Andre LeRoux + spying mission

I know the timing is the same ... but could you play a spying mission with a vampire and use Andre's special on the same bleed of 1 in any order? Andre LeRoux Capacity: 3 Group: 5 Camarilla: When a vampire you control would successfully bleed, you may reduce the bleed amount by 1 to give Andre +2 bleed this turn. Spying Mission Action Modifier Obfuscate inf:+1 stealth. sup: Only usable when a bleed would be successful. The bleed burns no pool; it is unsuccessful. Instead, put this card on the acting vampire. The next time this vampire would successfully bleed the same Methuselah, burn this card for +2 bleed.

To me, it seems that using spying mission supp renders the bleed unsuccesfull so apparently Andre can not be used anymore after that; Using spying mission first will always disable the possibility to use Andre's effect. The other way around reducing by one through Andre could make a bleed for one to 0 and therefore unsuccesfull, blocking the use of Spying mission supp. In conclusion I think it will only work on a bleed for 2 or more; on a bleed for 2+ you can reduce by one for Andre's effect and still have 1 bleed left that is (would be) succesfull for triggering Spying mission supp.

Makes sense ... spying mission doesn't reduce the bleed and since the timing is the same I thought there might have been a window to reduce.

> gotcha wrote: > I know the timing is the same ... but could you play a spying mission with a vampire and use Andre's special on the same bleed of 1 in any order? > Just for confirmation's sake, [FZD 20121011] heavily implies that it's possible to use both if (and only if) the bleed is for more than one, and you use Andre's special first, so the bleed is still successful. Any other combination means that by the time you try to play the second effect, you no longer have a successful bleed. > Pascal wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > Hmm, well to keep this topic relevant here, I do have one. It has to do with ordering effects. In a bleed of greater than 1, can I Andre LeRoux's special and then Spying Mission on the same bleed? > > > Yes. > > > Azel wrote: > > Both require a "would be successful" bleed therefore the bleed must equal at least 1 by the time Spying Mission goes off. So a "would be successful" bleed for 2 can be reduced by one to get +2 for LeRoux, then since it's still at least 1, play Spying Mission to store +2 bleed for a future bleed. Naturally this only works in this order, but it's legal, yes? > > > Sure. >

Correct. You cannot have both (Andre + play Spying Mission) simultaneously, becuse nothing is simultaneous (*) in V:TES. So you would have to use one before the other. Using Spying Mission makes the bleed unsuccessful (**), making Andre's ability no longer usable. Using Andre's ability first reduces the bleed to n-1. If the initial amount (n) was 2 or more, you can still play Spying Mission. Otherwise, since the bleed is now for 0 (and unsuccessful), you cannot play Spying Mission. (*) Except for strike resolution. (**) in future revisions of the card, the bleed will be reduced to 0 (and be unsuccessful).

> Pascal wrote: > Correct. > You cannot have both (Andre + play Spying Mission) simultaneously, becuse nothing is simultaneous (*) in V:TES. > So you would have to use one before the other. Using Spying Mission makes the bleed unsuccessful (**), making Andre's ability no longer usable. > Using Andre's ability first reduces the bleed to n-1. If the initial amount (n) was 2 or more, you can still play Spying Mission. Otherwise, since the bleed is now for 0 (and unsuccessful), you cannot play Spying Mission. > > (*) Except for strike resolution. > (**) in future revisions of the card, the bleed will be reduced to 0 (and be unsuccessful). > I strongly believe the interaction of these 2 effects as outlined above exists because of sloppy card text, specifically the phrases "would successfully bleed" and "bleed would be successful.” Replacing these phrases with "successfully bleeds" and "bleed is successful," respectively, would clarify that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects, and there'd instead be a much clearer (but different) way in which these cards interact. The “would” conditional verb form is used on approximately 1.2% of cards. I can't figure out what the advantage of using this verb form is for any of those cards. Is there any?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I strongly believe the interaction of these 2 effects as outlined above exists because of sloppy card text, specifically the phrases "would successfully bleed" and "bleed would be successful.” Replacing these phrases with "successfully bleeds" and "bleed is successful," respectively, would clarify that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects, and there'd instead be a much clearer (but different) way in which these cards interact. > > The “would” conditional verb form is used on approximately 1.2% of cards. I can't figure out what the advantage of using this verb form is for any of those cards. Is there any? > Using the indicative verb form doesn't work, because if X happens (indicative), it's even more confusing to say "stop! it doesn't happens, something else happens". An example of confusing card text is the one and only Horrific Countenance: "Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [...] This action is not blocked". Is it blocked? Or not? Would it trigger an effect that says "when X blocks"? Using the conditional verb form is mainly used for replacement effects: "if X would happen, then Y happens instead." Spying Mission uses that pattern. André Leroux doesn't use "instead" since it's not a replacement effect. It uses the conditional because if the bleed is successful (indicative), it's too late to modify it. Interactions between two effects that have the same window of play will always require a bit of thinking, and using the indicative wouldn't make things more easy to understand (in fact, it would make them more complicated for the reasons I stated before). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thank you for your response! I appreciate your viewpoint, but I disagree on some things. > Using the indicative verb form doesn't work, because if X happens (indicative), it's even more confusing to say "stop! it doesn't happens, something else happens". > Most cards use the indicative verb form. A lot of cards also say "Stop! something else happens." I think both of these things work just fine in most cases. > An example of confusing card text is the one and only Horrific Countenance: "Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [...] This action is not blocked". > Is it blocked? Or not? Would it trigger an effect that says "when X blocks"? > Horrific Countenance says "the action is not blocked." So the action is not blocked, and therefore the "when x blocks" requirement is not fulfilled. This is obvious, per card text > Using the conditional verb form is mainly used for replacement effects: "if X would happen, then Y happens instead." Spying Mission uses that pattern. > The original post in this thread is pointing out one example of a problem with this template. > André Leroux doesn't use "instead" since it's not a replacement effect. It uses the conditional because if the bleed is successful (indicative), it's too late to modify it. > Not according to the Complete Rules Reference. A bleed that "would be successful" and a bleed that "is successful" both fall into the same step: "If action was not blocked, then the action is successful. [6.2.3]" Using the indicative form clarifies we are dealing in this step of the Complete Rules Reference. Using the conditional creates a "timing window" adjacent to this step that I argue should not exist because it causes confusion. > Interactions between two effects that have the same window of play will always require a bit of thinking, and using the indicative wouldn't make things more easy to understand (in fact, it would make them more complicated for the reasons I stated before). > What you call "require a bit of thinking" I call "requiring mental gymnastics."

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Thank you for your response! I appreciate your viewpoint, but I disagree on some things. > > > Using the indicative verb form doesn't work, because if X happens (indicative), it's even more confusing to say "stop! it doesn't happens, something else happens". > > > Most cards use the indicative verb form. A lot of cards also say "Stop! something else happens." I think both of these things work just fine in most cases. > Then you should have no difficulties to provide an example, right? I'm curious. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > An example of confusing card text is the one and only Horrific Countenance: "Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [...] This action is not blocked". > > Is it blocked? Or not? Would it trigger an effect that says "when X blocks"? > > > Horrific Countenance says "the action is not blocked." So the action is not blocked, and therefore the "when x blocks" requirement is not fulfilled. This is obvious, per card text > This is so "obvious" that you're wrong, the action is blocked at some point and the "when x blocks" requirement is fulfilled. For instance, acting minion A is blocked by Lucas Halton. A doesn't play any card, Lucas has the priority and uses his special because the action is blocked. Then A gets back priority and plays Horrific Countenance. The action isn't blocked anymore. so the action was blocked, and is no longer blocked. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Using the conditional verb form is mainly used for replacement effects: "if X would happen, then Y happens instead." Spying Mission uses that pattern. > > > The original post in this thread is pointing out one example of a problem with this template. > Using the indicative, the question would have been exactly the same. The issue is timing, not the use of the conditional. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > André Leroux doesn't use "instead" since it's not a replacement effect. It uses the conditional because if the bleed is successful (indicative), it's too late to modify it. > > > Not according to the Complete Rules Reference. A bleed that "would be successful" and a bleed that "is successful" both fall into the same step: > > "If action was not blocked, then the action is successful. [6.2.3]" > The bleed action being successful doesn't mean the bleed is successful. You can play Freak Drive, or gain 1 from the Perfectionist after having played Spying Mission. Both André Leroux and Spying Mission refer to the bleed, not the bleed action, so the rule you quoted is irrelevant in that case. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Using the indicative form clarifies we are dealing in this step of the Complete Rules Reference. Using the conditional creates a "timing window" adjacent to this step that I argue should not exist because it causes confusion. > It doesn't create a timing window, it modifies an effect before it happens. You can't play other effects in that would-be window. Just as a "+2 bleed" modifier changes the bleed effect (making it eligible to an Archon Investigation) without creating a new "window" (apart the "as is played" window). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

See, I don’t really have a problem with the interaction between Horrific Countenance (which, incidentally, is my example you asked for) and Lucas Halton because it follows the sequencing rules outlined in the rulebook. Is it a weird interaction? Yes. But you can point to a reference (in this case, the rulebook) to explain why the effects happen this way. My real issue is when there is nothing to use as a reference for weird interactions, a la Spying Mission and Andre LeRoux. For this interaction, we have to use the Complete Rules Reference as a guide to figure out when exactly these effects are taking place. In general, using the indicative verb form on cad text usually places effects in a step clearly outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. Using the conditional places the effects somewhere not indicated in the Complete Rules Reference, hence making it “irrelevant” and causing confusion (whether this creates a new timing window is an argument for another thread). Either the Complete Rules Reference needs to change to account for every little effect that takes place, or the effects in the game need to change to fit the Complete Rules Reference. In the case of Spying Mission/Andre Leroux, I am arguing that the effects need to change (apparently you missed that and think I misunderstand how the interaction currently works). The Complete Rules Reference is not irrelevant to the people who use it and want a clean explanation for how things in this game work.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > See, I don’t really have a problem with the interaction between Horrific Countenance (which, incidentally, is my example you asked for) and Lucas Halton because it follows the sequencing rules outlined in the rulebook. Is it a weird interaction? Yes. But you can point to a reference (in this case, the rulebook) to explain why the effects happen this way. My real issue is when there is nothing to use as a reference for weird interactions, a la Spying Mission and Andre LeRoux. > You're very confused about what sequencing means. You were similarly confused over here . Sequencing handles what happens when two cards or effects can be played at the same time - who gets to play what, in what order. But it's only about tie-breaking cards that would be played with the same timing (E.g. "before range", "as the card is played"). Sequencing does not work to determine the order in which cards are played if they have different timing. The rules on sequencing do not define timing windows - just what happens if two things want to happen in the same timing window. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > For this interaction, we have to use the Complete Rules Reference as a guide to figure out when exactly these effects are taking place. > Yes, it's entirely intentional that the thing that explains the timing steps is used to explain the timing steps. Sequencing, it does not do that, that is not what it is for, it is not the purpose for which it exists.

The example Ankha gave for the interaction between Horrific Countenance and Lucas Halton uses sequencing to explain his point. It's a good point: a weird effect is created when following standard sequencing rules in his example. Ankha has an issue with this interaction, I do not. I'd really like to hear your take on that issue, jamesatzephyr. Something I want to point out: "Timing windows" is not defined in the rulebook. Sequencing is. Players are going to use sequencing to solve problems because it is outlined in the rulebook. It is not fair to expect players to understand a concept that is not defined in the rulebook, then say they are confused when they are using a concept outlined in the rulebook to solve problems.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > "Timing windows" is not defined in the rulebook. Sequencing is. > So are transfers. So is the library. So is the untap phase. So is infernal. The blood bank is in the rules. None of them are relevant to this issue. Sequencing is also irrelevant to the problem you believe exists. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Players are going to use sequencing to solve problems because it is outlined in the rulebook. > The reason the Outline (now the Complete Rules Reference) was created was to help players understand which phases are known to happen in which order.

Please read Ankha's example. Ankha was using the sequencing rules to make his point.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Please read Ankha's example. Ankha was using the sequencing rules to make his point. > Erm, not really? Two things can happen in the same timing window. The sequencing rules would determine which player got to play/use one first, if there was a conflict. When a player can play an effect - such as using Andre LeRoux or Spying Mission - he can play either of them. Sequencing simply lets him play an effect in that phase, or prohibits him from doing so right now because another player has priority to do so. Then, the player has two effects that they can play. It is possible for one such effect to invalidate the second, such as (for example): an action modifier ending the action, so subsequent action modifiers can't be played; adjusting a bleed amount so that a bleed is successful or not; removing blood/life from a minion so that they can't afford to play the card.

I'm not referring to Andre LeRoux and Spying Mission when I am talking about sequencing. I am referring to this section here about Horrific Countenance and Lucas Halton (I'm quoting Ankha here): > This is so "obvious" that you're wrong, the action is blocked at some point and the "when x blocks" requirement is fulfilled. > For instance, acting minion A is blocked by Lucas Halton. A doesn't play any card, Lucas has the priority and uses his special because the action is blocked. Then A gets back priority and plays Horrific Countenance. The action isn't blocked anymore. > so the action was blocked, and is no longer blocked. > Do you have a take on that issue? I'd like to hear it.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I'm not referring to Andre LeRoux and Spying Mission when I am talking about sequencing. I am referring to this section here about Horrific Countenance and Lucas Halton (I'm quoting Ankha here): > > > This is so "obvious" that you're wrong, the action is blocked at some point and the "when x blocks" requirement is fulfilled. > > For instance, acting minion A is blocked by Lucas Halton. A doesn't play any card, Lucas has the priority and uses his special because the action is blocked. Then A gets back priority and plays Horrific Countenance. The action isn't blocked anymore. > > so the action was blocked, and is no longer blocked. > > > Do you have a take on that issue? I'd like to hear it. > It's still pretty much nothing to do with sequencing. Sequencing says: when two (or more) players want to use an effect at the same time, which of them goes first? That's it. That is the sum total of what sequencing is about. Then, in any case where an effect has already been used and is still in effect - whether five turns ago, in the "as announced" phase of this action, in the "pre-range" step of combat when we're now in choose strike, or the immediately preceding card/effect in this phase - it may mean that a later play of a card or an effect isn't possible because, for example: - the minion who wants to play that card is now dead - the minion who wants to play that card is now short of blood/life/whatever to pay for it - the cost of that effect is now too expensive (e.g. my play of Terror Frenzy means that your combat card is now too expensive for you, whether that combat card is another pre-range card, a strike card, Pulled Fangs, whatever) - a pre-condition is no longer met (from the rules, from card text etc.), such as an ally being unable to play a reaction card now that he is tapped from Command , or my playing Folderol (superior) cross-table means that you won't be able to play Archon Investigation when the bleed resolves (because the bleed is now too small). If playing Horrific Countenance invalidates a later card play because the action is no longer blocked, that's what it does. Sequencing is only relevant in who got to play their card or effect first. Once Horrific Countenance has been used (and not cancelled), its effect takes place, and any subsequent card play to which it is relevant has to bear it in mind - just like me playing Blind Spot during my master phase may invalidate some card plays by your vampire during my minion phase, which sequencing also has nothing to do with.

> It's still pretty much nothing to do with sequencing. Sequencing says: when two (or more) players want to use an effect at the same time, which of them goes first? That's it. That is the sum total of what sequencing is about. > That's not really what the rulebook says. > Sequencing is only relevant in who got to play their card or effect first. > Such as in Ankha's example.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > It's still pretty much nothing to do with sequencing. Sequencing says: when two (or more) players want to use an effect at the same time, which of them goes first? That's it. That is the sum total of what sequencing is about. > > > That's not really what the rulebook says. > Uh? That's exactly what the rulebook says: > rulebook wrote: > Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect. > But we're drifting here. Important things are: "would" introduces an effect that alters another effect, either by modifying it (Andre Leroux) or replacing it (Spying Mission, use of "instead"), before it happens this does not introduce a new window or whatever. It simply modifies an effect before it happens to avoid rollbacks using indicative implies rollback (X happens. X doesn't happens) which is illustrated by: Horrific Countenance introduces a rollback ("is blocked" then "is not blocked") that I illustrated by an example which use sequencing, but it's not related to sequencing. I could have used another effect that triggers when X is blocked, for instance Schuyler whose special doesn't use sequencing ("When Schuyler is blocked, your prey may move a library card from his or her ash heap to the top of his or her library.") Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Uh? That's exactly what the rulebook says: > > > rulebook wrote: > > Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect. > > > But we're drifting here. > > Important things are: > "would" introduces an effect that alters another effect, either by modifying it (Andre Leroux) or replacing it (Spying Mission, use of "instead"), before it happens this does not introduce a new window or whatever. It simply modifies an effect before it happens to avoid rollbacks using indicative implies rollback (X happens. X doesn't happens) which is illustrated by: Horrific Countenance introduces a rollback ("is blocked" then "is not blocked") that I illustrated by an example which use sequencing, but it's not related to sequencing. I could have used another effect that triggers when X is blocked, for instance Schuyler whose special doesn't use sequencing ("When Schuyler is blocked, your prey may move a library card from his or her ash heap to the top of his or her library.") > Thank you for bringing us back to the discussion. My larger point is this: a lot of what Ankha is talking about here is not in the rulebook. "Rollbacks" are not defined. Modification of an effect before it happens is not outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. Effects that use sequencing also have other concepts involved (in the case of Horrific Countenance, rollbacks) that are not defined in the rulebook. I am simply trying to fit all of these undefined effects in the game within the confines of our resources of understanding the game. As has been pointed out, I am confused about how things work because nothing is clearly outlined anywhere. This is a major problem with this game that I think needs to change. Either we need to fit all of these effects into the confines of the resources that we have to understand the game (which is what I am trying to do), or we need to change the resources that we use to understand the game to fit the effects in the game. This is really the point I want to get across. Thank you for having this discussion with me.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > a lot of what Ankha is talking about here is not in the rulebook. "Rollbacks" are not defined. Modification of an effect before it happens is not outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. Effects that use sequencing also have other concepts involved (in the case of Horrific Countenance, rollbacks) that are not defined in the rulebook. I am simply trying to fit all of these undefined effects in the game within the confines of our resources of understanding the game. > They are not defined in the rulebook, because they don't need to. I use "rollback" because it's a english word that don't need a rule definition: it has no special meaning in the game. There are no mecanics involved. It simply describes a concept. "If X would happen, then Y happens instead" is plain english too. I checked the M:TG rules that are ultra-detailled, and written in a kind of exhaustive way, and they use conditional without explaining what is conditional in English I call them "replacement effects" because it's how they're called in Magic, and the name suits well the concept. But André Leroux is not a replacement effect, it's just a modifier that happens before something would happen (plain English again). Here's how replacement effects are defined in Magic. It doesn't really apply to V:TES: > 614. Replacement Effects > > 614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting. > > 614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events. > > 614.1b Effects that use the word “skip” are replacement effects. These replacement effects use the word “skip” to indicate what events, steps, phases, or turns will be replaced with nothing. > > 614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement effects. > > 614.1d Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects. > > 614.1e Effects that read “As [this permanent] is turned face up . . . ,” are replacement effects. > > 614.2. Some replacement effects apply to damage from a source. See rule 609.7. > > 614.3. There are no special restrictions on casting a spell or activating an ability that generates a replacement effect. Such effects last until they’re used up or their duration has expired. > > 614.4. Replacement effects must exist before the appropriate event occurs—they can’t “go back in time” and change something that’s already happened. Spells or abilities that generate these effects are often cast or activated in response to whatever would produce the event and thus resolve before that event would occur. > Example: A player can activate an ability to regenerate a creature in response to a spell that would destroy it. Once the spell resolves, though, it’s too late to regenerate the creature. > > 614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it. > Example: A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads “If a creature you control would deal damage to a creature or player, it deals double that damage to that creature or player instead.” A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage—not just 4, and not an infinite amount. > > 614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored. > > 614.7. If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn’t do anything. > > 614.7a If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. Replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect. > > 614.8. Regeneration is a destruction-replacement effect. The word “instead” doesn’t appear on the card but is implicit in the definition of regeneration. “Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.” Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates. See rule 701.12. > > 614.9. Some effects replace damage dealt to one creature, planeswalker, or player with the same damage dealt to another creature, planeswalker, or player; such effects are called redirection effects. If either creature or planeswalker is no longer on the battlefield when the damage would be redirected, or is no longer a creature or planeswalker when the damage would be redirected, the effect does nothing. If damage would be redirected to or from a player who has left the game, the effect does nothing. > > 614.10. An effect that causes a player to skip an event, step, phase, or turn is a replacement effect. “Skip [something]” is the same as “Instead of doing [something], do nothing.” Once a step, phase, or turn has started, it can no longer be skipped—any skip effects will wait until the next occurrence. > > 614.10a Anything scheduled for a skipped step, phase, or turn won’t happen. Anything scheduled for the “next” occurrence of something waits for the first occurrence that isn’t skipped. If two effects each cause a player to skip his or her next occurrence, that player must skip the next two; one effect will be satisfied in skipping the first occurrence, while the other will remain until another occurrence can be skipped. > > 614.10b Some effects cause a player to skip a step, phase, or turn, then take another action. That action is considered to be the first thing that happens during the next step, phase, or turn to actually occur. > > 614.11. Some effects replace card draws. These effects are applied even if no cards could be drawn because there are no cards in the affected player’s library. > > 614.11a If an effect replaces a draw within a sequence of card draws, all actions required by the replacement are completed, if possible, before resuming the sequence. > > 614.11b If an effect would have a player both draw a card and perform an additional action on that card, and the draw is replaced, the additional action is not performed on any cards that are drawn as a result of that replacement effect. > > 614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it. > Example: Voice of All says “As Voice of All enters the battlefield, choose a color” and “Voice of All has protection from the chosen color.” An effect creates a token that’s a copy of Voice of All. As that token is put onto the battlefield, its controller chooses a color for it. > Example: Yixlid Jailer says “Cards in graveyards lose all abilities.” Scarwood Treefolk says “Scarwood Treefolk enters the battlefield tapped.” A Scarwood Treefolk that’s put onto the battlefield from a graveyard enters the battlefield tapped. > Example: Orb of Dreams is an artifact that says “Permanents enter the battlefield tapped.” It won’t affect itself, so Orb of Dreams enters the battlefield untapped. > > 614.12a If a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield requires a choice, that choice is made before the permanent enters the battlefield. > > 614.13. An effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield may cause other objects to change zones. > > 614.13a When applying an effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield, you can’t make a choice that would cause that permanent to go to a different zone and not enter the battlefield. > Example: Sutured Ghoul says, in part, “As Sutured Ghoul enters the battlefield, exile any number of creature cards from your graveyard.” If Sutured Ghoul enters the battlefield from your graveyard, you can’t choose to exile Sutured Ghoul itself. > > 614.13b The same object can’t be chosen to change zones more than once when applying replacement effects that modify how a single permanent enters the battlefield. > Example: Jund (a plane card) says, “Whenever a player casts a black, red, or green creature spell, it gains devour 5.” A player controls Runeclaw Bear and casts Thunder-Thrash Elder, a red creature spell with devour 3. As Thunder-Thrash Elder enters the battlefield, its controller can choose to sacrifice Runeclaw Bear when applying the devour 3 effect or when applying the devour 5 effect, but not both. Thunder-Thrash Elder will enter the battlefield with zero, three, or five +1/+1 counters, depending on this choice. > > 614.14. An object may have one ability printed on it that generates a replacement effect which causes one or more cards to be exiled, and another ability that refers either to “the exiled cards” or to cards “exiled with [this object].” These abilities are linked: the second refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as a direct result of the replacement event caused by the first. If another object gains a pair of linked abilities, the abilities will be similarly linked on that object. They can’t be linked to any other ability, regardless of what other abilities the object may currently have or may have had in the past. See rule 607, “Linked Abilities.” > > 614.15. Some replacement effects are not continuous effects. Rather, they are an effect of a resolving spell or ability that replace part or all of that spell or ability’s own effect(s). Such effects are called self-replacement effects. The text creating a self-replacement effect is usually part of the ability whose effect is being replaced, but the text can be a separate ability, particularly when preceded by an ability word. When applying replacement effects to an event, self-replacement effects are applied before other replacement effects. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> They are not defined in the rulebook, because they don't need to. > You are arguing that Horrific Countenance is using a concept where an effect is being reversed, and you’re calling this “rollback.” If this concept exists, it needs to be outlined somewhere. Players need to know that this effect exists, or else they will substitute something else to explain the effect of Horrific Countenance (such as what I did with sequencing, wherein the “rollback” was occurring, but it was fine with me because the players passed priority appropriately and the weird effect was a consequence of that). > I use "rollback" because it's a english word that don't need a rule definition: it has no special meaning in the game. There are no mecanics involved. It simply describes a concept. > You are arguing that rollback is a concept that that has special meaning for effects such as those used in Horrific Countenance. By using rollback as an explanation of how an effect is working, you are attaching meaning to it and the concept needs to be outlined somewhere. I personally do not think rollback needs to be explained. Weird effects are allowed to occur as long as normal sequencing (passing the priority back and forth) is followed. > "If X would happen, then Y happens instead" is plain english too. > And “If X happens, Y happens instead” is also English and is clearer in some instances, especially when using the Complete Rules Reference as a guide. > I checked the M:TG rules that are ultra-detailled, and written in a kind of exhaustive way, and they use conditional without explaining what is conditional in English > I’ll reiterate my point about using the conditional versus indicative because I think I am not being clear about what I am arguing: using the conditional on certain cards places effects at steps in the Complete Rules Reference that are not there. Using the indicative places effects somewhere within the steps outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. “Bleed is successful” places the effect at 6.2.3. “bleed would be successful” places the effect at some undefined point before 6.2.3. This causes confusion. It is not a matter of general English language usage and the conditional being suboptimal, it is a matter of how the use of the conditional in this specific instance causes confusion when also using the Complete Rules Reference as a guide. > I call them "replacement effects" because it's how they're called in Magic, and the name suits well the concept. But André Leroux is not a replacement effect, it's just a modifier that happens before something would happen (plain English again). > VTES is not Magic. That game is apples, this game is oranges. If “replacement effects” is a concept that exists in V:TES, then it needs to be defined somewhere. Please understand something: I am saying that making Andre LeRoux’s special ability happen at the point when the “bleed is successful” (what you are calling a “replacement effect”) would clarify things. I am in no way saying that it is currently a replacement effect, because, since the card text uses the conditional, it is not a replacement effect. It is actually happening at some undefined point before the bleed is successful. This is now the second time I have tried explaining this. I am arguing that it should be a replacement effect by changing Andre LeRoux's card text to the indicative verb format, not that it is currently a replacement effect. > Here's how replacement effects are defined in Magic. It doesn't really apply to V:TES: > Apples and oranges. Plus, I am not reading all that. Haha!

Ok, I'll put it another way: stop using the CRR the way you do. It's in no mean supposed to be exhaustive as you'd like it to be. It shouldn't even be called "Complete Rule Reference", rather "Game sequencing summary". It describes in a detailed but not exhaustive way how the game runs, phase by phase. Then: be smart. Using the indicative because it would match a line in the CRR is : - a nonsense: the CRR isn't exhaustive. Everything can't be matched - a plain mistake because it wouldn't have the effect it's supposed to have (since it would trigger other effects, then replace the effect with something else) You totally missed the point with the rollback. It's not a game concept, it's just logic: A happens. B triggers because A happens. A now doesn't happen. is different from: A would happen, but doesn't. Instead something else happens (and B never triggers because A never happens) At some point, understanding rules has a prerequisite that can't be written in the book: you must be logical and understand English. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

In regards to the timing. How does bleed reduction from the prey fit in? Can the predator claim that he had "priority" and use the special first? Because andre will wait for a bounce before applying either spying mission or/and the power. Does priority of modifiers and reaction cards change, when? Or is it simply a "I threw the card on the table first" deal? If Andre bleeds for 2. I do not block. I wake and reduce by two (telepathic counter) Can the predator cause a fuss about how he had priority? Also when you use Andre's special on himself, he get's +2 bleed that turn. So andre tries to bleed for 1, doesnt get blocked, he uses the special, it's now a bleed of 2 (1-1+2), that bleed get's bounced and andre uses spying mission. Even witouth the bounce. Andre bleeds for 1. No block bounce reduce. Special on himself. The bleed gets -1 but andre has now a bleed of 3, therefore it's still a succesful bleed of 2. That means he can play spying mission as well, after the special. Edit: Original Post specified andre using special on another vampire, not himself

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > In regards to the timing. How does bleed reduction from the prey fit in? > Can the predator claim that he had "priority" and use the special first? > Because andre will wait for a bounce before applying either spying mission or/and the power. > Keep in mind that André's special can be triggered only when the bleed would be succesful. This means that it happens after the bleed is reduced or redirected (otherwise, we don't know yet if it's successful or not). > 2wayspeaker wrote: > If Andre bleeds for 2. > I do not block. > I wake and reduce by two (telepathic counter) > Can the predator cause a fuss about how he had priority? > No, because at the time you play TC, the bleed isn't successful yet. For instance, it can be reduced > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Also when you use Andre's special on himself, he get's +2 bleed that turn. > So andre tries to bleed for 1, doesnt get blocked, he uses the special, it's now a bleed of 2 (1-1+2), that bleed get's bounced and andre uses spying mission. > It can't be bounced when it would be successful. It's too late. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Andre bleeds for 1. > No block bounce reduce. > Special on himself. > The bleed gets -1 but andre has now a bleed of 3, therefore it's still a succesful bleed of 2. > That means he can play spying mission as well, after the special. > Yes, if he has obfuscate. Note that it doesn't work the other way round as it was explained earlier, because SM makes the bleed unsuccesful instead. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Ok, I'll put it another way: stop using the CRR the way you do. It's in no mean supposed to be exhaustive as you'd like it to be. It shouldn't even be called "Complete Rule Reference", rather "Game sequencing summary". It describes in a detailed but not exhaustive way how the game runs, phase by phase. > I'll rename the page "Detailed Play Summary" to avoid complications. It cannot withold all the rulings of all the combinations of cards (and therefore cannot be complete and short). Specific questions can be asked (and will be answered). The Detailed Play Summary gives a more precise view of when to play cards, and of the ordering of the different steps of the game.

> Ankha wrote: > At some point, understanding rules has a prerequisite that can't be written in the book: you must be logical and understand English. > A lot of players don't have that prerequisite then, because a lot of players don't really understand the rules behind how cards interact. I think you need to realize this.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > a lot of players don't really understand the rules behind how cards interact. I think you need to realize this. > What would you suggest for a remedy (besides Ankha understanding this)? At this point (20+ years) we hardly can start stupifying the rules so that even the thickest among us understand everything regarding the rules/how all card combos work... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > a lot of players don't really understand the rules behind how cards interact. I think you need to realize this. > > > What would you suggest for a remedy (besides Ankha understanding this)? > > At this point (20+ years) we hardly can start stupifying the rules so that even the thickest among us understand everything regarding the rules/how all card combos work... > My suggestion was to avoid the conditional mood on some cards because it causes confusion. “Only usable when a bleed would be successful” (conditional) is less clear than “play after blocks are declined, before the bleed is resolved” (imperative). And "when a vampire you control would successfully bleed (conditional), you may reduce" is less clear than "when a vampire you control successfully bleeds (indicative), before resolution, you may reduce..." It's about clarity, not stupification.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > My suggestion was to avoid the conditional mood on some cards because it causes confusion. “Only usable when a bleed would be successful” (conditional) is less clear than “play after blocks are declined, before the bleed is resolved” (imperative). And "when a vampire you control would successfully bleed (conditional), you may reduce" is less clear than "when a vampire you control successfully bleeds (indicative), before resolution, you may reduce..." > The timings are quite different. Telepathic Counter, for example, can be played after blocks are declined and before the bleed is resolved. (It can also be played much earlier in the action too, but that's not relevant here.) However, under the current setup, playing Spying Mission comes after the possibility for Telepathic Counter to be played . And Andre LeRoux's ability is used at the same time as Spying Mission can be used . But now you've given them the same timing. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > It's about clarity, not stupification. > Apparently, it's about changing how cards work.

“When a bleed would be successful” (conditional) can be interpreted as “after blocks are declined but before resolving the bleed.” Your explanation above indicates that the card text on Spying Mission needs to be more precise: “Play immediately before the bleed is resolved” (imperative). > Apparently, it's about changing how cards work. > It’s about misinterpreting how cards work.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > “When a bleed would be successful” (conditional) can be interpreted as “after blocks are declined but before resolving the bleed.” > Except that's not when it would be successful. A variety of effects are still playable at that time, such as bleed bounce, and the action/bleed may still not be successful. Telepathic Counter can be played after blocks are declined, and lead to the bleed being unsuccessful by reducing it to less than one(*). Scobax superior can be played, ending the action.(**) One of the other Methuselahs could oust him or herself while Last Stand was in play, causing the turn to end (and the action to end therefore).(***) So, that interpretation is wrong. (*) The amount can go negative for tracking purposes. (**) Since it provides negative stealth, not intercept, you don't need a blocking attempt in progress with a minion who needs intercept. (***) Consider a Methuselah in a lost position who can legally self-oust, who plays a card that requires pool. For example, after blocks are declined, I play Conditioning and the Methuselah in the lost position plays Direct Intervention (costing him his last pool) to pay me back for breaking a deal. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > “Play immediately before the bleed is resolved” > Not clearer. Indeed, much more murky. A blocked bleed is still a bleed and still resolves (unsuccessfully, with a block combat in most circumstances). > TwoRazorReign wrote: > It’s about misinterpreting how cards work. > Sadly, this is all too clear.

> So, that interpretation is wrong. > I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But it is an interpretation. > Not clearer. Indeed, much more murky. A blocked bleed is still a bleed and still resolves (unsuccessfully, with a block combat in most circumstances). > Right. "Play immediately before resolution of a successful bleed."

Ok, so you're suggesting to replace the conditional that you find unclear by an imperative verb form that is unclear too (and that changes also the effect of the card). I don't find logical to let a thing happen, then revert the thing and say it didn't. I'm quoting one of your first posts: > I strongly believe the interaction of these 2 effects as outlined above exists because of sloppy card text, specifically the phrases "would successfully bleed" and "bleed would be successful.” Replacing these phrases with "successfully bleeds" and "bleed is successful," respectively, would clarify that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects, and there'd instead be a much clearer (but different) way in which these cards interact. > > The “would” conditional verb form is used on approximately 1.2% of cards. I can't figure out what the advantage of using this verb form is for any of those cards. Is there any? > You're asking for the advantage: conditional is useful for replacement effects because it changes something before it would happen (that matches exactly the purpose of conditional also in English. How convenient). The bleed WOULD be successful (IF no cards were played) but is not in the end (for Spying Mission). As for clarifying "that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects": first, that's no clarification but a rule change because currently you can play Andre's special and Spying Mission in that order, provided that André's bleed after reduction is still > 0 (see Pascal's post) Secondly, it's just a matter of logic. If you play Spying Mission, the bleed is not successful per cardtext. Since it's not successful, you can't use André's special after that. Think of a time machine if I go back in the past before something would happen, and prevent it, it never happens Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director