Strangely enough, no…
The first time a unit with a -1/-1 rune dies each turn, the active player puts a -1/-1 rune on two units friendly to the dead unit. ◎
1 Like
He says “Two” not “Up to two” because the ability is supposed to force a player to put -1/-1 runes on their own units sometimes.
1 Like
That’s a fair point.
Also fair, and I’ve assumed this, too.
And taken together, it is not unreasonable for you to conclude you could dance a single unit. You’ve got a logical train of thought there. It just turned out not to be the one that was decided to be the official one. And there was no way for you to know that just by looking at the rules.
I apologize if I insulted your intelligence earlier; I didn’t mean to at all. I just meant to illustrate that Sirlin’s policy of “plain language” on cards means that he often (I won’t say always) seems to intend that things work the way they obviously work based on English definitions rather than a (clearer) game-specific definition. (Of course, when it turns out things weren’t quite so clear after all, you then need a game-specific ruling and maybe a game-specific definition anyway, especially when dealing with edge cases…)
But basically the logic as to why it works the way it does is easier to follow when you take off the programmer/lawyer hat and put on the layman’s “what does this probably mean” hat.
Again, it doesn’t mean there was a flaw in your logic. Just that Sharpo and Sirlin ruled the other way, probably because it was more consistent with the intention of the card. Since the point of Two Step is that it’s great but only when both units are in play (and gets discarded whenever one of those partners leaves the dance), it wouldn’t make sense (in terms of the spirit of the card) to be able to turn a single unit into a dancing partner and have Two Step never be discarded (even if it’s not providing the buff).
It also helps to know (as I learned in Yomi discussions about No Card) that Sirlin abhors bad plays or pointless plays. (I think he would force everyone to play games to win if it was within his power.) So any argument of “it makes logical sense in this weird edge case where it wouldn’t actually help me” will generally get answered with, “Why would you even do that? Don’t do that. That’s dumb. Let’s just make it so you can’t do that.”
1 Like
I am now confused
Orpal maxband, does it work against someone who has only one unit left when tbe maxband triggers?
1 Like
But it says both units have to be friendly to the dead unit, so that doesn’t actually happen, right? I’m with @MVashM on this; I thought I understood until I really looked at it.
1 Like
Orpal’s ability RAW can’t be made to target your own units when an opposing unit dies (but not when your own unit dies!), but it isn’t entirely clear if it can target only 1 opposing unit if there is only one.
Some abilities seem to be “two or none” while some are “do as much as you can” and there is nothing other than trying to guess Sirlin’s intent in order to differentiate between the two.
He won’t have to put runes on his units if an opposing unit dies, but he would if one of his own friendly units that has a -1/-1 rune dies, even on an opponent’s turn (active player chooses is in the effect).
Which raises another question: If you’re in an Orpal vs. Orpal matchup and both are at maxband, the first time a unit dies each turn, I would think both Orpals trigger, causing two sets of runes to go out instead of just one.
Right, but @sharpobject made it sound like having it be 2 runes (not up to 2) was so that if only one unit was a valid target on one side of the board, the other rune would have to go to a unit on the other side. Unless I misunderstood what he meant, which is entirely possible.
1 Like
I think the intention of Orpal is “do as close to two as you can”. Even though the wording is the same, the intention seems functionally different.
My takeaway from this whole conversation is that the exact wording on a card isn’t as important as the apparent intended effect.
1 Like
As a player reading cards, I have no concept of ‘intended’ effect. I just have what’s written down.
I can’t play a game without knowing how things work. Its like conceptually impossible.
Let’s play chess. Ok. Hey, what’s a bishop do? Who knows…lets play anyway.
1 Like
I read it that way at first, too. But I think what he meant was that if it was worded as up to two, the downside wouldn’t exist. Orpal could choose to do 0 if his own unit with a -1/-1 rune dies. Instead, he has to do two of his own units, or one if only one exists. The wording is not ‘up to two’ so that Orpal cannot choose to do less to his own units.
2 Likes
It also matters if opposing units have resist. Orpal can’t choose to not target them, so he has to pay the gold cost (if able).
2 Likes
I get where you are coming from, but why argue with the official rules keeper? If the argument is with everyone else, I can understand you defending your logic, but there are two mutually exclusive logic trees, and a clarification was handed down saying which one would be used in codex.
The cards are written to cover 95% of cases in as straightforward a way as possible. The remaining 5% are going to have confusion, and almost all of those cases can be clarified quickly with a search in this thread or the carddb website.
Could the cards have been written to cover 100%? Probably not. Every other card game I’ve ever seen ends up with an extra reference document clarifying these things. Codex is only different in that such a document is at best described as a work in progress.
2 Likes
I stated how I assumed something works, and asked for advice.
I’ve been on this board what…a week? Never played a single real life or PFB game of Codex (ever). I’m asking questions as a new player trying to understand so I know what to expect in my first upcoming game (yet I’m repeatedly talked down to, to the point where I don’t even think I ever want to play that ‘first game’…sad)
Am I arguing about Orpal’s ability? I clearly stated that I realize it was wrong to give out only a single rune if they only have one unit in play (based on how Zane works) and I thanked the forum member for explaining that to me.
The rule keeper, in this case, hasn’t read the card. It very clearly says both -1/-1s have to be on a unit friendly to the dead unit.
There isn’t any possibility that I, being the one who has the max band Orpal, have to put a -1/-1 on my own unit when an opposing unit with a -1/-1 counter dies, even if they don’t have 2 units left.
The “you must put two, even if you have to target your own thing” clearly is not what the card says.
It’s unclear if the intent is there that you have to put 2x -1/-1s on your own things if your own unit with -1/-1 dies. According to the card you have to do that. Most of the cards that hurt you, however, specifically say they do (think Jandra and Dozer using the word “your” and Orpal not). I think the intent is that it can hurt you under some circumstances. I don’t agree with that intent, I think that your own cards shouldn’t hurt you and that ultimate abilities definitely shouldn’t. I just accept that RAW it does hurt me, the user of the Disease hero in some instances.
This matters, because we are asked to guess at what Sirlin intended. It looks to me like the creator’s intent is that cards that hurt you have “your” on there somewhere. That’s why I think the creator intended the ability not to hurt the owner of the card.
I think Coiser is probably arguing with the rule keeper because the rule keeper is contradicting the card’s direct verbiage. If Coiser is asked to just completely ignore card text in favor of things that seem opposite of what the card says, he has reason to be stressed out.
For clarification, what Sharpo means about Orpal’s maxband here is that if one of your own units with a -1/-1 token dies on your turn, you have to put a -1/-1 token on two new units if you can, else 1 if you can. It doesn’t matter who controls Orpal at the time, and even if you are Orpal’s controller, you have to do it to your own units.
1 Like
Sharpo is not saying that Orpal has to target one of his own units if the opponent has only one. He’s saying that if Orpal has to put runes on his own units, he has to do two if possible.
I’m not sure how it’s unclear that Orpal has to put runes on his own units if a friendly unit with a -1/-1 rune dies. It pretty clearly covers that case. It would have been a very simple matter to include ‘an opposing unit’ if that’s the intent.
1 Like
Side-note: I feel like the “Rules Questions thread” is kind of turning into a discussion on the “philosophy of rules”, rather than the intended “clarification of rules”. Should we move this discussion to another thread?
1 Like
I disagree with this entirely. I think effects that trade a possible downside for a big possible upside or a discount in cost are the most fun effects to try and strategize around. The increased risk/reward makes for plays that are that much more satisfying when you pull them off well.
1 Like