Horrific Countenance

Can this card be played after the combat if the action is blocked? Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

No. To be playable after resolution (including a block-combat), the action modifier or reaction needs to indicate that it goes there. Various do - Freak Drive, Cats' Guidance etc. [LSJ 20080217] > > LSJ wrote: > > If Minion B strikes for 3 damage, and Vamp A is going to torpor, does > > Vamp A still have time to play an Action Modifier? > > Yes, if the action modifier is one that can be played after resolution. > > Daring the Dawn is not such an action modifier. > > > I think the answer to both questions is Yes, since Freak Drive can be > > played after combat, and it's an Action Modifier. > > Freak Drive is, indeed, such a modifier. > Horrific Countenance has no such indicative text.

Horrific Countenance Type: Action Modifier Requires: Protean Cost: 4 blood Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [pro] Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now unblockable. Change of Target Type: Action Modifier Only usable when this acting minion is blocked (play before combat, if any). Untap the acting minion, do not tap the blocking minion, and end the current action (it is not successful). This minion cannot perform the same action again this turn. I get your point, but Horrific does not have "play before combat, if any" clause either. I'll remind you that both - "play before combat, if any" and "play after combat, if any" are written in brackets on some cards, but not on all. I just guessed that if it is not written, it can be used anytime requirement is met, even after combat. I would really like to see some official clarifications on this card, if possible, since i use it a lot. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

Sorry for new post, but i do not want to edit while someone is reading... This card uses similar wording... Notice the usage of word immediately, but in brackets it states - after combat. Forced Vigilance Type: Reaction Requires: Fortitude Cost: 1 blood [for] Only usable by a tapped vampire immediately after he or she blocks (play after combat, if any). Untap this reacting vampire. [FOR] Only usable by a tapped vampire during a action directed against you (or something you control). Untap this vampire. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > I get your point, but Horrific does not have "play before combat, if any" clause either. > Daring the Dawn has no text restricting when it can be played at all. It just says "Vampires cannot block this action. The acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable aggravated damage after the action resolves." So since the complete lack of requirement has been met, it can be played after resolution. Right? No. Per the cited ruling, you need an explicit indication. Horrific Countenance doesn't have it. > Megabaja wrote: > I just guessed that if it is not written, it can be used anytime requirement is met, even after combat. > The cited ruling indicates precisely the opposite.

> So since the complete lack of requirement has been met, it can be played after resolution. Right? > I understand what you want to say, and I understand that there was a ruling prohibiting usage of Daring the Dawn after combat. My point is the same - I just want some rulings considering this card. This card was written long time ago, and I do not have a clue what was designer's intention at the time. All I am saying is: When it can be used? - Only usable when this vampire is blocked. It has neither "before" or "after" combat clause, and there is no list of cards that can be used at specific time. At least not to my knowledge. Their restriction is either bold text, or specific ruling. Pointing me at the Daring the Dawn ruling does not solve my Horrific Countenance problem. Neither Psychomachia and Elder Impersonation rulings do. > action modifiers cannot be played after resolution, in general. > I completely understand this statement, but, as I said, I do not have a clue what designer meant this card should do. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > This card was written long time ago, and I do not have a clue what was designer's intention at the time. > V:TES isn't a game where cards are played based on designer intent. Designer intent is relevant in some situations such as, for example, a card that is massively broken in some fashion - ridiculously awful card text due to a massive screw up at the printers, for example, or due to a missed problem in playtesting - may well be rewritten to do something similar in intent, but more appropriate. But it is quite odd that you can't even manage a clue about the designer's intention. 1) The card is playable when you're blocked. 2) The card makes the action unblockable. 3) The card is quite expensive. So, it strikes me as just maybe possible that designer intent was that... you get blocked, but you make the action succeed anyway, and because the blocker might have to waste a lot of resources before you pull this rabbit out of the hat, you get the privilege of paying quite a lot of blood for it. That seems like a pretty obvious reading of what the designer wanted. If it were played after resolution, it wouldn't make sense. The action has already resolved unsuccessfully. The card contains no text reversing this - as is found on, for example, Form of Mist. So you'd just be paying 4 blood for no benefit, other than cycling a card. > Megabaja wrote: > When it can be used? - Only usable when this vampire is blocked. > And there is a standing ruling that a card needs to indicate that it is playable after resolution (including the block combat). Since it doesn't have this, it goes before. > Megabaja wrote: > > > action modifiers cannot be played after resolution, in general. > > > I completely understand this statement, but, as I said, I do not have a clue what designer meant this card should do. > The card text is what it is. The ruling is what it is. Designer intent doesn't figure into it unless there's a problem. There's no problem. Also, we're never going to be able to find out what designer intent was. So your claims of needing to know it? Don't matter, because the WotC designers are long gone.

> So, it strikes me as just maybe possible that designer intent was that... you get blocked, but you make the action succeed anyway, and because the blocker might have to waste a lot of resources before you pull this rabbit out of the hat, you get the privilege of paying quite a lot of blood for it. > See, what I had in mind was a very expensive version of Momentary Delay. Now, both ideas, mine and yours, are figment of imagination, as neither your, nor my version is written explicitly on this card. > And there is a standing ruling that a card needs to indicate that it is playable after resolution (including the block combat) > That ruling, kind sir, does not exist. LSJ stated that modifiers cannot be played after combat, in general. This case is not "in general". This is a case of Horrific Countenance. Example is Pocket Out of Time on superior Temporis, that can be played either before or after combat. It's not written on a card but the cardtext "indicates" possibility. Horrific's text also "indicates" posibility as only requirement is met. > Pocket Out of Time > Type: Action Modifier > Requires: Temporis / Obtenebration > [obt] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 stealth. > [tem] +1 stealth. > [TEM] After any combat this action, this vampire can burn 1 blood to start a new combat with the opposing minion (if both combatants are still ready). > EDIT: > There's no problem. > Yes, there is. This card is very specific in many ways. For example, there is no other card that requires a single discipline, but does not have superior ability. There is not a single card that makes action unblockable after it has been blocked already. And the main problem for this card is that it is very rarely played. No one wants to makes something that will never be used, and I disagree that this was a designer's intent. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > > > And there is a standing ruling that a card needs to indicate that it is playable after resolution (including the block combat) > > > That ruling, kind sir, does not exist. > Except it does. [LSJ 20091120] > > LSJ wrote: > The original ruling stems from the ruling that reaction cards (and action > modifiers, for that matter) can be played only before action resolution by > default. Explicit card text is needed to be played during or after resolution. > Since you have no explicit card text on Horrific Countenance, it cannot be played after resolution.

> Megabaja wrote: > For example, there is no other card that requires a single discipline, but does not have superior ability. > Well, there's at least Army of Rats... +1 stealth action. [ani] Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1 pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any minion can burn the Army of Rats as a action. Finnish Politics!

[LSJ 20091120] > > The original ruling stems from the ruling that reaction cards (and action > modifiers, for that matter) can be played only before action resolution by > default. Explicit card text is needed to be played during or after resolution. > If you read thru whole topic you noticed that even that ruling has a reversal in it. Wakes do not have specific text and they are still playable by the very same ruling... and then again - Pocket Out of Time. Pocket is released in HttB after this ruling and the card doesn't have any such text. You are saying that cardtext is clear. And you are obviously wrong, since cardtext is confusing on many levels. All I am saying that this card needs an official look into. Why are you against it so stubbornly? Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > Can this card be played after the combat if the action is blocked? > Horrific Countenance Type: Action Modifier Requires: Protean Cost: 4 blood Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [pro] Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now unblockable. Card text suggests that it's playable when (not "if" or "while") the action is blocked, meaning that you play it immediately when blocked, not before or after. EDIT: Nevermind, Forced Vigilance suggests that being blocked is a lasting state. I think you're on the right tracks on this.

> Megabaja wrote: > Wakes do not have specific text and they are still playable by the very same ruling... > The example given - Waking to cancel a card - is covered by rule 1.6.1. (Between 1.6.1.1 and 1.6.1.2.) Wakes are explicitly allowed in the 'as played' slot, by the rules. There has been an evolution over numerous rulings towards Wakes being 'special'. (Why only Wakes, it's not clear. But it's pretty consistent.) > Megabaja wrote: > And you are obviously wrong, since cardtext is confusing on many levels. All I am saying that this card needs an official look into. Why are you against it so stubbornly? > All I am saying is that 3000 cards need an official look into, because I don't have a clue what the designer intent is on all 3000 cards. Chop chop, get to it. Right now. I need designer intent on every card in the game, stat. In every conceivable situation. Irrespective of every ruling that's ever been issued. I need you to reformulate every card interaction that's ever been possible, ever, right now. Why are you against following an explicit ruling - a ruling which you claimed was non-existent! - when it addresses the situation?

> Suoli wrote: > Nevermind, Forced Vigilance suggests that being blocked is a lasting state. I think you're on the right tracks on this. > No more than Cats' Guidance does. These are cards that meet the ruling on action modifiers and reactions - they say they can be played after a successful block and (if there's a combat) it goes after the block combat. Horrific Countenance doesn't.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > Nevermind, Forced Vigilance suggests that being blocked is a lasting state. I think you're on the right tracks on this. > > > No more than Cats' Guidance does. > > These are cards that meet the ruling on action modifiers and reactions - they say they can be played after a successful block and (if there's a combat) it goes after the block combat. > > Horrific Countenance doesn't. > I would agree with you if it wasn't for the ruling on Pocket Out of Time. There's no explicit text allowing it to be played after combat but the fact that the effect is triggered after combat was ruled to be an implicit permission.

> Suoli wrote: > I would agree with you if it wasn't for the ruling on Pocket Out of Time. There's no explicit text allowing it to be played after combat but the fact that the effect is triggered after combat was ruled to be an implicit permission. > It's about intuitiveness. The card allows to restart a combat, it is intuitive you can play it after a combat to restart a combat (though concerning Power of All, you can't play it during a combat, which is not intuitive at first sight). groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bdd478084d856f4 "when" in cardtexts such as Horrific Countenance (and rulings) indicates the moment the card can be played, so it's equivalent to "immediatly after/at the moment when". You can't play it later during the same action. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > I would agree with you if it wasn't for the ruling on Pocket Out of Time. There's no explicit text allowing it to be played after combat but the fact that the effect is triggered after combat was ruled to be an implicit permission. > > > It's about intuitiveness. The card allows to restart a combat, it is intuitive you can play it after a combat to restart a combat (though concerning Power of All, you can't play it during a combat, which is not intuitive at first sight). > > groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bdd478084d856f4 > Intuitiveness is not a good basis for a ruling when it goes against logic. (As an interesting sidenote, LSJ never seems to have explicitly stated or confirmed that Pocket Out of Time is playable after combat. It's almost as if he is avoiding it.) > "when" in cardtexts such as Horrific Countenance (and rulings) indicates the moment the card can be played, so it's equivalent to "immediatly after/at the moment when". You can't play it later during the same action. > Rulings on cards like Deflection suggest that "when" means "within timing window x": you don't have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. Deflection Type: Reaction Requires: Dominate Cost: 1 blood [dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah. [DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire. Forced Vigilance suggests that a block is a window that includes the following combat, if any.

> Suoli wrote: > Rulings on cards like Deflection suggest that "when" means "within timing window x": you don't have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. > Unless I'm mistaken, you're wrong: you have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined, *as soon as you have the impulse*. That's why you have to wait until the acting minion increases the bleed amount or declines to do so. If you don't play Deflection at that time, it's too late. (And I don't really understand when you would play it otherwise). You may do something else of course when you have the impulse, eg. reduce the bleed amount with Telepathic Counter. The impulse then goes back to the acting minion. When you get the impulse back, you could still play Deflection because you're still in the "after blocks are declined" immediate window. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Suoli wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > Suoli wrote: > > > I would agree with you if it wasn't for the ruling on Pocket Out of Time. There's no explicit text allowing it to be played after combat but the fact that the effect is triggered after combat was ruled to be an implicit permission. > > > > > It's about intuitiveness. The card allows to restart a combat, it is intuitive you can play it after a combat to restart a combat (though concerning Power of All, you can't play it during a combat, which is not intuitive at first sight). > > > > groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bdd478084d856f4 > > > Intuitiveness is not a good basis for a ruling > When there's no ruling, you have to follow common sense and understand what the card does. > Suoli wrote: > when it goes against logic. > How does it go against logic? > Suoli wrote: > (As an interesting sidenote, LSJ never seems to have explicitly stated or confirmed that Pocket Out of Time is playable after combat. It's almost as if he is avoiding it.) > True, but since there's no ruling forbidden it, and LSJ's answers seem to indicate you can: > LSJ wrote: > > But can it be played (not activated, but played) in the post-combat- > > yet-before-the-action-is-over window, and then restart the combat that > > has just completed (even though Pocket wasn't affecting play when that > > combat happened)? > After any combat this action, this vampire can burn 1 blood to start a > new combat with the opposing minion (if both combatants are still > ready). > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > Intuitiveness is not a good basis for a ruling > > > When there's no ruling, you have to follow common sense and understand what the card does. > You two will never agree if you follow this path of reasoning. Suoli -> intuitiveness is not the correct way Alkha -> common sens is required Although you are both right in a way, tell me ankha what refrains people to say "my common sense tells me that this card works this way, and your common sense is wrong." Remember the tournament in Lyon when we were not sure of the interaction between psyche and Yawp court, when and how did we apply the 2 damage ? Common sense dicted each 3 of us different answers. It's not enough. When you make a game, you have to make rules (or rulings) or better : CLEAR CARD TEXTS. So people don't play on common sense only. Because it's not so "common". That's why I tend to agree with Suoli and Megabaja for most of their reasoning on this topic. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > Suoli wrote: > > > Intuitiveness is not a good basis for a ruling > > > > > When there's no ruling, you have to follow common sense and understand what the card does. > > > You two will never agree if you follow this path of reasoning. > > Suoli -> intuitiveness is not the correct way > Alkha -> common sens is required > > Although you are both right in a way, tell me ankha what refrains people to say "my common sense tells me that this card works this way, and your common sense is wrong." > Remember the tournament in Lyon when we were not sure of the interaction between psyche and Yawp court, when and how did we apply the 2 damage ? Common sense dicted each 3 of us different answers. It's not enough. When you make a game, you have to make rules (or rulings) or better : CLEAR CARD TEXTS. So people don't play on common sense only. Because it's not so "common". That's why I tend to agree with Suoli and Megabaja for most of their reasoning on this topic. > Then the sad fact is that every card needs a ruling, because you'll always find someone who gets it the wrong way. Even with clear card texts (and I don't know exactly how you "clear" a card text such as Yawp Court. Maybe your version will be more confusing for other people -- And yes, there's a ruling for Yawp Court vs Psyche! What more do you need?). Anyway, if there's no ruling, then probably common sense is enough. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against rulings and updated card texts. But if there is a ruling, it's enough. And I disagree with people arguing that the ruling doesn't seem logical to them without a clear and solid ground. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

@James: As I already have said - I did not take this rule into consideration. 1.It's not listed on this site in All Rulings section, my bad - I did not check google group. And this is not a rule for a single card. It's the rule for all cards, that is not listed here on VEKN. 2.You are consistently trying to avoid answering my questions. On the other hand you are constantly trying to prove me wrong. That is not how discussion should look like. I asked about Pocket Out of Time and other things, but you stay silent about those. 3.You want me to look thru 3000 cards to find out interactions? I would say - Play with standing rules. When a dispute rises - ask, and I'll answer to the best of my knowledge. If that was good for LSJ, it's good enough for me. Keep in mind that even LSJ made reversals for some rulings. - And that is what I am doing now. I ask about any situation I run into that does not seem logical to me, and almost every time I have to spend hours and hours in argument with you. @Lonkka: I remembered too. There's at least one more - Rampage. @Anka: See mate, I agree on that intuitiveness part with you. That is how things should be. On the other hand, there's Rothschreck vs. S:CE or Psyche! that has nothing to do with intuitiveness. Or ruling on Wakes+Rewind Time and many others... So, now that we understand that intuitiveness is not applied all the time, can we proceed? If you read topic carefully, you noticed that there are cards playable after combat without explicit text. Now, combat resulting from block is a part of block, not the separate phase: > Ruling: Combat occurs as part of the block - not after the block. (So Cats' Guidance and Freak Drive are played after the combat, not before). [RTR 19980623] > There is a logical interaction of Horrific Countenance and this ruling. It is playable after combat. Minion is in a blocked state after combat, and there is a window to play cards that are usable after block, as Souli noticed already. "Common sense" says it is playable when blocked. Vampire using it is blocked, and stays blocked after combat. EDIT: The card even has a text to untap blocking minion. A fact that nobody ever looked into Horrific for various reasons is not an excuse not to look at it now. More to it: A guruhi vamp A rushes a vamp B with fame. Controler of B has two pool left. B somehow ends in torpor after blocking A, while A is ready. B's controller is ousted. A is allowed to play Edge of the World, although this card does not have "play after combat, if any" clause. > Edge of the World > Type: Action Modifier > Requires: Guruhi > Usable by a ready Guruhi you control, acting or not. Only usable if you have gained a victory point during this action. You gain 4 pool. If this Guruhi is acting, he or she untaps and gains enough blood from the bank to reach full capacity. Only one Edge of the World can be played each action. > Please don't make me search for more examples where statement that "cards are playable after blocking combat only if they have specific text", does not stand. Take Horrific Countenance into consideration of errata of some sort. Or rule when it is playable. PS: One more thing: I know that my posts are long, but if you care to comment, try to read them whole before you start to think or write about my points. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Ankha wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > Rulings on cards like Deflection suggest that "when" means "within timing window x": you don't have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. > > > Unless I'm mistaken, you're wrong: you have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined, *as soon as you have the impulse*. That's why you have to wait until the acting minion increases the bleed amount or declines to do so. > > If you don't play Deflection at that time, it's too late. (And I don't really understand when you would play it otherwise). > > You may do something else of course when you have the impulse, eg. reduce the bleed amount with Telepathic Counter. The impulse then goes back to the acting minion. When you get the impulse back, you could still play Deflection because you're still in the "after blocks are declined" immediate window. > If you can play Telepathic Counter and the opponent can play Conditioning before Deflection but after blocks are declined then that, to me, plainly suggests that you don't have to play Deflection immediately.

> Ankha wrote: > When there's no ruling, you have to follow common sense and understand what the card does. > > > Suoli wrote: > > when it goes against logic. > > > How does it go against logic? > > > Suoli wrote: > > (As an interesting sidenote, LSJ never seems to have explicitly stated or confirmed that Pocket Out of Time is playable after combat. It's almost as if he is avoiding it.) > > > True, but since there's no ruling forbidden it, and LSJ's answers seem to indicate you can: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > But can it be played (not activated, but played) in the post-combat- > > > yet-before-the-action-is-over window, and then restart the combat that > > > has just completed (even though Pocket wasn't affecting play when that > > > combat happened)? > > After any combat this action, this vampire can burn 1 blood to start a > > new combat with the opposing minion (if both combatants are still > > ready). > > Well, yes there is a ruling on playing action modifiers after combat/action resolution: you can't do it unless card text explicitly allows you to. POoT doesn't have that text and yet, for some reason, the standing ruling is that it can be played after action resolution.

> Suoli wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > Suoli wrote: > > > Rulings on cards like Deflection suggest that "when" means "within timing window x": you don't have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. > > > > > Unless I'm mistaken, you're wrong: you have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined, *as soon as you have the impulse*. That's why you have to wait until the acting minion increases the bleed amount or declines to do so. > > > > If you don't play Deflection at that time, it's too late. (And I don't really understand when you would play it otherwise). > > > > You may do something else of course when you have the impulse, eg. reduce the bleed amount with Telepathic Counter. The impulse then goes back to the acting minion. When you get the impulse back, you could still play Deflection because you're still in the "after blocks are declined" immediate window. > > > If you can play Telepathic Counter and the opponent can play Conditioning before Deflection but after blocks are declined then that, to me, plainly suggests that you don't have to play Deflection immediately. > It's because either you're playing on words, or you don't get the idea. You can't play cards before you have the impulse, sure. But you have to play Deflection in the window that opens immediately when the condition is met. So if one stays one step above the impulse level of detail, you have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Suoli wrote: > Well, yes there is a ruling on playing action modifiers after combat/action resolution: you can't do it unless card text explicitly allows you to. POoT doesn't have that text and yet, for some reason, the standing ruling is that it can be played after action resolution. > Latest card text disagrees. > Pocket wrote: > [obt] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 stealth. > [tem] +1 stealth. > [TEM] Playable after combat. After any combat this action, this vampire can burn 1 blood to start a new combat with the opposing minion (if both combatants are still ready). > (emphasis added in both quotes) -- National Coordinator South Africa

I've re-read all the rulings and try to summarize them here: 1/ you can't play action modifiers/reaction after an action has resolved, except if there is an explicit card text allowing to do so groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/62decbb2f585c223/25a4780627496c6e 2/ Wake cards are not subject to this ruling (same thread) 3/ Pocket out of Time is not subject to this ruling, through an unclear/unconfirmed ruling of LSJ groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bdd478084d856f4 Point 3 may be confirmed or reversed by Floppy (for consistency), or the card may be errated to allow this use. EDIT: as drnlmza pointed out, card has been errated to be playable after combat. Point 1 forbids playing Horrific Countenance after a block (no explicit clause such as "after he or she blocks") 4/ "after" means "immediatly after" groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4410c3fc69e989a8 and www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/16788-new-psyche-and-telepathic-tracking?limit=10&start=30#18827. Pascal Bertrand will confirm (or not) the fact that "when" means "immediatly when". Ruling 4 would mean that Horrific Countenance must be played immediately (=during the first impulse window) when the condition is met, ie. the action is blocked. You can't play it later during the action because sometime during the action, the condition was met. (And ruling #1 forbids it anyway). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Megabaja wrote: > 2.You are consistently trying to avoid answering my questions. > No, I just don't answer some of them. I don't have to try to avoid anything. I get to choose what I respond to! Please do not treat people as slaves who have to do everything in their power to please you. > Megabaja wrote: > On the other hand you are constantly trying to prove me wrong. > When you state things that are factually incorrect, I will correct them. And since you have repeatedly made horrific mis-statements in this thread, I've corrected them. > Megabaja wrote: > That is not how discussion should look like. I asked about Pocket Out of Time and other things, but you stay silent about those. > It got errata, because LSJ felt it deserved it. And it was apparently causing problems for people. Which is exactly what I've said all along - designer intent is relevant if there's a problem. Horrific Countenance doesn't cause this problem, because an unblockable action after it has resolved is pointless. This is not evasion. This is that you don't like the answer you're getting. > Megabaja wrote: > 3.You want me to look thru 3000 cards to find out > interactions? > Yes. Because what you are arguing for is that if you don't like a ruling, you'll just yell that you need "designer intent" clarified and get it reviewed. I honestly don't know if the designer thought about this situation. Pretty much every ruling is disliked by someone, so then we have dozens of people saying "Let's not play by card text and existing rulings - I want this changed!" Like you're doing here. > Megabaja wrote: > I would say - Play with standing rules. When a dispute rises - ask, and I'll answer to the best of my knowledge. If that was good for LSJ, it's good enough for me. > Then you have the existing rules and rulings. Horrific Countenance cannot be played after resolution, because it lacks explicit card text. Done deal, by your own admission. > Megabaja wrote: > And that is what I am doing now. I ask about any situation I run into that does not seem logical to me, and almost every time I have to spend hours and hours in argument with you. > So, here, you get the correct ruling and then demand designer intent and reviews. Since you have the ruling that is - by your own admission - good enough for you, continuing your increasingly bizarre arguments is not logical. I can't help it if you do illlogical things that upset you. Your argument here has not been couched in logic. Indeed, it's been couched in "designer intent" (which isn't discoverable by logic - indeed, the exact opposite is true), calls for reviews, calls for ignoring precedent, and the fact that you don't like the current ruling. It is not logical to overturn precedent for no reason. Therefore, I conclude that you don't want an argument about logic, despite your protestations.

@Anka 1.You haven't read whole topic. 2.You haven't read text on the Forced Vigilance where "immediately" means after combat. 3.You did not take into consideration Edge of The World, or the fact that POoT was errated a few months ago, while Horrific Countenance is a rarely played card, that was not errated even once for 15 years. You are trying to solve this hastily - please try not to. > Point 1 forbids playing Horrific Countenance after a block (no explicit clause such as "after he or she blocks") > Horrific Countenance Type: Action Modifier Requires: Protean Cost: 4 blood Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [pro] Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now unblockable. If you follow ruling no.1 then HC in not playable at all. Block needs to occur for this card to be playable. Combat is a part of block. There is no "would be blocked" clause, as there is no "playable after combat, if any" either. You (or somebody who does errata for cards) can take this card on a two different ways. I'm implying that this card is more useful as expensive "action continues" than as expensive "block fails". Try to read all of the topic carefully before you make a rush decision. EDIT: @James: I already told you on the other topic - try not to act in that manner. I find it offensive, and I'm not the only one. If you are not feeling o.k. about my arguments, do not post on my topics. In fact, try to avoid communication with me altogether. It may be for the best. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > 1.You haven't read whole topic. > Incorrect. > Megabaja wrote: > 2.You haven't read text on the Forced Vigilance where "immediately" means after combat. > No, the words "play after combat, if any" do that. The same is found on Cats' Guidance. > Megabaja wrote: > 3.You did not take into consideration Edge of The World, or the fact that POoT was errated a few months ago, while Horrific Countenance is a rarely played card, that was not errated even once for 15 years. > Incorrect. > Megabaja wrote: > You are trying to solve this hastily > Incorrect. > Megabaja wrote: > If you follow ruling no.1 then HC in not playable at all. > Put the crack pipe down. The card tells you to play it when you're blocked. That's when you play it. At the point you're blocked. The Golden Rule of Cards says... I can be played at the time I tell you to play me! Seriously, this is just beyond farcical now.

> Megabaja wrote: > 2.You haven't read text on the Forced Vigilance where "immediately" means after combat. > No. Name: Forced Vigilance Cardtype: Reaction Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Fortitude[for] Only usable by a tapped vampire immediately after he or she blocks (play after combat, if any). Untap this reacting vampire. Same card text for Cats' Guidance. The important text is in bold. Text between parenthesis is not reminder text. > Megabaja wrote: > 3.You did not take into consideration Edge of The World, or the fact that POoT was errated a few months ago, while Horrific Countenance is a rarely played card, that was not errated even once for 15 years. > If you mean that Horrific Countenance hasn't been errated for 15 years, you're right. Until then, it follows the standard rulings. > Point 1 forbids playing Horrific Countenance after a block (no explicit clause such as "after he or she blocks") > > Horrific Countenance > Type: Action Modifier > Requires: Protean > Cost: 4 blood > Only usable when this vampire is blocked. > [pro] Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now unblockable. > > If you follow ruling no.1 then HC in not playable at all. > > Block needs to occur for this card to be playable. Combat is a part of block. > The card has to be played before combat (if any) because it's not a combat card. And since its states "when this vampire is blocked.", you have to play it when (at the moment) the condition is met: Vampire A is blocked by vampire B. Vampire A plays Horrific Countenance. Action is not blocked and is now unblockable. > There is no "would be blocked" clause, as there is no "playable after combat, if any" either. You (or somebody who does errata for cards) can take this card on a two different ways. > "would be blocked" is the most recent wording but means almost* the same thing for Horrific Countenance (whose text could be updated to match the most recent wording, but many cards are not updated). *almost, because currently it triggers "when blocked" effects -- see the Gwyeed topic www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/30262-gwyedd-and-horrific-countenance, this may of course be subject to change if Horrific Countenance is errated. This is maybe a wording mistake (most probably) but one has to follow the current rules until it changes > I'm iplying that this card is more useful as expensive "action continues" than as expensive "block fails". > Moot. It's a subjective appreciation. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > It's because either you're playing on words, or you don't get the idea. > You can't play cards before you have the impulse, sure. But you have to play Deflection in the window that opens immediately when the condition is met. So if one stays one step above the impulse level of detail, you have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. > I don't understand where this immediacy comes from or how the word applies to the situation. I can see how the concept could be accommodated without conflict by the known system of rules but not why or if it should be, seeing as how the system works without it. To avoid a debate about semantics, I'll try to approach this on a more mechanical level. It has been established that you have to play Deflection in the window that follows declining to block. It has also been established that you can play other cards and effects in the same window, before or after Deflection. Now, since a block is a window that starts at a successful block attempt and ends after action resolution, it stands to reason that you can play cards that use that window before or after playing other cards. Anyway, the whole argument concerning Horrific Countenance was hinging on the precedent set by Pocket Out of Time and rendered moot by the updated card text.

> Text between parenthesis is not reminder text. > As I read thru cards and google groups, LSJ always confirmend that this kind of text is always reminder text. And that not all reminder texts are in parenthesis. I must have been wrong all the time... > Vampire A is blocked by vampire B. Vampire A plays Horrific Countenance. > When? Card text does not indicate that the card can be played before combat, and combat starts immediately after block is successful. > "would be blocked" is the most recent wording but means almost* the same thing for Horrific Countenance (whose text could be updated to match the most recent wording, but many cards are not updated). > *almost, because currently it triggers "when blocked" effects -- see the Gwyeed topic www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-que...orrific-countenance, this may of course be subject to change if Horrific Countenance is errated. This is maybe a wording mistake (most probably) but one has to follow the current rules until it changes > All I am saying is: 1. Currently, there's no errata for this card. So, wording "would be blocked" is as far away as "this action continues as unblocked" from the new card text. They both change how the card functions at the moment, because at the moment this card is unplayable, if we do not consider "play before combat" text, that also does not exist. 2. I already pointed to the POoT and Edge of the World that do not have such text on them, and they were released after said ruling was made. In the meantime POoT was errated. I'm guessing that HC was not errated in the same manner because it is not played that much. And what about Edge of the World? Is it playable after combat or not? Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Suoli wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > It's because either you're playing on words, or you don't get the idea. > > You can't play cards before you have the impulse, sure. But you have to play Deflection in the window that opens immediately when the condition is met. So if one stays one step above the impulse level of detail, you have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined. > > > I don't understand where this immediacy comes from or how the word applies to the situation. > It comes for ruling #4. Timing "after" means "immediately after". timing "when" should mean "immediately when", contrary to "some time after the when condition is met". > Suoli wrote: > I can see how the concept could be accommodated without conflict by the known system of rules but not why or if it should be, seeing as how the system works without it. > Well, the system works with it. You play Deflection when blocks are declined, not later during the action. Think about the following scenario: A bleeds, B declines to block, A passes the impulse, B passes the impulse because he's expecting C to play Major Boon and prefers to keep his deflection. Everyone passes the impulse. Now C plays Major Boon ("when another Methuselah {would be} successfully bled."), D Suddens it. B can't play Deflection at that point. > Suoli wrote: > To avoid a debate about semantics, I'll try to approach this on a more mechanical level. > > It has been established that you have to play Deflection in the window that follows declining to block. It has also been established that you can play other cards and effects in the same window, before or after Deflection. Now, since a block is a window that starts at a successful block attempt and ends after action resolution, it stands to reason that you can play cards that use that window before or after playing other cards. > I agree. What I wanted to point out is that this whole window is "(immediately) when blocks are declined". Many things may happen in it, agreed, thus the feeling you don't play the card "immediately". Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Megabaja wrote: > > > Text between parenthesis is not reminder text. > > > As I read thru cards and google groups, LSJ always confirmend that this kind of text is always reminder text. > Wrong. See Direct Intervention/Sudden Reversal vs Santaleous: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/ffb4e5efe1875a1d/64ca2ea8232830bd?lnk=gst&q=santaleous#64ca2ea8232830bd Name: Sudden Reversal Cardtype: Master Master: out-of-turn. Cancel a master card played by another Methuselah as it is played (no cost is paid). > Megabaja wrote: > And that not all reminder texts are in parenthesis. I must have been wrong all the time... > On that point, yes. I'm not really happy with non-reminder texts between parenthesis, but that's how it works. > Megabaja wrote: > > > Vampire A is blocked by vampire B. Vampire A plays Horrific Countenance. > > > When? Card text does not indicate that the card can be played before combat, and combat starts immediately after block is successful. > When? When the card tells so. And no, combat doesn't start immediately after block if you play a card that must be played at that time. Eg. Obedience. > "would be blocked" is the most recent wording but means almost* the same thing for Horrific Countenance (whose text could be updated to match the most recent wording, but many cards are not updated). > *almost, because currently it triggers "when blocked" effects -- see the Gwyeed topic www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-que...orrific-countenance, this may of course be subject to change if Horrific Countenance is errated. This is maybe a wording mistake (most probably) but one has to follow the current rules until it changes > > All I am saying is: > 1. Currently, there's no errata for this card. So, wording "would be blocked" is as far away as "this action continues as unblocked" from the new card text. They both change how the card functions at the moment, because at the moment this card is unplayable, if we do not consider "play before combat" text, that also does not exist. > Indeed. That's why Horrific Countenance behaves differently than if it were worded "would be blocked". > > 2. I already pointed to the POoT and Edge of the World that do not have such text on them, and they were released after said ruling was made. In the meantime POoT was errated. I'm guessing that HC was not errated in the same manner because it is not played that much. > Wild guess, I don't know. > > And what about Edge of the World? Is it playable after combat or not? > Currently no, unless I've missed a ruling/errata. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Megabaja wrote: > As I read thru cards and google groups, LSJ always confirmend that this kind of text is always reminder text. And that not all reminder texts are in parenthesis. > Incorrect. [LSJ 20031230] > > LSJ wrote: > Card text in parenthesis is often not reminder text. > Aching Beauty > Admonitions > Ankara Citadel > Blissful Agony > Cats' Guidance > Charming Lobby > ... > [LSJ 20050403] > > LSJ wrote: > >true or false: Reminder text is always > > in parentheses. Text in parentheses is always reminder text. > > False. > > e.g. "unpreventable" damage done outside of combat and "(round up)". > > Megabaja wrote: > I must have been wrong all the time... > Correct.

> Ankha wrote: > It comes for ruling #4. > I'm not sure I understand. What and where is ruling #4? > Timing "after" means "immediately after". > timing "when" should mean "immediately when", contrary to "some time after the when condition is met". > Why should "when" be defined that way, as opposed to "while in timing window x", where window x could encompass, for example, a block combat and all it's steps?

> Suoli wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > It comes for ruling #4. > > > I'm not sure I understand. What and where is ruling #4? > Check my summary post above. > Suoli wrote: > > > Timing "after" means "immediately after". > > timing "when" should mean "immediately when", contrary to "some time after the when condition is met". > > > Why should "when" be defined that way, as opposed to "while in timing window x", where window x could encompass, for example, a block combat and all it's steps? > Because 1/ it matches the current rulings 2/ it follows the same pattern as "after" (see ruling 4) 3/ many games work like this (including card games such as Magic, Games of Thrones), so it's easier to remind, understand and learn. They trigger at the moment the condition is met, not later. But as you state it, it seems to have the same meaning. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> > Then, to LSJ: > > How does one tell when text is reminder text, and when it is rules > > text? > > Is it simply by way of redundancy? > > Yes. > And what exactly does "way of redundancy" mean? > Name: Forced Vigilance > Cardtype: Reaction > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Fortitude[for] Only usable by a tapped vampire immediately after he or she blocks (play after combat, if any). Untap this reacting vampire. > Same card text for Cats' Guidance. > > The important text is in bold. Text between parenthesis is not reminder text. > See. I could think that, in the above case, text in parenthesis is redundant, since outside of parenthesis is clearly written immediately. And in your theory immediately means before combat (or anything else, for that matter). > When? When the card tells so. > And no, combat doesn't start immediately after block if you play a card that must be played at that time. Eg. Obedience. > Obedience has a clear text that indicates that timing window is "when about to enter combat". This card does not have such text (or any similar). State of being blocked is lasting, as Suoli already wrote. Edit: And Change of Target and other similar cards have "play before combat" text in parenthesis. > Timing "after" means "immediately after". > In a case of Forced Vigilance it does not. It means after combat. As I already said. @Edge of the World has text: Only usable if you have gained a victory point during this action And this card in not usable at all, since it does not have "play after resolution of an action" or similar text and you gain VP after your action resolves, and not while it is lasting? Or is it usable after resolution after all? Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > @Edge of the World has text: Only usable if you have gained a victory point during this action > And this card in not usable at all, since it does not have "play after resolution of an action" or similar text and you gain VP after your action resolves, and not while it is lasting? Or is it usable after resolution after all? > See, a potential problem like this - making a card possibly unplayable - is exactly the sort of situation where clarificatory text or errata may be necessary. This does not mean that other cards, which do not suffer from this problem because they are playable in quite ordinary fashions, suddenly get rewritten too. That would not be logical. It would be the very opposite of logical.

> Megabaja wrote: > > > > Then, to LSJ: > > > How does one tell when text is reminder text, and when it is rules > > > text? > > > Is it simply by way of redundancy? > > > > Yes. > > > And what exactly does "way of redundancy" mean? > Quoting random text (no link?) that is unclear is dishonest when you have 4 full link stating clearly that text between parenthesis is not always reminder text. > Megabaja wrote: > > > Name: Forced Vigilance > > Cardtype: Reaction > > Cost: 1 blood > > Discipline: Fortitude[for] Only usable by a tapped vampire immediately after he or she blocks (play after combat, if any). Untap this reacting vampire. > > Same card text for Cats' Guidance. > > > > The important text is in bold. Text between parenthesis is not reminder text. > > > See. I could think that, in the above case, text in parenthesis is redundant, since outside of parenthesis is clearly written immediately. And in your theory immediately means before combat (or anything else, for that matter). > On my side, I could think that you're playing dumb on purpose. The text between parenthesis is not reminder text. It indicates clearly when the card is played. Without it, some people would think the card would/could be played before combat, some others only after. > Megabaja wrote: > > > When? When the card tells so. > > And no, combat doesn't start immediately after block if you play a card that must be played at that time. Eg. Obedience. > > > Obedience has a clear text that indicates that timing window is "when about to enter combat". This card does not have such text (or any similar). State of being blocked is lasting, as Suoli already wrote. Edit: And Change of Target and other similar cards have "play before combat" text in parenthesis. > So the card is not playable at the only moment it would have a real effect? You'd better tear your Sniper Rifle into pieces then too, because with the current wording, you can't use it neither to set the range. Unless you're smart and you play the card when it is meant to be played. > Megabaja wrote: > > > Timing "after" means "immediately after". > > > In a case of Forced Vigilance it does not. It means after combat. As I already said. > This is ludicrous and I can't help if you disagree with the current ruling stated by LSJ and confirmed by Pascal Bertrand. You should apply to the rulemonger's job so you could build your own rules. > Megabaja wrote: > @Edge of the World has text: Only usable if you have gained a victory point during this action > And this card in not usable at all, since it does not have "play after resolution of an action" or similar text and you gain VP after your action resolves, and not while it is lasting? Or is it usable after resolution after all? > Ask the rulemonger, I don't create rulings. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Now, I'll stop feeding the troll called Megabaja and wait that Pascal Bertrand enlightens us. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

trolling for consistency in rules and clear card texts is qualitytrollingTM Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Quoting random text (no link?) that is unclear is dishonest when you have 4 full link stating clearly that text between parenthesis is not always reminder text. > Sorry about that. It was from one of James' links, and I supposed that you'll know where I dug it from. It's the [LSJ 20050403] link, last post. > On my side, I could think that you're playing dumb on purpose. > And I could say the same for you. You were playing/seeing this card for fifteen years assuming that it is played before combat, without any text saying so. Just because other games/cards use same/or similar mechanics... Simple: Card is usable only when you're blocked, and you're blocked even after block combat (since it is, by ruling, part of block). This card untaps blocker, negates block, and makes action unblockable. If it negates block (and by card text, it does) it negates unsuccessful resolution of an action (as blocked action is unsuccessful by ruling), and action may continue (in my opinion). As I see, main problem is the LSJ ruling, that cards without explicit text could not be played after combat. That's why I cited other cards that are usable after combat, and still are without that text/or were errated. Errated cards include: Domain of Evernight, Pocket Out of Time, All kinds of Wakes... EDIT: And I'm looking forward this ruling to ask for more clarifying questions - from top of my head - (Unleash Hell's Fury vs. Horrific) versus (Milicent Smith vs. Change of Target)... Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > If it negates block (and by card text, it does) it negates unsuccessful resolution of an action (as blocked action is unsuccessful by ruling), and action may continue (in my opinion). > No, it doesn't contain any card text indicating it reverses the resolution and continues the action. There are other cards that do that. Horrific Countenance doesn't. The action has already resolved (unsuccessfully). Similarly, Oath and Infection [THAN] do not cause the action to continue because the blocker can no longer block. This isn't a question of ambiguous card text where each group of people can reasonably have different opinions. Your opinion simply isn't supported by card text.

Hm, lengthy argumentations over here. To sum up: - Pocket Out of Time's text was updated. No further ruling needed. - "Only usable when/by.." implies "Usable when/by.." (notice how bad Wake with Evening's Freshness would be if it weren't the case?), which makes Edge of the World usable after resolution. - Horrific Countenance: The action is blocked, the block attempt is successful, *play Horrific Countenance* and it now continues, and is unblockable. Horrific Countenance is only playable before resolution (just like Change of Target - I agree consistency would either have the parentheses on both or none). - HC vs Unleash Hell's Fury: UHF inflicts 1 agg and burns before HC could be played. - Change of Target vs Millicient Smith: Millicient Smith burns the vampire before CoT could be played ( [LSJ 20010723] )

> No, it doesn't contain any card text indicating it reverses the resolution.. > Text that reverses the resolution is there. It is clearly written on the card - "This action is not blocked...". Being usable only after minion is blocked, this sentence clearly negates result of a block that occurred previously during the same action. > ...and continues the action. > You are correct. There is no similar text on the card. What is written is "... and it is now unblockable ". So action that was previously blocked and resolved unsuccessfully, is now unblockable. Although there is no text indicating it continues, being unblockable clearly indicates that action still exists. Notice the usage of adjectives "when" - that states that something needs to happen, and "now" that something is happening still. > Your opinion simply isn't supported by card text. > So I used intuitivenessTM that Anka mentioned. Number of cards lacking text that allows usage "after resolution of an action" is actually greater then number of cards having it written. Some of those were errated to be usable, and my point is that Horrific Countenace needs such errata. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

Sorry about this - Pascals post squeezed in before I replied to James, but after I started to write it. > - Horrific Countenance: The action is blocked, the block attempt is successful, *play Horrific Countenance* and it now continues, and is unblockable. > Why is it not possible to go into combat phase of a block before playing Horrific Countenance? It is still a blocked after it... EDIT: > - "Only usable when/by.." implies "Usable when/by.." (notice how bad Wake with Evening's Freshness would be if it weren't the case?), which makes Edge of the World usable after resolution. > Using the same logic: Notice how bad Horrific Countenance would be if it would be used before unsuccessful resolution of an action. Using it after makes it more usable, and less wallpaper. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > Sorry about this - Pascals post squeezed in before I replied to James, but after I started to write it. > > > - Horrific Countenance: The action is blocked, the block attempt is successful, *play Horrific Countenance* and it now continues, and is unblockable. > > > Why is it not possible to go into combat phase of a block before playing Horrific Countenance? It is still a blocked after it... > Because the "combat phase" is the resolution of the action, and Horrific Countenance isn't playable after the resoltuion. > Megabaja wrote: > EDIT: > > > - "Only usable when/by.." implies "Usable when/by.." (notice how bad Wake with Evening's Freshness would be if it weren't the case?), which makes Edge of the World usable after resolution. > > > Using the same logic: > Notice how bad Horrific Countenance would be if it would be used before unsuccessful resolution of an action. Using it after makes it more usable, and less wallpaper. > Rulings/Clarifications aren't here to make cards better. What I wanted to point out in my example was that, without the implication, Wake with Evening's Freshness would not be playable at all.

> Because the "combat phase" is the resolution of the action, and Horrific Countenance isn't playable after the resoltuion. > No, no... Block is part of the resolution of an action - combat phase is just a part of the state of being blocked. Being blocked means that action is resolved unsuccessfully (at the moment), as ruled by LSJ. He even ruled that in the moment of being blocked action card goes to ash heap, and that if action continues somehow, it uses text of an action card already in ash heap. And you know that action card is in limbo during an action, not in ash heap. From this point action may only continue "as if unblocked". I agree that this card does not have such text. I do not agree that this card is not playable after combat just because it does not have text that most of the card using the rule of "playability after combat" do not have written on them. Some of them were errated to match the ruling, some of them were not. And I'm pointing out that this card is not errated. It can be errated this way. I understand that you think that Horrific Countenance functions the way you explained, but it is not how this card is written. You are assuming that it is played before, just as I am assuming it is played after combat. It has no parenthesis text to confirm either of our assumptions, nor any rulings so far covering this explicit card. To my defence: I think it is played after combat, because it has a text "Untap the blocking minion", and not the usual "do not tap the blocking minion", and "Only usable when this vampire is blocked" and not the usual "Only usable when a minion attempts to block" They both suggest that block has already happened. It is a subtle difference, but is a difference that hints what the right usage of the card might be. For example: if you are about to block the action you can play cards to avoid it (as obedience states - "about to" is the key). In the case of Horrific Countenance this "about to" part is already over. You are already blocked. Obedience hints another thing - at the moment minion plays it - minion is not tapped ( do not tap this blocking minion). In the case of Horrific Countenance, card assumes that blocking minion is tapped. Obedience is, by card text, playable before Horrific Countenance. Minions A and B have same amount of stealth and intercept. Acting A is currently being blocked, so if he does not play Elder Impersonation or Change of Target, B gets the chance to play Obedience or Minor Irritation. If B does not play Obedience, both have passed impulse and combat begins. There is no window for Horrific Countenance before combat. Timing is the key. So Obedience is played before minion taps ( do not tap the blocking minion) and HC after the minion taps ( Untap the blocking minion). There is no window between Obedince and combat. Horrific Countenance is unplayable while blocking minion is not taped, by card text. Blocker needs to tap for Horrific Countenance to be playable. If he is tapped, combat begins. Also, ruling that cards need explicit text to be playable after combat made by LSJ, did not live in expansions that were released after the ruling was made. That is why I mentioned POoT and Edge of the World, and Wakes of all sorts. Those cards were not errated by LSJ, and as Tiago mentioned, even in the case of POoT LSJ does not explicitly say can or cannot be played, but stays somewhat confusing... Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

Ignorance is bliss. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Megabaja wrote: > No, no... > So when you said that all you wanted was for it to be reviewed? And now Pascal has reviewed it and you're still insisting that it needs to change? It got what you wanted - a review. It didn't get the outcome you wanted, because you were wrong. > Megabaja wrote: > All I am saying that this card needs an official look into. Why are you against it so stubbornly? > It's quite apparent that that wasn't all you were saying.

Megabaja's crusade is interesting in many ways. we just have to remember that rulings are arbitrary and not always consistent i guess. Not to belittle the work of lsj or pascal, but sometime consistency is what a game needs... Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > but sometime consistency is what a game needs... > Neither Megabaja nor any proponent of "consistency" propose thing that are more consistent. It can be argued that they are easier to remember or more intuitive, but they just follow another logic ; they don't have one where Pascal and LSJ have none.

EDIT: created a new thread for it.