In a TOURNAMENT SETTING, where there is NO PRECEDENT for a discussion, then "intent" should not be a factor in arbitrating rules questions or disputes; players should expect that their cards do exactly what the printed text on their cards say that they do.
Intent is subjective to the person interpreting the intent; unless the designers and playtesters all gather around the table to weigh in every time there is a rules dispute or clarification made in a tournament, then, yes, intent IS subjective. You agreeing or disagreeing with that point is notwithstanding, since, you know, it's a literal fact.
Printed text, ignoring the possibility for error, is not subjective. In a situation where a card is misprinted or unclear (not the situation that led to this conversation), then a rules arbiter must do as best he or she can, but ruling based on what that particular arbiter in that particular tournament GUESSES MIGHT be the "intent" of the design and playtest teams is total, utter, nonsensical FOLLY, and destroys the credibility of this game as a tournament-viable entity. It's not the arbiters' job to say "well, the card says 'X', but I'm pretty sure that it was intended to do 'Y', so I'm going to rule in contrast to what is specifically in the rulebook and printed on the card."
I'm in about 99% agreement with you here. There is the possibility, if very small, for a literal interpretation of the rules that very clearly breaks with precedent and cuts counter to the established continuity of expressed intent of the designers in other similar situations to actually be disruptive to the game. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to rule against the literal interpretation of a card's text. If that "ruins the game" for you I am truly sorry. I don't think however, that this sort of thing spells instant doom for the game as a tournament viable entity. I feel like you are being a little hyperbole in your rhetoric.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would soften your comments a bit. I don't come to these forums to engage in a structured and aggressive debate scene and I don't think many others do either. The rigor of my arguments is somewhat lax not because I am incapable of constructing arguments that are rigorously structured, but because I am not generally interested in engaging in such verbal warfare over the finer points of a game. I mean you have to admit the stakes are pretty low.
Getting back to the originating issue of the Wall of Pikes. I think you misinterpreted Hedges initial comment. I believe the primary point of what he was saying was to underline the issues created by a literal interpretation of the Wall of Pikes within the context of a game that has always strived to make sense on a thematic level and to point out the value of a wider testing pool such as that afford by the community through the release of promo cards. He did not make an argument that a ruling should be made in this case against the literal interpretation of the card within a tournament setting. He merely stated that it was a problem that the text so clearly disagreed with the intent. I would assume, though he would have to confirm this, that that means that he thinks it's a problem because it has the propensity to cause many people to misinterpret the function of the card in error of the rules as printed.
On my own end I was engaging in a philosophical discussion over the ideas of extreme literalism vs. a slightly more tempered approach that at least acknowledges the wider context in which rules are interpreted. I was not making a pitched argument specifically about how Wall of Pikes should be interpreted within a tournament setting, but rather how it should be interpreted more broadly and how I would prefer it was officially interpreted (I would assume that they would need to release errata for clarity to support this interpretation).
As a final note: I really don't think that most of this intense back and forth was in any way necessary. I would urge you to ask for clarification from other posters when their meaning is unclear or to more accurately determine where they are coming from rather than making potentially insulting statements about their ability to argue, aggressive assertion like: "You missed the point", or one's that seemingly question intelligence like: "that you, perhaps, can understand"
A few things:
If you were to go back and read some of my earlier posts (like...11 months old or something, since I haven't really been around in a good long while) you would get to know that I am simply a passionate writer. It's one of the things I do for a living. Another thing I do in a professional capacity is debate, so that's another hat I bring to the table of discussion within a forum. I don't see myself as aggressive, but I realize others might. If you took offense at something I wrote, that was not my intent. I
do demand a certain level of precision in debate through an online medium, because without precision no one really understands what anyone else is talking about. Different strokes apply, but, for my part, I would rather have a formal debate with clearly-defined points of topic than a generalized melee of ideas; the former can actually accomplish something to the point of the conversation, where the latter, in my humble opinion, often just leads to chaotic posturing, red herrings, straw men, and meandering ideas. Apologies for any offense given.
I'm pleased that my point finally made it through the ruckus. That you say you agree 99% shows that you
understood the point, mired by backlash-prejudices against the writer as it may have been by that point in the conversation. Thank you for that. I also appreciate the counter, since counters are the life of any conversation; why "cool story, bro" is the ultimate insult to a debate-minded individual (<- partly what I took from your original rebuttal where you stated a "rejection" of my position, rather than refuting it).
In your example where there is a very small possibility for ruling to the word leading to an "obvious" break against intention I would say this:
It is entirely possible, granting that it is also improbable. To say that something is possible, and then to create a contingency that directly counters the existing premise (ruling to the word, in this example), is, in my opinion, not a very good idea. The letter of the law should be applied to all situations, because the very moment you begin saying "well, the rule is 'X', but if we don't
like how that plays out, we will force 'Y' upon you" then, yes, you destroy credibility. Not utterly, I suppose, but let us say that you do, indeed,
weaken the proposed credibility of the game as a tournament-viable entity.
To that I say this:
If such a situation
were to arise, then it would be unfortunate. The individuals at the tournament where the situation arose might be worse for the situation. However, if I were such an individual I would
respect the game, and the rules arbiters,
more for ruling to the word. Conversely, I would
lose respect for the game and the rules arbiters if the arbiters ruled to the ever-so-subjective "intent."
This boils down, again, to the philosophical belief that players should expect their cards to do exactly what the printed text on their cards say they do.
The Master Codex of intent must be the rulebook, and the words printed on the cards. It must be assumed that cards are printed to do what they were intended to do, because there is no other baseline from which to draw a conclusion of intent. So, in such a situation, I feel that the cards should be ruled to the word by the arbiters, and then
after the event, if the design and playtest teams concur that the intent was mangled in production through ambiguous language or misprinted text or a typo, an erratum be issued to the card(s) that led to the question during the tournament, so as to bring them in-line with the now-confirmed "intent."
Let's review the situation, again:
The wall in question, undeniably, has the "Passage Attack" trait, as denoted by the symbol at the top of the card, which, reviewing the rule book, we find that it is the symbol, itself, that grants the trait; it represents the trait. Therefore, the card
has the "Passage Attack" trait.
The text of the wall in question states either that it only activates the trait or only makes the attack against characters passing from a particular direction (forgive me, since AW
still (1 year later?!?!?!?) doesn't have an online card database). What the card does
not say, however, is that it
loses the trait unless a character passes from a particular direction. Nor does the card not have the symbol, and instead have text stating that it
gains the trait if it is passed through from a certain direction.
Is this semantics? Not in my opinion. The wall has the trait, but the trait only activates under certain circumstances. The activation or non-activation is notwithstanding to whether or not the wall
has the trait, and therefore we have an answer...
...right?
Not according to the rules arbiters at Gencon, apparently. Because they ruled on intent, not to the word, a player got the short end of the stick; a player who was doing nothing more than assuming that his cards did exactly what the printed text on them says they do. That player's opponent got a lucky break in being handed the gift of a ruling that allowed
him to "break" the rules, and have
his cards do something that the printed text on them
doesn't allow them to do.
So, in that scenario, what is right? Punishing the player who read and understood the cards as they were printed, or ruling to the word and earmarking the cards in question for review by design/playtest after the tournament and convention are over?
As it stands, the FAQ is not, in my opinion, what is needed, here, for the correction of the card in question. The card is printed very clearly, to my eye; it has the passage attack trait at all times, but it only activates at certain times. Cards that look for the trait for interaction should see the trait, and interact as if it is there...because...it's there. If the intent was for the card to only
have the trait under certain circumstances, then the card should receive an erratum and be reprinted to reflect that intent. The FAQ should exist for clarifications, and a list of Errata should exist for errata. This card should be errata'd, not shuffled through the growing FAQ.
-nihil
Show Posts
I laughed. 