the card

Yes, the phrase "the card". If the card Jake Washington was in play as an ally, and that ally was burned since your last turn, it looks like the requirements to play Compel the Spirit were met. Requirements met, card text directs you to put "the card" into your hand/in play, and the card it refers to--the one that represented that ally--is sitting right there in your ash heap. So you could resurrect him, except that somehow "the card" meant "the ally card". I am unsure how "the ally card" was read into this, other than that most allies come from ally cards. But wait, most vampires come from crypt cards, not library cards, and that's not read into any card's text. Banishment would be sufficiently different if it were, and would not have prompted the ruling that an Embrace functions as a crypt card when in the uncontrolled region. Also, here is an interesting ruling (you can find it by searching for "daemonic possession embrace"): Q: >> ...if you burn someone's embrace, then try to Daemonically Possess it, >> what happens? > A (from LSJ): >Illegal, since it's not a suitable target ("minion ... from ash heap" ) If DP read "card...from ash heap", would an Embrace be a suitable target? My guess is "yes, but it would be worthless to do so", as an Embrace doesn't count as a vampire unless the instructions on the Embrace card are performed (by taking the action). If DP instructed you to put "the card" into play, it would put an action card into play, which is slightly less useful than an ally in torpor. This is where I think Jake's ruling is taking us. A similar master card, "Get Free Stuff": Master: Out-of-turn Play when your predator bleeds you. If the bleed is for less than 3, this card enters play as an ally with 2 life and 2 strength. If the bleed is for exactly 4, it enters play as an ally with 1 life and 3 bleed. If neither, gain 1 pool. If this were a real card, and it became an ally, got burnt, and you played Daemonic Possession on it, what would you have its stats be? As you can see, only ally and retainer cards are guaranteed to be allies or retainers, respectively, when they enter play. Just because there are no variable allies/retainers now does not mean there never will be. I would like to propose the text of Compel the Spirit be changed from "a retainer or ally you control..." to "a retainer or ally card you control...". The text isn't much bigger, and it solves the problem at hand. If you're still butt-hurt about our favorite definite article, think of the poor Shadow Court Satyr, on whom you can place one combat card. His text says he can use the ability of that card, with no qualifier, during combat; the ruling says he can use the ability of that card, if still on him, during combat. The card seems to be there just to remind you which card he can use the ability of, but somebody read in that he stops being able to use the ability when the card leaves play. If that is implied across the board, my Praxis Seizures are pretty crappy. -- Brian butt-hurt

Brian wrote: > > Yes, the phrase "the card". > > If the card Jake Washington was in play as an ally, and that ally was > burned since your last turn, it looks like the requirements to play > Compel the Spirit were met. The requirements of having an ally you control burned are met, yes. But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. What card? For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally card any more. So CtS cannot retrieve him. > Requirements met, card text directs you to put "the card" into your > hand/in play, and the card it refers to--the one that represented that > ally--is sitting right there in your ash heap. So you could resurrect > him, except that somehow "the card" meant "the ally card". > > I am unsure how "the ally card" was read into this, other than that > most allies come from ally cards. How are you reading "the card" to mean some master card? Answer: you're taking "the card" to mean "the card that represented the ally that was burned." Plausible, but not the only way to read it. It officially means "the ally card that was burned". Ambiguity resolved by ruling to mean something other than what you resolved the ambiguity to mean. Happens quite frequently. > But wait, most vampires come from crypt cards, not library cards, and > that's not read into any card's text. Banishment would be > sufficiently different if it were, and would not have prompted the > ruling that an Embrace functions as a crypt card when in the > uncontrolled region. > > Also, here is an interesting ruling (you can find it by searching for > "daemonic possession embrace"): > > Q: > >> ...if you burn someone's embrace, then try to Daemonically Possess > it, > >> what happens? > > > A (from LSJ): > >Illegal, since it's not a suitable target ("minion ... from ash heap" > ) > > If DP read "card...from ash heap", would an Embrace be a suitable > target? Give complete hypothetical card text if you want hypothetical rulings. > My guess is "yes, but it would be worthless to do so", as an Embrace > doesn't count as a vampire unless the instructions on the Embrace card > are performed (by taking the action). If DP instructed you to put > "the card" into play, it would put an action card into play, which is > slightly less useful than an ally in torpor. > > This is where I think Jake's ruling is taking us. > > A similar master card, "Get Free Stuff": > Master: Out-of-turn > Play when your predator bleeds you. > If the bleed is for less than 3, this card enters play as an ally with > 2 life and 2 strength. If the bleed is for exactly 4, it enters play > as an ally with 1 life and 3 bleed. If neither, gain 1 pool. > > If this were a real card, and it became an ally, got burnt, and you > played Daemonic Possession on it, what would you have its stats be? Nothing, since DP cannot retrieve a M:OOT. It only retrieves minions. > As you can see, only ally and retainer cards are guaranteed to be > allies or retainers, respectively, when they enter play. Just because > there are no variable allies/retainers now does not mean there never > will be. There are variable allies/retainers now. > I would like to propose the text of Compel the Spirit be changed > from "a retainer or ally you control..." > to "a retainer or ally card you control...". > The text isn't much bigger, and it solves the problem at hand. The current solution is "Move the ally or retainer referred to in the previous sentence from the ash heap into play". > If you're still butt-hurt about our favorite definite article, think > of the poor Shadow Court Satyr, on whom you can place one combat card. > His text says he can use the ability of that card, with no qualifier, > during combat; the ruling says he can use the ability of that card, if > still on him, during combat. The card seems to be there just to > remind you which card he can use the ability of, but somebody read in > that he stops being able to use the ability when the card leaves play. Spurious. Similarly, the effect of Elder Library ends when it burns. > If that is implied across the board, my Praxis Seizures are pretty > crappy. Good thing it's not, then. Cards that aren't put into play don't depend on being in play, of course. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E3D66C4...@white-wolf.com... > Brian wrote: > > > > If the card Jake Washington was in play as an ally, and that ally was > > burned since your last turn, it looks like the requirements to play > > Compel the Spirit were met. > > The requirements of having an ally you control burned are met, yes. > But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > What card? > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. > It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally card > any more. > So CtS cannot retrieve him. As this is counter-intuative to so many of us, can we get this put into writing on the Rulings/Errata page's next update? Thanks. :) > > 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/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<wdk%9.19595$pY5.2...@news1.west.cox.net>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3E3D66C4...@white-wolf.com... > > Brian wrote: > > > > > > If the card Jake Washington was in play as an ally, and that ally > was > > > burned since your last turn, it looks like the requirements to play > > > Compel the Spirit were met. > > > > The requirements of having an ally you control burned are met, yes. > > But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > > What card? > > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. > > It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally > card > > any more. > > So CtS cannot retrieve him. > > As this is counter-intuative to so many of us, can we get this put into > writing on the Rulings/Errata page's next update? > > Thanks. :) Ditto. If they're going to get so nit-picky with other card text why not Compel the spirit, too. ~SV

Kevin, Do you play regularly in Vegas? I usually travel weekends but would love to play on a weeknight sometime. I will be moving soon to Warm Spring and Spencer area from the NW side, so perhaps we could plan something? gym...@aol.com Nat

[ quoted text not captured ] This *is* being nit picky. See above. You mistake noticing the amibiguity with changing card text. Card text is adhered to in this case. It's just that card text could be interpretted different ways, only one of which can be correct. Naturally, the ruling will be included in the ruling list. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > What card? > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. Only by ruling, however. > It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally card > any more. > So CtS cannot retrieve him. Why imply "ally card" from "card"? Moreover, if ruled as such, why not just write it in the text? > > I am unsure how "the ally card" was read into this, other than that > > most allies come from ally cards. > > How are you reading "the card" to mean some master card? Careful, I never said it means a master card. Telling me I'm reading it to mean "some master card" is saying I'm narrowing the definition without reason--my point exactly. It means neither "some master card" or "some ally card". It means "some card (type unspecified)". > Answer: you're taking "the card" to mean "the card that represented the > ally that was burned." You're doing it too. "the ally card (that represented the ally that was burned)." The phrase in parentheses, you MUST read in; that's what "the" does, it answers "which one". The "ally" part, you guys stuck in. As rulemakers, you're perfectly allowed. As grammarians, I think you're wrong. > It officially means "the ally card that was burned". > Ambiguity resolved by ruling to mean something other than what you > resolved the ambiguity to mean. But nobody sees ambiguity here except you. I see a phrase which refers to a card, although not specifically an ally card. It has been ruled to refer to an ally card, specifically. The reason is unnecessary; I could live with this ruling. The suggested reason is because of card text, which makes me uncomfortable, because I see nothing in the card text which even remotely implies "the ally card" out of "the card". > Happens quite frequently. Usually ends up in the complainer either being given a sufficient explanation, or just agreeing to disagree. SOMETIMES, it is possible that the rules team will say, "Oh yeah, I guess there is a better reason for that interpretation", and it will change. > > But wait, most vampires come from crypt cards, not library cards, and > > that's not read into any card's text. Banishment would be > > sufficiently different if it were, and would not have prompted the > > ruling that an Embrace functions as a crypt card when in the > > uncontrolled region. I was expecting you to reply to this one, as Banishment parallels the current situation quite well. CtS talks about an ally, and then has you move that ally somewhere. Banishment talks about a vampire, and then has you move that vampire somewhere. CtS is ruled that "that card" implies "that ally card". Banishment is ruled that "that vampire" does not imply "that vampire card". Moreover, Banishment forces the extremely odd ruling that a library card out of play will function, in the uncontrolled region, as a vampire of capacity 1. In fact, I'm not sure that's the ruling--does an Abomination function as a vampire of capacity 4? Does it function that way if Violet Tremain hits him a couple times? I suppose what I mean is: If CtS implies ally card, should Banishment imply vampire card? If Banishment does not imply a specific type of card, should CtS imply a specific type of card? > Give complete hypothetical card text if you want hypothetical rulings. Hypothetical text: (nec): Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has been burned since your last turn. Move that card from his or her owner's ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood or life from the blood bank on the card and tap the card. You now control the card. If Daemonic Possession read as above, could it bring an Embrace from the ash heap to play? > > My guess is "yes, but it would be worthless to do so", as an Embrace > > doesn't count as a vampire unless the instructions on the Embrace card > > are performed (by taking the action). If DP instructed you to put > > "the card" into play, it would put an action card into play, which is > > slightly less useful than an ally in torpor. > > > > This is where I think Jake's ruling is taking us. <snip text addressed to non-LSJ newsgroup posters> > > I would like to propose the text of Compel the Spirit be changed > > from "a retainer or ally you control..." > > to "a retainer or ally card you control...". > > The text isn't much bigger, and it solves the problem at hand. > > The current solution is "Move the ally or retainer referred to in the previous > sentence from the ash heap into play". But by specifying "the card", it is no longer talking about the "ally or retainer", but the card that represented it. If it said "Move it" or "Move the ally or retainer", I could understand that it is referencing directly an ally or retainer, which must be in the ash heap. When it specifies "the card", it is no longer looking for "the ally or retainer", but "the card (that represents it)". Similarly, Banishment is no longer talking about a vampire in its second sentence after "+1 stealth". It is now talking about the card that represents that vampire. > > If you're still butt-hurt about our favorite definite article, think > > of the poor Shadow Court Satyr, on whom you can place one combat card. > > His text says he can use the ability of that card, with no qualifier, > > during combat; the ruling says he can use the ability of that card, if > > still on him, during combat. The card seems to be there just to > > remind you which card he can use the ability of, but somebody read in > > that he stops being able to use the ability when the card leaves play. > > Spurious. From a rules perspective perhaps, but this post is about grammar. > Similarly, the effect of Elder Library ends when it burns. Elder Library isn't in play as reminder text. SCS would be too confusing if it said it could duplicate that card's ability, but everyone had to remember just which card and what it did. Fictional Card 2: Both Gand Ally with 2 life. Both Gand may take a +1 stealth action when there are two cards of the same name in play with a card on or under each of them to switch the locations of those two cards. Interaction with Storage Annex becomes obvious (and mostly pointless), but what would happen if two Shadow Court Satyrs had cards under them and were switched? I don't think this is any longer pertinent, but I'm still curious, and I provided the entire fictional text this time :) -- Brian

Brian wrote: > > But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > > What card? > > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. > > Only by ruling, however. Right. > > It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally card > > any more. > > So CtS cannot retrieve him. > > Why imply "ally card" from "card"? Why imply "the card that represented the ally"? > Moreover, if ruled as such, why not just write it in the text? ? The text is already printed. Feel free to write in whatever you like on your copies. Naturally, if the ambiguity came to light in time for the wording to be corrected, it would have been. > > > I am unsure how "the ally card" was read into this, other than that > > > most allies come from ally cards. > > > > How are you reading "the card" to mean some master card? > > Careful, I never said it means a master card. You said that it should retrieve Jake, which is some master card. > Telling me I'm reading it to mean "some master card" is saying I'm > narrowing the definition without reason--my point exactly. No. You've misread my statement above to somehow mean that *only* master cards can be retrieved. You posit that CtS should be able to retrieve Jake. It is a fact that Jake is a master card in the ash heap. Which leads to my statement above concerning your reading. > It means neither "some master card" or "some ally card". It means > "some card (type unspecified)". Right. (Your position, that is) > > Answer: you're taking "the card" to mean "the card that represented the > > ally that was burned." > > You're doing it too. Right. It has to mean something. > "the ally card (that represented the ally that > was burned)." Actually it's just: "the ally that was burned". > The phrase in parentheses, you MUST read in; that's what "the" does, > it answers "which one". The "ally" part, you guys stuck in. > As rulemakers, you're perfectly allowed. > As grammarians, I think you're wrong. Fine. > > It officially means "the ally card that was burned". > > Ambiguity resolved by ruling to mean something other than what you > > resolved the ambiguity to mean. > > But nobody sees ambiguity here except you. I didn't realize you had conducted such an exhaustive study of players' beliefs. > I see a phrase which refers to a card, although not specifically an > ally card. > It has been ruled to refer to an ally card, specifically. > The reason is unnecessary; I could live with this ruling. > The suggested reason is because of card text, which makes me > uncomfortable, because I see nothing in the card text which even > remotely implies "the ally card" out of "the card". > > > Happens quite frequently. > > Usually ends up in the complainer either being given a sufficient > explanation, or just agreeing to disagree. SOMETIMES, it is possible > that the rules team will say, "Oh yeah, I guess there is a better > reason for that interpretation", and it will change. OK. Let's agree to disagree, then. > > > But wait, most vampires come from crypt cards, not library cards, and > > > that's not read into any card's text. Banishment would be > > > sufficiently different if it were, and would not have prompted the > > > ruling that an Embrace functions as a crypt card when in the > > > uncontrolled region. > > I was expecting you to reply to this one, as Banishment parallels the > current situation quite well. > > CtS talks about an ally, and then has you move that ally somewhere. > Banishment talks about a vampire, and then has you move that vampire > somewhere. > > CtS is ruled that "that card" implies "that ally card". > Banishment is ruled that "that vampire" does not imply "that vampire > card". Not Banishment exactly, but rather the rules on influencing vampires when faced with non-crypt cards in the uncontrolled region. By necessity. It would have not been the case if there were some other standard way to handle non-crypt cards in the uncontrolled region. Non-ally cards in the ash heap are already handled. > Moreover, Banishment forces the extremely odd ruling that a library > card out of play will function, in the uncontrolled region, as a > vampire of capacity 1. In fact, I'm not sure that's the ruling--does > an Abomination function as a vampire of capacity 4? Does it function > that way if Violet Tremain hits him a couple times? It functions as if it were a vampire card of the appropriate capacity. The Abomination would be a 4-cap vampire in the uncontrolled region. In-play effects (Violet Tremain) don't apply to any vampire in the uncontrolled region, crypt card or otherwise. > I suppose what I mean is: > If CtS implies ally card, should Banishment imply vampire card? Yes. But Banishment (or rather, the rules on cards in the uncontrolled region) get a different ruling by the necessity of handling non-crypt cards in the uncontrolled region. > If Banishment does not imply a specific type of card, should CtS imply > a specific type of card? Yes. > > Give complete hypothetical card text if you want hypothetical rulings. > > Hypothetical text: > (nec): Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has > been burned since your last turn. Move that card from his or her > owner's ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood or life from the > blood bank on the card and tap the card. You now control the card. > > If Daemonic Possession read as above, could it bring an Embrace from > the ash heap to play? No. > > The current solution is "Move the ally or retainer referred to in the previous > > sentence from the ash heap into play". > > But by specifying "the card", it is no longer talking about the "ally > or retainer", but the card that represented it. That's one way of looking at it. > If it said "Move it" > or "Move the ally or retainer", I could understand that it is > referencing directly an ally or retainer, which must be in the ash > heap. When it specifies "the card", it is no longer looking for "the > ally or retainer", but "the card (that represents it)". Sometimes things which as assumed to be cards are referred to as cards instead of as the thing, interchangeably with referring to the thing itself. > Similarly, Banishment is no longer talking about a vampire in its > second sentence after "+1 stealth". It is now talking about the card > that represents that vampire. Interchangeably, yes. > > Similarly, the effect of Elder Library ends when it burns. > > Elder Library isn't in play as reminder text. Neither is SCS's card. > SCS would be too confusing if it said it could duplicate that card's > ability, but everyone had to remember just which card and what it did. > > Fictional Card 2: Both Gand > Ally with 2 life. > Both Gand may take a +1 stealth action when there are two cards of the > same name in play with a card on or under each of them to switch the > locations of those two cards. > > Interaction with Storage Annex becomes obvious (and mostly pointless), > but what would happen if two Shadow Court Satyrs had cards under them > and were switched? Which two cards are switched? The two cards in question, or the cards under/on them? I suspect you mean the latter even though you've written it as the former. If you mean "... to swap the card on/under one with the card on/under the other." In that case, the cards on the SCS's would be switched. > I don't think this is any longer pertinent, but I'm still curious, and > I provided the entire fictional text this time :) > > -- Brian [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > > > What card? > > > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. > > > > Only by ruling, however. > > Right. Oh! Well, that sure makes things simpler. I was under the impression that it was unable to grab Jake because of text alone. If you are saying that CtS is unable to fetch Jake, not by text but by ruling, then I certainly agree, as that is what I was trying to prove all along. > > > It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally card > > > any more. > > > So CtS cannot retrieve him. > > > > Why imply "ally card" from "card"? > > Why imply "the card that represented the ally"? Because that's what the word "the" means. "Which card?" "THE card." "What does that mean?" "The (appropriate or previously specified) card." So again, why imply "ally card" from "card"? > > Moreover, if ruled as such, why not just write it in the text? > > ? > The text is already printed. > Feel free to write in whatever you like on your copies. Can you change the official text at any time? If so, why not just write it in the text? > Naturally, if the ambiguity came to light in time for the wording to be > corrected, it would have been. Ah! Again, I am beginning to think we are on the same page. > > > > I am unsure how "the ally card" was read into this, other than that > > > > most allies come from ally cards. > > > > > > How are you reading "the card" to mean some master card? > > > > Careful, I never said it means a master card. > > You said that it should retrieve Jake, which is some master card. You could have similarly asked, "How are you reading SCS's "a combat card" to mean some Sewer Lid card?" Shadow Court Satyr, I am not reading to hold "some Sewer Lid card". It happens that it can hold a Sewer Lid, but it is not read that way, as such specification would limit the ability of the card. CtS, I am not reading to retrieve "some master card". It happens that it can retrieve a master card, but it is not read that way, as such specification would limit the ability of the card. > > Telling me I'm reading it to mean "some master card" is saying I'm > > narrowing the definition without reason--my point exactly. > > No. You've misread my statement above to somehow mean that *only* master > cards can be retrieved. If CtS were read to retrieve "some master card" instead of "the card", then it WOULD only be able to retrieve master cards. That's why I object. > You posit that CtS should be able to retrieve Jake. It is a fact that Jake > is a master card in the ash heap. Which leads to my statement above concerning > your reading. But reading CtS to say it retrieves "some master card" would limit its function, just as reading it to say "some ally card" does. If you are asking why it SHOULD be able to retrieve Jake, being "some master card", then my answer is because it says it retrieves some card and does not exclude masters. > > It means neither "some master card" or "some ally card". It means > > "some card (type unspecified)". > > Right. (Your position, that is) So if the type of card it retrieves is unspecified, why does it specify officially cards of type ally or retainer? If the answer is "just by ruling", then we agree, and this portion of the thread can be discontinued. If the answer is (as you say below) because the phrase is a pronoun, then this has taken quite a turn (see below). > > > Answer: you're taking "the card" to mean "the card that represented the > > > ally that was burned." > > > > You're doing it too. > > Right. It has to mean something. So, if we are assuming the same thing, why are you suggesting my assumption is wrong? > > "the ally card (that represented the ally that > > was burned)." > > Actually it's just: "the ally that was burned". I beg to differ: It specifies "card". If there were an ally which were not represented by a card, it could not retrieve it. > > The phrase in parentheses, you MUST read in; that's what "the" does, > > it answers "which one". The "ally" part, you guys stuck in. > > As rulemakers, you're perfectly allowed. > > As grammarians, I think you're wrong. > > Fine. OK, I think that's it then. You agree that the phrase "the card" does not necessarily mean "the ally card"--the point of this post. You decided to rule that for Compel the Spirit, only ally or retainer cards can be chosen. Therefore, CtS can only retrieve an ally or retainer card. If another card said "the card" on it, it would not necessarily be subject to such, as this is a ruling about CtS's function, not about the language itself. Correct? > > > It officially means "the ally card that was burned". > > > Ambiguity resolved by ruling to mean something other than what you > > > resolved the ambiguity to mean. > > > > But nobody sees ambiguity here except you. > > I didn't realize you had conducted such an exhaustive study of players' beliefs. OK, you got me there. I should have wrote "neither myself, nor the following posters see..." > > CtS is ruled that "that card" implies "that ally card". > > Banishment is ruled that "that vampire" does not imply "that vampire > > card". > > Not Banishment exactly, but rather the rules on influencing vampires > when faced with non-crypt cards in the uncontrolled region. Another way to handle the Banishment situation, however, would have been a CtS-type ruling: That Banishment refers only to moving "the crypt card" to the uncontrolled region. > > Moreover, Banishment forces the extremely odd ruling that a library > > card out of play will function, in the uncontrolled region, as a > > vampire of capacity 1. In fact, I'm not sure that's the ruling--does > > an Abomination function as a vampire of capacity 4? Does it function > > that way if Violet Tremain hits him a couple times? > > It functions as if it were a vampire card of the appropriate capacity. > > The Abomination would be a 4-cap vampire in the uncontrolled region. If I banish someone's Shock Troops, I could end up with a Dominate skill card in the uncontrolled region. Haven't Dominate skill cards been ruled to do nothing in the uncontrolled region? > > I suppose what I mean is: > > If CtS implies ally card, should Banishment imply vampire card? > > Yes. So then the Embrace is an illegal target, not being the proper cardtype? > But Banishment (or rather, the rules on cards in the uncontrolled > region) get a different ruling by the necessity of handling non-crypt > cards in the uncontrolled region. But if Banishment can't "banish" a vampire unless represented by a crypt card, then it doesn't matter what they do in the uncontrolled region, because they can't get there. > > Hypothetical text: > > (nec): Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has > > been burned since your last turn. Move that card from his or her > > owner's ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood or life from the > > blood bank on the card and tap the card. You now control the card. > > > > If Daemonic Possession read as above, could it bring an Embrace from > > the ash heap to play? > > No. Why not? If it required a specific ruling for CtS to function that way, how is this fictional card affected by that ruling? How does this instance of "that card" specify type? This is important because I was beginning to believe we were on the same page, and now is cast doubt. > > If it said "Move it" > > or "Move the ally or retainer", I could understand that it is > > referencing directly an ally or retainer, which must be in the ash > > heap. When it specifies "the card", it is no longer looking for "the > > ally or retainer", but "the card (that represents it)". > > Sometimes things which as assumed to be cards are referred to as cards instead > of as the thing, interchangeably with referring to the thing itself. This is the argument I put forward for allies using cards that say "this vampire": Sometimes things which are assumed to be vampires are referred to as vampires instead of the thing, interchangeably with referring to the thing itself. I understand this argument very well. You are saying that the phrase "the card" is collectively a pronoun, standing for "the ally or retainer that was burned". Would you agree that the phrase "this vampire" is collectively a pronoun, standing for "the minion that played this"? > > Fictional Card 2: Both Gand > > Ally with 2 life. > > Both Gand may take a +1 stealth action when there are two cards of the > > same name in play with a card on or under each of them to switch the > > locations of those two cards. > > > > Interaction with Storage Annex becomes obvious (and mostly pointless), > > but what would happen if two Shadow Court Satyrs had cards under them > > and were switched? > > Which two cards are switched? The two cards in question, or the cards > under/on them? I suspect you mean the latter even though you've written > it as the former. Yes, oops. > If you mean > "... to swap the card on/under one with the card on/under the other." > > In that case, the cards on the SCS's would be switched. Yes, but which Satyr could use which card? The one originally chosen, or the one now under them? Glad to have this discussion, really. -- Brian

Brian wrote: > > > > > But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > > > > What card? > > > > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. > > > > > > Only by ruling, however. > > > > Right. > > Oh! Well, that sure makes things simpler. > > I was under the impression that it was unable to grab Jake because of > text alone. If you are saying that CtS is unable to fetch Jake, not > by text but by ruling, then I certainly agree, as that is what I was > trying to prove all along. It's been there in the thread before. Ambuiguity requires a ruling to declare which interpretation is official. > > > Moreover, if ruled as such, why not just write it in the text? > > > > ? > > The text is already printed. > > Feel free to write in whatever you like on your copies. > > Can you change the official text at any time? > If so, why not just write it in the text? You mean, write the ruling's effect into the text in braces, as all other rulings are? Of course, now that the ruling has been made, it will be included in the card texts on the next update, like all rulings. > > Naturally, if the ambiguity came to light in time for the wording to be > > corrected, it would have been. > > Ah! Again, I am beginning to think we are on the same page. > > > > > > I am unsure how "the ally card" was read into this, other than that > > > > > most allies come from ally cards. > > > > > > > > How are you reading "the card" to mean some master card? > > > > > > Careful, I never said it means a master card. > > > > You said that it should retrieve Jake, which is some master card. > > You could have similarly asked, "How are you reading SCS's "a combat > card" to mean some Sewer Lid card?" Yes. > Shadow Court Satyr, I am not reading to hold "some Sewer Lid card". > It happens that it can hold a Sewer Lid, but it is not read that way, > as such specification would limit the ability of the card. Ah. No. If it (SCS) held some Sewer Lid, it (any reference to "the card it held") would mean some Sewer Lid. > CtS, I am not reading to retrieve "some master card". It happens that > it can retrieve a master card, but it is not read that way, as such > specification would limit the ability of the card. The same thing. You want it (the reference to the card) to mean "some master card" when the ally that had been burned was represented by a card that is no longer an ally but is now some master card. > > > Telling me I'm reading it to mean "some master card" is saying I'm > > > narrowing the definition without reason--my point exactly. > > > > No. You've misread my statement above to somehow mean that *only* master > > cards can be retrieved. > > If CtS were read to retrieve "some master card" instead of "the card", > then it WOULD only be able to retrieve master cards. That's why I > object. No. The ability to retrieve a master card is not the prohibition against retrieving any non-master card. > > You posit that CtS should be able to retrieve Jake. It is a fact that Jake > > is a master card in the ash heap. Which leads to my statement above concerning > > your reading. > > But reading CtS to say it retrieves "some master card" would limit its > function, just as reading it to say "some ally card" does. Allowing it to retrieve some master card in addition to ally cards would no limit its ability to retrieve ally cards. > If you are asking why it SHOULD be able to retrieve Jake, being "some > master card", then my answer is because it says it retrieves some card > and does not exclude masters. My point about your assertion, yes. > > > It means neither "some master card" or "some ally card". It means > > > "some card (type unspecified)". > > > > Right. (Your position, that is) > > So if the type of card it retrieves is unspecified, why does it > specify officially cards of type ally or retainer? Because "the card" that it retrieves is the ally card. > If the answer is "just by ruling", then we agree, and this portion of > the thread can be discontinued. If the answer is (as you say below) > because the phrase is a pronoun, then this has taken quite a turn (see > below). Both. The pronoun leads to the ambiguity that requires a ruling. If the pronoumn led invariably to your position, then a ruling would not suffice to lead to some other position - errata would be required. > > > > Answer: you're taking "the card" to mean "the card that represented the > > > > ally that was burned." > > > > > > You're doing it too. > > > > Right. It has to mean something. > > So, if we are assuming the same thing, why are you suggesting my > assumption is wrong? I'm not. I'm saying it isn't the official "assumption" about how to resolve the ambiguous card text. > > > "the ally card (that represented the ally that > > > was burned)." > > > > Actually it's just: "the ally that was burned". > > I beg to differ: It specifies "card". If there were an ally which > were not represented by a card, it could not retrieve it. True as well. But in the current world, there are no allies that are not cards. Just as there are no vampires that are not cards. > > > The phrase in parentheses, you MUST read in; that's what "the" does, > > > it answers "which one". The "ally" part, you guys stuck in. > > > As rulemakers, you're perfectly allowed. > > > As grammarians, I think you're wrong. > > > > Fine. > > OK, I think that's it then. You agree that the phrase "the card" does > not necessarily mean "the ally card"--the point of this post. You As I've been saying - the point of which is that a ruling is required. > decided to rule that for Compel the Spirit, only ally or retainer > cards can be chosen. Therefore, CtS can only retrieve an ally or > retainer card. If another card said "the card" on it, it would not > necessarily be subject to such, as this is a ruling about CtS's > function, not about the language itself. > > Correct? Sure. Except that the rulings will be uniform as much as possible, so they would follow this precedent whenever possible. > > > CtS is ruled that "that card" implies "that ally card". > > > Banishment is ruled that "that vampire" does not imply "that vampire > > > card". > > > > Not Banishment exactly, but rather the rules on influencing vampires > > when faced with non-crypt cards in the uncontrolled region. > > Another way to handle the Banishment situation, however, would have > been a CtS-type ruling: That Banishment refers only to moving "the > crypt card" to the uncontrolled region. True. But since there do exists non-crypt card vampires, the basis is different. Additionally, Banishment's card text is "Choose a younger vampire... the chosen vampire is... The vampire is... The vampire's blood counters...", so there'd have to be errata for that case (since it never lapses into "the card"). > > > Moreover, Banishment forces the extremely odd ruling that a library > > > card out of play will function, in the uncontrolled region, as a > > > vampire of capacity 1. In fact, I'm not sure that's the ruling--does > > > an Abomination function as a vampire of capacity 4? Does it function > > > that way if Violet Tremain hits him a couple times? > > > > It functions as if it were a vampire card of the appropriate capacity. > > > > The Abomination would be a 4-cap vampire in the uncontrolled region. > > If I banish someone's Shock Troops, I could end up with a Dominate > skill card in the uncontrolled region. Haven't Dominate skill cards > been ruled to do nothing in the uncontrolled region? Not on there own, no. Dominate skill cards on an uncontrolled vampire are out of play, yes. Dominate skill cards that represent 1-capacity vampires represent 1-capacity vampires in the uncontrolled region. > > > I suppose what I mean is: > > > If CtS implies ally card, should Banishment imply vampire card? > > > > Yes. > > So then the Embrace is an illegal target, not being the proper > cardtype? Keep reading... > > But Banishment (or rather, the rules on cards in the uncontrolled > > region) get a different ruling by the necessity of handling non-crypt > > cards in the uncontrolled region. > > But if Banishment can't "banish" a vampire unless represented by a > crypt card, then it doesn't matter what they do in the uncontrolled > region, because they can't get there. True. But it can banish non-crypt-card vampires, so the point is moot. > > > Hypothetical text: > > > (nec): Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has > > > been burned since your last turn. Move that card from his or her > > > owner's ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood or life from the > > > blood bank on the card and tap the card. You now control the card. > > > > > > If Daemonic Possession read as above, could it bring an Embrace from > > > the ash heap to play? > > > > No. > > Why not? If it required a specific ruling for CtS to function that > way, how is this fictional card affected by that ruling? How does > this instance of "that card" specify type? But following the ruling. > This is important because I was beginning to believe we were on the > same page, and now is cast doubt. No. Every card text, even when ambiguous, has to have an official interpretation. The official interpretation for your fictional card text follows the CtS ruling to resolve the ambiguity that is identical to the CtS ambiguity. > > > If it said "Move it" > > > or "Move the ally or retainer", I could understand that it is > > > referencing directly an ally or retainer, which must be in the ash > > > heap. When it specifies "the card", it is no longer looking for "the > > > ally or retainer", but "the card (that represents it)". > > > > Sometimes things which as assumed to be cards are referred to as cards instead > > of as the thing, interchangeably with referring to the thing itself. > > This is the argument I put forward for allies using cards that say > "this vampire": Sometimes things which are assumed to be vampires are > referred to as vampires instead of the thing, interchangeably with > referring to the thing itself. OK. ? > I understand this argument very well. You are saying that the phrase > "the card" is collectively a pronoun, standing for "the ally or > retainer that was burned". > > Would you agree that the phrase "this vampire" is collectively a > pronoun, standing for "the minion that played this"? No. Allies get no benefit from "this vampire" effects. e.g., Allies cannot prevent damage with Blood Tears. > > > Fictional Card 2: Both Gand > > > Ally with 2 life. > > > Both Gand may take a +1 stealth action when there are two cards of the > > > same name in play with a card on or under each of them to switch the > > > locations of those two cards. > > > > > > Interaction with Storage Annex becomes obvious (and mostly pointless), > > > but what would happen if two Shadow Court Satyrs had cards under them > > > and were switched? > > > > Which two cards are switched? The two cards in question, or the cards > > under/on them? I suspect you mean the latter even though you've written > > it as the former. > > Yes, oops. > > > If you mean > > "... to swap the card on/under one with the card on/under the other." > > > > In that case, the cards on the SCS's would be switched. > > Yes, but which Satyr could use which card? The one originally chosen, > or the one now under them? The SCS can use the ability of the card on it. It has no memory of the former card. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E3D66C4...@white-wolf.com>... > > The requirements of having an ally you control burned are met, yes. > But then CtS wants to move "the card" from the ash heap. > What card? > For CtS, it wants to move the ally card. > It cannot find the ally card, however, because Jake is not an ally card > any more. > So CtS cannot retrieve him. > As an aside here, I understand this even if I don't agree with it. But how might this similar situation apply to abomination? "This card becomes a unique clanless Independent vampire " Can I Possess an abomination back into play, assuming it was in play as a vampire of course? I would say yes, because once it hit play it becomes a vampire. But seeing this discussion I want to be sure. T

Talonz wrote: > Can I Possess an abomination back into play, assuming it was in play > as a vampire of course? I would say yes, because once it hit play it > becomes a vampire. But seeing this discussion I want to be sure. No. In the ash heap, it is not a vampire (card text on the card in the ash heap doesn't apply, since the card is not in play). Possession can only retrieve vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]