question-circle The Capuchin burns & temporary control

15 Apr 2020 15:37 #99608 by Ankha

@Ankha

If he goes to his owner ash heap, does you previous ruling still stand: this does not break permanent control effect and he goes to his last permanent controller uncontrolled region ?

You must resolve the Capuchin's ability; that is moving him to your uncontrolled region. The trip through the ash heap doesn't clear this lingering effect (otherwise the Capuchin effect would never work).
Since you permanently control the Capuchin, he can go to your uncontrolled region.


I lost myself in the middle of the ash realm.

Player A temporary control over Capuchin ( influenced by player B ), player A send him to ashes ( basic daring the dawn with no blood ), the Capuchin now goes to A uncontrolled region or goes back to B?
Who gets the 3 extra transfers during influence?


A gets the extra transfer, and B gets back the Capuchin in his uncontrolled region.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The following user(s) said Thank You: Sambomb

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

More
15 Apr 2020 18:32 - 15 Apr 2020 18:34 #99611 by Kilrauko

@Ankha

If he goes to his owner ash heap, does you previous ruling still stand: this does not break permanent control effect and he goes to his last permanent controller uncontrolled region ?

You must resolve the Capuchin's ability; that is moving him to your uncontrolled region. The trip through the ash heap doesn't clear this lingering effect (otherwise the Capuchin effect would never work).
Since you permanently control the Capuchin, he can go to your uncontrolled region.


I lost myself in the middle of the ash realm.

Player A temporary control over Capuchin ( influenced by player B ), player A send him to ashes ( basic daring the dawn with no blood ), the Capuchin now goes to A uncontrolled region or goes back to B?
Who gets the 3 extra transfers during influence?


A gets the extra transfer, and B gets back the Capuchin in his uncontrolled region.


This is a bit problematic, at least to me, as language wise the sentence in the current card text;

Name: The Capuchin
[Promo-20150219, Promo-20181004:HB2, Promo-20190804]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Harbinger of Skulls
Group: 5
Capacity: 11
Discipline: AUS DOM FOR NEC THA THN
Independent: If The Capuchin is burned, move him to your uncontrolled region and you get +3 transfers at the start of your next influence phase. +1 bleed. +2 hand size. +1 intercept.
Artist: Ginés Quiñonero

If The Capuchin is burned, move him to your (B) uncontrolled region and you (A) get +3 transfers at the start of your (A/B/C?) next influence phase.


has the meaning and target of "you" change in the middle of the sentence between two different methuselah. That brings up the question who the third "you" targets? The First Methusaleh, aka B who gets The Capuchin in their uncontrolled region, or the second methuselah A who supposedly gets the transfers? There is *and* that might work as a separation but without dot or comma it just ties the sentences together in clause and dependent clause. Target for "you" has no room to change, as otherwise we have to allow similar effect for other cards to change who "you" refers mid-sentence. What's more with the separation without tying it to the "when burned" condition, the +3 transfers during start of next influence never gets triggered as it behaves like the +2 hand size. So it has to be one complete sentence to work. Or two separate ones with caveat. Either way, the above ruling somehow has the sentence be resolved in two parts, instead as a whole.

My reading of the language used is that the person getting the Capuchin in their uncontrolled also gets the transfers, whoever they are. After all the trip to the ash heap has happened by that point, The Capuchin has no "as it is played" like effect described in it's ability that supercedes the trip to ash heap (a'la " x instead of y") like Genina, The Red Poet.

Name: Genina, The Red Poet
[Promo-20050914]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Samedi
Group: 3
Capacity: 8
Discipline: aus cel for CHI OBF THN
Independent. Red List: If a blood hunt is successfully called on Genina, she goes to torpor instead of being burned. Genina gets +1 stealth on diablerie actions and on undirected actions.
Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.


So by the rulebook "Burn: When a card is "burned," it is placed into its owner's discard pile (the discard pile is called the "ash heap" for this reason)." of the rules happens. The Card text of Capuchin takes note of this and via 1.4 supercedes the usual inability of cards abilities not working while in the ash heap. When placed in the ash heap the burn is complete and the ability of The Capuchin resolves. Burn has to be completed as otherwise The Capuchin does not fit the criteria of his ability. He is different from Genina who never is burned via blood hunt and therefore no effects related to burning happen. The Controller change being the one along with the "memory of actions taken".

Now for cards "you" has traditionally been the person controlling or playing the card, at least for cards like Carmen and similar. Cracking the wall had "you each" when specifying both players taking part of the rock-paper-scissors. It did not say "you and you discard."

Name: Carmen
[SoC:V]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Tremere antitribu
Group: 5
Capacity: 5
Discipline: aus dom THA
Sabbat. Black Hand: Non-Camarilla vampires you control get +1 stealth on equip actions.
Artist: Lawrence Snelly

Name: Cracking the Wall
[Third:R2]
Cardtype: Master
Clan: Malkavian antitribu
Cost: 1 pool
Master. Do not replace until your discard phase.
Play Rock-Paper-Scissors with any other Methuselah. If you tie, you each discard a card at random. Otherwise, the loser discards his or her hand and draws a new hand.
Artist: Brian LeBlanc


Following that usage of "you" in previous cards, Capuchin who followed the burn route should apply it's ability's "you" to singular target as there is only one person who owns the ash heap. Otherwise we enter world where cards like, Geral FitzGerald, if properly deep in derangement/corruption/temp control shenigans and taken back during (B)'s unlock phase, can turn the previous controllers vampires Black Hand by changing who "you" as a target in the sentence is mid-way. He was the first one I found that matches the above A & B mid sentence in order. I'm sure people are able to find more "broken" situations, specifically related to who burns and what and how many times. Not to mention what determines who which "you" actually is and how.

Name: Gerald FitzGerald
[DM:C, Anthology:1]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Tremere antitribu
Group: 5
Capacity: 7
Discipline: AUS DOM THA
Sabbat: During your (B) unlock phase, Gerald can burn 1 blood to make a younger non-titled Sabbat vampire you (A) control Black Hand. Black Hand. Seraph.
Artist: Ginés Quiñonero


With the above ruling The Capuchin somehow targets first the person whose ash heap he is headed into (goes to uncontrolled according to it) and then mid-sentence the target changes as The Capuchin moves towards the ash heap and lands on it at which point it points at the previous controller? Does it happen before the burn is completed, if so it somehow interrupts the burn process without wording "instead of." That on the other hand runs counter to the whole "trip to ash heap" part of logic. Nothing in his card text to me enables the change of target mid-sentence, it only enables the ability to work and resolve it's full sentence where it normally would not. I think I was teached that full sentences are completed step by step unless otherwise countered by other sentences in card text. Hence why I have hard time grasping the above ruling and have rambled about it this much.

Mind you Capuchin is one of the "new" promos to me, so it might be just me who has trouble with meaning of targets changing mid-sentence. Or it might be english not being my native language and lack of proper understanding of it.

I feel the wording on the text could be clearer and use dot in the middle to separate and enable easier understanding that "you" actually targets two different people in the card at specific conditions. Better yet, using terms like "you" (following past convention what "you" means in vampire abilities a'la Carmen) and "controller/owner before burn" if the aim truly is that the target of "you" in some situations changes mid-sentence. If the aim is that The Capuchin has "as it is played" like "counter" effect, wording from Genina and other "instead of" should be used to achieve it. If The Capuchin's design aim is to work as worded, I see the above mid-sentence ruling as either wrong or groundbreaking. Or I'm just too sleep deprived to wrap my mind around it. I'll give this a second look come morning, will either retain my position or use lots of strikethrough.

Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
Last edit: 15 Apr 2020 18:34 by Kilrauko. Reason: Sorted A and B for one example.

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

More
15 Apr 2020 19:51 - 17 Apr 2020 09:35 #99612 by Ankha

This is a bit problematic, at least to me, as language wise the sentence in the current card text;

If The Capuchin is burned, move him to your (B) uncontrolled region and you (A) get +3 transfers at the start of your (A/B/C?) next influence phase.


has the meaning and target of "you" change in the middle of the sentence between two different methuselah.

No. "You" is the current (temporary) controller of the Capuchin; but when the Capuchin would be moved his current (temporary) controller's ash heap, the temporary control ends and the Capuchin goes to his permanent controller owner's ash heap instead, then his permanent controller owner's uncontrolled region.
However, the bonus transfers are not affected by the end of the temporary control, so the current (temporary) controller of the Capuchin gains +3 transfers, the same way he would have lost pool to a Tension in the Ranks.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 17 Apr 2020 09:35 by Ankha. Reason: "owner" rather than "permanent controller"
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kilrauko

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

More
16 Apr 2020 16:12 #99614 by Kilrauko

This is a bit problematic, at least to me, as language wise the sentence in the current card text;

If The Capuchin is burned, move him to your (B) uncontrolled region and you (A) get +3 transfers at the start of your (A/B/C?) next influence phase.


has the meaning and target of "you" change in the middle of the sentence between two different methuselah.

No. "You" is the current (temporary) controller of the Capuchin; but when the Capuchin would be moved his current (temporary) controller's ash heap, the temporary control ends and the Capuchin goes to his permanent controller's ash heap instead, then his permanent controller's uncontrolled region.
However, the bonus transfers are not affected by the end of the temporary control, so the current (temporary) controller of the Capuchin gains +3 transfers, the same way he would have lost pool to a Tension in the Ranks.


Proceeding with the danger of appearing asinine, I understand the logic you're applying here. I've tried to physically copy it with cards to see if it matches a way I would play the game in attempt to ensure it's not problem in my mental perception of the situation. However I feel the need to point out where I disagree with parts of that logic. I feel very strongly about couple specific points and try my best to outline them here. I'm not doing this to argue just for argument's sake, but because I feel there are procedural problems that are related to conditions. I might be falling to (in)formal fallacy with these but I do not think I am.

First

..."You" is the current (temporary) controller of the Capuchin; but when the Capuchin would be moved his current (temporary) controller's ash heap, the temporary control ends and the Capuchin goes to his permanent controller's ash heap instead...


This is not how 1.1.2

Burn: When a card is "burned," it is placed into its owner's discard pile (the discard pile is called the "ash heap" for this reason). The ash heap can be examined by any player at any time. When a counter is "burned," it is returned to the blood bank (see Blood Bank and the Edge, sec 2.2). Sometimes, an instruction may say to remove a card from the game. While some cards and effects can retrieve cards from the ash heap, cards that are removed from the game cannot be retrieved or affected in any way. When a card is burned or removed from the game, any counters or other cards on it are burned.

handles the burn. It's not how LSJ 2002 has ruled on permanent control situation that in turn can be intreperted to affect temporary control situation as well.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/bEI1zLM-MG8/Q8FCltjINQIJ

...
> 3)a) A Methuselah takes control of an Ally via Far Mastery, that ally is
> burned, does the ally go back in the owner's ash heap(even if ousted),
> or simply stays in the controler's ash heap? My concern was if somebody
> could be possible to bring back that ally from the ash heap (Compel the
> Spirit) to it's latest controller.

A burned card goes to owner's ash heap [1.1.2]

> b) Same question, but with burned vampire who's control was stolen
> with a Grave Robbing? Concern this time is regarding vampire brought
> back with Possession, or the use of Mark of the Damned.

Same answer. [1.1.2]...


This seems to still be the case with quick google rules answers on burning cards since in these forums. The Capuchin is never even attempted to be moved to the temporary controller's ash heap as it goes to it's owner's ash heap like all burned cards, without care who his controller (permanent or temporary) is. Using "who" the permanent or temporary controller was as basis for logical argument for it's "first" direction is in my opinion irrelevant to the process as that never happens under the current rules. Of course this is different if a card text would say otherwise. Nothing in The Capuchin says to modify the Burn process, only what happens if it is burned. (And neither do the Spirit Marionette, Graverobbing, etc etc.) Cards that change the direction are very specific, like earlier mentioned Genina, the Red Poet or say Reform Body. Both have wordings the Capuchin could have used if the aim was to redirect from the owner's ash heap, even temporarily, but it does not use any wording related to it.

Now secondly I'm going to adress the Tension in the ranks part as I wish to end with what I feel is the *meat* of my argument;

...However, the bonus transfers are not affected by the end of the temporary control, so the current (temporary) controller of the Capuchin gains +3 transfers, the same way he would have lost pool to a Tension in the Ranks.


The Controller of the minion pays the cost as per Tension's card text the effect happens at the same time as the burn/torpor. The "Cleaning" effect that removes even the permanent control in the ash heap has not happened yet. The Minion has not yet lost it's controller that could burn the pool. If Tension in the Ranks said "If a ready minion is burned..." it could be used to draw conclusion for The Capuchin, however the wording is different. If is a condition that has to be fulfilled, whenever a conjuction to signify something that happens when something else happens.

Name: Tension in the Ranks
[CE:R2, LoB:PO, Third:R2, KoT:R/PB]
Cardtype: Master
Unique master.
Put this card in play. Whenever a ready minion is burned or sent to torpor, his or her controller burns 1 pool. Any Methuselah can burn this card by discarding two master cards as a master phase action.
Artist: Steve Prescott


What's more as The Capuchin has ability that triggers *if* he is burned, not *whenever* he is, it is not fair to draw conclusion from Tension's mechanics to the mechanics of The Capuchin. For all I know you're the designer of The Capuchin and I'm arguing against a viewpoint of the designer's intent but if it was meant to work like the tension, it would use "whenever" instead of "if". Or at least it should. Or some different wordings then the current one in it. As it stands now, drawing conclusion from something that happens during the burn and then applying it to different situation that happens after the burn does not fit my logic. There are variables that change the situation that happen which are relevant, namely whose ash heap it is.


And lastly;

... the Capuchin goes to his permanent controller's ash heap instead, then his permanent controller's uncontrolled region.
...


Parts of this I agree with, the disagreements I've already highlighted and argumented on above. The action to burn something per rules 1.1.2 is to move that card to the owner's ash heap. After that has happened, few additional things happen that are inherited by the properties of the "locations" aka the ash heap like the "cleaning effect" that erases previous actions memory.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/NhNCVCCDyU0/I5Yph3-UUPsJ

...
> > 3. If my Muddled Vampire Hunter rushes another minion and dies, and then
> > get's Compel Spirited, can he now rush again imediatly? (NRA?)
>
> Yes.
> All minions that re-enter play from the ashheap may do things that previous
> copies of themselves did earlier the same turn. Treat the minion that
> enters play in this fashion as not previously having taking any actions, as
> the minion remembers nothing of the turn because it was in the ash heap.
>
> "Minions brought into play from the Ash Heap (or Hand) are as pure as they
> day they were born. They retain nothing from any previous "life" they may
> have had in the controlled region. (Card text excluded, of course). This
> includes forgetting any actions they may have taken in that previous life."
> [LSJ 6-25-1997]

Correct.
...


However, and I think here lies the reason why I'm so adamant over this, is where the trouble lies. The Capuchin that was in another methuselah's control, is now back in their owner's ash heap. Any previous temporary or permanent control is irrelevant as he has been cleaned by the Ash heap from his previous life. He has been burned per the rules 1.1.2. He has been purified from his past experiences. If he was normal vampire, he would not even remember he was burned. However His card text enables things to happen that would not otherwise happen (vampires that give your vampires +1 stealth on equip actions do not do that from ash heap unless they explicitly say so and use rule 1.4 to do so.) The Capuchin has a "If burned, then x" that by 1.4 triggers now, as he has been burned. It is not "when... burned" or "being burned" or "would be burned" that are conditions other cards use to prevent the burn and do something instead. It does not care of the cleaning effect of the ash heap, it does not care that the card no longer remembers the information of it's previous burn.
1.4 says;

1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.

And that's why the card remembers he was burned and the ability triggers.

Why, as he is now in the ash heap of his owner, free of any temporary or permanent controls, or any other bindings aside from those where card text specifically say so("even if this minion is placed to ash heap, retain control of them" as example of fictional card that could achieve that), does he grant something to his previous controller?
Nothing in his text says so to my understanding of english. Nothing in my logic that I've tried to outline above on how things proceed points to it.
Does he still somehow remember the previous controller despite sitting happily at ash heap, without a ability that enables specifically that?

I can see how it might be possible to argue how The Capuchin just has bad wording (or I understand the words in it badly), the effect happens "during" the burning process and then the 1.4 overrides how the burn happens. But it would mean there is never a dip to ash heap and it's cleansing effect, aka that the Capuchin would go to the uncontrolled region of whoever controls him at the time of the burn and grant bonuses to transfers to the same methuselah. I think this is not the design intent as otherise the wording would be different.

I can also see the argument where the dip to the ash heap happens, where the card is cleaned but by the 1.4 it remembers to go back to the previous controller as that was it's last "you". Yet again, the caveats of same person receiving both the vampire in uncontrolled and the transfers applies.)

However the "splitting" or "changing" the target somehow "mid-sentence" does not sit well with me at all. "If X is burned do y" is a conditional that requires X to fully experience the burn. If that does not happen then it does not fit the criteria of "is burned". There's a difference between "being burned" and "is burned" at least to my understanding. As there is difference between "would be burned" and "being burned". The condition can be changed with "incapacitated" or "wounded" or myriad of other generic terms VTES with cards and effects that work either before, during or after the situation has happened. If it's ruled to be "it is so" then I have to live with it. But at the same time it goes against the above laid logical proceedings of the game and should be mirrored and handled in the card text better. At least that's my honest reading of it.

Now if my logic above is wrong (perfectly possible, heck, more then likely) please feel free to point it out, I appreciate everything that helps me understand things better. For all I know I've misunderstood some fundamental aspect that's causing the card to work as ruled above, as opposed to the way I've lined here. Perhaps it's related to the timing, perhaps there's no difference in game between "if/when." Perhaps the above mentioned disagreements are just wrong. Perhaps my english is failing me and I'm thinking there being too much importance to one specific word when there is none. I admit I have no care where The Capuchin ends up and my main concern is that effects of his sentence target just one methuselah, whoever (owner, temp/perm controller) they are, preferably based on a logical conclusion of a if->then causality that follows the rules and the card text. I've outlined where I feel that causality is not followed correctly and apologize if I'm mistaken on it.

Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.

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

More
17 Apr 2020 09:30 #99616 by Ankha

The Capuchin is never even attempted to be moved to the temporary controller's ash heap as it goes to it's owner's ash heap like all burned cards, without care who his controller (permanent or temporary) is. <snip>

Sorry, read "owner" instead of "permanent controller" which is the same in the OP as I understood it. I wanted to put emphasis on the temporary control aspect. I'll edit my previous answer.

The Controller of the minion pays the cost as per Tension's card text the effect happens at the same time as the burn/torpor. The "Cleaning" effect that removes even the permanent control in the ash heap has not happened yet. The Minion has not yet lost it's controller that could burn the pool. If Tension in the Ranks said "If a ready minion is burned..." it could be used to draw conclusion for The Capuchin, however the wording is different. If is a condition that has to be fulfilled, whenever a conjuction to signify something that happens when something else happens.

There are many misconceptions here:
- burning pool for the Tension is not a cost and happens after the minion is burned (that is the meaning of "when/whenever" in VTES)
- the minion always goes directly to its owner's ash heap. There is no cleansing effect happening "in the ash heap". Moving to the ash heap is what cleanses the card (burns counters on the cards etc.)
- "When", "whenever" and "after" are the same, that is why I'm removing all those false variations that could lead to think they are different. Future printings of Tension in the Ranks will read: "Any Methuselah burns 1 pool after a ready minion they control is burned or sent to torpor." It's very similar to the likeness of "you can" and "you may" which are the same in VTES, but some players thought there was a difference and drew false conclusions.
- the only difference between "if" and "when/whenever" is that "when"/"whenever" indicates a condition to be fulfilled AND a timing at the same time, whereas "if" doesn't indicate the timing - it only indicates a condition. So all the following sentences are equivalent:
  • "when a minion is burned its controller burns 1 pool"
  • "whenever a minion is burned its controller burns 1 pool",
  • "after a minion is burned its controller burns 1 pool"
  • "if a minion is burned, its controller burns 1 pool after it happens" (the last sentence is a bit redundant, that's why it's not used in that case)
But you could consider:
  • "after a successful bleed action"
  • "if a bleed is successful, after resolution"
Which are the same.

See the end of the post to see how the Capuchin behaves.

And lastly;

... the Capuchin goes to his permanent controller's ash heap instead, then his permanent controller's uncontrolled region.
...

See above (read "owner" instead of "permanent controller").

However, and I think here lies the reason why I'm so adamant over this, is where the trouble lies. The Capuchin that was in another methuselah's control, is now back in their owner's ash heap. Any previous temporary or permanent control is irrelevant as he has been cleaned by the Ash heap from his previous life. He has been burned per the rules 1.1.2. He has been purified from his past experiences. If he was normal vampire, he would not even remember he was burned. <snip>


The Capuchin is in play. He is temporarily controlled by Methuselah T. Let's say that Tension in the Ranks is also in play.
At some point The Capuchin is burned = he is moved to the ash heap. However, when the "If The Capuchin is burned" condition is met, he is still controlled by his temporary controller T.
Three effects kick in, all set with "you" = the temporary controller = T
  1. The Capuchin has to be moved to his controller's (T) uncontrolled region. When? Immediately after he is burned *.
  2. His controller gets +3 transfer. When? during his controller's next influence phase.
  3. His controller burns 1 pool. When? After The Capuchin is burned
That is why T gets +3 transfers and burns 1 pool.

(* Since there is no timing on effect 1, it's considered to be a "state-based" effect, the same way that a Dreams of the Sphinx is immediately burned as soon as the third counter is added to it. Basically it happens before any "after" effects, for instance Tension in the Ranks, and is usually used to avoid some timing issues. This is the same timing as the Bane Mummies for instance. I'm not sure it's really needed here or for the mummies, but it is consistent with similar effects.)

Anyway, I'll focus on effect 1 now.

Moving to "your" uncontrolled region is the same moving to "the" uncontrolled region because only cards one permanently controls can go to one's uncontrolled region.
So The Capuchin goes to "the" ash heap, which is his owner's ash heap per rule 1.1.2. This is already enough to break any temporary control. Since he goes to the ash heap, he is also "cleansed" from any permanent control change (for instance, if the Capuchin had been stolen from his owner O by B with a Graverobbing, and then T steals him temporarily with a Spirit Marionette and burns him in our scenario).
Then he goes to "the" uncontrolled region, that is his owner's uncontrolled region.

Even if he was trying to go to T's uncontrolled region anyway, doing so would break any temporary effect so the Capuchin would end up in his permanent controller's (here his owner's) uncontrolled region.

TLDR:
"If The Capuchin is burned, move him to your uncontrolled region and you get +3 transfers at the start of your next influence phase."
="If The Capuchin is burned, move him to the uncontrolled region and you get +3 transfers at the start of your next influence phase."
= "If The Capuchin is burned, move him to his owner's uncontrolled region and you get +3 transfers at the start of your next influence phase."

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kilrauko

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

More
17 Apr 2020 11:03 #99617 by Yomyael

So The Capuchin goes to "the" ash heap, which is his owner's ash heap per rule 1.1.2. This is already enough to break any temporary control. Since he goes to the ash heap, he is also "cleansed" from any permanent control change (for instance, if the Capuchin had been stolen from his owner O by B with a Graverobbing, and then T steals him temporarily with a Spirit Marionette and burns him in our scenario).
Then he goes to "the" uncontrolled region, that is his owner's uncontrolled region.


The highlighted part seems to be a reversal of the earlier ruling, that the Capuchin goes to his permanent controllers uncontrolled region instead of his owners ANK20200130 . I for one am totally confused now.

Prince of Bonn, Germany

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.146 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum