Simply put: Can Ellison Humboldt s ability be used multiple times during same referendum, for multiple different princes?
My gut instinct is no, due to the wording ("..may burn A blood to.."), however the card text doesn't explicitly deny it. The ability also seems really strong if multi-use is possible..
What about Matteus, flesh sculptor 's similar ability with a slightly different wording? (Can it be used to get multiple intercept against an archbishops political action). In this case I would imagine that it can (and I've already used it so once)
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Simply put: Can Ellison Humboldt s ability be used multiple times during same referendum, for multiple different princes?
>
> My gut instinct is no, due to the wording ("..may burn A blood to.."), however the card text doesn't explicitly deny it. The ability also seems really strong if multi-use is possible..
>
Name: Ellison Humboldt
[CE:V/PN, BSC:X]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Nosferatu
Group: 3
Capacity: 9
Discipline: pro ANI OBF POT PRE
Camarilla primogen: Princes cannot block Ellison. During a referendum, Ellison may burn a blood to force a ready prince to cast votes and ballots as Ellison's controller wishes. This can change the prince's votes and ballots.
Relevant card text is: "during a referendum". It can be used only once per referendum.
[quote="Bloodartist" post=85597What about Matteus, flesh sculptor 's similar ability with a slightly different wording? (Can it be used to get multiple intercept against an archbishops political action). In this case I would imagine that it can (and I've already used it so once)[/quote]
Name: Matteus, Flesh Sculptor
[Sabbat:V, BH:PTo]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Toreador antitribu
Group: 2
Capacity: 10
Discipline: AUS CEL PRE VIC
Sabbat priscus: Matteus may burn 1 additional blood to play an action card that requires an archbishop or cardinal. He may burn 1 blood to get +1 intercept against an archbishop, cardinal or regent attempting a political action.
Matteus can use both abilities more than once per action (like Maris Streck).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
After a bit of searching, I can now see where this ruling comes from;
>
> Terminology:
> "During time period X, (you may) do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 19970625]
>
I'm fine with the ruling itself. However I think the wording on this card (and similar) is more than a bit vague. If we reprint these cards, I would like to see the wording be made more clear.
In my opinion if multi-use is not supposed to be possible, it should be stated so explicitly.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> After a bit of searching, I can now see where this ruling comes from;
> >
> > Terminology:
> > "During time period X, (you may) do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 19970625]
> >
It's also (and more importantly) in the rulebook:
Wording templates
“During X, do Y”: The “during X do Y” template is used in several cards. When this template is used, only one Y can be done per X with this card. For instance, you may move blood from your vampire to your pool with Vessel only once per unlock phase.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I'm fine with the ruling itself. However I think the wording on this card (and similar) is more than a bit vague. If we reprint these cards, I would like to see the wording be made more clear.
> In my opinion if multi-use is not supposed to be possible, it should be stated so explicitly.
>
There's a very interesting discussion about it here:
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/wZIqD6ZA9ms/ZZBajlRC6T0J
LSJ considered the change, but it was unsatisfactory. Chosen quotes:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Sure, space is at a premium on most cards, but "once each"
> > > in place of "during X phase" would be a very minimal increase
> > > (if any) in text used and would produce unambiguous clarity
> > > for a lot of readers that aren't finding that clarity in the
> > > "during X do Y" phrasing.
> > OK. I'll adopt the "once each" phrasing whenever possible.
> >
> > Unambiguous clarity is a nice goal. Given the Skin of Rock
> > examples, however, I'm not sure it is attainable.
> >
> Hmm. I was just going through the card list making the substitutions,
> and it is generally pretty awkward and stilted (unless the change
> actually alters the meaning) after the change. Seems like I had gone
> down that route before and reached the same end then as well.
>
> > It seems to work reasonably well for me, if I replace "During your
> > X phase" with "Once each of your X phases". At least, this reads
> > OK for me on Hunting Grounds.
> "Once each of" has the unfortunate property that it can easily be
> misread as "When it becomes true that each of", so that reading
> needs to be eliminated as early in the sentence as possible.
>
> As in "Once during each of" or "Once in" or "During".
> "Once in" begins to look like "At the start of", so that's not
> a clean "fix".
>
> > For vampire abilities written "if Foo is ready during your X
> > phase," I like "if Foo is ready, once each of your X phases,".
> "Once during each of your X phases, if Foo is ready, ..." is
> clearer.
>
> > Still, you're right that it takes some effort to go through and
> > determine which cards that use "during" would need altering and
> > what the best way to include "once" would be. I'd be happy
> > enough if future cards were simply written to use a "once"
> > phrasing instead of relying on the "during X do Y means once"
> > rule.
> It seems to be clearly better for instances when it really is "each"
> and not just "each of your". "Once each minion phase, ...". But
> those cases are few.
>
and
> LSJ wrote:
> Kerravon wrote:
> > Why not simply change the text so that anyone can instantly know how it
> > works
> > ie
> >
> > "Once during any Methuselah's minion phase, you may burn the Edge to untap
> > Torvus."
> >
> > "Once during your untap phase, you may move 1 blood from the blood bank to a
> > ready vampire you control."
> >
> > It needs to be changed. As there are alot of players who have the exact same
> > problem I do in interpreting these cards.
> > Or in other words I shouldn't need to go online to ask this question.
> With those wordings, some players will ask if the ability can be used
> a second time (say, during your untap phase of a future turn), since
> "once" seems to indicate that you cannot.
>
> You'd have to use "Once during each of your untap phases, ..." if you
> wanted to replace "During your untap phase, ..."
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
im at work and don't have time to scour the rulebook, but could a template be established to something like "once per untap phase" with the notation that these cards refer to your phases, and will specify other Methuselah's phases if applicable?
> self wrote:
> im at work and don't have time to scour the rulebook, but could a template be established to something like "once per untap phase" with the notation that these cards refer to your phases, and will specify other Methuselah's phases if applicable?
>
In that case, "once each untap phase" works already. The trouble comes from Xs in "once each X" where X isn't a simple thing (eg., your untap phase")
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I am interested in the rule for 2 cards on this topic. I think I know the answer but I'm not 100% sure.
Name: CrimethInc.
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Protean/Quietus/Thaumaturgy
Requires an anarch. Play after resolving a successful action that requires an anarch or makes this vampire an anarch.
[pro] Unlock this anarch.
[qui] Unlock another ready anarch.
[tha] Put this card in play. During your minion phase, you may burn a pool to unlock a ready anarch you control.
Discipline [tha] "During your minion phase, you may burn a pool" If I understand the effect well, it can be applied once,right?
Name: Kateline Nadasdy
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Toreador
Group: 4
Capacity: 7
Discipline: AUS CEL PRE
Camarilla: During a political action, Kateline may burn 1 blood to force a non-acting vampire to abstain.
I think she work same as Maris,she can burn more blood to force more vampires to abstain,right?
> beslin wrote:
> I am interested in the rule for 2 cards on this topic. I think I know the answer but I'm not 100% sure.
>
> Name: CrimethInc.
>
> Cardtype: Action Modifier
> Discipline: Protean/Quietus/Thaumaturgy
> Requires an anarch. Play after resolving a successful action that requires an anarch or makes this vampire an anarch.
> [pro] Unlock this anarch.
> [qui] Unlock another ready anarch.
> [tha] Put this card in play. During your minion phase, you may burn a pool to unlock a ready anarch you control.
>
> Discipline [tha] "During your minion phase, you may burn a pool" If I understand the effect well, it can be applied once,right?
>
> Name: Kateline Nadasdy
>
> Cardtype: Vampire
> Clan: Toreador
> Group: 4
> Capacity: 7
> Discipline: AUS CEL PRE
> Camarilla: During a political action, Kateline may burn 1 blood to force a non-acting vampire to abstain.
>
> I think she work same as Maris,she can burn more blood to force more vampires to abstain,right?
>
Both are once per. The key word is DURING. Any time you see DURING, it means once per turn/phase/combat/action.
> self wrote:
> im at work and don't have time to scour the rulebook, but could a template be established to something like[/i] "once per untap phase" with the notation that these cards refer to your phases, and will specify other Methuselah's phases if applicable?
>
Replacing one templated but potentially misread wording for cards and replacing it with an entirely different templated but potentially misread wording seems... unproductive.
If you can find the bit of the rulebook that says "During X, do Y" and understand it, you can find the bit of the rulebook that says "once per untap phase" doesn't actually mean "once per untap phase". For people who don't find either, changing the wording would be pointless.
> Ankha wrote:
> I don't know if "once per" would be applicable or not, and if the result would be clearer.
>
I can say however that "During your untap phase" is extremely ambiguous in more ways than one.
Firstly, there are an infinite amount of moments that happen during an untap phase. Ordering of events that happen during a phase is sometimes important, and when a trigger happens automatically, questions often rise about the ordering in which automatic triggers happen in relation to activated abilities made by player.
In comparison, Magic the gathering uses wording "at the beginning of phase X, this happens". With this wording, the timing of automatic triggers is not uncertain. First these things happen, then players can do things. If multiple automatic triggers happen, the player who controls them chooses the order. While VTES ruling for these is similar, this is not immediately obvious from the wording, which is my main criticism.
Secondly, The current ruling that you can only use an ability of the form "During phase X, you may do this" only once per phase/turn is in my opinion extremely unintuitive, and does not logically follow from the wording. I don't think a single person would realize this without having in-depth knowledge of the rulebook. You are basically forced to know the rule in the rulebook. This is not good design. Logical way would be have unlimited uses unless its specifically denied.
Design which invites misinterpretations is poor design.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> I don't think a single person would realize this without having in-depth knowledge of the rulebook. You are basically forced to know the rule in the rulebook. This is not good design. Logical way would be have unlimited uses unless its specifically denied.
>
We've had terms like 'elegance' floating around recently, and while I have my opinions about the discussion around them, I have to agree with this one.
Elegance of rules writing and applying enough information to a rules text interpreted by people, players, on the go, is not computer language or coding. Rules should work as such, yes, but the principles of user centered design are important.
For example, we still regularly get to discuss how 'canceling' card effects work in this game.
It's in the rulebook, but it wouldn't be that much more difficult to write it as "burned as played" to the cards. Maybe add (with no effect) if needed. It's basically what happens, isn't it? The card is often considered played. Cancelling as a word implies something else.
A similar example from Netrunner:
> Whenever you expose a card or access cards and do not steal or trash any of them, place 1 virus counter on Aumakua.
>
For those who don't know the game, Archives is a place where you can access cards whenever. There might or might not be cards in there. Technically there is a phase in the game during a run, where you access cards. That, as it turned out, does not check if there are cards to access. We played the card for the first weeks so that you could counter the card by avoiding placing cards for access in the archives. The ruling is, that you always get the counters, because you go through the phase of accessing.
They could've written a few more words to the card to make it so much more simpler and easier to play without having to dive into the rulebook. User centered design.
Of course there's a lot less room for text in VtES crypt cards. And we don't want to clutter the cards with text. But yeah. It's not a completely valid response, that "it's in the rulebook, there is no problem!"
Even if it's not a problem per se doesn't mean it couldn't be made easier for the user.
Sadly I don't have a better suggestion to this particular wording.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I don't think a single person would realize this without having in-depth knowledge of the rulebook. You are basically forced to know the rule in the rulebook. This is not good design.
>
I feel like I must be parsing your point incorrectly, as you seem to be saying that you think it's bad design for people to need to know the rules of the game to play the game.
> Kushiel wrote:
> I feel like I must be parsing your point incorrectly, as you seem to be saying that you think it's bad design for people to need to know the rules of the game to play the game.
>
To paraphrase:
Rules should be obvious from the cards as much as possible. Card text should definitely not be misleading people away from the correct rule interpretation.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> In comparison, Magic the gathering uses wording "at the beginning of phase X, this happens". With this wording, the timing of automatic triggers is not uncertain. First these things happen, then players can do things. If multiple automatic triggers happen, the player who controls them chooses the order. While VTES ruling for these is similar, this is not immediately obvious from the wording, which is my main criticism.
>
"At the beginning of phase X" could equally imply they all happen simultaneously, because after you've done the first one you're no longer at the beginning of anything.