Psyche! vs. Bum's Rush (again...)

So we were trying to figure out what the current interaction between Psyche! and the "do not redraw" aspect of Bum's Rush is these days. We went to dejanews and searched for "Psyche!" + "Bum's Rush", which got a bunch of posts saying how if you play Psyche! at the end of a combat resulting from Bum's Rush, you *could* redraw to replace the card lost to Bum's Rush, but that was back when Bum's Rush was "do not redraw till after combat", as opposed to "do not redraw till after action", so we are confused. Thus, to place in the form of a question: A) If I play Psyche! at the end of a combat that resulted from a Bum's Rush, can I redraw the card I lost from the Bum's Rush? B) If the answer to "A" is "yes", can I draw up the card I lost from Bum's Rush after combat ends, and if it turns out to be the Psyche! I needed, can I play it to continue combat (i.e. "top deck" a Psyche!)? Thanks! Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "You were right, Roger. That's a big-ass worm." -Hellboy

On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:42:59 -0400, Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote: >A) If I play Psyche! at the end of a combat that resulted from a Bum's Rush, >can I redraw the card I lost from the Bum's Rush? No. "Do not replace until the end of this action." Card Text. The action isn't over until its over. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

You know, I get really upset everytime I see someone answer a question on this forum (even if I like the answer) and say "Card Text." As if that's some sort of magical formula... "Just read the damn card and stick with it." If it were really that simple, then no one would be asking questions. There's nothing on Psyche that says "This combat is considered a continuation of the same action that began the preceding combat." It's not just Card Text. In fact, the "card text" tells you that "THIS IS A NEW COMBAT." There is nothing I could find in the RULES that say when an action is over. The rules DO say that if an action is blocked, combat ensues. A good analogy is Constitutional Law. Or any kind of law, really. There are a lot of people who think that the answer to every question about the law is textualism, or an adherence to the words of the statute. The problem is that statutes have to be vague by their very nature. Constitutions especially. The eighth amendment wouldn't be as powerful if it was a limited list of specifically proscribed punishments. Likewise, the cards wouldn't be as useful or easy to use if they listed every single possible interaction with other cards on their face. Psyche doesn't say that it's considered the same action on the "Card Text." In fact, "Card Text" doesn't tell you when the action is over. That information is supplied by a careful reading of the rules and, in the case of most people posting on this forum, an internalization of all the various rulings and errata to the point where it can SEEM like "card text" gives all the answers, because you are able to treat the card as a signifier for all sorts of a priori knowledge about how the game works. It's a useful schema to think that we can get the game to work perfectly by just relying on "card text." But it's a fallacious one. It's important that we have a uniform system of rules and rulings, but to get that we have to have some decisions made that interpret the card text. Otherwise, why do we need Judges at tournaments at all? My only point is that it doesn't help anyone to wax all Scholastic (with a capital S) on people and say "Card Text" when in fact "Card Text" doesn't address the question. Almost every time, there will be some sort of assumption informing the inference from Card Text. I certainly don't mean to pick on The Lasombra, who is a veritable wealth of knowledge. He's not the only one who does this -- LSJ is the worst offender. But Peter had a very legitimate question, and he deserved an answer, not a citation to the very thing which raised his question in the first place. -Legendre The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<at65dvktnpiu3mfej...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

>You know, I get really upset everytime I see someone answer a question >on this forum (even if I like the answer) and say "Card Text." As if >that's some sort of magical formula... "Just read the damn card and >stick with it." [snip explanation of how card text isn't everything] On the other hand, it gets exceedingly tiresome to answer questions of people who don't read the cards. "Can I do XYZ?" "No, because the card *says* you can't do XYZ." Waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, some questions that can be easily answered by looking in a rulebook or paying attention to rules posts are asked painfully often.

On 27 May 2003 11:25:06 -0700, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote: >You know, I get really upset everytime I see someone answer a question >on this forum (even if I like the answer) and say "Card Text." As if >that's some sort of magical formula... "Just read the damn card and >stick with it." >If it were really that simple, then no one would be asking questions. In this case, it really is that simple. Psyche does not say that the action has ended. Therefore the action is still continuing >There's nothing on Psyche that says "This combat is considered a >continuation of the same action that began the preceding combat." Nor is there any reason for that to be there, as you cannot have combat outside of someone's action. >It's not just Card Text. Yes, actually it is just card text. Bum's Rush says "Do not replace until the end of this action." Psyche does not say that the action has ended, nor has any other card or effect in play stated that. >In fact, the "card text" tells you that "THIS IS A NEW COMBAT." Combat cannot occur outside of an action. [ quoted text not captured ]

Legendre wrote: > If it were really that simple, then no one would be asking questions. > There's nothing on Psyche that says "This combat is considered a > continuation of the same action that began the preceding combat." > It's not just Card Text. In fact, the "card text" tells you that > "THIS IS A NEW COMBAT." There is nothing I could find in the RULES > that say when an action is over. The rules DO say that if an action > is blocked, combat ensues. See, the problem comes from the fact that Bum's Rush used to say "replace at end of combat", where currently, Bum's Rush says "replace at end of action". When Bum's Rush said "replace at end of combat", you could use Psyche to replace said missing card (as combat ended and started anew--a new combat). The current BR wording, however, specificies "replace at end of action"--if the combat starts over during the action, it is still the same action. Essentially, Bum's Rush got re-worded just to avoid this sort of ambigious shenanigan. The card text is perfectly sufficient for this purpose. I was actually wondering if there was something that was contradicting the card text somewhere that I didn't know about. > My only point is that it doesn't help anyone to wax all Scholastic > (with a capital S) on people and say "Card Text" when in fact "Card > Text" doesn't address the question. While I certainly appreciate your point (and effort :-), in this particular instance, the card text is actually pretty specific. BR says "replace at end of action"--even if you start combat over with Psyche!, the action isn't over. > But Peter had a very legitimate question, and he > deserved an answer, not a citation to the very thing which raised his > question in the first place. It wasn't really the card text that confusedme--it was a pal of mine who was sure that you *could* replace the card, while I was moderately certain that you couldn't (based on the most recent BR card text). Had I just paid attention to the card text all along, none of this would ever have happened :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote: <snip excellent commentary> That was probably one of the most astute observations about the "language" of this game I have ever read on here. I assume you have some sort of legal background? My own background is lit and philosophy... as such I also continuously slam my head against the assumptive language used by LSJ (and others) in answers to questions posted on this board. That isn't to say LSJ, Jeff, and James aren't consistently brilliant in their vigorously correct answers... My suspicion is that, at least in the case of LSJ, his general simplicity of articulation is due to a background in mathematics, (a realm of knowledge that relies heavily on... assumptions.) Without getting into a discussion about the basic failure of mathematics to symbolically represent the world in an accurate fashion, I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for expressing a frustration I myself have often also felt. It is in the spirit of this that I offer the following joke: A mathemetician, a physicist, and an engineer are all locked in separate rooms and given a single sealed can of food to eat. No can opener is provided. The next morning the engineer's room is opened. The engineer, looking no worse for the wear, is sitting next to his severly-dented-but-open-can and smiling. "I merely forced the can to it's maxmimum point of containment failure by throwing it against the wall," he explains. Next the physicist's room is open. He too is sitting next to his can, only it appears to have been opened through some force of magic. "Elementary physics," he explains. "I merely calculated at which points on the can to apply basic pressure and POP, it opened right up for me." In the third room, the mathemetician has faired the poorest of the three. He is curled in the fetal position on the ground clutching the still-sealed can, and repeating to himself, "assume that the can is open, assume that the can is open..." -Matt

On 27 May 2003 11:25:06 -0700, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) scrawled: [snip] >the worst offender. But Peter had a very legitimate question, and he >deserved an answer, not a citation to the very thing which raised his >question in the first place. ummm...he got an answer. see the post by the Lasombra below, and my added emphasis. The 'card text' bit was an explanation of the answer, not the answer itself. >The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<at65dvktnpiu3mfej...@4ax.com>... >> On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:42:59 -0400, Peter D Bakija >> <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote: >> >> >A) If I play Psyche! at the end of a combat that resulted from a Bum's Rush, >> >can I redraw the card I lost from the Bum's Rush? >> >> No. ********THIS LINE HERE IS THE ANSWER******** >> >> "Do not replace until the end of this action." >> >> Card Text. >> >> The action isn't over until its over. >> >> >> >> Carpe noctem. >> >> Lasombra >> >> http://www.TheLasombra.com salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

In article <51ecf271.03052...@posting.google.com>, ped_...@hotmail.com says... > My suspicion is that, at least in the case of LSJ, > his general simplicity of articulation is due to a background in > mathematics, (a realm of knowledge that relies heavily on... > assumptions.) Heh. My guess is, he types so many answers to questions every day, he tries to be as brief as possible to stay consistent and avoid carpal tunnel issues. -- -Snapcase

The Lasombra wrote: > On 27 May 2003 11:25:06 -0700, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) > wrote: > >>You know, I get really upset everytime I see someone answer a question >>on this forum (even if I like the answer) and say "Card Text." As if >>that's some sort of magical formula... "Just read the damn card and >>stick with it." > > >>If it were really that simple, then no one would be asking questions. > > > In this case, it really is that simple. > Psyche does not say that the action has ended. > Therefore the action is still continuing There's nothing indicating that the action is still continuing either. Even in the rulesbook, it's left undefined. >>There's nothing on Psyche that says "This combat is considered a >>continuation of the same action that began the preceding combat." > > > Nor is there any reason for that to be there, as you cannot have > combat outside of someone's action. Again, I don't find anything stating that combat must be part of an action in any part of the rulesbook. The closest I can find is the definition of blocking minion, which states (emphasis added): "Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has **successfully blocked the current action**." That is the only thing (that I can find in a non-extensive search) implying that the action remains even after being blocked, but it still doesn't imply anything about combat (it could be worded this way to allow for cards like Change of Target or Venenation). That combat is part of the action might be infered from the use of 'acting minion' and 'blocking minion' in some rules/card text refering to combat. But it is now possible (using Fast Reaction + Coordinate attacks, or Siren's Lure) to have a combat that doesn't even involve the 'acting minion' nor the 'blocking minion', so that point is not very conclusive. >>It's not just Card Text. > > > Yes, actually it is just card text. > Bum's Rush says "Do not replace until the end of this action." > > Psyche does not say that the action has ended, nor has any other card > or effect in play stated that. I can't find anything at all in the rulebook which declares explicitly when an action ends. It should be in here: "6.2.3. Resolve the Action If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. If the action is blocked, then any card played to take the action is burned and the blocking minion is tapped and enters combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). The effects of the action do not take place when the action is blocked. (...)" In either case, no mention of when the action ends. If I didn't know better, I could easily conclude from the text above that the actions ends right after it is blocked, before combat begins. >>In fact, the "card text" tells you that "THIS IS A NEW COMBAT." > > > Combat cannot occur outside of an action. Can you find some rulestext to directly support this? I couldn't find it in the rulesbook either. As it stands, there's no rule preventing an effect like: Master. Choose two ready minions. The chosen minions enter combat. I'm not that good at searching through the rulesbook for a specific ruling (I've proven that in the past), so I might be missing something, but still, I think that Legendre's complaint is valid (even if it didn't apply to Peter's question). We know the rules of this game well enough to seem like 'card text' is enough to answer some questions, but often not even a more in-depth search can find the full answer to some apparently obvious questions. Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:bb27vo$54v2s$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > There's nothing indicating that the action is still continuing either. Even > in the rulesbook, it's left undefined. <snip> > That combat is part of the action might be infered from the use of 'acting > minion' and 'blocking minion' in some rules/card text refering to combat. > But it is now possible (using Fast Reaction + Coordinate attacks, or Siren's > Lure) to have a combat that doesn't even involve the 'acting minion' nor the > 'blocking minion', so that point is not very conclusive. In the rulebook the present tense is used. If the action was ended when combat began then it would read " the minion who WAS the acting minion prior to this combat..". The use of the present tense implies that the action is still ongoing. Consider also "continue action" combat cards. If the action is ended it seems that it could not be continued. If the action is still being resolved it can be continued. Lastly consider Cat's guidance and extortion. Both are reaction cards playable after combat. A reaction card may only be played in response to an action. If the action did not include the combat, then these cards could not be played as you cannot react to a resolved (completed) action. Hope this helps, -JTP

Thank you for clarifying, Peter. But I don't think that changes the fact that the rules don't actually say when an action ENDS. The Lasombra offers the guidance that "Psyche does not say that the action has ended, nor has any other card or effect in play stated that." Nor have the rules. But that's the problem... we have to infer from a negative. The rules don't say that I can't cancel the effect of a card by physically burning it, but we all know that to be the case. That's the sort of thing that DOESN'T get asked as a question. The rules, however, don't actually /say/ when an action ends. There's no more reason to think that the action ends after the second combat than there is to think that it ends after the first. We may all know the answer, but the answer isn't "card text." Lots of things happen between actions. People tap Heidelberg Castle, for instance, in between actions. I think you can use Blood Tears in between actions. Why couldn't two minions have a combat between actions? What's more, things like Form of Mist and Mirror Image specifically say that the "action continues." Why would they need to say that, if the assumption isn't that the action ends after the first combat? And if Psyche "cancels out" the "action continues" part of Form of Mist, isn't the action then over immediately? No. Of course not. Because that's just not the way it's done and everyone knows that. Which is my point. Go ahead and cite to "card text," but save it for times when the card text has something affirmatively useful to say about the situation. Legendre

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course there's no question (to me) that combat is part of the action. I know this because I've been playing this game and reading rulings for years, and that is the way it makes most sense. But that is not made clear in the rulesbook. Looks at what you came up with: - the use of the term 'the acting minion' (when, as I pointed out, there may even be no acting or blocking minion in a combat) - the existence of 'continue action' cards (not even usable in the case of Bum's Rush combat) - and reminder text on Cat's Guidance and Extortion (which is just 'reminder' - of what? -, and doesn't make explicit whether 'after combat' means you should wait for Psyche!, Fast Reaction, etc) None of these are explicit, or even unambiguous. Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:bb2nhr$55g85$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > But that is not made clear in the rulesbook. Looks at what you came up with: > - the use of the term 'the acting minion' (when, as I pointed out, there may > even be no acting or blocking minion in a combat) But I do not view my use of "the acting minion" as ambiguous at all. I used the phrase to point out the tense used in the rulebook. Present tense indicates that the action is not over. The fact that there are two instances where there is no "acting" minion is irrelevant. The tense used in the rule book indicates that in combat the action is still in the present, not the past. (Past tense would indicate the action was over all ready... but its not there so the action is still in progress) Re: Where there is no acting minion. I suspect (see below) that somewhere there is a ruling clairifying who is considered the acting minion. However using a cornercase situation to postulate that the rulebook is unclear seems a bit shakey to me. While it would be nice to see the rulebook state "an action is considered over after all related combats have been resolved and the effects of any successful actions have been resolved" I don't think its necessary. As to the effects of Psyche? I leave it to others but my view is that since combat is an effect of an action, that cards played during that combat to create a new effect, would extend the action. By the way, I did a quick google search for coordinated attack and siren's lure and found nothing relating to who is considered the acting minion. I'm not quite sure what the official answer is there but I would assume that whichever methuselah controlled an acting minion that spawned the use of these cards would still be considered to have the acting minion, resolving the problem that you see with the rulebook -JTP

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.03052...@posting.google.com>... > The rules, however, don't actually /say/ when an action ends. We know when an action is successful (if unblocked). We know when an action is unsuccessful (if blocked). Since a combat is queued after every successful block, we can infer that an action ends when it successfully resolves, or after all combat resulting from the action is complete. It probably would be helpful for completeness to have something like this in the rulebook. It would certainly save lots of argument time on the internet. ;)

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > It would certainly save lots of argument time on > the internet. ;) And spoil our fun! what an awful thought -JTP

> A mathemetician, a physicist, and an engineer are all locked in > separate rooms and given a single sealed can of food to eat. No can > opener is provided. The next morning the engineer's room is opened. > The engineer, looking no worse for the wear, is sitting next to his > severly-dented-but-open-can and smiling. > > "I merely forced the can to it's maxmimum point of containment failure > by throwing it against the wall," he explains. > > Next the physicist's room is open. He too is sitting next to his can, > only it appears to have been opened through some force of magic. > > "Elementary physics," he explains. "I merely calculated at which > points on the can to apply basic pressure and POP, it opened right up > for me." > > In the third room, the mathemetician has faired the poorest of the > three. He is curled in the fetal position on the ground clutching the > still-sealed can, and repeating to himself, "assume that the can is > open, assume that the can is open..." > > -Matt Actually, the mathematician should be muttering, "assume that the can is closed", because he or she would be attempting to prove the can is open with a proof by contradiction. 1) Assume the can is closed, 2) Prove that assumption leads to a contradiction, 3) Therefore, the can must be open. Alternately, the mathematician could be muttering something about needing a base case for induction: "If I can open the first can, I can prove that all future cans are open." I guess I'm from the mathematician camp... =P Kris Zierhut

In message <24d59333.03052...@posting.google.com>, KZie...@yahoo.com (Kris Zierhut) mumbled something about: >> In the third room, the mathemetician has faired the poorest of the >> three. He is curled in the fetal position on the ground clutching the >> still-sealed can, and repeating to himself, "assume that the can is >> open, assume that the can is open..." >> >Actually, the mathematician should be muttering, "assume that the can >is closed", because he or she would be attempting to prove the can is >open with a proof by contradiction. 1) Assume the can is closed, 2) >Prove that assumption leads to a contradiction, 3) Therefore, the can >must be open. Alternately, the mathematician could be muttering >something about needing a base case for induction: "If I can open the >first can, I can prove that all future cans are open." I guess I'm >from the mathematician camp... =P Or "if I can prove that all cans may be opened, I will be able to open this can". -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Matt, Thanks for the kind words. My background is in math, history, and philosophy (undergraduate) and my graduate degree is in law. I'm currently an attorney practicing in Los Angeles.... so your guess about my legal background is 100% correct! I've studied a lot of things, and while Physics and math were probably my favourites, I think that everyone at some point should have to at least minor in "Philo-sophia." The name says it all. Empirical observations are not necessary. :) -Legendre

Okay, all the hub-bub has got me thinking. If combat is part of the action (which I beleive and accept) and psyche continues the action when it starts a new combat, is there a point in time in there for persons being affected by raptors to redraw to their handsize only to discard down again? I know this has been visited in the past but with psyche being able to interrupt effects like Rostreik I'm not sure if this has been looked at since. Seems like a smooth transition from one combat to the next with no room for other effects. "when the minion with this retainer is in combat" Its not like the card says replace the cards when Combat ends (which must happen before a new combat starts) -JTP [ quoted text not captured ]

"John P" <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pmvBa.23390$NC4.1...@news1.mts.net>... > all the hub-bub has got me thinking. > If combat is part of the action (which I beleive and accept) > and psyche continues the action when it starts a > new combat, is there a point in time in there for > persons being affected by raptors to redraw to their > handsize only to discard down again? > > I know this has been visited in the past > but with psyche being able to interrupt effects > like Rostreik I'm not sure if this has been looked > at since. The rulings page has a ruling saying that you can choose whether to redraw for cards "not replaced until after combat" (ruling refers to the old Bum's rush and Psyche saying you have a shoice as to whether to play psyche before or after redrawing for BR). I would have said that you had to redraw but that was the ruling -it doesn't say what happens to the other player though: if the 'blocking' minion plays the psyche does the acting minion get a chance to replace cards anyway or can the 'blocking' minion choose?

John P wrote: > If combat is part of the action (which I beleive and accept) > and psyche continues the action when it starts a > new combat, is there a point in time in there for > persons being affected by raptors to redraw to their > handsize only to discard down again? Yes. > I know this has been visited in the past > but with psyche being able to interrupt effects > like Rostreik I'm not sure if this has been looked > at since. No need. It is not affected, since the raptor effect is not an effect which is applied after combat ends. It is an effect applied while in combat. > Seems like a smooth transition from one combat to the > next with no room for other effects. It is not. The second combat is not a continuation of the first. The first ended. Then the second started. In between, the Methuselah drew back up to her (no longer reduced) hand size. > "when the minion with this retainer is in combat" > > Its not like the card says replace the cards when Combat ends (which must > happen before a new combat starts) No need. The rules say so. [1.6.1.2] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/