Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/08/31 04:11Didn't mean to imply you weren't being reasonable - I was asking for the reasoning behind the interpretation.
As to why I think tt might halt it permanently... Primarily because there is already an existent term for stopping it only temporarily - 'stall'. 'Halt' is a permanent word - it may just be my military background, but when something is halted, it doesn't start again unless something explicitly starts it. "Halt forever" or "halt until resumed" are redundant statements.
I don't know what the intent was, so I'm trying to interpret the wording as best I can. It's possible this is just bad templating on the card... It's not the only one I've seen in Exiled so far. But as it is, I'd have to say that you were playing it wrong. I know that won't hold the least bit of water with you, but lacking a game definition for halting duration which contradicts it, the simple English says it just plain stops rotating.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Blatherskite
User Cruiser
Posts: 162
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/08/31 04:44halt Pronunciation[hawlt] Pronunciation Key –verb (used without object) 1. to stop; cease moving, operating, etc., either permanently or temporarily: They halted for lunch and strolled about. –verb (used with object) 2. to cause to stop temporarily or permanently; bring to a stop: They halted operations during contract negotiations. –noun 3. a temporary or permanent stop. –interjection 4. (used as a command to stop and stand motionless, as to marching troops or to a fleeing suspect.)
So I guess the question is temporary or permanent? Logic dictates temporary or what the heck would be the reason for the card. Crappy deck building? I doubt I was playing it wrong, but that probably wont hold any water with you.Blatherskite Caldari Propagandist
A PRINCE ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline… - Machiavelli
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Blackmail reads: "Blackmail's duration is halted during your next duration step."
That means its only stopped for one duration step, unless your opponent pays you another 1 then it would continue to be halted, until your next and so on.
Over all its 1 isk for one turn.
Post edited by: Kaemonn, at: 2007/08/31 05:19New sig image in progress...
Believe it or not, I was actually trying to be generous on this one. I didn't understand the card if it was permanent, but at least it would have meant they were staying consistent with the templating.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Onyx Verde
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 663
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/03 10:06Blatherskite wrote: And I have been nothing but reasonable.
If by "reasonable" you mean "deliberately obtuse" then yeah, you're right...
Buhallin is highlighting elements from the new expansion which could be open to creative interpretation. I think this is and always has been a worthwhile exercise because it eliminates any ambiguities and makes play more consistent. It's not simply a matter of trying to pick holes in the game and find undue fault with it. However, what you're doing is effectively trying to shout him down or make an eejit out of him because you have taken issue with some of his previous comments. If you think this isnt the case, Blatherskite, then explain your comments about how you reckon a card "reads fine as it is" when it transpires that there actually has been a printing error. And comments like "You know what it means" are just plain stupid. If he 100% knew what it meant then why would he post asking about it? Even if he did know, it's still laudable to hold the issue up for discussion, what with this being a forum for such. It's clear that you dislike Buhallin, you have stated before that you would rather he didnt complain about certain matters. Now this thread suggests that you would prefer it if he just shut up entirely. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions but to my mind you're just coming across as tiresome and smug. I personally would expect more gentlemanly, sportsmanlike behaviour from our "world" champion, or would you rather just enjoy the priveleges with none of the inherent responsibilities of your position? Do me a favour in future and keep it constructive, or at the very least, articulate. If you cant then please take the pouting outside. If you find you're unable to do this then i reckon you're not as keen as you let on about not giving new players a bad impression from these forums... ============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
As to the card with the printing error...I already addressed that in a later post. For the record, when first responding I didn't have the card in front of me and went with the wording that Buhallin posted where he included a period. When it was posted that the period was missing I grabbed the card and looked at it...low and behold...printing error.
As to me disliking Buhallin...you couldn't be more wrong. He understands the concept of debate, even when it gets heated. Neither he nor I insulted each other in any of our posts (that I can remember), which you have managed to do in just one post. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by new players...I don't think I've ever addressed that or even some of the other things your accusing me of.
I'm guessing Buhallin can handle himself...he certainly has to this point. You should read his posts, you might learn something.Blatherskite Caldari Propagandist
A PRINCE ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline… - Machiavelli
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Onyx Verde
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 663
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/04 13:19Admittedly, Blatherskite, you're not as direct as some, including myself. However, "passive-agressive" is still agressive when it boils down to it.
I sincerely apologise if you feel I have insulted you. I was just expressing an opinion, precipitated by what I perceived as pointless bickering coupled with a feigned innocence on your part. Actually, you're normally very constructive and informative in your posts, which is why I interpreted this change-from-the-norm in this thread as a dislike for Buhallin. I thought that other earlier debates were spilling over. Again, I apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick, but I call it like I see it...
Also true is that fact that you havent explicitly said that us all arguing is putting newcomers off, but since the criticism was levelled at all of us then unless we refute this opinion then we are seen to uphold it. I personally think it's pure tripe - these boards have always been a focal point for vastly differing opinions, and yet our numbers have continued to grow - but I shall take my own advice and try to keep it constructive for the sake of the noobs. (I suppose this means not cluttering up Rules Questions posts with nonsense like this. Already I've had my knuckles rapped for not expressing all this by PM, and perhaps I'll take that route in future, but for now I reckon a public flaming deserves a public apology.)
I shall continue to read Buhallin's, your's and everyone's posts. I'll try to keep an open mind, and to blot out the bits that seem facetious, negative and pedantic. I'll try and focus on the parts that impress me, not because of their content, but instead for the positive spirit in which they're offered, despite the naysayers. Maybe I will learn something. Who knows, maybe we all will... If not then I daresay you'll know about it soon enough.============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Snooby
User Cruiser
Posts: 116
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/04 13:40If a card has ambiguous wording then it is possible for two different people to believe the intent is "obvious", yet still disgree.
Play groups may choose which version of "the truth" they use in their games but players may be in for a surprise in competitive matches if their interpretation turns out to be wrong and their decks do not perform as they had imagined.
We, as players, need to know what interpretation a card has been given, even if it disagrees with our own.
There is an old addage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - but we need to be able to determine whether or not it's broken in the first place!
Discussions of this nature should be encouraged by all.
Another point worth considering is that the game designers will be reading these posts. if they are not aware of an ambiguity then it will probably not feature in their errata.
Players cannot play without cards, designers cannot produce cards without gamers - we need feedback, in both directions, for a game to grow.
<dons flame retardant bodysuit>
Snooby
The administrator has disabled public write access.
stevetheone
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 540
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/04 14:36There is a fine line between picking up on a possible bad wording and being deliberately obtuse. It is one we all walk when we are discussing cards and what they mean. However there is a need to nail down cards and make sure that everyone knows what a card means and is offically sanctioned. We need people who are able to say, wait just a second. Does this card actually do what we think or does it need clarifying. Hopefully those people are playtesters but even they miss stuff.
Field Supply Router is a good example of a card which when I read I assummed that it's bonus only effected the ships in that region. That looked logical. However that is not what it says and I missed that. Now it might be that CCP intend that it should give all friendly ships +1 +1 but I doubt it and in that case they need to errata it. That was a good spot and hopefully the folks at Atlanta will be quickly making an announcement about it one way or the other.We shall seed the stars with our scions and reap that harvest.
No expect the Spam, spam, spam, spam...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Snooby
User Cruiser
Posts: 116
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/04 14:43Why are my eyes constantly being drawn to BlatherSkite's sig? ;p
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Blatherskite
User Cruiser
Posts: 162
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/04 16:02Onyx, I appreciate the words and sentiment. I'm more than positive I've offended some on this forum...so my apologies follow your lead. The definition of my username however, should get me off the hook most of the time
As a side note if people didn't care so much about this game we wouldn't have such engaging and heated discussions. When new people read those posts I think it's a testament to our EVE enthusiasm.Blatherskite Caldari Propagandist
A PRINCE ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline… - Machiavelli
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/04 18:08I'll add one thing to the comments above. I don't believe "It would be [useless/stupid] to have a card do that" is a valid rules argument. Case in point, my own favorite worst card: The Crystal Boulevard. There's a very expensive +1 income, whose ability can be completely negated by your opponent(s) simply choosing not to play. IMHO, that's a rather pointless ability. But there's no real debate that that's how it works.
The same can be said here. Having a News that your opponent can stop duration on so cheaply may seem [useless/stupid], but it's not completely unreasonable. It would get better in multi-player games. Maybe the effect is intended to keep it out of the scrapheap, and stop it from being recycled. <shrug> I dunno. But any could be reasonable, and the wording was (and still is, IMHO) very poor, and that opened it up to question.
Snooby hit it on the head. The golden goal for CCGs is to have zero ambiguity in the rules and cards. That's a goal EVE is far, far away from, honestly... But people do need to question these things. I was stunned to find that people had picked up the problem with Emperor's Decree long ago, and done nothing about it. "We'll kick out anyone who exploits the card that way" approach does nothing to improve the game, and IMHO is simply cheating. The card says what it says. If you don't like that, push for errata. Until that errata comes out, making private rules to cram down anyone who doesn't read it the same way you do is inane and smacks of local favoritism for anyone unlucky enough to decide to come visit you.
There's a concept in cryptography that says that you cannot obtain security by obscurity. The best way to verify that an encryption actually works is to publish it for everyone to try and break. I believe much the same here. Trying to hide problems, or pretend they aren't there, simply doesn't work.
Now, to drag this back on topic and cause more trouble... Blackmail says this:
"Your opponents may pay you 1 ISK..." Does this mean that all opponents must pay you 1 ISK each, at the same time, in order to stall it? Or does 1 ISK from 1 opponent stall it for the next turn?
Part of these things come down to alternate wordings... If it were 1 ISK from 1 opponent, I would expect it to read like this:
"An opponent may pay you 1 ISK..."
But that's not what it says. As it currently reads, I expect that all opponents would have to pay you 1 each to halt it, all as part of the same activation of the ability. It's also possible that it's only 1 ISK, but that all opponents must agree to activate the ability, but only have to pay you 1 ISK total.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
'At the beginning of battle, you may search your opponent's unplayed outer regions and put one into play for free. Enemy ships may not withdraw to that region this turn.'
Should that be interpreted as:
a) At the beginning of the Battle Phase b) At the beginning of a single battle of your choice c) At the beginning of every battle
Also, does putting the region into play for free count against the player's one-outer-region-per-turn limit?
Post edited by: mikelosaurus, at: 2007/09/04 18:53
The administrator has disabled public write access.
"Your opponents may pay you 1 ISK..." Does this mean that all opponents must pay you 1 ISK each, at the same time, in order to stall it? Or does 1 ISK from 1 opponent stall it for the next turn?
Part of these things come down to alternate wordings... If it were 1 ISK from 1 opponent, I would expect it to read like this:
"An opponent may pay you 1 ISK..."
But that's not what it says. As it currently reads, I expect that all opponents would have to pay you 1 each to halt it, all as part of the same activation of the ability. It's also possible that it's only 1 ISK, but that all opponents must agree to activate the ability, but only have to pay you 1 ISK total.
The set of "your opponents" must, as a set , pay you 1 ISK. I feel there is no ground to interpret this as 1 ISK per opponent if properly parsing the english language. If I said "your family owes you $10" you should not expect $10 from each family member, you should expect $10 total regardless of family size.
The question of whether all opponents must agree to activate the ability by having one of their number pay you 1 ISK is a more interesting and ambiguous question, which your suggested rewording would correct, though I would go further and make it "Any opponent may pay you 1 ISK...." I would personally rule that the opponents did not need to agree as long as at least one of them was willing to pay the 1 ISK, as that seems to be the simplest interpretation, and seems to be in keeping with the storyline implications of blackmailing a group.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Few Exiled Questions - 2007/09/05 06:35mikelosaurus wrote: Here's another one. Serpentis Drug Outlet says:
'At the beginning of battle, you may search your opponent's unplayed outer regions and put one into play for free. Enemy ships may not withdraw to that region this turn.'
Should that be interpreted as:
a) At the beginning of the Battle Phase b) At the beginning of a single battle of your choice c) At the beginning of every battle
Also, does putting the region into play for free count against the player's one-outer-region-per-turn limit?
Effects that trigger off of a battle only trigger if the source of the effect has presence in the battle (News is always considered to have presence, but it is thus far never a triggered effect as far as I recall). In the case of a location like Serpentis Drug Outlet, it would trigger at the beginning of a battle in the region where the Outlet was played.
And yes, the region would count against the one-per-turn limit, but note that you'll only be able to use this location on defense. Therefore, it is only a limitation - if your opponent has played an outer region before they attacked, you may not use this ability.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
