[Q] Sirens Lure

LSJ can you please comment why the ruling of illusions of the kindred v.s. affects psyche affects sirens lure stefan "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3C4EA1A1...@white-wolf.com... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > > > Can more than one sirens lure be played during an action i would say yes, > > e.g. > > > > vamp a acts and b and c are untapped > > vamp d attempts to block b plays sirens lure (so the first combat would be > > b vs. d) > > then vamp e attempts to block and c plays sirens lure (so after the the > > first combat is finished c would fight e) > > No. Similar to Psyche! vs. Illusions of the Kindred, you cannot play the > second combat-queueing effect since you've already got a combat queued. i disagree, the psyche! vs illusion of the kindred example is totally different. you cannot play psyche because as it was ruled that there is simply not time to play it. the ruling does not say anything about combat queueing effects. [LSJ 19971003] "Based on the precedent of trying to play Fast Reaction after Hidden Lurker (i.e.: Hidden Lurker precludes the play of Fast Reaction), I'd have to say that Psyche cannot be played after Illusions of Kindred (unless no combat results from the Illusions - when the crypt is empty). By the time Illusions finishes up, you are no longer "at the end of combat when both combatants..." - you are long past that combat." with sirens lure there is still plenty of time to play a second one. i can not find a ruling that prohibits playing combat queueing effects. personally i think this ruling of sirens lure a) makes not sense b)is in contradiction to the rules c) weakens the card to much d)and makes things more complicated e)so there is no need for this "errata?" or "clarification?" > (This is a modification/reversal of a previous ruling, pending confirmation > from the RT). > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ stefan

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > LSJ can you please comment why the ruling of illusions of the kindred v.s. > affects psyche affects sirens lure Not necessary. Just take it as a new ruling: Siren's Lure attempts to queue a combat. It cannot do so if there is a combat alreayd queued (new ruling). [ quoted text not captured ]

why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? this card is not older than two month and it is already "downruled" for no apparent reason! thats worse than magic. Stefan "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3C516A14...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c51cd9b$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? There could be numerous reasons: - designer intent - playtested intent - consistency with other rulings on a related topic - needless complexity with an alternative ruling - extremely tricky timing issues - overall design considerations, perhaps regarding future sets - balance considerations, regarding the inherent ability of a clan/discipline to afford block cancellation why is there a need for a moan like yours. just for the sake of moaning ? -- James Coupe "Never give in to them," she whispered. "No matter what PGP 0x5D623D5D EB they do or how important you feel it is to get their accep- D690ECD7A1FB457CA21 tance. Never kill part of yourself for them. Because other 3D7E668C3695D623D5D people will notice that part is missing before you do."

[ quoted text not captured ] Rulings are necessary to resolve ambiguity, by definition. Queuing multiple combats is a needless complication. See also the ruling that Psyche! disrupts Form of Mist. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:j4d8VFBY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c51cd9b$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? > > There could be numerous reasons: > > - designer intent this set is 2 month old did the designers change their mid insuch a short tim > - consistency with other rulings on a related topic what rulings? > - needless complexity with an alternative ruling this ruling makes in needlessly complex > - extremely tricky timing issues not really tricky > - overall design considerations, perhaps regarding future sets this set is 2 month old, future set supposley won´t have vamps with mel or DoC > - balance considerations, regarding the inherent ability of a > clan/discipline to afford block cancellation why not wait until this card is played in a few tourneys and see if it is unbalanced (2 month is too short a period) > > > > why is there a need for a moan like yours. just for the sake of moaning ? i am not moining, i am asking a question. LSJ revers in his answer to a ruling i look it up. it has nothing to do with my question, i ask LSJ why he ruled the way he ruled, no explanation. first he rules sirens lure based on a previous ruling by him. i discover this ruling has nothing to do with sirens lure and tell him so. His answer; i just made a new ruling. maybe he just not man enough to admit he ruled wrong. i see no reason for this ruling. your points are concernig sirens lure not valid. so please LSJ explain this new ruling!!!!!!!!!!!! stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C51E1C3...@white-wolf.com... > > Rulings are necessary to resolve ambiguity, by definition. > Queuing multiple combats is a needless complication. > See also the ruling that Psyche! disrupts Form of Mist. > Siren's Lure already queues a second combat. Limiting it to 2 combats rather seems like a needless complication.

In message <3c51e204$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >news:j4d8VFBY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <3c51cd9b$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci >> <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >> >why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? >> >> There could be numerous reasons: >> >> - designer intent > >this set is 2 month old did the designers change their mid insuch a short >tim The ruling may clarify designer intent to what was intended. >> - consistency with other rulings on a related topic > >what rulings? The rulings that you've been arguing about. If you're going to act dumb, you can do it on your own time. >> why is there a need for a moan like yours. just for the sake of moaning ? > >i am not moining, If: "why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? this card is not older than two month and it is already "downruled" for no apparent reason! thats worse than magic." is not considered moaning where you come from, I would suggest learning some more English. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:j4d8VFBY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c51cd9b$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? > > There could be numerous reasons: > > - designer intent > - playtested intent > Perhaps, but there's nothing to lead one to this conclusion. Some cards one sees abused and can tell, "that can't be what the designer had in mind." Siren's Lure as written doesn't really give that impression, at least not obviously so. > - consistency with other rulings on a related topic > The rulings for Illusions of the Kindred/Psyche! as well as Form of Mist and Psyche! do not bear much relation to this ruling. The absence of this ruling would not be inconsistent with the existence of those rulings. > - needless complexity with an alternative ruling > Limiting the number of pending combats to no more than 2 is not as simple as not limiting the number of pending combats. To avoid needless complexity, it is generally advisable, when possible, to limit a value or event to 0, 1, or an infinite number (i.e. no limit). > - extremely tricky timing issues I haven't heard any mentioned. > - overall design considerations, perhaps regarding future sets Impossible to know. > - balance considerations, regarding the inherent ability of a > clan/discipline to afford block cancellation > This is the only one that makes sense in the current context. Your other answers, at least the ones that *might* be true, are things that you can't know, and thus if those were the reasons, a question of why would be warranted. You have a point here, in that having enough Daughters can essentially make any action unblockable. However, this costs an untapped minion (who may get beat down in combat) and a card for each potential blocker. I hardly ever see decks anymore that leave more than 1 minion untapped to block, and the fixed Wake makes it hard to have more than 2 or at most 3 in a turn, much less in a single action. Therefore, you would get essentially the same effect from Seduction + either Call of the Hungry Dead or Elder Impersonation, without needing extra modifying vampires and without worrying that your poor fragile Daughter will get pounded into snot (and even in this era of widespread toolboxing, I still maintain that you have no business blocking unless you're building your deck around it, which means that you fully intend to make that little wench pay for her insolence). On the other hand, a 0 blood cost card that cancels a block is pretty strong even without being stackable (yay power rare!), so it's debatable, and I'd be willing to accept for the sake of argument that it's broken as written. If the card has been errata'd for balance reasons, then fine. But why the harsh reaction to the question? I mean, sure, there *could* be numerous reasons, but I believe the question was about the particular reason that instigated the ruling.

Chris Berger wrote: > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > > - needless complexity with an alternative ruling > > > Limiting the number of pending combats to no more than 2 is not as simple as > not limiting the number of pending combats. To avoid needless complexity, > it is generally advisable, when possible, to limit a value or event to 0, 1, > or an infinite number (i.e. no limit). The current limit is 1. Glad you approve. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C529286...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > > > - needless complexity with an alternative ruling > > > > > Limiting the number of pending combats to no more than 2 is not as simple as > > not limiting the number of pending combats. To avoid needless complexity, > > it is generally advisable, when possible, to limit a value or event to 0, 1, > > or an infinite number (i.e. no limit). > > The current limit is 1. Glad you approve. > So you're saying you can't play Siren's Lure on a Bum's Rush???

[ quoted text not captured ] No, I'm not. Bum's Rush doesn't generate a "combat for later" effect. It causes combat. No pending. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <62B48.870$Ox4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> The current limit is 1. Glad you approve. >> >So you're saying you can't play Siren's Lure on a Bum's Rush??? Bum's Rush doesn't queue a combat; it's part of the resolution of the action. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C52E207...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > So you're saying you can't play Siren's Lure on a Bum's Rush??? > > No, I'm not. > > Bum's Rush doesn't generate a "combat for later" effect. > It causes combat. No pending. > As soon as the action resolves, there is one combat about to happen. You can play "about to enter combat cards" etc. With Siren's Lure, you would then have 2 pending combats in the "queue".

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:0kt5ShAa...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c51e204$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > >news:j4d8VFBY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > >> In message <3c51cd9b$0$28904$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > >> <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >> >why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling ? > >> > >> There could be numerous reasons: > >> > >> - designer intent > > > >this set is 2 month old did the designers change their mid insuch a short > >tim > > The ruling may clarify designer intent to what was intended. > if this was their intend the should have put a "can only be played once peraction" clause on the card. > >> - consistency with other rulings on a related topic > > > >what rulings? > > The rulings that you've been arguing about. > > If you're going to act dumb, you can do it on your own time. > i am arguing that the illusion of the kindred vs. psyche ruling has nothing to do with the sirens lure ruling so i am question the consistency of these two rulings. maybe you are to dumb to read an posting. > >> why is there a need for a moan like yours. just for the sake of moaning ? > > > >i am not moining, > > If: > > "why is there a need for a ruling like this. just for the sake of ruling > ? this card is not older than two month and it is already "downruled" > for no apparent reason! thats worse than magic." > i am questioning the need for this ruling and asking for the reasons why. not moaning. > is not considered moaning where you come from, I would suggest learning > some more English. i suggest you would stop giving stupid insulting answers to questions you are (as it seems) not capable of understanding. stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c530fe5$0$30724$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >> is not considered moaning where you come from, I would suggest learning >> some more English. > >i suggest you would stop giving stupid insulting answers to questions you >are (as it seems) not capable of understanding. *shrug* Your loss, kill-file me if you can't deal with it. You are offensive and whining, repeatedly and often. You stamp and scream and shout like a spoiled child when you can't get your own way, and when people tell you you're wrong (which you very often are) you can't deal with it. Please, crawl into a hole and die, slowly and painfully. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <aFB48.71$Kc7.476@rwcrnsc54>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> Bum's Rush doesn't generate a "combat for later" effect. >> It causes combat. No pending. >> >As soon as the action resolves, there is one combat about to happen. No, there is one combat happening - but only when the action resolves. > You >can play "about to enter combat cards" etc. With Siren's Lure, you would >then have 2 pending combats in the "queue". Bum's Rush does not queue a combat. It happens, setting up an entering combat phase for the purposes of cards which work there, as is the case with all entering combat effects. Siren's Lure, however, takes effect when it resolves, but the combat doesn't. Bum's Rush takes effect when it resolves, as does the combat. The former is an example of queueing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2EB5aWDp...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c530fe5$0$30724$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >> is not considered moaning where you come from, I would suggest learning > >> some more English. > > > >i suggest you would stop giving stupid insulting answers to questions you > >are (as it seems) not capable of understanding. > > *shrug* > > Your loss, kill-file me if you can't deal with it. > > You are offensive and whining, repeatedly and often. You stamp and > scream and shout like a spoiled child when you can't get your own way, > and when people tell you you're wrong (which you very often are) you > can't deal with it. although i disagree with what you write, i am at least not insulting like you are. i am questioning a ruling. is this a crime? i am not satisfied with your explanations because they explain nothing. but as always when someone questions your "wisdom" you react in an very childish way. > Please, crawl into a hole and die, slowly and painfully. > so mr netiquette is this an appropriate way to communicate. stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > So you're saying you can't play Siren's Lure on a Bum's Rush??? > > > > No, I'm not. > > > > Bum's Rush doesn't generate a "combat for later" effect. > > It causes combat. No pending. > > > As soon as the action resolves, there is one combat about to happen. You > can play "about to enter combat cards" etc. With Siren's Lure, you would > then have 2 pending combats in the "queue". You would have one pending (for later) and one now (about to happen). "Pending" here isn't referring to an imminent event. It's being used to refer to events scheduled for "not now, but later - after some other stuff". I agree that given a different set assumptions one could arrive at your position. You're a reasonable person - can you see the a set of assumptions that lead to the official position? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C5332FD...@white-wolf.com... > > I agree that given a different set assumptions one could arrive at your position. > I think that's the first time you've ever said that to me. Wow. I'm stunned. > You're a reasonable person - can you see the a set of assumptions that lead to > the official position? > An now this... calling me reasonable? Have I lost my touch? Umm... well, yeah, I can sort of see why one would think that queueing up multiple combats could lead to complex timing issues, but I have yet to see any arise. On the other hand, the primary effect of Siren's Lure is to queue up one combat after another (assuming block combat or rush combat is the result of the action). The primary effect of Siren's Lure is sort of confusing and introduces the queueing (I can't figure out if that's the right way to spell that...) of combats as a new mechanic. However, the playing of multiples of them doesn't really bring up any issues or mechanics that are not already covered by the card's existence in the first place (except which combat resolves first, but solving that problem doesn't require the current ruling by any means). The thing about a queue is... you can't have a queue with just one thing in it... that's not a queue of combats, that's one combat. Once you start adding combats to the queue, you have no added complexity by allowing the queue to grow. I guess I'll follow the same drill as in the past and just pretend that the ruling is actually errata, made for balance reasons, which I would find to be at least semi-reasonable, if debatable.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:52:51 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Queuing multiple combats is a needless complication. Many other CCG seem to have no problem with this, from the grandaddy of them all, Magic, to a recent example like the LotR CCG. All you need is a procedure for ordering them - LIFO, FIFO or phasing player chooses. >See also the ruling that Psyche! disrupts Form of Mist. If you extend that into a general principle then it would follow that a second Siren's Lure could be played but that its pending combat would replace the one waiting from the first Siren's Lure. And if the original acting minion went on to have combat with a third blocker and one of them used something like Psyche to create yet another pending combat then that would wipe out the combat waiting from the second Siren's Lure too. That seems a weird way of doing things - just having combats evaporate because the game's memory can't hold them. I suppose that you're afraid of dealing with timing rules and want to keep the game as simple as Pokemon. That may be a reasonable idea but you shouldn't then create cards like Siren's Lure which obviously imply the possibility of an indefinite number of pending combats. Andrew

Chris Berger wrote: > I guess I'll follow the same drill as in the past and just pretend that the > ruling is actually errata, made for balance reasons, which I would find to > be at least semi-reasonable, if debatable. The arguments are parallel to the loss of Form of Mist continuance - there's no real reason why the action couldn't continue after the Psyche! combat, but that gets cumbersome far too quickly. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I guess I'll follow the same drill as in the past and just pretend that the >> ruling is actually errata, made for balance reasons, which I would find to >> be at least semi-reasonable, if debatable. > >The arguments are parallel to the loss of Form of Mist continuance - there's >no real reason why the action couldn't continue after the Psyche! combat, but >that gets cumbersome far too quickly. Yeah, too many queuing or continuing effects and it'll get way too confusing. Say: Minion A attempts a Bum's Rush on Minion Z. Minion Y attempts to block but Minion B plays Siren's Lure. Minion X attempts to block but Minion C plays Siren's Lure (assuming we have it the way *some* people want it, with multiple queuing). Minion W successfully blocks Minion A. During combat, Minion A plays Form of Mist to continue the action. Minion W plays Psyche!, and another combat starts. Minion A plays Blissful Agony but Minion W continues with Telepathic Tracking. Next round, Minion W plays Illusions of the Kindred. So...for all of you queuing fans, exactly what should be happening *now*??? Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020126200316...@mb-mv.aol.com... > So...for all of you queuing fans, exactly what should be happening *now*??? The fall of Western Civilization? Xian not really a queuing fan...

In message <3c533013$0$12392$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >> Please, crawl into a hole and die, slowly and painfully. >> >so mr netiquette is this an appropriate way to communicate. With people as offensive and stupid as you, I feel that this is an appropriate level that you might be able to understand given that you are clearly incapable of understanding what *you* write, let alone what others write. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020126200316...@mb-mv.aol.com... > > Yeah, too many queuing or continuing effects and it'll get way too confusing. > Say: > > Minion A attempts a Bum's Rush on Minion Z. > > Minion Y attempts to block but Minion B plays Siren's Lure. > > Minion X attempts to block but Minion C plays Siren's Lure (assuming we have it > the way *some* people want it, with multiple queuing). > > Minion W successfully blocks Minion A. During combat, Minion A plays Form of > Mist to continue the action. > > Minion W plays Psyche!, and another combat starts. Minion A plays Blissful > Agony but Minion W continues with Telepathic Tracking. Next round, Minion W > plays Illusions of the Kindred. > > > So...for all of you queuing fans, exactly what should be happening *now*??? > Siren's Lure is hardly the thing causing the confusion here. Although, there's actually not that much confusion, really. The Form of Mist and the Blissful Agony have both essentially been lost, by prior ruling. The Illusions of the Kindred ends combat, and starts a new one with the vampire from your crypt. Once that combat is finished, the action and resulting block combat are completely finished, so the first Siren's Lure kicks in, followed by the second. There are only two things confusing here. a) Is the combat from Illusions of the Kindred cancelled because there is a Siren's Lure pending? Normally, this would not be at all confusing. The answer would be no. I'm unsure, however, whether the new ruling about queueing multiple combats applies here, as I still don't really understand what allows a combat to be added to the queue and what doesn't. Is it illegal to play a Psyche! when combat ends if there is a Siren's Lure combat pending? So the first confusing point is brought about *because* of the new ruling, not because of its absence. b) What order do the Siren's Lure combats resolve in. All that's needed here is a ruling that says either 1) The acting methuselah orders the combats as he wishes, or 2) The combats occur in the order that the Siren's Lures were played. Granted, the current ruling does away with the need for ruling what order Siren's Lure combats happen in, but that doesn't mean that it makes your situation above any clearer.

>Siren's Lure is hardly the thing causing the confusion here. Although, >there's actually not that much confusion, really. The Form of Mist and the >Blissful Agony have both essentially been lost, by prior ruling. Yes, but as LSJ said, the reason why Siren's Lure can't queue is just like why Form of Mist won't continue the action after a Psyche! As he said, it "gets cumbersome far too quickly." The current ruling is consistent with the FoM/Psyche! ruling. If we make an exception for Siren's Lure, we'd have to spend a lot of time rethinking FoM/Psyche! (which can then lead to that nightmare situation I described earlier) Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20020127031728...@mb-md.aol.com... > >Siren's Lure is hardly the thing causing the confusion here. Although, > >there's actually not that much confusion, really. The Form of Mist and the > >Blissful Agony have both essentially been lost, by prior ruling. > > Yes, but as LSJ said, the reason why Siren's Lure can't queue is just like why > Form of Mist won't continue the action after a Psyche! As he said, it "gets > cumbersome far too quickly." > the whole confusion arouse when LSJ said in his first reply due to the Illusion of kindred vs psyche! ruling you can only play one sirens lure per action. when i looked up the ruling it was about timing issues not about queuing combats, when i told him that he simply said take it as a new ruling without any explanation so i asked for reasons but never got an answer. never was the psyche FoM ruling mentioned by LSJ! > The current ruling is consistent with the FoM/Psyche! ruling. where is the consitency with the FoM/Psyche! ruling (FoM doesnt´t queue a combat) >If we make an > exception for Siren's Lure, we'd have to spend a lot of time rethinking > FoM/Psyche! (which can then lead to that nightmare situation I described > earlier) > > Halcyan 2 stefan

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:6yCanyJm...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c533013$0$12392$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >> Please, crawl into a hole and die, slowly and painfully. > >> > >so mr netiquette is this an appropriate way to communicate. > > With people as offensive and stupid as you, I feel that this is an > appropriate level that you might be able to understand given that you > are clearly incapable of understanding what *you* write, let alone what > others write. you are the only one beeing offensive and stupid. and this seems to be the only level you are able to communicate. just because you are not able to understand what i am writing, doesn´t mean that i don´t understand it. stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3C5332FD...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > So you're saying you can't play Siren's Lure on a Bum's Rush??? > > > > > > No, I'm not. > > > > > > Bum's Rush doesn't generate a "combat for later" effect. > > > It causes combat. No pending. > > > > > As soon as the action resolves, there is one combat about to happen. You > > can play "about to enter combat cards" etc. With Siren's Lure, you would > > then have 2 pending combats in the "queue". > > You would have one pending (for later) and one now (about to happen). > > "Pending" here isn't referring to an imminent event. It's being used to > refer to events scheduled for "not now, but later - after some other stuff". > > I agree that given a different set assumptions one could arrive at your position. > You're a reasonable person - can you see the a set of assumptions that lead to > the official position? i can see the set of assumptions that lead to the official position. but i don´t see the consitency with other rulings. (neither with the Illusion of the kindred/psyche! nor with FoM/psyche ! ruling, the first one was ruled the way it was because of timing issues the second one is not about queuing combats) am i wrong LSJ please enlighten me. i įm simply not understanding why the rule that one may have only one pending combat was created now. imo it didn´t exist before BL ( am i wrong?) Stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c5423ef$0$32766$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >you are the only one beeing offensive and stupid. "Only", far from true. > and this seems to be the >only level you are able to communicate. Rubbish. That you are blind to hundreds of other posts I have made does not make your solipsistic vision remotely true. >just because you are not able to >understand what i am writing, doesn´t mean that i don´t understand it. You whine and moan and then deny doing it. That either makes you stupid or a liar; you can decide which for yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I Think this is where the table gets tipped over, and the real hand damage gets inflicted Raille

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:FC1VbXG+...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c5423ef$0$32766$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci > <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: > >you are the only one beeing offensive and stupid. > > "Only", far from true. > when looking at these posts it is true > > You whine and moan and then deny doing it. > > That either makes you stupid or a liar; you can decide which for > yourself. > i´m neíther whinning nor moaning i am asking why this ruling was made the way it was. i was referred to the psyche!vsillusion of the kindred ruling (fail to see the connection this ruling is about timing not queuing combats) then to the FoM vs. Psyche (fom does not create a new combat where is the queuing). but since you were not able to answer this question you just insulted me without any reason stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c547349$0$26848$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>, Stefan Ferenci <a950...@nospamunet.univie.ac.at> writes: >> "Only", far from true. >> >when looking at these posts it is true Then I suggest you learn not to misrepresent the truth. >> You whine and moan and then deny doing it. >> >> That either makes you stupid or a liar; you can decide which for >> yourself. >> >i´m neíther whinning nor moaning You are either lying or stupid, or possibly both. If you do not understand how: 'this card is not older than two month and it is already "downruled" for no apparent reason! thats worse than magic.' is moaning and whining, I suggest asking someone with some knowledge of things that are obviously entirely beyond you. This is not a question about why the ruling is how it is - this is moaning about the time between the card being issued and a ruling being issued and derogatory comparisons with Magic. [ quoted text not captured ]

> This is not a question > about why the ruling is how it is - this is moaning about the time > between the card being issued and a ruling being issued and derogatory > comparisons with Magic. > did you ever read the entire thread? maybe you should. i am still asking why this ruling was made? first i am told because of the psyche vs. Illusion of the kindred ruling. after looking it up i tell LSJ that this ruling concerns timing issues not queuing combats after which he tells me then take it as anew ruling. so i am asking why was there a need for this NEW ruling. i got no explanations just some insults. Stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > i can see the set of assumptions that lead to the official position. but i > don´t see the consitency with other rulings. (neither with the Illusion of > the kindred/psyche! nor with FoM/psyche ! ruling, the first one was ruled > the way it was because of timing issues the second one is not about queuing > combats) am i wrong LSJ please enlighten me. i ám simply not understanding If you don't see consistency, please point out the inconsistency. Lack of inconsistency is consistency. > why the rule that one may have only one pending combat was created now. imo > it didn´t exist before BL ( am i wrong?) Please illustrate how the rule didn't exist before BL by providing an example that would've shown that the rule didn't exist (that is, enlighten us as to how you can generate more than one combat-for-later effects with only pre-BL cards). The rule that combat is sufficiently disruptive existed since Jyhad, when the RT ruled on Psyche! vs. FoM, as has been said. [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > did you ever read the entire thread? > maybe you should. > i am still asking why this ruling was made? > first i am told because of the psyche vs. Illusion of the kindred ruling. > after looking it up i tell LSJ that this ruling concerns timing issues not > queuing combats after which he tells me then take it as anew ruling. so i am > asking why was there a need for this NEW ruling. i got no explanations just > some insults. What timing issues? Psyche! vs. IotK is the pecedent ruling that prohibits the second from being played. This takes care of the timing issue - first "combat-for-later" effect takes precedence. Every new ruling is a new ruling, whether it is based on a precedent or not. Every new ruling should be taken as a new ruling. New rulings are needed whenever the appropriate question is asked. Psyche! vs. FoM is the precedent ruling for the idea that some things are complicated enough to avoid. See the rest of the thread for further explanations. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3C54A613...@white-wolf.com... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > did you ever read the entire thread? > > maybe you should. > > i am still asking why this ruling was made? > > first i am told because of the psyche vs. Illusion of the kindred ruling. > > after looking it up i tell LSJ that this ruling concerns timing issues not > > queuing combats after which he tells me then take it as anew ruling. so i am > > asking why was there a need for this NEW ruling. i got no explanations just > > some insults. > > What timing issues? > in your ruling you write you cannot play psyche because there is simply no time to play it after IotK is played. you refered to this ruling when ruling on sirens lure. all i want to know is did a ruling prohibiting the queuing of a second combat exist prior to your ruling concerning sirens lure? > Psyche! vs. IotK is the pecedent ruling that prohibits the second from being > played. This takes care of the timing issue - first "combat-for-later" effect > takes precedence. > i thought you cannot play psyche in response to ilotk? > Every new ruling is a new ruling, whether it is based on a precedent or not. > Every new ruling should be taken as a new ruling. New rulings are needed > whenever the appropriate question is asked. > but could you explain the reason for your ruling (you usually do and did by referring to the psyhce/iotk ruling although i fail to see the connection between those two) > Psyche! vs. FoM is the precedent ruling for the idea that some things are > complicated enough to avoid. > all i say is that playing multiple sirens lure does not complicate things because they are resolved after the action is resolved. > See the rest of the thread for further explanations. > stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C54A480...@white-wolf.com... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > i can see the set of assumptions that lead to the official position. but i > > don´t see the consitency with other rulings. (neither with the Illusion of > > the kindred/psyche! nor with FoM/psyche ! ruling, the first one was ruled > > the way it was because of timing issues the second one is not about queuing > > combats) am i wrong LSJ please enlighten me. i įm simply not understanding > > If you don't see consistency, please point out the inconsistency. > Lack of inconsistency is consistency. > Ha. Point out the consistency. Lack of consistency is inconsistency. ;) Sorry, I'm over this thread, really, I just thought that was a funny comment you made. "Show me No-Thing," said the Zen master. The student stood confused, thinking for a moment. "Hahaha," said the Zen master, clapping his hands. "Very good!" And the student was enlightened.

On 27 Jan 2002 01:03:16 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >Minion A attempts a Bum's Rush on Minion Z. > >Minion Y attempts to block but Minion B plays Siren's Lure. > >Minion X attempts to block but Minion C plays Siren's Lure (assuming we have it >the way *some* people want it, with multiple queuing). > >Minion W successfully blocks Minion A. During combat, Minion A plays Form of >Mist to continue the action. > >Minion W plays Psyche!, and another combat starts. Minion A plays Blissful >Agony but Minion W continues with Telepathic Tracking. Next round, Minion W >plays Illusions of the Kindred. > >So...for all of you queuing fans, exactly what should be happening *now*??? What ought to happen is: 1. Minion A fights the illusory vampire conjured by IotK 2. Minion X fights Minion C and Minion Y fights Minion B (the pending Siren's Lures). These are simultaneous and so the phasing player can decide which to do first. Do one and then the other. The Blissful Agony and Form of Mist/Bum's Rush should both fizzle because their combat ends effect was cancelled by Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking (as per the original Wylie ruling). My test case would be to suppose that you block someone who diverts the blocker with Siren's Lure. You then deflect the action elsewhere; the new target then blocks and plays Blissful Agony to end the resulting combat. Does he get told that he can't play this card because someone else has already grabbed the "pending combat" slot? That would be wrong because the Blissful Agony combat follows straight on while the Siren's Lure combat waits until the action is resolved - it's not the same timing slot. It's only Siren's Lure that gives you a separate pending combat later on - the other cases just replace one combat with another which is supposed to take place immediately. Resolving multiple Siren's Lures isn't rocket science - just let the phasing player decide in which order to take them. Another case where you get forking is two simultaneous Blissful Agonies. This can be handled in a similar way and takes place earlier than any pending Siren's Lures. I see no need to discard the effect of either card - the combatants each go off to fight a new opponent - what's the problem? It might get complex if everyone's using Blissful Agony but hard cases make bad law - in practise this isn't going to happen. Still "too confusing"? One hears of primitive tribes that only live in the present and can't count past three but one would have thought that VTES players were more advanced. What might be confusing is use of the word "queue". I thought Americans weren't familiar with this word - that's why they "stand in line" instead. But their lines can certainly have more than one person in them, especially at conventions like Gencon and Origins! Andrew -------------------------------------------------------- FYI here are relevant card texts which I looked up in the course of this. Blissful Agony Strike: combat ends. Choose a minion controlled by another Methuselah other than the opposing vampire's controller. The opposing vampire enters combat with that minion. Bum's Rush Do not replace until the end of this action. (D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. The acting minion gets an optional maneuver during this combat. Psyche! Only usable at the end of a combat when both combatants are still ready. Combat starts again. This is considered an entirely new combat: weapons can contribute their maneuvers for a second time, and so forth. Form of Mist Strike: combat ends. When played by an acting vampire, this card counts as an action modifier and the action continues at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still be blocked). Siren's Lure [mel] Only usable by an untapped ready vampire other than the acting minion when a minion attempts to block. That minion cannot block this action. Tap this vampire and that minion. Once the action resolves, this vampire enters combat with that minion. [MEL] As [mel] above, but do not tap this modifying vampire. Telepathic Tracking Only usable when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end (with no uncanceled press to continue). Combat does not end; another round starts. Illusions of the Kindred Only usable before range is determined. Combat ends. Move the bottom card of your crypt to your ready region. He or she does not contest any other vampires or titles in play. The vampire has an amount of blood equal to half of his or her capacity (round down). Combat begins between the vampire and the opposing minion. Remove the vampire from the game at the end of combat.

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > What timing issues? > > in your ruling you write you cannot play psyche because there is simply no > time to play it after IotK is played. you refered to this ruling when ruling > on sirens lure. OK. That takes care of all the timing issues - the first one played is all there is. No timing problems. [1.6.1.6] > all i want to know is did a ruling prohibiting the queuing of a second > combat exist prior to your ruling concerning sirens lure? As I said before: how do you generate a second "combat-for-later" effect without using Siren's Lure? > > Psyche! vs. IotK is the pecedent ruling that prohibits the second from > being > > played. This takes care of the timing issue - first "combat-for-later" > effect > > takes precedence. > > > i thought you cannot play psyche in response to ilotk? Right. > > Every new ruling is a new ruling, whether it is based on a precedent or > not. > > Every new ruling should be taken as a new ruling. New rulings are needed > > whenever the appropriate question is asked. > > > > but could you explain the reason for your ruling (you usually do and did by > referring to the psyhce/iotk ruling although i fail to see the connection > between those two) 1) The neext to avoid "excessive" complication - hence only 1 combat-for-later in effect at a time. 2) Cannot play a second to "disrupt" first. > > Psyche! vs. FoM is the precedent ruling for the idea that some things are > > complicated enough to avoid. > > all i say is that playing multiple sirens lure does not complicate things > because they are resolved after the action is resolved. All I can say is that that "because" does not suffficiently examine the sources of complication. > > See the rest of the thread for further explanations. [snip my .sig - please don't quote .sigs unless you're responding to the content of the .sig] [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > What ought to happen is: > > 1. Minion A fights the illusory vampire conjured by IotK > > 2. Minion X fights Minion C and Minion Y fights Minion B (the pending > Siren's Lures). These are simultaneous and so the phasing player can > decide which to do first. Do one and then the other. > > The Blissful Agony and Form of Mist/Bum's Rush should both fizzle > because their combat ends effect was cancelled by Psyche! and > Telepathic Tracking (as per the original Wylie ruling). As Halcyan 2 already pointed out, the Wylie ruling and the SL ruling are to be used or discarded as a unit. Can't have it both ways. > My test case would be to suppose that you block someone who diverts > the blocker with Siren's Lure. You then deflect the action elsewhere; > the new target then blocks and plays Blissful Agony to end the > resulting combat. Does he get told that he can't play this card > because someone else has already grabbed the "pending combat" slot? > That would be wrong because the Blissful Agony combat follows straight > on while the Siren's Lure combat waits until the action is resolved - > it's not the same timing slot. It's not the same ('for later' vs. 'now'), true. But BA be played for the same reason that Psyche! cannot be played on an IotK effect - the next combat is already lined up. > It's only Siren's Lure that gives you a separate pending combat later > on - the other cases just replace one combat with another which is > supposed to take place immediately. Resolving multiple Siren's Lures > isn't rocket science - just let the phasing player decide in which > order to take them. Resolving FoM after Psyche! isn't rocket science either. It's merely (unecessarily) cumbersome. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C554BF8...@white-wolf.com... > > As Halcyan 2 already pointed out, the Wylie ruling and the SL ruling > are to be used or discarded as a unit. Can't have it both ways. > I must have missed that one. The ruling that Psyche! or Telepathic Tracking cancels the continue action effect of Form of Mist is a reasonable ruling, and the ruling that you can't play Psyche! after IoTK is common sense, because there is no time at which the card can be played. The Wylie rulings and the SL ruling are not related in anyway. Not being able to play a Psyche! or Blissful Agony because of a Siren's Lure is pretty ridiculous. This is not a case of one card's play cancelling the effects of a previous one, nor a case of not having time to play the card. The new combats don't even compete for the same time slot. Siren's Lure's combat can wait until you're good and ready for it. Two questions that I'm not sure have been answered... 1) Is it correct that Telepathic Tracking is not effected by this ruling? I.e. if I play a Siren's Lure and still get blocked, I can play a Telepathic Tracking at the end of the resulting combat, since it does not start a new combat? 2) What happens if both vampires strike with Blissful Agony?

Chris Berger wrote: > Two questions that I'm not sure have been answered... > 1) Is it correct that Telepathic Tracking is not effected by this ruling? > I.e. if I play a Siren's Lure and still get blocked, I can play a Telepathic > Tracking at the end of the resulting combat, since it does not start a new > combat? Right. > 2) What happens if both vampires strike with Blissful Agony? Acting Methuselah orders the effects. First one resolved disrupts the other effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:12:59 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: >The ruling that Psyche! or Telepathic Tracking >cancels the continue action effect of Form of Mist is a reasonable ruling, >and the ruling that you can't play Psyche! after IoTK is common sense, >because there is no time at which the card can be played. The Wylie rulings >and the SL ruling are not related in anyway. Not being able to play a >Psyche! or Blissful Agony because of a Siren's Lure is pretty ridiculous. >This is not a case of one card's play cancelling the effects of a previous >one, nor a case of not having time to play the card. The new combats don't >even compete for the same time slot. Siren's Lure's combat can wait until >you're good and ready for it. Indeed - I agree with everything you say. Siren's Lure is the only one of these cards which creates a pending combat. All the rest want their combat immediately. You queue the Siren's Lures until the dust settles while all the other stuff is done immediately as it arises. If the PTB didn't want queued combat, they shouldn't have created Siren's Lure because that's exactly what it does. The only time the queue builds up is when you have multiple Siren's Lures. If this is found to need capping then a better scheme would be to errata the card to one per action - kinda like bleed action modifiers. If one Siren is already singing then it's tenable that another might have trouble singing a different song at the same time too. But the card should be considered innocent until proven guilty - I can't see it giving much trouble in practise. Andrew

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:02:48 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Resolving FoM after Psyche! isn't rocket science either. It's merely >(unecessarily) cumbersome. That's not the reason for it. It is, as you said at the time, because "Form of Mist continues the action, but Pshyche effectively re-blocks the action". In this situation, is the minion who is doing the Pschye! considered to be a blocker again? Could the acting minion now play Horrid Countenance to cancel the renewed block? Another thing. After Form of Mist ends the combat, it's the acting player who has first dibs on playing the next card. Suppose he plays another action modifier such as Command of the Beast. Does this stop the other guy from playing Psyche! because the game is no longer at the end of a combat? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:02:48 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >Resolving FoM after Psyche! isn't rocket science either. It's merely > >(unecessarily) cumbersome. > > That's not the reason for it. It is, as you said at the time, because > "Form of Mist continues the action, but Pshyche effectively re-blocks > the action". <Sigh> I know you already know this, but for those who might fall for your misdirection, I'll pander to the line. Incindentally, please learn how to cite messages you look up, so that the source can be verified. I didn't make the ruling. [RTR 09-MAY-1995] I wasn't even officially associated with the game at the time the ruling was made: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: DESIGN TEAM RULINGS: 5/9/95 Date: 9 May 1995 07:17:48 GMT Message-ID: <3on4us$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> 6) "What happens if I play superior Form of Mist to end combat, but the blocking minion plays Psyche?" Psyche forces a new combat, and the effects of Form of Mist are lost. Followed the next day by further clarification of the ruling: Psyche doesn't explicitly block the action's continuance. But after some discussion, we decided that it sufficiently disrupted the effect. [TOM 10-MAY-1995] An unofficial summary (made by, say, L. Scott Johnson at USC) of official rulings may have said so at one time, but was corrected by the official source "at the time": It doesn't cause another block (Aching Beauty would not be triggered, for example); it just trumps Form of Mist, and prevents the action from continuing successfully. [TOM 21-SEP-1995] > > In this situation, is the minion who is doing the Pschye! considered > to be a blocker again? Could the acting minion now play Horrid > Countenance to cancel the renewed block? > > Another thing. After Form of Mist ends the combat, it's the acting > player who has first dibs on playing the next card. Suppose he plays > another action modifier such as Command of the Beast. Does this stop > the other guy from playing Psyche! because the game is no longer at > the end of a combat? Can't skip timing steps. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:02:17 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Incindentally, please learn how to cite messages you look up, >so that the source can be verified. If you want to verify a quote then cut and paste it into a search engine like Google. This takes you straight there. But you needn't worry - I don't make things up. That's your job <grin>. > It doesn't cause another block (Aching Beauty would not be triggered, for > example); it just trumps Form of Mist, and prevents the action from continuing > successfully. My understanding of this is that Form of Mist has fizzled completely. The original blocker is still a blocker - there is no new block. >> Another thing. After Form of Mist ends the combat, it's the acting >> player who has first dibs on playing the next card. Suppose he plays >> another action modifier such as Command of the Beast. Does this stop >> the other guy from playing Psyche! because the game is no longer at >> the end of a combat? > >Can't skip timing steps. My question was sparked by the Psyche!/Fast Reactions clash in which a player is deprived of an opportunity to act. That's the general issue here - that someone can play a card which then stops the play of a subsequent card. As for "timing steps", this is not a term used by the rulebook and so I'm not sure what you mean by it. But thinking about what the rules actually say leads to another solution of the Psyche/Mist puzzle. The general rule for VTES is that you execute cards as they are played, right? This is a reasonable default - you just play the card and do what it says right away. So, when you play Form of Mist, you resolve the Combat Ends effect and the rulebook tells us that combat ends "immediately". Because this has resolved, the opponent can't now play Psyche! because that is a Combat card and they can only be played during combat (1.6.3.4). For Psyche! to be useable after Form of Mist, it would have to be a Reaction card - something that is played in response to an action (the action which Form of Mist continues). So, when can you play Psyche!? Obviously, it gets played during the Press step, a combat step which the rulebook does describe. During this step the players keep toggling the state of combat ending and they are explicitly allowed to keep playing cards back and forth until they both pass. Psyche! is played when one might otherwise play a press to continue. It's inferior form is a press and its superior form is a correspondingly superior type of press, because it cannot be countered by another press. I think the mistake has arisen because Psyche has been treated as a reaction or interrupt card - something that is played in response to the instantaneous event of combat ending. It isn't; it's a type of Press and can only be played during that step. Note, by contrast, that Fast Reactions _is_ a Reaction card and its timing and template are quite consistent with the rules. When I look at these cards, I immediately notice the difference because I use nothing but VTES cards and the card type is glaringly obvious - Combat cards are red while Reaction cards are blue. This wasn't the case originally. The misreading of Psyche! has been exacerbated because S:CE cards like Majesty are so prevalent and frustrating that many players have welcomed any possibility of countering them. But the designers clearly wanted "Combat Ends" to mean exactly that - that's why it beats First Strike, as discussed elsewhere. This is not meant to be a beat-em-up game like Rage and that's why it's so easy to shut down combat. Andrew

In message <195135847F2BC48A.9EFFB7E6...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >If you want to verify a quote then cut and paste it into a search >engine like Google. If you claim something, it is your job to back it up. Why make everyone else spend time searching for it when you can just do it yourself? Extracting message IDs or URLs isn't exactly hard, is it (except when you multiply it by everyone on the group)? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:02:17 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >Incindentally, please learn how to cite messages you look up, > >so that the source can be verified. > > If you want to verify a quote then cut and paste it into a search > engine like Google. This takes you straight there. But you needn't > worry - I don't make things up. That's your job <grin>. > > > It doesn't cause another block (Aching Beauty would not be triggered, for > > example); it just trumps Form of Mist, and prevents the action from continuing > > successfully. > > My understanding of this is that Form of Mist has fizzled completely. > The original blocker is still a blocker - there is no new block. FoM still ended the combat, so obviously didn't fizzle completely. There is no new block, as I've been saying. > >> Another thing. After Form of Mist ends the combat, it's the acting > >> player who has first dibs on playing the next card. Suppose he plays > >> another action modifier such as Command of the Beast. Does this stop > >> the other guy from playing Psyche! because the game is no longer at > >> the end of a combat? > > > >Can't skip timing steps. > > My question was sparked by the Psyche!/Fast Reactions clash in which a > player is deprived of an opportunity to act. That's the general issue > here - that someone can play a card which then stops the play of a > subsequent card. If you like. DI'ing a Govern will stop the play of Conditioning, sure. If any of the requirements of a card are removed (like, say, the "right after combat between actor and blocker" of FR), then the card cannot be played (just like any case where requirements aren't met). > As for "timing steps", this is not a term used by the rulebook and so > I'm not sure what you mean by it. But thinking about what the rules > actually say leads to another solution of the Psyche/Mist puzzle. Some things happen (or are played) at certain times. These times are refered to as timing steps, cleverly enough. > The general rule for VTES is that you execute cards as they are > played, right? This is a reasonable default - you just play the card Yes. > and do what it says right away. So, when you play Form of Mist, you > resolve the Combat Ends effect and the rulebook tells us that combat > ends "immediately". Because this has resolved, the opponent can't now > play Psyche! because that is a Combat card and they can only be played > during combat (1.6.3.4). For Psyche! to be useable after Form of Oh. Sorry. Psyche! (superior) is played after combat. [citation omitted, per your preference] > Mist, it would have to be a Reaction card - something that is played > in response to an action (the action which Form of Mist continues). > > So, when can you play Psyche!? Obviously, it gets played during the After combat. > Press step, a combat step which the rulebook does describe. During If you're playing it at normal ("press"), sure. > this step the players keep toggling the state of combat ending and > they are explicitly allowed to keep playing cards back and forth until > they both pass. Psyche! is played when one might otherwise play a > press to continue. It's inferior form is a press and its superior > form is a correspondingly superior type of press, because it cannot be > countered by another press. And you claim not to make things up. tsk. > I think the mistake has arisen because Psyche has been treated as a > reaction or interrupt card - something that is played in response to > the instantaneous event of combat ending. It isn't; it's a type of > Press and can only be played during that step. Not true. It is a combat card played right after combat ends. [citation omitted, per your preference] > Note, by contrast, that Fast Reactions _is_ a Reaction card and its > timing and template are quite consistent with the rules. When I look > at these cards, I immediately notice the difference because I use > nothing but VTES cards and the card type is glaringly obvious - Combat > cards are red while Reaction cards are blue. This wasn't the case > originally. Yeah, then you had to "guess" based only on the icon. Pah. > The misreading of Psyche! has been exacerbated because S:CE cards like > Majesty are so prevalent and frustrating that many players have > welcomed any possibility of countering them. But the designers > clearly wanted "Combat Ends" to mean exactly that - that's why it > beats First Strike, as discussed elsewhere. This is not meant to be a > beat-em-up game like Rage and that's why it's so easy to shut down > combat. Sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

It seems pretty obvious why superior psyche! dos not have to played only in the press step. The card text at superior is pretty specific. " Only usable at the end of a combat when both combatants are still ready. Enter combat with the opposing minion. This is a new combat. " By card text, it is specifically designed to be used after combat has ended. Thus it ignores the normal limitation on when combat cards can be played. In case that was in doubt, the various ruling on the card support that fact, just in case people argued "it's just a combat card." http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/showcard.html?ID=615 Seems pretty simple. Wisefool Mercuriel

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:23:03 -0500, LSJ wrote: >> The general rule for VTES is that you execute cards as they are >> played, right? > >Yes. I now realise that this is not the case with Form of Mist. Because it's a strike, it is played in one phase and resolved in another. So, while the rulebook says that "this effect ends combat immediately", this doesn't happen when the card is played. This makes the situation more like the Press step in that you have a state where combat is "about to end", as Telepathic Tracking puts it. Psyche! should be played at this point which stops it being an exception to the rule that combat cards are played during combat. It also explains why it trumps Form of Mist - because it is resolved before it, even though it is played afterwards. A general difficulty I have with this stuff is that there are hidden phases in the sequence of play which are not obvious from the rulebook. The classic case is the pre-manuever step in combat. These derive their existence from card text not the rules (other than the Golden Rule) and so it's difficult to be aware of them without knowing all the cards in the game (and I don't). This leads to misplays when the non-phasing player wants to play such a card when the other player has already moved on to the next rulebook phase. Magic has formal rules for backing up in this situation, I believe, but I'm not sure what the strict situation is in VTES. The LA players (who I may face at Orccon) are tough about backing-up and so the matter may arise. >Yeah, then you had to "guess" based only on the icon. Pah. It appears that there was a general reversal in 1998 which was based on this point that combat cards can only be played during combat. There must therefore have been some confusion about this before. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:23:03 -0500, LSJ wrote: > >> The general rule for VTES is that you execute cards as they are > >> played, right? > > > >Yes. > > I now realise that this is not the case with Form of Mist. ... and all strike cards. See also action cards. It is true as a "general rule", however. > It appears that there was a general reversal in 1998 which was based > on this point that combat cards can only be played during combat. > There must therefore have been some confusion about this before. Combat cards have only ever been playable in combat. Psyche! makes its own exception, as it always has. [ quoted text not captured ]