| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've been combing through the forums looking for some enlightenment on this, but so far have only found:
Which doesn't quite try to address the question I'm wondering (though the answer to that would certainly impact this).
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated
It's that vice versa that is throwing me off. Does that mean:
"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or reverse order) is temporarily negated" That would mean that it doesn't matter which order what is brought into what, the daylight is negated.
-OR-
"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness is temporarily negated. Magical darkness brought into an area of Daylight is temporarily negated." Meaning defender wins out.
Personally I'm so used to using vice versa to mean order doesn't matter, so I'm leaning towards the former.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Remember to finish the sentence, as that will help you figure out the meaning:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
See that? The rules define the result of the situation: the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
Now, which of your interpretations fits the entirety of the rule?
Answer: neither.
Try this instead: Whenever daylight and an area of magical darkness overlap, BOTH are negated within the area of overlap.
Hope that helps!
EDIT: Ninja'd.
Yeah, I was under the same impression as SNO_75, since the Daylight was negated the magical darkness would be a prevailing (won out over the daylight) light condition.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It says nothing about the magical darkness being negated
Sure it does; that's what the "vice versa" clause means.
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness is negated, and magical darkness brought into daylight is negated.
Both get negated.
That's also the only thing that "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" can mean: the light conditions before either spell got involved. If only one spell were negated, you wouldn't need to say anything about the resulting light level.
Your interpretations would certainly make this a lot more clear, so if that is the case that would make my life easier. But, wouldn't the "or vice versa" likely read "and vice versa" if both were negated?
Actually, wait. It can't be the case that both would be dispelled because only one can be brought into the other. Either Daylight must be brought into magical darkness or the magical darkness brought into the Daylight.
Edit: I'm going to sit on this and think a bit, to make sure I'm not being too specific.
Your interpretations would certainly make this a lot more clear, so if that is the case that would make my life easier. But, wouldn't the "or vice versa" likely read "and vice versa" if both were negated?Not if you read "vice versa" as referring to bringing one area of effect into another. In that case, the and would mean both needed to be moving.
Then wouldn't it be "are temporarily negated" and not "is temporarily negated"? It seems this clause is written, at least in terms of the negation, in singular fashion..
Actually, wait. It can't be the case that both would be dispelled because only one can be brought into the other. Either Daylight must be brought into magical darkness or the magical darkness brought into the Daylight.
Edit: I'm going to sit on this and think a bit, to make sure I'm not being too specific.
Neither is being dispelled. Both are negated where they overlap, regardless of which is moved. That leaves the light in the area of overlap what it would be if neither spell was present.
Where they overlap, they cancel out. That's all.
Edited to make more clear:
Sorry, I meant negated. But my question still stands. It says when Daylight is brought into magical darkness. Only one can be "brought into" another, so that thing that happens can only happen to one of them at a time.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says when thing brought into thing it is negated. Only one can be "brought into" another, so that thing that happens can only happen to one of them at a time.
If I say that I "came into contact with" a substance, does that mean that I was the one who was physically moving and initiated that contact? No, the phrase can still be used even if I was sitting still and someone else splashed the substance onto me. I wouldn't have to turn it around and say that the substance came into contact with me.
In the same way, saying that Spell A was "brought into an area of" Spell B does not require that Spell A is the one that was moving. It simply requires that they met. In fact, it doesn't even require movement at all; one could be cast right next to the other and have the same result, with neither of them moving around.
Sorry, I'm not disputing that it can be read that way, I just think it ignores how things are typically read.
There is a much more concise way to say that, one of which you already mentioned in your first post. Also, that would require to read the or in "or vice versa" as an inclusive or which is atypical of how it's normally read. And lastly you'd still have to deal with the singular is in "is temporarily negated". It just seems to me that the intent of the writer was not to say both are negated.
I'll think about it some more and see if I can get to where you are, but right now I'm just not there. (I'm really trying here, I generally trust your input on things Jiggy)
I'm not ignoring that part, and there is as much point to when one is negated as there would be with two. In fact, I'd argue it makes slightly more sense with only one being negated because of the word prevail, and the plural "light conditions."
Edit: How would it be there is no point to that clause with only one negated, and there is a point with both negated? Without it being there just to explain what negated means?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This interpretation can be further backed up by a portion of the Darkness spell descriptor "Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness." This means that a Spell Level 3 Continual Flame would have no effect in an area of Spell Level 3 Deeper Darkness but the Deeper Darkness spell would retain it's full effect.
Good observation on darkness, but you came to the wrong conclusion.
Remember, the wording in darkness about only increasing the light level if higher level applies to EVERY magical light source. That means that when you have a specific light spell that has its own special clause about interacting with magical darkness, it has to mean something else. If the clause in daylight were just a restating of the clause in darkness, it wouldn't need to have been written at all. You don't add lines to a spell description to restate what's already true, using different terminology. You either leave it out entirely, or give a reminder using existing terminology.
So the fact that darkness already has an "I win" clause governing how it interacts with light spells categorically, we know that daylight's mutual-negation clause must be something else; a new, unique effect.
Also, this might be helpful.
Reading this now, but to answer your "why restate the already stated" question. It isn't a restatement. By a reading of Daylight's clause it could be that it's saying that even though I'm higher level than Darkness, I still lose.
This guide did have a link to a spell I hadn't seen, Unwelcome Halo, which has a similar but different clause to Daylight.
If unwelcome halo is brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa), the effects of both spells are temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist within the overlapping fields of effect.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And this is the key point of the statement because it seems to give Darkness, a level 2 spell, the ability to negate DaylightAlso, this might be helpful.Reading this now, but to answer your "why restate the already stated" question. It isn't a restatement. By a reading of Daylight's clause it could be that it's saying that even though I'm higher level than Darkness, I still lose.
But also allows daylight to negate even a Heightened deeper darkness.
Which was written much later, and clearly emulating daylight.
If that is the case then why change the text? And why not issue a FAQ or an errata?
|
Light can be used to counter or dispel any darkness spell of equal or lower spell level.
This text means that this particular spell, Light, can be used to counter or dispel any spell with the [darkness] descriptor, so long as that spell is equal or lower level than Light.
Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
This text means that this particular spell, Darkness, can be used to counter or dispel any spell with the [light] descriptor, so long as that spell is equal or lower level than Darkness.
But, Darkness has another clause that people often forget about:
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than Darkness.
So, although a Light spell Heightened to 2nd level could "counter or dispel" Darkness, if the two spells instead had any overlapping areas of effect, Darkness would win out.
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
This text implies a general rule that [light] descriptor spells counter and dispel [darkness] descriptor spells of equal or lower level (which would mean [light] spells actually have the upper hand in that regard).
Deeper Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Similar to regular Darkness, this text means that Deeper Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any spell with the [light] descriptor, so long as that spell is equal or lower level than Deeper Darkness.
Likewise, since Deeper Darkness also states that it "functions as Darkness", the same 'overlap clause' of Darkness would remain true: Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than Deeper Darkness.
The only way that a Continual Flame spell's area of effect could brighten up an area of Deeper Darkness would be if it had been Heightened to 4th level or higher, for example.
Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness.
Similar to regular Light, this text means that Daylight can be used to counter or dispel any spell with the [darkness] descriptor, so long as that spell is equal or lower level than Daylight.
: since these are all touch spells, the "counter or dispel" clause is largely irrelevant. That's why Daylight's 'overlap clause' is so special. It differs from the 'overlap clause' of Darkness:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
So, where as Darkness would remain in effect in the radius of a Light spell, because the former is of a higher level than the latter, and a 3rd level Continual Flame spell would remain in effect in the radius of a Darkness spell (for the same reason), something different happens when a [darkness] descriptor spell overlaps Daylight: both are temporarily negated in the overlapping area of effect.
Even the 9th level [darkness] spell Polar Midnight fears an interaction with Daylight.
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
I still don't see how people get to both being negated in overlapping areas from that.
If both are negated then how are the natural light conditions "otherwise prevailing?" If it meant that then it would say "so that the otherwise existing light conditions prevail."
"otherwise prevailing" means whichever condition was the "other" of the two presented from before the comma prevailed. The use of Prevailing means something had to prevail, and the only things that could in this case are Daylight and magical darkness, since they are the only two things that could qualify for the otherwise condition.
Also, I think that answers my first question.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.I still don't see how people get to both being negated in overlapping areas from that.
If both are negated then how are the natural light conditions "otherwise prevailing?" If it meant that then it would say "so that the otherwise existing light conditions prevail."
"otherwise prevailing" means whichever condition was the "other" of the two presented from before the comma prevailed. The use of Prevailing means something had to prevail, and the only that could in this case are Daylight and magical darkness, since they are the only two things that could qualify for the otherwise condition.
That's not what "prevailing" means. It doesn't have to be either the daylight or the magical darkness.
"Otherwise prevailing". The "otherwise" means "if not for this situation we just described". So you're looking for "what was the case before either of these spells got introduced?".
"Prevailing" simply refers to what was the final, net result. It doesn't mean there had to have been some sort of contest with one side failing and the other prevailing. "Prevailing" can simply mean what's currently active, accepted, or in favor. For example, a question without a definitively-resolved answer can still have a "prevailing theory" (the theory most commonly held). In fact, I just looked up "prevailing" on dictionary.com and the top definitions include "predominant" and "generally current".
So no, the "otherwise prevailing light conditions" are not "the light conditions that won this little contest between these two spells". The "otherwise prevailing light conditions" are "the light conditions that would be currently predominant if not for these two spells that just negated each other".
I wonder if perhaps misunderstanding of the term "prevailing" is the original source of your confusion?
There are a lot of things that lead to me coming to the same conclusion that it can't be both that are negated.
-The placement of the vice versa.
--If the placement came after the "is negated" or even at the end of whole clause I'd buy what you're saying in a heartbeat.
-The use of or vice versa instead of and vice versa.
--Like I said, or is exclusive meaning only one of these things can happen. It could be that the trigger is whenever one these happen then the effect happens, but that leads to the next point..
-The singular "is temporarily negated" rather than "are temporarily negated" (which honestly is the point I'm having the hardest time overcoming).
--Just look at Unwelcome Halo and note that they use are instead of is there, because more than one thing is being negated.
-And yes, still that use of prevailing.
--But only because of the use of the word otherwise directly before it. Which I still take to mean the condition other than the one negated. This is important because it means that if Polar Midnight is negated, only its light conditions are negated and not its cold damage.
Unless something new comes forward, I think we might just have to agree to disagree. =p
Agree?
To spell out the clause as I'm reading it:
Daylight, brought into an area of magical darkness, or magical darkness brought into an area of Daylight, is temporarily negated.
I think where we disagree that "brought into" must mean that one is brought into the other so that only one "is temporarily negated".
The reason Unwelcome Halo works is because it specifically says "the effects of both spells are temporarily negated." The important distinction being Unwelcome Halo has the words "both are." Edit: Even though only one is brought into the other, both are negated.
Edit: to further clarify my initial question I'm asking which of these is the case:
Daylight, brought into an area of magical darkness, or magical darkness brought into an area of Daylight, is temporarily negated.
-OR-
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness, or magical darkness brought into an area of Daylight, is temporarily negated.
The first reads something like:
Daylight when brought into magical darkness or when magical darkness is brought into it is temporarily negated. Which means Daylight touching magical darkness is temporarily negated.
The second reads something like:
If Daylight is brought into magical darkness it is temporarily negated, but if magical darkness is brought into Daylight it is temporarily negated.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have just slightly-off understandings of a handful of linguistic constructs, adding up to a series of incorrect interactions with a ripple effect that produces a wrong final conclusion.
For instance, the "is negated" versus "are negated" thing. All you're seeing is that "is = singular" and "are = plural", but that's an incomplete understanding of english. There can be grammatically-correct times to say (for instance) "family are" or "them is", based on other constructions within the sentence, even though normally the word "family" is singular and the word "them" is plural.
In the case of the Daylight thing, the use of "is" instead of "are" has to do with how the sentence was built with the "vice versa" clause. The use of "vice versa" in place of spelling out the second possibility causes the event to be a pair of singulars instead of one plural.
"Daylight brought into X is negated."
"Magical darkness brought into X is negated."
In both sentences, "is" is appropriate because within that clause the statement is singular.
Now, put them together into one sentence:
"Daylight brought into X is negated, and darkness brought into X is negated."
Since each verb is in a separate clause, "is" is still the appropriate verb.
Now, since "daylight" and "darkness" are each other's X's in the above sentence, we can shorten it further by listing one phrase explicitly and referencing the other with shorthand: the "vice versa" clause. But since "vice versa" is a stand-in for a singular clause, and the clause that's written out is also singular, the correct verb for each of them is still "is".
We have an "is" for the first condition, and an "is" for the second condition. Because of our "vice versa", there are actually two uses of "is", even though only one is printed. That's where your missing plurality can be found.
I would go on, but I have to go home. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think that works. "Daylight brought into X is negated, and darkness brought into X is negated" still leaves only one thing negated, since only one is being brought into at a time. The one that moved.
See my earlier post about how this works in the same manner as how "come into contact with" is mutual, rather than referring only to the thing that's moving.
Hey Jiggy, just got back home and spent some time reading over this.
I can agree to it constructing to say: "Daylight brought into X is negated, and darkness brought into X is negated."
But even then, I'd just second what thejeff said. In that case only one can be brought into another at a time.
Going to requote what you said earlier so we don't have to go digging around for it.
If I say that I "came into contact with" a substance, does that mean that I was the one who was physically moving and initiated that contact? No, the phrase can still be used even if I was sitting still and someone else splashed the substance onto me. I wouldn't have to turn it around and say that the substance came into contact with me.
In the same way, saying that Spell A was "brought into an area of" Spell B does not require that Spell A is the one that was moving. It simply requires that they met. In fact, it doesn't even require movement at all; one could be cast right next to the other and have the same result, with neither of them moving around.
I'm fairly certain that brought requires movement. If Darkness was in an area and someone brought Daylight into it, it is not the case that Darkness was brought to the Daylight.
Saying I brought my car to the store is not the same as saying I brought the store to my car.
Nothing is saying that a moving light spell is weaker, it would just be saying that the defender wins.
Also, if they both negate each other why would you ever use Daylight to dispel an equal or lower level darkness spell? The only time when doing so would make sense is if casting Daylight and bringing it into an area of darkness didn't work.
Edit: I guess you could argue that the dispel is permanent rather than temporary and it would remove the additional effects of the spell. But, those are both very fringe things to do.
I'd agree, but for me it doesn't appear to be the intent of the negation clause at all. Unwelcome Halo clearly intends for both to be negated, Daylight doesn't clearly intend anything.
Also, even if both are moving, one enters the other. Nothing in initiative (as far as I'm aware) can happen at the same moment. All actions happen at discrete moments.
But even then, I'd just second what thejeff said. In that case only one can be brought into another at a time.
Are you familiar with the concept of relativity?
What if both the darkness and daylight effects are moving--say, they both target moving objects that move to overlap one another? Which effect is brought "into" the other?
But even then, I'd just second what thejeff said. In that case only one can be brought into another at a time.Are you familiar with the concept of relativity?
What if both the darkness and daylight effects are moving--say, they both target moving objects that move to overlap one another? Which effect is brought "into" the other?
The one that happens first in initiative.
Then the question needs to be asked. Stationary compared to what? The local environment? The planet?
I'm not sure what the theory of relativity or frames of reference have to do with this conversation. Those are real world ideas, and this is a game with rules.
Those rules include a system for determining the order in which things happen. During initiative everything happens at its own unique moment so that only one thing can ever be "brought into" another.
If a actor on the board moves on their turn, and then moves on their next turn, they're only moving during their initiative, they aren't moving in between their turns. You can't take move actions outside of your initiative so you can't be moving except for during your own turn.