I recently played my "Etrius 95" deck that has copies of Horrific Countenance. I was on my lunge round, and my prey used On the Qui Vive to attempt to block Etrius. I used Horrific Countenance to make the action unblockable (at the cost of 2 blood because of The Ankara Citadel, Turkey, of course). According to the card text, the blocker got to untap even though he wasn't untapped when he tried to block.
I couldn't find any ruling to the contrary. It's not something I had considered before. Is that what is meant to happen? Thoughts?
Edit: Here's the card text as reference:
Horrific Countenance
Action Modifier
Protean
4
Only usable when this vampire is blocked.
[pro] Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now unblockable.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> It is meant to happen. Don't overread the card : if the card say untap, untap. If the card say 'Do not tap' like Obedience, then do not tap.
>
Correct.
It may be an unintended consequence of the wording. Dark Sovereigns had a lot of card text migrations (largely due to pool costs however.)
Without citing a ruling, and with no reference to the card designers intentions it does indeed untap the minion.
The original "Change of Target" stated "Untap the blocking minion" but has since been changed to "do not tap the blocking minion."
Logically, you would expect the same change to be made to "Horrific Countenance." But, the card was reprinted in the Anarch set without such a change.
It is more logical that the state of the blocking vampire should remain the same. It is arguable that making an action unblockable is strong enough that untapping the blocking minion is an acceptable consequence, but I do not agree with that line of thought.
Horrific Countenance should be changed to be brought in line with "Change of Target" for wording, OR the cost should be reduced or some other restriction should be put on the card.
Under the circumstances that a player plays a card that allows a vampire to "act as if untapped" and then attempts to block they are given a further advantage my untapping that vampire when Horrific Countenance is played. At a cost of four blood, the card should in no way give advantage to another player.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
> direwolf wrote:
> Horrific Countenance should be changed to be brought in line with "Change of Target" for wording, OR the cost should be reduced or some other restriction should be put on the card.
>
It's not a "should".
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > direwolf wrote:
> > Horrific Countenance should be changed to be brought in line with "Change of Target" for wording, OR the cost should be reduced or some other restriction should be put on the card.
> >
> It's not a "should".
>
Forgive me for not saying "in my opinion." It should be understood that everything I say (type) is my opinion, and I try to avoid the phrase "in my opinion" because it is redundant.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
> direwolf wrote:
> It may be an unintended consequence of the wording. Dark Sovereigns had a lot of card text migrations (largely due to pool costs however.
>
Both printings of Horrific Countenance use the same wording - untap the blocking minion.
vtes.pl/card/39592
vtes.pl/card/41987
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > direwolf wrote:
> > It may be an unintended consequence of the wording. Dark Sovereigns had a lot of card text migrations (largely due to pool costs however.
> >
> Both printings of Horrific Countenance use the same wording - untap the blocking minion.
>
> vtes.pl/card/39592
> vtes.pl/card/41987
>
I said as much in the same post.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
the untap is illogical from a mechanic standpoint, but from a fluffy standpoint, it makes sense.
your tapped. you're the pawn of some ancient methuselah (lets say, the pawn of hugh anseesing ) and you're a lonley 5-cap with +1 intercept who just bled your master's prey. your tired. you don't want to do anything until at least your next untap phase. then stanislava tried to bleed. you wake up and block. she turns into something really scary lookin. it scares you into untapping and not blocking.
its almost logical....
Involving "logic" (that is - applying real world mechanics to the game) won't make sense very long.
Especially when it comes to Disarming people - looks like they can grow an arm back. But wait - it's not all - even though vampires used to be human beings in the first place, you can only disarm them once.
And then you realize you can disarm Aabbt Kindred, which are snakes. Where's the logic there?
> Pascal wrote:
> Involving "logic" (that is - applying real world mechanics to the game) won't make sense very long.
> Especially when it comes to Disarming people - looks like they can grow an arm back. But wait - it's not all - even though vampires used to be human beings in the first place, you can only disarm them once.
> And then you realize you can disarm Aabbt Kindred, which are snakes. Where's the logic there?
>
Does this mean that you agree with Direwolf?
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> the untap is illogical from a mechanic standpoint, but from a fluffy standpoint, it makes sense.
> your tapped. you're the pawn of some ancient methuselah (lets say, the pawn of hugh anseesing ) and you're a lonley 5-cap with +1 intercept who just bled your master's prey. your tired. you don't want to do anything until at least your next untap phase. then stanislava tried to bleed. you wake up and block. she turns into something really scary lookin. it scares you into untapping and not blocking.
>
> its almost logical....
>
That was my thinking exactly as to how "real world" logic applies to Horrific Countenance as the card is now.
However, is that really the intent of the card, or is that post justification?
My above arguments were that the card does not make sense from a game-mechanic sense. In the example mentioned mentioned by Aaron, and the whole reason for this discussion is that his prey received an unintended bonus from a card that Aaron played, which had a significant impact on the game.
There is a precedent for changing "untap the blocking minion" to "the blocking minion does not tap."
Maybe you don't agree that the card should be changed to read "the blocking minion does not tap" but that is the easiest solution to the problem.
I understand if you do not see untapping your prey's minion as a problem. Perhaps it is fair that it is part of the "cost" of playing that card.
Very few cards allow for an action to be unblockable. "Mantle of the Moon" requires a clan, must be played as announced and costs 4 blood. "Virtuosa" requires a bloodline discipline at superior and costs 3 blood. Other cards have lesser blood costs, but other costs or restrictions (such as taking aggravated damage.)
@Pascal: I agree, applying real world logic may not always work when ruling on cards, but real world logic does help inform card ideas when creating cards, and can help determine the intention of a card text when determining a ruling or deciding on a change of card text.
How does a Disarmed Aabbt Kindred computer hack? They don't, unless Nefertiti is in play.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
mmm... I'd say there are inconsistencies in this game, and we have to live with them I guess...
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> mmm... I'd say there are inconsistencies in this game, and we have to live with them I guess...
>
That's not really so. Rules can be changed, and card text can be updated.
The question is whether you want to live them. I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.
> AaronC wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Involving "logic" (that is - applying real world mechanics to the game) won't make sense very long.
> > Especially when it comes to Disarming people - looks like they can grow an arm back. But wait - it's not all - even though vampires used to be human beings in the first place, you can only disarm them once.
> > And then you realize you can disarm Aabbt Kindred, which are snakes. Where's the logic there?
> >
> Does this mean that you agree with Direwolf?
>
With which of his points? I agree with the fact that what he posts is what he thinks.
I think applying our world's "logic" or "realisticality" to VTES, and try to get rules out of that doesn't work (otherwise, why would we have cardtexts and a rulebook?).
> AaronC wrote:
> I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.
>
That's a pretty broad statement. I think that there may be some remedies that are seen as being worse than the ailment (i.e. mass erratas/bannings). The rules are important, as is card text. If a card says that it untaps a guy then you have to play as written until(if) it is changed. Now there have been some crappy rulings (see Villein taking minimum two blood, unless you have less than two). Hopefully those can be corrected. There have also been inconsistent effects (i.e. Seraph's Second untaps a dude whether action is successful or not compared to basic freak drive, forced march, snake drive). I don't see how this kind of design helps the game because it makes you memorize a ton of cards. Where there is ambiguity in the effect, hopefully the rulesmonger would go with the intended effect. Bottom line is it depends and there is no easy answer.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
Direwolf:
>
> Horrific Countenance should be changed to be brought in line with "Change of Target" for wording, OR the cost should be reduced or some other restriction should be put on the card.
>
ReverendRevolver:
>
> the untap is illogical from a mechanic standpoint, but from a fluffy standpoint, it makes sense.
>
> Pascal wrote:
> With which of his points? I agree with the fact that what he posts is what he thinks.
>
> I think applying our world's "logic" or "realisticality" to VTES, and try to get rules out of that doesn't work (otherwise, why would we have cardtexts and a rulebook?).
>
You refuted an argument against a proposed change. I wanted to know if you refuted the argument because you agreed with the proposed change.
Direwolf was the one saying that card text should be changed so that it matched a similar card (which agrees with my sentiment as OP); he did NOT say that Horrific Countenance made sense because of "real world" logic.
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.
> >
> That's a pretty broad statement. I think that there may be some remedies that are seen as being worse than the ailment (i.e. mass erratas/bannings). The rules are important, as is card text. If a card says that it untaps a guy then you have to play as written until(if) it is changed. Now there have been some crappy rulings (see Villein taking minimum two blood, unless you have less than two). Hopefully those can be corrected. There have also been inconsistent effects (i.e. Seraph's Second untaps a dude whether action is successful or not compared to basic freak drive, forced march, snake drive). I don't see how this kind of design helps the game because it makes you memorize a ton of cards. Where there is ambiguity in the effect, hopefully the rulesmonger would go with the intended effect. Bottom line is it depends and there is no easy answer.
>
It's a broad statement, but I don't think it's an untrue statement. I would also say that from my experience reading the rulings, the rulesmonger, who was also the head designer, has favored the intended the effect of a card as opposed to the most literal wording of the card. Your second sentence makes me put you in the camp of those who think that card text should not be updated, but you don't seem entirely sure about your position.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that there have been "some crappy rulings". That is certainly a broad statement in itself. The ruling about Villein didn't change card text. It defined how the word "move" is used in VTES cards. Changing the ruling about what "move" means does not change card text, and so that example doesn't seem relevant for this discussion.
This thread is talking about an inconsistent effect, so it seems like you might agree that Horrific Countenance should work like Change of Target. You say that when there is an inconsistency of effect, you hope that the rulesmongers (of which there is only one), would go with intended effects. Does that mean that you agree with Direwolf that Horrific Countenance should be changed?
> AaronC wrote:
>
> > brandonsantacruz wrote:
> >
> > > AaronC wrote:
> > > I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.
> > >
> > >
> > That's a pretty broad statement. I think that there may be some remedies that are seen as being worse than the ailment (i.e. mass erratas/bannings). The rules are important, as is card text. If a card says that it untaps a guy then you have to play as written until(if) it is changed. Now there have been some crappy rulings (see Villein taking minimum two blood, unless you have less than two). Hopefully those can be corrected. There have also been inconsistent effects (i.e. Seraph's Second untaps a dude whether action is successful or not compared to basic freak drive, forced march, snake drive). I don't see how this kind of design helps the game because it makes you memorize a ton of cards. Where there is ambiguity in the effect, hopefully the rulesmonger would go with the intended effect. Bottom line is it depends and there is no easy answer.
> >
> It's a broad statement, but I don't think it's an untrue statement. I would also say that from my experience reading the rulings, the rulesmonger, who was also the head designer, has favored the intended the effect of a card as opposed to the most literal wording of the card. Your second sentence makes me put you in the camp of those who think that card text should not be updated, but you don't seem entirely sure about your position.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say that there have been "some crappy rulings". That is certainly a broad statement in itself. The ruling about Villein didn't change card text. It defined how the word "move" is used in VTES cards. Changing the ruling about what "move" means does not change card text, and so that example doesn't seem relevant for this discussion.
>
> This thread is talking about an inconsistent effect, so it seems like you might agree that Horrific Countenance should work like Change of Target. You say that when there is an inconsistency of effect, you hope that the rulesmongers (of which there is only one), would go with intended effects. Does that mean that you agree with Direwolf that Horrific Countenance should be changed?
>
Pascal hasn't had a chance to influence any printed cards, only errata. Villein was a good change, a minimal change by errata for a card that just came out and dearly needed it. Overall though, I prefer to change things when there are printings. Where does that leave us? I'm not sure.
HC has been out of print since Anarchs and Change of Target has been around since Jyhad. What is the impetus? The card pretty much sucks now, just like it did then. I would really like to see it changed to "not tap" the blocking minion, but that is kinda ugly if it isn't being reprinted. Would I accept a change? I guess so. I was actually thinking about making a dom pro powerbleed deck featuring HC. Do I think it is a good policy to change cards like this? Not really. Where does it end? How many cards will you have to go look up errata for (not that there isn't a degree of that already)?
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> AaronC wrote:
> You refuted an argument against a proposed change.
>
No. I refuted the validity of such arguments as grounds for rulings.
It doesn't mean I have different conclusions (in our case, we share the conclusion that Horrific Countenance does untap the blocking minion). I merely use different tools - here: cardtext, and its consistency over time.
The sun doens't turn blue because you refute my argument stating that someone painted it yellow.
As far as I agree with Aaron, I must say that there is a possibility this untap clause was in fact designer's intent.
Change of target doesn't change the tapped/untapped state of the blocker because after all, there is no more action going on.
Horrific coutenance, on the other hand, says "no, you can't block this".
Maybe untapping the would be blocker could be a way to say "you still have a chance to delay this vote or bounce this big bleed coming at you with the minion who just got untapped".
Of course, we can never know exactly what designer's intent was. But the comparison with change of target text is also purely theorical.
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> Of course, we can never know exactly what designer's intent was. But the comparison with change of target text is also purely theorical.
>
Exactly. Therefore my remark about the "should" that has no ground other than a player preference.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
i would like to add in that i would like to see HC (and other seldom played cards) get changed around a hair. it should cost one less and still untap the blocker. i would also love to see mythic form cost 1 less, if played @ superior by a vamp of capacity above 7. but HC isn't as good as strange day or daring the dawn, and should only be tweaked enough to make it better than HC but still not as good as strange day or daring the dawn.
when i say "should" i know that many people wont agree with me. and i also know its not ever going to be up to me to modify cards that were printed (and oop) long before i started playing, or had done anything but buy a deck because i thought the game looked cool.
back to the abbt kindred doing things, i've listed out (but not yet tested) an Anu deck that allows underbridge strays to bleed with computer hacking, get +1 bleed from Anu, and play conditioning at inferior through mouthpiece. just because a computer hacking, mind controlling stray dog seems hilarious to me. the game has things that are funny if we think about it, but it adds to the fun sometimes regardless of lack of logic.
HC is what it is, and its not even as bad as other cards that could be changed to be playable, and even if it were, im not sure we're at a point where that is the move to keep the game fresh, since many not-playable cards have been around for quite some time.
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > You refuted an argument against a proposed change.
> >
> No. I refuted the validity of such arguments as grounds for rulings.
> It doesn't mean I have different conclusions (in our case, we share the conclusion that Horrific Countenance does untap the blocking minion). I merely use different tools - here: cardtext, and its consistency over time.
>
> The sun doens't turn blue because you refute my argument stating that someone painted it yellow.
>
I was pretty sure were going to say "no". What you wrote didn't mean that you agreed based on any kind of logic, but otherwise it didn't seem to fit into the flow of the discussion.
Real-world or fantasy-world logic informs the development of every card, and such logic can be a useful tool in teaching how to use those cards as well as understanding the rulings about such cards. Consider the ruling about how vampires created by Caitiff using The Embrace become Caitiff. That ruling is based on fantasy-world logic as opposed to card text. I prefer card text-based rulings myself, but just considering what card text is supposed to represent in the fantasy world shouldn't be a crime.
> direwolf wrote:
> Maybe you don't agree that the card should be changed to read "the blocking minion does not tap" but that is the easiest solution to the problem.
>
The easiest solution is to not change the card.
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
> I don't see how this kind of design helps the game because it makes you memorize a ton of cards.
>
Errata is what causes the need for cardtext memorization, not the other way around.