-
We just got Lurker and started playing with Relationship cards.
Students of the Arcane: "After the initial setup, any time either you or your partner gains a Spell (from any game effect other than this card), the other draws a random Spell from the Spell deck."
In theory, I can go to the same location as my partner and give him a spell. As per the Relationship, since he's gained a Spell, I can draw one. Then he gives me the spell back. Now I've gained a Spell, so he can draw a Spell. Ad nauseum, until we've drawn the entire deck.
Of course that's just wrong and we wouldn't do that, but the language allows it, doesn't it? I notice other effects in the game (e.g. Dexter Drake's Personal Goal) specifically refer to "drawing" a certain card, as opposed to just "gaining" it, so I think we're going to house rule Students of the Arcane to if you "draw" a spell.
But is my interpretation wrong? How have other people dealt with it?
-
it's pronounced "em cee crispy"
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
-
dancingmummy wrote: We just got Lurker and started playing with Relationship cards.
Students of the Arcane: "After the initial setup, any time either you or your partner gains a Spell (from any game effect other than this card), the other draws a random Spell from the Spell deck."
In theory, I can go to the same location as my partner and give him a spell. As per the Relationship, since he's gained a Spell, I can draw one. Then he gives me the spell back. Now I've gained a Spell, so he can draw a Spell. Ad nauseum, until we've drawn the entire deck.
Of course that's just wrong and we wouldn't do that, but the language allows it, doesn't it? I notice other effects in the game (e.g. Dexter Drake's Personal Goal) specifically refer to "drawing" a certain card, as opposed to just "gaining" it, so I think we're going to house rule Students of the Arcane to if you "draw" a spell.
But is my interpretation wrong? How have other people dealt with it? Obviously your gut feeling is right - abusing the game through an over-literal interpretation of the rules is just gaming the system. Of course, if anyone enjoys playing that way then it's their choice when playing at their table, so fair enough!
However, I think that the interpretation is dependant on a clear definition of "(from any game effect other than this card)". I don't believe that Trading is a game effect, it's a player interaction. A game effect would be an interaction between the player and the game elements - Encounters, Shops, whatever. I know, it's a fuzzy sort of definition that could do with clarification and tightening up, but it works for me as a justification for avoiding gaming the system (something that I hate to do).
What do you think? Anybody got a better definition of what a "game effect" is, that will help here?
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
I say this cautiously, but I would have to agree "trading" is not "gaining." Gaining comes from you purchasing something from a store or receiving it as a reward, or any other game effect that brings it into the game for the first time.
That may break some other cards. So at a bare minimum, trading should be excluded from this. Because using the logic presented, you could actually each trade a spell (instead of 1 at a time) thus each collecting a spell until the deck was exhausted.
Another interpretation is that you can only gain 1 card no matter how many times you trade in a single turn.
-
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
-
When implementing the Personal Story conditions from Innsmouth Horror, gaining something is never as a result of trading. Buying or a reward, as Brian says.
Brian
-
-
apatheticexecutioner wrote: When implementing the Personal Story conditions from Innsmouth Horror, gaining something is never as a result of trading. Buying or a reward, as Brian says.
Brian
Though I agree with the sentiment, is this just an asserted opinion, or can I find it in a ruling somewhere?
-
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
5m. from M3J4
Hampshire
-
dancingmummy wrote: Students of the Arcane: "After the initial setup, any time either you or your partner gains a Spell (from any game effect other than this card), the other draws a random Spell from the Spell deck."
Isn't the answer somewhat simpler?
The card states "any time either you or your partner gains a Spell (from any game effect other than this card)"
The key point I think is "other than this card" as this stops the infinite recursion.
First, you gain a spell from some game effect so this allows your partner to also gain a spell. You do not now gain a further spell because if you did then it would be due to this Relationship card, and the Relationship card clearly states "other than this card".
Maybe an example would help.
I gain a spell from Ye Olde Magick Shoppe (I pay $5 to draw 2 Spells, keep one of them and discard the other). I gained this spell from a game effect (using the Location's Special Ability) so my partner can now also gain a spell (thanks to the "Students of the Arcane" game effect).
But since my partner gained this card from the "Students of the Arcane" Relationship card game effect then I cannot gain a further spell. "Students of the Arcane" specifically states that your partner cannot gain a spell if the reason you gained it was due to using the "Students of the Arcane" game effect.
Hope that makes sense.
-
it's pronounced "em cee crispy"
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
-
dancingmummy wrote: apatheticexecutioner wrote: When implementing the Personal Story conditions from Innsmouth Horror, gaining something is never as a result of trading. Buying or a reward, as Brian says.
Brian Though I agree with the sentiment, is this just an asserted opinion, or can I find it in a ruling somewhere?
-
-
xris wrote: dancingmummy wrote: Students of the Arcane: "After the initial setup, any time either you or your partner gains a Spell (from any game effect other than this card), the other draws a random Spell from the Spell deck." Isn't the answer somewhat simpler? The card states "any time either you or your partner gains a Spell (from any game effect other than this card)" The key point I think is "other than this card" as this stops the infinite recursion. First, you gain a spell from some game effect so this allows your partner to also gain a spell. You do not now gain a further spell because if you did then it would be due to this Relationship card, and the Relationship card clearly states "other than this card". Maybe an example would help. I gain a spell from Ye Olde Magick Shoppe (I pay $5 to draw 2 Spells, keep one of them and discard the other). I gained this spell from a game effect (using the Location's Special Ability) so my partner can now also gain a spell (thanks to the "Students of the Arcane" game effect). But since my partner gained this card from the "Students of the Arcane" Relationship card game effect then I cannot gain a further spell. "Students of the Arcane" specifically states that your partner cannot gain a spell if the reason you gained it was due to using the "Students of the Arcane" game effect. Hope that makes sense.
It does, but let me play devil's advocate. What if the two partners, sitting in the same location, passed the same spell back and forth, a spell that was originally gained from some source other than the relationship card? I'm mainly just surprised the wording of the card says "gain" instead of "draw".
-
-
mccrispy wrote: dancingmummy wrote: apatheticexecutioner wrote: When implementing the Personal Story conditions from Innsmouth Horror, gaining something is never as a result of trading. Buying or a reward, as Brian says.
Brian Though I agree with the sentiment, is this just an asserted opinion, or can I find it in a ruling somewhere? I think that if it could be found in an "official and authoritative source" then other members of this community who have already contributed would have pointed us to such a source. Failing the magical appearance of such a source, I'm afraid that you're stuck with us expressing our opinions, your weighing up of those opinions, and your deciding whether they help you with your query.
Hey, I didn't mean to belittle other people's expressed opinions, I'm just anticipating further discussion in my playgroup, and the existence of an official source is a question that will come up. It's not outside the realm of possibility that somebody knows of a ruling that hadn't been named yet.
-
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
5m. from M3J4
Hampshire
-
My apologies, I misinterpreted the original scenario you presented. I would now agree with you, I think there was a very poor choice of words used on the card.
It's not just this one card (as I'm sure you all know) but there are four cards that use similar wording on the Relationship Cards.
Business Associates: "gains $1 or more"
Collectors: "gains 1 or more Common Items or Unique Items"
Socially Connected: "gains an Ally"
Students of the Arcane: "gains a Spell"
At least with Socially Connected you can't go round trading Allies but I do notice that when your partner gains an Ally in this way then he must also return an Ally (if he had one or more beforehand). There doesn't seem to be a choice about this, you must pick up a new Ally and return an old one.
I can only imagine that the intent for any of these "game effects" mentioned does not include trading with your partner.
Quote: Business Associates
Partner A: Hey, Partner, here's a Dollar.
Partner B: Thanks Partner! I just gained a Dollar.
Partner A: Wow, a new Dollar just popped out of thin air into my wallet!
If these "game effects" should include trading in general (between other players) is another question. I'm not sure they should but I can see thematic reasons why they could. It might seem better to avoid this slippery slope and say that trading in this situation doesn't mean it was "gained".
At this point in time I think I will not consider trading the same as gaining for these Relationship cards.
Back on the question of the use of "gain" instead of "draw", I notice that while a lot of Encounter Cards do say "gain.." ("gain 1 spell", "gain 2 Clue Tokens"), sometimes they use "draw.." instead ("Draw one Ally card", "Draw 1 Common Item").
-
it's pronounced "em cee crispy"
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
-
dancingmummy wrote: mccrispy wrote: dancingmummy wrote: apatheticexecutioner wrote: When implementing the Personal Story conditions from Innsmouth Horror, gaining something is never as a result of trading. Buying or a reward, as Brian says.
Brian Though I agree with the sentiment, is this just an asserted opinion, or can I find it in a ruling somewhere? I think that if it could be found in an "official and authoritative source" then other members of this community who have already contributed would have pointed us to such a source. Failing the magical appearance of such a source, I'm afraid that you're stuck with us expressing our opinions, your weighing up of those opinions, and your deciding whether they help you with your query. Hey, I didn't mean to belittle other people's expressed opinions, I'm just anticipating further discussion in my playgroup, and the existence of an official source is a question that will come up. It's not outside the realm of possibility that somebody knows of a ruling that hadn't been named yet.
That bit of semantics aside, I genuinely meant what I said: if others (particularly ColtsFan76) had been able to point at something definitive, they would have. That it hasn't happened, I take to be a sign that it won't. So, like I said: you're stuck with working out whether any of us have opinions that carry some weight (through having a track record) or whether something somebody said "resonates" with you. At the end of the day you just have to pick a solution that works for you - as we all do here. We're just trying to help each other get along!
-
-
mccrispy wrote: dancingmummy wrote: mccrispy wrote: dancingmummy wrote: apatheticexecutioner wrote: When implementing the Personal Story conditions from Innsmouth Horror, gaining something is never as a result of trading. Buying or a reward, as Brian says.
Brian Though I agree with the sentiment, is this just an asserted opinion, or can I find it in a ruling somewhere? I think that if it could be found in an "official and authoritative source" then other members of this community who have already contributed would have pointed us to such a source. Failing the magical appearance of such a source, I'm afraid that you're stuck with us expressing our opinions, your weighing up of those opinions, and your deciding whether they help you with your query. Hey, I didn't mean to belittle other people's expressed opinions, I'm just anticipating further discussion in my playgroup, and the existence of an official source is a question that will come up. It's not outside the realm of possibility that somebody knows of a ruling that hadn't been named yet. Sorry dancingmummy, that didn't come out right. I was having a gentle dig at your use of "asserting" an opinion, when what most of us who've been here a while try to do is "express" an opinion. I dislike it intensely when people make what appear to be assertions when I feel they should be expressing an opinion. But that's my failing because I can't read forums with an automatic "whatever you read here is personal opinion" pre-filter in my head. That bit of semantics aside, I genuinely meant what I said: if others (particularly ColtsFan76) had been able to point at something definitive, they would have. That it hasn't happened, I take to be a sign that it won't. So, like I said: you're stuck with working out whether any of us have opinions that carry some weight (through having a track record) or whether something somebody said "resonates" with you. At the end of the day you just have to pick a solution that works for you - as we all do here. We're just trying to help each other get along!
No worries, and I take your point. In the absence of rulings, sure, we make our own based on what makes the most sense. We've also found that rulings are not always quickly found, so we look for them first.
-
|
|
