Jump to content
  • 0

Nelle's Revisionist History and Hazardous Terrain Damage


Domin

Question

My question is - can Nelle Cochrane use her Revisionist History Ability to cheat hazardous terrain damage flips?

Rules of hazardous terrain say:

Quote

The opposing player flips for hazardous terrain damage, which may not be cheated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me. A negative modifier or a joker is not a damage flip so the "those" sounds like it's referring to an earlier sentence.

The current sentence says you may cheat flips that were made against you, you are also excluded from the normal no-nos of being on negatives and flipping a joker but nothing in that sentence excludes you from an ability that straight up says "you can't cheat". How are you overriding that?

Remember that if an ability says "perform an interact action" or whatever else you still need to obey normal restrictions unless granted express permission. I don't see why this would be different. It lists the specific restrictions you are allowed to ignore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, Ludvig said:

No, it clearly states it cannot be cheated.

She can only ignore negatives, not anything else that states you can't cheat.

The wording on that card is terrible, if that's the intent.

"This model may cheat damage flips against it, regardless of any :-flipor jokers."

I know English is an imprecise language, and the rulings on "can vs cannot" tend to be crappy, but if that was the sole intent, I'd have definitely put the clause BEFORE the effect.

"Regardless of any :-flipor jokers, this model may cheat those damage flips against it."

Cause the way it reads now, I can absolutely see it being interpretable as either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me. A negative modifier or a joker is not a damage flip so the "those" sounds like it's referring to an earlier sentence.

The current sentence says you may cheat flips that were made against you, you are also excluded from the normal no-nos of being on negatives and flipping a joker but nothing in that sentence excludes you from an ability that straight up says "you can't cheat". How are you overriding that?

Remember that if an ability says "perform an interact action" or whatever else you still need to obey normal restrictions unless granted express permission. I don't see why this would be different. It lists the specific restrictions you are allowed to ignore.

I guess I'm reading (or at least seeing the reading as possible) that "regardless of" is a clarifying, not an exclusionary phrasing. 

And yes, my inclusion of "those" was in error. But I think if the intent to be unambiguous with regard to exactly what is and isn't allowed, a different phrasing would have made it much clearer.

Not doubting your interpretation, I think it's solidly reasoned. But based on the wording on the card, I'd absolutely not have disagreed with someone using it on Hazardous Terrain damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yeah, I get the other side of the argument because it isn't chrystal clear. If an alternative wording was an option it could have said "regardless of negatives, jokers etc." which would have made it clearer it wasn't a specific list but a general exception from anything you could think of. The wording "may cheat any damage flip against it regardless of any restrictions" would also have cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 5/22/2018 at 3:47 PM, Morgan Vening said:

The wording on that card is terrible, if that's the intent.

"This model may cheat damage flips against it, regardless of any :-flipor jokers."

I know English is an imprecise language, and the rulings on "can vs cannot" tend to be crappy, but if that was the sole intent, I'd have definitely put the clause BEFORE the effect.

"Regardless of any :-flipor jokers, this model may cheat those damage flips against it."

Cause the way it reads now, I can absolutely see it being interpretable as either way.

There are a few problems with this reasoning:

1.  The rule book starts out with the statement "While players may Cheat Fate on duels, damage flips, and healing flips, it is important to note that a player may not Cheat Fate unless specifically allowed."

2.  In the Hazardous Terrain rules it says "The opposing player flips for hazardous terrain damage, which may not be cheated."

You'll note that the regular damage flip rules don't have a similar prohibition and instead rely on the general "permission required" qualifier in Cheating.

Concerning "the rule would be clearer if it was written in a different order", the rules aren't structured that way at all.  Having the qualifier before or after the permission to cheat isn't defined or observed to change the nature of the permission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information