[LSJ] Terra Incognita

Vampire A controlled by my grandpredator bleeds, Vamp B (non-Laibon) controlled by my predator plays Redirection to me. I have a tapped Laibon Vamp. Can this vampire play Wake wEF followed by Terra Incognita to cancel the Redirection? Thanks, dvorax.

[ quoted text not captured ] So me playing Wake doesn't close the "as played" window, right? (Would it close the window, I couldn't legally play Terra Incognita to cancel the Redirection.) If my assumption about the cancelling process is right, here are some more questions: 1) Can I play Forced Awakening hopping to draw a Terra Incognita? 2) Can I squeze another reaction card between Wake and Terra Incognita? (e.g. Folderol) If not, what exactly makes Wake so special in this situation (not closing the "as played" window)?

dvorax wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > dvorax wrote: > > > Vampire A controlled by my grandpredator bleeds, Vamp B (non-Laibon) > > > controlled by my predator plays Redirection to me. I have a tapped > > > Laibon Vamp. Can this vampire play Wake wEF followed by Terra Incognita > > > to cancel the Redirection? > > > > Yes. > > So me playing Wake doesn't close the "as played" window, right? No play can close a window. Wake can be played in the "as played" window, yes. > If my assumption about the cancelling process is right, here are some > more questions: > 1) Can I play Forced Awakening hopping to draw a Terra Incognita? Sure. > 2) Can I squeze another reaction card between Wake and Terra Incognita? > (e.g. Folderol) No. Not unless that reaction is one that can be played in the "as played" window. > If not, what exactly makes Wake so special in this > situation (not closing the "as played" window)? Wake makes itself special. See also Wake to Rewind Time.

LSJ wrote: > dvorax wrote: > > 2) Can I squeze another reaction card between Wake and Terra Incognita? > > (e.g. Folderol) > > No. Not unless that reaction is one that can be played in the "as > played" window. > > > If not, what exactly makes Wake so special in this > > situation (not closing the "as played" window)? > > Wake makes itself special. See also Wake to Rewind Time. On a related note, I looked for an answer to the following question but couldn't find one. I'm surprised it hasn't come up yet, actually. Can a tapped imbued be untapped with Angel of Berlin in order to play Determine to cancel a card, or does Angel also not fit into the "as played" window? John Eno

invisibl...@gmail.com wrote: > Can a tapped imbued be untapped with Angel of Berlin in order to play > Determine to cancel a card, or does Angel also not fit into the "as > played" window? The latter. Angel is not a "may play reaction cards as if untapped" effect.

[ quoted text not captured ] Gotcha (and this explanation clears up for me why you can use Wake to play another "cancel as played" card). Thanks. John Eno

On 18 Jul 2006 06:30:11 -0700, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > dvorax wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >> > dvorax wrote: >> > > Vampire A controlled by my grandpredator bleeds, Vamp B (non-Laibon) >> > > controlled by my predator plays Redirection to me. I have a tapped >> > > Laibon Vamp. Can this vampire play Wake wEF followed by Terra >> Incognita >> > > to cancel the Redirection? >> > >> > Yes. >> >> So me playing Wake doesn't close the "as played" window, right? > > No play can close a window. > Wake can be played in the "as played" window, yes. As a general statement this seems to contradict my understanding of how Seduction and similar "play-as-an-action-is-announced" cards work. My understanding was that after playing the action card I first have the window for the "play-as-an-action-is-announced" cards, and then for the normal modifiers. Playing a Threats, for example, closes the "play-as-an-action-is-announced" window, and prevents me from playing any such effect on the current action. -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optcwi5n...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] I think what Scott probably meant by "no play can close a window" is just that it's not by the playing of the card that the window becomes closed. Rather, the window must be closed first, (ie all Methuselahs must pass their priority for playing effects during whichever window it is) and then other card-plays (like Seduction or Threats in your example) become legal, because the window has now been declared closed. Josh whose windows don't even open, much less close

LSJ wrote: > dvorax wrote: > >>LSJ wrote: >> >>>dvorax wrote: >>> >>>>Vampire A controlled by my grandpredator bleeds, Vamp B (non-Laibon) >>>>controlled by my predator plays Redirection to me. I have a tapped >>>>Laibon Vamp. Can this vampire play Wake wEF followed by Terra Incognita >>>>to cancel the Redirection? >>> >>>Yes. >> >>So me playing Wake doesn't close the "as played" window, right? > > > No play can close a window. > Wake can be played in the "as played" window, yes. > Huh? Following your logic, why can´t I use the The Erciyes Fragments to put a D.I on it and cancel a card that is just being played? Where is the difference between using a tap effect and playing a Wake? -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay I'm confused about this answer. Doesn't Angel of Berlin physically untap the imbued. Therefore being physically untapped allows them to play reactions cards and so forth "as if untapped" because they are physically untapped?

In message <e9jomq$ci7$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >Huh? Following your logic, why can´t I use the The Erciyes Fragments to put a D.I on it and cancel a card that is just being played? >Where is the difference between using a tap effect and playing a Wake? Wake effects have been specifically ruled in as playable during the "as a card is played" step. Other cards haven't. Why Wakes should be special, what drives them being special, and why other cards shouldn't be special hasn't ever been adequately explained, to my knowledge. However: http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=39204 LSJ, responding to me: *** >2) Could I play Guard Dogs at this point with a Temporis and Animalism >bearing vampire? Could I play Babble with another vampire to untap my >Temporis vampire so that he can play Rewind Time? No. Only wakes have been designated as "special" to the "as played" window. *** Also: <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9cc4e ff2309c3e5> *** Special case: Wake is playable "as an action card is played" even if it would not normally be playable at that time if it were not a special case. *** -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

quetzalcoatl wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes but Determine needs to be played in the "as played" window and Angel of Berlin cannot be used in that window therefore you cannot play Angel and then Determine. WWEF and FA are "may play reaction cards as if untapped" effects and, for some reason, can be played in the "as played" window. Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] which seems totally out of synch and inconsistent with action modifiers, where it was ruled only modifiers that explicitly say they can be played as an action is announced can be played as an action is announced, and you have to wait until after that window to play other action modifiers. This reaction card case seems similar enough to me to warrant a parallel ruling, being only reaction cards that explicitly say they can be played as another card is played, um, can be. Well, that's what I'd do if i were the rules guy. And I can't remember which way the 'tap the barrens to get a new card as another card is played to try and draw something to cancel it' ruling ended up going, but i am sure it could be relevant if someone could dig it up. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

James Coupe wrote: > Why Wakes should be special, what drives them being special, and why > other cards shouldn't be special hasn't ever been adequately explained, > to my knowledge. Why Wakes are: intuition on the wake-to-react being possible in the same timing window that the reaction is possible. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f543b36044c70481 (Doesn't enable the general restrictions on reactions to be overridden, of course -- still can't play Wake when not ready or outside of "another-Methuselah's-minion's-action"). Why other cards are not: they aren't "may play a reaction card" enablers, so don't get grandfathered on the coattails of the reaction card's timing window the same way that wakes do.

[ quoted text not captured ] But Angel is a Master Out Of Turn - and as such can be played at any time. So when an action is announced I play Angel "as the action is played" and Determine "as the action is played" but I'm ordering my "as the card is played" phase. Or even better I play Angel when the action is announced, and Determine as the action is played.

quetzalcoatl wrote: > But Angel is a Master Out Of Turn - and as such can be played at any > time. Not as another card is played. Cards and effects are played in sequence. Like you can't tap Heidelberg to move blood off of the target of Golconda as Golconda is played. > So when an action is announced I play Angel "as the action is > played" and Determine "as the action is played" but I'm ordering my "as > the card is played" phase. > > Or even better I play Angel when the action is announced, and Determine > as the action is played. "As announced" is after "as played" for actions started by action cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] I have actually no idea what "grandfathered on the coattails" means, but I fail to understand the difference between wake-to-react and untap-to-react (tap-barrens-to-discard-to-react), that makes the former "intuitive enough to be special", while the later is not.

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44bdf631$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > which seems totally out of synch and inconsistent with action modifiers, > where it was ruled only modifiers that explicitly say they can be played > as an action is announced can be played as an action is announced, and you > have to wait until after that window to play other action modifiers. > > This reaction card case seems similar enough to me to warrant a parallel > ruling, being only reaction cards that explicitly say they can be played > as another card is played, um, can be. > > Well, that's what I'd do if i were the rules guy. Yeah, well, me too... :-) > And I can't remember which way the 'tap the barrens to get a new card as > another card is played to try and draw something to cancel it' ruling > ended up going, but i am sure it could be relevant if someone could dig it > up. It ended up going that you can't do it. If you want to use a "cancel a card as it's played" effect, only cards that are already in-hand when the initial card is played can be used in that window. That is, the "as played" window is before *any* cards are replaced (including the initial card being played and the Direct Intervention that you want to cancel it with, as well as the Sudden Reversal that party #3 may then cancel your DI with - all of those must be in hand at the start of this hypothetical sequence). RTR 01-May-2004: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c2547e56ecd0e9c9 Josh arrrr, tee arrrr...

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1153310670.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] For what it's worth, I think the reason some of us find this *un*intuitive is that several of these other cards appear very similar in their "may play a reaction card" function to Wake/Forced Awakening. That is, the only difference is that Wake/Forced use card-text to say that the reacting vamp may play reaction cards; the other effects (Guard Dogs, Rat's Warning, Predator's Communion, etc) accomplish the same result (the reacting vamp may play reaction cards) by simply working within the general game rules (since untapped vamps may play reaction cards and these cards immediately untap the reacting vamp). Sure, Wake and Forced say explicitly that they allow the reacting vamp to block and play reaction cards as if untapped. But, of course, so does Rat's Warning, because the reacting vamp now *is* untapped. Josh woken with very little freshness

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:44bdf631$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > And I can't remember which way the 'tap the barrens to get a new card as > > another card is played to try and draw something to cancel it' ruling > > ended up going, but i am sure it could be relevant if someone could dig it > > up. > > It ended up going that you can't do it. If you want to use a "cancel a card > as it's played" effect, only cards that are already in-hand when the initial > card is played can be used in that window. That is, the "as played" window > is before *any* cards are replaced (including the initial card being played > and the Direct Intervention that you want to cancel it with, as well as the > Sudden Reversal that party #3 may then cancel your DI with - all of those > must be in hand at the start of this hypothetical sequence). But you get to replace the Forced Awakening you played from your hand, as indicated further up in this thread: [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmm, I think I may have an answer to this (could be wrong..... probably am :) ) WWEF& FA work more like SR, DI, and abombwe reflex cards in that they interrupt the normal flow of play by giving the reacting minion priority to play as opposed the acting minion. With the others Meth A states "I bleed you for X" and still has priority of play, there is no window for Meth B to untap and then bounce, reduce or determine(essentially, you missed the window). There is however a window for you to attempt to block. The only window you get to bounce, reduce or determine is when the action is announced, any other form of reaction closes that window where WWEF & FA add the ability to play other reactions as per card text, therefore holding that window open. How did I do? Sutekh_23 Hates to be woken, period

"dvorax" <dvor...@gmx.net> wrote in message news:1153319224....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Oh yeah, good catch. I think that answer contradicts the standing ruling on "cancel as played" effects, and should probably be reversed. Either that, or Scott was answering in an extremely literal-minded fashion and was merely agreeing that you can, in that situation, hope (presumably not "hop" ;-) to draw a Terra Incognita, not agreeing that you could actually *play* the hoped-for drawn-off-Forced-Awakening Terra Incognita to cancel the bleed-bounce card in question. (In other words, you can hope to draw it, but it won't do you any good.) But I don't think Scott would intentionally confuse us in this manner. :-) Josh prefers to intentionally confuse people in other manners

dvorax wrote: > But you get to replace the Forced Awakening you played from your hand, > as indicated further up in this thread: > > LSJ wrote: > > > 1) Can I play Forced Awakening hopping to draw a Terra Incognita? > > > > Sure. Oops. You can only play cards that are in your hand when Card X is played inside the "when Card X is played" window -- replacing cards comes after playing cards.

"sutekh_23" <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:1153321931....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You're doing pretty well on understanding how these things are actually ruled to work. :-) But I am, sadly, not personally finding it more logical than before... Wake and Forced do not actually have any special ability to allow the waking Meth to hold priority rather than passing it back to the acting Meth. The acting Meth still gets priority to play the next effect if the target Meth wants to play Wake and then, say, Rewind Time to cancel the Parity Shift that the acting Meth is attempting to play. So, for example, the acting Meth can cancel the Wake that the reacting Meth has just played with, say, Approximation of Loyalty, before the reacting Meth gets a chance to play that Rewind Time that she wants to play. (If the acting Meth then passes priority after playing the Approximation of Loyalty, the reacting Meth can cancel the AoL with Direct Intervention, and then end up Rewinding Time on the Parity Shift after all. If no one plays Sudden Reversal on the Direct Intervention. And yes, this is a rather contrived example since the Direct Intervention could have canceled the Parity Shift in the first place - and indeed, I believe the DI could *still* be played to cancel the Parity shift "as it is played" instead of being played to cancel the Approximation of Loyalty "as it is played", in this bizarre hypothetical situation.) (Also note that all of these cards from Parity Shift through Direct Intervention (and possible Sudden Reversal) must already be in the hands of the appropriate Methuselahs when the sequence begins, as all of this "as Parity Shift is played" stuff happens in the "as played" window before any cards are replaced at all.) Anyway - getting back to your original topic - the actual ruling is that Wake and Forced are playable in the "as played" window and allow you to play other "as played" cards in that same window. And the ruling is also that cards that physically untap the reacting vampire are *not* playable in the "as played" window, so yes, you can't play them until the "as played" window has already been closed. But there is no card-text reason for this - it is ruled this way as an axiom, not as something that can be deduced logically. I would not be surprised if Wake and Forced get reprinted at some point with text starting out "Usable only by a tapped vampire. Usable as a card is played", just to make this explicit. Josh entirely unwakable

sutekh_23 wrote: > Hmm, I think I may have an answer to this (could be wrong..... probably > am :) ) > WWEF& FA work more like SR, DI, and abombwe reflex cards in that they > interrupt the normal flow of play by giving the reacting minion > priority to play as opposed the acting minion. With the others Meth A > states "I bleed you for X" and still has priority of play, there is no > window for Meth B to untap and then bounce, reduce or > determine(essentially, you missed the window). There is however a > window for you to attempt to block. The only window you get to bounce, > reduce or determine is when the action is announced, any other form of > reaction closes that window where WWEF & FA add the ability to play > other reactions as per card text, therefore holding that window open. > How did I do? You did well regarding Determine, but not bounce or reduce. You can do those whenever you want. (Determine only works differently because its card text specifically cancels another card "as that card is played.") John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey, I'm no vulcan, I'm just trying to see how it works :) > Wake and Forced do not actually have any special ability to allow the waking > Meth to hold priority rather than passing it back to the acting Meth. It sorta does by card text allowing you to play cards "as if untaped". Its more like a "major modifier" (please excuse the poor construction, look to what I am trying to say).By saying "play as if untapped" really means "treat the user as if they were untapped at the time the card was played" [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, it wouldn't be a suprise to me either considering how anal about card text most V:tes players seem to be. Maybe we could say they were interupts, that would solve some problems, but then we sound like old school magic players :) Sutekh_23 Loves a reasonble debate

Joshua Duffin wrote: > But I am, sadly, not personally finding it more logical > than before... [...] But there is no card-text reason for this - it is > ruled this way as an axiom, not as something that can be deduced logically. Correct. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9cc4eff2309c3e5

[ quoted text not captured ] Soo.... Acting meth A plays parity shift. As it is played, B plays Forced Awakening (Before A replaces Parity Shift). As Forced Awakening is played, A plays Approximation of Loyalty to cancel it. Are either Meths supposed to replace cards yet? I think we have moved on from the "as Parity Shift is played" step, since cards can't be played simultaneously. So Parity Shift and Forced Awakening should be replaced by now. Or not? B then plays WakeWEF, urm, still as Parity shift is played? So that they can play the Rewind Time they have in their hand on, um, the Parity Shift, like they were trying to do all along. Or is it too late? At what point did things become not allowed to be played here? Never? Who should be replacing what when? [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > Acting meth A plays parity shift. > > As it is played, B plays Forced Awakening (Before A replaces Parity Shift). > > As Forced Awakening is played, A plays Approximation of Loyalty to > cancel it. > > Are either Meths supposed to replace cards yet? No. > I think we have moved on > from the "as Parity Shift is played" step, since cards can't be played > simultaneously. No, we're still there. That's what "as played" accomplishes. The cards are sequenced in that "as played" window, but it's still that window. > So Parity Shift and Forced Awakening should be replaced > by now. Or not? Not. > B then plays WakeWEF, urm, still as Parity shift is played? So that they > can play the Rewind Time they have in their hand on, um, the Parity > Shift, like they were trying to do all along. Or is it too late? OK. > At what point did things become not allowed to be played here? Never? > Who should be replacing what when? When everyone has finished playing effects in the "as played" window.

This is how I see the play->resolve sequence now, is it ok? 1. card* is played and fully declared, "as played" window opens 2. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* played 3. close the "as played" window 4. replace to your hand size, unless there is an open "as played" window 5. card* is now considered to be announced, "as announced" window opens 6. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* played 7. close "the as announced" window 8. pay cost & resolve card* effect Card play follows the sequencing rule [1.6.1.5]. During the "as played" window you can play only cards* with specific text, Wake with Evening Freshness or Forced Awakening. During the "as announced" window you can play only cards* with specific text. For some card types (e.g. action cards, strike cards) there are some funky things to do between 7. and 8., like resolve block attempts, wait for opponents strike... As a side-note: 8. is not an all-or-nothing thing, as I originally though (illustrated by Psyche! against Rotschreck or Form of Mist). *I suspect, that you can replace card(s) by effect(s) in general, and this is still true. dvorax.

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44bf456a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > LSJ wrote: >> Joshua Duffin wrote: >>> But I am, sadly, not personally finding it more logical >>> than before... [...] But there is no card-text reason for this - it is >>> ruled this way as an axiom, not as something that can be deduced >>> logically. >> >> Correct. >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9cc4eff2309c3e5 >> > > Soo.... > > Acting meth A plays parity shift. > > As it is played, B plays Forced Awakening (Before A replaces Parity > Shift). > > As Forced Awakening is played, A plays Approximation of Loyalty to cancel > it. > > Are either Meths supposed to replace cards yet? I think we have moved on > from the "as Parity Shift is played" step, since cards can't be played > simultaneously. So Parity Shift and Forced Awakening should be replaced by > now. Or not? Just to add a little to what Scott wrote, you're right that cards can't be played simultaneously. But the window for "as Forced Awakening is played", in this case, is entirely nested within the "as Parity Shift is played" window. Since the FA is being played "as Parity Shift is played", FA's own "as played" window appears and disappears before Parity Shift's "as played" window closes. Likewise, the subsequent Approximation of Loyalty's "as played" window (if someone wanted to DI it) and then Wake with Evening's Freshness's "as played" window also exist (and close) within the same "as Parity Shift is played" window. The nested windows for "as played" effects are pretty much (?) the only thing in VTES that act sort of like interrupts do in Magic, I think. > At what point did things become not allowed to be played here? Never? Who > should be replacing what when? Yeah, things can still be played here (in the "as Parity Shift is played" window) until everyone agrees that they're done playing stuff as Parity Shift is played. No one replaces anything until the window is agreed to be closed, then everything (except WwEF of course :-) gets replaced... Josh it's the sound of danger, emcee murdah...

"dvorax" <dvor...@gmx.net> wrote in message news:1153401095....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > This is how I see the play->resolve sequence now, is it ok? > > 1. card* is played and fully declared, "as played" window opens > 2. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* > played > 3. close the "as played" window > > 4. replace to your hand size, unless there is an open "as played" > window > > 5. card* is now considered to be announced, "as announced" window opens For the most part, only actions have an "as announced" window - there's no special "as the action modifier is announced" window; cards played "in response" to action modifiers are just handled through the normal sequencing rules. There are a number of effects that are only playalbe "as an action is announced", and yes, there is a window in which only "as an action is announced" effects are legal. (Except for Direct Intervention and other "as a card is played" effects within that window, as you say.) The one exception is that React with Conviction uses the term "announced" in reference to strikes as well as actions (from the looks of it, to save on card-text in that particular sentence). I would guess that in reference to strikes, React with Conviction is probably actually used when the strike is "played" rather than some different "announced" timing, but only LSJ knows for sure. > 6. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* > played I don't think there is any nesting for "as announced" effects, but I think that what you mean here may be "nested cycle for "as played" effects for each card played in the "as an action is announced" window, just as above? If so, then yes, nested "as played" windows are available here as well (and indeed, for any card ever played in a game of VTES). > 7. close "the as announced" window > > 8. pay cost & resolve card* effect I think that cost is paid at step 1 for the most part - cost is normally paid when a card is played, except for action cards. If the card is then canceled, usually the cost is retrieved, but not always (Watenda and the Abombwe anti-frenzy reflexes don't give it back, for example). Likewise, the card's effect will be resolved without an "as the action is announced" window unless it is an action card. For the most part, non-action cards will be resolved immediately after their (possibly nested) "as played" window (except for the other exception, as you mention below, strike cards). > Card play follows the sequencing rule [1.6.1.5]. > During the "as played" window you can play only cards* with specific > text, Wake with Evening Freshness or Forced Awakening. > During the "as announced" window you can play only cards* with specific > text. Yes. > For some card types (e.g. action cards, strike cards) there are some > funky things to do between 7. and 8., like resolve block attempts, wait > for opponents strike... Right. > As a side-note: 8. is not an all-or-nothing thing, as I originally > though (illustrated by Psyche! against Rotschreck or Form of Mist). I'm not sure what you're referring to as "an all-or-nothing thing," but if you mean that sometimes some of a card's effects end up doing something when the card resolves, but other ones don't (e.g., if Psyche! is played to keep Rotschreck from sending you to torpor, the Rotschreck still goes on your vampire and you still don't untap as normal the next turn), then you're right. > *I suspect, that you can replace card(s) by effect(s) in general, and > this is still true. I'm not sure what you mean by this? Replace what cards by what general effects? Any time you're in an open "as a card is played" window, nothing is replaced. Any time that window closes, that's when the cards that were played during the window get replaced. Josh cannot be canceled

Joshua Duffin wrote: > The one exception is that React with Conviction uses the term "announced" in > reference to strikes as well as actions (from the looks of it, to save on > card-text in that particular sentence). I would guess that in reference to > strikes, React with Conviction is probably actually used when the strike is > "played" rather than some different "announced" timing, but only LSJ knows > for sure. "Announce strike" === "Choose strike". "When strike is announced" === "when strike is chosen" See 6.4.1 and the example under 6.4.3

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1153410897.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. For React with Conviction, I would interpret that to mean that you would burn RwC to cancel a strike requiring [chi], [dem], [dom], [pre], or [ser] "as it is played". Is that right, or is "when the strike is chosen" a broader window than "as the (strike) card is played"? React with Conviction text: "When an effect that would change control of this imbued is played or announced, you may burn this card to cancel that effect. Burn this card to cancel either a (D) action against this imbued that requires Chimerstry [chi], Dementation [dem], Dominate [dom], Presence [pre], or Serpentis [ser] or a strike card that requires any of those Disciplines played by a minion opposing this imbued as it is announced. No cost is paid." Josh chosen and called

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > "Announce strike" === "Choose strike". > > > > "When strike is announced" === "when strike is chosen" > > > > See 6.4.1 and the example under 6.4.3 > > Yes. For React with Conviction, I would interpret that to mean that you > would burn RwC to cancel a strike requiring [chi], [dem], [dom], [pre], or > [ser] "as it is played". Is that right, or is "when the strike is chosen" a > broader window than "as the (strike) card is played"? When it's played, yes.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "dvorax" <dvor...@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:1153401095....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > This is how I see the play->resolve sequence now, is it ok? > ... > For the most part, only actions have an "as announced" window - there's no > special "as the action modifier is announced" window; cards played "in > response" to action modifiers are just handled through the normal sequencing > rules. There are a number of effects that are only playalbe "as an action > is announced", and yes, there is a window in which only "as an action is > announced" effects are legal. (Except for Direct Intervention and other "as > a card is played" effects within that window, as you say.) > I wanted to write the sequence as general as possible, hence the "as announced" window. Right now only action cards allow some other cards be played in their own "as announced" window, so you just "run-through" steps 5.-7. for other card types. Note, that there is no problem defining those steps for (e.g.) action modifiers, because of "During the "as announced" window you can play only cards with specific text." So you just open the window, nothing is played (because nothing can be), and close it. I think, it's better to have one generic sequence with some parts being skipped, than to have separate sequences with some similar steps. > > 6. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* > > played > > I don't think there is any nesting for "as announced" effects, but I think > that what you mean here may be "nested cycle for "as played" effects for > each card played in the "as an action is announced" window, just as above? > If so, then yes, nested "as played" windows are available here as well (and > indeed, for any card ever played in a game of VTES). With the "start a nested cycle" I wanted to say "start another sequence (steps 1-8) for the newly played card, in the context of an already running sequence". This applies for both occurences (steps 2 and 6). Example: Govern the Unalligned with Seduction G1 I play Govern G2 anybody wants to cancel? no? G3 G4 replace Govern G5 G6 I play Seduction S1 -> a new sequence starts (nested in the G-sequence), Seduction can be canceled in S2, if not, go to S3 and S4, run through S5, S6 and S7 - finish the nested S-sequence with S8 G7 - if no more "as annouced" effects all the funky action stuff G8 Would anybody want to DI the Seduction, it would happen in the context of S2 (and G6 transitively), running through the full DI1-DI8 sequence. > > > 7. close "the as announced" window > > > > 8. pay cost & resolve card* effect > > I think that cost is paid at step 1 for the most part - cost is normally > paid when a card is played, except for action cards. If the card is then > canceled, usually the cost is retrieved, but not always (Watenda and the > Abombwe anti-frenzy reflexes don't give it back, for example). Likewise, > the card's effect will be resolved without an "as the action is announced" > window unless it is an action card. For the most part, non-action cards > will be resolved immediately after their (possibly nested) "as played" > window (except for the other exception, as you mention below, strike cards). I don't know the exact payment timing, but setting it to step 1 is a bit problematic with cards like Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention with their errata-ed "no cost is paid" clause introduced by [RTR 20030519] "Canceling cards and retrieving costs: Cards that cancel other cards as they are played and retrieve the cost (resulting in a loss as the cost is paid and then a gain as the cost is retrieved) instead cancel the card and nullify the cost (no cost is paid for the canceled card)." If you paid in step 1, you clearly would have to retrieve the cost, which is in contradiction with the errata's intent. So the payment must wait to step 4 at least. By setting it to step 8 I wanted to make the sequence consistent with action cards. For other card types it makes no real difference right now, exactly where you pay the cost, it just has to occur after step 3. > > > *I suspect, that you can replace card(s) by effect(s) in general, and > > this is still true. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this? Replace what cards by what general > effects? I believe, that this sequence can be applied to game-effects in general (in contrast to playing cards from hand). The replace was ment as a text replacement in the sequence, making the sequence valid for all game effects, not just card play. > Any time you're in an open "as a card is played" window, nothing > is replaced. Yes. > Any time that window closes, that's when the cards that were > played during the window get replaced. No, you replace all your cards after the *last* "as played" window closes. At least by my definition (could be your way too, but should be definitly clearly defined). This would make a difference when you Wake (is DI-ed) and then Forced to TI a Redirection. Your sentence would allow you to replace the DI before playing FA, my definition would have to wait until after resolving TI. > > > Josh > > cannot be canceled I believe, that "algorithms" like this could be highly beneficial to the rules-clarity, and could (or should?) be published in the rule-book. Maybe not in the paper-version (to save paper), but definitely in the on-line version. A couple of these (one for each game-mechanism) would guide players through games and rules disputes, and provide card designers with a clear framework for new cards. dvorax. the all-generic IT guy.

[for reference, here's your original "sequence of playing effects" list again] 1. card* is played and fully declared, "as played" window opens 2. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* played 3. close the "as played" window 4. replace to your hand size, unless there is an open "as played" window 5. card* is now considered to be announced, "as announced" window opens 6. play cards* as appropriate, start a nested cycle for each card* played 7. close "the as announced" window 8. pay cost & resolve card* effect "dvorax" <dvor...@gmx.net> wrote in message news:1153471679.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> For the most part, only actions have an "as announced" window - there's >> no >> special "as the action modifier is announced" window; cards played "in >> response" to action modifiers are just handled through the normal >> sequencing >> rules. There are a number of effects that are only playalbe "as an >> action >> is announced", and yes, there is a window in which only "as an action is >> announced" effects are legal. (Except for Direct Intervention and other >> "as >> a card is played" effects within that window, as you say.) >> > > I wanted to write the sequence as general as possible, hence the "as > announced" window. Right now only action cards allow some other cards > be played in their own "as announced" window, so you just "run-through" > steps 5.-7. for other card types. > > Note, that there is no problem defining those steps for (e.g.) action > modifiers, because of "During the "as announced" window you can play > only cards with specific text." So you just open the window, nothing is > played (because nothing can be), and close it. > > I think, it's better to have one generic sequence with some parts being > skipped, than to have separate sequences with some similar steps. OK, that makes sense. To date, since there are no cards that are played "as an action modifier is announced" (or with similar wording for other cardtypes), LSJ would probably not include those as steps that exist for other cards besides actions. Which is the same as saying that you skip those steps if there aren't any cards that can be played in them, as you say. [ quoted text not captured ] OK, right. [ quoted text not captured ] I think that it doesn't make a difference on how anything actually functions, yes. But my understanding of that ruling is that it was made only to address the unintuitive way Sudden, DI, etc, functioned when they created an actual "first you pay the cost, then you gain it" situation; for example, how Realm of the Black Sun and Sudden Reversal interacted with your prey's attempt to play Short Term Investment: your prey would have paid a pool for STI, then gained a pool when you Suddened it, thus making you gain a pool for RotBS; if the payment for STI is "canceled" by SR instead of having SR say "retrieve" the payment, there is no gain, only a retroactive cancelation of payment. I don't think it was intended to keep the canceling of cost from being retroactive - I think the canceling of payment is still just as retroactive as the canceling of the effects of the card. That is, the initial card is certainly "played" even if it is then canceled "as played" by SR or DI - which is why, if it is an action modifier or reaction, the rules of the game prohibit playing a second copy with the same minion during the same action. All the effects of the card are retroactively canceled, but the fact that the card has been played is not. Likewise, I think, the cost of the card is retroactively canceled, but the fact that you started out by paying the card cost when the card is played is still true - the payment was just canceled before the card resolved. More concretely, the distinction is usually made that action card costs aren't paid until the action resolves, whereas for other cards, the cost must be paid when the card is played. Delaying payment until step 4 could affect the interaction of minion card canceling effects, like so: Minion A is bleeding, and has only 1 blood, and Minion B is trying to block. Minion A plays Elder Impersonation for +1 stealth. Minion B wants to cancel that "as it is played" with Pseudo-Blindness (which does not give back the cost of Elder Impersonation). Minion A wants to cancel the Pseudo-Blindness with Approximation of Loyalty. In this situation, if Minion A only had 1 blood to start, if payment is made at step 1, he cannot play the Approximation of Loyalty. If payment is delayed until step 4, however, he could play the Approximation of Loyalty (but it would then make the Elder Impersonation "fizzle" because he can't pay the cost when the EI gets to the point of payment). I also could be wrong about where payment goes, though. And of course, this is not at all likely to matter in actual games. :-) >> > *I suspect, that you can replace card(s) by effect(s) in general, and >> > this is still true. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by this? Replace what cards by what general >> effects? > > I believe, that this sequence can be applied to game-effects in general > (in contrast to playing cards from hand). The replace was ment as a > text replacement in the sequence, making the sequence valid for all > game effects, not just card play. Oh, now I see - yes, I think you're right. The same kind of sequence should apply to non-"playing a card from hand" effects as well. >> Any time you're in an open "as a card is played" window, nothing >> is replaced. > > Yes. > >> Any time that window closes, that's when the cards that were >> played during the window get replaced. > > No, you replace all your cards after the *last* "as played" window > closes. At least by my definition (could be your way too, but should be > definitly clearly defined). This would make a difference when you Wake > (is DI-ed) and then Forced to TI a Redirection. Your sentence would > allow you to replace the DI before playing FA, my definition would have > to wait until after resolving TI. Yes, you're right. I was imprecise in my sentence above. :-) When *no* "as played" windows remain open, that's when all cards that were used "as a card is played" get replaced. > I believe, that "algorithms" like this could be highly beneficial to > the rules-clarity, and could (or should?) be published in the > rule-book. Maybe not in the paper-version (to save paper), but > definitely in the on-line version. A couple of these (one for each > game-mechanism) would guide players through games and rules disputes, > and provide card designers with a clear framework for new cards. Yeah. It could be useful. So far it hasn't happened because no one has gone to the effort of doing this kind of technical step-through for all the VTES rules and then submitted it to LSJ for verification and such. But you could do it for specific rules (like the timing and replacement rule for resolving effects as you've written it out) rather than having to do the whole rulebook at once. Josh not yet paid in full