file "Cannot be moved" and Carver's Meat Packing and Storage

12 Jul 2012 15:59 #33098 by AaronC
I tried to discuss a question in the "Graverobbing and Carver's Meat Packing and Storage" thread, but I got one answer and then the conversation turned.

My question is: Can you try and fail to move a hostage into the ready region?

We already know that you can try move 2 blood counters with Villein and fail if the vampire has no blood counters. It is possible to play a strike: dodge against a strike that cannot be dodged. You can play frenzy cards on vampires immune to frenzy cards: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8677c28ebf40c432.

Likewise, could a vampire attempt to diablerize a hostage, but fail?

Carver's doesn't say that effects and actions to move a vampire to the ready region cannot be played - it says that the vampire cannot be moved (or diablerized). There seems to be a difference in the rulings between those two concepts: can't be played/can be played to no affect.

If the answer is a definitive "no", then I would like to see a reference.

Carver's Meat Packing and Storage
Master
1 :pool:
Master. unique location.
When a vampire of capacity below 4 goes to torpor, put a hostage counter on him. Hostages cannot be moved to the ready region or be diablerized. During your master phase, you may tap this card to move X blood from the blood bank to a ready vampire you control where X is the number of hostages in torpor. Any ready vampire may burn 2 blood to burn any vampire's hostage counter during any untap phase. Burn all hostage counters if this card leaves play.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jul 2012 16:40 - 12 Jul 2012 16:41 #33102 by jamesatzephyr

I tried to discuss a question in the "Graverobbing and Carver's Meat Packing and Storage" thread, but I got one answer and then the conversation turned.

My question is: Can you try and fail to move a hostage into the ready region?


No. There is a "general rule that you cannot attempt something you cannot do". [LSJ 20090415]

You can't - for example - attempt to equip a second vehicle if you have a first. If yuo're forced to (typically involving Vast Wealth), the incoming copy burns. However, you can't voluntarily start the action. [LSJ 20000618]

We already know that you can try move 2 blood counters with Villein and fail if the vampire has no blood counters.


Effects that move blood counters target the minion, not the counters. So, for example, stealing 4 blood with superior Drain Essence doesn't fizzle when the opponent drops to 3 blood by playing a card with a blood cost - you just take as much as you can. Villein works the same way. (Personally, I'd rather it didn't.)

It is possible to play a strike: dodge against a strike that cannot be dodged.


My opponent's Scorpion Sting (for example) has not resolved when I choose Dodge. In general, they just say that "Scorpion Sting's effect will not be canceled by dodge" rather than anything preventing the play of the card. [LSJ 20051126]

You can play frenzy cards on vampires immune to frenzy cards: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8677c28ebf40c432.


Immunity lets you ignore things - it doesn't make the thing not happen. For example, being immune to damage doesn't mean that a minion doesn't get to strike.

Likewise, could a vampire attempt to diablerize a hostage, but fail?


No. The hostage cannot be diablerized.
Last edit: 12 Jul 2012 16:41 by jamesatzephyr.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jul 2012 18:19 #33106 by AaronC
A "general rule that you cannot attempt something you cannot do" is not a rule at all, of course. It is a guideline with many exceptions. The cases of Villeining for less than 2, playing a strike:dodge against superior Scorpion Sting, and targeting a minion with an effect that it is immune to are cases in which you attempt to do something that you cannot do. Striking to steal 2 blood from a vampire with 1 or 0 blood is also attempting to do something you cannot do. Each case has its own ruling allowing you to make the attempt.

Other examples of being able to attempt something that you cannot do are choosing to give yourself control of your own location with Disputed Territory and attempting to tap a tapped minion with Jar the Soul. Both of these required rulings.

I bring this up because I have had a low-level uncertainty about when an attempt is possible even if it can have no effect. Right now it seems as though an attempt that can have no effect is only possible if there is a ruling, such as those you cited, that allows you to make the attempt.

I think in a high-level overhaul of the rules/rulings, I would prefer to see a consistent meta-rule:
Either
1. Unless a card says "card/action/strike/effect X may not be attempted/played", then you may play and/or attempt it. If the result is not allowable because of another effect, then the action/effect/strike fizzles.
Or
2. If a card/action/strike/effect would have no effect, than it may not be attempted. If the card/action/strike is played before the negating effect, it may be played but fizzles. There would obviously be exceptions to the rules, such as bleeding with a minion with 0 or less bleed.

My personal preference would be 2: no Villein for less than 2, no dodging an acting minion's sup. Scorpion Sting, no tapping a tapped minion, no taking control of something you already control. However, 1. is easier from a rules management perspective: anything not prohibited is attemptable, with a fizzle being the effect if the end result is not allowable.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jul 2012 18:29 #33108 by jamesatzephyr

A "general rule that you cannot attempt something you cannot do" is not a rule at all, of course. It is a guideline with many exceptions.


However, the Hawg example shows that you cannot start an action if there is a prohibition on the effect. There is a prohibition on the effect - diablerie - so you cannot voluntarily start the action.

The cases of Villeining for less than 2, playing a strike:dodge against superior Scorpion Sting, and targeting a minion with an effect that it is immune to are cases in which you attempt to do something that you cannot do.


No.

You can target a minion for an arbitary amount of blood removal, regardless of the amount of blood of them. That is something you're allowed to do.

You can play Dodge against Scorpion Sting, since nothing prevents you.

You can target a minion who will be immune to the effect, since nothing prevents you - immunity means they ignore the effect, not that the effect cannot happen. (Generally, you can do useless things, but not prohibited things.)


Striking to steal 2 blood from a vampire with 1 or 0 blood is also attempting to do something you cannot do. Each case has its own ruling allowing you to make the attempt.


Hence, it is something you are allowed to do.

You cannot diablerize a hostage, by the card text of Carver's. Hence, it is not something you are allowed to do.

Other examples of being able to attempt something that you cannot do are choosing to give yourself control of your own location with Disputed Territory and attempting to tap a tapped minion with Jar the Soul.


You can apply a 'tap' effect to a tapped minion. That is something you are allowed to do.

You can redundantly give control of a location to its current controller. There's no problem with that. It is something you are allowed to do.


You appear to be very confused on the difference between "something that has no real impact, but I can do it anyway" and "something which card text specifically tells me I cannot do".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jul 2012 19:51 #33113 by AaronC
I am not really confused at all about it, but thank you so much for your concern.

When you talk about something being allowable vs. not be allowable, I don't think you're grasping my point. When you talk about examples showing that something is allowable or dis-allowable, I'm not disagreeing with your example. I'm not saying that that the ruling is somehow different than what it is.

Let's talk about the example of Lucian not being allowed to strike to steal a vehicle when he already has a vehicle. Let's think about what the text of Sport Bike says. It says A minion may have only one vehicle.. The text does not say that the minion may not attempt to equip with more than one vehicle. No - it literally does not say that. It does not say that a minion with this vehicle may not strike to steal a vehicle. The reason Lucian can't attempt a strike to steal a second vehicle is because the rules director ruled that he can't. The rules director could just have easily said that he could strike to steal the vehicle, but that the strike has no effect since he can have only one vehicle.

As we've seen with the example of using a Vast Wealth action to get equipment that is not legal, when an action comes up with a result that is not possible, the effect is essentially a fizzle. That could just have easily been how any affect in the game works.

Let's think about what Scorpion Sting says:

Scorpion Sting
Combat
Animalism
:ani: Strike: hand strike at +1 damage.
:ANI: As above, and this strike cannot be dodged.

The superior version literally says that the strike cannot be dodged. I infer that that means that a dodge cannot be declared as a strike. However, the rules director has ruled that an opposing minion can declare a dodge as a strike, even though the card text says it isn't possible. It's a ruling.

There is an inconsistency there.

Many of the cards that say "cannot", such as Carver's Meat Packing and Storage, do not actually prohibit specific actions. They prohibit the effects of the action. Some, like Secure Haven, do specifically prohibit an action itself.

The rules director has said that if the result of the action is known to be illegal, then the action can't be undertaken. If an action is found out later to be illegal, the action fizzles. In general.

It's true that Jar the Soul does not say "you cannot tap a tapped vampire". But from a strictly logical viewpoint, you CAN'T tap a tapped vampire. If a man is lying on the ground and I tell you to knock him to the ground, you cannot knock him to the ground. Logically, it is not possible.

I do draw a comparison with cards that say "cannot" and effects that "cannot" logically be accomplished. If you play Jar the Soul successfully on a tapped vampire, you did not actually do what the card said to do because the card cannot accomplish it. The comparison is not perfect, but the rules director could easily have said that since you cannot tap a tapped minion, such cards can't target tapped minions.

I am not saying that the rulings function differently than they do, but I am discussing some of the logical underpinnings of why you can or cannot attempt different actions/effects.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jul 2012 21:43 #33117 by jamesatzephyr

A minion may have only one vehicle.. The text does not say that the minion may not attempt to equip with more than one vehicle.


No, the general rule that you cannot attempt what you cannot do says that.

As we've seen with the example of using a Vast Wealth action to get equipment that is not legal, when an action comes up with a result that is not possible, the effect is essentially a fizzle. That could just have easily been how any affect in the game works.


It could have been. It's not. Equally, every rule in the game could have been some other rule.

The superior version literally says that the strike cannot be dodged. I infer that that means that a dodge cannot be declared as a strike. However, the rules director has ruled that an opposing minion can declare a dodge as a strike, even though the card text says it isn't possible.


It's a ruling on the interpretation of the text. You'd interpret it differently. It doesn't work how you'd rule it.

There is an inconsistency there.


No, there isn't.

The rules director has said that if the result of the action is known to be illegal, then the action can't be undertaken. If an action is found out later to be illegal, the action fizzles. In general.


Correct.


It's true that Jar the Soul does not say "you cannot tap a tapped vampire". But from a strictly logical viewpoint, you CAN'T tap a tapped vampire. If a man is lying on the ground and I tell you to knock him to the ground, you cannot knock him to the ground. Logically, it is not possible.


Logically, it is possible to apply (redundantly) an effect to something already in a given state.


I do draw a comparison with cards that say "cannot" and effects that "cannot" logically be accomplished.


That's not how the game works. Move on.

If you play Jar the Soul successfully on a tapped vampire, you did not actually do what the card said to do because the card cannot accomplish it.


The card (potentially redundantly) set the state of the vampire to 'tapped'. That is what the card does. It (redundantly) did what it was intended to do.

The comparison is not perfect, but the rules director could easily have said that since you cannot tap a tapped minion, such cards can't target tapped minions.


Every ruling could be different from what it is. That in no way supports changing them on a whim.


I am not saying that the rulings function differently than they do, but I am discussing some of the logical underpinnings of why you can or cannot attempt different actions/effects.


You can apply effects redundantly. You can't attempt things that are prohibited. That's the way V:TES works.



The very essence of rulings is that more than one path could have been taken. Errata is simply changing cards, and more or less anything can be done (though it's generally been observed policy is usually to make small changes where they're adequate, rather than inventing new text entirely out of whole cloth). Clarifications are usually "There's a little ambiguity here, but it's reasonably obvious that it works like this." Rulings are generally "There is more than one potentially possible way of handling this. Pick one." And one is picked.



However, as to why one might support these choices.

The policy of prohibiting things you can't do is generally uncontroversial. If I can't have this Hawg, why let me start the action? It's consistent with the general theme in the game design that 'punishes' you for stacking your deck badly (but without requiring an explicit card limit). So you can't - for example - uselessly cycle action modifiers that you've already played, so you should think about your modifier selection. You can't start an action that is too expensive, so you should think about your action selection (and blood management). You have limited playing slots (master phase actions) for master cards and similarly for actions (available untapped minions, typically). In general, the game design leans towards encouraging people to make library-based decisions (and some crypt-based decisions), and 'punishes' you where you get it wrong. And of course, there's random chance too - you can draw all five Lost in Crowds in your opening hand, but that's CCGs for you. Hand jam and card flow, though, are very significant elements of the game - something that you can strive to perfect, and something that other players can interact with.

Being able to apply redundant effects is helpful to the flow of the game, however, in that the game devolves a lot less frequently into opponent-induced fizzling. (That can actually raise people's heckles - players are often surprised to find out that a mid-action untap on Ambush can cause it to fizzle.) The general thrust of the game's design is that resources should opposed resources - actions and blocks, stealth and intercept, combat offence and defence, votes for and votes opposed. I'm reasonably certain that 'fizzling' wasn't ever intended to be a major part of the game - if it was ever really uncovered in early testing. (It's somewhat harder to do in the Jyhad/V:TES sets, though not impossible - and since they missed a few of the games big early problems, I doubt those edge cases were well-explored.)


Could you make a game that had those rulings work differently? Sure. But that's not a reason to change.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.075 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum