Author Topic: Stoning of Stephen + The Sanhedrin (Read 3434 times)

Gabe · « **on:** January 05, 2016, 10:10:06 AM »

If I play Stoning of Stephen on The Sanhedrin does X = 1 or 2?

Stoning of Stephen identifier - X = # of evil Pharisees and evil Sadducees in play

The Sanhedrin identifier - Generic, Pharisee, Sadducee

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2016, 11:14:34 AM »

My thought would be that x=1 since there is only one card in play. The identifier can be counted as either one but it does not multiply the number of cards in play. Now if it was a card that checked to see if certain qualifiers were met such as "If a Pharisee is is play do x. If a Sadducee is in play do y." it would be able to do both. But to my knowledge the x= identifier counts cards, not instances of specific identifiers being present.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2016, 05:18:38 PM »

I would say that its 2. You count up the number of Pharisees in play and you count up the number of Sadducees in play to calculate the X in the identifier of SoS. The Sanhedrin is both a Pharisee and a Sadducee and is therefore double-counted.

The Schaefer · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2016, 03:45:10 AM »

With the way it's worded I would say 1. If it was the # of evil pharisees and the # of evil saducees in play or if there was a , in the ability I would say 2 but as is I think it checks for cards that fulfill the requirement of pharisees or saducees not check for pharisees then saducees.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:29:43 PM »

Quote from: The Schaefer on January 06, 2016, 03:45:10 AM

If it was the # of evil pharisees and the # of evil saducees in play

"# of evil Pharisees and evil Sadducees in play" is shorthand for "# of evil pharisees and the # of evil saducees in play"

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on January 05, 2016, 11:14:34 AM

My thought would be that x=1 since there is only one card in play....But to my knowledge the x= identifier counts cards, not instances of specific identifiers being present.

That was my initial thought when I first read Gabe's post. I'm trying to think of a precedent for identifiers only counting cards.... The Sanhedrin has a unique identifier and is relatively new, I wouldn't be surprised if it counted as 2.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2016, 05:25:07 PM »

Well, the Syntax is a little ambiguous, I would read it as counting up every character that has either of the identifiers, in which case Sanhedrin would count as 1. But if that wording is simply shorthand for counting up them separately then I could understand it counting as two, however I can't think of any precedent in either direction, so I'd favor my first suggestion (Sanhedrin counts as 1).

kariusvega · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2016, 06:34:43 PM »

you obviously have to take into account the entire Sanhedrin, so ..

x=71 including the high priest..

..

The Schaefer · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2016, 04:36:56 AM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 06, 2016, 12:29:43 PM

Quote from: The Schaefer on January 06, 2016, 03:45:10 AM
If it was the # of evil pharisees and the # of evil saducees in play

"# of evil Pharisees and evil Sadducees in play" is shorthand for "# of evil pharisees and the # of evil saducees in play"

Is there a ruling saying that? The way that x is written to me implies one variable of x which is the number of cards that fulfill evil pharisees and evil saducees. I may just be arguing semantics but if the instances of the identifiers were being counted I feel it needs a comma before and or to be written out as # of pharisees and # of saducees. As is it can be interpreted too many ways imo though. I'm just not confident in saying it's counting the identifier instances or card instances the way it's worded but I do lean towards 1. Any elder want to take a crack at interpretation?

I'm posting this from my phone so my apologies if format is off.

TheJaylor · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2016, 04:33:53 PM »

I've always seen it played as X=2 among our elderly playgroup.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2016, 02:18:07 PM »

This one doesn't seem resolved, and so since I'm back, I figured I'd hop right in to muddying things up. As is tradition.

I would rule that X=1; I can see the argument for 2, but do not agree with the application of shorthand being used in this case. If it were explicitly "# of evil pharisees and # of evil Sadducees," then yes, it would have to be 2. However, it is giving a singular count for the X of the card, and indicates to me that each card be counted only once (even if meeting the condition multiple times).

After looking at identifiers for all cards, I cannot find another case where this can occur, so this is something that needs a one-off ruling (which would establish future precedent, in the case that another card gets printed like this).

Xonathan · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2016, 11:40:15 AM »

I'd like to see the ruling be two just to see future cards gain the same benefit. I also enjoy Karius' answer hahaha.

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2016, 09:41:48 AM »

Quote from: KoalaKing on January 08, 2016, 04:33:53 PM

I've always seen it played as X=2 among our elderly playgroup.

Redoubter · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:33:59 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 02, 2016, 09:41:48 AM

Quote from: KoalaKing on January 08, 2016, 04:33:53 PM
I've always seen it played as X=2 among our elderly playgroup.

Can you elaborate beyond the "I agree"

We should probably be working out a final ruling for this one case, so hearing everyone's input would be best.

kariusvega · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2016, 06:22:21 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 02, 2016, 05:33:59 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on February 02, 2016, 09:41:48 AM
Quote from: KoalaKing on January 08, 2016, 04:33:53 PM
I've always seen it played as X=2 among our elderly playgroup.

Can you elaborate beyond the "I agree" We should probably be working out a final ruling for this one case, so hearing everyone's input would be best.

I'm no elder but, I'm sticking to 71 on this one.

The Guardian · « **Reply #14 on:** February 02, 2016, 06:39:47 PM »

That's how we've ruled it in our group--that's the way I understood it and have explained to others. I feel like this came up before when EC first released. Maybe I can find the thread...

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2016, 11:49:08 AM »

It comes down to whether x counts instances of identifiers or cards. Is there a statement about that in the REG? I am having a hard time finding it, but that doesn't mean it is not there. My understanding (how we have played it and how I have explained it) is that x counts cards and so in this instance x=1. I would like this to be resolved, so if my understanding is not how this goes...that's fine, but I just want to know.

The Guardian · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2016, 02:01:52 PM »

Yeah, I think this is just one of those cases where we could interpret it either way. I look it at it like this: I count Pharisees in play. I see Sanhedrin so I tally one. I then count Sadducees in play. I see Sanhedrin so I tally one. I then add up those counts and I end up with 2.

That's how I see it, but I'm not going to be terribly upset (just a little upset

) if we decide Sanhedrin only counts for 1.

Praeceps · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2016, 11:06:58 PM »

Wonderful. Neither side will be terribly upset if they are deemed wrong because they can see the validity of the other side's argument. This doesn't get us an answer though

KingLeo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2016, 10:24:14 AM »

I know I'm not an official but just something to think about. If you use zeal and there is a crimson and orange ec you can't target him twice and count him twice you must still discard another different color ec if in play. So even tho its a counter and not brigades but identifiers would the same apply?

The Guardian · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2016, 10:32:20 AM »

Yes and no.

If there is only an Orange/Crimson and a Crimson EC in play, I can target the Orange/Crimson EC as Crimson and then the other Crimson guy would not be discarded.

You are correct however that if there is an Orange/Crimson and a Pale Green EC in play that I could not just discard the Orange/Crimson EC and say that I discarded both an Orange EC and a Crimson EC--the Pale Green EC would need to be discarded as well.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2016, 04:36:42 PM »

That is correct regarding Zeal, but that doesn't really apply in this case as Zeal is explicit about discarding "two evil characters of different brigades," being very clear that it is referring to one EC per brigade. This case is not explicit on whether you count it once for each identifier, as the wording is different.

I think the Judges will need to add this to a conversation in the near future to put out a single consensus ruling.

The Guardian · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2016, 04:46:28 PM »

Agreed. I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong ruling--both interpretations are valid and we just need to determine which one makes the most sense now and for future cards.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2016, 01:54:11 PM »

Let's flip a coin.

If you're right: Sanhedrin counts as 1 for Stoning of Stephen as it counts cards with those identifiers, not instances of identifiers.
If you're wrong: Sanhedrin counts as 2 for Stoning of Stephen as it counts instances of identifiers, not cards with those identifiers.

Call it in the air!

Ironisaac · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2016, 01:59:14 PM »

HEADS!

Professoralstad · « **Reply #24 on:** February 19, 2016, 07:31:09 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 10, 2016, 04:46:28 PM

Agreed. I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong ruling--both interpretations are valid and we just need to determine which one makes the most sense now and for future cards.

FWIW, I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I would lean toward x=1...Still getting caught up on all posts here though, so I can outline my reasoning if there is a dedicated Elders thread.

News:

Author Topic: Stoning of Stephen + The Sanhedrin (Read 3434 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

kariusvega

kariusvega