Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
The rule book lists "Morph" as a card type on page 13. It specifically mentions that it counts as a separate type with regard to the Plague Artifact.
However, on page 10 it says that when a Morph is revealed in an encounter, it "becomes an exact duplicate of the opponent's encounter card." Presumably, becoming an "exact duplicate" means that the Morph's type changes to the type of the other card, as well as it's value. It's not just a card with the *value* of the other card that is still of the Morph type.
Everything's OK so far.
Then powers get involved.
Anti-Matter, Bully, Chosen, Cudgel, Ethic, Pacifist, Spiff, Tripler, Virus, and Warrior all make reference to something that happens if Attack Cards are revealed, or if an encounter card is revealed to be an Attack, or something equivalent to that. None of them refer to Morph cards. Therefore, either none of these powers apply in the case of Morph cards being revealed, or else there isn't really any such thing as "revealing a Morph card" - when a Morph card is revealed, it turns into an Attack or a Negotiate, and that's considered to be "revealing an Attack Card".
It seems clear that the latter is the case. These powers all work with Morph cards that are revealed as Attacks.
However, Cavalry says, you may "play an attack or negotiate card" which seems to imply that you can't use Cavalry's power with a Morph card. It also says that your played and revealed Attack card "has no effect if your side's encounter card is a negotiate" - not "revealed as", but "is". This leaves unanswered what happens if the card *is* a Morph, but is *revealed* as a Negotiate. Presumably, it also has no effect. So here "is a negotiate" seems to include a Morph that morphs into a negotiate.
Chosen also refers to drawing and choosing encounter cards from the deck, and what you can do with one of them if it's an Attack card. If one of these cards is a Morph, it can't be used in the same way as an Attack card could be, even if it would morph into one, because it doesn't actually morph into one until it is chosen.
Deuce also refers to "revealed as" an attack, and "is" a negotiate. So I assume the same applies here.
Hate's power never refers to either playing or revealing a card. Instead, it "discards" cards. And apparently, when a Morph is discarded, it is of the Morph type. And when it sits in a hand, potentially waiting to be discarded, it's also of the Morph type.
By the above interpretation, that a Morph opposed by an attack is an Attack, the Industrialist can add a Morph card after losing with it as an Attack. But it doesn't say what value it has in the stack. Does it morph into the opponent's card whenever the stack is used? Maybe, but then what if the opponent's card is a Negotiate?
Loser does not refer to revealing an Attack card, but to playing attack cards. Since Morphs don't morph until they're revealed, it would seem that you can't play a Morph when the Loser calls "upset", even if that Morph would morph into an Attack during the Reveal phase.
Warhawk refers to revealing both attacks and negotiates, the latter of which change into Morphs or Attacks. It doesn't quite make clear what happens if an actual Morph is played and then revealed as a negotiate. If Warhawk plays M and his opponent plays N, which changes first? What if it's the other way around?
So from all this we can conclude that a Morph is its own type when sitting in a hand, or when played, or when drawn from the deck. When it's revealed in an encounter, then it is never of the Morph type, but instead is always of either the Attack or Negotiate type. Unless both players played Morphs, in which case both players lose regardless of what type we choose to call them. Maybe this makes their type "undefined" which is why the spacial anomaly occurs, killing everyone involved.
So the only weird cases (exceptions?) are when the Industrialist tries to put a Morph in the stack, and in an N vs M with the Warhawk as one of the Main players. It's fairly easy to make a simple ruling in both of these cases, even if the rules don't quite make it clear what is supposed to happen.
For the Industrialist's stack, the two most obvious choices are:
a) that he can put the Morph into the stack as an attack - after all, it was revealed and became an "exact duplicate" of the opponent's card, or
b) that he can't ever put a Morph into his stack.
The problem with (a) is that you then have to remember the value of the card the Morph morphed into. The problem with (b) is that if the card really is an exact duplicate of the other card (which was an Attack), there's no reason to forbid it from being stacked.
Two less obvious choices are:
c) that he can put the Morph into the stack, and that it stays a Morph, morphing into whatever the opponent's card is when the stack is used. And if the opponent's card is a Negotiate, then the Industrialist is considered to have played a Negotiate, even if the actual card he played was an Attack - the same as how the Deuce negotiates if either of his two cards is a negotiate.
d) that instead of putting the Morph into his stack, he can put the opponent's card into his stack in its place - since after all, they are "exact duplicates" of each other.
(c) has some problems: It means a guaranteed win for Industrialist if he and his opponent both play Attacks, or a guaranteed deal situation if his opponent plays Negotiate. Also, there's no real reason to assume the stack should act like Deuce's power. (d) is kind of cute, in that it keeps the Morph in circulation, but what if the opponent is Clone, and he wants his card back?
For the Warhawk M vs N situation, I look to the fact that the rules seem to assume that a Morph's morphing has to happen immediately, before anything else, even retro-actively if you will, since if it morphs into an Attack, then an attack has been revealed. Therefore, if an N is going to be changed into a Morph, it had better do so right away, so it can hurry up and morph into what it needs to morph into.
So therefore, I say:
If Warhawk played N and his opponent played M, Warhawk's N has to change into a Morph so it can immediately morph. Unfortunately for him, there's nothing to morph into since both cards are now Morphs so the become "undefined" and both sides lose.
If Warhawk played M and his opponent played N, there's no hurry for the N to change into an Attack, because they'll be no morphing for it to do. However, Warhawk's M must immediately morph (as all Morphs must), so it morphs into an N, which results in both sides having played N, which in turn results in both sides having played Attack 00.
Some of you might be thinking that the Timing Rule should come into play here. But it can't. A Morph morphing is not a player action - it has no "timing" and isn't invoked by a player - it just happens.
What do you think?
I'm not planning on going through all the flare effects to see how they deal with Morph cards, but you can if you want to.
-
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
-
I would not pose this as specifically a question about the Morph card. The issue is really about all effects that change one encounter card into another, such as Emotion Control, Empath, Warhawk, Wild Human, Wild Mirror, Quark Battery, and so on. (EDIT: The new Cyborg goes on this list as well.)
Really, we need to know if we apply the word "revealed" retroactively or not. For example, if I reveal a Negotiate card and then use Wild Human to change it into an Attack 42, have I now "revealed" an attack card?
I've always said the answer is yes. Card texts do not generally use the word "revealed" to mean the card you physically flipped over. That's too narrow. They really mean "the card that is your Official Main Player Encounter Card in this encounter".
This is easy to see when we consider cases like Gambler, who may not ever "reveal" his physical card at all, yet still must have a card identity that is technically revealed so that other effects can refer to it and function properly.
Oracle is another helpful example. His opponent never "performs the act of revealing card" because it is played face up in the first place. FFG (incorrectly) refers to this on the Super flare as "revealing" the card in the Planning phase, but we know that is wrong. The card is played face up in the Planning phase and then (again) technically revealed in the Reveal phase. It has to be that way or other game effects cannot function properly.
The inverse examples reinforce this as well. Just because you "revealed" something doesn't mean it counts as your "revealed card". Stuff like Deuce or Cavalry or The Claw can reveal a hidden card, but this does not trigger effects that want to know if a player "revealed an attack card", for example.
These are just a few of the many examples that make it clear that "revealing" an encounter card is a standard condition that needs to exist in every encounter. Even if you are lying about a bluff card or changing your first card into something else, whatever you end up with — whether as-printed or modified or just plain declared — is the card you have "revealed".
This may lead to a few outcomes that some people would have preferred were ruled another way, but overall it is by far the cleanest answer. Answering "no" causes all kinds of counterintuitive messes, such as Bully or Ethic or Chosen or Spiff not getting to use his power just because his card is an attack by virtue of something like Quark Battery or Wild Human. Or Warhawk's mechanics getting screwed up by slipping in a Negotiate as a replacement card.
-
-
Yeah, I think Bill's interpretation is probably right.
-
-
There are some interesting potential issues involving Morph, but the designers did a pretty good job with most of them. (Even Deuce playing Morph as his second card.) I agree that you can't play a Morph if Loser declares an upset, and Cavalry can't play Morph. Unfortunately, both of those things have happened in my games, so I've either rolled back to Planning or just ignored it as appropriate.
Industrialist is interesting, though. My reading is that, since you "revealed" an Attack, when you lose with the Morph the opponent must let you put it on the stack. But the add/subtract effect calculates "the total of all the faceup attack cards in your stack." Since Morph reverts to being a Morph at the end of the encounter, it is not an attack card, and thus doesn't affect future encounters.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
Yes, I agree with Bill. What he said is in no way inconsistent with what I said. It's not quite the same topic, but that's OK.
GregF wrote: Industrialist is interesting, though. My reading is that, since you "revealed" an Attack, when you lose with the Morph the opponent must let you put it on the stack. But the add/subtract effect calculates "the total of all the faceup attack cards in your stack." Since Morph reverts to being a Morph at the end of the encounter, it is not an attack card, and thus doesn't affect future encounters.
Excellent solution! One problem is it permanently takes the Morph out of circulation, which isn't really that big of a deal, since Industrialist takes cards out of circulation anyway. The other problem is that nothing in the rules specifies when a Morph morphs back into a Morph, becoming no longer an exact duplicate of some other card. Obviously, it must revert once it's discarded or back in the deck, or back in someone's hand. But nothing in the rules specifies what happens when a Morph stays face up on the table, potentially still having some effect, after an encounter is over.
Here are some more odd situations:
Oracle vs. Loser - Loser calls "upset", and plays his Attack card face up. Can Oracle now play a Morph, since he knows with certainty that it will be an Attack card?
Oracle vs. Visionary 1 - Visionary plays card X face up and calls for the same card from Oracle. Oracle doesn't have card X, but he has a Morph, which he knows with certainty will become the card the Visionary requires if he plays it. Is he required to do so?
Oracle vs. Visionary 2 - Visionary plays card X face up and calls for the same card from Oracle. Oracle does have card X, but he also has a Morph, which he knows with certainty will become the card the Visionary requires if he plays it. Is he allowed to play the Morph instead of the "actual" card X?
It seems to me that even though it's known in advance that the Morph will be the correct type/value required when played, the answer to all these questions is still no.
And speaking of Visionary, can he predict "You will play a Morph card"?
And it seems to me that even though the Morph becomes something else, the answer is yes.
The Deuce can play a Morph as his second card, because his opponent's card is there to be morphed into. But can you play a Morph in response to Hate playing a Negotiate card? Hate's card is there obviously to be morphed into, but it wasn't played in an encounter. The rules don't cover this - the case where there's an obvious card for Morph to morph into, but it's not part of the encounter. For simplicity's sake (and for future consistency's sake) I'd say no. Morphs only morph in the Reveal phase.
-
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: It seems to me that even though it's known in advance that the Morph will be the correct type/value required when played, the answer to all these questions is still no.
Agreed. At the time a card is chosen, Morph is only a Morph. It does not fulfill the requirements for being any other card when it is in your hand.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: And speaking of Visionary, can he predict "You will play a Morph card"?
Sure, why not?
Phil Fleischmann wrote: But can you play a Morph in response to Hate playing discarding a Negotiate card? Hate's card is there obviously to be morphed into, but it wasn't played in an encounter. The rules don't cover this - the case where there's an obvious card for Morph to morph into, but it's not part of the encounter. For simplicity's sake (and for future consistency's sake) I'd say no. Morphs only morph in the Reveal phase.
Agreed that Morph does not morph in this situation ... but I don't agree that the rules "don't cover it". The function of the Morph card is defined by its game text, which says it works when it is "revealed" — which we understand to be a loaded game term referring to an Official Main Player Encounter Card in an encounter.
Here is what the rules actually say:
"The morph card becomes an exact duplicate of the opponent’s
encounter card when revealed. For instance, if the player’s opponent
reveals a negotiate, the morph card becomes a negotiate.
If the player’s opponent reveals an attack 20, the morph
card becomes an attack 20. Resolve the encounter normally
as though both sides played the duplicated card."
Cleearly this is only applicable within the context of revealing Main Player Encounter Cards in an encounter. When Hate discards a card, there is no "opponent" and thus no "opponent's encounter card".
And, in response to an earlier question, the rules also define the duration:
"Once the encounter is resolved, the morph card returns to normal."
In addition to answering that question, this also provides further evidence that it's not applicable during Hate's power, which occurs outside of an encounter (it's a Start Turn effect, and the encounter does not begin until the Regroup phase).
Actually, Morph is one of the new things that FFG got right. It's virtually bulletproof.
-
-
Here's why the word "revealed" absolutely must be interpreted retroactively: the rulebook defines encounter resolutions in terms of which cards were "revealed". For example, it states that a deal occurs "When both players reveal Negotiate cards". If "reveal" isn't interpreted retroactively, then all of these card-editing effects are meaningless. Morph versus Negotiate doesn't get to make a deal because one player revealed a Morph, not a Negotiate, even though it turned into a Negotiate immediately after. Warhawk's Negotiate versus Negotiate gets to make a deal even though the Negotiates turned into Attacks just because the players did indeed reveal Negotiates at first. Emotion Control becomes a card with no effect at all. And so on, and so forth. It makes absolutely no sense to interpret "revealed" in any other way.
And just to address one alien Bill didn't mention yet: Industrialist doesn't need Morph to be weird; it can also put a Negotiate in its stack if that Negotiate is temporarily made an Attack by Warhawk, Wild Human, Wild Pacifist, etc. Fortunately, Industrialist is worded to address this: since the transformation is only temporary, the card is not an Attack while in the stack, and Industrialist specifically states that it adds or subtracts the total of all faceup Attack cards in its stack - it seems to have been worded specifically to allow non-Attacks to sit in the stack and be ignored instead of gumming everything up.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
Bill Martinson wrote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: But can you play a Morph in response to Hate playing discarding a Negotiate card? Hate's card is there obviously to be morphed into, but it wasn't played in an encounter. The rules don't cover this - the case where there's an obvious card for Morph to morph into, but it's not part of the encounter. For simplicity's sake (and for future consistency's sake) I'd say no. Morphs only morph in the Reveal phase. Agreed that Morph does not morph in this situation ... but I don't agree that the rules "don't cover it". The function of the Morph card is defined by its game text, which says it works when it is "revealed" — which we understand to be a loaded game term referring to an Official Main Player Encounter Card in an encounter.
I agree with your interpretation. It's really the only interpretation that works and is consistent. But it's still just an interpretation. I would have preferred that they spelled out explicitly that "revealed" refers specifically to the Reveal Phase.
Quote: And, in response to an earlier question, the rules also define the duration:
"Once the encounter is resolved, the morph card returns to normal."
Whoops! Missed that part.
Quote: Actually, Morph is one of the new things that FFG got right. It's virtually bulletproof.
Well, it's bulletproof once you think it through and read the rules very carefully. I think they could and should have made it a bit clearer. If a player doesn't put the thought in that you and I have, they might easily assume they can use Morph in response to Hate, or that Hate morphs his Morph when he discards it, or that they can use a Morph in any number of other ways that would have it morph during some other phase.
-
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: I would have preferred that they spelled out explicitly that "revealed" refers specifically to the Reveal Phase.
...
I think they could and should have made it a bit clearer. If a player doesn't put the thought in that you and I have, they might easily assume they can use Morph in response to Hate, or that Hate morphs his Morph when he discards it, or that they can use a Morph in any number of other ways that would have it morph during some other phase.
Agreed and agreed. It's pretty pathetic that this stuff falls to "nobodies" like us out here in internet-land to figure out. When I was in the business a few years back, we would have been embarrassed and ashamed to have "the internet" rewriting our components and performing our rules support for us.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
I just thought of one other possible confusion with Morph cards:
If Gambler plays a Morph, and his opponent reveals say, Attack 40, and Gambler claims his card to be another Attack 40 - if the bluff is called, did he lie?
It's somewhat of a moot point since he can always just say the card is a Morph for the same effect, but he might want to trick is opponent into calling the bluff, at which point he can say, "I was telling the truth, since my card is an exact duplicate of yours."
-
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: If Gambler plays a Morph, and his opponent reveals say, Attack 40, and Gambler claims his card to be another Attack 40 - if the bluff is called, did he lie?
This is easy: Yes, he lied. When he makes his claim about his card, it is not an attack 40, it is a morph that is probably going to turn into an attack 40 later on. He isn't claiming what his card is going to become if nothing unexpected happens ... he is claiming what it actually is.
Just like he can't say his attack card is a Negotiate and then play Emotion Control to make it one. In both cases, the card is one thing, he makes his claim, and then — later, if all goes as expected — a game effect turns it into something else.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
Bill Martinson wrote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: If Gambler plays a Morph, and his opponent reveals say, Attack 40, and Gambler claims his card to be another Attack 40 - if the bluff is called, did he lie? This is easy: Yes, he lied. When he makes his claim about his card, it is not an attack 40, it is a morph that is probably going to turn into an attack 40 later on. He isn't claiming what his card is going to become if nothing unexpected happens ... he is claiming what it actually is.
But you said earlier:
Bill Martinson wrote: This is easy to see when we consider cases like Gambler, who may not ever "reveal" his physical card at all, yet still must have a card identity that is technically revealed so that other effects can refer to it and function properly.
Gambler's declaration *is* his reveal. So the Morph has to morph at that time. Therefore, he didn't lie. If something unexpected happens after this "technical reveal" action, it could be ruled (at least) two different ways:
1) The Morph morphs immediately at the reveal action, which for the Gambler does not involve actually turning the card face up. So by the time the bluff is called, it's already morphed into the Attack 40, and if something unexpected has changed the opponent's card after the "technical reveal" and before the bluff-calling, it's too late. The Morph is an Attack 40, just as the Gambler said it was.
2) The Morph doesn't actually morph until the bluff is called, and the card is turned up. If by that time, something unexpected has changed the opponent's card to something other than an Attack 40, then when Gambler's Morph morphs, it becomes something other than an Attack 40, and indeed the Gambler lied. However, if nothing unexpected happens, the Morph indeed morphs into an Attack 40, and the Gambler told the truth.
In all cases of Morphs, as I enumerated in my original post, you never "first reveal a Morph, and then it morphs into the opponent's card". You are considered to have actually revealed an exact duplicate of the opponent's card - immediately, in one step.
I think 2 makes an interesting interpretation: You can attempt to trick your opponent into calling your bluff, but you run the risk of something unexpected happening and making you a liar.
Quote: Just like he can't say his attack card is a Negotiate and then play Emotion Control to make it one. In both cases, the card is one thing, he makes his claim, and then — later, if all goes as expected — a game effect turns it into something else.
Emotion Control is not the same thing as Morph. Emotion Control "treat[s] all attack cards ... as negotiate cards." Morph "becomes an exact duplicate of the opponent's encounter card". Emotion Control does not "turn it into something else", it "treats it as something else". In the case of a Morph, if indeed it becomes exactly what he said, then he didn't lie.
-
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Gambler's declaration *is* his reveal. So the Morph has to morph at that time.
This is where I disagree. Gambler's declaration is his reveal of whatever he declared, not his reveal of whatever is on the other side of the face-down card. The face-down Morph absolutely has not been revealed; the virtual face-up Attack 40 has.
-
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
-
salty53 wrote: This is where I disagree. Gambler's declaration is his reveal of whatever he declared, not his reveal of whatever is on the other side of the face-down card. The face-down Morph absolutely has not been revealed; the virtual face-up Attack 40 has.
Exactly. If Gambler's bluff is called and he must physically show his card, then this changes what he has revealed. His declaration-reveal is no longer what he has revealed. Now he has revealed the actual card instead.
The Morph cannot morph when it is face down, because it has not yet been revealed and its game text is not in scope.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Emotion Control does not "turn it into something else", it "treats it as something else".
You are drawing a hair-splitting distinction that is as unnecessary as it is trouble-causing. The rulebook's morph section says "Resolve the encounter normally as though both sides played the duplicated card". As though, treated as, becomes, turns into ... they all mean the same thing. Obviously the Morph card does not physically transform into a different collection of molecules; we only treat it as if it did.
Morph changes what you revealed, retroactively.
Emotion Control changes what you revealed, retroactively.
There is no productive reason to start making subcategories based on wording nuances, or to try to interpret Emotion Control as making the cards somehow "partly treated as negotiates but not fully treated as negotiates".
-
-
If there is indeed some effect in which Negotiates that Emotion Control are not actually treated as Negotiates, I'd like to see an explanation for why that effect can tell they're fake Negotiates when the fundamental rules of the game for determining how encounters are resolved (which, mind you, use the exact same "revealed" terminology) are fooled.
I also can't imagine how any effect could tell the difference between a Morph that "becomes" a Negotiate, an Attack that due to Emotion Control is "treated as" a Negotiate, and an actual Negotiate. If some game effect were to treat that Attack differently from a real Negotiate, then that Attack obviously isn't being "treated as" a Negotiate, so that game effect would not actually be obeying Emotion Control's text. This is a meaningless distinction. A card treated as a Negotiate is treated just like a Negotiate. That's what the words "treated as" mean.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
Bill Martinson wrote: salty53 wrote: This is where I disagree. Gambler's declaration is his reveal of whatever he declared, not his reveal of whatever is on the other side of the face-down card. The face-down Morph absolutely has not been revealed; the virtual face-up Attack 40 has. Exactly. If Gambler's bluff is called and he must physically show his card, then this changes what he has revealed. His declaration-reveal is no longer what he has revealed. Now he has revealed the actual card instead. The Morph cannot morph when it is face down, because it has not yet been revealed and its game text is not in scope.
Fair enough. I withdraw my above statement, and interpretation #1, above. However, what you are saying here seems to agree with #2.
Quote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: Emotion Control does not "turn it into something else", it "treats it as something else". Morph changes what you revealed, retroactively. Emotion Control changes what you revealed, retroactively.
Well you can't have it both ways. The Morph either changes into what he declared or it doesn't. If it does, then he didn't lie, retroactively. And if Emotion Control is indeed treated the same way, then if Gambler declares his card to be a Negotiate, then he did indeed play a Negotiate, and didn't lie, retroactively, if an Emotion Control is played.
Quote: There is no productive reason to start making subcategories based on wording nuances, or to try to interpret Emotion Control as making the cards somehow "partly treated as negotiates but not fully treated as negotiates".
Well, there is if we want the rules to work that way. If Emotion Control indeed causes the cards to be "fully treated as negotiates" then Gambler, having declared a negotiate, didn't lie, regardless of the physical ink on the card.
salty53 wrote: If there is indeed some effect in which Negotiates that Emotion Control are not actually treated as Negotiates, I'd like to see an explanation for why that effect can tell they're fake Negotiates when the fundamental rules of the game for determining how encounters are resolved (which, mind you, use the exact same "revealed" terminology) are fooled.
Actually, there is such an effect: The The Claw. A physical Attack 08 matches the The Claw's Attack 08 claw, even if Emotion Control turns it into/treats it as a Negotiate for the purpose of the encounter resolution. Likewise, a Morph that morphs into an Attack 08 does not match the The Claw's Attack 08 claw. The same is true for all such effects that occur outside the scope of the Reveal Phase as it pertains to the results of the encounter.
If Sniveler whines about a card, a Morph cannot be used to satisfy him, unless he specifically whines about not having a Morph.
(A similar (but admittedly not quite the same) example would be the Hate's power. A Morph does not match the type of the Hate's discarded Negotiate, and Attack and Negotiate cards do not match the Hate's discarded Morph - even if Emotion Control or some other effect happens.
Another example, even further afield would be Reserve - he can't play a Morph as a Negotiate to cancel a Reinforcement, and he can't play a Morph as an Attack 06 or less as a Reinforcement, and Attacks 06 or less do not become Negotiates if Emotion Control is played.)
-
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Stuff about Gambler versus Emotion Control
Emotion Control can't be played before Gambler's whole bluff thing resolves. Gambler's whole "Bluff, do you call?" effect is part of the "while Encounter Cards are being revealed" step; Emotion Control doesn't get played until the later "after Encounter Cards have been revealed" step. This can't cause Gambler to un-lose the ships it previously lost and the opponent to lose ships from the Gambler's effect; that's not how this sort of retroactivity works.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Stuff about Gambler versus Morph
Gambler gets to make a statement about what its card is. While face-down, the Morph is a Morph, not an Attack 40. It's just very likely to turn into an Attack 40 if it gets revealed. But the Gambler was still lying.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Actually, there is such an effect: The The Claw.
Wait, really, that's how that works?
Phil Fleischmann wrote: A physical Attack 08 matches the The Claw's Attack 08 claw, even if Emotion Control turns it into/treats it as a Negotiate for the purpose of the encounter resolution.
That looks more like order of effects once again. The The Claw triggers when the card it's looking for is revealed; Emotion Control can't be played until after Encounter Cards have been revealed. By the time Emotion Control gets to be played, the The Claw has already successfully used its power; its power can't get un-used later for the same reason that Cryo doesn't need to put back the card it drew and take back the card it stored if a Force Field is later played to cancel its alliance.
Similarly, if the The Claw has an Attack 15 on its sheet (a rather unwise decision in most cases, but never mind that) and someone uses Wild Pacifist to turn their Negotiate into an Attack 15, the The Claw doesn't get a chance to activate because it only can use its power when the card it's looking for is revealed. The Attack 15 is called a revealed card, but there was no moment in which an Attack 15 was revealed, so there is no moment in which the The Claw is permitted to activate.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: If Sniveler whines about a card, a Morph cannot be used to satisfy him, unless he specifically whines about not having a Morph.
(A similar (but admittedly not quite the same) example would be the Hate's power. A Morph does not match the type of the Hate's discarded Negotiate, and Attack and Negotiate cards do not match the Hate's discarded Morph - even if Emotion Control or some other effect happens.
Another example, even further afield would be Reserve - he can't play a Morph as a Negotiate to cancel a Reinforcement, and he can't play a Morph as an Attack 06 or less as a Reinforcement, and Attacks 06 or less do not become Negotiates if Emotion Control is played.)
These are all fake examples that are clearly resolved by reading the freaking Morph card. Morph duplicates its opponent's card when revealed; it doesn't magically get to be whatever the owner wants it to be whenever the owner wants it to be. Similarly, Emotion Control never transforms cards that aren't played in the encounter, and it certainly can't be used anywhere close to the same phase as Hate.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
salty53 wrote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: Stuff about Gambler versus Emotion Control Emotion Control can't be played before Gambler's whole bluff thing resolves. Gambler's whole "Bluff, do you call?" effect is part of the "while Encounter Cards are being revealed" step; Emotion Control doesn't get played until the later "after Encounter Cards have been revealed" step. This can't cause Gambler to un-lose the ships it previously lost and the opponent to lose ships from the Gambler's effect; that's not how this sort of retroactivity works.
Huh? Emotion Control can be played even if the bluff isn't called - effectively turning a face-down card into a Negotiate anyway. EC is played before Gambler or his opponent loses any ships anyway. No one is making any claim that "retroactively" means you re-wind parts of the Resolution phase. It simply means that it changes the card you revealed.
Quote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: Stuff about Gambler versus Morph Gambler gets to make a statement about what its card is. While face-down, the Morph is a Morph, not an Attack 40. It's just very likely to turn into an Attack 40 if it gets revealed. But the Gambler was still lying.
Sort of. But you only check his statement versus the card he revealed. The Morph becomes an exact duplicate, per the rules, retroactively, as Bill said.
Quote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: Actually, there is such an effect: The The Claw. Wait, really, that's how that works?
We had a long discussion on this before, and everyone seemed to agree that that's how it must work for all such effects that aren't part of determining the outcome of an encounter. Card-matching effects have to depend on the physical ink. I seem to remember there were some flares and maybe other element that also do stuff like this.
Quote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: A physical Attack 08 matches the The Claw's Attack 08 claw, even if Emotion Control turns it into/treats it as a Negotiate for the purpose of the encounter resolution. That looks more like order of effects once again. The The Claw triggers when the card it's looking for is revealed; Emotion Control can't be played until after Encounter Cards have been revealed. By the time Emotion Control gets to be played, the The Claw has already successfully used its power; its power can't get un- used later for the same reason that Cryo doesn't need to put back the card it drew and take back the card it stored if a Force Field is later played to cancel its alliance.
Again, you can't have it both ways. Either EC changes what was revealed retroactively, or it doesn't. But Claw is not like other powers like Pacifist and Empath and Warhawk. Claw depends on what card was played.
Quote: Similarly, if the The Claw has an Attack 15 on its sheet (a rather unwise decision in most cases, but never mind that) and someone uses Wild Pacifist to turn their Negotiate into an Attack 15, the The Claw doesn't get a chance to activate because it only can use its power when the card it's looking for is revealed. The Attack 15 is called a revealed card, but there was no moment in which an Attack 15 was revealed, so there is no moment in which the The Claw is permitted to activate.
Mostly correct. Claw doesn't activate in this case because an Attack 15 wasn't played.
Quote: Similarly, Emotion Control never transforms cards that aren't played in the encounter,
But it does transform cards that are revealed in the encounter.
Off the subject of Morph:
This does raise questions about The Claw vs Gambler. Let's say The Claw's claw is Attack 10:
a) Gambler plays an actual Attack 10 card face down, and his opponent doesn't call the bluff, so it never gets shown.
b) Gambler plays some card other than an actual Attack 10 face down, but he declares it to be an Attack 10. His opponent doesn't call the bluff, so the card is never shown.
Does The Claw activate in either of these circumstances? My answer so far is no, not in either (a) or (b). Only a face up card is eligible to trigger the The Claw. If the bluff is called and the card is shown to be a physical Attack 10, then the The Claw does activate, of course.
-
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Off the subject of Morph:
This does raise questions about The Claw vs Gambler. Let's say The Claw's claw is Attack 10:
a) Gambler plays an actual Attack 10 card face down, and his opponent doesn't call the bluff, so it never gets shown.
b) Gambler plays some card other than an actual Attack 10 face down, but he declares it to be an Attack 10. His opponent doesn't call the bluff, so the card is never shown.
Does The Claw activate in either of these circumstances? My answer so far is no, not in either (a) or (b). Only a face up card is eligible to trigger the The Claw. If the bluff is called and the card is shown to be a physical Attack 10, then the The Claw does activate, of course.
Regarding (a), one of the bugs in The Claw that no individual player knows if the condition's met at the instant a face-down card is played, and thus the power is impossible to use as written without an omniscient moderator. The easy way is to take the Cosmodex's suggestion of "plays or reveals" and say that if nobody knows, it just doesn't happen.
So that leads us to the next question... what if somebody does know? What if The Claw used Finder to know Gambler only has the Attack 10 to play, or The Claw didn't have any other cards in hand the last time he revealed the Attack 10 and hasn't swapped claws since?
For (b), I'd have to disagree. We have to say that if the bluff is accepted, Gambler "reveals" the bluffed card, or many of the effects discussed in this thread leak.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
GregF wrote: Regarding (a), one of the bugs in The Claw that no individual player knows if the condition's met at the instant a face-down card is played, and thus the power is impossible to use as written without an omniscient moderator. The easy way is to take the Cosmodex's suggestion of "plays or reveals" and say that if nobody knows, it just doesn't happen.
So that leads us to the next question... what if somebody does know? What if The Claw used Finder to know Gambler only has the Attack 10 to play, or The Claw didn't have any other cards in hand the last time he revealed the Attack 10 and hasn't swapped claws since?
I don't think it's enough for "somebody" to know. AFAIK, everything in the game is either something *everybody* knows, or only one person knows. The Gambler's card is not revealed at all if the bluff isn't called. If the The Claw gets to use his knowledge, and trigger his claw, that's tantamount to revealing Gambler's card. Plus, with all the wacky things that might happen in this game, any private knowledge that you may happen to have could be wrong. Any card in someone else's hand or that someone else has played face down might not be what you think it is, no matter how recently you think you've seen it.
If The Claw says, "I happen to know that Gambler's card is an Attack 10 which matches my claw, so I get to grab a planet." Gambler can always say, "You're wrong," even if he's not. Since the bluff wasn't called, nothing can cause the card to be turned face up. It reminds me of recent cop shows on TV that I like: it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. And the The Claw can't prove what the card is in this case.
Quote: For (b), I'd have to disagree. We have to say that if the bluff is accepted, Gambler "reveals" the bluffed card, or many of the effects discussed in this thread leak.
This could be a reasonable interpretation. Instead of "proving" what the card is, Gambler "confesses". But I still prefer my interpretation, because a confession can be false, too. And based on the rules wording, what the Gambler "reveals" is not relevant to whether the The Claw's claw is triggered.
IMO, this just has to be chalked up as one of many instances in this game where one power can slightly lessen the strength of another power in certain circumstances. And this particular one is probably one of the least egregious ones - it only applies to the Gambler's card, and only if the bluff isn't called, and it only matters if the actual card would have matched. This is insignificant compared to how Anti-Matter hoses all the attack bonus powers, or how Healer hoses Warpish, or how all the ship killing powers hose Macron, etc.
-
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: GregF wrote: what if somebody does know? What if The Claw used Finder to know Gambler only has the Attack 10 to play, or ... I don't think it's enough for "somebody" to know. AFAIK, everything in the game is either something *everybody* knows, or only one person knows.
Yeah, I think that's the best way to proceed.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Quote: For (b), I'd have to disagree. We have to say that if the bluff is accepted, Gambler "reveals" the bluffed card, or many of the effects discussed in this thread leak. This could be a reasonable interpretation. Instead of "proving" what the card is, Gambler "confesses". But I still prefer my interpretation, because a confession can be false, too.
But it doesn't matter if the confession is false; if the opponent accepts the claim, then the card is that claim for all purposes.
Phil Fleischmann wrote: And based on the rules wording, what the Gambler "reveals" is not relevant to whether the The Claw's claw is triggered.
It would be nice if they were always careful to say reveal when the mean reveal and play (well, actually select) when they mean play, but sadly this is not the case. In many cases we just have to deduce what they really mean in order to avoid a hornet's nest of messy outcomes.
For one thing, "play" is not a technically precise term for encounter cards; they are first selected and then revealed. I tend to see the word "play" as a generic, fuzzy reference to whatever is relevant in this entire process, since FFG uses it to mean at least four different things in the context of encounter cards during the Planning and Reveal phases:
Play means Select: Loser, Magician, Oracle, Seeker, Wild Seeker, Visionary, Super Philanthropist, Super Chronos.
Play means Reveal: Calculator, Deuce, Wild Deuce, Ethic, Fodder, Wild Prophet, Wild Shadow, Super Warhawk.
Play means Something Else: Magician and Wild Magician have you "play" encounter cards face down but this does not count as selection or revelation. Cavalry and Deuce use "play" and "played" to refer to encounter cards placed on the table at the normal selection time, but that are neither selected nor revealed in the same sense as Official Main Player Encounter Cards.
Multiple meanings, or Confusing: Super Warhawk, The Claw.
I'm not sure I really have a conclusion here. Just wanted to document the main reference points.
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
Bill Martinson wrote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: Quote: For (b), I'd have to disagree. We have to say that if the bluff is accepted, Gambler "reveals" the bluffed card, or many of the effects discussed in this thread leak. This could be a reasonable interpretation. Instead of "proving" what the card is, Gambler "confesses". But I still prefer my interpretation, because a confession can be false, too. But it doesn't matter if the confession is false; if the opponent accepts the claim, then the card is that claim for all purposes.
I'm not so sure it's for *all* purposes. It is for the purpose of determining win/loss/deal situation for the encounter. But it's not clear if it is for the purpose of effects like The Claw.
Suppose it does count for the The Claw: Gambler puts his unshown card on the bottom of the deck, and The Claw grabs a planet. Then the next encounter begins, and a Hazard happens: Mirror Universe. The deck and the discard pile are flipped over, and everyone sees what the Gambler's card really was - and it's not what the The Claw's claw was. The Claw has now gained a planet for a card that didn't actually match his claw!
Are you OK with that?
-
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: I'm not so sure it's for *all* purposes. It is for the purpose of determining win/loss/deal situation for the encounter. But it's not clear if it is for the purpose of effects like The Claw.
It is for the purpose of every other effect. Do we have any particular reason to believe The Claw is different?
Phil Fleischmann wrote: Suppose it does count for the The Claw: Gambler puts his unshown card on the bottom of the deck, and The Claw grabs a planet. Then the next encounter begins, and a Hazard happens: Mirror Universe. The deck and the discard pile are flipped over, and everyone sees what the Gambler's card really was - and it's not what the The Claw's claw was. The Claw has now gained a planet for a card that didn't actually match his claw!
Are you OK with that?
Suppose Warhawk and its opponent both play Attacks, but the opponent plays a higher Attack, so Warhawk plays Emotion Control to turn them both into Negotiates, then uses its power to turn them both into Attack 00's. Warhawk wins and the encounter cards are discarded. Then, at the start of the next encounter, someone looks at the top card of the discard pile and realizes that - gasp! - Warhawk used its power on a card that wasn't actually a Negotiate! The horror!
-
Shemp Fill-in: Chan?
United States
Fountain Valley
California
Which way did I go?
Pick a card.
-
salty53 wrote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: I'm not so sure it's for *all* purposes. It is for the purpose of determining win/loss/deal situation for the encounter. But it's not clear if it is for the purpose of effects like The Claw. It is for the purpose of every other effect. Do we have any particular reason to believe The Claw is different?
Yes. The The Claw's power is not about determining the result of an encounter, it's about matching a card played. I would say the same thing for any such effect that isn't about evaluating the resolution of an encounter. That's the whole discussion we had a long time ago. And part of the discussion we just had here. The The Claw's power (and other effects that look at the value of cards separate from determining win/loss/deal situation) is based on the physical ink on the card, not on what the card may be changed into, such as by Emotion Control, Cosmic Guardian, Mirror, Graviton, or Gambler.
Quote: Phil Fleischmann wrote: Suppose it does count for the The Claw: Gambler puts his unshown card on the bottom of the deck, and The Claw grabs a planet. Then the next encounter begins, and a Hazard happens: Mirror Universe. The deck and the discard pile are flipped over, and everyone sees what the Gambler's card really was - and it's not what the The Claw's claw was. The Claw has now gained a planet for a card that didn't actually match his claw!
Are you OK with that? Suppose Warhawk and its opponent both play Attacks, but the opponent plays a higher Attack, so Warhawk plays Emotion Control to turn them both into Negotiates, then uses its power to turn them both into Attack 00's. Warhawk wins and the encounter cards are discarded. Then, at the start of the next encounter, someone looks at the top card of the discard pile and realizes that - gasp! - Warhawk used its power on a card that wasn't actually a Negotiate! The horror!
Not anywhere close to the same thing. (And I don't think that's how this situation would work anyway - EC specifically says the players must attempt to make a deal.)
-
-
Phil Fleischmann wrote: I don't think that's how this situation would work anyway - EC specifically says the players must attempt to make a deal.
I don't think the main point/result of EC is to make the players deal. The dealing is just the byproduct of both players playing an N. If the N's somehow change to something else, there is no dealing required. The part on EC about players attempting to make a deal is really a throw-away line that (re)explains what happens after two N's are revealed.
After EC, Empath plays his Super flare to change his opponent's N to an attack.
After EC, you use the Wild Human flare to change your N to a 42.
In these cases, we wouldn't expect there to be a dealing afterwards, right? I think Warhawk would work the same way after changing both N's to 00. Remember the whole point of Warhawk is that he never Negotiates.
-
|
|
