off-turn Nocturn

Ankha wrote:

narpassword wrote:

...

The sentence on the Nocturn overrides the bold part of the following rule "If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your ready region, but it cannot act this turn (and the cost, if any, is paid)"

Technically, you are right, but the sentence should be understood as "Nocturn is not restricted by the rule preventing it from acting the turn it is recruited.". That latest wording has its own shortcomings.

If we go back to RTR 03/03/2018 www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76447-rules-team-rulings-rtr-03-03-2018 there were known differences created by changing the rule on how allies were recruited. What reasoning is there that those changes are acceptable yet this is not? They all create difference on how power balance works (namely a large one with fresh recruited allies being able to block against Enkil etc.) yet somehow the madness network malk/enkil [obt] Nocturn is game breaking?

I propose one of the following routes;

1) Follow 1.4 and the card text as it is technically understood until the cards either prove to be a problem in some obscure overpowered combination or they are reprinted and therefore require more "permanent" wording. As it was accepted that ally interactions in the game would change due to RTR 03/03/2018 Rule change #2 this is the most natural way. This is the "bug" as a "feature" route, nothing wrong with that if it does not break the game.

2) Change the wording of Nocturn to be in line technically with the "should be understood" version. There's already disparity with Nocturns in cardboard form and the cardlist.txt, small changes to it should be easy fix to ensure the current interpretation of designer intent is maintained. Preferably before they're reprinted/added to print on demand.

3) Reverse RTR 03/03/2018 Rule change #2 along with the wordings as it breaks the original design intent of allies and out of turn action interactions. As I'm sure it was well tought out and properly pondered change, this is the most drastic as while it fixes the issue, it also forfeits all the gains from that RTR rule change. While I personally never had trouble understanding the old ally recruiting mechanics, there's over two year's worth of new and old players who've learned the current RTR. Nocturn as a card it's not really worth that amount of trouble.

I hope 1) is the route taken, and someone is mad enough to make Malk Masika obt deck.

Kilrauko wrote:

...

I propose one of the following routes;

1) Follow 1.4 and the card text as it is technically understood until the cards either prove to be a problem in some obscure overpowered combination or they are reprinted and therefore require more "permanent" wording. As it was accepted that ally interactions in the game would change due to RTR 03/03/2018 Rule change #2 this is the most natural way. This is the "bug" as a "feature" route, nothing wrong with that if it does not break the game.

...

I hope 1) is the route taken, and someone is mad enough to make Malk Masika obt deck.

Well, I actually don't think that making nocturn work this way would be over powered in any way. Nor I think the way they actually work is under powered.

So why changing them in the first place ?

And this could be a precedent for having a petaniqua / madness network / infernal servitor deck !

I don't think it would be OP neither but there could be room for it !

And finally, why adding additional minor modifications to the way these allies have been initially designed ?

Timo wrote:

And this could be a precedent for having a petaniqua / madness network / infernal servitor deck !

Indeed. New decks and deck ideas would be possible! Personally I would be all for it.
I can barely bring myself to make decks these days since I feel everything has been seen hundred times already.

Yeah, out of turn Nocturn probably ain't game breaking...

Would be clearer to let them act on the turn they are recruited. You know, because of the card text.

(Also worth noticing is that when recruited out of turn they have shorter life span than usually).

Historically, design intent means less than the actual wording, cf. Kemintiri (ADV). Kemintiri (ADV) was supposed to allow you to play Master cards that required Ventrue, Camarilla, or Justicar (design intent), but lacks the "you" signifier in her text. Therefore the wording only allows Kemintiri do play such cards. In fact, LSJ ruled for design intent, but was convinced (and created a reversal) to align his ruling with printed card text.

The design intent was that Nocturns (and other such allies) would only be able to act on their controller's turns, but are able to do so during the turn that they are recruited. When the rule changed regarding placing allies in the uncontrolled region (a good simplification for the game), the new wording opened up the possibility for off-turn acting.

While the design intent might be to prevent such things, the wording on the cards suggest that off-turn acting is allowed if that is the turn that they are recruited. Ruling otherwise just to align with design intent ignores the actual worded text. That seems contrary to supporting clear and consistent rulings.

Furthermore, as others point out, none of this would be overpowering and could possibly even lead to new deck concepts.