Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 106

Thread: Natazga fury of the fen

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Gwangju, South Korea
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lcanela View Post
    As Natazga seems weaker than all new summoners and this seems not to be clear, cannot we rule on her favor KC?
    ^this^

    She's like Torgan before Invaders, totally rocked by all the summoners with movement tricks and multiple attacks on the same target. Does anybody really think she'd be OP with Fen/Sklursh (and letting the VW he's on attack too)?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gojaejin View Post
    ^this^

    She's like Torgan before Invaders, totally rocked by all the summoners with movement tricks and multiple attacks on the same target. Does anybody really think she'd be OP with Fen/Sklursh (and letting the VW he's on attack too)?
    I don't see any way you could let a Vine Wall with a Unit on it attack, since Fury of the Fen explicitly says it only affects unoccupied Vine Walls. The job of interpreting the rules should be to interpret them the way they're written, not to "balance things out" by going directly against what the text says.

    FWIW, I think Natazga is distinctly stronger than Saturos, and possibly stronger than Farrah and Shiva.
    Ask me about the Summoner Wars VASSAL group chat!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,843

    Default

    Prome, I get what you're saying, but the argument is that the rule is ambiguous, a 50-50 with both interpretations being reasonable, it not being obvious what rule actually says, and bc it is, when breaking the tie, we should factor in that Natasha is weak. I don't see why that doesn't have some persuadiveness

    But I get your counter that she's not really that weak. Idk if she is

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    Prome, I get what you're saying, but the argument is that the rule is ambiguous, a 50-50 with both interpretations being reasonable, it not being obvious what rule actually says, and bc it is, when breaking the tie, we should factor in that Natasha is weak. I don't see why that doesn't have some persuadiveness

    But I get your counter that she's not really that weak. Idk if she is
    Because the rule's not 50-50 ambiguous. VINEMANCER THREAD says it doesn't allow you to shoot through spaces that contain Units.
    Ask me about the Summoner Wars VASSAL group chat!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,843

    Default

    Respectfully Prome, your argument seems like:
    - Premise: VINEMANCER THREAD says, "This Swamp Archer may attack through spaces containing Vine Walls that do not also contain Units."
    - Conclusion: This is not 50-50 ambiguous.

    First, I don't understand how you're saying anything more than just restating the ability text. What parts of the text makes you think that it's not 50-50 ambiguous? Why? Second, this feels like it gives short-shrift to the other people on this thread that thought the text was ambiguous. Is it the case that all of the rest of us are unreasonable? I was originally willing to accept that I--as one person--was an outlier, but it seems other people also had a similar reading than me, so I am now less willing to think that I am an outlier.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    Respectfully Prome, your argument seems like:
    - Premise: VINEMANCER THREAD says, "This Swamp Archer may attack through spaces containing Vine Walls that do not also contain Units."
    - Conclusion: This is not 50-50 ambiguous.

    First, I don't understand how you're saying anything more than just restating the ability text. What parts of the text makes you think that it's not 50-50 ambiguous? Why? Second, this feels like it gives short-shrift to the other people on this thread that thought the text was ambiguous. Is it the case that all of the rest of us are unreasonable? I was originally willing to accept that I--as one person--was an outlier, but it seems other people also had a similar reading than me, so I am now less willing to think that I am an outlier.
    My understanding is Swamp Archers can shoot through fenned vine walls, and units can still move through them or onto them, but once a unit ends a movement on it and occupies the same space, it is no longer a fenned vine wall and can't attack or move. That is how I've always interpreted all the text surrounding this conversation, and seems to make the most sense. I'm fine with any ruling and think someone should just decide how this all works, and everyone go by that as long as it is reasonable. I think what I've described is a happy medium that is in favour of Natazga without bending any rules. KC should just decide if he wants to, or we just quickly put it to a vote.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    Respectfully Prome, your argument seems like:
    - Premise: VINEMANCER THREAD says, "This Swamp Archer may attack through spaces containing Vine Walls that do not also contain Units."
    - Conclusion: This is not 50-50 ambiguous.

    First, I don't understand how you're saying anything more than just restating the ability text. What parts of the text makes you think that it's not 50-50 ambiguous? Why? Second, this feels like it gives short-shrift to the other people on this thread that thought the text was ambiguous. Is it the case that all of the rest of us are unreasonable? I was originally willing to accept that I--as one person--was an outlier, but it seems other people also had a similar reading than me, so I am now less willing to think that I am an outlier.
    What's ambiguous about the ability text? It says you may attack through a space if that space contains a Vine Wall and that space does not contain a Unit. Ergo, you cannot shoot through a space that contains a Unit. You can say it's ambiguous but that doesn't really sway me unless you can explain why it's ambiguous. I made a clear argument from the text, and I haven't seen a clear argument from the text in favor of the idea that you should be able to shoot through a space that contains a Vine Wall Unit.
    Ask me about the Summoner Wars VASSAL group chat!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,843

    Default

    How is your clear argument from the text any different than the text itself? Aren't you just saying:
    - Text
    - Therefore clear/not ambiguous

    I don't see any parsing of the text unless i'm missing something. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can make the same argument type to cut the opposite way:
    - Text
    - Therefore not clear/ambiguous

    But that would not be a great argument either bc I haven't explained why I think the text is not clear.

    If your argument is that the burden is on the challenger to explain why an ability is ambiguous, I get that. But I believe that I met that burden by making an argument about why the Swamp Archer ability is ambiguous on either page one or two of this thread. I think you make a legitimate point the the text might be clear, but I'm not sure what the argument is about why the next may be clear bc I haven't really seen anyone make it.

    If I have the chance I'll try to clarify my argument from previous pages of this thread
    Last edited by commandercool; 12-07-2016 at 11:17 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheuslkr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    But to say that, you'd have to say that the VW occupies itself, which is weird
    It doesn't occupy itself, it occupies the space. VINEMANCER THREAD says:

    This Swamp Archer may shoot through spaces containing Vine Walls that do not also contain Units.
    Emphasis added because the confusion seems to stem from deciding whether the pronoun "that" refers to the noun "Vine Walls" or the noun "spaces." If it were the former, you'd be right--the Vine Wall does not contain a Unit. But I argue that it's the latter because of the word "also." The word "also" wouldn't make sense if "that" was referring to "Vine Walls" since the sentence hasn't provided a first thing for the Vine Walls to contain. But the sentence has provided a first thing for the spaces to contain, which is the Vine Walls themselves. So the pronoun refers to "spaces." Separate the 2nd clause from the 1st and you get: "This Swamp Archer may shoot through spaces ... that do not ... contain Units."

    If it said "spaces containing Vine Walls that do not contain Units," you might be able to argue it's only requiring the Vine Wall to not contain a Unit. But the presence of the word "also" makes it clear that it's requiring the space itself, not the Vine Wall, to not contain a Unit. The Vine Wall is a Unit, the space contains the Vine Wall, ergo the space contains a Unit and VINEMANCER THREAD says that it doesn't trigger.
    Does this not count as parsing the text?
    Ask me about the Summoner Wars VASSAL group chat!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,843

    Default

    Good point, I did miss this. Thanks for pointing it out. A little tired tonight. Will take a look tomorrow and see what I think (not like I'm the judge).

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •