure.
Likewise, combat will continue when presses are sufficient, which is more to the
point.
Moreover, another condition added to end combat even if the first condition is met.
Fully:
Combat will continue when presses are sufficient unless three rounds of combat
have passed with no cards played.
So in the rounds after playing (and pressing with) Undead Persistence, Ankla
press with his innate press, his Black Metamorphosis, and his Hawg, combat still
ends.
> Could somebody please explain this card to me so I can
> illuminate whichever group is playing it wrong? I either want to use it like a
> trap in one of my own decks or stop another guy from using it like a trap,
> depending on the right answer.
>
> Could somebody please fix the wording on this card? :-P
The wording accomplishes the intended effect.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:glV0k.6297$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
OK, let's see if I have this card correctly understood. (I have to admit, this
answer surprises me.) And I have a couple of "to-be-sure" follow-up questions.
1. Undead Persistence at inferior grants only one press, not one press per round.
Follow-up: As an optional press, does it need to be used in the round UP was played?
I suppose there's a general rule here I should know but it eludes me. (Failing
anything I can think of, I suppose an "optional press" could be used in any combat
round until the end of the combat.)
2. Combat rounds will continue as normal, requiring presses from whatever source
to continue the combat from round to round.
3. After three rounds of combat with no cards played, combat will end NO MATTER
how the presses work out. Follow-up: Is there still a press step? I guess there
would have to be to give players the opportunity to play cards to press. But
I'm guessing a player can play any manner of cardless press to continue combat
if he pleases and the press step could end in such a way that combat _would_
continue, were it not for the text on UP but it doesn't. Follow-up: Is there a
window to play Taste of Vitae? (I suppose.)
> So in the rounds after playing (and pressing with) Undead Persistence, Ankla press with his innate press, his Black Metamorphosis,
> and his Hawg, combat still ends.
>>> Could somebody please fix the wording on this card? :-P>
> The wording accomplishes the intended effect.
Yea, OK. If my understanding is right I guess it does. It might be a little
less prone to cause misunderstanding if a few extra words were added, like
"If three rounds of combat pass with no cards played, combat ends DESPITE ANY
PRESSES." or something like that. Yea, I know it's not strictly necessary but
those kinds of touches often do a world of good in conveying the intent of a
card so that we imperfect, mistake-prone players have fewer arguments over
confusing cards.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
>> Combat will continue when presses are sufficient unless three rounds of combat have passed with no cards played.>
> OK, let's see if I have this card correctly understood. (I have to admit, this
> answer surprises me.) And I have a couple of "to-be-sure" follow-up questions.
>
> 1. Undead Persistence at inferior grants only one press, not one press per round.
> Follow-up: As an optional press, does it need to be used in the round UP was played?
Yes.
> I suppose there's a general rule here I should know but it eludes me. (Failing
> anything I can think of, I suppose an "optional press" could be used in any combat
> round until the end of the combat.)
Combat cards' effects apply to the current round only, by default.
> 2. Combat rounds will continue as normal, requiring presses from whatever source
> to continue the combat from round to round.
Yes.
> 3. After three rounds of combat with no cards played, combat will end NO MATTER
> how the presses work out. Follow-up: Is there still a press step? I guess there
Yes.
> would have to be to give players the opportunity to play cards to press. But
> I'm guessing a player can play any manner of cardless press to continue combat
> if he pleases and the press step could end in such a way that combat _would_
> continue, were it not for the text on UP but it doesn't. Follow-up: Is there a
> window to play Taste of Vitae? (I suppose.)
Yes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Combat does end when there are insufficient presses to continue.
There are sources of presses that could already be in play before the
combat begins, and thus need not have a card played to continue to
invoke the 'three turns' phrase. Presses could come from rushes like
Harass or Bloodlust, cards in play like Mob Connections or Ruins of
Ceoris, cards that will generate presses such as Ecstatic Agony, and
numerous vampires have optional presses as an ability. None of these
require you to play a card, and so would be governed by the three
rounds part of the Undead Persistence text.
Admittedly, it's not as effective as Trap if you're looking to have
round after round of combat, as you only get the one press built in
with Undead Persistence. But then, Trap will end if you go to Torpor,
whether 3 rounds have passed or not.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:sJV0k.467$TB3...@newsfe08.phx...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Or another, much better suggestion. Just REMOVE that silly sentence! It has
such a minor effect anyway (AFAICS) and I don't think it would make the card
broken. It would make it so much easier to understand. And save a lot of
wasted ink. :-P
Just MHO. Although I have my doubts whether it will be acted on in its own
right, if nothing else it's food for thought when designing other cards.
Fred
On Jun 2, 12:25 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
(about 3 round clause on Undead Persistance)
>
> Or another, much better suggestion. Just REMOVE that silly sentence! It has
> such a minor effect anyway (AFAICS) and I don't think it would make the card
> broken. It would make it so much easier to understand. And save a lot of
> wasted ink. :-P
>
Umm... Fred, how long you been playing this game? Is this the first
time you noticed Undead Persistance? Or had this dicussion? Yes, the
clause is silly. It appears that the original designer didn't know
quite what it was meant to do or how it would work. The clause has
been left on because it really doesn't have much effect and there's no
reason to change card text just to change card text. It has a very
minor effect that really doesn't matter, and so in lieu of changing
it, a replacement was made in Undying Tenacity. To actually have it
provide 3 presses would make it so incredibly broken, and to remove
the clause would just be needless errata, so it has remained how it
is... With Undying Tenacity looking much more likely to be reprinted
than UP, there's not much difference in having Jyhad-era Undead
Persistances in your deck with their weird do-nothing clause than
there is to have costless copies of Majesty in your deck... And in
the meantime, there is sufficient different between the superiors of
the two cards to be a point to playing either one.
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:6116d08c-d689-4b7d...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 12:25 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> (about 3 round clause on Undead Persistance)>>
>> Or another, much better suggestion. Just REMOVE that silly sentence! It has
>> such a minor effect anyway (AFAICS) and I don't think it would make the card
>> broken. It would make it so much easier to understand. And save a lot of
>> wasted ink. :-P
>>>
> Umm... Fred, how long you been playing this game? Is this the first
> time you noticed Undead Persistance? Or had this dicussion?
As far as I can remember. If I'd had it in, say, 1997 mind you, why
would you think I'd even remember it? It's not like people play
Undead Persistences - or decks based around them - every other day.
You may not have noticed this but, um (*pssssstttt*) there's gotten to
be, like, thousands of cards in this game.
> Yes, the
> clause is silly. It appears that the original designer didn't know
> quite what it was meant to do or how it would work. The clause has
> been left on because it really doesn't have much effect and there's no
> reason to change card text just to change card text.
It would NOT be changing card text just to change card text. It would
be changing card text to get rid of a long, stupid, confusing clause
which has practically zero effect outside of causing unnecessary
arguments.
I can accept where it's a judgment call whether to get rid of it now
that it's there. Like Peter's point about certain cards that aren't
what he thinks are ideal, it should have been written otherwise but maybe
shouldn't be changed, I don't know. Just don't suggest it would be
"changing card text just to change card text".
> To actually have it
> provide 3 presses would make it so incredibly broken,
That seems like a bit of an overstatement considering I've been playing
against the deck using that ruling on a number of occasions over the past
couple years. The guy's deck actually is quite good but not so much
because of the 'trap' effect; for other reasons. Playing it correctly
will weaken the deck some but he stated he really doesn't plan to change
it much. I dunno; maybe you know some way of breaking it we hadn't
thought of. We're not tremendously talented players here in Phoenix, it's
true.
But all of this is beside the point. Who was suggesting we alter the card
to add the trap effect back in? I was suggesting you get rid of the almost
meaningless clause which ends combat arbitrarily on the third round of
combat if no cards have been played in spite of the user's third cardless
press. Big deal! I don't think that's going to break the card. It just
gets rid of the needless complexity.
...
> there's not much difference in having Jyhad-era Undead
> Persistances in your deck with their weird do-nothing clause than
> there is to have costless copies of Majesty in your deck...
I'm not sure where this comparison arises. I don't think the Jyhad-era
Undead Persistences actually reads any different in the end than the modern
ones. The wordings different but it doesn't mean anything different, AFAICS.
> And in
> the meantime, there is sufficient different between the superiors of
> the two cards to be a point to playing either one.
Huh? There is no difference in the superiors, AFAICS. I can see
"Prevent 2 damage" on the FELDB scan of the V:tES/red-bordered version
and "Prevent 2 damage" is in the White Wolf website. Are we talking
about the same card?
Fred
On Jun 2, 9:36 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> It would NOT be changing card text just to change card text. It would
> be changing card text to get rid of a long, stupid, confusing clause
> which has practically zero effect outside of causing unnecessary
> arguments.
I don't believe the card text is pointless. It is a safeguard, which,
among other things, prevents the possibility of an infinite combat
loop. At the time it was first printed (Jyhad), the safeguard was
arguably unnecessary, mainly because other cards capable of
indefinitely prolonging combat (Trap, Conquer the Beast) had the same
safeguard. But a designer can reasonably anticipate that future cards
may be printed.
At least one such card has been printed: Meat Hook.
Imagine March Halcyon (or other weenie with inferior fortitute) equips
with a Meat Hook. She then rushes Spider Killer, a 10-cap vampire,
with 10 blood still on him, but who, sadly, does not have potence, as
is needed to destroy the Meat Hook.
Before range is chosen, Spider Killer plays Carrion Crows and Song of
Serenity. March then strikes with the Meat Hook, while Spider Killer
strikes with Scorpion Sting. During Strike Resolution, Spider Killer
takes 1 damage from the Meat Hook, while March takes 4 damage.
However, instead of going into torpor, March Halcyon plays Undead
Persistence.
For the next three rounds, March does one damage to Spider Killer with
the Meat Hook, and gains a press to continue. Fortunately for Spider
Killer, the clause on the card prevents March from going for longer
than 3 rounds after she is torporized. Combat ends at the end of the
fourth round, and Spider Killer still has 6 blood on him, having been
struck 4 times with the Meat Hook.
------------
But obviously, now that Undying Tenacity has been printed, that is the
card that March will prefer for her Meat Hook stragegy. Now, Spider
Killer is doomed. Combat will continue for 10 rounds, or as long as
necessary until Spider Killer goes to Torpor.
But what if Spider Killer, now, decides to play Undying Tenacity at
inferior as well? It seems a silly thing to do, but perhaps he was
hoping to draw into a copy of "Disguised Weapon" so he could equip
with the "Sengir Dagger" he has in his hand, thereby burning March
with ag damage.
March Halcyon's methuselah now looks around the table, and realizes
that she has no hope of winning the game. Her best strategy, she
realizes, is to make this combat last forever (or at least until time
out) so she never gets ousted. That is exactly what she does.
It is a very unlikely scenario. However, it is obviously something
that should never have been allowed to happen.
Perhaps, instead of removing the clause from Undead Persistence, we
ought to add it to Undying Tenacity ... or else add it to Meat Hook.
On Jun 3, 12:06 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> Perhaps, instead of removing the clause from Undead Persistence, we
> ought to add it to Undying Tenacity ... or else add it to Meat Hook.
Oops. I just checked the online text for "Meat Hook" and I see the
problem has been fixed already. "Once each combat ..."
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1be68679-5941-4b2e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 9:36 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> It would NOT be changing card text just to change card text. It would
>> be changing card text to get rid of a long, stupid, confusing clause
>> which has practically zero effect outside of causing unnecessary
>> arguments.>
> I don't believe the card text is pointless. It is a safeguard, which,
> among other things, prevents the possibility of an infinite combat
> loop. At the time it was first printed (Jyhad), the safeguard was
> arguably unnecessary, mainly because other cards capable of
> indefinitely prolonging combat (Trap, Conquer the Beast) had the same
> safeguard. But a designer can reasonably anticipate that future cards
> may be printed.
>
> At least one such card has been printed: Meat Hook.
(example of Meat-Hook-bearing-minion torping someone huge elided)
Alright, fine. Meat Hook plus Undead Persistence could function like
Traparition or the annoying things Dragos and Meshenka can do with
Horrid Form and Trap. Considering the persistent minion is usually
guaranteed to do 6 pts. of damage without playing the first card (once
the Meat Hook and UP at inferior are in place), I'd hardly call the
change earth-shattering. It took a fair amount of finagling to
discover a situation where the change would actually make a difference
and I've got to give you credit you with even managing to find
something like Meat Hook which would players would even think about
ahead of time. Not that they'd think about it much.
None the less, I am unimpressed. That nitty little condition is still
not worth the ink that's used to print it in terms of game goodness or
balance, much less the potential for arguments, misunderstanding, and
people building decks which don't turn out to do what they thought.
Those are truly bad things which way overbalance the UP/Meat Hook
combo.
(example of infinite loops using double Undying Tenacities elided)
> It is a very unlikely scenario. However, it is obviously something
> that should never have been allowed to happen.
>
> Perhaps, instead of removing the clause from Undead Persistence, we
> ought to add it to Undying Tenacity ... or else add it to Meat Hook.
IIRC, I believe other infinite loops have been identified in the game,
anyway. A long discussion took place in late 2006 about someone's Henry
Taylor Twister deck eternally hunting and eternally getting blocked
by Eze with No Secrets From the Magaji, playing an Earth Meld, untapping,
and hunting again. The amount of attention paid to the whole silly
affair ultimately drove me to the edge of psychosis and I might have
been disturbed by that except it's such a slight adjustment from my
normal daily condition. Anyway, tournament rule 4.9 came out of that
discussion (I believe) and pickup games can solve the problem however
they choose; dueling hamster throws at 6 1/2 paces or whatever. I
don't think this needs to be a consideration, either.
Fred
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1be68679-5941-4b2e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 9:36 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> It would NOT be changing card text just to change card text. It would
>> be changing card text to get rid of a long, stupid, confusing clause
>> which has practically zero effect outside of causing unnecessary
>> arguments.>
> I don't believe the card text is pointless. It is a safeguard, which,
> among other things, prevents the possibility of an infinite combat
> loop. At the time it was first printed (Jyhad), the safeguard was
> arguably unnecessary, mainly because other cards capable of
> indefinitely prolonging combat (Trap, Conquer the Beast) had the same
> safeguard. But a designer can reasonably anticipate that future cards
> may be printed.
>
> At least one such card has been printed: Meat Hook.
(example of Meat-Hook-bearing-minion torping someone huge elided)
Alright, fine. Meat Hook plus Undead Persistence could function like
Traparition or the annoying things Dragos and Meshenka can do with
Horrid Form and Trap. Considering the persistent minion is usually
guaranteed to do 6 pts. of damage without playing the first card (once
the Meat Hook and UP at inferior are in place), I'd hardly call the
change earth-shattering. It took a fair amount of finagling to
discover a situation where the change would actually make a difference
and I've got to give you credit you with even managing to find
something like Meat Hook which would players would even think about
ahead of time. Not that they'd think about it much.
None the less, I am unimpressed. That nitty little condition is still
not worth the ink that's used to print it in terms of game goodness or
balance, much less the potential for arguments, misunderstanding, and
people building decks which don't turn out to do what they thought.
Those are truly bad things which way overbalance the UP/Meat Hook
combo.
(example of infinite loops using double Undying Tenacities elided)
> It is a very unlikely scenario. However, it is obviously something
> that should never have been allowed to happen.
>
> Perhaps, instead of removing the clause from Undead Persistence, we
> ought to add it to Undying Tenacity ... or else add it to Meat Hook.
IIRC, I believe other infinite loops have been identified in the game,
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jun 2, 6:52 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> Could somebody please fix the wording on this card? :-P
Fred,
the card is extremely powerful as it is even with "just" the one
optional press.
As long as you are able to play a Trap in the beginning of the combat
a 1 capacity fortitude weenie can take down whomever with Undead
Persistence as long as she can play an occasional combat card to re-
trigger the "3 combat round" thingy again and again.
OK, it isn't failsafe and gets stopped by counter presses, combat
ends, permanent damage prevention and aggravated damage.
But it is still really really powerful & scary when you're on the
recieving end of such a tenacious little bugger's vicious and
unrelenting assault.
One example of a deck relying heavily on Undead Persistence + Trap
combo is my own "Winter War" deck which you can easily find in this
discussion group by using the "search this group" function above.
While I would love my Winter War deck to be even better I most
certainly wouldn't advocate supercharging Undead Persistence by
effective combining it with Trap as suggested...
Cheers,
Lönkka/Janne
www-ahmametal.com
www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet
On Jun 2, 8:53 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> With Undying Tenacity looking much more likely to be
> reprinted than UP, there's not much difference in having
> Jyhad-era Undead Persistances in your deck with their weird
> do-nothing clause than there is to have costless copies of
> Majesty in your deck... And in the meantime, there is
> sufficient different between the superiors of the two cards to
> be a point to playing either one.
You are overlooking something, I think.
At inferior, Undead Persistence grants an optional press. Undying
Tenacity does not. Thus, in many cases, the benetifs of a Trap +
Undying Tenacity combo can be entirely negated by a single press to
end combat. Regardless of whther your opponent has presses to end,
Undying Tenacity on its own does not even get you a single extra round
of combat (which would mean that, unless you play additional strikes,
or some other source of presses, there was no benefit to playing it).
Hence, assuming Frederick is right, and the only-3-rounds-with-no-
cards restriction is too corner-case to matter, then the loss of the
press-option, in exchange for the loss of the restriction, makes
Undying Tenacity clearly the inferior option.
So I don't agree that Undying Tenacity is much more likely to be
reprinted than UP
On Jun 3, 4:11 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> None the less, I am unimpressed. That nitty little condition is still
> not worth the ink that's used to print it in terms of game goodness or
> balance, much less the potential for arguments, misunderstanding, and
> people building decks which don't turn out to do what they thought.
If Wolf Valentine rushes with Sense Death (which is exactly the sort
of thing he would do), and then plays Undead Persistence after being
torporized in the first round, he may already go 3 rounds without
playing cards. One more press from one more source (Meat Hook, Hawg,
Mob Connections), and he could exceed the UP limit.
Moreover, the factor that makes the clause in UP most redundant is the
arbitrary fact that the combat ending mechanism on "Trap" (and
"Conquer the Beast") has the exact same clause. Hence, the clause
cannot end a trapped combat that would not have ended anyway.
But suppose that, in the future, there are variants of "Trap", with
different combat-ending conditions.
CORNERED
Combat
Play before Range is Determined
Put this card in play and put 7 counters on this card. Once each
round, this minion may burn one counter from this card to gain one
press, only usable to continue combat. Burn this card if combat ends
or if all counters are removed.
Now, suddenly, the combat ending restriction on UP does not seem so
unimportant.
<lon...@dlc.fi> wrote in message
news:528d665f-a166-4782...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 6:52 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > Could somebody please fix the wording on this card? :-P
>> the card is extremely powerful as it is even with "just" the one
> optional press.
You misunderstand. I wasn't arguing to reinsert the clause I already
thought was in it (and had been used against me that way a number
of times). I was arguing to drop the near meaningless and hard-to-
express exception to the end of combat because it can easily be
confused for that clause. Basically, if that clause doesn't turn
Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast, then let's get
rid of the clause altogether so no OTHER gaming groups accidentally
turn inferior Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast (because
they're ignorant and mostly because they'd NEVER SUSPECT IN A MILLION
YEARS that people would waste any ink on such a nit :-P ).
Fred
On Jun 3, 10:49 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> I was arguing to drop the near meaningless and hard-to-
> express exception to the end of combat because it can easily be
> confused for that clause. Basically, if that clause doesn't turn
> Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast, then let's get
> rid of the clause altogether so no OTHER gaming groups accidentally
> turn inferior Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast (because
> they're ignorant and mostly because they'd NEVER SUSPECT IN A MILLION
> YEARS that people would waste any ink on such a nit :-P ).
The problem, basically, is that because it contains language similar
to "Trap" and "Conquer the Beast", people assume it does the same
thing. They fail to read it closely, and read in a clause that is not
there.
By itself (had Trap or Conquer the Beast never been printed) the card
just isn't that confusing.
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:65df3704-fb14-479f...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 10:49 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> I was arguing to drop the near meaningless and hard-to-
>> express exception to the end of combat because it can easily be
>> confused for that clause. Basically, if that clause doesn't turn
>> Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast, then let's get
>> rid of the clause altogether so no OTHER gaming groups accidentally
>> turn inferior Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast (because
>> they're ignorant and mostly because they'd NEVER SUSPECT IN A MILLION
>> YEARS that people would waste any ink on such a nit :-P ).>
> The problem, basically, is that because it contains language similar
> to "Trap" and "Conquer the Beast", people assume it does the same
> thing. They fail to read it closely, and read in a clause that is not
> there.
Well, it isn't _only_ that, no. It's also because it's a natural thing
for people to expect that if the designers bothered to write so many words,
there was a good reason. It tends to surprise people to have so much
bother made over such a minor nit. Such surprises in the world of
computer software are termed "user astonishment" - and they cause real
problems when not taken into consideration. When software users make
mistakes, they think the product is buggy (giving the software an
undeserved bad reputation for bugginess) and/or they call into the user
help line and cost the manufacturer lots of extra resources helping
users understand how to use their product.
Fred
On Jun 3, 6:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in messagenews:65df3704-fb14-479f...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> > On Jun 3, 10:49 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> >> I was arguing to drop the near meaningless and hard-to-
> >> express exception to the end of combat because it can easily be
> >> confused for that clause. Basically, if that clause doesn't turn
> >> Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast, then let's get
> >> rid of the clause altogether so no OTHER gaming groups accidentally
> >> turn inferior Undead Persistence into superior Conquer the Beast (because
> >> they're ignorant and mostly because they'd NEVER SUSPECT IN A MILLION
> >> YEARS that people would waste any ink on such a nit :-P ).
>
> > The problem, basically, is that because it contains language similar
> > to "Trap" and "Conquer the Beast", people assume it does the same
> > thing. They fail to read it closely, and read in a clause that is not
> > there.
>
> Well, it isn't _only_ that, no. It's also because it's a natural thing
> for people to expect that if the designers bothered to write so many words,
> there was a good reason. It tends to surprise people to have so much
> bother made over such a minor nit.
In order for them to know that there is "no good reason" for the
clause -- in order for them to know that it is merely a "minor nit" --
not only do they need to be familiar with "Trap" and "Conquer the
Beast", but they also need to be familiar with virtually every other
press-granting effect in the game. They have to know, for instance,
that Meat Hook has been fixed to grant a press only once per combat.
Currently, the combat-ending clause has minimal significance, and will
have effect only in corner cases. This could change with the printing
of the next expansion.
As I said, read by itself, the card is just not that confusing. It
confused you, because you knew too much.
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:72ff2fa4-4caf-4207...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I didn't say they knew there was "no good reason". I said players
would tend to expect there _was_ a good reason - which is the problem.
And no, they don't need to be familiar with any other cards to have
that expectation. As I said, it's a natural expectation. I agree that
to make the assumption about the clause granting one press every round,
they would have had to have seen it on another card. But I'm just saying
players tend to make mistakes when something about a card is naturally
surprising - in this case, the whole lotta complexity over nothing.
> Currently, the combat-ending clause has minimal significance, and will
> have effect only in corner cases. This could change with the printing
> of the next expansion.
>
> As I said, read by itself, the card is just not that confusing.
I disagree. Putting a pointless, long, complex clause in a card that
actually does almost nothing is, in and of itself, confusing. It sows
the ground for making mistakes because players will naturally want to
read something more significant into such a clause.
> It confused you, because you knew too much.
No, it confused us because of its nature. The actual form the confusion
took was based on the printing of other cards, but it doesn't matter in
the end. Even if you insist on blaming 'Trap' for confusion over 'Undead
Persistence', the fact is that the mistake was made and, IMHO, it's a very
natural one which points at a bad practice in card design.
Fred
On Jun 4, 12:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message> > In order for them to know that there is "no good reason" for the
> > clause -- in order for them to know that it is merely a "minor nit" --
> > not only do they need to be familiar with "Trap" and "Conquer the
> > Beast", but they also need to be familiar with virtually every other
> > press-granting effect in the game. They have to know, for instance,
> > that Meat Hook has been fixed to grant a press only once per combat.
>
> I didn't say they knew there was "no good reason". I said players
> would tend to expect there _was_ a good reason - which is the problem.
This is a distinction without a difference. The expectation that
there is a "good reason" should not mislead them. They would read
exactly what the card says, and assume, naturally, that this was a
safeguard to prevent the card from being abused. That is a "good
reason".
They cannot realize that it is almost impossible to abuse the card,
and therefore that the "good reason" is not so good after all, without
knowledge of what other cards in the set can or cannot do.
> And no, they don't need to be familiar with any other cards to have
> that expectation.
They don't need familiarity to assume there must be a good reason, but
they do need at least some familiarity in order to have a basis for
believing the "good reason" is not so good.
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:43f2ddfd-d276-4dfa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 12:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > > In order for them to know that there is "no good reason" for the
> > > clause -- in order for them to know that it is merely a "minor nit" --
> > > not only do they need to be familiar with "Trap" and "Conquer the
> > > Beast", but they also need to be familiar with virtually every other
> > > press-granting effect in the game. They have to know, for instance,
> > > that Meat Hook has been fixed to grant a press only once per combat.
> >
> > I didn't say they knew there was "no good reason". I said players
> > would tend to expect there _was_ a good reason - which is the problem.
>
> This is a distinction without a difference.
Huh? Of course there's a difference! The one is a natural tendency.
The other...is simply not the case.
> The expectation that
> there is a "good reason" should not mislead them.
Perhaps not but who cares? As I said, it's human nature to expect
the designers to know what they're doing and do something reasonable.
It's sometimes not true, I agree. But it doesn't matter. You're trying
to construct some "perfect world" argument which is irrelevent. The
real world has to be taken into account to create the best game.
Fred
On Jun 4, 10:29 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in messagenews:43f2ddfd-d276-4dfa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> > On Jun 4, 12:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > > > In order for them to know that there is "no good reason" for the
> > > > clause -- in order for them to know that it is merely a "minor nit" --
> > > > not only do they need to be familiar with "Trap" and "Conquer the
> > > > Beast", but they also need to be familiar with virtually every other
> > > > press-granting effect in the game. They have to know, for instance,
> > > > that Meat Hook has been fixed to grant a press only once per combat.
>
> > > I didn't say they knew there was "no good reason". I said players
> > > would tend to expect there _was_ a good reason - which is the problem.
>
> > This is a distinction without a difference.
>
> Huh? Of course there's a difference! The one is a natural tendency.
> The other...is simply not the case.
It is without a difference for the purpose under discussion.
> > The expectation that
> > there is a "good reason" should not mislead them.
>
> Perhaps not but who cares?
You did, or you would not have made the argument you made. By saying
"perhaps not" you concede my point, for all that my point was worth.
I was not, after all, disagreeing with everything you said.
> As I said, it's human nature to expect
> the designers to know what they're doing and do something reasonable.
> It's sometimes not true, I agree. But it doesn't matter. You're trying
> to construct some "perfect world" argument which is irrelevent.
No I was not. You misunderstood.
> The
> real world has to be taken into account to create the best game.
I agree. When designing a card, one needs to take into account all
the other cards.
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cad68c98-bf91-4ed2...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 10:29 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in messagenews:
> > 43f2ddfd-d276-4dfa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jun 4, 12:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > > > > In order for them to know that there is "no good reason" for the
> > > > > clause -- in order for them to know that it is merely a "minor nit" --
> > > > > not only do they need to be familiar with "Trap" and "Conquer the
> > > > > Beast", but they also need to be familiar with virtually every other
> > > > > press-granting effect in the game. They have to know, for instance,
> > > > > that Meat Hook has been fixed to grant a press only once per combat.
> >
> > > > I didn't say they knew there was "no good reason". I said players
> > > > would tend to expect there _was_ a good reason - which is the problem.
> >
> > > This is a distinction without a difference.
> >
> > Huh? Of course there's a difference! The one is a natural tendency.
> > The other...is simply not the case.
>
> It is without a difference for the purpose under discussion.
Not as far as I can see. I'm not even sure why we're going back and
forth on this. We'd waste less time if you'd construct your arguments
in response to what I actually said and not some straw man you constructed
out of thin air. Ultimately, I do not accept that the similarity between
the basic Undead Persistence effect and Trap or superior Conquer the Beast
is the only cause of confusion nor the genesis of the confusion over the
card - no matter how you phrase it.
For one thing, I was one of the "confused" people. So insisting you know
what causes the confusion is tantamount to insisting you know what I was
thinking at the time better than I do.
> > > The expectation that
> > > there is a "good reason" should not mislead them.
> >
> > Perhaps not but who cares?
>
> You did, or you would not have made the argument you made. By saying
> "perhaps not" you concede my point, for all that my point was worth.
>
> I was not, after all, disagreeing with everything you said.
Well, OK. Then I'm not sure what point you're to make, then. In a
perfect world, people should assume nothing. But the world is too
complex and we're all kind of limited and stupid in our intellects and
we constantly make mistakes.
Besides this, the assumption that "the designers were attempting to
do something reasonable" is frequently a useful one to make in order to
gain understanding of the intent of card text when a confusing passage
has turned up. You'll have to forgive people if they try to employ it
as a tool, even though once in a while it turns out to be counter-
productive.
Anyway, the bottom line is that it would be better for the game to avoid
card text which tends to induce players to make mistakes at all. That
clause on Undead Persistence is one such example.
> > As I said, it's human nature to expect
> > the designers to know what they're doing and do something reasonable.
> > It's sometimes not true, I agree. But it doesn't matter. You're trying
> > to construct some "perfect world" argument which is irrelevent.
>
> No I was not. You misunderstood.
Perhaps. But you claimed (I believe) that the problematic clause on UP
was harmless. If so, this appears to me to be an example of ignoring the
practical reality of the situation.
> > The
> > real world has to be taken into account to create the best game.
>
> I agree. When designing a card, one needs to take into account all
> the other cards.
...and also anything else which would tend to confuse players.
Fred