'As it is played' timing

I have a question regarding, specifically DI, but also all the cards like that one, with 'as it is played' clause. I'll give you a specific example from the last night's game: My pred was playing some politics (that would have been hurtful for both me and my prey) and I, Ahrimane player, decided to block. He went to +4 stealth (via 3 additional cards) against my current +3 intercept, at which point I sad that my current blocker can't catch his vamp and that I needed to think for a second because I had another wake in my hand and a vamp that might be able to catch him. After about a 10 second deliberation, I decided against another block attempt (this was perhaps altogether 30 seconds after he obtained his +4 stealth). At this point my prey plays DI on my pred's card for fourth stealth, making my block successful. No cards have been played between fourth stealth card and DI and no further actions attempted or declared and referendum has not yet been started. So, my pred argued that DI has been played too late and not in direct response to a card played, I argued that the window is still there since no other card nor action has been played, declared or attempted. Who was right?

IMHO, if no cards were played DI is still a valid option...

When you "decided against another block attempt" how was this indicated. This could mean everything. If it was "no blocks" declaration, then no, DI is too late. (edit: wakes are a weird one, they back up the time window to allow cancelation effects. however the second after you played another reaction card that too would close the response window for DI. really, the DI player should've spoke up sooner, or people'll have to resort to asking "DIs?" after every card play) If it was "I choose not to play a wake at this time..." jedi mind tricks, and you're still in the middle of a currently unsuccessful block, then there's room for argument. for needless, excruciating, almost pointless argument. Because you could in theory be just passing the impulse and waiting for responses around the table.

> Azel wrote: > When you "decided against another block attempt" how was this indicated. This could mean everything. > Actually, if I recall correctly, i just said: "just a moment [a 10-ish second gap]...nope, can't catch it". I never declared my intent to perhaps play another wake, nor was this actually later a subject of our discussion. A time gap between playing a card and DIing it was...

And THIS is why Direct Intervention is stupid*, because nearly every play in the game needs to be scrutinized to the point where the acting player redrawing after having played a card is playing the game wrong and should receive a penalty because she didn't ask for 'as played' cards before redrawing. *Everyone gets to play a single Master card per turn, so asking for an 'as played' "Sudden"-type card once per player turn isn't nearly as disruptive. 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

Never thee mind, it's all about the resolution of the card -- even before drawing up to replace. As per RTR May 1st, 2004 Q: Can card-cycling effects (Barrens, Fragment, etc.) be used during the "as played" window (so as to allow a player to draw into a Sudden or a Direct Intervention to cancel the "as played" card)? A: No. The "as played" window is only as the card is being played. It is before that card is replaced, even. The only cards that can be played "as" another one is played are the ones the players have in their hands at the time. (Not to be confused with the "as the action is announced" step, which comes after the action card is played.) This is a reversal of previous rulings. So it's Play Card > Ask "Mother May I?" > Replace Played Card > Continue Play. If the acting player drew up and the crosstable didn't intervene, then nope, no DI allowed. The acting player was given tacit consent to draw up without interruption. Edit: and yes, DI is stupid. Especially if you can call on and ding, DQ, opposing players during a tourney whenever they forget to ask for "as played" responses. Thankfully we're not nearly as unfriendly and competitive a game... but making such catch-all cards is asking for it.

> Azel wrote: > So it's Play Card > Ask "Mother May I?" > Replace Played Card > Continue Play. > Yeah, but if we actually played like that, a full game would last for 6 hours. And replacing a card is so automated (not like you wouldn't replace a DIed card), that in practice it can hardly be a thing that closes a window to intervene.

More important: replacing is not an interactive decision. If you didn't ask for a DI, it does not matter whether you have replaced or not, other players can still play it. One player cannot unilaterally decide to skip other players windows. So 2 possibilities: How it is supposed to be played: -A: Stealth card. DI anyone? -B: yes please, DI someone, ANYONE -C: DI. Sudden anyone? (everything is replaced after the "as played" window ends, normally after resolution of the DI) How it works in practice: -A: Stealth card. Replace stealth card. -B: Block fails. -C: waitwaitwaitwaitwait. If you cannot block, DI on the stealth card. It is A's "fault" for not giving the DI window, so we have to roll back to fix the game state. Now the question is: how to word the rules to make that second play legal since that's what people do anyway?

the truth is, VtES structure make anu counterspell (and reaction in the "as played" window in general) wonky to work with. Yet they cannot be banned because this would shift the meta too much.

> Non-existant user wrote: > How it works in practice: > -A: Stealth card. Replace stealth card. > -B: Block fails. > -C: waitwaitwaitwaitwait. If you cannot block, DI on the stealth card. > > It is A's "fault" for not giving the DI window, so we have to roll back to fix the game state. > > Now the question is: how to word the rules to make that second play legal since that's what people do anyway? > Meh, I'm cool with banning DI, changing the meta, and moving on with the game. It's only two cards currently, and really, the meta needs a kick in the pants anyway. "Golden Bullet" permission cards do CCGs no favors.

> Azel wrote: > > Meh, I'm cool with banning DI, changing the meta, and moving on with the game. It's only two cards currently, and really, the meta needs a kick in the pants anyway. "Golden Bullet" permission cards do CCGs no favors. > It's a lot more than two cards. A lot of effects that cancel another card are played in that window. Some examples: -Sudden Reversal -Wash -Death Seeker -all Reflex cards -The Jones -cancelling a Golconda targeting your vampire -a minion cancelling the effect of a Hide the Heart targeting it -Shape Mastery -Touch of Clarity -Louhi's special -Lucita's, adv., special I would be fine with changeing "as it is played" to come after the card is replaced. The caveat would be that players about to play a string of cards, such as during the "as announced" window, would give sufficient time for cancelling to occur.

> Non-existant user wrote: > How it works in practice: > -A: Stealth card. Replace stealth card. > -B: Block fails. > -C: waitwaitwaitwaitwait. If you cannot block, DI on the stealth card. > > It is A's "fault" for not giving the DI window, so we have to roll back to fix the game state. > I'd say it was C's fault. They had the cancel, they didn't either pay close enough attention to the game (by keeping track of the stealth/intercept on both minions) OR were too indecisive. The responsibility to declare and play the cancel should lay with the person playing the card NOT the person who's card is being cancelled. Player A must of course wait or be willing to rewind trivial actions (such as moving blood etc). As a Judge I wouldn't rewind the game so that you can take advantage of an opportunity you didn't realise was valuable until far past the event. That's your mistake, not a game state fault. If you want to cancel a card, its your responsibility to attempt to do so in accordance with the rules. Pay more attention if you're using DIs, DI2s (and any of the other cancels like Charismatic Aura and Death Seeker). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Once the block fails, the window for playing DI has, way, way, waaaaaay been closed. That A replaces too fast is not an issue (unless he was acting out of turn and replaced with a Sudden...) and you can easily play the DI afterwards without changing the gamestate. > -C: waitwaitwaitwaitwait. If you cannot block, DI on the stealth card > This is incorrect play. Player C should be saying "hold on I may want to DI" as soon as the stealth is played and then start talking. He can't act like nothing is happening and once things stop going his way play the DI. This leads to kinda awkward situations obviously, but so does Eagles Sight.

> Kiddo wrote: > I have a question regarding, specifically DI, but also all the cards like that one, with 'as it is played' clause. I'll give you a specific example from the last night's game: > > My pred was playing some politics (that would have been hurtful for both me and my prey) and I, Ahrimane player, decided to block. He went to +4 stealth (via 3 additional cards) against my current +3 intercept, at which point I sad that my current blocker can't catch his vamp and that I needed to think for a second because I had another wake in my hand and a vamp that might be able to catch him. After about a 10 second deliberation, I decided against another block attempt (this was perhaps altogether 30 seconds after he obtained his +4 stealth). At this point my prey plays DI on my pred's card for fourth stealth, making my block successful. No cards have been played between fourth stealth card and DI and no further actions attempted or declared and referendum has not yet been started. > > So, my pred argued that DI has been played too late and not in direct response to a card played, I argued that the window is still there since no other card nor action has been played, declared or attempted. > > Who was right? > Depends on the judge, Most (and what I really mean is at least 75%) of the questions asked to a judge are asked because players skip announcing phases. - "But I wanted to use this in my untap phase" - "He just played Tates of Vitae and now wants to press" - "We wanted to DI the card, but he played Seduction" - ,,, There's nothing much I can say except "Don't skip phases", I know it's a pain, I also know it's a bigger pain to try to resolve these issues. So, for cards that are important, I would really recommend asking for DIs or Suddens/... Or, if you have the DI, just say "Wait... I might want to ID that" as the card is played.

> Izaak wrote: > Once the block fails, the window for playing DI has, way, way, waaaaaay been closed. > I'd agree with you if only two players are involved in the action and the blocking player wants to DI anything. However, it is not so easy for a third party (any other player) to know or recognize a block is not about to succeed (since he has no knowledge of blocking player's cards in hand) and so any intervention on his part is bound to be preceded by a small pause or gap in play. I believe he cannot be expected to act instantaneously, as something that is expected from a blocking player.

I think that it should be the cancelling player's duty to be ready to call out a cancelling effect, even if someone else has the impulse. Play gets too ponderous when you have to wait to see if every card is going to be cancelled. I've been thinking about what kind of practical policy makes sense for casual and tournament play. This is what I came up with: It is reasonable to rewind one step if the player with the impulse declared a card or effect immediately after the card to be cancelled, thus leaving no time at all for another player's verbal interjection. Verbal timing should be the only reason for the rewind - there should be no evidence that the cancelling player had been fishing for information. In the example given, if B had declared "No block" at the same moment that A replaced his stealth card, C should have been able to IMMEDIATELY make a verbal interjection. The interjection could have been "I wanted to DI that stealth card", or even "Wait a second, B!" In that case, it would be reasonable to rewind the step in which player B declares "no block" to the playing of the stealth card. However, in the example given, C made it obvious that he was waiting to see if B had additional intercept before playing his DI. It is also not obvious that C didn't have time after the stealth card was declared to make a verbal interjection. It seems reasonable to rule that C could no longer play the DI.

> However, it is not so easy for a third party (any other player) to know or recognize a block is not about to succeed (since he has no knowledge of blocking player's cards in hand) and so any intervention on his part is bound to be preceded by a small pause or gap in play. I believe he cannot be expected to act instantaneously, as something that is expected from a blocking player. > No. I disagree with this for a fundamental reason here. In the example, the third player wants to play his DI based on extra information. Information that he couldn't possibly have because -indeed- he can't see the defending players' hand. Because he waited for the defending player failing the block, he was fishing for extra information that he could not legally have and therefore he misplayed the DI. If you want to DI the stealth card, you have two options: 1) Do it immediately as it is played without waiting it out to fish for information. 2) Announce you are considering it immediately and then start asking the defending player if he would fail the block, would the DI not be played before you decide. Waiting for the failed block and then jumping in is without exception misplay. Of course, I understand that players that actually like to move the game forward don't pause for 15 seconds after each played card so the DI-window might be a bit short. That, among many other reasons is of course why Di should be banned from tournament play. Not because it's too strong, but because it disrupts play.

There's a reason blue permission in MtG is loathed like a plague, and especially in EDH (MtG multiplayer, that's absolutely spanking VtES in FLGS presence). "Golden Bullets" slow down play into permission games. Also been a reason why modern design team keeps an eye how much 'blue counterspell' is available in the current block. Sudden/Wash affects a tight subset of cards, with a generally small and expected window. The Jones, reflex cards, et al. are very specific -- silver bullets -- and we may argue that specific timing forces the player of such cards to be pro-active about its timing window. DIs are just so general -- 'golden bullets,' like Counterspell -- that people get sloppy about timing. And VtES doesn't have an explicit "Stack Resolves," an unarguable closing of the response window like MtG, (we have "did you draw up yet?" instead,) so it's even uglier than MtG. It's just Bad. For. The. Game. because it interferes with Playing. The. Game. First, and cleanest, solution: ban DIs and other golden bullets. Specific hosers already cornercase themselves into manageable silver bullet territory. Second solution: completely alter VtES resolution timing, migrate text and issue reams of errata. Third solution: ask players not to be sloppy, stalling punters, and ignore DI judge calls during tourneys with "did you speak up about you maybe DI'ing before or during the draw to replace? no? well, you're supposed to be pro-active about your DI, so too bad. No rewind, play continues."