Stranglevine

[DaveW]

i didn't read all this topic, but the card sais:
"Stranglevine gains life +2x", between to "."

so it's life is 6+2x at any time. isn't it clear?

Not at all... since the card says "Strangle vine gains Life +2X" (where the X is the number of tokens), so on the first round when there is one token, it gains Life +2. On the next turn, when there are two tokens, it gains Life +4 (read as written, since X = 2 at this point).

I don't interpret it this way, but this is what it literally says....

[Zuberi]

You are mistaken DaveW. Exid is correct. The card does not say that you gain Life +2X each round or each upkeep. It simply says you gain Life +2X. Meaning, you only gain it once.

The important thing to remember though is that this is not a one time increase in Life. It is a permanent trait which includes a changing variable, and thus itself is changing as the game progresses.

That is what it literally says.

[RomeoXero]

it makes much more sense when you phrase it that way. It only ever gains "life+" one time. its just that that ammout will change by a determined amount as the game progresses. I get it, Thanks! /maybe now i can start using this card. Never have.

[Mithror]

I think we all agree that it's just bad wording. If it would have said "Stranglevine has Life +2X", there would not have been any difficulties (except in the manner of interpreting variable traits dynamics). By using the word gain here and not starting after a line break, it can just as easily be interpreted as a continuation of the previous sentence and thus as an extra action in response to adding the Crush token.

Like, I said, in my now moderator approved post (thanks for that! ), thematically it makes sense for Stranglevine to have 2 life extra each upkeep. But there are ways this could have been written down, that would have led to less confusion:

• Give it the Life +2X trait (i.e. same as Upkeep +X)
• Have the text say: When you pay Stranglevine's Upkeep cost, it gains 2 Life and the creature attached receives X direct damage
• (Make the health an X and explain that X = 6 + 2 * number of Crush tokens.)

As it is right now, you *can* interpret it both ways, whether it was intended or not. Hence, why an addition to the rules supplement would be a good idea!

[Boocheck]

Each upkeep phase, put 2 crush tokens. For each token, strangelvine gains +1 Life.

And they vere happily strangelvined until their last upkeep phase...

the end.

[Rinc]

Unless of course, the designer has in mind some card in the future which can add crush tokens (or any token for that matter).

Then, saying, "gains 2 life and deals x damage" makes it a worse card.

[DaveW]

You are mistaken DaveW. Exid is correct. The card does not say that you gain Life +2X each round or each upkeep. It simply says you gain Life +2X. Meaning, you only gain it once.

The important thing to remember though is that this is not a one time increase in Life.

I agree with how you read it. I am simply pointing out that it could be misinterpreted. It says you gain Life +2X. One could read it as if on the first turn you gain Life +2(1) = +2... on the second turn then you should gain (in addition to the Life from the first turn), another Life +2(2) = +4, so +6 total.

The statement that I was disputing was that it was clear how to interpret it... it really isn't.

[exid]

the gain life information is in a separate sentence, so it's written right.
of course they could have use a new line, more words, etc., to write it more clearly.

i think take a little time to read well is our part of the work!

[Zuberi]

@DaveW:
I shall agree it is a common misunderstanding, but I think that is due entirely to people mistakenly thinking that sentence is somehow connected to the prior sentence. However, it is a completely separate sentence and lacks any conjunctions to connect it to the prior sentence, as well as lacking any mention of repetition itself. There is nothing to suggest you gain it more than once. I think that is clear once you take a careful look, but I agree that it is very easy to overlook. Regardless, the misunderstanding does occur. Below I have commented on some of Mithror's suggestions to help alleviate this confusion.

@Mithror:
1. I think the reason it wasn't given the Life +2X trait up with all of the other traits was purely due to space. I agree that it would have been a better solution though.

2. This would significantly change the way the spell functions. First, it's Life would no longer be tied to the number of crush tokens. Meaning it could gain Life without gaining tokens, and vice versa, as well as being able to lose tokens without losing Life. Currently there isn't really any way to manipulate token gains/losses, so this is a bit of a moot point, but it is theoretically possible. It also changes the interactions with Finite Life by cancelling the Life gain entirely instead of simply suppressing it. Although that is easy to fix by changing your suggestion to Life +2 instead of just gaining 2 Life.

3. X is already defined on the card as the number of Crush tokens, but you are correct that we could have used this information directly in the Life trait of the card. It's Life could have simply been listed as 6+2X. This is actually my favorite solution thus far for people who wish to clarify the text. I think it would be much less likely to cause confusion, and I think it could be fit on the card without too much trouble.

4. Another option that I think would keep it from being misinterpreted would be to simply move the sentence. Move it to become the first or second sentence on the card, before it starts talking about each upkeep phase, and people will easily be able to tell you only gain it once.


I don't think we'll actually see any of these suggested errata though, nor do I think they are necessary. I do however think that we need clarification in the Rules and Codex Supplement, both to correct any misunderstandings and to explain how exactly to deal with a variable within a trait.

[sIKE]

I don't think we'll actually see any of these suggested errata though, nor do I think they are necessary. I do however think that we need clarification in the Rules and Codex Supplement, both to correct any misunderstandings and to explain how exactly to deal with a variable within a trait.

Still doesn't explain how the Vine is getting "bigger" (Life Gain) and therefore more damage each round, in the event of a Deathlock situation. Innate Life would resolve that issue of course.

[echephron]

I don't think we'll actually see any of these suggested errata though, nor do I think they are necessary. I do however think that we need clarification in the Rules and Codex Supplement, both to correct any misunderstandings and to explain how exactly to deal with a variable within a trait.

Still doesn't explain how the Vine is getting "bigger" (Life Gain) and therefore more damage each round, in the event of a Deathlock situation. Innate Life would resolve that issue of course.

+1 Zuberi. Sike is arguing a theme problem but, at the end of the day, theme problems don't get errata. People also argue that innate life would be more straightforward, but again, this type of problem historically doesn't get errata.  What is best for a spell and what is best for mage wars are different priorities. I could say more, but I'd rather not start myself or others ranting.

[Mithror]

Yes, errata is probably not necessary. A simple clarification in the rules supplement should be enough. I agree with all your points Zuberi. (2) would indeed change the actual mechanics of the life gain, but as you correctly pointed out, within the current ruleset, this would not make a difference. Another phrase that could have been used was: Each Crush token on Stranglevine gives it Life +2 and does 1 direct damage during upkeep.
Regardless, we should not dwell on what it should or could have said, as we can clarify via the rules supplement.

As to the reasoning why it gains 2 life for each crush token and does extra damage, I had an explanation for this in a previous post, but because it was in moderation, perhaps it was missed:

I can easily make the 2 life gain each time a token is added and increased damage make sense, as you could imagine the vine adding another coil for strangulation, each coil having 2 Life and starting with 3 coils. The first three just keep you in place, while each extra coil does 1 extra damage. Hence, each upkeep the damage increases, but the life gain does not.

It would have made more sense to be innate life in this explanation, hey, perhaps it uses magic to increase its length instead of growing and so Finite Life does affect it

[sIKE]

I don't think we'll actually see any of these suggested errata though, nor do I think they are necessary. I do however think that we need clarification in the Rules and Codex Supplement, both to correct any misunderstandings and to explain how exactly to deal with a variable within a trait.

Still doesn't explain how the Vine is getting "bigger" (Life Gain) and therefore more damage each round, in the event of a Deathlock situation. Innate Life would resolve that issue of course.

+1 Zuberi. Sike is arguing a theme problem but, at the end of the day, theme problems don't get errata. People also argue that innate life would be more straightforward, but again, this type of problem historically doesn't get errata.  What is best for a spell and what is best for mage wars are different priorities. I could say more, but I'd rather not start myself or others ranting.

Yes I am arguing theme here a bit, the nice thing about MW has been much about theme and game play being very close. I am dropping it now, as I seem to be the only one that cares about such useless minutia such as fit and finish. Does it do more damage? Pfft who cares how....

[Moonglow]

I would add in that there is something somewhere (in the rule book?) about playing the rules the way you think that they would play i.e. thematically.  So if something is counter theme, it is sort of counter Mage Wars.

umm I'm going to be painful now, is Life = 6+2X the same as 6+2 x X?  so four crush tokens is Life = 6+8?


MMMM imagine a grow spell, that adds a cycle to all plant spells, so you could cast stranglevine and then grow and get it to 1 crush before the first upkeep phase even! take that penguin!

[Zuberi]

@sIKE:
I think it important to remind people that one of the three possible solutions was:

2. Changes to the variable are able to ignore the Finite Life trait because they neither have nor change any time stamps.

This would allow the trait to bypass Finite Life even as it is currently written without any errata. I also have no reason for thinking that this is not a correct ruling other than my personal assumption that I don't think they intended the trait to bypass Finite Life. So, while I would be very surprised by it being the intended function, if that is the way you interpret it and would like to play it, it is just as valid per the rules as any of the three possibilities I listed. At least until we get official word on how to handle a changing variable within an existing trait on an object.