Specificity

[scuttlebut]

Been having this discussion elsewhere today so I thought I'd bring it here and see what people thought.

Hannah casts Make a New Entry on a Nurse and subsequently casts Take Your Meds.

Make a New Entry may not declare triggers on the "stolen" spell.

Take Your Meds must declare a trigger.

This is my interpretation of the (murky) rules:

These appear to be at odds with each other so we come to the interpretation of specific. Nothing can be implied from the language (must vs may not are both non-optional, unlike may for example) so we need to look at it a different way.

We have a group of spells that Make a New Entry can target, let us call this S.

Take Your Meds is a subgroup of this group.

Hannah's trigger restriction will apply to a broader amount of spells (S) than just the Take Your Meds subgroup.

However the Nurse's restriction on Take Your Meds only applies to Take Your Meds so it applies to a smaller amount of the game than the Make a New Entry trigger restriction. Therefore Take Your Meds' trigger requirement is more specific and Hannah can declare a trigger.

The point of this thread is to appeal for some clarity regarding the (IMO) poorly written rules regarding levels of specificity in rule breaking.

[PerpetualDawn]

A few thoughts as I have been trying to keep up...

Is Take Your Meds a 'spell' or an 'ability'.. I don't have the cards and am not familiar with Hannah but bare with this.. Fluff wise I see Hannah's 'Make a new' targeting spells (in my head this says fireballs, ice blasts etc. Not sure where take you meds stands). This paragraph is probably irrelevant and should have stayed in my head..

Reading it over how you have written there suggests to me that she can 'make a new take your meds' but because TYM must and MAN may not declare triggers I'd say that no she cant cast it (some mathematical cancelling out of variables perhaps) - justifying in fluff terms that the MAN ability looses some of the translation of some spells and they just wont work for Hannah..

Obviously this is my opinion and I have no experience to base it on.. So discount at your leisure.

Tim

[daemonkin]

Seems legit. A ruling may be that if 2 specifically worded rules conflict it goes with the attacking/acting model.

Dunno what could be done otherwise.

D.

[Dracomax]

Personally, I think the problem is a combination of Hannah's ability not being particularly well thought out, and the specificity rules being nonsense.

That being said, I would guess that the old rule of "if an action could not be completed, it does not happen" i.e., Hannah attempts to cast the spell. the spell would require her to something impossible within the current rules--use a spell trigger, which is explicitly disallowed by the means she used to do it. Therefore, no flips are made, no AP is spent. spell fails.

The other option is that she can cast the spell, but nothing happens other than a wast of AP and cards off the deck. She gets the ability to cast Nurse's spell, but cannot actually fulfill the terms to cast the spell-much like a spell that requires scrap/corpse counters if none are available. Since she can't cast it before the end of the fround, it goes away. (0) action wasted.

[Adran]

As a related aside, what happens if the nurse can't declare a trigger? It can occur if she flipped a black joker, as that adds no suit

[scuttlebut]

As a related aside, what happens if the nurse can't declare a trigger? It can occur if she flipped a black joker, as that adds no suit

And as the spell has no TN an enemy model could conceivably do the same on their resist and have the spell succeed.

[Clement]

I think the main problem here is that the Nurse, for whatever reason, doesn't have the 'if able' clause on her "must declare trigger". If you look over at Bayou gremlins, they have the clause. 'if able' would fix both the Hannah problem (she's not able) and the black joker problem.

[Csonti]

I have raised this issue (contradicting special rules) several times during the beta but saidly there was no change regarding this in the final rulebook. It still says the "more specific" rule wins. An expression I have problems to interpret with 100% certainity. IMO the old can't trumps can etc. was way clearer structure.

[Pierowmaniac]

Hey I have an idea to sort this one out ...... I decided to call my never seen absolutely anywhere before (not even in any popular card game) idea 'the stack'

But yeah anyway the 'specificity' and 'vantage point' rules are the two rules that I think are going to be the most problematic going forward.

[Silas Cordell]

A few thoughts as I have been trying to keep up...

Is Take Your Meds a 'spell' or an 'ability'.. I don't have the cards and am not familiar with Hannah but bare with this.. Fluff wise I see Hannah's 'Make a new' targeting spells (in my head this says fireballs, ice blasts etc. Not sure where take you meds stands). This paragraph is probably irrelevant and should have stayed in my head..

Tim

"Spell" is no longer a game term. Make a New Entry copies a cast action, which Take your Meds is. I'm sure spell will continue to be used as shorthand for "cast action," but it is no longer distinct form other actions.

[Matney X]

I would rule it that you can't do that -- Take Your Meds MUST declare a target, and Make A New Entry says the cast action CANNOT declare a target, ergo you cannot copy a cast action that MUST declare a target.

I don't have a book or cards near me, though -- this is just going off of what has been said.

[Silas Cordell]

I would rule it that you can't do that -- Take Your Meds MUST declare a target, and Make A New Entry says the cast action CANNOT declare a target, ergo you cannot copy a cast action that MUST declare a target.

I don't have a book or cards near me, though -- this is just going off of what has been said.

Can't doesn't trump can anymore, unfortunately. I think it's true that Take Your Meds needs to have an "if able" tacked on.

[Kadeton]

Take Your Meds needs an "if able" for other reasons, and that would conveniently take care of this problem as well.

[Clement]

Take Your Meds needs an "if able" for other reasons, and that would conveniently take care of this problem as well.

This. Take your meds breaks itself if you black joker the flip without prespending for illegible perscriptions. Adding 'if able' fixes that problem and also very neatly solves Hannah since the two abilities won't conflict anymore.

[baskinders]

I'm of the opinion that its not a matter of one trumping the other. In order to complete an action you've got to fulfil all of the requirements to make it happen. In this case for Hanah to use TYM with MaNE she simoultaneously may not and must use a trigger, which is not possible, hence the action is not possible. There's no need to refer to the specificity paragraph at all because it's not an interaction between two conflicting rules that needs to be resolved, it just simply can't happen as they are requirements for an action that can't be fulfilled. In the same way that a target that's out of range can't be a target.

[Pierowmaniac]

I'm of the opinion that its not a matter of one trumping the other. In order to complete an action you've got to fulfil all of the requirements to make it happen. In this case for Hanah to use TYM with MaNE she simoultaneously may not and must use a trigger, which is not possible, hence the action is not possible. There's no need to refer to the specificity paragraph at all because it's not an interaction between two conflicting rules that needs to be resolved, it just simply can't happen as they are requirements for an action that can't be fulfilled. In the same way that a target that's out of range can't be a target.

Yep that actually does sound right for this specific case.

[Ausplosions]

I'm of the opinion that its not a matter of one trumping the other. In order to complete an action you've got to fulfil all of the requirements to make it happen. In this case for Hanah to use TYM with MaNE she simoultaneously may not and must use a trigger, which is not possible, hence the action is not possible. There's no need to refer to the specificity paragraph at all because it's not an interaction between two conflicting rules that needs to be resolved, it just simply can't happen as they are requirements for an action that can't be fulfilled. In the same way that a target that's out of range can't be a target.

Yeah?

So what happens if you flip the Black Joker?

[Cats Laughing]

Yeah?

So what happens if you flip the Black Joker?

You get to tell your opponent that you can't have flipped the black joker and therefore need to reflip.

(no, that's not serious)

Btw, I briefly looked at ~take your meds~ and I seem to recall that it actually does nothing if you can't declare a trigger.

The easiest fix seems to be the addition of the "if able" clause to the requirement to declare a trigger.

[baskinders]

Yeah?

So what happens if you flip the Black Joker?

The action fails and you move on with the game, because the action requires you to simoultaneously declare a trigger without having a suit to declare a trigger with which you can't do, action ends. Not sure where the confusion is?

[rgarbonzo]

Yeah?

So what happens if you flip the Black Joker?

You cast the spell at a 6 with no triggers (a fail) and the model you are targeting resists. If friendly the Action fails since there are no triggers to declare.

If you used Illegible Prescriptions first it would be a Ca of 6 + whatever suit you discarded so you would be able to declare a trigger. Model you are targeting resists on a Wp duel of 6. If friendly you can choose to tie and just have the effects from the suit apply.

Edited September 5, 2013 by rgarbonzo