I was attempting to answer the question: can a minion with superior Maleficia wake and play Evil Eye to cancel an action? I found the following rules on the rulings page.
> Rulings wrote:
> A card can be canceled "as it is played" (with Sudden Reversal, Direct Intervention, etc.) only as it is played. The only cards that can be played "as" another one is played are the ones the players have in their hands at the time. You cannot use the Barrens after a master card is played, for example, to attempt to draw into a Sudden Reversal to cancel it. [RTR 20040501]
>
This appears to contradict the following ruling:
> Rulings wrote:
> "As played" (a phrase used by many card-canceling effects) comes after the card in question is fully announced and before the effect the play generates. In general, no card or effect can be used in this window. The only ones that can be arethe effects that say so, and Wake-style effects that enable such cards to be played ("may play reaction cards" effects, not "untap self" or other effects). [RTR]
>
There is no link or record of when this ruling was made. The only ruling I found to corroborate this exception was in 2001 for Rewind Time at inferior Temporis - which would have been overturned by the 2004 ruling. But as they both stand on the rulings page, I must infer that wakes are an exception to the 2004 ruling.
Pascal: it would be helpful if you could clear up my confusion about the second ruling by updating the rules page. And if it is true that you can wake and cancel, but not use the barrens and cancel, what is the justification for the exception?
===
UPDATE: official answer here
SUMMARY: The two rulings do not contradict each other. The ruling from 2004 makes it explicit that only cards-in-hand can be used to cancel a card as it is played. It does not say which cards-in-hand can or can not be played, just that they have to be in hand. Therefore it does not contradict the 2001 ruling, which only identifies the exception to the rule, namely that wakes can be played to enable a "cancel as played" card. 2001: You can play a wake to cancel a card as played... 2004: but the cards must be in your hand.
I don't see any contradiction.
First ruling states that you must have the canceling card in hand at the moment the card is played. You can't use Barrens in order to draw it.
Second ruling states that there are very little cards you can play during the "as played" window, and that the wake-cards are one of those.
Wake-cards are quite special because they allow to play other cards, so they must be playable during the same windows at those other cards.
Since Rewind Time can be played during the "as played" window, the wake cards that allow to play Rewind Time must be also playable at that time.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
According to my research, the "second" ruling was made in 2001, which means it was overturned by the 2004 RTR. I am asking Pascal to clarify the situation and update the web page accordingly.
Dorrinal, I would like you to explain where there is a contradiction. the two thing you cite don't interact one with another.
There is a caveat : by what you have excavated, you can't play a wake and use a rewind time you draw as replacement. It's the only problematic point I see by your explanation.
> Ankha wrote:
> Wake-cards are quite special because they allow to play other cards, so they must be playable during the same windows at those other cards.
>
That is not a good justification. Untap effects also allow to play reactions per the rules. Effects that give blood allow to play cards that cost blood. Effects that give temporary access to a discipline (or any trait or title) allow to play cards with that requirement. And so on. There is nothing special about wakes that warrants an exception.
>
> Since Rewind Time can be played during the "as played" window, the wake cards that allow to play Rewind Time must be also playable at that time.
>
That reasoning is flawed because there are already reactions that cannot be played on a wake, Irregular Protocol for example. There is no obligation for Rewind Time to be playable on a wake. That would not break the game and would not even make Rewind Time significantly weaker since the True Brujah already have access to a lot of proactive untap.
Actually, if the game was completely cleaned up, Rewind Time should not even be a Reaction but a Reflex along all other cancel cards.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Wake-cards are quite special because they allow to play other cards, so they must be playable during the same windows at those other cards.
> >
> That is not a good justification. Untap effects also allow to play reactions per the rules. Effects that give blood allow to play cards that cost blood. Effects that give temporary access to a discipline (or any trait or title) allow to play cards with that requirement. And so on. There is nothing special about wakes that warrants an exception.
> >
> > Since Rewind Time can be played during the "as played" window, the wake cards that allow to play Rewind Time must be also playable at that time.
> >
> That reasoning is flawed because there are already reactions that cannot be played on a wake, Irregular Protocol for example. There is no obligation for Rewind Time to be playable on a wake. That would not break the game and would not even make Rewind Time significantly weaker since the True Brujah already have access to a lot of proactive untap.
>
I didn't say it was a good justification or not, it's just the "official" justification from LSJ. groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/nW1DuhwyCc0/JdlPQ-oz2twJ
Can't find again the topic he explained why it was that way, but someone may find it.
> Actually, if the game was completely cleaned up, Rewind Time should not even be a Reaction but a Reflex along all other cancel cards.
>
No, because "Reflexes only cancel cards played on the minion. [1.6.3]" (LSJ)
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I was attempting to answer the question: can a minion with superior Maleficia wake and play Evil Eye to cancel an action? I found the following rules on the rulings page.
Added the above to the original post to make the contradiction clear.
> Dorrinal wrote:
> I was attempting to answer the question: can a minion with superior Maleficia wake and play Evil Eye to cancel an action? I found the following rules on the rulings page.
>
> Added the above to the original post to make the contradiction clear.
>
Answer is: yes.
It's the same as Wake + Rewind Time at [tem].
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Let's focus on the rulebook:
>
> Some effects can cancel a card "as it is played." These effects (and effects that grant the ability to play them, like Forced Awakening) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards comes after this time period.
>
"effects that grant the ability to play them" being effects that read "this minion may play {reaction} cards {as though untapped}". This line in the rulebook has been there for at least 3 years.
Wake with Evening's Freshness + sup' Evil Eye to cancel an action card.
On the Qui Vive + sup' Evil Eye works, but remember that, in the "as played" window, cards aren't replaced (as written in the rulebook and in your first link).
Thank you, Pascal. Were you able to verify the source of the undated ruling? And is it possible to clarify the rules page, or somehow note that the ruling has been incorporated into the official rule book?
> Pascal wrote:
>
> Wake with Evening's Freshness + sup' Evil Eye to cancel an action card.
> On the Qui Vive + sup' Evil Eye works, but remember that, in the "as played" window, cards aren't replaced (as written in the rulebook and in your first link).
>
So, basically, you if you wake, say, during the "as played" window to cancel a card you will replace a forced awakening only after you play a rewind time (already in your hand) to cancel an action card with it?
Seems rather odd (to replace a card only after playing another card in the
given "as played" window - to better clear to me "as played" should just
correspond to -> "as replaced" with no other utter windows in between)
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> >
> > Wake with Evening's Freshness + sup' Evil Eye to cancel an action card.
> > On the Qui Vive + sup' Evil Eye works, but remember that, in the "as played" window, cards aren't replaced (as written in the rulebook and in your first link).
> >
> So, basically, you if you wake, say, during the "as played" window to cancel a card you will replace a forced awakening only after you play a rewind time (already in your hand) to cancel an action card with it?
> Seems rather odd (to replace a card only after playing another card in the
> given "as played" window - to better clear to me "as played" should just
> correspond to -> "as replaced" with no other utter windows in between)
>
You're not reading it the right way.
>
> Rulebook wrote:
> Some effects can cancel a card "as it is played." These effects (and effects that grant the ability to play them, like Forced Awakening) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards comes after this time period.
>
You can play Forced Awakening, but you won't replace it until after the 'as played' window closes. This is not related to the fact that you have an Evil Eye in your hand.
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > >
> > > Wake with Evening's Freshness + sup' Evil Eye to cancel an action card.
> > > On the Qui Vive + sup' Evil Eye works, but remember that, in the "as played" window, cards aren't replaced (as written in the rulebook and in your first link).
> > >
> > >
> > So, basically, you if you wake, say, during the "as played" window to cancel a card you will replace a forced awakening only after you play a rewind time (already in your hand) to cancel an action card with it?
> > Seems rather odd (to replace a card only after playing another card in the
> > given "as played" window - to better clear to me "as played" should just
> > correspond to -> "as replaced" with no other utter windows in between)
> >
> You're not reading it the right way.
> >
> > Rulebook wrote:
> > Some effects can cancel a card "as it is played." These effects (and effects that grant the ability to play them, like Forced Awakening) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards comes after this time period.
> >
> You can play Forced Awakening, but you won't replace it until after the 'as played' window closes. This is not related to the fact that you have an Evil Eye in your hand.
>
I've read carefully and in fact i find odd the rule (as stated, to me "as played should correspond to an "as replaced" with no other rule window delaying the play/replace process, other than explicit card text ("do not replace until..."))
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
> I've read carefully and in fact i find odd the rule (as stated, to me "as played should correspond to an "as replaced" with no other rule window delaying the play/replace process, other than explicit card text ("do not replace until..."))
>
There need to be at least two distinct steps here.
First, you play the card. When you play it, you announce what the effects are before redrawing and people get a chance to cancel ("as it is played").
Then you redraw it.
This means that you can't (for example) play Villein, draw Giant's Blood, then decide to empty the vampire.
Now, in theory, you could split things up to:
1) Play the card and announce the effects
=2a) Cancel the card as played
=2b) Replace the card
3) Announce the action (if it was an action card) - Seduction goes here
(With 2a and 2b being simultaneous, in this hypothetical reformulation.)
Except that the rulebook says 1) happens "when it is played" and card text says cancellation happens "as it is played", and those two things mean pretty much exactly the same thing. So an intuition that splits 1) from 2a) is a bit odd, when the wording more-or-less implies they're the same thing. And then since 1) has to happen before 2b), 2a) also happens before 2b).
(Theoretically, you could argue for a difference between "when..." and "as...", in that "as..." potentially implies the thing taking a period of time when "when..." is more agnostic. But that would be really clutching at straws.)
Additionally, I find that players playing a potentially controversial card will do something like:
"Queen Anne plays Parity Shift."
*put Parity Shift on the table*
*tap Queen Anne*
*put hand on top of library ready to re-draw*
"Any DIs? [pause for input] Okay..."
*draws top card of library*
Which works pretty well as a visual.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> "Queen Anne plays Parity Shift."
> *put Parity Shift on the table*
> *tap Queen Anne*
> *put hand on top of library ready to re-draw*
> "Any DIs? [pause for input] Okay..."
> *draws top card of library*
>
> Which works pretty well as a visual.
>
It's better than replacing your Villein before announcing it's for 9, but in this example, Queen Anne doesn't tap until post-DI state.
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > "Queen Anne plays Parity Shift."
> > *put Parity Shift on the table*
> > *tap Queen Anne*
> > *put hand on top of library ready to re-draw*
> > "Any DIs? [pause for input] Okay..."
> > *draws top card of library*
> >
> > Which works pretty well as a visual.
> >
> It's better than replacing your Villein before announcing it's for 9, but in this example, Queen Anne doesn't tap until post-DI state.
>
Strictly yes, but much like the "Isabel de Leon will block, slightly nudge her towards tapped to make sure everyone can see what's going on", I find that people often do this visually.
I have also seen people put their fingers on the would-be acting vampire, ready to tap it when the Parity Shift isn't DI-ed, but generally I've noticed that less.
(It's obviously not really necessary in an online system with a text commentary as to what's just been announced.)
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > I've read carefully and in fact i find odd the rule (as stated, to me "as played should correspond to an "as replaced" with no other rule window delaying the play/replace process, other than explicit card text ("do not replace until..."))
> >
> There need to be at least two distinct steps here.
>
> First, you play the card. When you play it,
>
About "you play a card" rulebook also states:Drawing Cards. Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it
"immediately" lead to some misunderstandings given the other rule cited ("cancel as it played") in the timing window "as played"
To be clearer, as much as you can't use a drawn-sudden-via-barrens to cancel a master card being played, imho there's should be no chanche on the "as played" window of playing a reaction card to wake and *then* another reaction to cancel another card
Also, i find the other rule somewhat odd and little conflicting with the other rulebook sentence about "immediately replacing the card" , which can lead to some misunderstandings
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > nc-italy wrote:
> > > I've read carefully and in fact i find odd the rule (as stated, to me "as played should correspond to an "as replaced" with no other rule window delaying the play/replace process, other than explicit card text ("do not replace until..."))
> > >
> > >
> > There need to be at least two distinct steps here.
> >
> > First, you play the card. When you play it,
> >
> About "you play a card" rulebook also states:Drawing Cards. Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it
>
> "immediately" lead to some misunderstandings given the other rule cited ("cancel as it played") in the timing window "as played"
>
> To be clearer, as much as you can't use a drawn-sudden-via-barrens to cancel a master card being played, imho there's should be no chanche on the "as played" window of playing a reaction card to wake and *then* another reaction to cancel another card
> Also, i find the other rule somewhat odd and little conflicting with the other rulebook sentence about "immediately replacing the card" , which can lead to some misunderstandings
>
Do cards stating "do not replace until" lead to some misunderstandings too?
Because both "do not replace until" effects and the rule indicating cards are not replaced until the the DI step is over work on the same level.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Do cards stating "do not replace until" lead to some misunderstandings too?
>
Of course no, as card text is explicit and clear about when to replace , and also golden rule says that the card takes precedence
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
I think nc-italy has a point.
Main rulebook does state "immediately". That causes confusion, as immediately (at least to me), means IMMEDIATELY, not "immediately after people refuse to play DI or otherwise cancel your card, and as-played window closes".
I understand the ruling, and the need for it. Just, maybe it would be neat to trim up and update main rulebook a bit, or vice-versa?
> nc-italy wrote:
> About "you play a card" rulebook also states:Drawing Cards. Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it
>
> "immediately" lead to some misunderstandings given the other rule cited ("cancel as it played") in the timing window "as played"
>
The rulebook seems pretty straightforward on the issue.
1.6.1.1 - play the card, announce the effect.
1.6.1.1+a-bit - potentially cancel the card, and you haven't replaced the card yet
1.6.1.2 - replace the card
Described in that order, happens in that order. The special exception is described right up front, before you've even been told how or when to replace cards.
The "immediately" means "don't wait until the end of the action or some other time". It doesn't mean "ignore the previous sentence which explicitly tells you it happens before this"!
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > About "you play a card" rulebook also states:Drawing Cards. Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it
> >
> > "immediately" lead to some misunderstandings given the other rule cited ("cancel as it played") in the timing window "as played"
> >
> The rulebook seems pretty straightforward on the issue.
>
> 1.6.1.1 - play the card, announce the effect.
> 1.6.1.1+a-bit - potentially cancel the card, and you haven't replaced the card yet
> 1.6.1.2 - replace the card
>
I won't dig in text quoting, but those point are not text rulebook but what you're extrapolating from the general context
I've already quoted actual text stating that you replace immediadely the card whenever you play one, which can lead to misunderstandings if confronted with rule sentenced above in the rulebook
> The "immediately" means "don't wait until the end of the action or some other time". It doesn't mean "ignore the previous sentence which explicitly tells you it happens before this"!
>
Immediately means immediately and rulebook text is crystal clear on that
As long as the rule is clear enough and not in potential contradiction with some other part of the rules i'm fine, imho this is not the case and i'm pointing this for Pascal
best
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
> I've already quoted actual text stating that you replace immediadely the card whenever you play one, which can lead to misunderstandings if confronted with rule sentenced above in the rulebook
>
Which is immediately preceded by text telling you to wait for cancel effects.
> Rulebook wrote:
> Playing Cards. There are four main types of library cards: convictions, master cards, minion cards and event cards. Convictions are put in play during the untap phase (see details in the Imbued Rules appendix); master cards are played by Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (vampires and allies) the Methuselahs control; event cards are put into play during the discard phase to represent events that affects the World of Darkness as a whole (see section 8). Master cards have no icon at the top of the attribute bar while the other cards have an icon there that indicates what type of card it is. A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played.
>
> Some effects can cancel a card "as it is played." These effects (and effects that grant the ability to play them, like Forced Awakening) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards comes after this time period.
>
> Drawing Cards. Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it (unless card text says otherwise, of course). If your library is empty, then you do not draw to replenish your hand, but you continue to play. The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (cards that are replaced later reduce your hand size for the duration of the effect). Whenever they don't match (when an effect changes your hand size or adds or removes cards from your hand, for example), immediately discard down to or draw up to your hand size.
>
This is not infering anything from context. It's actually reading the words that are there and not selectively quoting them.
Play card.
Cancel happens before replace. This is explained before you're ever told to replace anything.
Now replace - but you've just been told this happens after cancellation. In the immediately preceeding sentence. Go-go gadget attention span!
The moral is: don't take sentences in a random order. Actually read the whole section.
Give guy a break. He read it correct. You are the one who quoted and marked one and a half of other section.
And I agree that term immediately means "right away". If cards are not replaced immediately all the time, that term should not describe time of replacement. In fact word immediately is obsolete in a given marked sentence, and meaning is the same if you erase the word. And more accurate, I might add.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> You are the one who quoted and marked one and a half of other section.
>
Err, no. This is a common problem. The rulebook is not a series of isolated sentences. You have to read the whole thing.
Did you know that when you play a card, you don't replace it? How do I know that? I read 1.6.1.1 and then failed to carry on reading the rest of the rulebook. Cards are never replaced. Ever.
LSJ pointed out, on occasion, that many problems would be solved if players actually read the whole rulebook, rather than believing they'd learned it by osmosis. This is one of those times.
> Megabaja wrote:
> In fact word immediately is obsolete in a given marked sentence, and meaning is the same if you erase the word. And more accurate, I might add.
>
Given that we have players such as yourself who yell at me for daring to suggest that reading the immediately preceeding sentence is a helpful thing to do, the word "immediately" conveys that it happens right there and then. For players from other games which don't have a constant replace mechanism, this is helpful clarification. It would be entirely possible to intuit, for example, that you replace cards for an action at the end of the action, or for the round at the end of the round. Once you encountered cards that said something similar, it might cause enlightenment (or deepen confusion). It is interesting to note, for example, that when - as I recall - White Wolf played and taught people the game back in 1994 at conventions and the like, there were tales that combat was handled by playing precisely one card. Oh look, you played a maneuver, I played Undead Strength... nothing happens. Err, thanks. People intuit all sorts of randomly wrong things. Given that some of the most popular card games on the planet do things differently, emphatic clarifications are not a bad idea.
The word immediately was there in the rulebook back in 2001, by the way. You had to read to the following sentence to find out about an exception (card text, and referendums - the rules on referendums were different back then). Think of the poor, poor players who had to read two whole sentences that were right next to each other. I weep for them.
Historically, you have always had to read whole sections and not just grab random isolated sentences, and then wet yourself when your random isolated sentence "contradicts" another sentence explaining an exception. That other sentence doesn't contradict it - it's explaining an exception.
Regardless of what's in the rulebook, this rule is in reality a totally unnecessary complication to what is otherwise a perfectly understandable system.
Why should there be a timing window between playing and replacing the card? For what reason is this required? There is absolutely no sensible reason for this other than "LSJ said so" and all it ends up doing is cause (unnecessary) arguments at tables because someone wants to play a DI after the card has been replaced.
As icing on the cake is also results in all sorts of required (messy) rulings regarding Barrens (or other card drawing effects) and Rewind Time. None of this mess would be required if the rule was just that - "you play it, you *immediately* replace it (unless the card says otherwise)".
> Izaak wrote:
> Why should there be a timing window between playing and replacing the card? For what reason is this required? There is absolutely no sensible reason for this other than "LSJ said so" and all it ends up doing is cause (unnecessary) arguments at tables because someone wants to play a DI after the card has been replaced.
>
When Wakes are playable in this window, it's simpler for players to be able to say "I can cancel" or "I can't cancel" fairly quickly, without having to um and ah about whether they'll play a Wake because they're not sure if they'll draw into a DI etc. Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.
Obviously, similar thoughts occur at later points - do I play this, hoping to draw a bounce? etc. - but at the point of 'has this card actually been played or not?', you want this quick and simple. It already causes enough aggravation because, in theory, you have to hold up every controversial card play. Adding another layer of indecision? Not so cool.
It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming. It's not exactly the same thing, but as a package it fits fairly well.
You could also decide that Wakes aren't playable in this window, but there was considerable back and forth on the issue as to what people thought should happen, and we are where we are.
Arguments about "This card has already been replaced" are handled in exactly the same way as any other attempt by a player to close a timing window early, such as attempting to play a maneuver before the opponent has the opportunity to play Drawing out the Beast. Back up and correct the issue, just like normal. If a player wants a second to think about cancellation to prevent this, saying "Wait a sec" is obviously helpful. But backing up and correcting an unintentional misplay is a perfectly ordinary part of the game, found in combat phases, votes ("before votes are cast" etc.), action resolution (skipping ahead before the opponent plays Cat's Guidance), starting new actions (e.g. Heidelberg) etc. Correcting these issues should be second nature. Someone saying "Well, I've already replaced so you can't" is being as much a dick as someone saying "Well, I've played Fake Out, so you can't play Carrion Crows."
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming
>
This is just untrue on some extent
As the rule allows actually more magic stacks in the very moment the playing of wakes+canceler is allowed (as it is):
1.card A to be canceled is played
2. then C(anceler) plays wake in order to play rewind time from hand to cancel A
3.then C's wake is DI'ed by some other player->
4.then C plays on the qui vive ->
5 then C plays rewind time to cancel A ->
6...card A is finally canceled and hands refulled
If just the card canceler could be played in response in the "as announced/played" window you would spare, at least potentially, some stacks in that pile and at the same time the rule would be more coherent with the
other ruling (the one stating that you can't use a similar instant effect, such as barrens, between the play of card A and the playing of canceler C)
> You could also decide that Wakes aren't playable in this window
>
To me that would be indeed much desiderable
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming
> >
> This is just untrue on some extent
> As the rule allows actually more magic stacks in the very moment the playing of wakes+canceler is allowed (as it is):
>
No, the fact that card cancellation exists at all introduces it. LSJ attempted to limit its creep by, for example, banning the use of The Barrens et al in this window, and preventing replaces until the "as played" window closes is a related element.
In general, cards should play+resolve without interruptions - except for possible cancellation. There have been attempts, at times, to wedge in ever more stack-life effects, which LSJ generally resisted where possible, and limited where not, and just lived with where it would essentially involve banning a whole swathe of cards.
There have been a number of attempts to create something that would look like Magic circa mid-90s, with things resolving on a stack. In general, you play a card and resolve it, which massively simplifies things. Card cancellation exists, but is a small exception to the general principle of play/resolve, move on to the next effect, play/resolve etc.
> nc-italy wrote:
> If just the card canceler could be played in response in the "as announced/played" window you would spare, at least potentially, some stacks in that pile
>
It wouldn't remove the possibility, so there's little point messing around the edges. You could still have me killing your card with a minion card, which you DI, which that guy SRs, which that other guy Rewinds Time on.
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > You could also decide that Wakes aren't playable in this window
> >
> To me that would be indeed much desiderable
>
And yet wouldn't actually simplify anything and, as LSJ pointed out at the time, there were numerous conflicting 'intuitions' on the subject. So there's a straightforward explanation in the rules.
> Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.
>
Huh?
I don't see how this correlates with the "as played window".
If card cancellation would be in the rules more or less as you write it in that quote, then *that* would make sense. It would still be an exception, but at least it would be be clean, easy to understand and not in need of any confusing rulings, nor would it cause table arguments involving the "as-played" window.
To me, it's just an exercise in rules nit picking that, admittedly, "solves" the problem at hand, but at the same time introduces half a dozen more.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.
> >
> Huh?
>
> I don't see how this correlates with the "as played window".
>
You don't replace cards in the 'as played' window. Therefore, you know whether you can cancel a card by looking at your hand. You don't have a "If I play this Forced and replace it, will I get... therefore...." indecision points.
1.6.1.1 tells you that replacing cards comes after the 'as played' window. The 2004 ruling explicitly states you can only use cards that are in your hand at the moment the card was played (banning Barrens et al).
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Izaak wrote:
> >
> > > Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.
> > >
> > >
> > Huh?
> >
> > I don't see how this correlates with the "as played window".
> >
> You don't replace cards in the 'as played' window. Therefore, you know whether you can cancel a card by looking at your hand. You don't have a "If I play this Forced and replace it, will I get... therefore...." indecision points.
>
> 1.6.1.1 tells you that replacing cards comes after the 'as played' window. The 2004 ruling explicitly states you can only use cards that are in your hand at the moment the card was played (banning Barrens et al).
>
So, for me the question remains why you are not allowed to replace cards in the "as played" window.
Wouldn't it be more intuitive to have cards replaced normally, and cancellation cards may be played by other players if they have it in their hand. No other effects or play of cards would be allowed.
Would that be workable?
pckvtes.wordpress.com
> Amenophobis wrote:
> So, for me the question remains why you are not allowed to replace cards in the "as played" window.
>
That's what the rules say.
> Amenophobis wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more intuitive to have cards replaced normally, and cancellation cards may be played by other players if they have it in their hand. No other effects or play of cards would be allowed.
>
If V:TES history indicates anything, it is that everyone's intuition is different.
On this specific issue, the play of Wakes was intuitive for some. For some, the play of a Wake on Rewind Time during the master phase is intuitive too. (This latter one appeared to come about because players had intuited that wakes were magic cards that let them play reactions, rather than reading card text and the rules.)
> Amenophobis wrote:
> Would that be workable?
>
Any arbitrary set of rules could be workable. When people apparently aren't reading the rules that are there, and are instead relying on their tingling spidey-senses to let them intuit what the rules are, it doesn't really matter - all the people who currently aren't reading the rules will continue to not read the rules.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> >
> > > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > >
> > > It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming
> > >
> > >
> > This is just untrue on some extent
> > As the rule allows actually more magic stacks in the very moment the playing of wakes+canceler is allowed (as it is):
> >
> No, the fact that card cancellation exists at all introduces it. LSJ attempted to limit its creep by, for example, banning the use of The Barrens et al in this window, and preventing replaces until the "as played" window closes is a related element.
>
Can't do anything more other that putting a clear example about how the actual rule add more "magic stacks" (allowing "wake" reaction cards to be played in the "as announced/played windows")
It's just fact: the more cards you allow to be played in given window the more stacks you add to it
Erasing "wakes" like reaction cards from the "as played" window would lessen stacks on it, allowing as it were done was just a call for complications and indeed this discussion is just another case
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
> Erasing "wakes" like reaction cards from the "as played" window would lessen stacks on it, allowing as it were done was just a call for complications and indeed this discussion is just another case
>
No, this discussion rose because someone didn't read the rulebook part that was quoted by Pascal.
> nc-italy wrote:
> Can't do anything more other that putting a clear example about how the actual rule add more "magic stacks" (allowing "wake" reaction cards to be played in the "as announced/played windows")
> It's just fact: the more cards you allow to be played in given window the more stacks you add to it
>
No. There's only one "stack": the one induced by the "as announced/played window" effects. You can fit any number of cards in it, it won't create more stacks.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > Erasing "wakes" like reaction cards from the "as played" window would lessen stacks on it, allowing as it were done was just a call for complications and indeed this discussion is just another case
> >
> No, this discussion rose because someone didn't read the rulebook part that was quoted by Pascal.
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > Can't do anything more other that putting a clear example about how the actual rule add more "magic stacks" (allowing "wake" reaction cards to be played in the "as announced/played windows")
> > It's just fact: the more cards you allow to be played in given window the more stacks you add to it
> >
> No. There's only one "stack": the one induced by the "as announced/played window" effects. You can fit any number of cards in it, it won't create more stacks.
>
Ok, then let's go on ignoring evidence and let's keep on the game with an huge amount of convoluted rulings
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Izaak wrote:
> >
> > > Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.
> > >
> > >
> > Huh?
> >
> > I don't see how this correlates with the "as played window".
> >
> You don't replace cards in the 'as played' window. Therefore, you know whether you can cancel a card by looking at your hand. You don't have a "If I play this Forced and replace it, will I get... therefore...." indecision points.
>
> 1.6.1.1 tells you that replacing cards comes after the 'as played' window. The 2004 ruling explicitly states you can only use cards that are in your hand at the moment the card was played (banning Barrens et al).
>
I find it interesting that you first blame people for not reading past the end of a paragraph and the continue to do exactly that in your response to my post. The "as played" timing window is a rather elaborate fix for a problem that is being blown way out of proportion.
In fact, this whole ruling is basically there because DI exists. Sure, it hits cards like Touch of Clarity as well but that's, again, not required. I'd suggest you go around a tournament and ask if playing wake - replace with Touch of Clarity - play Touch of Clarity to cancel Voter Captivation is legal. I'd genuinly surprised if even half the people get it correct.
You can't blame people for not reading/knowing the (entire, correct) rules, if the rules are shit.
> Any arbitrary set of rules could be workable. When people apparently aren't reading the rules that are there, and are instead relying on their tingling spidey-senses to let them intuit what the rules are, it doesn't really matter - all the people who currently aren't reading the rules will continue to not read the rules.
>
If the rules were actually easy to understand and didn't introduce unnessecary phases and timing windows (see also the recent Disarm vs. Pocket out of Time discussion) then less people would "not read the rules".
If I don't have a Rewind Time in hand (and I'm not even playing ), can I play a wake when a Master card is played (to cycle the wake)? It seems a little odd that I can play a reaction when there's no action, and wake doesn't specify that it can be played when there's no action (like Rewind Time specifies).
Mias
> Miasmat wrote:
> If I don't have a Rewind Time in hand (and I'm not even playing ), can I play a wake when a Master card is played (to cycle the wake)? It seems a little odd that I can play a reaction when there's no action, and wake doesn't specify that it can be played when there's no action (like Rewind Time specifies).
>
> Mias
>
You can't. No rule or card text allow you to play a wake (which is a reaction card) when there is no action.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> nc-italy wrote:
> Ok, then let's go on ignoring evidence and let's keep on the game with an huge amount of convoluted rulings
>
I didn't see any evidence.
"It's just fact: the more cards you allow to be played in given window the more stacks you add to it" is not an evidence (and is wrong), but maybe you were talking about something else?
After 4 pages of drifting topic, the usefulness of such a topic is quite weak (too much noise over the signal). A new topic with a clear opinion about a specific matter would be more useful.
> Izaak wrote:
> If the rules were actually easy to understand and didn't introduce unnessecary phases and timing windows (see also the recent Disarm vs. Pocket out of Time discussion) then less people would "not read the rules".
>
How do you quantify the difficulty to understand the rules? I know people who don't know the proper sequencing rule in a combat. Should we simplify combat, and how?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > Ok, then let's go on ignoring evidence and let's keep on the game with an huge amount of convoluted rulings
> >
> I didn't see any evidence.
>
I can see you see no evidence, i've motivated enough which points are in for me:
2 rulebook sentences leading to potential misunderstandings(one sentence about immediate replacement, the other delaying the replacement just in front of a special cancel case when card is played/announced) , the other with somewhat contradicting rulings (one allows the playing of some reaction cards between the cancelation of a card and the canceler, the other forbidding the use of instant effect such as the barrens in the same window - to me either all should be allowed or none should in the given window; special cases should be avoided whenever possible as they lead to unnecessary convolutions)
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
> Ok, then let's go on ignoring evidence and let's keep on the game with an huge amount of convoluted rulings
>
The proposed changes are no less convoluted. They're simply an arbitrary re-ordering of how things work into a different fashion. You then get a whole new set of questions about the interactions, and people complaining that they're equally convoluted.
Having cards interrupt each other is fundamentally messy, however you do it. That you have decided your version is a mess that you happen to like in no way means that everyone shares that view.
> nc-italy wrote:
> I can see you see no evidence, i've motivated enough which points are in for me:
> 2 rulebook sentences leading to potential misunderstandings(one sentence about immediate replacement, the other delaying the replacement just in front of a special cancel case when card is played/announced)
>
The exception is explained before the general rule, and it's just that, an exception. Many rules have minor exceptions to facilitate something. This is no different.
If players can't cope with simple concepts like "It works like this... with this small exception", V:TES is really going to be beyond them. There are literally thousands of cards that interact. Two sentences that are right next to each other is really trivial.
> nc-italy wrote:
> , the other with somewhat contradicting rulings (one allows the playing of some reaction cards between the cancelation of a card and the canceler, the other forbidding the use of instant effect such as the barrens in the same window - to me either all should be allowed or none should in the given window; special cases should be avoided whenever possible as they lead to unnecessary convolutions)
>
The rulebook explains how wakes work with cancellation, and that they (and the card cancellers) are the only exception to the rule. This is not a ruling - it's right there in the rulebook.
With that rule in the rulebook, the "You can't tap The Barrens" ruling is actually unnecessary - it's right there:
> Rulebook wrote:
> These effects (and effects that grant the ability to play them, like Forced Awakening) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card.
>
There's nothing contradictory between being able to play a Wake and Rewind Time and not being able to use the Barrens - the rule is right there, in very small words. Card cancellers and Wakes are the only effects allowed.
The Barrens is not either of those, so it's not allowed. By the text in the rulebook, which is in no way contradicted by an explicit, earlier ruling.
Honestly, you are using the word "contradict" without knowing what it means. The rulebook text (not a ruling) and the Barrens ruling are completely in line with each other. They in no way contradict. Nothing about them is contradictory.
> How do you quantify the difficulty to understand the rules? I know people who don't know the proper sequencing rule in a combat. Should we simplify combat, and how?
>
Oh that's actually really simple.
When a certain card or effect finds a significant (and relevant) hole in the ruleset, you make a ruling for that specific card instead of rewriting the rules entirely and complicating them in the process.
What you don't do is make up new and more rules to try and fix all the mess and then end up making rulings for other cards because you couldn't really fix the mess. The whole Pocket out of Time dungpile is a good example of rules lawyering gone wrong. If pocket out of time was ruled as environmental damage (which would, ya know, make sense) we wouldn't have needed to rewrite 3 (4? 5?) other cards and change the combat rules in the process.
If the rules said you need the cancel-card IN YOUR HAND when the to be cancelled card is played, we wouldn't have needed this silly inbetween window (and a bazillion misplays as a result).
Another good example is the utter mess that surrounds the Combat Ends and do something harmful line of cards in relation with Dodges, opposing combat ends and new-combat starting cards. Everything may be crystal clear to you, Pascal, James and probably LSJ but that pretty much sums it up.
If people come up with obscure, never to be seen weird card interactions, you don't need extra combat phases or "after played but before announced but after replaced" windows. You make up a ruling, document it somewhere and nobody will ever read it because it was a made-up example. Who cares what happens when a clan-impersonated Great Beast plays Reality Mirror on a DI'd Pocket out of Time when the range has been set to long in the third round and the opposing minion has less than 7 blood.
Here is my summary (added to the OP for the TL;DR crowd):
The two rulings do not contradict each other. The ruling from 2004 makes it explicit that only cards-in-hand can be used to cancel a card as it is played. It does not say which cards-in-hand can or can not be played, just that they have to be in hand. Therefore it does not contradict the 2001 ruling, which only identifies the exception to the rule, namely that wakes can be played to enable a "cancel as played" card. 2001: You can play a wake to cancel a card as played... 2004: but the cards must be in your hand.
> Dorrinal wrote:
> Here is my summary (added to the OP for the TL;DR crowd):
>
> The two rulings do not contradict each other. The ruling from 2004 makes it explicit that only cards-in-hand can be used to cancel a card as it is played. It does not say which cards-in-hand can or can not be played, just that they have to be in hand. Therefore it does not contradict the 2001 ruling, which only identifies the exception to the rule, namely that wakes can be played to enable a "cancel as played" card. 2001: You can play a wake to cancel a card as played... 2004: but the cards must be in your hand.
>
It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
Which to me is unnecessary complication
Simpler ruling: no reactions or effect can be played/used in the "as announced" window unless card text says otherwise (golden rule)
Simpler rulebook text: no cards are replaced until the "as announced" phase
is done (avoiding potential misleading sentences for handling special card cases from a pharagraph to the next one)
just my 2 cents
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> No. There's only one "stack": the one induced by the "as announced/played window" effects. You can fit any number of cards in it, it won't create more stacks.
>
But no, it's not one stack. It a stack for every "as played" card that can be cancelled. NC Italy explained it. Every wake type card in response to "as played" card creates new stack. Because I can play a wake to cancel someone else's wake. It goes spinning.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
>
> > No. There's only one "stack": the one induced by the "as announced/played window" effects. You can fit any number of cards in it, it won't create more stacks.
> >
> But no, it's not one stack. It a stack for every "as played" card that can be cancelled. NC Italy explained it. Every wake type card in response to "as played" card creates new stack. Because I can play a wake to cancel someone else's wake. It goes spinning.
>
Compare:
A plays Govern. B plays Rewind Time to cancel it (stack level: 1). C plays DI on Rewind Time (stack level: 2).
and
A plays Govern. B plays Forced Awakening (stack level: 1). C plays DI on Forced Awakening (stack level: 2).
It's exactly the same. Let's say now that C doesn't DI the Forced Awakening.
A plays Govern. B plays Forced Awakening (stack level: 1). Nobody cancels it. Now B plays Rewind Time (still stack level:1). C plays DI on Rewind Time (stack level: 2).
You may play more cards, but the stack "depth" doesn't change (you can't have two parallel stacks, one for the Forced Awakening, one for the Rewind Time, at the same time).
And unless you're playing with goldfishes, I do hope everyone is capable of handling such a "complicated" situation. I mean, three or four cards played...
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> nc-italy wrote:
> It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
> Which to me is unnecessary complication
> Simpler ruling: no reactions or effect can be played/used in the "as announced" window unless card text says otherwise (golden rule)
> Simpler rulebook text: no cards are replaced until the "as announced" phase
> is done (avoiding potential misleading sentences for handling special card cases from a pharagraph to the next one)
>
> just my 2 cents
>
The trouble is that the "wake" ruling was introduced because some players (and at least LSJ) didn't find natural not to be able to play wake cards in order to play their Rewind Time. You may disagree, but your suggestions has the same value than the existing ones.
Between two equivalent propositions, I stick with the existing one, unless it's proven that it has too much impact on the current game. It has none.
I've seen so many people replacing their cards before the DI phase. Why would they change their habit with your new rule (I'm talking about the second one)? Do you think they'll suddenly start reading the rulebook?
The truth is that many players (I've met many at least) have played wrongly for more than 10 years and don't want to change their habit. And when you point out the rulebook, they're saying it's stupid. It won't change.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
> > Which to me is unnecessary complication
> > Simpler ruling: no reactions or effect can be played/used in the "as announced" window unless card text says otherwise (golden rule)
> > Simpler rulebook text: no cards are replaced until the "as announced" phase
> > is done (avoiding potential misleading sentences for handling special card cases from a pharagraph to the next one)
> >
> > just my 2 cents
> >
> The trouble is that the "wake" ruling was introduced because some players (and at least LSJ) didn't find natural not to be able to play wake cards in order to play their Rewind Time. You may disagree, but your suggestions has the same value than the existing ones.
>
> Between two equivalent propositions
>
They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule
allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window
> I've seen so many people replacing their cards before the DI phase. Why would they change their habit with your new rule (I'm talking about the second one)? Do you think they'll suddenly start reading the rulebook?
>
> The truth is that many players (I've met many at least) have played wrongly for more than 10 years and don't want to change their habit. And when you point out the rulebook, they're saying it's stupid. It won't change.
>
I can't see how "habits" can be taken into account as valid argument for judging if a rule is good or bad (or poorly written) and needs therefore to be changed
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > How do you quantify the difficulty to understand the rules? I know people who don't know the proper sequencing rule in a combat. Should we simplify combat, and how?
> >
> Oh that's actually really simple.
>
> When a certain card or effect finds a significant (and relevant) hole in the ruleset, you make a ruling for that specific card instead of rewriting the rules entirely and complicating them in the process.
>
This method, while possible, is potentially extremely problematic.
Since every significant ruling is entirely specific to a card, there is no way for a judge to even attempt to get it right without phoning up the Rules Team. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes - but if players are left in a situation where there is no reliable precedent for anything significant, there's little room for reliability. Players understandably balk at the areas where it is simply necessary to rely on judge's discretion - such as determining play-to-win. Creating a whole new area of 'we cannot tell what these cards will do when we ask Pascal, so let us make up random shit' is lead balloon territory.
Fixing the hole means that when someone else comes up with a similar issue, you can apply the same principle. It is much better to know, for example, that the reason you can play Eternals of Sirius and stay in the game when your pool equals its cost is because the cost and effect are handled simultaneously. It would be much more annoying to be told that Eternals of Sirius has a ruling specific to it, and on which you can't rely for other cards that push you into the same situation.
(If the next step is "Well, of course we'd make cards that did the same thing have similar rulings", then you are fixing holes in the system but just pretending that you're not to make a point.)
The problem with Pocket Out Of Time was not whether it was handled by creating a general ruling or a specific ruling, it was that it was in a unique situation. (That is, once you allowed for it being dealt by the minion, which is appsrently designer intent.) There having been no way to deal non-environmental damage pre-range before, it has the potential to interact with a lot of cards that were initially written assuming that more or less all damage dealing effects were done in Strike Resolution or later (e.g. Pulled Fangs). You can then argue over the benefits or otherwise of the specific ruling that was created - but it has pretty much nothing to do with whether it was phrased as a general change to the game or a specific effect of the card. In a situation where the effect is pretty much unique, the effect is the same.
> nc-italy wrote:
> It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
> Which to me is unnecessary complication
>
It's a nuance, but it's not contradictory. "Contradict" simply doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. One thing is explicitly allowed, another thing explicitly isn't - that's how it works.
Similarly, there is no contradiction in that - for example - Direct Intervention can be played against a combat card (because the rules allow it) but Power of All cannot (because the rules don't).
Nor is it contradictory that blood costs are paid by the acting minion (because the rules say so), except in the case of rescue actions (because the rules define a small exception).
Nor is it contradictory that you pay the cost of a strike when you choose it, but the cost of an action when it resolves unblocked. They just work differently, because that's how the game is set up.
Each of these is just the rules defining what happens in one situation and what happens in a different situation. Sometimes, they're the same. Sometimes, they're different. Two similar-but-different things working differently is not a contradiction.
You might find the word 'inconsistent' more helpful, or simply 'complex'. Note that something being inconsistent or complex between two different areas of the game is not an immediate reason for changing it. Inconsistencies exists all over the place fairly harmlessly, and complexity may be helpful or useful. Removing one set of inconsistencies to be replaced with another, or simply tinkering at the edges so the fundamental issues still remain, isn't typically useful - teaching everyone a new set of rules which are still inconsistent, or still complex, just in a different way isn't terribly helpful.
Just as a quicknote: it's Outside the Hourglass (and not Pocket out of Time) that deals damage before the Determine Range step.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Between two equivalent propositions
> >
> They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
> patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window
>
Huh? What you're saying is that they're different, which I'm aware of. I say they are equivalent in terms on game design. They are two possible choices equivalently reasonable. Replacing the current choice in the rule book by your choice would cause other problems (such as players that would not understand why they can't play wakes).
Personnaly, I'm happy with the current rules because they allow me to play Wake + Rewind Time and I don't find it difficult to understand the current rule.
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > I've seen so many people replacing their cards before the DI phase. Why would they change their habit with your new rule (I'm talking about the second one)? Do you think they'll suddenly start reading the rulebook?
> >
> > The truth is that many players (I've met many at least) have played wrongly for more than 10 years and don't want to change their habit. And when you point out the rulebook, they're saying it's stupid. It won't change.
> >
> I can't see how "habits" can be taken into account as valid argument for judging if a rule is good or bad (or poorly written) and needs therefore to be changed
>
It's not why I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that many people complain about the rules because they have their habits take precedence over the rulebook. If your suggestion was integrated to the rulebook, it wouldn't change anything for them since they wouldn't read it anyway.
For people who read the rulebook, your suggestion is reasonable, but not "better" than the current one (that has the advantage of having existed for years).
If you're talking about tournament judging, then the current rule stands already and is perfectly clear.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I understand the dislike for allowing Reactions when there is no "action" to react to. It does lead to other odd possibilities such as using reactions like Scalpel Tongue in Bloodhunt Referendums (since there is no acting minion during a bloodhunt referendum). I'm not a great fan of Reactions being playable when there is no acting minion without specific card text. In general, I've found the 'You can Wake to play Rewind Time' ruling to just erode the place of the Golden Rule of Card Text and further push Rulings to a place higher than Cardtext.
Currently as it stands there is a tacit rule that there is a "Golden Rule of Rulings" which states that Rulings always override cards and the rulebooks and are chosen so by the current Ruling Team Leader (i.e. LSJ/PB). It means that if Pascal wanted to, tomorrow he could change it so that Rewind Time was a Master Card and WWEF was a Reflex Card... and so on. Sure it might get shouted down, but the point is there. Cardtext is not king over the rules, which means that players and Judges need to know far more about the decisions and thinking process of the Ruling Team Leader than even be able to read the cards.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > Between two equivalent propositions
> > >
> > They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
> > patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window
> >
> Huh? What you're saying is that they're different, which I'm aware of. I say they are equivalent in terms on game design.
>
Well again this is just plain denying evidence, fact is that in the very moment you allow certain more effects in a given window or you disallow them you *are* making difference and therefore they can't be "equivalent" in term of game design (more stacks in the window can't be equivalent to less, plain logic)
@James: contradictory is just allowing a thing instant and disallowing
other thing instant arbitrarily in the window just to fill an hole in the rules about card cancelers
Will repeat one last time (think we pointed enough on this): ruling that is too late to draw an then play a canceler to one side (which is perfectly fine and makes sense) but on the other that isn't too late when playing another instant effect (waking effect) in between and then playing the canceler *is* a contradiction and was poor ruling (barring again other convolutions with replacements, eg ira rivers ability when playing sup eyes of argus, sasha vykos drawing in front of a direct intervention, maybe with utter stacks of wake effects in the window delaying the use of otherwise instant abilities-effects tied to "when card X is played")
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > nc-italy wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ankha wrote:
> > > > Between two equivalent propositions
> > > >
> > > They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
> > > patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window
> > >
> > Huh? What you're saying is that they're different, which I'm aware of. I say they are equivalent in terms on game design.
> >
> Well again this is just plain denying evidence, fact is that in the very moment you allow certain more effects in a given window or you disallow them you *are* making difference and therefore they can't be "equivalent" in term of game design (more stacks in the window can't be equivalent to less, plain logic)
>
Emiliano, we can't discuss if you quote one sentence and don't read the rest. You stopped the quoting before the bold part, why?
And please demonstrate how there will be more stacks, I've demonstrated in my answer to Megabaja that it doesn't change anything.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > nc-italy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ankha wrote:
> > > > > Between two equivalent propositions
> > > > >
> > > > They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
> > > > patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window
> > > >
> > > Huh? What you're saying is that they're different, which I'm aware of. I say they are equivalent in terms on game design.
> > >
> > >
> > Well again this is just plain denying evidence, fact is that in the very moment you allow certain more effects in a given window or you disallow them you *are* making difference and therefore they can't be "equivalent" in term of game design (more stacks in the window can't be equivalent to less, plain logic)
> >
> Emiliano, we can't discuss if you quote one sentence and don't read the rest. You stopped the quoting before the bold part, why?
> And please demonstrate how there will be more stacks, I've demonstrated in my answer to Megabaja that it doesn't change anything.
>
I've quoted the relevant part - you can't say it's equivalent,
as you add stacks (to the instant card pile in the window) the more card you allow to be played in the given window (so not only cards with explicit wording), it *does* make notable difference and can't be seen as equivalent by any means
Everything else is just flawed logic and blatant ignoring of plain fact sorry
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
But your demonstration is not correct.
Let say we have five player table. Five anarch decks. Acting minion calls an action. All players have wakes, DI's and Power of All in decks. Number of stacks made this way is really big, and not just two. And they all open inside new "as announced/as played" windows.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
Let it go guys...
The rules lawyers themselves understand the rules and THUS in their narrow-minded vision they are fine. The fact that 90% of the players don't know them or don't follow them properly is not the fault of rules being changed to be less intuitive and/or more complex. It is entirely the fault of the thousands of players that don't even know there is a "between played and replacement" window.
> Fixing the hole means that when someone else comes up with a similar issue, you can apply the same principle.
>
If the hole is created by a single card, then it's the card that needs to be fixed. Especially if plugging the hole means changing a multitude of other cards and/or rules (again, see Outside the Hourglass).
> It is much better to know, for example, that the reason you can play Eternals of Sirius and stay in the game when your pool equals its cost is because the cost and effect are handled simultaneously. It would be much more annoying to be told that Eternals of Sirius has a ruling specific to it, and on which you can't rely for other cards that push you into the same situation.
>
Except...
That this actually can come up very frequently given how many cards that cost pool give you pool and doesn't change any interaction between cards. So, sure, this warrants a ruling because it's generic and relevant.
Your point?
> nc-italy wrote:
> @James: contradictory is just allowing a thing instant and disallowing
> other thing instant arbitrarily in the window just to fill an hole in the rules about card cancelers
>
"Contradictory" doesn't mean that, no matter how times you pretend it does.
The two rules are not contradictory. They do not contradict one another.
Note that there is no "instant" in V:TES. This is not Magic. There are no things going off at instant speed and interrupt speed. Attempting to change V:TES into mid-90s Magic is unlikely to be helpful!
> Izaak wrote:
> Let it go guys...
>
> The rules lawyers themselves understand the rules and THUS in their narrow-minded vision they are fine. The fact that 90% of the players don't know them or don't follow them properly is not the fault of rules being changed to be less intuitive and/or more complex. It is entirely the fault of the thousands of players that don't even know there is a "between played and replacement" window.
>
Since the rulebook explains its existence in very small words, yes, it's the fault of people not reading the rulebook if they don't know about it.
Further, since we have people like nc-italy inventing the concept of "instant" speed effects to justify their increasingly non-game-related interpretation of the rules. This doesn't exist in any V:TES rulebook.
So yes, people not reading the rulebook and pulling crap out of their backside which doesn't exist in the rulebook they haven't read - yes, it's their fault they don't understand the rules.
The rules say, in very small words, that there is a gap between play and replacement. It is right there in the definition of how you play a card. It is right before the definition of how you replace a card.
And if we change the rules? They still won't know. Because they don't read the rulebook. Rules are made based on the assumption that people actually follow them, rather than having people make up their own based on their tingling spidey-senses. The rule isn't complicated - play, cancel, replace, in that order.
People's ignorance of the rule because they haven't read it isn't an argument for changing it. If the rule had 17 sub-paragraphs and 375 sub-sub-paragraphs, sure, argue that people who've read it don't understand it and it's too complex. But play, cancel, replace is totally straightforward - assuming people bother to actually read the rulebook. Since they obviously don't - because you tell us they don't know of this slight gap, which is described right there - it doesn't matter. They're not reading it. They won't read the change. They won't know that someone added the word "SMURF" in capital letters in the middle of it. Because they're not reading it.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > Fixing the hole means that when someone else comes up with a similar issue, you can apply the same principle.
> >
> If the hole is created by a single card, then it's the card that needs to be fixed. Especially if plugging the hole means changing a multitude of other cards and/or rules (again, see Outside the Hourglass).
>
The fact that a hole may be identified in a particular card does not mean that it's the only way it can come up. The same hole may be possible in other, as-yet-unidentified ways. A new card may tickle the same hole, possibly unintentionally.
Providing ad-hoc rulings without establishing a system-derived basis is therefore problematic.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > It is much better to know, for example, that the reason you can play Eternals of Sirius and stay in the game when your pool equals its cost is because the cost and effect are handled simultaneously. It would be much more annoying to be told that Eternals of Sirius has a ruling specific to it, and on which you can't rely for other cards that push you into the same situation.
> >
> Except...
>
> That this actually can come up very frequently given how many cards that cost pool give you pool and doesn't change any interaction between cards. So, sure, this warrants a ruling because it's generic and relevant.
>
The fact that it took so long for this to come up - the printing of Eternals of Sirius is a long way into the game - suggests that it should have been handled by a card-based ruling.
Anyone then wanting to know how a pool-costing Villein works can, of course, get stuffed, because that wasn't thought of at the time.
Additionally, your own personal intuition as to what happens frequently and what doesn't? Not really a good basis for rulings. That metagame over there is completely different to yours.
> Megabaja wrote:
> @james: don't be a grammar nazi. instant is a synonym for immediate. And term "immediate" is in the rulebook.
>
It's not a grammar flame.
Immediately is used to describe when the replace occurs. It's not used to describe the speed of tapping The Barrens - the rulebook doesn't describe that as instant, immediate, or anything else. Therefore, it's not logical to start defining it as 'instant', and so therefore it has to go at the same time as the replace, even though rulebook text says that nothing goes before the replace, except wakes+cancels. The restriction isn't based on notional speed (which isn't defined) - it's just a ban on cards being played before the replace, except wakes+cancels.
That's not a grammar flame - it's just reading what it says.
Further, since the argument goes that the replacement is 'immediate' therefore the cancellation should happen after - which is a tenable reconstruction of the system, just not one supported by the rules as written currently - it's extremely difficult to logically support the argument "This is immediate, therefore this one thing (cancellation) goes after it because it must, the rules say replacement is immediate (and we'll just smudge over the fact they explicitly define a small exception), but this other thing (tap The Barrens) must be allowed to go before it, even though the rules are very explicit that it can't."
Again, you can't just pick sentences out of the rulebook at random - or, as here, pick out random individual words, wave a magic wand, and pretend those words applied to something other than was written. It's simply not possible to have a discussion in which you choose to do that.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > @James: contradictory is just allowing a thing instant and disallowing
> > other thing instant arbitrarily in the window just to fill an hole in the rules about card cancelers
> >
> "Contradictory" doesn't mean that, no matter how times you pretend it does.
>
I'm not pretending, i've pointed where the contradiction is and motivated
long enough why it is so: one instantaneous effect is allowed other it is not
This lead to convolutions (already pointed also how it complicates even more timings with effects that trigger on the "play of card X" such as ira rivers)
> Note that there is no "instant" in V:TES. This is not Magic. There are no things going off at instant speed and interrupt speed.
>
Not when we have direct and similar effects which, in fact, need to be put in a stack where last one played occours first and actually interrupts (and cancels) some other effect/play
> Attempting to change V:TES into mid-90s Magic is unlikely to be helpful!
>
Then let's erase from the game suddens, directs, reflex and all the couterspell like-effects
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> nc-italy wrote:
> I'm not pretending, i've pointed where the contradiction is and motivated
> long enough why it is so: one instantaneous effect is allowed other it is not
>
Your problem is that you are crowbaring Magic into V:TES again.
It is not an instantaneous effect that is being allowed. Wakes and cancels are allowed, specifically. It has nothing to do with them being "instantaneous", or "instant", or "interrupt", or "immediate" effects. These don't exist in V:TES. It's just a specific rule. Play, cancel (plus wake), replace.
This has nothing to do with concepts which are not part of V:TES. It equally has nothing to do with which Five Rings clan you are, whether your Pokemon is asleep, or whether you seeded the star-line with Q cards and control Dr Crusher.
The alleged inconsistency is that you are trying to make V:TES fit into a paradigm which it is not part of. You might as well start arguing that masters and events work differently, even though they're both clearly global enchantments.
> Since the rulebook explains its existence in very small words, yes, it's the fault of people not reading the rulebook if they don't know about it.
>
That's not how it works in the real world. If the vast majority of the players don't know the inner workings of a very specific and unnecessary rule, it's the fault of the rule being shit, obscure or just generally unrequired. Or a combination of those.
Not that of the players.
That said, we don't need a "inbetween as played and replace" window because all it does is make the game worse and less enjoyable while fixing exactly zero problems.
> Izaak wrote:
> That's not how it works in the real world. If the vast majority of the players don't know the inner workings of a very specific and unnecessary rule, it's the fault of the rule being shit, obscure or just generally unrequired. Or a combination of those.
>
There aren't any inner workings. It's right there in the rulebook. Play, cancel, replace. No inner workings. Play, cancel, replace. It's that simple.
To know the rules of a game, you actually have to read them. It really is that simple. For people for whom that is too hard, no amount of change will help - they'll never know, because they don't read them.
> Izaak wrote:
> That said, we don't need a "inbetween as played and replace" window because all it does is make the game worse and less enjoyable while fixing exactly zero problems.
>
The problem that it addresses has already been explained. That you don't agree with it doesn't mean that other people don't view it as a problem, and one that warranted fixing.
The problem of card cancellation slowing the game down is already embedded (and has been since Jyhad, given Sudden Reversal, at least - DI obviously made it a bit more annoying). Slowing the game down at every card play is annoying, and can lead to all sorts of friction - particularly when close to a time limit.
The more effects you can stuff into the cancellation window, the more annoying it is, and the more it can be dragged out. So the solution chosen was to limit it to cancels and wakes, and no replacements.
You may not have viewed it as a problem. Other people did. You may have chosen a different solution, but that does not mean that this solution doesn't address a specific problem - that of timely game flow, rather than tapping the Barrens, then Dreams, then... before deciding you can't cancel a card.
Simply beating your chest about a player's right to refuse to read the rulebook because words are hard, and to deny the existence of problems that other people had (which is why the issues came up), is just weird.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > I'm not pretending, i've pointed where the contradiction is and motivated
> > long enough why it is so: one instantaneous effect is allowed other it is not
> >
> Your problem is that you are crowbaring Magic into V:TES again.
>
> It is not an instantaneous effect that is being allowed. Wakes and cancels are allowed, specifically. It has nothing to do with them being "instantaneous", or "instant", or "interrupt", or "immediate" effects. These don't exist in V:TES. It's just a specific rule. Play, cancel (plus wake), replace.
>
I really don't know if you even ackowledge the fact that the very esistence of cards such as direct intervention indeed point as false your statement
that there are no "magic like" istantaneous or interrupt effect in vtes (plain simple as such cards actually intantaneously *do* interrupt the play and effect of some other cards and *are* actually resolved *first* even if
they're played last (after))
So call them whatever you want ("instants".. "groups of card allowed to be played interrupting other cards play-resolve"..."whatever"), but they're resolved as instant, the effect is the same and the convolutions implied in such rulings decision at the time (of allowing just wake intant effect along with cards cancelers and no other in the given window) much the same
I know now by a bad rule that wake and similar "can play as if untapped" effect were allowed in the instant/interrupt part of the "as announced" window, and indeed i find that a poor rule and also contradincting with the other rule that forbids other effect to be played in the same window
That's all
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
@James: I can't press the Thanks button on each of your post, but I agree with all your points. (and I like very much your prose.)
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > Since the rulebook explains its existence in very small words, yes, it's the fault of people not reading the rulebook if they don't know about it.
> >
> That's not how it works in the real world. If the vast majority of the players don't know the inner workings of a very specific and unnecessary rule, it's the fault of the rule being shit, obscure or just generally unrequired. Or a combination of those.
>
No, it's because most of them are old players that read the rules 15 years ago, play within themselves with house rules or were taught the rules by someone who was already wrong.
We have "young" players in our playgroups, and they know the rules.
I'm not even talking about card rulings... Why is it so hard to follow the written rules (even if you find them crappy for whatever reason)?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> No, it's because most of them are old players that read the rules 15 years ago, play within themselves with house rules or were taught the rules by someone who was already wrong.
> We have "young" players in our playgroups, and they know the rules.
>
*I* know the rules.
And I don't want to go explain Joe Casual this rule at a tournament because he replaced his Vessel before telling which Blood Doll he wanted to burn and his potential target is being obnoxious about it.
I don't want to have to explain why you *can* cycle a Wake to fish for a Telepathic Misdirection, but you *cannot* cycle a Wake to fish for a Touch of Clarity.
Why not? Because it doesn't make sense. And both are a result of a ruling invented to prevent DI-fishing.
> Izaak wrote:
> I don't want to have to explain why you *can* cycle a Wake to fish for a Telepathic Misdirection, but you *cannot* cycle a Wake to fish for a Touch of Clarity.
>
> Why not? Because it doesn't make sense. And both are a result of a ruling invented to prevent DI-fishing.
>
You give an example that make sense, then say "it does not make sense".
You have a partial point in that the rule are soemtime not intuitive, but being able to fish for touch of clarity feel not the same than being able to draw a card. In one part you have the whole action to find card ; on the other you need it right now. I am not too sure why - except magic-like stack habit - people would feel both things are the same.
> Ankha wrote:
> I'm not even talking about card rulings... Why is it so hard to follow the written rules (even if you find them crappy for whatever reason)?
>
1) Replacing immediately is more fluid than having to wait for the DI. You look at your new card and update your plan while the other players ponder the DI, everyone has something to do at the same time. With the current rule, it is them first, then you, which takes more time.
2) Knowing the rules is one thing, playing right is another. In the middle of a game, everyone makes a replace misplay at some point, be it forgetting to replace, replace and keep playing without waiting for the DI, replace a wake/wash when played,... Forgetting to replace is not a big deal because it usually only harms the one who makes the mistake and in all cases it is easy to fix. "Do not replace" cards are a necessary evil rule, they are tricky but have an impact on the game. There is no such reason to the "as played" replacement rule since it does not prevent cancel chains on its own.
A game is about taking decisions and the rules are there to make those decisions challenging, not to trap players. When two rules lead to almost the same games, the one that generates fewer misplays is better. The least attention a player has to spend on not breaking the rules, the more he can focus on actually playing the game.
> Izaak wrote:
> And I don't want to go explain Joe Casual this rule at a tournament because he replaced his Vessel before telling which Blood Doll he wanted to burn and his potential target is being obnoxious about it.
>
Then you should have had him read the rulebook, section 1.6.1.1 "Playing cards": The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played.
Since, in your example, he did not "play" the card -- because he didn't completely declare the effect of the card when it was played -- he cannot then claim that 1.6.1.2 is forcing him to "immediately" draw a card. Because he hasn't yet played the Vessel.
See, rules work!
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> nc-italy wrote:
> I really don't know if you even ackowledge the fact that the very esistence of cards such as direct intervention indeed point as false your statement
> that there are no "magic like" istantaneous or interrupt effect in vtes
>
I really don't nkow if you even acknowledge that V:TES isn't Magic.
There are cards with card text. Some cards are allowed in a given window, by explicit rule. Some cards are not. This has nothing to do with the speed of the card. This is not Magic. The cards are played based on card text and the rules, not on some bizarre reconstruction of V:TES using Magic rules.
DI is not an instant card. It is not an interrupt card. It is a card that cancels another card "as played" or "as it is played", and so has special handling in the rules, under 1.6.1.1. Many cards are played in particular timing windows - this happens here and is no more or less instant than Freak Drive or Lost in Crowds, or choosing a strike during Choose Strike, because those concepts aren't part of the game. You can play certain cards/effects at certain times, as defined by the rules or by card text. There's nothing more to it. There aren't sorceries and instants and interrupts. Just cards that you play and effects that you use when the rules let you, or card text lets you (by the Golden Rule of Cards etc.).
Why can't we play actions in the master phase? They're just as slow as each other. Not being able to do so is contradictory! Start a crusade! Oh wait, the rules say to play them at different times. Just like they say to play cancellers and other effects at different times. Funny, that.
Continuing to campaign for changes to V:TES based on concepts that are not part of V:TES is beyond dumb. Might as well campaign for all your bleeds to happen simultaneously. What happens when Stanislava gains trample? I demand errata to Incriminating Videotape to have it expressed as Isabel-do-Leon-Walk.
> Izaak wrote:
> And I don't want to go explain Joe Casual this rule at a tournament because he replaced his Vessel before telling which Blood Doll he wanted to burn and his potential target is being obnoxious about it.
>
If you don't want to, you call the judge over and ask them to correct the misplay.
This is just the same as a player declaring the amount of blood taken from Villein or Minion Tap, before replacing.
> Izaak wrote:
> I don't want to have to explain why you *can* cycle a Wake to fish for a Telepathic Misdirection, but you *cannot* cycle a Wake to fish for a Touch of Clarity.
>
Show them the rulebook. It's right there, in small words. If you don't want to, call over the judge. No need to explain, it's just the rules.
There's no logical reason why transfer has to come after minion, or discard comes after transfers. That's entirely arbitrary. Yet you should still correct someone who does it wrongly. Indeed, there is pretty much no reason for this order at all - it's just arbitrary. Yet the rule on cancellation has a pretty obvious motivation - to keep the game flow reasonably timely, where possible. If you can enforce one rule that is entirely arbitrary - Discard comes after Influence - enforce this one as being entirely arbitrary in exactly the same way.
More simply: the rules aren't optional. You don't get to choose which ones you follow in sanctioned tournaments.
> If you don't want to, you call the judge over and ask them to correct the misplay.
>
Except... there is no misplay. See below.
> Since, in your example, he did not "play" the card -- because he didn't completely declare the effect of the card when it was played -- he cannot then claim that 1.6.1.2 is forcing him to "immediately" draw a card. Because he hasn't yet played the Vessel.
>
> See, rules work!
>
Except that buring the Blood Doll is optional, such as taking the pool for the Edge is optional. Or using your Blood Dolls. Or taking blood from your Hunting Ground.
If you forget to take for the edge, you can't backtrack it and take the pool later. The same argument could (and should) be used when you replaced the Vessel. You "forgot" to burn the Blood Doll so your chances are over.
The difference in misplays is that you *must* announce for how much you play Villein. You *must* choose if you want to have transfers when Leandro is in play. Burning the Blood Doll is optional.
Unless of course you are suggesting that you'd actually have to declare that you're not burning a Blood Doll and that you can't forget, but in that case this should be applied to the Edge as well.
When you're playing with me, I'm personally not too fussed about it and you can burn the Blood Doll even if you did replace, but unfortunatly I run into players who are taking every opportunity to fuck people over by technicalities. Yes, they are asses and generally annoying to play against, but with maybe 50 active players in a 300km radius there isn't much choice, is there?
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > If you don't want to, you call the judge over and ask them to correct the misplay.
> >
> Except... there is no misplay. See below.
>
If the player was under the impression that they could make the decision after replacing, there has been a misplay - either they didn't fully declare the effect, or they replaced too early. So call the judge. The judge may not feel the need to apply a state correction, but they can explain the rules to the player as necessary.
If the player is intentionally trying to cheat, then that's a separate problem.
In either case, call the judge over.
Of course, a player may also be declaring an effect fully, makign their redraw and then wishing they'd done something different. Who hasn't played a Minion Tap for 3, drawn into their copy of Giant's Blood and wished it had been for 6 instead? That's life, obviously.
> Izaak wrote:
> The difference in misplays is that you *must* announce for how much you play Villein. You *must* choose if you want to have transfers when Leandro is in play. Burning the Blood Doll is optional.
>
Fully declaring the effect of a card you're using is not optional.
"The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played."
Thus, they have to choose whether or not to use any optional effects, which level to play it at, how much blood to spend on it (for cards with a cost of X), and so on. (Of course, this sort of choice is different from the 'optional press later this round' sort of optional, which simply means you don't have to use it later this round.) Referendum terms are the principle exception (defined in the rulebook) - you know what the possibly referendum is, but not which Methuselahs are being chosen, or whatever. Card text could also define exceptions here - I can't think of any off-hand.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> There are cards with card text. Some cards are allowed in a given window, by explicit rule. Some cards are not. This has nothing to do with the speed of the card. This is not Magic. The cards are played based on card text and the rules, not on some bizarre reconstruction of V:TES using Magic rules
>
I've already said: call it whatever you want, but with card cancelers
you have instant effect which interrupts other cards - period
Going ahead ignoring the plain fact and evidence will not help
in having better rules - such mess with "wake yes, other effect no" in the "as played window" is just another example of this (we have others, but is just useless to discuss with people refusing to ackowledge evidence)
Just to make clear my thought one final time: i think that only cards allowed in the "as played window" should be the ones with explicit text on it (and thus, wakes shouldn't be allowed in that window with an arbitrary rule as it has been done)
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
@Anka: I think you missed my post about stacks, I guess you were busy finding that thank you button on all of james' posts:
> But your demonstration is not correct.
> Let say we have five player table. Five anarch decks. Acting minion calls an action. All players have wakes, DI's and Power of All in decks. Number of stacks made this way is really big, and not just two. And they all open inside new "as announced/as played" windows.
>
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> @Anka: I think you missed my post about stacks, I guess you were busy finding that thank you button on all of james' posts:
>
> > But your demonstration is not correct.
> > Let say we have five player table. Five anarch decks. Acting minion calls an action. All players have wakes, DI's and Power of All in decks. Number of stacks made this way is really big, and not just two. And they all open inside new "as announced/as played" windows.
> >
First, I'll recall what is a stack: Stack
And how many stacks can you have? Well, only one. Count by yourself, or I'll redo it for you.
Without wakes
A plays Govern. B plays Power of All to cancel it (stack level: 1). C plays DI on Power of All (stack level: 2).
The stack looks like
GtU
GtU > Power of All
GtU > Power of All > DI
One stack, going to a depth of 2.
Then DI cancels Power of All (GtU is left), then we continue.
What happens now if someone plays also a Wake?
A plays Govern. B plays Forced Awakening (stack level: 1). C plays DI on Forced Awakening (stack level: 2).
GtU
GtU > Forced Awakening
GtU > Forced Awakening > DI
Then DI cancels Forced Awakening (GtU is left), then we continue.
It's exactly the same. One stack, a depth of 2.
Let's say now that C doesn't DI the Forced Awakening.
A plays Govern. B plays Forced Awakening (stack level: 1). Nobody cancels it (otherwise it's the previous case). Now B plays Power of All (still stack level:1). C plays DI on Rewind Time (stack level: 2).
GtU
GtU > Forced Awakening
Forced Awakening isn't canceled so is active for the current action
GtU
GtU > Power of All
GtU > Power of All > DI
Hmmm, still 1 stack with a maximum depth of 2.
By recurrence, you can go to depth n and see no difference with or without wakes:
GtU > Power of All > Power of All#2 (depth 2)
GtU > Power of All > Power of All#2 > DI (depth 3)
vs
GtU > Power of All > Wake (depth 2)
GtU > Power of All > Wake > DI (depth 3)
or
GtU > Power of All > Wake (depth 2)
Wake isn't canceled and resolves
GtU > Power of All
GtU > Power of All > Power of All#2 (depth 2)
GtU > Power of All > Power of All#2 > DI (depth 3)
etc.
Conclusion
You may play more cards (up to twice as many if all your vampires play Wake + Power of All), but the stack "depth" doesn't change, and you can't have two parallel stacks, one for the Forced Awakening, one for the Power of All, at the same time.
Please point out the error if you find any, rather than saying the demonstration is not correct without any proof nor credibility.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> nc-italy wrote:
> I've already said: call it whatever you want, but with card cancelers
> you have instant effect which interrupts other cards - period
>
No, you've simply decided that this is a model you want V:TES to follow.
There are no instant effects. The instant effect of DI is no more instant than playing Freak Drive - they both resolve when played. DI is played in a different timing window to Freak, which is played in a different timing window to Undead Strength (which has a split play/resolve, similar to actions, unlike DI and Freak), which is played in a different timing window to Eagle Sight.
Rules and card text define what goes on in various timing windows.
> nc-italy wrote:
> Going ahead ignoring the plain fact and evidence will not help
>
The plain fact here is that you're taking concepts from other games that don't apply to V:TES, and then trying to use them to justify breaking a simple explicit rule in V:TES.
V:TES doesn't have effects happening at 'instant' speed. The Barrens is banned from being used in a particular timing window because of explicit rule text. Even if you can justify it being 'instant', it still can't go in that window - because of:
a) explicit rules text, and
b) the problem being solved by that rules text.
> Megabaja wrote:
> @Anka: I think you missed my post about stacks, I guess you were busy finding that thank you button on all of james' posts:
>
> > But your demonstration is not correct.
> > Let say we have five player table. Five anarch decks. Acting minion calls an action. All players have wakes, DI's and Power of All in decks. Number of stacks made this way is really big, and not just two. And they all open inside new "as announced/as played" windows.
> >
Whether you choose to model that as multiple stacks, or one large stack, isn't terribly relevant.
What is relevant is that the fewer things that can be used in that window, the less likely you are to have humongous piles of this crap to plough through. Which is, in fact, the main point of keeping the cancellation window as simple as it is - so far as is possible with the effects that existed in the game at the time (principally DI, of course, since it's so easy to use), allow the game to proceed in a timely fashion if you can. Playing or not playing DI may be a difficult, time-consuming decision, of course - but that's still simpler than the alternatives with potentially many more effects going off first.
You might choose to keep wakes out of it - and I probably wouldn't have ruled this way had it been me making the choice way back when - but it doesn't actually cause any problems (for players who've read the rules, obviously - those relying on spidey-senses can't be helped) and enables some more options in a fairly harmless fashion. And removing the ability to play Wakes wouldn't actually remove the whole "there's something going before replace" issue anyway, since it would still apply to cancellation cards. And since it's in printed rulebooks, there seems little incentive to change at this point.
I'll note that it seems odd that "play/cancel/resolve" is apparently causing players such hardship to understand, yet the same people complaining appear to want to stuff many, many stacks of effects into the cancellation window for the sake of all the poor, poor players who can't understand play/cancel/resolve. And if a player can't understand play/cancel/resolve, 97 simultaneous stacks being interrupted by me tapping two Mountains and an Island, then sac-ing my enchant? Not really gonna fly. This seems... inconsistent.
James, thanks for your efforts to try and explain the cancellation process.
I'm aware that the rules say that you don't replace before the "cancellation window" closes.
My spidey-sense says it would make no actual difference if you could replace the played card *before* the cancellation window. I argue that there has to be some reason why the you are not allowed to replace immediatly, but I fail to give a good explanation. What can I tell my spidey-sense? B-)
Ok, with a more earnest note, what is the reason to not replace in that timing window? The cancellation would then take place between replacing the card and applying the effects, which would make the flow of the game a bit better.
And by the way, I think it would be more clear-cut if you were allowed to play a cancellation card from your hand, if you have one in your hand at the moment of the cardplay you want to cancel. No other effects (like Barrens or Dreams) or play of cards (like Wake-type cards) should be allowed.
That would be the most straight-forward method, don't you say?
pckvtes.wordpress.com
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > nc-italy wrote:
> > I've already said: call it whatever you want, but with card cancelers
> > you have instant effect which interrupts other cards - period
> >
> No, you've simply decided that this is a model you want V:TES to follow.
>
It is not a "model", no matter what definition you want to put here but that is just what actually happens when you play a card canceler (that instantly interrupts another card's resolution and actually occour *first* even if played last) and you're just failing to ackowledge this evidence, maybe by the fact that this interruption was just ruled with different terms in a more structured and defined time frame ("as announced"->"canceled" stuff), but in substance it really changes *nothing* for the question discussed
On the other side, i do completely agree with you that the fewer things
are allowed in given window the less potential crap you add to it (and misunderstandings and convoluted play), and indeed by this i can't see (nor i could read in this discussion) a single valid reason to keep such poor ruling on, or behind the decision that made it the way it has been ruled (speaking of wakes playable in the "as announced" window)
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> Amenophobis wrote:
> My spidey-sense says it would make no actual difference if you could replace the played card *before* the cancellation window. I argue that there has to be some reason why the you are not allowed to replace immediatly, but I fail to give a good explanation. What can I tell my spidey-sense? B-)
>
The simplest answer is: everyone's spidey-sense is different, so just read the rules and play the rules.
Not replacing cards in the 'as played' window means that things are (relatively) stream-lined. Having some cards be replaced in the 'as played' window, but not others, is a possible reconstruction of the rules, but then you have people saying "Why can I replace some and not others? My spidey-sense is throbbing differently to yours." So there's no significant benefit to changing, and since most of the problems being described occur because players have an inalienable right to not read the rulebook and then crap themselves when - shock, horror - they don't know the rules, there's little chance of making things better anyway, even if things needed to change.
> Amenophobis wrote:
> Ok, with a more earnest note, what is the reason to not replace in that timing window? The cancellation would then take place between replacing the card and applying the effects, which would make the flow of the game a bit better.
>
There's no improvement there. A player drawing a card now vs a player drawing a card after cancellation doesn't improve the flow, and since the aim is to keep the cancellation window simple, no replacements is a perfectly reasaonable way of handling this.
Further, every rules change has a downside. As shown in this thread, there are plenty of players for whom reading the rules is too hard. Communicating a rules change thus has a significant cost. When the current rules work fine (play/cancel/replace is really, really simple), there's no need to change them.
> Amenophobis wrote:
> And by the way, I think it would be more clear-cut if you were allowed to play a cancellation card from your hand, if you have one in your hand at the moment of the cardplay you want to cancel. No other effects (like Barrens or Dreams) or play of cards (like Wake-type cards) should be allowed.
> That would be the most straight-forward method, don't you say?
>
That is how it currently works. You can't use The Barrens in the cancellation window, just the play of DI or Rewind Time etc. (or a wake, if necessary).
Thus, it is exactly as clear-cut as you want.
> nc-italy wrote:
> It is not a "model", no matter what definition you want to put here but that is just what actually happens when you play a card canceler (that instantly interrupts another card's resolution and actually occour *first* even if played last) and you're just failing to ackowledge this evidence,
>
I'm not acknowledging the model that you've made up in your head, no.
V:TES - it has no interrupts or instants or sorceries or enchants or unique artefacts or planeswalkers or Necropotence. It is not Magic. Cards are played in timing windows that they or the rules define. It's really that simple.
The fact that you can squeeze V:TES into Magic terminology in no ways means that I have to follow your bizarre assertions, or undermine the rules based on something that isn't part of V:TES. V:TES rules aren't changed just because Magic would handle something differently!
There's an explicit rule explaining what happens in a given timing window - just like there's an explicit rule explaining that I can play Undead Strength during Choose Strike. Why not play Undead Strength during pre-range? That's when Carrion Crows is played, and they both set up an effect that kicks off later. Since this is a clear and blatant contradiction(*) in the rules, we must fix it at once.
(* Not actually a contradiction. Just two different things working differently, because the rules say so.)
> Amenophobis wrote:
> On the other side, i do completely agree with you that the fewer things
> are allowed in given window the less potential crap you add to it (and misunderstandings and convoluted play), and indeed by this i can't see (nor i could read in this discussion) a single valid reason to keep such poor ruling on, or behind the decision that made it the way it has been ruled (speaking of wakes playable in the "as announced" window)
>
Playing a wake to enable Rewind Time (for example) causes no issues - either card can itself be cancelled (which isn't new) and you can see by looking at your hand whether you can cancel the card or not. (Assuming there isn't a cancel of your cancel, of course.) This isn't creating an issue. Of course, it may cause misunderstandings amongst people who haven't read the rules - those who have can see that play/cancel/replace is how it works, and it's really simple.
The cost of changing the rules is not zero, because it has to be communicated and understood by many players. Since the rules are right there in the printed rulebook for anyone picking up a copy, the cost is higher. This isn't some obscure ruling that was made once in 1994 and never mentioned ever again - it's right there in the rulebook from which players learn. (Except those relying on spidey-senses, who won't be helped by any rules change because they rely on spidey-senses.)
Since any possible benefit from changing the rules would be small, and since the current rules are really simple (play/cancel/replace is about as simple as it gets), it doesn't seem to reach any reasonable threshold for changing the rules.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> The fact that you can squeeze V:TES into Magic terminology in no ways means that I have to follow your bizarre assertions, or undermine the rules based on something that isn't part of V:TES. V:TES rules aren't changed just because Magic would handle something differently!
>
To me the only bizzarre assertions are the ones negating evidence (poor and totally arbitrary rulings as in this case) denying actual fact about what is the effective mechanic governing the play of card cancelers and what's (or it is not) allowed in their related time frame
You can call them instant, you can call them "cards allowed to interrupt other in the "as announced" window but substance is and remains exactly the same
In this case, arbitrarily (=without actual card text supporting it) allowing some kind of effect cards (wakes) in the given window was poor ruling to me
Period
Fine if you have different opinion about, but please stop advocating that ruling as necessary, motivated or consistent by any means, as that is really hard to find consistent with any other part that forbids (for good) other effects or cards usage (without explicit card text) in the "as announced" window
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
Emilio, I am surprised you are still trying to have a man to man discussion with James. The moment you mentioned something similar to magic by using the word "instant" or "interrupt" he just got into his endless rant ( pages after pages ) about how Vtes is not Magic -which we all already know. Everything he says is just repeating ad nauseam how Vtes has no enchantments, no planeswalkers etc. It's so pathetic you should just move on and try to ignore his posts to have a discussion with people who actually care.
I am also in favor of simplifying things but with that kind of people arguing after every post on how they are right and how you are wrong to differ, it's a shame really that I am just discouraged to advance any argument in favor of what you say...
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> I am also in favor of simplifying things
>
The main problem being that people differ on what actually simplify things. As bare bone, there is a side that believe a stack would actually make thoses ruling simpler, and another one who feel the exact opposite.
I am not sure this can be argued : at this point it tend to go down to taste.