the moonlight shines brightly. The old snake, against all expectations, is now cornered in a dead end alley. He knows the servants of the brujah are on its track. Is that footsteps he's hearing ? He's coming close. Fight might be inevitable...
Ok let's cut the crap :
Combat between two vampires.
Close range.
Acting declares hands for 1 (albeit he has the Jones in his hand)
younger blocking declares undead strength immediately followed by target vitals. (TV from now on)
At this point, Acting wants to play the Jones superior.
What happens ?
1- sounds legit : strike + TV is trumped and blocking has to choose another strike.
2- that's illegal : acting had to interrupt and tell blocking minion "wait, don't play TV, I cancel your strike" - and there's a problem because blocking has to take back TV in his hand, got his strike canceled, and can play TV on his new (probably cardless) strike.
So how can we judge this situation ? If blocking minion says "I let you play a card if you want", that is, giving the impulse, he cannot play TV anymore right ?
Rulemonger please !
( reminder :
The Jones
Only usable in combat with an ally or younger vampire.
Strike: dodge, with an optional press, only usable to end combat.
Cancel the opposing minion's strike card as it is played. (No cost is paid, and the minion chooses another strike). A vampire may play only one The Jones at superior each round. )
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
I works exactly the same as for any card cancelled: cancellation effects must be played before any "as the X is announced". This is valid for actions, strikes etc.
> Reyda wrote:
> Acting declares hands for 1 (albeit he has the Jones in his hand)
> younger blocking declares undead strength immediately followed by target vitals. (TV from now on)
>
Opposing has played his TV too fast.
> Reyda wrote:
> At this point, Acting wants to play the Jones superior.
> What happens ?
> 1- sounds legit : strike + TV is trumped and blocking has to choose another strike.
> 2- that's illegal : acting had to interrupt and tell blocking minion "wait, don't play TV, I cancel your strike" - and there's a problem because blocking has to take back TV in his hand, got his strike canceled, and can play TV on his new (probably cardless) strike.
>
Option 2. Same as someone playing a Govern bleed + Seduction before anyone could DI the Govern.
> Reyda wrote:
> So how can we judge this situation ? If blocking minion says "I let you play a card if you want", that is, giving the impulse, he cannot play TV anymore right ?
>
Cancellation has its own window and impulse.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I'd contest that advice Ankha...
All of the targets contain the first line of cardtext.
Target Vitals
Type: Combat
Aim. Play when choosing a strike.
If any damage from this strike is successfully inflicted on the opposing minion, he or she takes an additional 2 damage from this strike, and he or she cannot press this round. The opposing minion may discard two combat cards [COMBAT] to cancel this card. A minion may play only one aim each strike.
I would say that the T:V must be played at the point where you declare your strike. That is, before you replace any Strike card, you must also produce the T:V and declare it. I don't know if there is a 'window' where you could play the Jones.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I would say that the T:V must be played at the point where you declare your strike. That is, before you replace any Strike card, you must also produce the T:V and declare it. I don't know if there is a 'window' where you could play the Jones.
>
Incorrect.
[LSJ 20080214]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> The Jones is played as the strike card is played (before the Target Vitals
> is played). Like using DI to cancel a Govern with Seduction.
>
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > I would say that the T:V must be played at the point where you declare your strike. That is, before you replace any Strike card, you must also produce the T:V and declare it. I don't know if there is a 'window' where you could play the Jones.
> >
> Incorrect.
>
> [LSJ 20080214]
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > The Jones is played as the strike card is played (before the Target Vitals
> > is played). Like using DI to cancel a Govern with Seduction.
> >
Thanks for the link, funny thing I picked up the same example as LSJ.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
weird ruling that contradict;
>
> 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
>
> Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.
>
Guess it should be rewritten to;
>
> Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence except for rulebook:1.6.1.5
>
> Non-existant user wrote:
> It would be clearer if the "As announced" window kept the same name across different cards.
>
If you look at the rulebook, actions are "taken"/"declared"/"announced", and strike are "chosen". It makes sense that Target Vitals states "as the strike is chosen" instead of "as the strike is announced" because of the "Choose Strike" step in the rulebook.
Anyway, the choice of words doesn't really matter since they are all synonyms in the game. You can't modify a strike (with T:V) that is cancelled, no more than you can modify an action (with Seduction or any modifier) that is cancelled.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @James:
> And once again I marvel at the 'logic' LSJ used at times.
>
On the contrary, it's more logical that all cancellation effects follow the same steps, rather than introducing an exception for strikes.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > The Jones is played as the strike card is played (before the Target Vitals
> > is played). Like using DI to cancel a Govern with Seduction.
> >
> Thanks for the link, funny thing I picked up the same example as LSJ.
>
Yeah It's funny because nobody plays those cards together !!
> Chaitan wrote:
> Guess it should be rewritten to;
> >
> > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence except for rulebook:1.6.1.5
> >
I hope my coworkers didn't hear me laughing so loud but yeah, seconded
Well thanks James for providing the link to the correct answer
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Chaitan wrote:
> Guess it should be rewritten to;
> >
> > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence except for rulebook:1.6.1.5
> >
Not really. Not many cards screw with sequencing, but when they do they override the sequencing rules as normal. Deep Song changes who goes first in every timing window. Rapid Thought does it for one specific window.
However, a lot more cards 'define' a timing window (such as "as the action is announced", "when the block is successful" or "before range is chosen"). We then need to know what order those timing windows occur in. 1.6.1.5 is only ever about ordering effects in a given timing window - it doesn't let you rush ahead to a different timing window, or deny a player an opportunity to use an effect in this timing window. (Though you can prevent them from doing so indirectly - their before range card costs blood, you make them lose blood before range with Weather Control, they can't play it.)
The issue basically boils down to whether "as the card is played" comes before "as the strike is chosen", or whether they're the same thing (or maybe some other option I don't care about).
The same issue comes up with whether you announce an action when you play an action card (and so can play "As the action is announced" modifiers right then) or whether you play the card, wait for DI (or other cancellation), then announce the action.
The outcome is: the two work in the same way. Playing a card is a mini-step before "announce the action" or "choose the strike". So you get to cancel the card as it is played, before you move on to the "the strike is chosen" and "the action is announced" timing windows.
One benefit to this is that you don't end up with some hideous stack-like outcome, where I've played three modifiers on my action, or several "as the strike is chosen" actions on my strike, and then get my opponent asking if they can play a cancellation card.
> Ankha wrote:
> If you look at the rulebook, actions are "taken"/"declared"/"announced", and strike are "chosen". It makes sense that Target Vitals states "as the strike is chosen" instead of "as the strike is announced" because of the "Choose Strike" step in the rulebook.
> Anyway, the choice of words doesn't really matter since they are all synonyms in the game. You can't modify a strike (with T:V) that is cancelled, no more than you can modify an action (with Seduction or any modifier) that is cancelled.
>
Thanks for pointing that the mistake originates in the rulebook. That does not make it less of a mistake, though. Synonyms are bad i any formal system such as a set of rules, especially when other close words such as "announce" and "play" get different meanings. How do you want people to guess when a word difference is meaningful and when it is not?
The art of telling stuff for hours.
-Tell me James, is that sofa blue ?
- Well, to be honest, you might think it's blue, and i don't want to state the obvious by telling you that for most people blue it is. However if you consider the different shades of the light spectrum....
- (snoring)
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > If you look at the rulebook, actions are "taken"/"declared"/"announced", and strike are "chosen". It makes sense that Target Vitals states "as the strike is chosen" instead of "as the strike is announced" because of the "Choose Strike" step in the rulebook.
> > Anyway, the choice of words doesn't really matter since they are all synonyms in the game. You can't modify a strike (with T:V) that is cancelled, no more than you can modify an action (with Seduction or any modifier) that is cancelled.
> >
> Thanks for pointing that the mistake originates in the rulebook. That does not make it less of a mistake, though. Synonyms are bad i any formal system such as a set of rules, especially when other close words such as "announce" and "play" get different meanings. How do you want people to guess when a word difference is meaningful and when it is not?
>
Maybe someday a rulebook for robot with only 182 different words will be issued, until then we have to stick to logic and intuitivity.
By the way, here are the rules for Magic: the Gathering. I'm not sure it's better.
www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20120501.txt
> 706.7a If an ability causes a player to "choose a [value]" or "name a card," and a second, linked ability refers to that choice, the second ability is the only ability that can refer to that choice. An object doesn't "remember" that choice and use it for other abilities it may copy later. If an object copies an ability that refers to a choice, but either (a) doesn't copy that ability's linked ability or (b) does copy the linked ability but no choice is made for it, then the choice is considered to be "undefined." If an ability refers to an undefined choice, that part of the ability won't do anything.
> Example: Voice of All enters the battlefield and Unstable Shapeshifter copies it. Voice of All reads, in part, "As Voice of All enters the battlefield, choose a color." and "Voice of All has protection from the chosen color." Unstable Shapeshifter never had a chance for a color to be chosen for it, because it didn't enter the battlefield as a Voice of All card, so the protection ability doesn't protect it from anything at all.
> Example: A Vesuvan Doppelganger enters the battlefield as a copy of Voice of All, and the Doppelganger's controller chooses blue. Later, the Doppelganger copies Quirion Elves, which has the ability, "{T}: Add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool." Even though a color was chosen for the Doppelganger, it wasn't chosen for the ability linked to the mana ability copied from the Elves. If that mana ability of the Doppelganger is activated, it will not produce mana.
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
@James:
And this has been my issue with some of the logic in rulings. The idea that a 'condition' statement creates a 'window'.
"If condition X is met, then you may play [CARD] using normal sequencing rules" seems far more long-term stable. Purely because it reduces the need to have things defined beyond the rulebook and the card.
Plus, I would also have suggested that any card which is "Playes as [CONDITION] must be played simultaneously (i.e. without replacement)" and any necessary cards drawn back into the hand if the card creating the condition is cancelled (e.g. T:V in this scenario, A weapon if Concealed Weapon was cancelled, Seduction if an action was cancelled).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Plus, I would also have suggested that any card which is "Playes as [CONDITION] must be played simultaneously (i.e. without replacement)" and any necessary cards drawn back into the hand if the card creating the condition is cancelled (e.g. T:V in this scenario, A weapon if Concealed Weapon was cancelled, Seduction if an action was cancelled).
>
Trying again to change the rules?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @James:
> And this has been my issue with some of the logic in rulings.
>
No, that really isn't your issue.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The idea that a 'condition' statement creates a 'window'.
>
> "If condition X is met, then you may play [CARD] using normal sequencing rules" seems far more long-term stable.
>
The card is being played. You cancel it with The Jones as it is being played. Condition: "card is played" has been met.
After it has been played and the card has not been cancelled, the strike is chosen. Condition: "strike is chosen" has been met.
So we have long-term stability, exactly as you want it.
> Ankha wrote:
> I works exactly the same as for any card cancelled: cancellation effects must be played before any "as the X is announced". This is valid for actions, strikes etc.
>
> > Reyda wrote:
> > Acting declares hands for 1 (albeit he has the Jones in his hand)
> > younger blocking declares undead strength immediately followed by target vitals. (TV from now on)
> >
> Opposing has played his TV too fast.
>
> > Reyda wrote:
> > At this point, Acting wants to play the Jones superior.
> > What happens ?
> > 1- sounds legit : strike + TV is trumped and blocking has to choose another strike.
> > 2- that's illegal : acting had to interrupt and tell blocking minion "wait, don't play TV, I cancel your strike" - and there's a problem because blocking has to take back TV in his hand, got his strike canceled, and can play TV on his new (probably cardless) strike.
> >
> Option 2. Same as someone playing a Govern bleed + Seduction before anyone could DI the Govern.
>
> > Reyda wrote:
> > So how can we judge this situation ? If blocking minion says "I let you play a card if you want", that is, giving the impulse, he cannot play TV anymore right ?
> >
> Cancellation has its own window and impulse.
>
Correct. And the "cancellation" impulse comes before the "as chosen"/"as announced" impulse.
@Ankha:
I dislike what seems to be a dogged adherance to having effects/states/situations which are only dictated by text which is not on the card or contained in the rulebook. So yes, I am trying to change the rules... To a certain extent, I would like to encourage PB and others to change the rules to the point where having to rule on specific cards is entirely unnecessary.
So yes, I either want the rules to reflect the general principles used in making rulings (making the rulings less needed) OR the cards to include the rulings in some systematic way that doesn't mean we end up having to make card-by-card rulings (i.e. the use of defined keywords).
@James:
The idea that a 'window' exists between "declaring a strike card" and "play when choosing a strike" is a play of semantics created by LSJ. I don't buy into that bit of semantics but it is clear that you do. I cannot see a LOGICAL reason (beyond the once-made-decision of LSJ) for why "declaring a strike" should actually be different to "choosing a strike" since you must delcare the terms of the strike as the strike is played... which is the same physical action (e.g. I play a Thrown Gate targeting Retainer X or the Minion, it also has T:V attached). This is also the same as I don't see there being a gap between "as announced" and "playing the card from the hand", since you cannot play the card without announcing its name and effects where required. HOWEVER, I realise that for whatever reason at some point LSJ had decided that... doesn't mean I think it was a good decision.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @Ankha:
> I dislike what seems to be a dogged adherance to having effects/states/situations which are only dictated by text which is not on the card or contained in the rulebook. So yes, I am trying to change the rules...
>
So, rather than just updating the rulebook to reflect/make clear the current rules, you'd prefer to create new rules and update the rulebook?
What I find abnormal in this section of the forum, is that you reply to rule questions with made-up answers that fit your logic rather than the real rules.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @James:
> The idea that a 'window' exists between "declaring a strike card" and "play when choosing a strike" is a play of semantics created by LSJ. I don't buy into that bit of semantics but it is clear that you do. I cannot see a LOGICAL reason (beyond the once-made-decision of LSJ) for why "declaring a strike" should actually be different to "choosing a strike" since you must delcare the terms of the strike as the strike is played...
>
There's no logical reason for your rewrite of the timing rules either. You've invented a whole new timing system, then decided that the old one is illogical, your new one is logical, and therefore it's better. Yet the old one is simple enough (play/cancel/announce) and internally consistent. Pretty logical.
And apparently, changing the rules like this, according to your every whim, is about esnuring long-term stability!