Related to, but distinct from, another thread,...

Quote

ELUSIVE

The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn, it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

Here's the scenario: On my turn, I attack one of your Elusive creatures. Neither of us damage the other, got that part just fine. Now, I attack a different one of your Elusive creatures. Since I've already attacked an Elusive creature, do we damage each other this second time? The way it's worded, it sounds like Elusive only happens once per turn, not once per creature.

I think you’re not arguing in good faith and trying to twist the rules. Of course elusive applies on a critter per critter basis.

In fact the card text says “this creature”

Just now, Poposhka said:

I think you’re not arguing in good faith and trying to twist the rules. Of course elusive applies on a critter per critter basis.

No, no, I'm not trying to be a tricksy little hobbit here. I'm genuinely asking the community, because I can see it being interpenetrated either way. A strict RulesAsWritten person could make a legitimate argument that, since a creature with elusive has been attacked, a second attack at any other Elusive creature would go through. I agree that it feels like it should apply to each Elusive creature, but we can't play how it feels (Biomatrix Backup?), we need to go with what's written.

Ok the card then : this creature, boom golden rule

Submitted to the rules form. We'll see what happens.

1 hour ago, twinstarbmc said:

Related to, but distinct from, another thread,...

Here's the scenario: On my turn, I attack one of your Elusive creatures. Neither of us damage the other, got that part just fine. Now, I attack a different one of your Elusive creatures. Since I've already attacked an Elusive creature, do we damage each other this second time? The way it's worded, it sounds like Elusive only happens once per turn, not once per creature.

I can’t for the life of me figure out how you can interpret this as once per turn instead of per creature.

1 minute ago, Palpster said:

I can’t for the life of me figure out how you can interpret this as once per turn instead of per creature.

The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn, it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn , it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

The second time a creature (not the same creature, but any creature) with the elusive keyword is attacked..... then what? That's where I'm coming from.

..it (the second creature) is attacked for the first time this turn, what seems to be the probkem?

A more concrete example.

You have two Elusive creatures, EC1 and EC2. I have at least two creatures I can attack with this turn. I attack EC1. This is the first time this turn a creature with Elusive is being attacked, so neither creature damages the other. Then I attack EC2. This is the second time a creature with Elusive is being attacked this turn.

2 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn, it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn , it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

The second time a creature (not the same creature, but any creature) with the elusive keyword is attacked..... then what? That's where I'm coming from.

You're missing something huge here, " the first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn ", this means it triggers once per creature with elusive each turn. The second creature with elusive is attacked is still the FIRST TIME it's being attacked, thus "the first time A CREATURE".
It sounds like you're really really really trying to split hairs here over a fairly obvious rule.

I have attached a helpful image. Please stop being purposefully obtuse in this and other threads, you are detrimental to the community

Just now, Poposhka said:

I have attached a helpful image

[giant image of the Elusive keyword and reminder text, in italics, in parentheses]

While I don't see it mentioned in THIS rulebook, a pretty common rule about reminder text is that it's not gospel. For example, from https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Reminder_text ...

Quote

While it is intended to illustrate the rules to players, reminder text has no real effect on gameplay, ... it is often not completely accurate , sacrificing technical accuracy for ease of understanding.

And from the L5R Rule Reference:

Quote

Sometimes a keyword is followed by reminder text, which is presented in italics. Reminder text is a shorthand explanation of how a keyword works, but it is not rules text and does not replace the rules for that keyword in this glossary

Again, I see no specific reference to this kind of reminder text in the Keyforge rules, but, this is not an uncommon thing among card games.

With the rules text, to be very clear...

Quote

The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn, it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

What value would the "it" that I have bolded have if elusive was intended to only work once for the whole turn? That "it" would serve no purpose. It would be worded entirely differently.

This isn't about you being clever and showing that you can squeeze a new meaning out of mis-parsed words. This is about adding confusion where none needs to be. Please stop.

7 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

While I don't see it mentioned in THIS rulebook, a pretty common rule about reminder text is that it's not gospel. For example, from https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Reminder_text ...

And from the L5R Rule Reference:

Again, I see no specific reference to this kind of reminder text in the Keyforge rules, but, this is not an uncommon thing among card games.

Page 3 of the Rulebook 16Nov2018 edition

Quote

THE GOLDEN RULE
If the text of a card directly contradicts the text of the rules, the text of the card takes precedence.

However

Quote

ELUSIVE
The first time a creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn, it is dealt no damage and deals no damage to the attacker in the fight.

What are your thoughts on

Quote

SKIRMISH
When a creature with the skirmish keyword is used to fight, it takes no damage from the opposing creature when the damage from the fight is dealt.

16 minutes ago, RobertK said:

With the rules text, to be very clear...

[Glossary text for Elusive]

What value would the "it" that I have bolded have if elusive was intended to only work once for the whole turn? That "it" would serve no purpose. It would be worded entirely differently. 

"It" is the creature being attacked, clearly.

17 minutes ago, RobertK said:

This isn't about you being clever and showing that you can squeeze a new meaning out of mis-parsed words. This is about adding confusion where none needs to be. Please stop. 

I respectfully refuse. I am not adding confusion, I am pointing out an ambiguity that already exists. Changing one little word could have cleared this up completely. If Elusive said "The first time each creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn..." then I never would have even brought it up. But that's not what it says. It says " a creature." And if they submit an erratum for the rule such that it works as y'all're arguing (which, again, I agree that it should be that way) than I will be a happy guy. But I'll say it again, we can't play the game how we want , we have to play it as written . Even if it's written poorly, and even if it results in unintuitive rulings, a la Biomatrix Backup.

Carlo Phantom . Mack the Knife . Kindrith Longshot . These have no parenthesized-and-italicized text next to its Elusive keyword. Clearly Elusive still does something, even when the reminder text is absent, and I'd think that it does the same thing whether it is there or not. So, I will reiterate, reminder text is not rules.

Lol

6 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

"It" is the creature being attacked, clearly.

I respectfully refuse. I am not adding confusion, I am pointing out an ambiguity that already exists. Changing one little word could have cleared this up completely. If Elusive said "The first time each creature with the elusive keyword is attacked each turn..." then I never would have even brought it up. But that's not what it says. It says " a creature." And if they submit an erratum for the rule such that it works as y'all're arguing (which, again, I agree that it should be that way) than I will be a happy guy. But I'll say it again, we can't play the game how we want , we have to play it as written . Even if it's written poorly, and even if it results in unintuitive rulings, a la Biomatrix Backup.

Carlo Phantom . Mack the Knife . Kindrith Longshot . These have no parenthesized-and-italicized text next to its Elusive keyword. Clearly Elusive still does something, even when the reminder text is absent, and I'd think that it does the same thing whether it is there or not. So, I will reiterate, reminder text is not rules.

You are though, it was already clarified that your rules lawyering was wrong with the posting of a card with elusive. To support that’s the correct interpretation take this scenario

You have two creatures with elusive, we’ll call them (A) and (B), your opponent attacks (A), it is “a creature with elusive” and “is being attacked for the first time”. Thus Elusive kicks in.

Now your opponent attacks creature (B) it is “a creature with elusive” and “is being attacked for the first time”.

While reminder text is not the rules, it can be used to clarify words used in a rule you find ambiguous. If you want to ignore it and waste some poor TO or Marshall’s time so be it, prepare to be dissapointed.

24 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Now your opponent attacks creature (B) it is “a creature with elusive” and “is being attacked for the first time”.

It's the second time
a creature with elusive
is attacked this turn.

#haiku

@twinstarbmc you have a lot of great content on this forum and are normally a real help to lift the community, but please end this thread.

7 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

It's the second time
a creature with elusive
is attacked this turn.

#haiku

It’s the first time that creature is being attacked. The rules saying “a” are worded that way to indicate a particular creature thus the card itself clarifying that. Thus attacking that’s second creature is a creature that is being attacked for the first time. This leads us to your interpretation or everyone else’s here and only one of those two is also backed by actual cards with the ability. Ignoring that isn’t clever.

The reminder text in the cards makes it pretty clear that “the first time a creature with elusive is attacked” means “a particular creature.” This is a very valid interpretation of the article a. For example, if you said “the first time a man is arrested he receives a lighter sentence,” not a single person anywhere in the world would say “but the first time a man was arrested was many years ago when the first person was ever arrested. Therefore no one gets a lighter sentence anymore.”

This is not a rule that is causing any confusion. This is just you being ridiculous. Edit: maybe that was a little more harsh than intended. But the combination of the simplest most obvious interpretation being confirmed by the reminder text makes this a no brainer to me.

4 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

This is just you being ridiculous.

There's no reason to call names. Why not just cut that last sentence out?

6 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

There's no reason to call names. Why not just cut that last sentence out?

Well, saying someone is being ridiculous is not name calling. It’s a description of an action. Name calling would be “you are ridiculous.” I suppose I could say “this is just you advancing a laughably unlikely interpretation of the rules which is not likely to ever be raised by anyone in the real world, which I think is ridiculous.” But since he put his previous response in a haiku I’m guessing he appreciates the elegance of “you being ridiculous” more. But if I’ve triggered anyone they are free to file a complaint.

EDIT: Speaking of triggered, @Poposhka please tell me that’s a digital image or a dry erase marker on a card sleeve and that you didn’t write in the actual card...

@BigBadAndy some sacrifices just need to be made! nah, it's the iPhone screenshot editor

let's just move on from here and pretend all this never happened.

Once I get a response from my official rules submission, I will post it for all to see. Until then, I maintain that an ambiguity exists, and a legitimate argument can be made for both interpretations of the rule. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to say "my" way is the correct one. I want to be wrong . But I cannot ignore the fact that it could be read both ways, and should be clarified.