"If Tarle the Thrice-Drowned has 3 power on him, discard him from play."
If you succeed to have Tarle with 4 powers on him for some reasons (let's say he's got already 2 powers on him and is lord during a plot phase with Red Wedding and fortified position). Is he discarded from game ? I suppose no, because it doesn't say "3 powers or more on him". Is it a miswording ?
You cannot take him out of the terminal state by adding more power. 4 power will discard him just as surely as 3.
If you want a technical explanation, power is gained one-by-one even if an effect says to gain 2 power (the same way that cards are draw one-by-one, even if an effect says to draw 2 cards). So the 'power #3" passive will activate and the terminal state be created even though power #4 was gained, too.
yes, I know about winning one-by-one the powers, but what if the power #3 and the power #4 are won when Tarle is blank ? Is he discarded just because 4 is more than 3 powers ? Or 4 is different from 3 so he stays on the board ?
He still gets discarded. If you have 5 dogs, you also have 1 dog, right? It's the same thing. If you have 4 power, you also have 3 power. At least that's how I see it. The game has used "X or more/less power" before. I don't know if leaving it out was intentional.
FATMOUSE said:
The game has used "X or more/less power" before. I don't know if leaving it out was intentional.
That's the core of the matter... You can understand "3 or more" or "precisely 3" but just "3" is not enough to know... But I'm french and mayby there's one choice that seems more logical from an american point of view
Arthur Lannister said:
"This elevator is not safe for people who weigh 113kg." "I weigh 115kg. So it's safe for me."
Sounds less reasonable when you say it that way, doesn't it?
If you have 4 power, you also meet the restriction of 3 power. He is discarded.
ok, we'll rule it like that then. But if it seems obvious for you, in french it-s much more complicated
Arthur, my native language is English, and I also feel that the card's wording is ambiguous. Often card effects like Tarle's use a phrase like "at least" or "or more."
ktom said:
"This elevator is not safe for people who weigh 113kg." "I weigh 115kg. So it's safe for me."
Sounds less reasonable when you say it that way, doesn't it?
That sentence you used as an example sounds very bad to me.
Usually, I'm expecting to find something more like this:
"This elevator is not safe for people who weigh MORE THAN 113 kg"
"Saturday party at the club will be free to everyone who is 22 years old"
I'm 28. Is it free to me or must I pay?
Fatmouse has got 4 dogs. I ask him "Do you have 3 dogs?"
What will he reply?
"Yes, I have 3 dogs"
or
"No, I have FOUR dogs"
?
Undoubtedly it could be worded more clearly. I'm just pointing out that the interpretation of "3 power" as a threshold rather than a distinct, solitary and exclusive requirement is not inconsistent with the current wording.
It has to do with context - as a lot of English unfortunately does - and more to the point, within the context of the game, 3 as a threshold is certainly the better interpretation.
Well, it might not be inconsistent, but it's quite unclear, anyway.
As I read it, to have 3 power is still quite distinct from having 4.
Without official clarification from the designers, I would still consider (in the unlikely case it would happen without going through 3) that the effect does not happen at 4 or more, because the condition is not met.
I do not remember any other card in AGOT where a threshold was not clearly indicated with an 'or more' or an 'or less'.
Charles
I've sent an e-mail to Nate. Hopefully he'll reply within a couple of days. I'm still pretty certain he would be discarded if had 4 power, but I've been wrong before.
With my first post, I was just trying to reassure Arthur Lannister that his English skills were not at fault in finding the card wording ambiguous. However, to me it seems pretty clear that the card is intended to mean "3 or more." The card wording does not seem to lean one way or the other on the question "3 and exactly 3" versus "3 or more," but the mechanics of previous cards are skewed pretty heavily towards using the latter construction. Is there any precedent in the game for effects triggering when a certain number (greater than one) of something is counted and not that number "or more" or "or less?"
Ummm... I think we're all subject to rules-lawyering from time to time ... myself included.
But I think this particular response is correct.
FATMOUSE said:
He still gets discarded. If you have 5 dogs, you also have 1 dog, right? It's the same thing. If you have 4 power, you also have 3 power. At least that's how I see it. The game has used "X or more/less power" before. I don't know if leaving it out was intentional.
Sometimes, you just have to keep it simple.
If I have 50 cents in my pocket, then I certainly have 40 cents in my pocket.
It is a logic problem, If I have two coins that total $0.30 and one is not a quarter, what two coins do I have?
Answer: A nickel and a quarter. Only one of the coins is not a quarter, the other is.
When you count power on Tarle to see if his effect kicks in once you count three his restriction has been met. The card is ambiguous mostly because other cards have used the "or more" or "or less" modifiers, but strictly speaking they are not necessary here. In order for Tarle's ability to not dicard him it should have to say exactly three, or some modifier that excluded any amount of power that also included three.
Getting a clarification from Nate is a good idea though to prevent arguments.
From Nate:
"Quarle should be played as a '3 or more effect.' This item will be included in an upcoming FAQ."