sharpobject
"
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.
"
I need someone to tell me lots of Webster definitions for me to believe what you are saying is actually what he said. Having spoken English the extent of my life, I must say I completely disagree with you. This like isn’t even up for debate.
“I say A”
“What he said was B”
?
What does “two” not “up to two” have to do with “Yours vs Theirs”? The yours vs theirs discussion is completely separate from the two or not two discussion. He was clearly talking about the two or not two discussion, both in his comment and because that was the subject of the conversation at the time. The yours vs theirs thing came later.
The questions were about “do as much as you can” at the time (and half of them still are). The question alluded to above was “Can Orpal do just 1x -1/-1 on an opposing unit or is it two vs nothing?” Sharpo said that if you can do two, you must, even if it means putting it on your own unit. That’s something the card specifically says not to do.
The question now is to listen to the card or to the rules guru.
That’s not what he says. He says the card doesn’t say ‘up to two’ because he’s supposed to be forced to put them on his own units, if his own unit triggers the ability.
Orpal’s unit with -1/-1 rune dies:
‘up to two’: Well, I guess I won’t put any runes.
‘Two’: I have to put two runes on my other units.
He was answering the question of why it wasn’t worded up to two. It’s worded that way so that the intended drawback works.
Maybe you have a better grasp of English than me. There is no way I can take the quoted text to apply to anything other than the situation where an opponent has 0 or 1 units left after one of their units dies.
If it was the difference between “you must put two (or failing that, one) on your own unit(s) if one of your guys with a -1/-1 dies”, or the above I would have written it much closer to what I just did.
“Two or not two” has nothing to do with “on your own units sometimes” except in the case where we are talking about killing an opponent’s thing. If you want to point out that yes it can hurt you, then you don’t need to reference “two or not two”. Similarly, if you mean “you can’t choose zero if you have two units and your own guy dies” you say it more like that also.
The “two or not two” portion at the least is super confusing in context.
I would rather like it if the cardDB said something like “Yes this can hurt you.” and “You can choose 1 if the controller of the dead thing only has one unit”.
In general, though, this is ultimately a discussion about “Do as much as you can” vs “Don’t do as much as you can, if it says two then you can’t target just one”.
It’s clear that this discussion isn’t getting anywhere. Can we please just wait until @sharpobject himself comes and clarifies what he meant? I don’t see any other way to be certain except to ask the person who actually said it what he meant when he said it.
Paraphrased discussion:
‘Orpal says two, I guess that means don’t do anything if there’s only one opponent unit remaining?’
‘Doesn’t Orpal say up to two?’
'nope’
Sharpo: 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
He’s clarifying why Orpal says ‘two’ and not ‘up to two.’ It’s because of a different interaction, that is, the ‘sometimes’ Orpal has to put runes on his own units. He actually doesn’t say anything about whether or not Orpal is supposed to put a single rune out if there’s only one opponent unit, and he definitely doesn’t mean that if an opponent has only one unit, Orpal is supposed to put the other one on his own (because the card text explicitly says so).
I’ll admit at the first pass I thought he meant the runes should overflow onto his own, but then I thought about it and realized what he really meant.
Fine, I relent. Maybe I am not interpreting hard enough.
Orpal Maxband Flowchart:
When a unit with a -1/-1 token on it dies:
–> Does the player who owned the unit that just died have another unit still in play?
----> No: Do nothing.
----> Yes: The active player chooses one such unit and puts a -1/-1 token on it. Then, does the player who owned the unit that just died have yet another unit (besides the one that just died and the one that just had a -1/-1 token placed on it)?
--------> No: Do nothing.
--------> Yes: The active player chooses one such unit and puts a -1/-1 token on it.
And if I’m wrong, may Sirlin himself strike me down in all his mighty wrath!
To be clear, I also believe that’s how it works.
I am just not sure that Sirlin’s intent is that it work like that and it seems to me that the rules guru is saying that’s not how it works.
It’s also unclear if “do as much as possible” is applied here.
Guessing about Sirlin’s intent isn’t productive if be both disagree and neither of us has any evidence to bring to the table, ha! I’ll grant that I understand why you see it that way though.
Sharpo is terse, and while that’s understandable given that he’s a busy guy, I can also relate to you feeling frustrated at feeling like you’ve received an incomplete ruling.
Ultimately, I try to keep in mind that it’s just a game, and if I don’t like a ruling, I don’t necessarily have to follow that rule as long as I’m playing with someone else who agrees with me. The important thing is to have fun, and the official rulings like here and on the http://codexcarddb.com/ simply serve to facilitate a settlement when the people playing the game do not agree on how to resolve something.
I mean you can’t choose to put 0 or 1 even though you have 2 units.
This is correct.
Can people put 1x -1/-1 with Orpal if there is only one?
If so, can people put 1x dance partner if there is only one?
I think Coiser’s point is that they don’t have a list of cards where you apply the “Do a fewer number but do some” rule and when you don’t.
Yes, people can put a -1/-1 rune on only one unit (if they only have one) when instructed to put it on two.
No, people cannot create a relationship between 2 units using only 1 unit when instructed to create a relationship between 2 units. I think EricF’s analogy to Chaos Mirror is particularly apt here.
Thanks for the answer to my question.
I have a question regarding ongoing spells.
If you have Soul Stones in play, and it is not (and has not ever been) attached to a unit, does it die, or does it remain in play until a card destroys it?
Another way to phrase the question:
Is there a game rule which states that ongoing spells that need to attach to something die (or are sacrificed, etc) if they are not attached to something?
It’s a good thing I didn’t say anything like that.
You might have to put -1/-1 runes on your own units when your own units with -1/-1 runes die. This trigger will most commonly work this way during the turn of the player who does not control Orpal. That is, in black vs green, during the green player’s turn, the green player will sometimes be forced to put -1/-1 runes on their own units.
Good question. I haven’t really considered this one. The rulebook seems to suggest that if you play Soul Stone while there are no units in play, it will just hang out in play for the rest of the game.
If you can attach such a spell, do you have to?
Can you play Spirit of the Panda with no target and have the healing work?
If there is a possible target, can you just opt not to target it and keep the healing even if your units all die?