|
|
Post by TheDavii on Jan 16, 2019 21:32:51 GMT -5
This is a variant of a question Marek14 had for me:
I have Trip's Trips (Fantastic) down and saved. I also have these five cards down in The Bunny Circle: Blue Congenial Bunny, Blue Timid Bunny, Blue Sinister Bunny, Yellow Sinister Bunny and Violet Sinister Bunny.
How many cards can I play on my turn because of these cards (not including any Ranks [HERB/HORB] or playing Specials or Very Specials directly from in-hand) and (most importantly), why (looking for reasoning for answers)?
|
|
|
|
Post by mahobear8 on Jan 17, 2019 17:39:13 GMT -5
This is a variant of a question Marek14 had for me: I have Trip's Trips (Fantastic) down and saved. I also have these five cards down in The Bunny Circle: Blue Congenial Bunny, Blue Timid Bunny, Blue Sinister Bunny, Yellow Sinister Bunny and Violet Sinister Bunny. How many cards can I play on my turn because of these cards (not including any Ranks [HERB/HORB] or playing Specials or Very Specials directly from in-hand) and (most importantly), why (looking for reasoning for answers)? There are several variables to consider with the possible answers I've determined being 2, 3, or 4. Here's my take on each answer 2: This interpretation is under the assumptions that each bunny can only be in one triplet and that this effect replaces the standard triplet benefit rather than adding to it. (Since the player only has one full triplet, the player will use his normal 2 cards per turn) 3: There are 2 potential interpretations for calculating three cards. Either you assume that bunnies can be used for multiple triplets and it replaces the normal triplet benefit (The player has 2 triplets with the Blue Sinister in both, the player will use his normal 1 card per turn + 2 for the triplets), or you assume that each bunny can only be in one triplet and the effect adds on to the normal triplet benefits (The player only has one full triplet, the player will use his normal 2 cards by triplet rules + 1 for each triplet). 4: Naturally, you calculate 4 if you assume bunnies can be used for multiple triplets and it adds on to the normal triplet benefits. Personally, I find the interpretations that assume bunnies can be used for multiple triplets less likely to be the intended rule interpretation for balance reasons. The reason for this is consider the following realistic starting scenario (Double Free Agent, Blue Sinister, Blue Timid, Blue Congenial). With this assumption, you already have 4 triplets with only 4 bunnies (DF + BS, DF + BT, DF + BC, BS + BT + BC). Even more dangerous, although I don't expect anyone would argue for it, would be the assumption of counting the same bunnies multiple times if they had multiple triplets. Same scenario, let's say the Double Free Agent is being considered a Double Blue Sinister. This dangerous assumption would create yet another triplet, meaning 5 (DF + BS<Sinister Triplet>, DF + BS<Blue Triplet>). Recall that this is a realistic starting scenario of the initial point of Trip Trips. In practice, the more cards being played means that this triplet number grows extremely rapidly. Considering that, imagine the number of triplets counted once you add multiple Free Agents to the mix. Even without this more dangerous assumption, allowing multiple triplets per bunny means that within a few turns, after buying back every free agent from the discard, you quickly are playing ridiculous amounts of cards each turn, growing exponentially until a very terrible misfortune is drawn because your opponents will have a very hard time dealing with it. Because of this, I think the safest assumption is not counting bunnies for multiple triplets, meaning the answer is 2 or 3. As for the assumption of adding or replacing the standard triplet functionality, I think valid arguments can be made for both interpretations, however, taken literally, I think adding to it is more likely meaning my final answer is 3. Finally, we have a few more thing to consider. The bunny bits say "Other situations (such as owning certain groups of Zodiac cards) do not allow the player to play extra cards." Because of this, I tend to say that Pawns wouldn't count for Trips Trips either since it's not a "natural triplet" (not made of just bunnies). This is arguable however as the bunny bits for pawns describe them as completing bunny triplets. For sure, Super Bunnies would fall under the category, "other situations," as they are not described as being a bunny triplet in the bunny bits. ("The player with a Super Bunny in The Bunny Circle may automatically play two cards per turn."). The Quintuple Celebrity Bunny is also a special case, although I would personally interpret it as 2 triplets when paired with a single celebrity. This again is somewhat arguable. |
|
|
|
Post by TheDavii on Jan 18, 2019 8:57:55 GMT -5
This is a variant of a question Marek14 had for me: I have Trip's Trips (Fantastic) down and saved. I also have these five cards down in The Bunny Circle: Blue Congenial Bunny, Blue Timid Bunny, Blue Sinister Bunny, Yellow Sinister Bunny and Violet Sinister Bunny. How many cards can I play on my turn because of these cards (not including any Ranks [HERB/HORB] or playing Specials or Very Specials directly from in-hand) and (most importantly), why (looking for reasoning for answers)? There are several variables to consider with the possible answers I've determined being 2, 3, or 4. Here's my take on each answer 2: This interpretation is under the assumptions that each bunny can only be in one triplet and that this effect replaces the standard triplet benefit rather than adding to it. (Since the player only has one full triplet, the player will use his normal 2 cards per turn) 3: There are 2 potential interpretations for calculating three cards. Either you assume that bunnies can be used for multiple triplets and it replaces the normal triplet benefit (The player has 2 triplets with the Blue Sinister in both, the player will use his normal 1 card per turn + 2 for the triplets), or you assume that each bunny can only be in one triplet and the effect adds on to the normal triplet benefits (The player only has one full triplet, the player will use his normal 2 cards by triplet rules + 1 for each triplet). 4: Naturally, you calculate 4 if you assume bunnies can be used for multiple triplets and it adds on to the normal triplet benefits. Personally, I find the interpretations that assume bunnies can be used for multiple triplets less likely to be the intended rule interpretation for balance reasons. The reason for this is consider the following realistic starting scenario (Double Free Agent, Blue Sinister, Blue Timid, Blue Congenial). With this assumption, you already have 4 triplets with only 4 bunnies (DF + BS, DF + BT, DF + BC, BS + BT + BC). Even more dangerous, although I don't expect anyone would argue for it, would be the assumption of counting the same bunnies multiple times if they had multiple triplets. Same scenario, let's say the Double Free Agent is being considered a Double Blue Sinister. This dangerous assumption would create yet another triplet, meaning 5 (DF + BS<Sinister Triplet>, DF + BS<Blue Triplet>). Recall that this is a realistic starting scenario of the initial point of Trip Trips. In practice, the more cards being played means that this triplet number grows extremely rapidly. Considering that, imagine the number of triplets counted once you add multiple Free Agents to the mix. Even without this more dangerous assumption, allowing multiple triplets per bunny means that within a few turns, after buying back every free agent from the discard, you quickly are playing ridiculous amounts of cards each turn, growing exponentially until a very terrible misfortune is drawn because your opponents will have a very hard time dealing with it. Because of this, I think the safest assumption is not counting bunnies for multiple triplets, meaning the answer is 2 or 3. As for the assumption of adding or replacing the standard triplet functionality, I think valid arguments can be made for both interpretations, however, taken literally, I think adding to it is more likely meaning my final answer is 3. Finally, we have a few more thing to consider. The bunny bits say "Other situations (such as owning certain groups of Zodiac cards) do not allow the player to play extra cards." Because of this, I tend to say that Pawns wouldn't count for Trips Trips either since it's not a "natural triplet" (not made of just bunnies). This is arguable however as the bunny bits for pawns describe them as completing bunny triplets. For sure, Super Bunnies would fall under the category, "other situations," as they are not described as being a bunny triplet in the bunny bits. ("The player with a Super Bunny in The Bunny Circle may automatically play two cards per turn."). The Quintuple Celebrity Bunny is also a special case, although I would personally interpret it as 2 triplets when paired with a single celebrity. This again is somewhat arguable. 2: For this scenario, the card indicates "extra," so if one can play 2 cards per turn as a result of the Bunny Triplet, the "extra" card must be the third.
3: For this scenario, I believe it is the most defensible to indicate that each bunny participate in only one Bunny Triplet. This is consistent with other cards (e.g., Bunny Bowling, Blown Trojan). Because you're very right that DF + BS, DF + BT, DF + BC, BS + BT + BC is highly degenerate and would make the game spin wildly out of control and make it no fun for any players. I think the intent was an "extra" card for each Bunny Triplet.
For the "other situations," I believe that JB means that there are situations (like Zodiac Triplet) that a player can play two cards per turn. Super/Extra Super/Semi-Super bunny in The Bunny Circle is another one (allows a player to play two cards per turn, but is not a Bunny Triplet nor do these bunnies establish a Bunny Triplet). However, pawns are stand-ins for bunnies and if a Bunny Triplet is established with a pawn, I see no reason to exclude those if the Bunny Triplet is already counted for playing a second card each turn. (That is, if Carol has established a Bunny Triplet with a pawn and may play two cards per turn, and then saves Trip's Trips, she can play the third "extra" card.)
I'll write examples for the Trip's Trips entry for the next revision of the QCC.
4: The examples you give are good counter-examples to why this shouldn't be the answer. I think the game would implode quickly.
JB often goes with the simpler, more-straight-forward rulings (see the discussion on C.O.M.A. and Ranks). However, I do not agree with the strict literal interpretation of the rules. JB, JY and I (as part of the MagicCarrot March 2018 interview) discussed President Ficus. It can be attacked by weapons, yet every weapon says that it can be placed under any "bunny." (Not even "creature" as the language in KB Odyssey indicates.) Ficus isn't a bunny. Yet it can still be attacked by the weapons. Same with RRR cards or Follow the Queen. Because of these, QCC does not follow the most strict interpretation of the rules simply because we'd find a lot of contradictions.
Thanks for your response!
|
|
|
|
Post by mahobear8 on Jan 18, 2019 11:50:48 GMT -5
JB often goes with the simpler, more-straight-forward rulings (see the discussion on C.O.M.A. and Ranks). However, I do not agree with the strict literal interpretation of the rules. JB, JY and I (as part of the MagicCarrot March 2018 interview) discussed President Ficus. It can be attacked by weapons, yet every weapon says that it can be placed under any "bunny." (Not even "creature" as the language in KB Odyssey indicates.) Ficus isn't a bunny. Yet it can still be attacked by the weapons. Same with RRR cards or Follow the Queen. Because of these, QCC does not follow the most strict interpretation of the rules simply because we'd find a lot of contradictions.
Contradictions is not the term I'd use, but I see what you're getting at. There are many cases within the bunny bits where if some phrases take precedence over others, then unintentional mechanics are created. However, I think in most all of these cases, the one arguing for the incorrect interpretation should realize he's going against the intended rules if he was honest with himself. For example, obviously weapons could be played on President Ficus since Ficus says they can be. To argue that since weapons don't mention him they can't be is an interpretation that contradicts the rules of Ficus. Rather than contradictions, I'd tend to call these exceptions. The nice thing about exceptions is that in most cases, the exceptions are described in the bunny bits for each specific card. A simpler example that follows similar logic is if someone was to foolishly argue that Free Agent bunny can be Red. They would quote, "Free Agent bunny may be used by a player as any bunny of any kind (Congenial, Gleeful, Lumbering, Sinister or Timid) and any color," leaving out the obvious fact that the bunny bits literally say Free Agent cannot be Red. (I used a blatantly obvious example to emphasize how ridiculous it would be to argue Ficus can't be attacked by weapons) One can make anything say whatever they want when taken out of context. When taking the bunny bits literally, one must also take the context literally. In normal context, a weapon could only be played on a bunny, but when Ficus is out, he is also a valid target because he says he is. I think in most cases, these rules tend to be simple and obvious. From my experience, those who would tend to argue rules out of context are the same people who tend to argue rules differently for themselves than for their opponents, literally making up rules as they go. A situation that occurred in a 3 player game I had a couple years ago is I played Mad Donnelaith Bakery on an opponent and he had to feed the bunny 1/1. As we all know, Bakery is a feed immediately situation so the bunny would starve if he didn't have the necessary cabbage and water. My opponent decided to foolishly argue that since Large Prune Danish says "May be used once by a player to feed the bunny," he would be able to use it. Obviously, we all know that since the Large Prune Danish is a Special, there is no possible way for him to play it on my turn. However, he would not accept this rule and the worst part was, the 3rd player, also having never read the rules, decided to agree with him. Since it was 2 players against one, even though the 2 had never opened the rulebook, I decided to let him use it that time since the argument was getting heated and not making any progress. They refused to accept the correct rules until I showed them a JB response a few days later that proved them wrong. Even then, they thought the rule was dumb. Because of ridiculous situations like this, I appreciate the QCC. Even though I consider the bunny bits obvious in its rules 99% of the time, there are still those who would argue, even if they haven't ever looked at the rules, thus its nice to have another source that confirms everything. Thanks for the work you have done on it. It is very useful to the community |
|
|
|
Post by TheDavii on Apr 6, 2019 22:39:09 GMT -5
If I have Chipper Bunnies (1156), National Bunnies (1157), and Hazzardous Bunnies (1158), all of which are double Law Enforcement bunnies, how many Bunny Triplets do I have (for the purposes of Trip's Trips)?
Do I have 1 Bunny Triplet (3 Law Enforcement Bunny cards)?
Or do I have 2 Bunny Triplets (3 Law Enforcement Bunny cards each have two bunnies, so I have 6 bunnies down)?
I'm thinking the latter, but I want opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mahobear8 on Apr 7, 2019 18:06:31 GMT -5
If I have Chipper Bunnies (1156), National Bunnies (1157), and Hazzardous Bunnies (1158), all of which are double Law Enforcement bunnies, how many Bunny Triplets do I have (for the purposes of Trip's Trips)? Do I have 1 Bunny Triplet (3 Law Enforcement Bunny cards)? Or do I have 2 Bunny Triplets (3 Law Enforcement Bunny cards each have two bunnies, so I have 6 bunnies down)? I'm thinking the latter, but I want opinions. I'd definitely say 2 triplets since it's 3 double Law enforcement totalling 6 bunnies. It makes the most thematic sense, so Jeff would likely interpret it that way |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan454 on Apr 10, 2019 0:45:54 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
