Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Nannymeda and Poison

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

    Default Nannymeda and Poison

    If Nanny receives poison while separated (not too hard with Nikuya, since he can activate before a Daddy, I'm Scared can be played), does the poison maintain its effect once they're together again?

    Seems like it does, because what poison does is a basic game rule rather than a "card effect".

    What say ye?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gojaejin View Post
    If Nanny receives poison while separated (not too hard with Nikuya, since he can activate before a Daddy, I'm Scared can be played), does the poison maintain its effect once they're together again?

    Seems like it does, because what poison does is a basic game rule rather than a "card effect".

    What say ye?
    I'd say you're correct.
    Shard the Void Mutant in The Dance of Devils
    Nicholas the Honor Guard in Light's Corruption
    Talu the REAL TWIN in The Ice Wedding

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    [DISCLAIMER: ON REANALYSIS IN MY POSTS BELOW, I'VE CHANGED MY POSITION FROM MY POSITION IN THIS POST]

    Hm. Interesting. I'll offer a "legal analysis."

    My short answer is poison does not maintain its effect on Nanny when Nanny is adjacent to Meda.

    Poison has not been defined as a card effect, but it has not been defined as not a card effect. That it has not been officially defined as a card effect seems to be another oversight. When the "exhaustive" card effect list was being created in the Stout thread, there were many initial oversights by KC and everyone assisting with the list. Given past oversights, Meda was brand new when that list was created, and this “card effect” interaction is perhaps the most complicated card effect, it seems likely that this interaction was just missed and that’s why it wasn’t included on that list.

    At first take, it’s a reasonable argument that Poison in and of itself is not a card effect but is something like a “game effect.” You could look at the Card Effect/Stout list and argue that abilities resulting in Poison Markers are listed as card effects but Poison Markers themselves are not listed as card effects.

    But there are a few problems with that argument. First, as discussed above, it’s more likely than not that Poison is not listed as a “card effect” on the Card Effect/Stout list due to oversight.

    Second, there has been no development of a concept such as a “game effect” or whatever else it could be called, let alone development of a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect.” Moreover, the development of such a concept would be bad for the game, further complicating it with an unintuitive ruling. It would be a further complication because it creates two distinctions. First, it creates the distinction of “game effect” vs. “card effect.” This would be a further complication to the game because it’s obscure and unintuitive. It’s obscure because the distinction only seems to apply where Nanny is apart from Meda + Nanny gets poisoned + Nanny rejoins Meda’s side.

    It is unintuitive because the spirit of “cannot be effected by any card effect an opponent controls” is to make such unit impervious to anything the opponent tries to do to it. Given such spirit, wouldn’t it feel weird if Poison were the one thing such a Unit is not impervious to? Poison would become a loophole for “cannot be effected by any card effect an opponent controls.” In other words, “cannot be effected by any card effect an opponent controls” basically reads “cannot be effected by any card effect an opponent controls unless this Unit has Poison Markers and received those Poison Markers when this Unit could be effected by any card effect an opponent controls.” This kind of result is the same kind of unintuitive and poor ruling as the ruling allowing a Unit that cannot move to use an instead of moving ability.

    Coincidentally, a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect” creates a distinction between between an ability and the ability’s result. More concretely, it would mean that the abilities Nikuya Na’s Poison Cloud, Makgongo’s Poisoned Daggers, JE Hunter’s Poison Shot, would be considered card effects, but that the Poison Marker resulting from those abilities are not card effects. More than anything, this distinction is also unintuitive and conflicts with the understanding of “card effect.” It would mean the ability in and of itself is considered a card effect and that the result of the ability is not considered a card effect. How can the result of the ability not be considered a card effect? Isn’t the result of an ability the clearest definition of a card effect? So a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect” would consequently result in an additional distinction between “ability” and “ability result/effect,” which is nonsensical. For these reasons, a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect” would be bad for the game.

    Beyond the distinction between “game effect” and “card effect,” a third problem with the argument that Poison in and of itself is not a card effect but it is the abilities granting poison that are card effects, is that this requires card effects to be abilities. But card effects do not have to be abilities. The “roll-to-move off a vine wall + possible vine wall damage” has been defined as a card effect even though it is not related to an ability. As non-abilities, Poison Markers seem a perfect analogy to vine walls.

    Therefore, I don’t see sufficient justification to rule Poison Markers are not card effects. There is no benefit to ruling Poison Markers are not card effects. To the contrary, to rule Poison Markers are not card effects would be deeply unintuitive. For these reasons, I’d rule that Poison Markers are card effects.

    As a result, Nanny may be poisoned only when she is apart from Meda; when she rejoins Meda’s side, those Poison Markers have no effect as poison; Poison Markers on Nanny when Nanny rejoins Meda’s side would be considered normal Wound Markers, as the only alternative is to consider the Poison Markers non-existent and that seems unjust and against the understanding of Poison Markers as Wound Markers+ (Wound Marker + poison effect.)
    Last edited by commandercool; 06-27-2018 at 02:27 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    Hm. Interesting. I'll offer a "legal analysis."

    My short answer is poison does not maintain its effect on Nanny when Nanny is adjacent to Meda.

    ...
    Uhm, I'm not persuaded. The way I see it, a card effect is something written on a card, and a poison marker isn't. In everithing it acts as a peculiar (enhanced) type of damage token, not a card effect. The card effect is the one that place them and that can be denied by Nanny's ability, but once they are there they simply work as axpected.

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    Coincidentally, a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect” creates a distinction between between an ability and the ability’s result. More concretely, it would mean that the abilities Nikuya Na’s Poison Cloud, Makgongo’s Poisoned Daggers, JE Hunter’s Poison Shot, would be considered card effects, but that the Poison Marker resulting from those abilities are not card effects. More than anything, this distinction is also unintuitive and conflicts with the understanding of “card effect.” It would mean the ability in and of itself is considered a card effect and that the result of the ability is not considered a card effect. How can the result of the ability not be considered a card effect? Isn’t the result of an ability the clearest definition of a card effect? So a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect” would consequently result in an additional distinction between “ability” and “ability result/effect,” which is nonsensical. For these reasons, a distinction between “game effect” and “card effect” would be bad for the game.
    On the countrary, this is how most ability seem to work. As an example, you can harm Nanny with Eilen ability or even wth Greater Burn if she is far away from Meda , and the wound would stay after she rejoins the summoner, because the wounds are not part of the card effect: it merely place them, and after that they exist in place. The placing can be denied, the marker and his effect cannot.
    Last edited by Fing80; 06-27-2018 at 08:25 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    454

    Default

    My 2 cents, Nanny stays poisoned. I don't think I would ever even consider it going the other way, as it just doesn't feel right.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fing80 View Post
    Uhm, I'm not persuaded.
    That’s fair. And on reanalysis, I think Nanny remains poisoned, but not for the reasons you state.

    A card effect is something written on a card, and a poison marker isn't.
    In order to respond to this point, I’m going to first start with another point of yours. What you write is not what a card effect is, and my response to you works better starting with this next point of yours:

    As an example, you can harm Nanny with Eilen ability or even wth Greater Burn if she is far away from Meda , and the wound would stay after she rejoins the summoner, because the wounds are not part of the card effect: it merely place them, and after that they exist in place. The placing can be denied, the marker and his effect cannot.
    This is a wrong interpretation of Greater Burn. The Wounds placed by Greater Burn ARE the card effect. We know this because you can choose Nanny-Meda/STOUT unit with Greater Burn, but it is does not receive the Wounds. You are able to choose Nanny-Meda/STOUT units with card effects but you cannot affect them with card effects. Nanny-Meda/STOUT language does not say such Units cannot be chosen by enemy card effects—it says they cannot be affected by enemy card effects.

    By your interpretation of Greater Burn, Nanny-Meda/STOUT units cannot even be chosen by Greater Burn because you’re defining the choosing as the card effect. But the choosing is not what has been defined as the card effect.

    Additionally, your interpretation of Greater Burn leads to an interpretation against plain language: Greater Burn is the card and the Wound Markers that are placed are the effect of that card. Your interpretation, instead, would say that Greater Burn is both the card and the effect while the placed Wounds are neither card nor effect.

    Properly calling Greater Burn Wound Markers a card effect can feel weird when Nanny-unMeda rejoins Meda’s side. The analysis is strange because we all (probably) agree you treat those Wound Markers as still existing. However, when considering why we treat those Wound Markers as still existing, we all (probably) are confused. Because we know the Wounds are the “card effect,” the issue is not whether the Wounds are a “card effect,” but what is meant by the term “cannot be affected by.”

    Because we know that Nanny-unMeda wounded by Greater Burn continues to have those Wound Markers when Nanny rejoins Meda’s side, “cannot be affected by” cannot mean “cannot currently by enemy card effects and ceases to be affected by Wound Markers caused to this Unit while this Unit was able to be affected by card effects.” Otherwise, you’d ignore Wound Markers on Nanny-Meda that were placed on Nanny-unMeda as the result of Greater Burn.

    But does “cannot be affected by” mean “cannot currently by enemy card effects and ceases to be affected by card effects caused to this Unit while this Unit was able to be affected by card effects?” It does seem to mean this. Otherwise, if Nanny is apart from Meda when Abua Shi plays Chant of Negation, then Nanny could rejoin Meda’s side and Nanny and Meda would regain their abilities, which is clearly wrong.

    Then there is a minor problem: how do we reconcile “cannot be affected by” meaning: (1) “cannot currently by enemy card effects does not mean ceases to be affected by Wound Markers caused to this Unit while this Unit was able to be affected by card effects;” and (2) “cannot currently by enemy card effects and ceases to be affected by card effects caused to this Unit while this Unit was able to be affected by card effects.”

    The only way is to say that Wound Markers inflicted by Greater Burn are not, in that moment Nanny-unMeda rejoins Nanny’s side, card effects. Otherwise, you’d have to say Nanny-Meda ignores those Wound Markers that were placed on Nanny-unMeda by Greater Burn, or you’d have to say if Nanny is apart from Meda when Abua Shi plays Chant of Negation, then Nanny could rejoin Meda’s side and Nanny and Meda would regain their abilities. And both are wrong.

    But this creates another minor problem: how do we reconcile saying Wound Markers inflicted by Greater Burn are not, in that moment Nanny-unMeda rejoins Nanny’s side, card effects and saying that Wound Markers placed by Greater Burn are card effects? The only way is to say that the moment when Greater Burn causes Wound Markers to be placed, those Wound Markers are considered card effects, but later during Meda’s turn, they are not considered card effects. Otherwise, you’d have to say to either say those Wound Markers placed by Greater Burn are not card effects or that Nanny-unMeda that rejoins Meda’s side gets to ignore those Wound Markers, with both options being clearly wrong.

    But at what moment do those Wound Markers placed by Greater Burn change from a card effect to a non-card effect? It has to be immediately after that action. Otherwise, with card effects other than Greater Burn that occurring during Movement Phase (I can’t think of an example) or Attack Phase (Storm Mage’s Call Lightning), Meda would be able to use Daddy I’m Scared, move Meda next to Nanny-unMeda, and Nanny-unMeda would be able to ignore Wound Markers that took place as result of said card effect. And that’s clearly wrong.

    And it gets even more complicated. You have to distinguish between card effects that are one-and-done (Greater Burn) or ongoing (Tinkerer’s Null Machine). You have to say that card effects that are one-and-done cease to be card effects immediately after that action while ongoing card effects continue to be card effects until the time when that card effect ceases (with Tinkerer, Null Machine ceases at the beginning of Tinkerer controller’s next turn). Otherwise, Tinkerer could use Null Machine on Nanny-unMeda, Meda controller could play Daddy I’m Scared during Tinkerer controller’s turn after Tinkerer uses Null Machine on Nanny-unMeda, move Nanny adjacent to Nanny, and Nanny could ignore Null Machine and regain her ability. And that can’t be right.
    Last edited by commandercool; 06-27-2018 at 02:26 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fing80 View Post
    a card effect is something written on a card, and a poison marker isn’t
    This argument is critically flawed. It assumes a card effect must be a card with an effect. This is wrong because card effects do not have to be cards with effects. Otherwise, Greater Burn in and of itself, and not the Wound Markers it places, is the card effect. If Greater Burn in and of itself, and not the Wound Markers, were the card effect, it would mean you could not even choose a Nanny-unMeda/STOUT Unit with it. But, as I discussed above, we know that’s wrong. We know that you can choose Nanny-unMeda/STOUT Unit with Greater Burn, just that it cannot receive the Wound Markers from Greater Burn. And moreover, we know that’s wrong because it doesn’t make sense with the plain language of the term “card effect:” the Wound Markers are an effect on a card.

    And that’s the right definition of “card effect:” an "effect" on a card. But what exactly is an “effect” on a card? It has to be defined as “doing something to a card other than an Attack.” This is a broad definition, but it has to be. Under my above discussion, we know the definition has to include “one-and-done effects” like Wound Markers inflicted by Greater Burn and include “ongoing effects” like Tinkerer’s Null Machine.

    The definition can't include an Attack because we know that Attacks in and of themselves are not card effects.

    And here is where the distinction between “one-and-done effects” and “ongoing effects” is essential as it relates to Poison Markers. Poison Markers have to be considered ongoing effects. The Poison Markers are doing something to a card (per Poison Marker Rules Card) and such things are being done until they cease (healing).

    For all of these reasons in this post and my above post, Poison Markers are “card effects.” Poison Markers are not cards, but they do not need to be cards--they merely need to "effect" a card. Defining “card effect” as needing to be a card with an effect misunderstands the definition of “card effect.” Again, a “card effect” is not a card with an "effect," but rather an “effect on a card.”

    Therefore, for all these reasons in this post, my above post, a Poison Marker on Nanny-unMeda, as an ongoing effect that has never ceased, continues to function as a Poison Marker on Nanny when Nanny rejoins Meda's side. Otherwise, Nanny could always rejoin Meda's side to ignore ongoing card effects like Chant of Negation, Null Machine, etc. And that's wrong, per my discussion in my above post.

    There. I know I've reanalyzed and changed my initial position. I hope I've solved the Nanny-unMeda-Poison and Nanny-unMeda-ongoing card effects problems once and for all. These are very complicated problems.
    Last edited by commandercool; 06-27-2018 at 02:26 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    454

    Default

    I think at some point years ago in a thread it was discussed that after a wound marker or poison marker is placed on a card it forgets (after that turn) where it came from and isn't considered enemy or friendly. (I might be wrong about this, as it is just what I remember)

    If Poison Mutant attacks (friendly fire!) Nanny and places the Poison markers, and then the opponent also gets poison markers on Nanny on their turn, how do you differentiate between the 2 poison markers when Nanny rejoins Meda? What about Sin-Sin controlling Poison Mutant for a turn and attacking Nanny?

    This is why I think the Poison Marker effect would always remain until healed some way.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    This argument is critically flawed. It assumes a card effect must be a card with an effect. This is wrong because card effects do not have to be cards with effects. Otherwise, Greater Burn in and of itself, and not the Wound Markers it places, is the card effect. If Greater Burn in and of itself, and not the Wound Markers, were the card effect, it would mean you could not even choose a Nanny-unMeda/STOUT Unit with it. But, as I discussed above, we know that’s wrong. We know that you can choose Nanny-unMeda/STOUT Unit with Greater Burn, just that it cannot receive the Wound Markers from Greater Burn. And moreover, we know that’s wrong because it doesn’t make sense with the plain language of the term “card effect:” the Wound Markers are an effect on a card.

    And that’s the right definition of “card effect:” an "effect" on a card. But what exactly is an “effect” on a card? It has to be defined as “doing something to a card other than an Attack.” This is a broad definition, but it has to be. Under my above discussion, we know the definition has to include “one-and-done effects” like Wound Markers inflicted by Greater Burn and include “ongoing effects” like Tinkerer’s Null Machine.

    The definition can't include an Attack because we know that Attacks in and of themselves are not card effects.

    And here is where the distinction between “one-and-done effects” and “ongoing effects” is essential as it relates to Poison Markers. Poison Markers have to be considered ongoing effects. The Poison Markers are doing something to a card (per Poison Marker Rules Card) and such things are being done until they cease (healing).

    For all of these reasons in this post and my above post, Poison Markers are “card effects.” Poison Markers are not cards, but they do not need to be cards--they merely need to "effect" a card. Defining “card effect” as needing to be a card with an effect misunderstands the definition of “card effect.” Again, a “card effect” is not a card with an "effect," but rather an “effect on a card.”

    Therefore, for all these reasons in this post, my above post, a Poison Marker on Nanny-unMeda, as an ongoing effect that has never ceased, continues to function as a Poison Marker on Nanny when Nanny rejoins Meda's side. Otherwise, Nanny could always rejoin Meda's side to ignore ongoing card effects like Chant of Negation, Null Machine, etc. And that's wrong, per my discussion in my above post.

    There. I know I've reanalyzed and changed my initial position. I hope I've solved the Nanny-unMeda-Poison and Nanny-unMeda-ongoing card effects problems once and for all. These are very complicated problems.
    Though I agree with the conclusions and in general with great part of your reasoning I think there's something that feels wrong in the fact you somewhat shift the sense of "card effect" from the source of the effect to it's target, which semantically seems odd.

    However I agree with the conclusion, as I said.
    For the sake of clarity, though, I would precise that I think you miunderstood (brobably because my poor wording) my point of view on the initial declaration. I say that because of this sentence of yours:

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    By your interpretation of Greater Burn, Nanny-Meda/STOUT units cannot even be chosen by Greater Burn because you’re defining the choosing as the card effect. But the choosing is not what has been defined as the card effect.
    My position about this matter is not that the choosing is the effect, but the act of placing the wounds is the effect. In other words the action you perform as a consequence of what's written on the card. That's why I said the wounds markers themselves are not the effect but a different entity that stays in game after the card effect is resolved and they live their own life, so to speak. Otherwise we should consider cards effect also Conjurations after they come into play by effect of an event, instead the "card effect" is their summoning, after that they are cards on their own.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Gwangju, South Korea
    Posts
    622

    Default

    I hope that my uncanny ability to dig up contentious questions of law will be taken under strong consideration during the upcoming Supreme Court nomination. :-D

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •