Author Topic: Stalks of Flax (Read 9759 times)

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #25 on:** August 09, 2009, 01:31:48 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2009, 12:31:45 PM

Quote from: Bryon
Once you pay the cost (if any), you complete the ability as much as possible.
That would mean that you could exchange two of your Heroes for one of your opponent's with Stalks.

I don't believe that is correct, because it doesn't really make sense to exchange one for nothing. But I do think it makes sense to complete one of the exchanges, since two is not possible. Really though, there is no precedent for multiple exchanges occurring at the same time.

adamfincher · « **Reply #26 on:** August 09, 2009, 01:34:24 PM »

How i take it is that with this specific card the Complete ability must be completed otherwise it wont work.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #27 on:** August 09, 2009, 01:40:08 PM »

Quote from: adamfincher on August 09, 2009, 01:34:24 PM

How i take it is that with this specific card the Complete ability must be completed otherwise it wont work.

But why? I thought you were supposed to complete abilities as far as possible? Why does Stalks of Flax come as a package deal and not cards like Zeal?

Quote from: Bryon on August 09, 2009, 02:11:52 AM

Exchange has an inherant cost. Discard does not.

That's how I see it, anyway.

So exchanging is treated like a cost/benefit? Give one card to get one card? That makes sense, and I think its a good way to look at it, but I don't see how that changes whether or not you complete as many of the exchanges prescribed by the card or not.

Sean · « **Reply #28 on:** August 09, 2009, 04:18:31 PM »

Quote

I don't believe that is correct, because it doesn't really make sense to exchange one for nothing.

Based on the "pay price => do as much as possible" line of thinking, it is correct. It isn't an exchange for nothing, it is a 2 for 1.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #29 on:** August 09, 2009, 05:07:22 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2009, 04:18:31 PM

Quote
I don't believe that is correct, because it doesn't really make sense to exchange one for nothing.
Based on the "pay price => do as much as possible" line of thinking, it is correct. It isn't an exchange for nothing, it is a 2 for 1.

I think I see what you're saying, you pay the cost of sending two heroes to your opponents territory in order to receive the benefit of getting two of their heroes. However, you always pay the cost (sending two heroes over) and complete as much of the benefit as possible (getting anywhere from 0 to 2 heroes back, depending on what they have) Is that what you intended?

My only problem with looking at it that way is that you would be able to pop the wanderer into your opponent's land of bondage and get no lost souls back, if it was empty beforehand.

I think it makes more sense to treat the two exchanges like individual trades, similar to how zeal has two individual discards. That way, if you complete one exchange, and there are either no suitable targets left in your opponent's territory or you are out of heroes, you just stop because you completed as much of the ability as possible.

I think I understand where you're coming from though.

Sean · « **Reply #30 on:** August 09, 2009, 06:33:17 PM »

Quote

Is that what you intended?

Yes.

Quote

My only problem with looking at it that way is that you would be able to pop the wanderer into your opponent's land of bondage and get no lost souls back, if it was empty beforehand.

Hey, don't get ahead of me.

Quote

similar to how zeal has two individual discards.

Zeal doesn't have two individual discards. It has one discard that targets up to two Evil Characters even though "up to" is nowhere to be found in the special ability.

Here's where I get to the Wanderer. If you treat the Wanderer as a cost/benefit ability then you can exchange for nothing. I don't think exchange should be treated as a cost/benefit for that reason. All targets for the exchange need to be available. I also think all targets should be available for Zeal because otherwise I agree, with whoever already stated, that it would be inconsistent if we said that Zeal discards as much as possible but Stalks can only exchange if all targets are available.

Is "as much as possible" even in the rulebook or REG? I know we've used it but now I'm thinking that maybe we should rethink it.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #31 on:** August 09, 2009, 06:37:35 PM »

If you require all targets to be available, what about a situation where there are more than 2 ECs of different brigades in play, but all but 1 is protected? Does Zeal work? What about AoC?

Sean · « **Reply #32 on:** August 09, 2009, 06:43:08 PM »

Protected characters are not valid targets.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #33 on:** August 09, 2009, 07:09:37 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2009, 06:33:17 PM

Quote
similar to how zeal has two individual discards.
Zeal doesn't have two individual discards. It has one discard that targets up to two Evil Characters even though "up to" is nowhere to be found in the special ability.

I don't think its a package deal the way its currently understood/ruled. Also, it doesn't discard up to two evil characters. If it did, you could choose to only discard one even if there were two legal targets for it. I don't believe thats how its currently played.

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2009, 06:33:17 PM

Here's where I get to the Wanderer. If you treat the Wanderer as a cost/benefit ability then you can exchange for nothing. I don't think exchange should be treated as a cost/benefit for that reason. All targets for the exchange need to be available. I also think all targets should be available for Zeal because otherwise I agree, with whoever already stated, that it would be inconsistent if we said that Zeal discards as much as possible but Stalks can only exchange if all targets are available.

Is "as much as possible" even in the rulebook or REG? I know we've used it but now I'm thinking that maybe we should rethink it.

I agree with you partially. I definitely think it would be inconsistent to rule Stalks and Zeal differently. I also agree that exchange shouldn't be treated as a cost/benefit, given the example of the wanderer. In my opinion, I think each exchange should be viewed as an instantaneous, single swap of two cards. It should be viewed as a single action, and treated exactly the same as other instant abilities. In light of that viewpoint, it would follow the precedent of Zeal precisely. If you couldn't complete both exchanges, you would complete one. That seems to be the simplest way to do as much of the ability as possible.

And I have no idea about "as much as possible." I just know I've heard it constantly for a long time now.

Sean · « **Reply #34 on:** August 09, 2009, 10:48:47 PM »

Quote

I don't think its a package deal the way its currently understood/ruled. Also, it doesn't discard up to two evil characters. If it did, you could choose to only discard one even if there were two legal targets for it. I don't believe thats how its currently played.

You are correct and I realize this. The difference is that I am advocating changing the way we play Zeal so that we play exchange that way whereas you are advocating that we play exchange how we currently play Zeal. We're both advocating consistency.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #35 on:** August 09, 2009, 11:05:57 PM »

So if you require "all or nothing", what happens with AoC when there are protected targets?

Sean · « **Reply #36 on:** August 09, 2009, 11:11:47 PM »

Protected targets can't be targeted. All valid targets are still targeted. I don't see the problem with that.

Korunks · « **Reply #37 on:** August 10, 2009, 07:05:07 AM »

I agree that there seems to be an inconsistency in the way exchange and zeal work. I remember the first I saw zeal I said oh I have to discard 2 EC's or it won't work (that is what the card says), only to find out it was ruled that I could go up to 2. Then stalks comes along, looks the same, but it HAS to be 2 or nothing. I believe we would be best served by a ruling on this, for consistency. It can get really confusing otherwise.

frisian9 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 10, 2009, 09:05:07 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2009, 06:33:17 PM

Is "as much as possible" even in the rulebook or REG? I know we've used it but now I'm thinking that maybe we should rethink it.

It is not currently in the REG, nor is the concept in a state to be put there. I'm not sure I understand what it means and when it works. The phrase "as much as possible" is a quasi thingy. I agree something needs to be clarified that can be an easy rule to apply to all cases.

Mike

Bryon · « **Reply #39 on:** August 11, 2009, 11:00:10 AM »

If I play a draw 3 ability when I have 2 cards left in deck, I draw 2.

If I play a discard 2 ECs ability, and only one is available, I discard 1.

If I play an exchange ability, though, there has to be an exact one-to-one correspondance between the cards. Further, the cards exchanged have to go to the exact location of the other card (including into a fort, etc.). So, if I have only one hero, I can't exchange it for two, since one card can't go into the exact spots held by two distinct heroes. Get it?

Now, whether that means I can still exchange one-for-one, I don't know.

crustpope · « **Reply #40 on:** August 11, 2009, 11:34:57 AM »

I had someone play stalks on me last night and I only had one hero out. He switched one of his for one of mine. I didnt see a problem with that given the way that zeal works.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #41 on:** August 11, 2009, 01:36:34 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on August 11, 2009, 11:00:10 AM

If I play a draw 3 ability when I have 2 cards left in deck, I draw 2.

If I play a discard 2 ECs ability, and only one is available, I discard 1.

If I play an exchange ability, though, there has to be an exact one-to-one correspondance between the cards. Further, the cards exchanged have to go to the exact location of the other card (including into a fort, etc.). So, if I have only one hero, I can't exchange it for two, since one card can't go into the exact spots held by two distinct heroes. Get it?

I agree with all of that. I guess the question is, what is the difference between doing "as much as you can" for Zeal and discarding one EC, and doing "as much as you can" for Stalks and exchanging 1 for 1. That's what I (and others) are unsure of. Since this is the only card to exchange 2 cards for 2 other cards, it's never come up before. But it seems that in order to be consistent, it should be possible to do a 1-for-1 trade.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #42 on:** August 11, 2009, 02:03:39 PM »

I agree. 1-to-1 exchange seems totally fine here.

Sean · « **Reply #43 on:** August 11, 2009, 03:18:32 PM »

Quote

If I play a draw 3 ability when I have 2 cards left in deck, I draw 2.

If I play a discard 2 ECs ability, and only one is available, I discard 1.

If I play an exchange ability, though, there has to be an exact one-to-one correspondance between the cards. Further, the cards exchanged have to go to the exact location of the other card (including into a fort, etc.). So, if I have only one hero, I can't exchange it for two, since one card can't go into the exact spots held by two distinct heroes. Get it?

Now, whether that means I can still exchange one-for-one, I don't know.

I feel that if this is the way that we are going to play all of these other cards then it needs to be the way we play Stalks. Which leads to a one for one exchange if one player only has one targetable Hero.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 11, 2009, 08:57:23 PM »

The following is a bit of a tangent.

Since I cannot exchange unequal quantities, why can I exchange the wander for the doubler lost soul? Since the The doubler "counts as to lost souls".

Back to stalks of flax,

I am not sure if you can exchange a one on one because it does not specify "up to, like prisoner transfer does. IMO discards are different and should be treated differently then exchanges, but I can see how it could be ruled the other way.

Bryon · « **Reply #45 on:** August 11, 2009, 09:37:50 PM »

Wanderer for Souls - It is equal quantities of cards, not equal abilities or equal worth.

I can see both sides of this, and really don't care how it falls, as long as it is never a 1 for 2 exchange.

frisian9 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 12, 2009, 07:58:40 PM »

Given the grayness of "as much as possible", we might be better to be strict and say you have to follow the letter of the law. It seems the "as much as possible" issues have no simple procedure. From a rules and judging perspective alone, I think a strict interpretation would be wise. However, I doubt anyone will want to play that way. I have trouble even considering a phrase like "as much as possible" being placed in the REG. That goes against the nature of the REG.

Mike

Sean · « **Reply #47 on:** August 12, 2009, 08:19:24 PM »

Quote from: frisian9 on August 12, 2009, 07:58:40 PM

Given the grayness of "as much as possible", we might be better to be strict and say you have to follow the letter of the law. It seems the "as much as possible" issues have no simple procedure. From a rules and judging perspective alone, I think a strict interpretation would be wise. However, I doubt anyone will want to play that way. I have trouble even considering a phrase like "as much as possible" being placed in the REG. That goes against the nature of the REG.

I get what you're saying and I agree. However, I'm not sure it would be "easier" to rule in that we have been ruling it the "as much as possible" way for so long. It would definitely be easier in as much as for newer player's and judges. I think it'd be "hard" for older players to get used to.

Seems like we're at the point where Rob and the play testers need to have whatever discussion they need to have so we can get a final ruling and move on.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #48 on:** August 12, 2009, 09:00:23 PM »

I actually don't agree that getting rid of the idea behind "as much as possible" will make things easier for anyone. Currently, people ask if they can use Zeal to discard the only valid target in play, and the answer is "Yes, because you complete as much of the ability as possible." If this changes, people will ask if they can use Zeal this way, and the answer will be "No, because you have to complete the whole ability or none of it." Either way it will bring up questions. The difference is that there will be a lot of cards that will never be used if the "all-or-nothing" stance is accepted. Vengeance of Eternal Fire is one of them, and I'm sure there are many others.

I'm perfectly fine with the "complete as much as possible" idea, I just hope we can keep it consistent, by making 1-for-1 exchanges possible. As far as putting it into the REG, I don't know why something along the lines of the following would be so bad to put in there:

"If an ability says you must target multiple cards, and there are not enough valid targets in play to fulfill the whole ability, then you must fulfill as much of the ability as possible. For example, Zeal for the Lord says: 'Interrupt the battle and discard two Evil Characters of different brigades. Cannot be negated if used by Phinehas, son of Eleazar.' If you play Zeal for the Lord and there is only one Evil Character able to be discarded in play, or all Evil Characters in play that are able to be discarded are of the same brigade, then you must discard only one Evil Character to fulfill as much of Zeal for the Lord's ability as possible."

I'm sure this would have to be modified somewhat, but I think it might be a good starting point if the "as much as possible" idea is to stay around.

Thoughts?

frisian9 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 12, 2009, 10:04:17 PM »

I see your point. There is no simple solution. That means status quo should be the path of least resistance. "The long, and winding road, ..."

Mike

News:

Author Topic: Stalks of Flax (Read 9759 times)

TheHobbit13