Promptings of Wisdom

Ask any question regarding the game's (official) rules

Moderators: Jambo, Moderators

User avatar
Sauron
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:04 pm

Post by Sauron » Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:10 pm

Thats why I was asking.  I'm more than willing to drop an email.  But thanks for picking up the ball on this Mark.  I'm sure I'll come up with more annoying questions for the NetRep team.

Moria tour guide
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: USA

Post by Moria tour guide » Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:50 am

My view on the text is that it covers all 3 instances.

There are 2 ''or'' in the text; so if you argue that it covers only one instance, then you must continue with your logic and say the text states for the player to choose either:

*cancel returning company affect
*cancel tapping your current site affect
*cancel tapping your new site affect

I say that this card is useless if player has to choose. Well, a point against that note is 'Gifts of Comprehension' at 2 CP is quite worthless.

My argument is that how many hazards tap your new and current site if you are moving? I cannot recall any. So if no hazards can tap your new and current site, then this card's text would be worded slightly differently.

It will be bad grammer to say:
"...cancel the affect of returning company and  cancel affects to tap your new or current site..."

That "and" implies a hazad that can do all three effects. Using the two "or" and impling the choosing characteristic is also bad grammer. A comma is needed to imply a distinction.

Based on grammer, other hazard cards and the text's CP value; I say that the resource covers all the bases. A ranger will be tapped and is more prone to be wounded and limits that character. There is only one ranger that has no other skills.

IMHO,

Thanks.

Zarathustra
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: NY

Post by Zarathustra » Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:52 am

If you are moving, you have no current site.  Contrarily, if you are not moving, then you have no new site.  Promptings just says that it affects whichever site happens to be relevant for the company in question:

the current site, if they are stationary, or
the new site, if they are moving.

Moria tour guide
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: USA

Post by Moria tour guide » Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:39 pm

Mark A,

I understand your explaination, but I was referring to affect of tapping the site you are moving away from during the movement phase; I did not explain that too well.

About Goldberry, yes she has a good, albeit limited assistance to moving but she gives a 1 MP; while promptings give zero MP.

Now, I do not recall if on the actual card the "or" in question is highlighted. If it is highlighted that I remove my previous comments, since highlighting would imply a choice of the benefits.

I also look at the other light enchantment cards like: When You Know More and When I Know Anything. Both of these cards give 1 MP, 1 CP and have a wide range of uses, but require an information site to be played.

A wider intepretation of PoWisdom will boost movement in MECCG, which I don't think is bad thing.

With the CP value of PoWisdom and the other cards, I still hold my previous interpretation of this card.

Now that said, If I ever play a game which my opponent interprets the choicing method, then I will go with him; then have healthy discussion after the game of this card. I mean, it is only one game, my opponent took the time to play with me, a game is not that long in real time, and most of my decks don't use PoW or be weaken greatly by it if used by an opponent.

IMHO,

Thanks.

User avatar
Sauron
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:04 pm

Post by Sauron » Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:01 pm

the card does have the the word or in bold.

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:00 pm

However, the card Govern the Storms also has the word "or" in bold, but does not require tapping.  Does this mean that one would have to play two copies of Govern the Storms to achieve both affects?  Or would one decide on a case per case basis?

User avatar
Gwaihir
Founder, dev. lead
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Gwaihir » Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:32 am

Zarathustra wrote:If you want the NetRep team to look at something, the surest way to get that accomplished is to ask on the email list.
Actually, to PM Chad here with a link to the topic is probably just as easy.

Either way, as the FAQ on top of this board clarifies as well: if you want an official ruling on something, ask for it. Don't assume one will be issued just because any particular individual has been active in the discussion.


BTW: I'm a bit flabbergasted to read that several people seem to think "or" makes it  too weak a card to make sense. I disagree, IMHO "and" would make it over the top powerful a card. As "or" it gives good resistance to road block, as "and" it would turn into a one card miracle cure..
Gwaihir.net - The Middle-earth CCG store
May the wind under your wings bear your where the sun sails and the moon walks -- J.R.R.T.

stone troll
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: pennsylvania, USA

Post by stone troll » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm

To Wim's BTW aside:  Hear! Hear!

The ability to stop roadblock outside of nullifying Doors of Night is a very strong effect.

BTW, I thought that card interpretations were not to be based on percieved utility??  :o

User avatar
Gwaihir
Founder, dev. lead
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Gwaihir » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:52 am

stone troll wrote:BTW, I thought that card interpretations were not to be based on percieved utility?
Not unless all else fails. That's why I mentioned it as an aside only.
Gwaihir.net - The Middle-earth CCG store
May the wind under your wings bear your where the sun sails and the moon walks -- J.R.R.T.

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:19 pm

On the other hand, if the card were meant to be either/or, wouldn't they have gone with an "alternatively" clause?  Such is the case in many other cards.  Promptings could as easily have been worded along the lines of "Target Ranger may tap to cancel all effects for the rest of the turn that force his company to return to their site of origin.  Alternatively, target Ranger may tap to cancel all effects for the rest of the turn that tap his current site or his new site."

There's also the problem that they couldn't very well have used "and," as then the literal interpretation would mean that an effect would both have to send a company back to its site of origin and tap a site.

One final thought is the placement of the colon.

If we were meant to choose between return to site and tapping the site, a more effective placement would have been, "Tap target Ranger to cancel: all effects for the rest of the turn that force his company to return to their site of origin or tap his current or new site."  By placing the colon before "all effects," the implication is that the second part after the "or" is meant to be considered separately, i.e. "all these effects or all those."

The way it is now is less clear.  "Tap target Ranger to cancel all effects for the rest of the turn that: force his company to return to their site of origin or tap his current or new site."  In this case, the "or" is merely describing what effects fall under cancellation, i.e. "It can be this or it can be that, but either way, it's cancelled."

To sum up the counterarguments:
1)  There are cards that explicitly state that they may not be used both ways, and these cards usually take the form of "alternatively."
2)  The bolding may be there for emphasis or simply to differentiate between the two "or" clauses in the card.
3)  The placement of the colon makes either interpretation potentially valid.

I don't think that the bolded "or" is sufficient to say there must be a choice.

And on the utility note, tapping a Ranger is huge price to pay when there are entire hazard strategies dedicated merely to tapping Rangers.

Moria tour guide
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: USA

Post by Moria tour guide » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:57 am

I agree with Bandobras Took statements in the previous post. :!:


Let's remember that there is a language chasm between Europe and North America. IMHO, the Europeans have more experience with MECCG from the active play there and maybe the card was miswritten.
I am taking french right now, and translation is a hard thing for me.

Thanks.

User avatar
Sauron
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:04 pm

Post by Sauron » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:22 pm

It's silly to generalize something like the Europeans have more experience from playing.  Just because you guys play a card in a particular fashion does not make it right.  To use that arguement is silly.  Oh I guess the North Americans have been playing this card this way, so it has to be played this way.  This of course is nonsense.  What we're really after is to come up with a definitive answer on how the card works.

User avatar
Gwaihir
Founder, dev. lead
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Gwaihir » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:18 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:1)  There are cards that explicitly state that they may not be used both ways, and these cards usually take the form of "alternatively."
Ehm.. I take it that by usually you indicate that you already know this isn't allways the case and thus that this is a non-argument? Are there any cards at all that use the "alternatively" style of wording while literally copying 14 words - two whole superfluous lines of text in the tiny space available?

Anyway: if that's an argument to you, then I take it this is too: there's another card that had an ambiguous "or" on it: An Unexpected Outpost. An erratum was issued by means of the challenge decks (most recent English print) that makes that "and / or". No similar erratum was issued for Promptings of Wisdom (present in those decks too), so they must have meant "or". QED.

For the rest of you: please don't take the paragraph right above as too serious an argument. It is merely meant to illustrate the flawdness of the "argument" quoted.
Bandobras Took wrote:tapping a Ranger is huge price to pay when there are entire hazard strategies dedicated merely to tapping Rangers.
Well then, if the entire strategy is already devoted to that, you won't have to worry about roadblock, now do you?
Gwaihir.net - The Middle-earth CCG store
May the wind under your wings bear your where the sun sails and the moon walks -- J.R.R.T.

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:09 am

Oh, certainly.  I'm not trying to say that there's irrefutable evidence for an inclusive or.  But I'm not overwhelmed by the arguments being put forth for an exclusive or, either, and that was the point of my mentioning cards with "alternatively."  Promptings of Wisdom/Piercing All Shadows/Govern the Storms seem to be open to either interpretation, in which case the question becomes which makes more sense in the context of the game.

I mention hazard strategies devoted to tapping Rangers because of River.  This seems entirely relevant to the discussion because, as far as I know:

1) Sending a company back to their site of origin keeps them from doing anything in the site phase;
2) Tapping out their site stands a good chance of keeping a company from doing something in the site phase; and
3) River played on a company without an untapped Ranger keeps a company from doing something in the site phase.

Note that all these effects have the same basic purpose: to keep a company from doing something during the site phase.

If the player of Promptings must choose between going on to the site or keeping it untapped, they're still going to be screwed.  You'll circumvent one, still be just as vulnerable to another, and be at an increased risk for the third.

If, on the other hand, Promptings stops both 1 and 2, you'll still be more vulnerable to 3.  It's a calculated risk, but it makes it worthwhile to try.  I would think that this was the intent behind the card.

And that's not even considering two or three extra corruption for your ranger, for no direct MP benefit.

Also, as I said before, if one must choose between the two effects, does this mean I need to play two copies of Govern the Storms?  Or would different rules somehow apply, since it's a short event?

I only mention these things because I'm not convinced that it's a clearly written card.  In the absence of an absolute answer, the designer's intent and how the card relates to the game would be relevant to the decision.

Hopefully that clarifies what I was trying to say.  If not, I apologize.

User avatar
Sauron
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:04 pm

Post by Sauron » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:16 am

To send a Hero company back and to tap their site would require alot of hazards.

Let's see tap the site and send them back could be accomplished with
Doors of night and Long Winter.  But that would require no ranger in the company kind of pointless for this arguement.  To send them back would require skin changers, or snowstorm or something.

Another way would be for foul fumes, morgul night, doors of night.  Again that only sends you back without a ranger, so that's kind of pointless.

So this card can stop a 3 or 4 card hazard strategy with just 1 tap?

Post Reply