I see no reason why it shouldn't stay raised, which is why Damon's answer was short and sweet. The plot doesn't say, "while you have a N character participating"; it says, "after you declare," which is fully satisfied once the declaration is complete, regardless of what happens to the N character afterwards.
Naval Superiority vs removing naval attackers
Vaapad said:
I see no reason why it shouldn't stay raised, which is why Damon's answer was short and sweet. The plot doesn't say, "while you have a N character participating"; it says, "after you declare," which is fully satisfied once the declaration is complete, regardless of what happens to the N character afterwards.
These topics have become exhausting. :-)
Well, the game doesn't recognize when you initiate or declare a challenge against an opponent which is then subsequently redirected by, say, the Crown Regent. I mean, it still happened, but the game only counts the new opponent when it comes to card effects.
I just really hate these types of responses. They sound as if only part of the question was answered(or only one of the many questions Sloth asked). I would feel more comfortable with a complete answer instead of one where it sounded like he only answered this question:
" When does the "raise claim" effect take place?"
It could have easily been elaborated to answer the remainder of the post that had these questions:
" If they are subsequently removed from the challenge before resolution what happens to the claim value? Is the duration of the raised claim the "current challenge" therefore making the claim raised regardless of if the naval character remains in the challenge?"
I hate to assume that he only read and answered the very first question based on that answer.
Adam, the counter example that comes to my mind is dragon knight. If I ambush in dragon knight during the challenges phase, I can give your character -1 Str til the end of that phase. If my dragon knight then dies to mil claim, your character certainly doesn't get it's Str back. And that's because the -1 modifier hits on the entry into play with no requirement that it remain on the board. I think of NS the same way -- it looks for th declaration of a N character, not that characters participation in the resolution of the challenge
Slothgodfather said:
And here is the response I recieved:
"The claim is raised when you declare a naval attacker." - Damon Stone
I've sent back a followup question because the answer really doesn't tell me if the raised claim stays raised if that character is removed from the challenge, but it does appear to be that way to me. What do you all think?
I feel like Damon's answer was so short because he is tired of getting asked dumb questions. Since when is it so hard to read the words on a card?
sWhiteboy
said:
Slothgodfather said:
And here is the response I recieved:
"The claim is raised when you declare a naval attacker." - �Damon Stone
�
I've sent back a followup question because the answer really doesn't tell me if the raised claim stays raised if that character is removed from the challenge, but it does appear to be that way to me. �What do you all think?
I feel like Damon's answer was so short because he is tired of getting asked dumb questions. �Since when is it so hard to read the words on a card?
While it might be condescending, it is also true. People complain that the rules for this game are SO convoluted, but they really aren't. In most cases, you can just read the card. Damon (and the other devs) aren't out there trying to complicate the game; these issues come from people who try to read into every little thing and force rulings together when it isn't needed.
sWhiteboy said:
While it might be condescending, it is also true. People complain that the rules for this game are SO convoluted, but they really aren't. In most cases, you can just read the card. Damon (and the other devs) aren't out there trying to complicate the game; these issues come from people who try to read into every little thing and force rulings together when it isn't needed.
I really do agree with this post. However this is the way I think your previous should have been communicated(my opinion).
Sometimes we do get into a bad habit of overanalyzing rules and card text because there are, in fact, some cases that the card text is not literal to the way it is written. Burning Bridges is one quick example where if it was never questioned by anyone in this forum, I'd have never read it to not include gained text, like dupes and Maester Murenmere.
sWhiteboy said:
Slothgodfather said:
And here is the response I recieved:
"The claim is raised when you declare a naval attacker." - Damon Stone
I've sent back a followup question because the answer really doesn't tell me if the raised claim stays raised if that character is removed from the challenge, but it does appear to be that way to me. What do you all think?
I feel like Damon's answer was so short because he is tired of getting asked dumb questions. Since when is it so hard to read the words on a card?
The question isn't that dumb. Naval Superiority is worded ambiguously. It differs from Orell, which is the closest I can think of at the moment for comparison:
Naval Superiority - "Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 2 during challenges in which you have declared a [Naval] attacker."
Orell the Eagle - "While Orell the Eagle is attacking, opponents must declare at least 2 defenders in order to defend the challenge."
What type of effects are these two effects? Conditional effects that are checked at every opportunity to see if they are currently being applied or not? Are they effects that once met, are implemented? There's no obvious way to assume either of those assessments is correct. What happens when you remove the relevant characters from each challenge? The game state is now changed. The game can no longer refer to the game state in which you declared the relevant characters and thus the conditional effects now change state if they are repeatedly checked for validity.
There's a reason the saying is "There's no such thing as a stupid question." Knowledge is always imparted, even if some people are of the opinion that the question is stupid.
I'm still of the opinion this game needs to separate the designers from the rules arbitrators. It makes everything much easier.
There are three types of Card Abilities:
1. Triggered Ability: Any ability on a card in play that begins with "Phase:" or "Response:" is a triggered ability. These abilities are optional, and must be triggered by the player controlling the card at the appropriate time for their effect(s) to occur.
2. Passive Ability: Passive abilities must initiate when applicable. These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates. Passive abilities are not affected by cards that prevent or cancel triggered effects or abilities.
3. Constant Ability: Constant abilities are those that are continuously affecting the game state. Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled.
In this case, they are both Constant Abilities. You can tell because neither has an initiation point, and neither have bold text before them.
Orell the Eagle's effect is a Constant Ability that is checked repeatedly. There is no point of initiation. It is only active "while Orell the Eagle is attacking," and it stops being active as soon as he is not attacking.
Still, the two cards don't compare very well because of game memory.
The concept of game memory has been discussed ad-nauseum on here. Does the game have a memory? Does it not? To answer those questions…sometimes. So, when do we know what it is thinking?!?!?
Easy, the English language. Past tense wording to be exact. Look at the other cards that use "game memory." What do they have in common? At least part of the ability is written in the past tense. Now look at your Son of the Mist or Burned Man conumdrums; I think you'll notice that both cards are written in present tense.
Naval Superiority is one of the cases where a card gives the game a memory.
So, there you go. I finally stopped being a **** and tried to help.
I don't like it much.
I'll second anyone saying rules or cards are ambiguous. At the same time, let's cut Nate and Damon some slack, they're only 2 guys bombarded by questions that are often repeated.
sWhiteboy said:
There are three types of Card Abilities:
1. Triggered Ability: Any ability on a card in play that begins with "Phase:" or "Response:" is a triggered ability. These abilities are optional, and must be triggered by the player controlling the card at the appropriate time for their effect(s) to occur.
2. Passive Ability: Passive abilities must initiate when applicable. These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates. Passive abilities are not affected by cards that prevent or cancel triggered effects or abilities.
3. Constant Ability: Constant abilities are those that are continuously affecting the game state. Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled.
In this case, they are both Constant Abilities. You can tell because neither has an initiation point, and neither have bold text before them.
Orell the Eagle's effect is a Constant Ability that is checked repeatedly. There is no point of initiation. It is only active "while Orell the Eagle is attacking," and it stops being active as soon as he is not attacking.
Still, the two cards don't compare very well because of game memory.
The concept of game memory has been discussed ad-nauseum on here. Does the game have a memory? Does it not? To answer those questions…sometimes. So, when do we know what it is thinking?!?!?
Easy, the English language. Past tense wording to be exact. Look at the other cards that use "game memory." What do they have in common? At least part of the ability is written in the past tense. Now look at your Son of the Mist or Burned Man conumdrums; I think you'll notice that both cards are written in present tense.
Naval Superiority is one of the cases where a card gives the game a memory.
So, there you go. I finally stopped being a **** and tried to help.
I don't like it much.
Okay, so we're going with the repeatedly checked interpretation (which I think is the correct one). Now let's look at the game memory thing again. The last discussion we had (and this is me interpreting what Bomb said) was that the game only remembers the current game state and how it got there. Therefore, if a [Naval] character is removed from the challenge claim is not raised by 2. Are you agreeing with or disagreeing with this? I think you're disagreeing with this, which would mean disagreeing with my interpretation of Bomb's statement.
Also, Orell's second part is actually a secondary constant ability that requires the first constant ability to be in effect. Constant-ception.
Now taking the Sons of B%*$(#$ example, if the game remembers past states, both Sons of the Mist will be triggerable. You can't simply take a "sometimes" approach. It needs clear definitions. Just look at Massachusetts law from the other day. A Panera had an exclusivity contract with a mall. A burrito shop opened and they sued the mall. Massachusetts literally now has a definition for what a sandwich is because it is required for precedent. If we say "sometimes" we have to have an explicit context for every possibility. I am glad to implement a "sometimes" approach, but I don't get a clear idea of what your different times are in the "sometimes" and how to differentiate between them.
And you can't be more of a **** than I am can you? Is that possible? xD
@Khudzlin - Yea. I am pretty hard on Damon and Nate, but I do respect them. Nate is incredible when it comes to making things work mechanically. Damon is good at grabbing the theme of something and making it work within game mechanics. Like you said, though, they are only two people doing far more than two peoples work. If a third party worked on the rules framework, then rather than having an idea in his head, Damon would be forced to write cards in such a way that they appropriately work within the framework. It would force him to be a little more picky when he makes his cards and their text. If we can create a framework through these discussions, it could possibly make it easier for Damon and Nate to make cards more clear in how the community expects them to work.
Sorry to revive this thread, but I am not entirely sure how to interpret Damons' slightly laconic answer. Does it mean, that the claim in fact remains raised after all naval attackers are removed from the challenge?
@Mdc: good, then. You're harsh because you love the game. I dig that. I also agree they could do with extra designers/proofreaders/whatever.
theCrow said:
Sorry to revive this thread, but I am not entirely sure how to interpret Damons' slightly laconic answer. Does it mean, that the claim in fact remains raised after all naval attackers are removed from the challenge?
I don't remember what the verdict was. Basically there are two interpretations:
1) Naval Superiority is a passive that triggers if a Naval attacker is declared.
This interpretation is yes.
2) Naval Superiority is a conditional constant that constantly checks for its validity.
This interpretation is no.
I interpret it as 2, but my interpretation of the rules is pretty strict/verbatim and often disagrees with other TOs opinions.
@Khudzlin - LoL. That response was like a month ago! Man, now I know how many people actually read my responses. xD
@MdC: it's been a busy month
Khudzlin said:
I'll second anyone saying rules or cards are ambiguous. At the same time, let's cut Nate and Damon some slack, they're only 2 guys bombarded by questions that are often repeated.
They wouldn't be repeated if the answers were easier to find and there was less room for interpretation within the card effects.
As for Damon's response, we've already established the game does have memory, and honestly it has memory most of the time. Looking at how this plot is worded, it is not asking for a "participating" or "participated" Naval character so I think that it raises the claim - and stays raised once the condition is met, regardless of if the character stays in the challenge or not.
If you stick with the concept that the "game has no memory" and that the Naval character has to remain in the challenge, I ask you this… HOW does the game remember that you used the Naval ability of that character to get them into the challenge and not simply declared them as an attacker during the standard declare step? When you get to resolution, with no memory, the game clearly couldn't tell how an attacker joined the battle, only that one of them has a funny little boat on their icon…
Slothgodfather said:
They wouldn't be repeated if the answers were easier to find and there was less room for interpretation within the card effects.
As for Damon's response, we've already established the game does have memory, and honestly it has memory most of the time. Looking at how this plot is worded, it is not asking for a "participating" or "participated" Naval character so I think that it raises the claim - and stays raised once the condition is met, regardless of if the character stays in the challenge or not.
If you stick with the concept that the "game has no memory" and that the Naval character has to remain in the challenge, I ask you this… HOW does the game remember that you used the Naval ability of that character to get them into the challenge and not simply declared them as an attacker during the standard declare step? When you get to resolution, with no memory, the game clearly couldn't tell how an attacker joined the battle, only that one of them has a funny little boat on their icon…
I love your first sentence, lol.
This thread is about a month and a half old. It also demonstrates why I call out thread necros! xD
It sounds like you're interpreting it as 1. More conflict! Can we get some more opinions so that we can reach a concensus before I have to help TO Saturday?
Has anyone had a TO rule how it worked in a tourney?
Slothgodfather said:
Rule Question:
Naval Superiority (plot)
Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 2 during challenges in which you have declared a [Naval] attacker.
When does the "raise claim" effect take place? If I add a Naval attacker into a challenge by the enhancement, is the claim raised then? If they are subsequently removed from the challenge before resolution what happens to the claim value? Is the duration of the raised claim the "current challenge" therefore making the claim raised regardless of if the naval character remains in the challenge?
If the claim is only raised during resolution of the challenge and a naval enhanced character was added using the enhancement, can you explain how that applies when the wording of the plot only asks for "declared" and not "attacking", "defending" or "participating" like other characters that raise claim?
And here is the response I recieved:
"The claim is raised when you declare a naval attacker." - Damon Stone
Based on Damon's answer to Sloth's question… and assuming that Damon had read the whole question… I would say, that claim remains raised.
I really hope this will be covered in the next FAQ.
theCrow said:
Slothgodfather said:
Based on Damon's answer to Sloth's question… and assuming that Damon had read the whole question… I would say, that claim remains raised.
I really hope this will be covered in the next FAQ.
Nah, that doesn't really prove anything. Whether it's a passive or a constant, the claim will be raised either immediately (constant) or during the passive window of the declaration of the [Naval] attacker. Our question hinges on whether its a constant that continually checks for validity or not. The quote from Damon you have doesn't touch on that topic.
Nah, that doesn't really prove anything. Whether it's a passive or a constant, the claim will be raised either immediately (constant) or during the passive window of the declaration of the [Naval] attacker. Our question hinges on whether its a constant that continually checks for validity or not. The quote from Damon you have doesn't touch on that topic.
I didn't say it proves anything, that's only my guess and my line of reasoning was:
- Further part of said question to Damon was: "Is the duration of the raised claim the "current challenge" therefore making the claim raised regardless of if the naval character remains in the challenge?"
- Damon disregarded this part of the question
- Silence means consent
- Therefore the answer to the question in 1. is "yes"
I know that this logic is not really impeccable, but that's my best guess.
Edited by theCrow