Hello,
Ran into an interesting scenario. Methuselah A controls Lorrie Dunsirn and has 1 pool. His prey, Methuselah B, has also 1 pool. What happens if Lorrie Bleeds successfully for 1?
1) Both A and B are ousted. A's predator gains 1 VP and 6 pool. A gains 1 VP.
2) B is ousted. A gains 1 VP and 6 pool, ending up at 6 pool after paying the cost.
3) A is ousted after paying the cost but before resolving the bleed.
I'd think it would be 1, but can't rule out either 2 or 3.
Lorrie Dunsirn
Abomination
Capacity:
Group: 4
Independent: Lorrie cannot play reaction cards, have equipment or retainers, maneuver to long, or press to end. She gets an additional strike each round and a press each combat. Non-hunt actions cost her an additional pool. +1 strength. Scarce. Sterile.
Jussi Hattara
Webmaster Extraordinaire
Finnish Politics!
Hi!
I found this link
> extrala wrote:
> > I am controlling "Lorrie Dunson", I have one pool, so has my prey.
> > Lorrie bleeds to remove that last pool of my prey. My prey's minions
> > does not block nor does he bounce/reduce/etc. Consequences?
> > - I oust myself, no VP?
> > - I oust myself, but get a VP?
> > - I oust my prey, but receive 6 pool and pay 1 pool at the same time?
> B. You oust yourself paying the cost of the effect that ousts your prey.
>
VTES is not for the faint of heart...especially when you don't have a enough blood.
Prince Of Geneva
Wait...
So if I pay Lorrie Dunsirn's "cost" and would die... then I actually do.
If I play Eternals of Sirius' "cost" and would die... then I don't die.
Sounds like we have a contradiction in rulings.
Which costs cause you to die and which don't? I do, honestly think, that the Rulings Team do need to sit down and decide on a SINGLE idea to apply to ALL situations (except Strike Cards since they obviously have a 'delay' because of the way damage is handled).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Wait...
> So if I pay Lorrie Dunsirn's "cost" and would die... then I actually do.
> If I play Eternals of Sirius' "cost" and would die... then I don't die.
>
> Sounds like we have a contradiction in rulings.
>
No contradiction.
You may ask yourself the question why everybody use the same ruling to have the conclusion you say is contradicted.
In case you are serious, Eternal of Sirius make you gain pool in resolution, and the oust check is immediatly afterward. Here, you pay for the action, and the oust check is immediatly afterward. What would have been strange is to survive the action.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Wait...
> So if I pay Lorrie Dunsirn's "cost" and would die... then I actually do.
> If I play Eternals of Sirius' "cost" and would die... then I don't die.
>
> Sounds like we have a contradiction in rulings.
>
> Which costs cause you to die and which don't? I do, honestly think, that the Rulings Team do need to sit down and decide on a SINGLE idea to apply to ALL situations (except Strike Cards since they obviously have a 'delay' because of the way damage is handled).
>
It seems to me that you are comparing a Vampire's card text to that of a Master card. Lorrie's card text affects only... Lorrie's non-hunt actions during the minion phase.
Eternals of Sirius happens during the master phase and has/provides an immediate "exchange" effect during that master phase action.
There is no exchange/win-win situation for Lorrie; she acts and automatically you(The Methuselah controlling Lorrie) lose one pool.
VTES is not for the faint of heart...especially when you don't have a enough blood.
Prince Of Geneva
I think its the same reason you dont gain pool ona kindred spirits bleed if the rising is out and you didnt already have the edge. You gain the edge after sucessfully bleeding, as in resolving a bleed action for 1 or more. The poolgain, in the same window of a cost being paid(as of the unblocked action resolving) happens before effects like gaining the edge, or pool for an oust.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Wait...
> So if I pay Lorrie Dunsirn's "cost" and would die... then I actually do.
> If I play Eternals of Sirius' "cost" and would die... then I don't die.
>
> Sounds like we have a contradiction in rulings.
>
> Which costs cause you to die and which don't? I do, honestly think, that the Rulings Team do need to sit down and decide on a SINGLE idea to apply to ALL situations (except Strike Cards since they obviously have a 'delay' because of the way damage is handled).
>
Rulebook 9.1: wrote:
>
> EXCEPTION: If a player is ousted at the same time that her prey is ousted, the player gets the victory point but does not gain 6 pool.
>
@PB:
I have no problem with the "simultaneous oust" clause. If you die and your prey also dies... you get 1VP, your pred gets 1VP + 6 pool. Fine.
Why is Lorrie Dunsirn's cost treated differently to the cost of a Master card? Both are costs required to be paid in full before effects.
Either Lorrie can't oust you if you oust your prey with Lorrie (giving you 6 pool) because the effects of the bleed (i.e. the oust) occur simultaneously...
OR
Eternals of Sirius can oust you if you use it on 4 pool.
They are both "costs". Why should we be handling the cost of a Master Card in pool differently to another cost in pool?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Why is Lorrie Dunsirn's cost treated differently to the cost of a Master card? Both are costs required to be paid in full before effects.
>
Because it's not treated differently. You pay for your action, it's resolved, then everybody at 0 pool is ousted. It work exactly the same as Sirius.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @PB:
> I have no problem with the "simultaneous oust" clause. If you die and your prey also dies... you get 1VP, your pred gets 1VP + 6 pool. Fine.
>
> Why is Lorrie Dunsirn's cost treated differently to the cost of a Master card?
>
It isn't.
>
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Both are costs required to be paid in full before effects.
>
> Either Lorrie can't oust you if you oust your prey with Lorrie (giving you 6 pool) because the effects of the bleed (i.e. the oust) occur simultaneously...
>
> OR
>
> Eternals of Sirius can oust you if you use it on 4 pool.
>
> They are both "costs". Why should we be handling the cost of a Master Card in pool differently to another cost in pool?
>
The "(giving you 6 pool)" part is wrong.
You only gain pool for ousting your prey when you're not ousted at the same time (that's the quote I gave from the Rulebook). You DO NOT gain these 6 pool if ousting your prey happens when you're ousted too (classic example of simultaneoust : Anarchist Uprising)
It seems "you and your prey are being ousted at the same time" fully applies to Lorrie's bleed for 1 when both you and your prey are on 1 pool.
Other example: Personal Involvement when you and your prey are on 3 pool:
[LSJ 20090414] wrote:
>
> > Player A and B both have 3 pool. Player A plys Personal Involvement on
> > B, what happens, are both ousted or does B survive as PI checks for
> > pool difference after A is ousted and then the card has no effect? Or
> > if it does, can he cancel the card as it is played to only take 2
> > pool? Will A still be ousted then?
>
> Both are ousted.
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > They are both "costs". Why should we be handling the cost of a Master Card in pool differently to another cost in pool?
> >
> The "(giving you 6 pool)" part is wrong.
> You only gain pool for ousting your prey when you're not ousted at the same time (that's the quote I gave from the Rulebook). You DO NOT gain these 6 pool if ousting your prey happens when you're ousted too (classic example of simultaneoust : Anarchist Uprising)
>
You mean that the rulebook must be read?!?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I thought that the cost was paid when the action was successful. Immediately afterwards the effects of the action are resolved. In other words, I thought that success/failure was a distinct step from resolution, at least as far as actions are concerned.
What about the following scenario?:
Lorrie's controller, player A, has 1 pool. Player A's prey, player B, has 3 pool and a Red List minion with Fame. In his master phase, Player A marks Player B's Red List minion. During Player A's minion phase, Lorrie successfully takes the Red List rush action. If combat were to occur, Lorrie would send the Famed Red List minion to torpor, thus dealing 3 pool damage to Player B and ousting him.
The Red List rush action costs 1 blood and 1 pool in this case. Paying the pool would oust Player A. AFAIK, the blood cost of the Red List rush is paid before the combat occurs.
Would Player A still get to resolve the action (namely entering combat) before paying the pool cost and being ousted?
Well, how I see it, you do pay the cost AFTER you succesfully bleed, but before the check who is alive.
In combat situations you pay whatever cost to ENTER the combat, hence you pay it when you ENTER, that is before any of combat phases occur.
As a sidenote it is not so, when you enter combat and Obedience is played against you. You still have to pay the cost. RTR 19991206
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
@PB:
So explain why the two costs result in 'different ousts'?
All you've said is "We've ruled one to do X and another to do Y" there is no logical pattern to it.
Yes, I have read the rulebook. Yes, I do know the simultaneous oust rule. Yes, it is obvious with cards like Anarchist Uprising/Domain Challenge.
So,
1) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that 'checking for being ousted' occurs only AFTER resolving a card and not when the card is paid for?
i.e. If Lorrie Dunsirn had instead called Autarkis Persecution and not taken an action which would oust your prey, would you be ousted?
2) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that ousting is not part of a card resolution?
i.e. Tensions in the Ranks + Force of Will bleed + ousting your prey while you are on 1 pool... is this a simultaneous oust or not? If so why so and if not why not? In addition, how is this process different to playing Eternals of Sirius when on 4 pool?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> AaronC wrote:
> What about the following scenario?:
>
> Lorrie's controller, player A, has 1 pool. Player A's prey, player B, has 3 pool and a Red List minion with Fame. In his master phase, Player A marks Player B's Red List minion. During Player A's minion phase, Lorrie successfully takes the Red List rush action. If combat were to occur, Lorrie would send the Famed Red List minion to torpor, thus dealing 3 pool damage to Player B and ousting him.
>
> The Red List rush action costs 1 blood and 1 pool in this case. Paying the pool would oust Player A. AFAIK, the blood cost of the Red List rush is paid before the combat occurs.
>
> Would Player A still get to resolve the action (namely entering combat) before paying the pool cost and being ousted?
>
As I see it, the action in question is to enter combat, not the combat itself. So if the action is successful (not blocked) you pay the cost (1 pool and 1 blood) and resolve the action (enter combat). Combat ends at the start of combat as player A's minion is no longer ready because player A is in 0 pool and is ousted.
Marko, Prince of Helsinki
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> 1) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that 'checking for being ousted' occurs only AFTER resolving a card and not when the card is paid for?
>
You appear to be under the impression that the rulebook and CRR cover every card interaction ever. They don't. They essentially can't. There are 3000 cards in the game with English card text, not formal mathematical logic.
If the rulebook and CRR perfectly covered everything, we wouldn't have as many rulings as we do!
If we're under the assumption that not everything can be covered in the rulebook (which is fine), it's not that crazy to ask why similar situations cannot have similar rulings.
Play Eternals: "Put yourself on 0 pool to do X, but since resolving X puts you above 0 pool, you're not ousted"
Lorrie: "Put yourself on 0 pool to do X, and even though resolving X puts you above 0 pool, you're still ousted."
> i.e. If Lorrie Dunsirn had instead called Autarkis Persecution and not taken an action which would oust your prey, would you be ousted?
>
This is actually an interesting question. I have a feeling the answer is "you're ousted", but this is of course the direct opposite of the "referendum is part of the action" that is the basis of many other rulings (like the Freak Drive one).
Come to think of it, the whole "you pay when the action succesfully resolves" is nonsense in the case of rush cards and political actions. You pay when the thing that's on the card happens and the action happily continues afterwards.
What happens when I'm on 2 pool, call a politcal with Lorrie and a DT gets played? Do I get my pool back? I'm guessing not, but I thought I'd throw it out here.
> As I see it, the action in question is to enter combat, not the combat itself.
>
The combat is part of the action (see again Freak Drive). You probably still have to pay before combat because things would get weird with rush cards that cost blood, so maybe combat is only part of the action when entering combat has a cost?
Some rulings are just there "because Scott said so". We've been over a similar non-sensical difference in the Kindred Spirits / Unnamed / The Rising thread. Asking for logic and consistency based on what's actually in the rules instead of invoking an alledged difference of handling pool costs between master cards and minion cards is not by any means unreasonable.
Asking for a rulebook basis for making nonsensical rulings isn't unreasonable either.
(For the record, I'd be all for reversing the Eternals of Sirius ruling and make things logical).
The difference between Lorrie bleeding and you playing Eternals of Sirius: gaining the pool is part of Eternals of Sirius, but not Lorrie's bleed action. Gaining the pool after Lorrie's bleed is completely other mechanic (oust) that is only checked after the bleed has been paid and simultaneously for all players.
Jussi Hattara
Webmaster Extraordinaire
Finnish Politics!
> The difference between Lorrie bleeding and you playing Eternals of Sirius: gaining the pool is part of Eternals of Sirius, but not Lorrie's bleed action. Gaining the pool after Lorrie's bleed is completely other mechanic (oust) that is only checked after the bleed has been paid and simultaneously for all players.
>
That's your interpretation of it, which is fine, but it has no basis other than "because Scott said so".
One could just as well interpret it as follows:
Lorrie bleeds. Upon resolution, her bleed target is ousted, so everal things trigger:
1) The action must be paid
2) My prey is ousted, so I gain 6 pool and a VP
As acting Meth, I can arrange these triggered effects as I see fit, and thus I get 6 pool first and then pay Lorries pool.
And what if Lorrie had somehow gotten Dementation and bleeds with a Kindred Spirits? Or what if she becomes !Tor by some means and plays Art Scam?
> a-e wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > What about the following scenario?:
> >
> > Lorrie's controller, player A, has 1 pool. Player A's prey, player B, has 3 pool and a Red List minion with Fame. In his master phase, Player A marks Player B's Red List minion. During Player A's minion phase, Lorrie successfully takes the Red List rush action. If combat were to occur, Lorrie would send the Famed Red List minion to torpor, thus dealing 3 pool damage to Player B and ousting him.
> >
> > The Red List rush action costs 1 blood and 1 pool in this case. Paying the pool would oust Player A. AFAIK, the blood cost of the Red List rush is paid before the combat occurs.
> >
> > Would Player A still get to resolve the action (namely entering combat) before paying the pool cost and being ousted?
> >
> As I see it, the action in question is to enter combat, not the combat itself. So if the action is successful (not blocked) you pay the cost (1 pool and 1 blood) and resolve the action (enter combat). Combat ends at the start of combat as player A's minion is no longer ready because player A is in 0 pool and is ousted.
>
Correct.
Similarly, a Consanguineous Boon called by Lorrie (perhaps for Abominations) would oust Lorrie's controller if she's on 1 pool when the action ("call the referendum") resolves. That's earlier than setting the terms. Or casting votes / ballots. Or ttallying the results. Or applying the effects.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @PB:
>
> So explain why the two costs result in 'different ousts'?
> All you've said is "We've ruled one to do X and another to do Y" there is no logical pattern to it.
>
> Yes, I have read the rulebook. Yes, I do know the simultaneous oust rule. Yes, it is obvious with cards like Anarchist Uprising/Domain Challenge.
>
> So,
>
> 1) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that 'checking for being ousted' occurs only AFTER resolving a card and not when the card is paid for?
>
Where it reads that cost is paid and action is resolved are "simultaneous".
Rulebook 6.2.3: "If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. "
"and" makes the trick.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> i.e. If Lorrie Dunsirn had instead called Autarkis Persecution and not taken an action which would oust your prey, would you be ousted?
>
Yes. The action to call the referendum is successful. Pay cost (1 pool) and call the referendum. Now, you're ousted.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> 2) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that ousting is not part of a card resolution?
>
> i.e. Tensions in the Ranks + Force of Will bleed + ousting your prey while you are on 1 pool... is this a simultaneous oust or not? If so why so and if not why not? In addition, how is this process different to playing Eternals of Sirius when on 4 pool?
>
That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:
>
> Name: Force of Will
> [DS:C2, FN:PR2, Anarchs:PAG/PG2, KMW:PG, Third:C]
> Cardtype: Action
> Cost: 1 blood
> Discipline: Fortitude
> Only usable by a tapped vampire.
> [for] Bleed with +1 bleed. After resolution, this vampire takes 2 unpreventable aggravated damage even if the action is blocked.
> [FOR] As above, but with +2 bleed, and the acting vampire takes only 1 unpreventable aggravated damage.
>
Here's a closer example of what you're trying to use:
Previous rulings show it isn't.
Please notice it is likely you won't like these rulings. They are, however, what they are: rulings, applied to scenarii.
Bima + Tension in the Ranks + Govern : [LSJ 20080506] wrote:
>
> > 1/ Bima has a Dominate skill card, 2 life and
> > bleeds with Govern the Unaligned (cost : 1 blood).
> > Bima is not blocked and plays Conditioning (cost : 1 blood).
> >
> > Bima burns due to having zero life, but the bleed of 5 is still resolved,
> > meaning the target of the bleed loses 5 pool, right ?
>
> Correct.
>
(notice this one doesn't show how effects are ordered).
[LSJ 20080512] wrote:
>
> > Say there are two players left in the game:
> > Player A has a Bima in play with Dominate with one life left, Player A
> > has one pool left and has a Govern the Unaligned in his hand.
> > Player B has no cards in hand and no minoins in play, but has 3 pool,
> > a Tension in the Ranks and an Anarch Revolt in play.
> >
> > It is the minion phase of Player A, and he bleeds with Govern. Which
> > is the right order of the events:
> > - The Bima burns before the pool is lost due to the successful bleed
> > thus ousting player A as the Tension kicks in, or
> > - Player B looses the 3 pool due to the bleed before the Bima burns,
> > or
> > - Burning the Bima and the pool due to the bleed happens at the same
> > time, thus both players are ousted with the same action.
>
> The second.
>
> Bima burns a blood to cause the Methuselah B to burn 3 pool and be ousted.
>
> Assuming nothing interrupts that, you then handle the effects that arise from
> that -- the main one being "game ends (with only A remaining)".
>
> For completeness, let's add player C so the game doesn't end.
>
> So B is ousted and Tension leaves play and A gains 6 pool.
> Bima burns from being empty.
> A now completes his turn.
>
> If the Tension had been controlled by A (or C):
>
> B is ousted and A gains 6 pool.
> Bima burns from being empty.
> A burns 1 pool for the Tension.
> A completes his turn.
>
You can see here that Tension in the Ranks is a "slow" effect: [LSJ 20090414]
>
> > Player A has 3 pool and player B has 1. Tension is in play. They are
> > the only players left. Player B bleeds for 4 and Player A plays Archon
> > Investigation to burn the vampire so Tension kicks in. How are the
> > VP's handled and who gets the last VP? Would there be any difference
> > if there was a player C? I.e. can Player B survive it by collecting
> > the 6 pool first?
>
> AI is played and costs 3 pool.
> It leaves its "owner" empty (ousted) and the acting vampire burned.
> So A is ousted. B gets 1 VP. Last remaining player gets B an additional VP.
> Game ends (before Tension can kick in).
>
Let's take another example:
Lorrie, with 2 Quietus and 2 Thaumaturgy Discipline cards (making her an 8-cap vampire) plays Dark Mirror of the Mind while her controller is on 1 pool.
If the action isn't blocked, her controller now has 2 pool after resolution.
> That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:
>
Ya know, you saying there that the oust is part of the resolution of the action is actually an argument in favor of Lorrie not killing you with the bleed.
Because resolving the action *and* paying the cost (the *and* here, according to you, implying it happening simultaneously) then include the gaining of 6 pool. Which means I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool and thus, according to the Eternals ruling, means I end up at 6 pool.
Unless of course, you didn't actually mean to say that the oust is part of the resolution.
And what happens when she bleeds with Kindred Spirits?
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:
> >
> Ya know, you saying there that the oust is part of the resolution of the action is actually an argument in favor of Lorrie not killing you with the bleed.
>
> Because resolving the action *and* paying the cost (the *and* here, according to you, implying it happening simultaneously) then include the gaining of 6 pool. Which means I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool and thus, according to the Eternals ruling, means I end up at 6 pool.
>
> Unless of course, you didn't actually mean to say that the oust is part of the resolution.
>
> And what happens when she bleeds with Kindred Spirits?
>
Here is how I see it :
The resolution of the action has a first step which is "do the effects of the action" which happen simultaneously whith "pay the cost" then, you check other effect which are induced by those thing : for example someone(s) is (are) ousted, a combat occur, a referendum occur etc. And during all those things if you are not ousted, you can play action modifier, reaction, effects etc.
So about KS, considering the dark mirror of the mind example, my guess would be, you pay the cost simultaneously with gaining 1 pool and your prey loosing pools.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:
> >
> Ya know, you saying there that the oust is part of the resolution of the action is actually an argument in favor of Lorrie not killing you with the bleed.
>
> Because resolving the action *and* paying the cost (the *and* here, according to you, implying it happening simultaneously) then include the gaining of 6 pool. Which means I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool and thus, according to the Eternals ruling, means I end up at 6 pool.
>
> Unless of course, you didn't actually mean to say that the oust is part of the resolution.
>
What I meant to say was "The oust is part of the resolution [of the bleed]."
What you got wrong is this: "I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool "
You simultaneously are ousted and oust your prey. The Rulebook covers that (see reference above).
> Izaak wrote:
> And what happens when she bleeds with Kindred Spirits?
>
You gain 1 pool. If you were on 1 pool, you stay on 1 pool. If that also ousts your prey, you now have 7 pool.
what I'm taking away from this is that ousting happens after, and is resolved separately from a card effect or action.
If a card effect costs pool and gains pool before the effect is totally and completely over, the player is not ousted.
Effectively, the game does not 'check' for ousting during the resolution of a card effect, but checks after the act is concluded..
So, if I am reading this correctly, if Lorrie uses bum's rush to enter combat with a minion who is Anathema (while her controller is at 1 pool) and manages to gain the pool from anathema, her controller is not ousted.
No, it is just that the cost and the basic resolution are simultaneous. In your example, the "basic resolution" would be "enter combat" so you pay at this moment and you are ousted.
but you don't redraw until the combat is over. therefore the combat is a part of the action's resolution. Or have I been reading the 'do not replace until the end of the action' incorrectly all these years?
No you haven't.
What I have understood from this thread is that an action has two "resolution points." The first one is when the stuff on the card happens (and that's when you pay) and the second part is when the action is actually over which is where you redraw and play Freak Drive and whatnot. It's likely someone will come up with an example where it doesn't make sense at which point JaZ, PB and A will tear their example apart by quoting the correct sequence of comma's and footnotes in the rulebook all the while claiming it "makes sense" and is "easy to understand".
Anyway,
What it comes down to, is that action resolving doesn´t actually mean the action is resolved. It just means the action is happening. It's like a "pay now, benefit later" deal. This applies to entering combat en political actions.
Occasionally, however, resolving and ending do actually happen simultaneously and then you pay and gain at the same time. This applies to bleed. I mean, surely bleed actions need a little extra help.
Kinda like Timo said. This thread basically introduces the new term "basic resolution". Basically new rules are being made up because someone *really* wanted to play Eternals of Sirius at 4 pool. Don't worry about it, the term "impulse" was being used in rulings for years even though it wasn't in the rulebook at the time.
> Izaak wrote:
> Kinda like Timo said. This thread basically introduces the new term "basic resolution". Basically new rules are being made up because someone *really* wanted to play Eternals of Sirius at 4 pool.
>
I don't see why Eternal of Sirius would have caused this. It happened for a significantly simpler and yet more problematic thing.
During the resolution, you do everything that need no subsequent interaction. Combat, diableries, referendum, ousting, are done immediatly after because they need interaction. Gaining pool, crucially, is not interactive, while an oust is (because of the boon and certainly other effects)
In other word, you have an atomic resolution, and everything that cannot be atomic by definition is done immediatly after what's atomic. The only "confusing" part (in the loosiest sense) is that non-atomic parts are the exception, not the rule.
No. This is why I used a non official term "basic resolution" which could be opposed with "complete resolution"
This is the same thing with a political action there is thee paying + "basic resolution" which would be "calling a parity" and then, there is a lot of other stuff occuring before the "complete resolution" like choosing terms, voting, resolving effects and playing action modifier / reactions / effects.
And after all this stuff, the action end.
Edit : I was speaking to self biaised. I agree with what have been said by Ohlman and Izaak.
Just want to throw out a different scenario for consideration.
Hypothetical card in play says:
"Diablerie actions cost an additional pool."
Three players left. Each has 1 pool. "A" controls the Sandra White. ["If Sandra diablerizes an older vampire, the controller of that vampire burns 1 pool."] "B" has a no cards except a vampire in torpor, older than Sandra. "C" is irrelevant except that they are still in the game.
Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?
Different more convoluted secnario:
Hypothetical card BH:
" Call a blood hunt on a ready vampire."
Hypothetical vampire specials (on same vampire X):
"Actions cost this vampire 1 additional pool. Your prey burns 1 pool each time a vampire is burned."
Situation:
Meth A,B,C each have 1 pool.
Meth A controls vampire X who also has 2 votes. Meth B has no cards. Meth C has a ready vampire Z with 1 vote and a Pentex Subversion on them.
Vampire X plays card BH against vampire Z. What happens?
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> Jeff wrote:
> Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?
>
What is supposed to be the subtlety ? A is ousted anyway. I don't remember the timing for Sandra's (or Lutz's) ability, so I can't say more.
> Jeff wrote:
> Vampire X plays card BH against vampire Z. What happens?
>
He is ousted immediatly before the blood hunt referendum, since he have 0 pool. Like Dunsirn playing a pool-gaining referendum. Here again, I don't see where you want to go, especially since Blood Hunt are already callable.
> Jeff wrote:
> Just want to throw out a different scenario for consideration.
>
> Hypothetical card in play says:
> "Diablerie actions cost an additional pool."
>
> Three players left. Each has 1 pool. "A" controls the Sandra White. ["If Sandra diablerizes an older vampire, the controller of that vampire burns 1 pool."] "B" has a no cards except a vampire in torpor, older than Sandra. "C" is irrelevant except that they are still in the game.
>
> Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?
>
> Different more convoluted secnario:
>
> Hypothetical card BH:
> " Call a blood hunt on a ready vampire."
>
> Hypothetical vampire specials (on same vampire X):
> "Actions cost this vampire 1 additional pool. Your prey burns 1 pool each time a vampire is burned."
>
> Situation:
> Meth A,B,C each have 1 pool.
> Meth A controls vampire X who also has 2 votes. Meth B has no cards. Meth C has a ready vampire Z with 1 vote and a Pentex Subversion on them.
>
> Vampire X plays card BH against vampire Z. What happens?
>
The second one seems an easy one. Since the BH needs to have a referendum (even if your card does not say "political action" so if the action is not bloqued A would be ousted. And the action will stop before complete resolution due to the disappearence of the acting vampire.
The first one, I would say both A and B are ousted simultaneously because everithing should trigger in the "basic resolution" window
> TunFiskeMad wrote:
> So if you take the pool from the oust you have declined to freak drive?
>
Maybe. But i think freak drive is ok, since it says after copleting an action (even though its an action modifier.) And the action doesnt immidiately end at your own initiative, such as with kiss of ra.
Pb could clarify, but after and action is also when you get the pool.
Magic had a stack.
I dsilike mtg, and we are nominally intilectually above mtg by and large
So, should vtes use a "queue" for the sake of sequencing explainations?
I punch with iliana, you punch with calebros. I play claws of the dead . Damages are on the queue, i play hidden strength, you glancing blow. Damages resolves from queue with pending, then resolving prevention(i could rotschreck between this though, even if you ended combay somehow as a strike) and my press, if i used sup hidden strength, is also in the queue, assuming we are both ready at press step(in ohio, its tradional to ask "would you like to press?" Regardless of if the opposing minion is ready ) and i can use it or not during press step, resolving or ignoring it at press step with possibly taste of vitae for zero entering somewhere.
This example is easy stuff explained complexely, but same terms could simplify and add easy logic to action resolution and game state checks, eapecially in the plainly important instances with cost, oust, and possible self oust.
Krc self oist is easy to understand, compared to lorrie example, but i feel terming things could help us.
> Magic had a stack.
>
No no, it had batch system (until 2009), which was terrible. No, horrible. And even that doesn't fit the suffering MTG players had to go through when learning the game.
It has a stack system now, which is extremely elegant, easy to use and as intuitive as it gets. Once you understand how the stack works (10 minutes max, and that's if you're an idiot) you cannot possibly make an incorrect call what happens in a given situation.
Unlike in VTES, where you need to cross-ref 50 pages of rulebook, 2 forums of rulings and a hard-to-read-but-not-searchable rulings page. And you still end up wrong half the time.
> I dsilike mtg, and we are nominally intilectually above mtg by and large
>
I like it, but I do not feel nominally and intellectually (I thought I'd spell it correctly) below VTES.
> Rabble
>
Or, you could just use the stack properly (like, use it as it's used in M10 and on instead of mis-using the terrible 6th Edition combat rulings) and then understand why it's such an elegant way to handle things.
I'm not saying VTES needs a stack, but to dismiss the one thing that probably makes Magic so easy to pick up (and so succesfull as a result) is rather ignorant.
I learned magic after 6th, so it burns me royally that combat damage no longer uses the stack.
Although since im never playing it again unless im bored and rich(nothing against wotc, but they want too much money, and my thousands of cards were basically stolen, except for one legacy deck, which was sold to get money for my wedding, so its no longer my game. Add in the rules changes burning me, and arbitrary keywords every few sets, and yea, ill just stick with vtes.... although the modern masters set was a cool idea.)
Anyway, i think it was implied, but do you agree with me that some sort of stack esque system would help us at least some?
My phone stopped autocorrecting last year, so adjectives showing intellect escape me in spelling... not helping the point though, plainly........
Edit: wait, batch has to be older than 09. I started playing again around 2005, and did so competetively. There was definately a stack. 2009-2010 is probably when id stopped. Mogg fanatic could, at its last core set printing, block a1/1, put damage on the stack, then sac itsself to ping either another creature or player for one.
> TunFiskeMad wrote:
> So if you take the pool from the oust you have declined to freak drive?
>
No, because ousting does not end action. Otherwise this card would have been errataed:
> Edge of the World
>
> Action Modifier
>
> Guruhi
>
> Usable by a ready Guruhi you control, acting or not. Only usable if you have gained a victory point during this action. You gain 4 pool. If this Guruhi is acting, he or she untaps and gains enough blood from the bank to reach full capacity. Only one Edge of the World can be played each action.
>
It is still playable during the action resulting in oust, but after getting benefits of the oust.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
Ye there was a stack, I actually said it wrong. Like, I mistyped 1999 for 2009 for some reason.
Magic had the terrible batch system before Sixth edition. It got got replaced with the stack in Sixth edition, and that was in 1999. Along with it Interrupts, mana sources and all them shennenigans disappeared.
It's also the edition that put combat damage on the stack. Which was fairly stupid, because as you describe:
> Mogg fanatic could, at its last core set printing, block a1/1, put damage on the stack, then sac itsself to ping either another creature or player for one.
>
That got changed with M10 (which was in 2009, so that's prolly where the number came from). They described it as a swordsman swinging his sword to land a hit, then vanishing and still have the sword connect or something like that. It works pretty well nowadays, except that the whole "shields" thing for damage prevention is somewhat weird.
> Anyway, i think it was implied, but do you agree with me that some sort of stack esque system would help us at least some?
>
I suppose, ye.
> Jeff wrote:
> Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?
>
> Ohlmann wrote:
> What is supposed to be the subtlety ? A is ousted anyway. I don't remember the timing for Sandra's (or Lutz's) ability, so I can't say more.
>
Hm, my point was more about diablerie being "atomic".
If a vampire commits diablerie which directly leads to pool loss and an oust, would titled vampires controlled by the ousted methuselah be able to participate in the blood hunt?
Of course, re-checking the rule book shows that the Blood Hunt is separate from the atomic Diablerie steps, so the point is moot.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes