Author Topic: The Branch vs Elders of the City (Read 8729 times)

Master KChief · « **Reply #50 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:07:11 PM »

additionally, as ruled by bryon...

Quote

The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise.

according to this, if 'abilities' includes 'all of those' (being numerical and special), then i was correct in my logic. again, there was my proof.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #51 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:08:34 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on December 20, 2009, 06:07:11 PM

additionally, as ruled by bryon...

Quote
The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise.

Increase/Decrease Abilities say otherwise.... in the REG.

Master KChief · « **Reply #52 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:11:38 PM »

you're misconstruing what he said. he meant on the card itself (ie capture ability, discard ability, etc). obviously those 'say otherwise'. even so, the REG doesnt say otherwise. it merely has a list of cards that increase or decrease abilities.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #53 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:14:42 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on December 20, 2009, 06:11:38 PM

it merely has a list of cards that increase or decrease abilities.

You keep saying that. Are you aware that there are two links in the online REG? One that says Ongoing Abilities and another that says Ongoing Ability Cards. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page, so to speak.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #54 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:24:09 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 20, 2009, 06:14:42 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on December 20, 2009, 06:11:38 PM
it merely has a list of cards that increase or decrease abilities.

You keep saying that. Are you aware that there are two links in the online REG? One that says Ongoing Abilities and another that says Ongoing Ability Cards. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page, so to speak.

YMT, I believe MKC is aware of that.

His claim is that Bryon specifically ruled otherwise and said that abilities include both numbers and special abilities. Do you disagree that official ruling from Bryon override the REG? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's statement that "The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise." is an official ruling? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's ruling is applicable in this case?

Merely repeating the same argument over again does not clarify your position.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #55 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:28:54 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 06:24:09 PM

YMT, I believe MKC is aware of that.

He kept saying "list of cards" so I wanted to be sure. That was not meant as a slight.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 06:24:09 PM

His claim is that Bryon specifically ruled otherwise and said that abilities include both numbers and special abilities. Do you disagree that official ruling from Bryon override the REG?

I disagree that this overrides any use of the word "abilities," especially since he specifically said "unless specified otherwise." The REG specifies otherwise in this case.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #56 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:36:37 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 06:24:09 PM

Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's statement that "The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise." is an official ruling? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's ruling is applicable in this case?

FWIW, I think "abililties" should mean what the REG defines it as. The Thankful Leper should get a "Play As." I agree with MKC's argument in that thread. I actually posted after Bryon that I agree with the concept of "we know what we meant," but in retrospect I think that will only cause this kind of lack of clarity.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #57 on:** December 20, 2009, 06:57:48 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 20, 2009, 06:36:37 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 06:24:09 PM
Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's statement that "The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise." is an official ruling? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's ruling is applicable in this case?

FWIW, I think "abililties" should mean what the REG defines it as. The Thankful Leper should get a "Play As." I agree with MKC's argument in that thread. I actually posted after Bryon that I agree with the concept of "we know what we meant," but in retrospect I think that will only cause this kind of lack of clarity.

The problem is that Bryon apparently overruled the definition of ability in the REG. (The same definition found in the The Thankful Leper case is exactly the same one that is linked to in the discussion of Increase/Decrease Abilities in the REG.) Bryon could not have been more clear about his intent to have the ruling override the REG...

Quote from: Bryon on September 04, 2009, 09:22:51 PM

Perhaps the REG needs editing.

The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise.

So the question that is open is whether or not MKC has found an unexpected consequence of an official ruling (like actions must complete stopping multiple simultaenous set asides). If not, why not (without using a portion of the REG that Bryon claims may need editing)?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #58 on:** December 20, 2009, 07:06:55 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 06:57:48 PM

The problem is that Bryon apparently overruled the definition of ability in the REG. (The same definition found in the The Thankful Leper case is exactly the same one that is linked to in the discussion of Increase/Decrease Abilities in the REG.) Bryon could not have been more clear about his intent to have the ruling override the REG...

If that were true, then there would have been no need for the "unless specified otherwise" exclusion. This would be an example of an exception since the REG definition for Increase/Decrease does not just say "abilties," it clarifies the exact affect in parentheses.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 06:57:48 PM

(without using a portion of the REG that Bryon claims may need editing)?

This is not where we should be. The REG needs to be updated. Period. If the PTBs can't do it, then let those of us who have time do it, because this is simply ridiculous.

I saw a recent news report that the new REG accidently lifted off in an experimental weather balloon. They are just waiting for the balloon to come down to see if the new REG is still there and still OK.

SirNobody · « **Reply #59 on:** December 20, 2009, 07:20:12 PM »

Hey,

The word "bear" is used in the phrases "polar bear" and "right to bear arms" and in those two phrases it means completely different things. The word has multiple definitions and you determine which definition is being used based on the context.

In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #60 on:** December 20, 2009, 07:25:35 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on December 20, 2009, 07:20:12 PM

The word "bear" is used in the phrases "polar bear" and "right to bear arms" and in those two phrases it means completely different things. The word has multiple definitions and you determine which definition is being used based on the context.

In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?

I don't usually confuse nouns with verbs, but that isn't relevant to ruling questions. As a host, I rely on the REG to spell it out for me when I am not sure. "Abilities" is only defined one way in the REG.

The Thankful Leper was not carefully proofed, therefore it needs a "Play As"/"Errata." Why is that so hard to grasp?

Master KChief · « **Reply #61 on:** December 20, 2009, 07:27:19 PM »

Quote

Abilities
Abilities (numbers) are points of offensive strength (*/), and defensive toughness (/*) of a character or enhancement. The card’s abilities are listed in the icon box. See Anatomy of a Card.

Quote

Ability
When the word “ability” immediately follows a game term like “first strike” or “discard,” then “ability” is short for “special ability.” If the word “abilities” appears apart from other game terms, it refers only to a card’s numerical abilities (*/*).

THIS is why clarification is needed.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #62 on:** December 20, 2009, 07:37:55 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on December 20, 2009, 07:20:12 PM

Hey,

The word "bear" is used in the phrases "polar bear" and "right to bear arms" and in those two phrases it means completely different things. The word has multiple definitions and you determine which definition is being used based on the context.

In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I think we all get the difference between an "ability" (numbers) and "special ability" (words). But there isn't a context to define "ability" as "special ability" on The Thankful Leper. If SA was meant, and I know it was, a super simple play as is all that is needed!

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 20, 2009, 09:37:30 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on December 20, 2009, 07:20:12 PM

In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?

The card description for The Thankful Leper links to the REG definition of "abilities."The Increase/Decrease Abilities listing in the REG links to the exact same definition of "abilities." The numbers only definition of "abilities" was overruled by Bryon for TTL, who stated the REG might need some updating. This appears to raise a legitimate question as to why the modified definition of "abilities" does not hold for The Branch.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

Bryon · « **Reply #64 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:16:09 AM »

Wow. This has nothing to do with the definition of "abilities." It has everything to do with the definition of "increase/decrease."

Increase/Decrease ONLY targets the strength and toughness of the card.

Period. The end.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #65 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:37:19 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:16:09 AM

Increase/Decrease ONLY targets the strength and toughness of the card.

I already tried that on pages 2,3 and 4 of this thread and it didn't work. $:-\$

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:16:09 AM

Wow. This has nothing to do with the definition of "abilities." It has everything to do with the definition of "increase/decrease."

Based on what MJB is arguing, your previous ruling for The Thankful Leper overrides any reference to "abilities" in the REG. Whether you meant that or not, the Pandora's Box has been opened. I think a "Play As" for TTL is a better idea than a broader acceptance of the word "abilities," especially since the current REG clearly differentiates the words "ability" and "abilities."

Master KChief · « **Reply #66 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:40:51 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 21, 2009, 12:37:19 AM

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:16:09 AM
Increase/Decrease ONLY targets the strength and toughness of the card.

I already tried that on pages 2,3 and 4 of this thread and it didn't work. $:-\$

because you had no proof. your proof is there now. operative word: ONLY.

Quote

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:16:09 AM
Wow. This has nothing to do with the definition of "abilities." It has everything to do with the definition of "increase/decrease."

Based on what MJB is arguing, your previous ruling for The Thankful Leper overrides any reference to "abilities" in the REG. Whether you meant that or not, the Pandora's Box has been opened. I think a "Play As" for TTL is a better idea than a broader acceptance of the word "abilities," especially since the current REG clearly differentiates the words "ability" and "abilities."

yeah, it kinda has everything to do with the definition for 'ability'...as written, ttl needs a play as.

Bryon · « **Reply #67 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:56:10 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 21, 2009, 12:37:19 AM

Based on what MJB is arguing, your previous ruling for The Thankful Leper overrides any reference to "abilities" in the REG. Whether you meant that or not, the Pandora's Box has been opened. I think a "Play As" for TTL is a better idea than a broader acceptance of the word "abilities," especially since the current REG clearly differentiates the words "ability" and "abilities."

Hmm. So, if I protect my EC "from discard abilities," then I am only protecting it from numbers?! Clearly the word "abilities," when it follows a certain type of special ability, is refering to special abilities.

So, the word "abilities" can be used for numbers, or for certain types of special abilities.

To clarify, we include the word "special" when there might be confusion. Apparently we should have done so on TTL. It is odd is that 20+ people who read and reread that list never doubted it refered to special abilities. I'd be willing to bet that the players who question it now still know the intent of the card.

Still, to be fair, we should have included "special" to avoid confusion and be most precise. Sometimes we drop words to save space on cards that we should not drop. This was one of those times.

Regardless, for the question at the top of this thread, increase/decrease applies ONLY to strength/toughness.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #68 on:** December 21, 2009, 01:02:56 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:56:10 AM

Hmm. So, if I protect my EC "from discard abilities," then I am only protecting it from numbers?! Clearly the word "abilities," when it follows a certain type of special ability, is refering to special abilities.

This is explained in the definition for "Ability" in the REG by the phrase "apart from other game terms":

Quote

Ability
When the word "ability" immediately follows a game term like "first strike" or "discard," then "ability" is short for "special ability." If the word "abilities" appears apart from other game terms, it refers only to a card's numerical abilities (*/*).

News:

Author Topic: The Branch vs Elders of the City (Read 8729 times)