Alan Reid Talk! trigger

[Rubyhathunger]

I noticed a delicate trigger on Alan Reid no one talks about, as far as I know.

What about the talk! trigger, if the opponent has both schemes revealed? As I understand the wording and the nature of "or-triggers", the opponent is forced to discard two cards.

What are your 2 cents about the topic, because if that's the case talk! would be very strong combined with all the execute possibilities.

[Morgan Vening]

20 minutes ago, Rubyhathunger said:

I noticed a delicate trigger on Alan Reid no one talks about, as far as I know.

What about the talk! trigger, if the opponent has both schemes revealed? As I understand the wording and the nature of "or-triggers", the opponent is forced to discard two cards.

What are your 2 cents about the topic, because if that's the case talk! would be very strong combined with all the execute possibilities.

I don't think it works that way. It's not an "OR".

 “TALK!”: Enemy only. Target may discard two cards. If it does not, the opposing player must name one of their unrevealed Schemes (and any models noted by that Scheme).

The first sentence is the only time a choice is called upon. The opponent may discard two cards, or not. There's a consequence should they not, but it's not the same kind of OR statement that's being referenced. That the second sentence would be impossible to accomplish (because both Schemes have been revealed), just means you ignore it, as you per the rules.

Now, it's possible it was intended to be an OR, but that's getting into Rules as Intended, and not Rules as Written.

[Adran]

I don't think this is a thus or that choice. Its not phrased in the same way. If you have no unrevealed schemes there is no bad thing to happen if you don't discard cards. 

[Morgan Vening]

Just as a counterargument, say you try and Execute a Test Subject (Tricksy).

 Execute: The target may either discard a card or a Soulstone. If it does neither, it is killed, ignoring Demise Abilities.

Test Subject
Happy Accident: This model cannot be killed by effects other than reducing its Health to 0. Reduce all damage this model suffers from Hazardous Terrain to 0.

So, if we take it that if you can't do the second sentence (consequence), you must do the first, targetting a Test Subject with Execute means that they must discard a card or SS?

Pretty sure it's not meant to be an OR. Could have easily been one, if that was the intent.

[4thstringer]

I've always read it the other way, that you can't make the choice that you are unable to do.

[Morgan Vening]

45 minutes ago, 4thstringer said:

I've always read it the other way, that you can't make the choice that you are unable to do.

But the choice is essentially "Discard two cards or don't discard two cards". You can't do the former if you don't have at least two cards, but you can do the latter even if you do.

The second sentence has no bearing on this choice. It just provides a consequence depending on the choice made in the first sentence.

It's kind of like (wildly hypothetical) if you get hit by a "Target suffers 2/3b/4bb damage. Models damaged by this Action gain Burning +1." for Weak damage, and know the top card of your deck is a Moderate. You can burn a Soulstone if you want, or not. If you do, you avoid the consequences of the second sentence. If you don't, you suffer it.

If they wanted to make TALK!: read...
“TALK!”: Enemy only. Target either discards two cards or the opposing player must name one of their unrevealed Schemes (and any models noted by that Scheme).

It'd work fine (and be less words), and be an OR choice that works according to "This or That" from pg33.

[Ogid]

Agree, it's not worded as a This or that choice. So if both are revealed, nothing happens.

57 minutes ago, Morgan Vening said:

So, if we take it that if you can't do the second sentence (consequence), you must do the first, targetting a Test Subject with Execute means that they must discard a card or SS?

Mind Execute say "may" not "must"; a model can always choose not to discard a card nor a SS and die for the greater good (even if there are still cards/SS avaliable).

[solkan]

Talk isn't a "This or that" choice, technically, but it doesn't really make any difference.  

The model may discard two cards.  Did it?  Great, then nothing else happens.  If it didn't, either because it didn't have the cards or it wasn't able to, then the consequence applies.

Note that the rules for resolving effects don't say "You chose to do this impossible thing, and you weren't able to do.  You get credit for trying".  They say that if you try to do something that you can't do, you ignore it.

Quote

If any of an Action’s effects cannot be resolved, they are ignored.

If you ignored it, you didn't do it.

If you don't have two cards in your hand to discard, you can't resolve "discard two cards".

Disclaimer:  The "X does something.  If it did so, ..." structure dates back to M2E to deal with the situations that were caused by the 'if you're told to do something, and you can't, just ignore it and continue'.  So ...

 

[isilmeon]

... this trigger is garbage.

[Morgan Vening]

3 minutes ago, isilmeon said:

... this trigger is garbage.

Disagree. Just needs to happen early. If you can get Alan in a position to use it on Turn 1, or early on T2, it means you can take measures to try and deny that Scheme.

Late Turn 4, and especially Turn 5, it's garbage.

[Morgan Vening]

1 hour ago, Ogid said:

Agree, it's not worded as a This or that choice. So if both are revealed, nothing happens.

Mind Execute say "may" not "must"; a model can always choose not to discard a card nor a SS and die for the greater good (even if there are still cards/SS avaliable).

So does "TALK!".

"TALK!" and Execute have the same syntax. So if one is ruled to be an OR choice regarding the second sentence, so it the other. And with Test Subjects and Execute, like with having both Schemes revealed and "TALK!", it'd mean if you can't do the second sentence you're forced to do the first, then Executing a Test Subject would mean the forced discard of a card or soulstone.

Just a hypothetical to point to why I don't think either should be interpreted as an OR choice between the first and second sentences.

[Rubyhathunger]

Ok thank you all, I think I understand it now. It is like the execute trigger but it doesn't matter. You are just forced to reveal the schemes as the consequense. So in the case of 2 schemes already revealed nothing hapoens. The discarding is just the condition not the consequense. With execute it's the same effect, but the consequenses matter. The consequenses are never discarding cards in talk! and execute.

[Ogid]

8 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

"TALK!" and Execute have the same syntax. So if one is ruled to be an OR choice regarding the second sentence, so it the other. And with Test Subjects and Execute, like with having both Schemes revealed and "TALK!", it'd mean if you can't do the second sentence you're forced to do the first, then Executing a Test Subject would mean the forced discard of a card or soulstone.

The syntax is:

• "may" + Choice (here is where the OR choice may be)
• If it does not/neither, consequence.

Execute choice is "either discard a card OR a SS"; TALK choice is "discard two cards". Execute is the only one with a this or that in the choice; in both cases if the choice isn't fulfilled (either voluntarily or for not having the resources), then the consecuence happens (but the consecuence is not part of an This or That choice, so it can happen even if it has no effect)

[Morgan Vening]

4 hours ago, Ogid said:

The syntax is:

• "may" + Choice (here is where the OR choice may be)
• If it does not/neither, consequence.

Execute choice is "either discard a card OR a SS"; TALK choice is "discard two cards". Execute is the only one with a this or that in the choice; in both cases if the choice isn't fulfilled (either voluntarily or for not having the resources), then the consecuence happens (but the consecuence is not part of an This or That choice, so it can happen even if it has no effect)

Appears we're talking past each other here.

I'm not refering to the explicit OR that Execute has in it's first sentence. I'm talking about the implied (by the original poster) OR that the second sentence has if the first sentence is unfulfilled. According the the argument initially used (which most people, including the OP agree is incorrect), if the second sentence cannot be met, then the first sentence must be done.

It seems that everyone agrees that's not the case, so there's no point on arguing an example that argues a position that everyone seems to be in agreement on anyways.