However, you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less.
Fallen-wizards using characters with > 5 mind.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
So the idea is to directly overturn the following from MEWH, correct?
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
How to directly overturn an ambiguous statement?Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:32 pm So the idea is to directly overturn the following from MEWH, correct?
However, you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less.
- the JabberwocK
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am
Essentially, yes, but directly... no.Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:32 pm So the idea is to directly overturn the following from MEWH, correct?
However, you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less.
My proposal is for erratum to the CRF as mentioned earlier in this topic. Technically it would not be an erratum of the White Hand rulebook, but the effect would be the same.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
There is nothing ambiguous in changing "you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less" to "you may use a character with more than 5 mind."CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:59 pmHow to directly overturn an ambiguous statement?Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:32 pm So the idea is to directly overturn the following from MEWH, correct?
However, you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
In Digest 42 Ichabod ruled that Fallen Wizards can use characters with mind greater than 5. Also, you can ignore the word "use." The only restriction is on playing or starting.
Ichabod Digest 42 wrote:From: Andrew John Susalla <asus...@umich.edu>
>#2) FW-decks cannot use An Unexpected Party because they can't get
>a Dwarf with a mind above 5 in play. Thrall of the Voice reduces the
>Dwarf's mind from 6 to 5, so it would force the discard of the Unexpected
>Party. I don't think you can discard Thrall without discarding the
>character.
Actually, you can. And then you have a 6 mind dwarf to play An Unexpected
Party with.
Ichabod Digest 78 wrote:From: kin...@mail.wsu.edu (Randall Kintner)
>>I wonder whether playing An Unexpected Party with a Fallen Wizard would
>>present any interesting possibilities?
>You actually can't play AUP as a Fallen Wizard. AUP requires a Dwarf with 6
>or more mind and FWs can't use (I believe it says "play" at one spot in the
>rules and "use" in another) characters with more than 5 mind. If you take
>Gimli and put a Thrall of the Voice on him so that you can use him, he is no
>longer a 6 mind dwarf.
Ignore the "use." Fallen-wizard may not play or start with characters
with more than 6 mind. Thus, you can use Thall of the Voice to bring
in Gimli, discard Thrall, and play AUP. (CRF, Rulings by Term, Fallenwizard).
Ichabod Digest 81 wrote:From: Jean-Luc Bevierre <org...@yahoo.com>
>line 3 "@ Fallen-wizards may not play characters with more than five
>mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded."
>
>Sorry to bother you with this kind of question but I need some
>explanation about this. If I cannot play character with more a mind
>greater than five, how get one in play in my company?
Thrall of the Voice reduces six mind characters to five mind and
allows you to play them. It could later be discarded, giving you
a six mind character in play. Not to mention hazards which increase
the mind of characters.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Interesting. I'm all in favor of of it, then, as "use" was far too finicky, anyway.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Khamul the Easterling
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
This topic will most likely make it into this year's ARV. Having read the thread, would (most of) you agree on the following submission:
Fallen-wizards may not play characters, i. e. bring into play a character under general or direct influence, with more than five mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded. Fallen-wizards can have a character with more than five mind, they just can't start with one or play one.
I would say that such wording does not capture the purpose of the proposal, which was about the ability to use characters in play with more than 5 mind.
Additionally, the wording that is added by the above is paradoxical; there are methods of playing characters beyond bringing them into play under general or direct influence. If this paradoxical wording were cleared up such that the submission included unambiguous wording that overruled the FW ban on playing characters with greater than 5 mind via these methods, it would unquestionably change my vote. If there is actual contention on this, it should be pulled into a separate vote.
Additionally, the wording that is added by the above is paradoxical; there are methods of playing characters beyond bringing them into play under general or direct influence. If this paradoxical wording were cleared up such that the submission included unambiguous wording that overruled the FW ban on playing characters with greater than 5 mind via these methods, it would unquestionably change my vote. If there is actual contention on this, it should be pulled into a separate vote.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
The proposal needs to be in the context of the original rules. Either changing the MEWH rules or adding to them (in similar format to the CRF errata).
As far as the original intention - The ICE digests are clear. Fallen Wizards my use characters with over 5 mind (mind being increased by hazards or loss of mind reducing effects). And Fallen Wizards may play 6+ mind agents as hazards. But Fallen Wizards may not play characters over 5 mind and they may not, after influencing an opponents character with over 5 mind, put that character into play.
As far as the original intention - The ICE digests are clear. Fallen Wizards my use characters with over 5 mind (mind being increased by hazards or loss of mind reducing effects). And Fallen Wizards may play 6+ mind agents as hazards. But Fallen Wizards may not play characters over 5 mind and they may not, after influencing an opponents character with over 5 mind, put that character into play.
- Khamul the Easterling
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
I felt the word "use" was technically imprecise. My intention was to make all possible meanings of "use" clear by saying that such characters may not be brought into play as characters, but may be kept/held in play (used?) as characters once in play as characters of a company or may be revealed (used?) for influence attempts. Any other meanings of use?
Agree.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:23 am As far as the original intention - The ICE digests are clear. Fallen Wizards my use characters with over 5 mind (mind being increased by hazards or loss of mind reducing effects). And Fallen Wizards may play 6+ mind agents as hazards. But Fallen Wizards may not play characters over 5 mind and they may not, after influencing an opponents character with over 5 mind, put that character into play.
Nonetheless, "use" is the language that needs to be specifically addressed.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:04 am I felt the word "use" was technically imprecise. My intention was to make all possible meanings of "use" clear by saying that such characters may not be brought into play as characters, but may be kept/held in play (used?) as characters once in play as characters of a company or may be revealed (used?) for influence attempts. Any other meanings of use?
A fine alternative interpretation of what "use" means is well represented by Bandobras' unified theory, where characters in play with more than 5 mind become useless "lumps". The submission text you propose above does not address whether characters in play are lumps (one interpretation of not useable) or can be fully used (contradicting a strict reading of MEWH but aligning with ICE digests), because either way such a character remains in play.MEWH wrote:However, you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
- Khamul the Easterling
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
I feel that it is not necessary to retain a term which might seem ambiguous and that an erratum or clarification may well replace one term by another if that leads to greater clarity. If you think my proposal is not sensible, please suggest something you'd prefer. I'm open to alternatives.Theo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:42 pmNonetheless, "use" is the language that needs to be specifically addressed.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:04 am I felt the word "use" was technically imprecise. My intention was to make all possible meanings of "use" clear by saying that such characters may not be brought into play as characters, but may be kept/held in play (used?) as characters once in play as characters of a company or may be revealed (used?) for influence attempts. Any other meanings of use?
I think the original proposal passed through months of opportunity for scrutiny so it seems the safest way to mitigate issues we might not realize on short notice.
If removing "use" language was an important objective, I just think it needs to be done explicitly or risk repeating the same question next year. For example (underlining additions):
"The White Hand passage "you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less" is ambiguous and should be ignored. Fallen-wizard restrictions regarding characters based on their mind attribute are only from the following:
Fallen-wizards may not play characters with more than five mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded.
Fallen-wizards can have a character with more than five mind, they just can't start with one or play one."
If removing "use" language was an important objective, I just think it needs to be done explicitly or risk repeating the same question next year. For example (underlining additions):
"The White Hand passage "you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less" is ambiguous and should be ignored. Fallen-wizard restrictions regarding characters based on their mind attribute are only from the following:
Fallen-wizards may not play characters with more than five mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded.
Fallen-wizards can have a character with more than five mind, they just can't start with one or play one."
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
I think the term "use" should be removed. In ICE Digest 78, Ichabod said to just ignore "use." Better to do this than to add CoE rules that are inconsistent but are meant to override this.
Similar to what Theo wrote -- the CRF provides a simple format for changing the rules. We even have a White Hand example.
Similar to what Theo wrote -- the CRF provides a simple format for changing the rules. We even have a White Hand example.
Complete Errata Listing wrote: Rules Errata:
- White Hand Rules, Playing and Using Resource, Targeting Site and Resource Cards: change both instances of "resource card may not target/affect" to "resource event card may not target/affect."
- Khamul the Easterling
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
I felt that if the word "use" persisted in an erratum or clarification that might cause further debate. That's why I removed it from my proposal. I didn't intend to replace the idea of the Jabberwock, who opened this thread, with a personal one of mine, I just hoped I could make it a bit preciser. I'll wait for his comment before taking it over to the ARV section, anyway.Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:14 am I think the original proposal passed through months of opportunity for scrutiny so it seems the safest way to mitigate issues we might not realize on short notice.
If removing "use" language was an important objective, I just think it needs to be done explicitly or risk repeating the same question next year. For example (underlining additions):
"The White Hand passage "you may only use a character if his mind attribute is 5 or less" is ambiguous and should be ignored. Fallen-wizard restrictions regarding characters based on their mind attribute are only from the following:
Fallen-wizards may not play characters with more than five mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded.
Fallen-wizards can have a character with more than five mind, they just can't start with one or play one."
Theo, I think you're example is good, would you, however, consent if I placed your "restrictions" sentence at the end like:
Fallen-wizards may not play characters, i. e. bring into play a character under general or direct influence, with more than five mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded. Fallen-wizards can have a character with more than five mind, they just can't start with one or play one. There are no other restrictions regarding such characters.