PB,
This one seems like it could be in another one of those parts of VTES where an 'instinctive reading' might be wildly wrong.
Vamp A is acting and plays Carrion Crows
Vamp B is blocking.
Later in the combat Vamp B plays a strike with first strike that will send Vamp A to torpor from the damage (not S:CE). Vamp A has played a strike that is not S:D or S:CE (but it is irrelevant otherwise).
Does Vamp B take the damage from Carrion Crows?
Carrion Crows
Type: Combat
Requires: Animalism
Only usable before range is chosen.
[ani] The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round of combat during strike resolution. A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat.
[ANI] As above, but for 2R damage.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> PB,
>
> This one seems like it could be in another one of those parts of VTES where an 'instinctive reading' might be wildly wrong.
>
> Vamp A is acting and plays Carrion Crows
> Vamp B is blocking.
>
> Later in the combat Vamp B plays a strike with first strike that will send Vamp A to torpor from the damage (not S:CE). Vamp A has played a strike that is not S:D or S:CE (but it is irrelevant otherwise).
>
> Does Vamp B take the damage from Carrion Crows?
>
> Carrion Crows
> Type: Combat
> Requires: Animalism
> Only usable before range is chosen.
> [ani] The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round of combat during strike resolution. A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat.
> [ANI] As above, but for 2R damage.
>
> Rulebook wrote:
> First Strike. A strike done with first strike is resolved before a normal strike. Thus, if the opposing minion is burned or sent to torpor by a strike done with first strike, his strike will not be resolved at all.
>
Carrion Crows' damage is applied "during [normal] strike resolution". If that strike resolution doesn't happen - should it be because something "voluntarily" ends the combat (Alpha Glint, S:CE, Anesthetic Touch) or "unvoluntarily" ends it (First strike: Taste of Death; first strike: mummify, pre-range agg such as Outside of the Hourglass, ..) the "normal strike resolution" phase is never reached (and instead, we skip to the end of the round) - and the damage from CC is never applied.
Thanks PB.
Once again, the whole structure of combat seems needlessly complex.
The rules themselves don't create these multiple strike resolutions (outside the obvious additional strikes resolve in separate resolution windows) in an explicit way, they do sequence the order of strikes resolving (i.e. S:CE, S:D, S:1st, S) but don't suggest they occur in different windows merely that there is a window for resolving strike damage and that it must be done in order.
The rules create one window with many resolutions.
The ruling below, which is an LSJ ruling since it mirrors the Anaesthetic Touch ruling, creates multiple strike resolution windows in the one step.
The rules or the CRR could do with an explicit inclusion of that sort of text rather than having it in a ruling. And, based on the rules, I think LSJ made a bad decision on that ruling.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> TThe rules themselves don't create these multiple strike resolutions (outside the obvious additional strikes resolve in separate resolution windows) in an explicit way, they do sequence the order of strikes resolving (i.e. S:CE, S:D, S:1st, S) but don't suggest they occur in different windows merely that there is a window for resolving strike damage and that it must be done in order.
>
> The rules create one window with many resolutions.
>
The distinction you are making is totally, 100% irrelevant. It is one you have invented, with no relevance.
Whether you call them steps in a window, or separate windows, you apply the effects in an order. If combat ends due to something happening (an actual combat ends effect, a minion being unreadied etc.), you stop going through that order. Whether it's windows, steps, sequences, orders, frames, or any other terminology you want to invent.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The rules or the CRR could do with an explicit inclusion of that sort of text rather than having it in a ruling. And, based on the rules, I think LSJ made a bad decision on that ruling.
>
The ruling on first strike torporization preventing "during strike resolution" effects wasn't even made by LSJ, it was made in 1994 by the then-rules-team. See: Wolf Companion.
vekn.net/card-rulings/card-rulings-p-to-z
groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.deckmaster/_6CXoKTSLnw/FdG67-3HEAQJ
>
> Rules wrote:
> The damage is done during normal damage dealing, so a Combat Ends will
> stop it, as will sending its controller to torpor during first strike.
>
There is a difference James. If we want VTES to be a systematic game, then it should have systematic rules and not have to be held together with rulings constantly. Plus, the standard "Argument from Tradition" isn't always a good reason to have VTES run.
The rules themselves state that you resolve pairs of strikes, and mentions very little about how environmental damage resolves during combat. CRR VI and CRR VII provide no indication that a minion going to torpor stops non-strike damage from resolving. Rules 6.4.5 states that only strikes are lost by going to torpor if the opposing minion uses S:FS. Rules 6.4.6 is exclusive to damage prevention and mentions nothing about strikes other than that they cause damage. Rules 6.4.3 only mentions the immediately end, but this has also been shown to allow things like Taste of Vitae so "immediately end" is not "immediately end".
I apologise to LSJ for impugning him in this matter.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> There is a difference James.
>
V:TES works the way it works. We know - because you tell us at length, repeatedly - that V:TES wouldn't work this way if you were in control of it. This is not a reason to change it.
We know that, every day, you get up and your heart aches with the pain that LSJ made a ruling and it wasn't a ruling you understand. We know that, every day, you wake up cursing that LSJ made a ruling that is completely inexplicable to you because - so far as we can tell - instead of trying to understand V:TES, you keep trying to fit the ruling into an entirely different system that you have invented, like complaining that Latin verb conjugations make no sense because you think it should work like Chinese instead. You don't like Latin, we know - it causes you anguish every time you see inflected verbs where you don't expect them. You express surprise and fear and disapproval when your system (not the one on which V:TES is based) clashes with official rulings (the ones on which V:TES is based).
This is still not a reason to change anything.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The rules themselves state that you resolve pairs of strikes, and mentions very little about how environmental damage resolves during combat.
>
The rules tell us that strike resolution is simultaneous, except for certain rule-based exceptions - and, obviously, the Golden Rule of Cards.
> Rulebook, wrote:
> Strike resolution occurs simultaneously, except for a few special cases (see Strike Effects, sec 6.4.5).
>
Thus, going to torpor from Muddle's first strike for four damage pre-empts my attempt to shoot him with a .44 Magnum and my Ghoul Retainer's attempt to him him with an Ivory Bow and my Murder of Crows attempting to peck him. That's because First Strike is defined as an exception.
Carrion Crows is not defined as an exception, and so it goes off simultaneously in strike resolution, like the rulebook tells us strike resolution works. It could say "at First Strike speed" (or some similar text). It could define its own timing. It doesn't, so it goes off simultaneously, like other things during strike resolution.
If you can invent a system whereby two things occur simultaneously, but one of them (damage from Crows) goes off when an earlier First Strike resolution has already caused combat to end, and the other simultaneous effect (damage from my normal-speed strike) doesn't go off when First Strike occurs, you really need to re-evaluate your understanding of the words "systematic" and "needlessly complex".
Oh, oh, let me throw in my 5 cents of BS further. If you play Drawing Out The Beast at sup and go to torpor, you go to press step instead, because you have an unresolved damage source! Just as logical.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
In general, as soon as the controller of those cards (crows, retainers, etc.) played is gone (to torpor or beyond), their effects are gone.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
Actually no, I argue these things because they are debates about the premises of the game primarily. Any system becomes more robust when its premises are more robust. What is inexplicable is why the premises behind which rulings are based are as haphazard as they are. Refining the premises behind rulings and having the rules written so they negate the need for the ruling to even exist strengthens the game. The fact that this is a 1996 ruling that isn't directly covered in either the CRR or the Rules (and despite your "Strike resolution occurs simultaneously" quote it is, as written, useless for determining a non-strike damage source) shows either a weakness in the system, a weakness in its premises, or an overt clinging to the concept that the rules must not change.
As I have said MANY times before, the rulings should be nearly redundant because the Rules + Card Text should make it obvious how a card functions in all but the very fewest of cases. It should not be necessary to make a sweeping ruling such as the 1996 one quoted... if it is so sweeping, it should be part of the rules.
Carrion Crows is not a strike. Why should it be prevented from going off when the minion is not there? STRIKES are resolved simultaneously. Not any damage dealing effect during Strike Resolution... that is what is written in the rules. "Strike resolution occurs simultaneously, except for a few special cases." That's the rule. STRIKE resolution occurs simultaneously.
Or more formally...
1. Strikes of the same type resolve simultaneously. (That is I assume a more than acceptable paraphrase of the general rule and then the specific rules on each strike type and the CRR texts).
2. There are combat effects that deal damage that are not a strike.
3. Effects in combat can be queued to resolve later in combat.
4. Going to torpor immediately ends combat.
Point 1 is fine, but also not relevant to this. Carrion Crows is not a strike and therefore the rules do not specify how a non-strike source of damage is meant to be resolved other than the usual sequencing rules and there are plenty of examples that when an effect has a window in which it must function (i.e. Smiling Jack, The Rack, Mercy for Seth) then it must occur and the window cannot be bypassed or ended until the effect is resolved.
Point 2 is obvious and there are many examples. Carrion Crows would function differently to the damage from Outside the Hourglass or Drawing Out the Beast purely because the timing window of both of those is stated to be elsewhere than the Damage Resolution step. On the same score, if a Zip Gun sends the opposing minion to torpor with First Strike, would its "Bearer takes 1 damage during strike resolution when striking with this gun, but only once each combat." text kick in and cause damage?
Point 3 is also obvious. Drawing Out the Beast, Carrion Crows, Zip Gun, Immortal Grapple, Target Head, Target Vitals, Trap, etc. Claiming that things are not 'queued' or otherwise triggered at an early point in a combat to occur at a later point are wrong.
Point 4 is only partially true, since there are a number of cards you can play after a minion goes to torpor, ending combat without actually having the combat end. Taste of Vitae being an obvious example. "Immediately end combat" is not immediate or ending.
First Strike is defined as a strike. A .44 Magnum uses a strike. Carrion Crows is not a strike. Murder of Crows is not a strike. Ghoul Retainer is not a strike.
So either 6.4.3 is flawed and should be changed (and we remove the need for the ruling by strengthening the rules) OR the Ruling is illogically constructed and causes internal contradiction with the rules system so it should be dropped or amended so that it removes the contradiction.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Roberto wrote:
> I believe the Rules for that are simple :
>
> Everything that is not a CE, D, or FS, resolves at normal strike resolution.
>
Unless you're in torpor before the strike resolution is reached, at which point the combat jumps directly to end-of-round, then end-of-combat.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> It should not be necessary to make a sweeping ruling such as the 1996 one quoted... if it is so sweeping, it should be part of the rules.
>
It was necessary at the time. It is now part of the rules.
But - in your pants-wetting urgency to re-invent V:TES in your own image - you are utterly confusing two totally different things.
1) Is the way V:TES works well defined on this point? Yes, it is. It's incredibly well defined what happens with "during strike resolution" effects vs First Strike, and has been for two decades.
2) Is it communicated in the most efficient and appropriate and easily understood fashion? Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
If point 2) is something that you wish to clarify, that is not a reason to overturn 1). Yet - repeatedly, at length - you use "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULES" to argue "OVERTURN THE RULES FOR ME".
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Carrion Crows is not a strike. Why should it be prevented from going off when the minion is not there? STRIKES are resolved simultaneously.
>
Indeed, Carrion Crows is not a strike. But it happens - by its own card text - "during strike resolution". Strikes resolve simultaneously, and it resolves during that.
That you can conceive of a different framework is not a reason to overturn the rules. Chinese works, as a system. Latin works, as a system. Both have their own kinks and nuances, but both generally work and are generally understood by people who put in the appropriate amount of effort. Both prove troublesome for people who protest "But this doesn't work like it should", because they're completely missing the point.
That you could have invented V:TES to work more like Magic or more like Netrunner or more like Five Rings or more like Agricola or more like Puerto Rico is all fine and dandy. But the simple fact that you personally want a different model - despite the fact that the one V:TES uses isn't causing any trouble on this point - is not a reason to change.
If the rule isn't well understood, clarify the rules. We don't overturn the rules just because you woke up one morning and had an epiphany about how a functional, non-troubling V:TES system could be re-written to another system.
My two cents, avoiding the war if possible.
Pascal, who (can only speak for myself) is the guy who gets to make rules decisions and seems fine at it, and he said first strike outruns birds on rules reasons.
Firat strike sucks, so it should for thematic reasons.
But...
First strike strikes resolve before normal strikes. That, to me, and is from rulebook snippetxin this thread, says it still happens when strikes are resolved.
Thats how I read it, and my problem is:
Does FS give the other, non FS strike "second strike"
Birds happen when strikes happen, a FS strike is a strike, so...
Birds happen when strikes happen?
Ruling has been made, ive declared support for it, im just pointing out how the rules read to me personally. And again, not stirring things, not imposing my unbreakable will upon things to change them, but that is how the rulebook reads, and sce rules go over them, but by CC text and the rule book, it does say what it says.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> Does FS give the other, non FS strike "second strike"
> Birds happen when strikes happen, a FS strike is a strike, so...
>
> Birds happen when strikes happen?
>
Except if you actually believed that, you wouldn't think Carrion Crows should happen at the same 'speed' as First Strike, they'd have to happen at the same 'speed' as Strike: Combat Ends.
I demand my right to play Majesty, and still have you take the damage from Carrion Crows and Drawing Out the Beast.
James,
The quoted rule specifies that STRIKES resolve simultaneously. "During strike resolution" does not mysteriously change Carrion Crows into a strike or S:D would be effective against it.
In the text of the rules and the CRR there is no explicit way to deal with damage that is NOT caused by a strike.
Having this game function like law courts (with legislation and rafts of caselaw) could be another reason why people find the learning curve harder than it needs to be. So in effect what I am advocating is the broad-reaching rulings result in AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES.
To be honest, I don't want to have to Google search ANYTHING to find out how VTES. I want to read the RULEBOOK, the CARD and maybe a list of specific-card-to-card interactions where the Rules and the Card don't clearly resolve things. I think VTES would be in a good place for people to learn quickly if on the left of this form it read "Rules: Rulebook, Card Lists, Card Rulings, Tournament Rules, Judge's Guide". The CRR and the General Rulings shouldn't exist, they should have resulted in amendments to the rules.
I don't see why you feel the need to cling to a scattered raft of ad hoc rulings as a sensible way to adjudicate this game.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Thats what im getting at.
Also, James, DotB is during the press step. I never said we got there, just that crows says during strike resolution and first srike does as well, per its rule in the book in fact, it resolves before not first strike strikes.
Unrelated to this interaction are seperate rules for dodge amd combat ends, which specify that the former trumps dirst strike and the latter is "faster" than all.
Now, as stated, i see the rules guy has issued a ruling. And i find that since first strike sucks it needs all the help it can get.
Now, the problem is that as the rules read, its confusing as hell, because i see a strike resolving and something happening with first strike is a strike resolving.
So, yes, i already said it SHOULDNT WORK LIKE THAT. its just worded in a way insinuating otherwise.
If we ever want to help the learning curve, we need to streamline information amd its accessability. If the playerbase werent so intelligent, this would be an impossible thing. But we have smart people, some of which are great trolls who can find inconsistancies if they exist.
Getting all rules related to a given card in one spot, or hell, even two(vekn and secret library) would remove alot of this barrier were players are solid enough to try new things but new enough to neex to ask questions, all while being timid enough to maybe not ask.
I know the rules most of the time, and here i didnt. But my assumption was contradictory to the way it reads on the card sitting next to the rulebook, which is an issue for me when id like to see more people getting into the game. Thats what im after.
> Roberto wrote:
> Sure, that was implicit
>
Ummmm.....
The implication was implicit in the confusion, or the confusion was inplicit in the implication?
I didnt say jack about the game being learned origionally, but plainly, i read the rules the wrong way, looking at it knowing how it should/does work, so somebody not familiar with the game would probably see things the wrong way.
Or they could rummage through lsj rulings or this thread. But the card and the rules should be the optimal resources, even in this age of smartphones and inescapable 4G data coverage.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The quoted rule specifies that STRIKES resolve simultaneously. "During strike resolution" does not mysteriously change Carrion Crows into a strike or S:D would be effective against it.
>
Juggernaut, this has absolutely zero to do with mystically transmogrifying Carrion Crows into a strike.
We have a time when strikes resolve. The rules tell us there are some exceptions (S:CE, First Strike and the not actually resolving Dodge), but otherwise we know when strikes resolve. Carrion Crows' damage resolves "during strike resolution". That is, when strikes resolve. We know when strikes resolve. We know this happens during that. During, meaning - while this is happening. So while strikes are resolving - which we know from the rules happens simultaneously, at normal speed, except for specific exceptions and cards text - we handle Carrion Crows too. Because that is during the resolution of strikes, and there is no exception defined for Carrion Crows, by the rules or by its card text (Golden Rule of Cards).
Going into torpor can interrupt quite a lot of combat phases. Strike resolution is not an exception.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
During X is always interpreted as "at some point before X ends" in all other places in the rules. Since it is not a strike, it's only timing condition is that it occurs during the Strike Resolution Step of combat.
The rules provide no overarching reason why the damage from Carrion Crows:
a) Should not occur concurrently with S:FS or S:CE (they have defined timing windows, and all other strikes except S:D are defined to occur simultaneously)
b) Should not be 'forced to occur' before the combat ends (it is an applied damage because it was played prior to the strike resolution step and since it was not cancelled its damage must be dealt with during the strike resolution, similarly to OtH vs Alpha Glint)
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The rules provide no overarching reason why the damage from Carrion Crows...
>
Yes, there is.
> Strike resolution occurs simultaneously, except for a few special cases (see Strike Effects, sec 6.4.5).
>
Carrion Crows is not a special case. Ergo, it occurs during [normal] strike resolution.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> During X is always interpreted as "at some point before X ends" in all other places in the rules.
>
Except that, unlike other phases, we have an explicit statement that strike resolution is simultaneous.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The rules provide no overarching reason why the damage from Carrion Crows:
>
If this upsets you so, then follow the explicit ruling explaining how this works from twenty years ago that has been re-affirmed multiple times since.
James, and Jeff,
Both of you dodge the obvious in that rule.
Strikes are resolved simultaneously. Carrion Crows is not a strike. Therefore the rule "Strikes are resolved simultaneously" should not be applied to a non-strike.
There is no term for environmental damage in the rules (or CRR) with a definition. There is also no timing given to environmental damage beyond the fact that it must be handled in a damage resolution (which is ill defined in the CRR and in the Rules).
Also by analogy with OtH, Carrion Crows legitimately creates an effect later in the combat since it was not cancelled. The damage of Carrion Crows exists in the Damage Resolution Step of the combat as soon as it is not cancelled in the Before Range Step (cards have their effects resolved immediately remember?). So, by the OtH scenario, there is no way to escape the damage from Carrion Crows once the card is played...
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Strikes are resolved simultaneously. Carrion Crows is not a strike. Therefore the rule "Strikes are resolved simultaneously" should not be applied to a non-strike.
>
Strikes are resolved in the following order:
i. Strike: Combat Ends.
ii. Any strike done with first strike.
iii. Any other strikes.
The damage from Carrion Crows resolves at iii. (normal strike resolution). So if the opposing minion is sent to torpor by first strike then iii. does not occur in accordance with "If either of the combatants is burned or goes to torpor during the course of combat, combat ends (go to step VI.E)." — E. being the end of the round.
So the step in combat that Carrion Crows would resolve never occurs, pending effect or otherwise.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
Ke,
It's not that I don't understand how people have said 'it must work'. That isn't the argument.
The argument is mostly that the rules do not tell me this. None of the rules tell me this. From reading the cards and the Rulebook, I cannot get to this conclusion without error. From reading the card and the Rulebook I am left with the problem that I keep coming back to:
1) The rules tell me when STRIKES resolve.
2) Carrion Crows is not a STRIKE.
Result: There is no specific time in the rules where Carrion Crows must resolve.
When you bring in the 'speed of strikes', that is an order in which they must be resolved. It in fact, based on plenty of other non-combat scenarios, suggests that in VTES once something is 'queued to occur' it cannot be avoided (OtH thread for starters, but also Mandatory Actions, Smiling Jack-type card text, and so on) unless there is a point where two things are equally logically intended to happen and then either: Thing 1 trumps Thing 2 (Psyche trumps Rotschreck, Psyche trumps Form of Mist's Continue, etc) OR Thing 1 and Thing 2 cannot be chosen between so neither happens and no Thing 3 may be chosen(2 Mandatory Actions solution). Note: Without a speed for non-strike damage explicitly ruled, there is no reason to assume it cannot occur faster than S:CE.
So, considering that there are "During X, Y happens" effects throughout VTES and VTES has been set up in the past to treat "Y happens" as an unavoidable (in general) it seems at least incongruous that combat should completely subvert this principle.
The easiest solutions include:
1) Define explicitly in the rules the 'speed' of non-strike damage in the Damage Resolution Step (and removes all future need for rulings about how S:CE, S:Torpor, or S:FS & other minion goes to torpor). This is not in the rules at the moment. It should be for clarity of the rules and card design.
2) Define explicitly that all effects that are resolved to occur (i.e. the card is successfully played and its effects are enforced later by card text) earlier in a combat must happen before the requisite combat step or the combat itself can end. This would bring them into line with Actions (Force of Will) and Action modifiers (Loose Cannon, Daring the Dawn, Day Op). The changes should be made either on the card or in the rules. Considering that reprinting is unlikely based on public gossip, then a rules-based solution seems to be the easiest option to change.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Result: There is no specific time in the rules where Carrion Crows must resolve.
>
It's not difficult to assert that "during strike resolution" refers to the normal step for strike resolution (the card doesn't say otherwise). Also, it's only the strike that is resolved first when playing a first strike card as per the rules "A strike done with first strike is resolved before a normal strike."
Seems like a lot of huff and puff over something fairly trivial.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Strikes are resolved simultaneously. Carrion Crows is not a strike. Therefore the rule "Strikes are resolved simultaneously" should not be applied to a non-strike.
>
Except, that's not the rule. That's not what the rules say.
Strike resolution occurs simultaneously
You are for, no apparent reason, making up a different wording for the rule, and then pouting and stamping and huffing that the rules don't work the way you've just reworded them.
Strike resolution occurs simultaneously. Carrion Crows occurs during that - which, unlike most other steps in the game, is handled simultaneously.
Because you have changed the rules to "Strikes are resolved simultaneously" rather than reading what the rule actually says about strike resolution, it's no wonder you have to make up nonsense about transmogrifying Carrion Crows into a strike. But the fact that you have not read the rules is not a reason to change them. Please, please, please stop using the fact that you don't like the rules as justification to lie about what they say. Please stop.
James,
"Strike resolution occurs simultaneously" has the option for multiple readings. It is an ambiguous statement even in the remaining context of the rule.
1) Strikes are resolved simultaneously (i.e. no one strike take precedence over another)
2) The effects of strikes are applied to both minions at the same time, regardless of the order they occur.
3) The effects of strikes are applied to both minions such that no other thing can be interjected between applying the strikes to the two minions (i.e. Once the Strike Resolution Step begins, nothing stops Minion A and Minion B being affected by the strike of the other).
4) All effects scheduled to occur in the strike resolution phase are concurrent.
Those are without me being particularly creative about that phrase.
Combat, in VTES, is already ill-defined with the Rules and the CRR having different numbers of steps and the rulings creating a large number more (I'd suggest that all up there are 9 Steps to Combat as a minimum based on the applications of various rulings). Continuing to use a poorly defined phrase to handle environmental damage weakens the structure of the game. It makes the future design of cards problematic. It makes the learning curve of possibly the most complicated part of the game far more difficult than it needs to be, purely because people feel that the Rulebook should be treated as a kind of 'holy text'. The Rulebook is not the Book of Nod...
The rules should be crafted like a coding language with all of the parts of the game well defined and their interactions set out within the rules. If the current language of the game cannot support the card design without a 'patch'(via rulings at the moment and those can be difficult to find and potentially downright obscure)... then we should be changing either the coding language (Rulebook) or the card design.
Since the CRR is in effect a collection of amendments to the rules, why are they not incorporated fully into the rules? Why do we need two documents for this?
Since there are a reasonably large number of rulings that are general in their application (and numerous enough to need a General Rulings tab), why are these not incorporated into the rules already? Why do we need a third document for this?
Why are we not amending the rules to ensure that the basis for the game, the rules, are current, clear, concrete and able to be applied without there being the need to search 15+ years of online documents or to basically find a 'guru' in the rules?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Result: There is no specific time in the rules where Carrion Crows must resolve.
>
> ...
>
> 1) Define explicitly in the rules the 'speed' of non-strike damage in the Damage Resolution Step (and removes all future need for rulings about how S:CE, S:Torpor, or S:FS & other minion goes to torpor). This is not in the rules at the moment.
>
Yes, there is.
> When a minion or retainer takes damage (either from a strike or from other means), he must burn blood or lose life, as appropriate (see Damage Resolution, sec. 6.4.6).
>
You seem to be having a hard time grasping the meaning of the word "when".
dictionary.reference.com/browse/when?s=t
Meaning 4 is most relevant.
4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise stops.
When damage happens, you deal with it, as appropriate, based on the rules. It's really that simple.
None of the "problems" you claim to find in the rules exist, except perhaps to you. To explicitly clarify for you: "Rulings" are interpretations of the rules. Those provide guidance without actually bloating the rules with entirely unnecessary explicit rulings for every special case that could ever possibly exist.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Jeff,
When, as your definition so clearly points out, is time conditional and does not presuppose any particular time point outside its condition: When X.
So, if X is not well defined, "when x" is also not well defined.
The problem is NOT "When should damage be applied to minions?". The problem is "When should non-strike damage be applied to minions within the damage resolution step?". Since non-strike damage is undefined in the rules, and only strikes are given 'timing points' this results in a systematic logic problem: that we have an effect without all of its properties defined.
This is what leads to rulings. Effects without their properties defined.
Is Psyche! an 'in combat' or an 'out of combat' card? That was a debate of the properties of Psyche! within the logic system. Previous rulings made Psyche! a combat card played outside of combat (breaking the property of combat cards) but has since been put in the 'final step of combat' (expanding the 3 step system in the rules and the 6 step system in the CRR to effectively include another step) and restoring its property as a combat-card-proper.
Mask of 1,000 Faces problems generally revolve around "What properties must a minion and the cardplay of the action so far meet to be considered to allow M1KF to be played?"
Interestingly neither of those really comes up with the definition of the rules too seriously (except for the playability of combat cards).
So, to well-define Carrion Crows, the rules should have:
1) A class of damage caused not by an action and not by a strike (i.e. What is generally called 'environmental damage'). The properties of that damage type spelled out (i.e. it does not come from the opposing minion, is damage for effects that check for total damage or blood burned to damage, etc)
2) A 'speed' should be given to this damage so that its resolution point in the strike resolution step is clear, unambiguous and any future environmental damage cards have their interactions well known to the DT, The Rules Team, the Playtesters in the development stages.
A byproduct of all of this, and a very very useful one, is that new players will not have to read as many disparate documents scattered across the internet to know how the card they bought from eBay (or maybe cross fingers One Bookshelf if they take another tilt at PoD) works just from reading the card and the rules.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
This is unnecessary and so a waste of time.
There are so many darker rules in VTES.
I dont agree with changing the rulebook - but I agree with making the cards less complex. Put a "during NORMAL strike resolution" in all of them.
Or maybe put in "first strike definition" something like "environmental damage and effects Always occurs in normal strike resolution". Nothing is changed, just clarified.
And its over. But you dont have to change anything, this system works fine and EVERYONE knows how carrion crows works- one of the most common vtes cards - almost ALL animalism decks have them.
This is a worthless discussion.
I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish
hordes of newbies can't figure how Carrion Crows works
THAT'S the one card that's been stumping everyone for 20 years. not Rotschreck, not Trap, not Mask of a Thousand Faces.
what ARE carrion crows?
we just don't know.
Haze,
Before you start claiming everyone finds everything easy. I've watched experienced people get a bunch of stuff wrong. Even James was telling Darby he was wrong about stuff to do with VTES. I'd heard about Darby-Dance decks when I started playing VTES... so he's not new to the game. The rules are not well defined, they have gaps in them. Glaring ones if the CRR and General Rulings pages are anything to go by.
Regarding Carrion Crows, again, it isn't about not being able to 'play' Carrion Crows, it's about being able to read a card and the rules and without the need for a Google Search be highly confident you can predict how the card behaves in all situations. I actually want 90% of Pascal's Rulings to basically be "Yes/No the card works that way because of Rulebook X.X.X.X and this phrase written on the card." and IF there is a need for something more than that like a General Ruling or a 'card class ruling' or a 'key-phrase ruling', it doesn't result in something that must be searched up off the internet, but will make its way directly into the rules.
Rules + Cardtext should be able to solve everything. If people are reluctant to errata the cards, and that is the least desirable since it just creates something else that must be searched every game, then the solution is to make amendments to the rules.
Charles,
If there are so many darker ones, please, bring them out and start arguing them. Start trying to make VTES a stronger and stable system.
Putting errata on cards is the least useful option while VTES is out of print. It just trades a ruling for a cardtext that must be searched. Doesn't solve the problem, just moves it to another box and left alone. The easiest thing to do is to write into the rules that "Damage which is applied to a minion during the Strike Resolution phase is applied at the same time as normal strikes unless otherwise specified." Plus, it would then be worth defining environmental damage as "Damage which is caused during combat by a source other than the acting minion's strikes or the minion's own special text (i.e. by equipment, retainers or combat cards that are not strikes). This damage is not considered to have been done by any minion." Both are solved quickly. We can refer to environmental damage in the rules and on cards easily, thereby making their interactions simple.
A large number of rulings, particularly general rulings, should not exist. They are all in effect rules errata that are not put into the rules. If we errata a VTES card and reprint, then the new card has the new text.
Why are we keeping these large numbers of rulings around?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> A large number of rulings, particularly general rulings, should not exist. They are all in effect rules errata that are not put into the rules. If we errata a VTES card and reprint, then the new card has the new text.
>
> Why are we keeping these large numbers of rulings around?
>
You are right. I agree with you. But "revamping" the rules ain't never gonna happen.
what's funny is that the CE Murder of Crows had prepared for all this
but the template was ignored because Carrion Crows was much more popular. and maybe, just maybe, because everyone assumes normal strike resolution by default for everything in the game since first strike is such a rare exception. unless they're rules-lawyering.
maybe we can errata all these retainers and fake-retainers to include the word "normal" on them? Villein was changed with only one word. I'm sure anyone who bothers to look up the official rulebook can also look up current card texts.
yeah the game's rules are messy and tangled, but patching this one has zero practical effect. trying to add an "environmental" keyword to the rules without adding it to the cards themselves isn't what I would call elegant.
AaronC,
Changing the rules is far less problematic than it seems. Mostly it means putting all of the 'rules' from the various places in one place in one document. Not that hard.
Haze,
Yes, that structure would be fine, but it's the only card that has it. So a precedent for change? Maybe.
Putting Environmental Damage as a class into the rules would actually eliminate a lot of rulings and queries about how cards interact (Does X count for Disarm? Does X count for Street Cred? Does X count for Taste? Does X count for [Some future card not yet designed]?) Plus it is not actually a particular large rule change.
Patching this rule, and the other combat stuff of which there isn't even a formal agreement on the steps in combat, would make the whole thing far more elegant. Elegance in solutions is usually to make one change to effect many other simultaneous changes. Change the rulebook, and elegantly make large numbers of specific rulings irrelevant. Change the rulebook, eliminate the CRR entirely (one less 'source' to check).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> AaronC,
>
> Changing the rules is far less problematic than it seems. Mostly it means putting all of the 'rules' from the various places in one place in one document. Not that hard.
>
I didn't say it was hard, I said it ain't never gonna happen. The vultures circling over the carcass of VTES are never going to agree on how the victuals should be arranged before they run out. Leave the carcass where it fell, they say.
I think putting all the rulings in one big-ass box is in fact a better solution than our current contest of "my LSJ rulings google-fu is mightier than your LSJ rulings google-fu! Fwah!!!!"
The fact of the matter is EVERYONE either has a smartphone, tablet, computer, or link to the overlord hivemind of the interwebzez shoved in some bag, pocket, or other orafice at all times. And anyone who doesnt is by process of elimination either: in need of a charger, withiut electricity, in isolation in prison(many regualr inates get email priviledges), aumish, or stubborn but nevertheless sitting within 4 paces of someone with some instant-ish way to get to the internet.
So,...............
Why dont we go the way of the Gatherer and compound all rulings and erratta into our official cardlists AND secret library?
Anyone new or old can just SEE WHAT THE HELL A CARD DOES by going to the place where they go to see what a card SAYS anyway.
And as for this topic, i think Haze found our solution. "Envirnmental" is great slang, but combat key words (remember Paralyze? Then youve been playin longer than me ) are probably optimal right now.
Also, Im always 179% in favor of one word errattas. Lilliths blessing needs "if any" removed. Ashur tablets needs "minion" between "13" and "cards".
But i kinda feel like the point is being missed here. When i was captain optimist about PoD, i feltcitcwas less relevant that people couldnt find easy rulings. The game would pick up soon then, and we could fix it afterwords. Well, that didnt happen, so maybe we should make fimdimg rulings less likexa rubix cube.
Espefially for somethimgs that can be, oh, i dont know, misread by people that have been playing for YEARS.
> Rulebook wrote:
> When a minion or retainer takes damage (either from a strike or from other means), he must burn blood or lose life, as appropriate (see Damage Resolution, sec. 6.4.6).
>
That covers "environmental" damage.
I still don't see why Juggernaut is intentionally being obtuse about this whole thing. The rules are pretty clear. There are many rulings, which are *interpretations* of the rules. They are the specific examples of the rules being applied. That's their entire purpose. They exist so the rulebook does not have to be clogged with thousands of special cases.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Jeff,
That is how a minion 'takes damage' not when Environmental Damage must be queued in a Strike Resolution. Again, there is a gap in the rules.
I am being "obtuse" because the RULES are not clear. The players playing the game for a long time might have been 'told how it works' and given a non-rule non-ruling way to cover the gap in the rules, but the gap is still there.
The entire General Rulings section of this website is not a "How does card X work when card Y is played?". They are not sorted by cards. They are sorted by "new rules". Those are in effect, amendments to the rules. Why are they still a whole page of amendments?
Maybe to reinforce the 'rulings bloat'...
Card by Card Rulings
Cards with names:
A to F have 6569 rulings
G to O have 4776 rulings
P to Z have 6538 rulings
Total: 17,883 rulings
ARDB says that there are (excluding Danse Macabre cards):
1392 crypt cards
2148 library cards
3540 cards
There are on average: 5.05 rulings PER CARD only in the Card-by-Card Rulings.
There are also 104 General Rulings. (Note: There are around 25 rulings dedicated to Combat and Damage Resolution alone. Suggesting that these two also account for a possibly 25% of Card-by-Card rulings AND that they are the worst defined parts of the game)
All in all there are: 17,897 rulings.
We can probably kill 104 of those as a minimum by improving the way the rules are written. I'd make a really conservative estimate that we would reduce the total of rulings by something like 5,000 rulings by amending combat, defining environmental damage and a handful of other rules-based solutions.
AaronC,
To that I reply: Scare off the vultures. If they don't care where the carcass may lay, I do.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> That is how a minion 'takes damage' not when Environmental Damage must be queued in a Strike Resolution.
>
You said above, "Putting environmental damage as a class into the rules..." I am simply pointing out that it is covered already.
As James pointed out initially, and as I reiterated, the "queue" is actually "simultaneous".
> Obtuse wrote:
> Again, there is a gap in the rules.
>
> I am being "obtuse" because the RULES are not clear.
>
The rules are not clear...TO YOU. Sure, many people initially have to figure out what this or that actually means. The learning curve is steep. But the rule book covers those situations which you are trying to desperately to claim that it doesn't. You are really just wrong here.
> Maybe to reinforce the 'rulings bloat'...
>
Actually, you're going to shoot yourself in the foot here. Go ahead. Yup, go ahead.
> Card by Card Rulings
> Cards with names:
> A to F have 6569 rulings
> G to O have 4776 rulings
> P to Z have 6538 rulings
> Total: 17,883 rulings
>
No. You are completely and utterly wrong here. Those numbers are "hits", as in "views" of the rulings pages. The actual number of rulings is much, much less. I'm not gonna bother counting.
And, if you actually read some of those rulings, you'd find that they are simple clarifications. Back in the day, people would ask questions and then, as a courtesy, the rulings guru of the time would issue the clarification.
I'd say that 50% of the rulings fall into this category--something that the rules already cover, but that perhaps received several queries on the online forums before.
I'd say another 40% or more are just poor card templating. Many of those have been fixed in subsequent printed versions of the cards, but the old rulings have to stay because the old cards exist.
The remaining 10% (probably even less than this) are rulings which are important. They are covered by the rules, but they are esoteric enough that they make good case studies, and are therefore worth explicitly handling.
Anyway, I'm going to check out of this thread now. You will respond to this because you have to have the last word. Have fun with that.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
The queue is not simultaneous. Things at equivalent points in the queue are simultaneous. There is a 'queue' because the exceptions cause an order. Environmental damage (damage not from minions) has no place in the order of when they should be applied to a minion in the rules.
In the "Strike Resolution Step" which is the part we are talking about... (not how damage is resolve but how and when damage is applied) the rules contain nothing to explain when a non-strike should be handled. Non-strikes have no 'speed' and no position in the 'queue'.
As I have challenged you and James to show:
Q: Where do the rules explicitly deal with this?
A: There are some obscure rulings and a lot of 'tradition' buried out there in a Google-group that is not maintained and probably only appears in Google Searches because Google is an information pack-rat.
Both you and James are missing the thrust of the argument, and I am not surprised that its subtlety was wasted on your excellent analytical mind. James however, seems to respond to any attempt to reduce the scattering of the rulings into the actual rules as if it were the equivalent of depicting Mohammed in a cartoon.
I am not saying at any point that the way we have been playing Carrion Crows is wrong. Please, actually read through the thread. I haven't actually challenged the ruling itself. I am fine with the fact that environmental damage should be resolved at the same time as normal strikes.
My challenge is "Where do the rules actually tell someone who hasn't been playing for 10+ years this information?"
Why should new players begin this game being told "You only need to read the rules and the cards, except for this entire separate document to explain the rules and a large number of additional rulings on top of those, and even more things you will have to Google for...". What is wrong with updating the rules so they are transparent, clear and versatile? So that a player can just read the rules and the book.
How should new players realise that S:CE will ensure that Carrion Crows damage is not done if the rules don't tell them how?
As a corollary to that, I also ask, how should new players know which damage is 'from the minion' and which is not, so that they can play cards like Street Cred?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418