More smartass interpretation of terminology: 'a'

This is not a rules question per se, but rather an article presenting an underlying problem with assumptions that RAI and RAW are the same. Let's look at the unobtrusive 'a'. In a prior thread (Satyr and dual disciplines) the sign 'a' took on a definite form. I use the term 'sign' deliberately. In VTES we use words or abbreviations as signs. Not always, but some of them take one 'magical' properties not inherent i all contexts where they occur (ie English language). In this specific case I'll point out how the innocent 'a' can create a problem. For the purpose of playing VTES, 'a' has a tendency to be strictly interpreted as 'one'. Arguments that 'a' should be interpreted as 'existing' or 'at least one' have been ruled out on multiple occasions. 'a' means 'one', and nothing but 'one'. This doesn't present a problem until the rulings clarify that 'one' cannot mean 'member of one or more than one'. I'll point to a specific card to exemplify why this is problematic. Cardname: Mukhtar Bey Cardtype: Vampire Set: Gehenna Sect: Camarilla Group: 4 Clan: Caitiff Capacity: 7 Discipline: FOR obf pot PRE QUI Cardtext: Camarilla Prince of Cairo: Mukhtar cannot use presses to continue combat. If there are five Gehenna cards in play during your untap phase, burn Mukhtar. The card specified above has explicitly been ruled that Mukhtar burns if there are five OR MORE Gehenna cards in play during the controlling meth's untap phase. Said ruling also explicitly states that five is a member of five or more. (Google 'mukhtar bey lsj burn' and you'll find a year 2004 MS word document). There is no inherent reason to interpret 'one' differently than 'five' for the purposes of determining if the number belongs to a family or is an absolute and unique identity. I'll leave this problem here for further discussion. My next article will handle impulse swapping and inconsistencies accepted within that frame. Flame on.

> yappo wrote: > For the purpose of playing VTES, 'a' has a tendency to be strictly interpreted as 'one'. Arguments that 'a' should be interpreted as 'existing' or 'at least one' have been ruled out on multiple occasions. 'a' means 'one', and nothing but 'one'. > I doubt this "While Marcus is ready and a prince Sabbat vampires you control get +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Camarilla vampire." has it ever been ruled that this special ability does not apply if the target controls 2 or more ready camarilla vampires?

@ yappo : i totally understand your statement. Writing 100% unambiguous text is very difficult indeed and require a tedious work over time . I think it is too late for this game. We still have the rulings at least. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> yappo wrote: > For the purpose of playing VTES, 'a' has a tendency to be strictly interpreted as 'one'. Arguments that 'a' should be interpreted as 'existing' or 'at least one' have been ruled out on multiple occasions. 'a' means 'one', and nothing but 'one'. > I enjoy your rigorous approach to text analysis. I nominate you to the rules team! (Well, I would if there were a rules team and if there were a nomination process.) I understand that in the case of Shadow Court Satyr and similar cards talked about in that related thread, "a" Discipline has been ruled to mean "one" Discipline. What's more, "one" means "one and only one" in those cases (interesting ) I agree with you that "a" does not mean "one", and I think that LSJ or RTR (or whoever) wanted to avoid the complication of changing the text of the cards to take into account the existence of dual discipline cards, which is what should have been done to make them linguistically correct. The rulings were a lazy workaround to a linguistic inaccuracy. They weren't really clarifications as some people like to think. Of course, later unrelated rulings apparently say that a number does not mean "that number and only that number". It means "at least that number". With your implacably logical mind, you've found this interesting inconsistency. BUT: Does the SCS ruling et al. mean that "a" must always be interpreted as "one and only one"? That is my problem with what you are saying. I think that the rulings are idiosyncratic to the cards in question because those rulings lack linguistic insight. Can you give three more examples of cards where "a" has been interpreted to mean "one and only one"?

I also suggest we replace text with flowcharts and use binary language to avoid any confusion. Or, if this can't be done, just use rulings. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> AaronC wrote: > Can you give three more examples of cards where "a" has been interpreted to mean "one and only one"? > Parity Shift. Govern the unaligned. Seduction. Also, non-cardtext usages of "a" referring to "one and only one": > > AaronC wrote: > if there were a rules team > > AaronC wrote: > if there were a nomination process > I still think you're overreading the "a" in SCS. It is in a non-exhaustive list, which means it could mean anything.

> Pascal wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > Can you give three more examples of cards where "a" has been interpreted to mean "one and only one"? > > > Parity Shift. > Govern the unaligned. > Seduction. > > Also, non-cardtext usages of "a" referring to "one and only one": > > > > AaronC wrote: > > if there were a rules team > > > > AaronC wrote: > > if there were a nomination process > > > I still think you're overreading the "a" in SCS. It is in a non-exhaustive list, which means it could mean anything. > Pascal, the non card texts your refer to as examples are actually (in VTES) sometimes interpreted as 'at least one'. "If your prey controls a <insert whatever>", for example. Also for the opposites: "Any Methusela who doesn't control a <insert whatever>". It would seem that numericals are interpreted differently based on their implicit context. When the numerical is read as 'there exist number', then 'number' will quite often be interpreted as 'at least number'. 'controls number', 'requires number', 'there are number'. Exchange 'number' with 'a' and you'll have common phrases in VTES.

Do you include "a" amongst numericals ? If you don't, please provide a cardtext that has "number" written but is intended / played as if it had "at least number" instead. "A" being non-numerical, I'm not sure how rules on numericals apply to it.

> Pascal wrote: > Do you include "a" amongst numericals ? > If you don't, please provide a cardtext that has "number" written but is intended / played as if it had "at least number" instead. > > "A" being non-numerical, I'm not sure how rules on numericals apply to it. > Mukhtar Bey. Burns if five Gehenna cards in play. Ruled to burn if at least five Gehenna cards in play. Ian Forestal can play a card thet requires a discipline. 'a' ruled to be numerical one, and further ruled to mean one and only one.

edit: never mind

> yappo wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > Do you include "a" amongst numericals ? > > If you don't, please provide a cardtext that has "number" written but is intended / played as if it had "at least number" instead. > > > > "A" being non-numerical, I'm not sure how rules on numericals apply to it. > > > Mukhtar Bey. Burns if five Gehenna cards in play. Ruled to burn if at least five Gehenna cards in play. > > Ian Forestal can play a card thet requires a discipline. 'a' ruled to be numerical one, and further ruled to mean one and only one. > Good catch for Mukhtar. The ruling on him stands. "A" being "a" and not "one" on Ian, rules on "one" don't really apply to it. Rulings on Ian do.