The scenario is:
A trujah in combat plays Outside the hourglass to inflicht 2 damage before range.
The opossing minion then strikes agg and plays rotschreck.
Does the Trujah have the option to play disarm?
Im asking this because rotschreck sends the trujah to torpor after combat ends, so
technically when the round ends, the trujah is still ready and has inflicted more damage at close range than his opponent.
Outside the Hourglass
[obf] Strike: dodge.
[tem] Maneuver, or strike: dodge, with an optional maneuver.
[TEM] Only usable before range is determined. Inflict 2 damage on the opposing minion. A vampire can play only one Outside the Hourglass at superior each round.
Rötschreck
Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy.
Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor. This vampire does not untap as normal. During this vampire's next untap phase, burn this card.
Disarm
[pot] Only usable at close range at the end of a round of combat in which this vampire successfully inflicted more damage than the opposing vampire. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going into torpor. Put this card on the opposing vampire and send that vampire into torpor. The vampire with this card has -1 strength. He or she may burn this card by burning 3 blood. A vampire can have only one Disarm.
[POT] As above, but the vampire with this card has -2 strength.
The point is that rötschreck only sends u to torpor after combat ends.
So first combat ends, then the window for taste, disarm psyche is open, then the trujah goes to torpor.
The readiness requirement is also present on Psyche, and is has already been ruled that Psyche can be played on a Rötschreck, therefore Disarm must be playable as well for consistency.
That being said, even without Rötschreck, there seems to be inconsistent wordings on the sequencing of torpor and combat end.
> Disarm wrote:
> Not usable by a vampire being burned or going into torpor
>
> Psyche! wrote:
> Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready
>
The Disarm wording implies that wounded vampires go to torpor after combat ends whereas the Psyche! wording implies the other order. Note that it could just be a legacy bug on Psyche! from the time it was played after combat ends.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> The readiness requirement is also present on Psyche, and is has already been ruled that Psyche can be played on a Rötschreck, therefore Disarm must be playable as well for consistency.
>
Psyche! can be played in the window when combat ends from a Rotschreck. Combat is ending (from the Rotschreck), and both combatants are still ready because nothing has yet sent them to torpor. Rotschreck ends combat, then after combat has ended applies a go to torpor effect.
Other cards that go at the end of round can also be played in the combat ends window of Rotschreck. Often, this is Taste of Vitae (e.g. [FZD 20111203] ). It's usually not Disarm because it's usually the case that neither combatant has inflicted any damage at that point. However, if they have and so the requirements of Disarm are met, there's nothing stopping you playing it during the end of round window. A normal strike followed by an additional agg strike would do it similarly, assuming you had in fact inflicted more damage.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> The Disarm wording implies that wounded vampires go to torpor after combat ends whereas the Psyche! wording implies the other order. Note that it could just be a legacy bug on Psyche! from the time it was played after combat ends.
>
Vaguely kinda sorta.
Becoming un-ready is what ends combat - combat requires ready participants. However, there's still a bit of combat in which to play cards like, say, Taste of Vitae, from the end of round/end of combat window, and so that vampire is still a combatant (briefly). The cards which can go in that window but which don't want them to be played by a vampire who has just been whacked into torpor tend to talk about that as "going to torpor" - they could probably equally say "who has just been sent to torpor" or similar.
Note that one or two cards can sneak in there and swap the torporization for a straight burn, such as Decapitate because it uses the word "instead" in "Burn the opposing vampire instead of sending that vampire to torpor."
To check if I understood correctly.
Therefore, the trujah against whom it is played Rötschreck,him can play Disarm and Decapitate,so him burn oposing vampire and then him goes to torpor by Rötschreck text?
> beslin wrote:
> To check if I understood correctly.
> Therefore, the trujah against whom it is played Rötschreck,him can play Disarm and Decapitate,so him burn oposing vampire and then him goes to torpor by Rötschreck text?
>
Well I'm not at all sure what you are asking here. You might want to rephrase that.
Keep in mind that decapitate and disarm cannot be played by a vampire who is going to torpor or burning(it reads on the card), so only the player who is playing rotschreck can play those cards here.
As far as I know, if you play rotschreck, you can also play decapitate to burn the opposing vampire instead of sending them to torpor, since decapitate doesn't specify when it needs to be played. Only requirement is that opposing minion in combat is going to torpor.
ps. I would love to do a lengthy rant about how these cards should be written, but that would just confuse the topic even further...
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Keep in mind that decapitate and disarm cannot be played by a vampire who is going to torpor or burning(it reads on the card), so only the player who is playing rotschreck can play those cards here.
>
> As far as I know, if you play rotschreck, you can also play decapitate to burn the opposing vampire instead of sending them to torpor, since decapitate doesn't specify when it needs to be played. Only requirement is that opposing minion in combat is going to torpor.
>
No, Rotschreck doesn't work like that. Let's take the important parts of the Rotschreck card text.
Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor.
Three things happen, in order:
1) Put this card on a vampire
2) Combat ends
3) Send the vampire to torpor
When combat ends (step 2), nothing is sending the vampire to torpor. Step 3 hasn't happened yet. That is why if you use an effect like Telepathic Tracking, combat continues and no-one goes to torpor - because step 3 hasn't happened, and doesn't happen when interrupted.
At the point that step 2 is happening - the ending of combat - neither combatant is going to torpor. So both combatants are able to play "end of round" effects, because the round and combat ends, and if that end of round effect is restricted against being played by vampires who are going to torpor, nothing from Rotschreck's card text is sending them to torpor in step 2.
Regarding:
if you play rotschreck, you can also play decapitate to burn the opposing vampire instead of sending them to torpor, since decapitate doesn't specify when it needs to be played.
In a situation where as the non-acting player, I play a Claw to declare an aggravated hand strike (and no other relevant cards have been played), then play Rotschreck, I cannot play Decapitate. Why?
2) Combat ends
3) Send the vampire to torpor
Step 2. Combat ends. Now we move on to step 3. Send the vampire to torpor outside of combat. You cannot play Decapitate now because it is a combat card. Combat cards are played in combat, and before you move to step 3, combat has ended.
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > beslin wrote:
> > To check if I understood correctly.
> > Therefore, the trujah against whom it is played Rötschreck,him can play Disarm and Decapitate,so him burn oposing vampire and then him goes to torpor by Rötschreck text?
> >
> Well I'm not at all sure what you are asking here. You might want to rephrase that.
>
Sorry, but if you had read the previous posts carefully, you would have known why the question makes sense.
"Combat ends", e. g. the one in Rotschreck, just moves the combat immediately to the "end of a turn of combat" step. So it is still possible to play cards that are played in that step.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> Sorry, but if you had read the previous posts carefully, you would have known why the question makes sense.
>
Question maybe, but grammar didn't... I honest couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> No, Rotschreck doesn't work like that. Let's take the important parts of the Rotschreck card text.
>
> Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor.
>
> Three things happen, in order:
>
> 1) Put this card on a vampire
> 2) Combat ends
> 3) Send the vampire to torpor
>
> When combat ends (step 2), nothing is sending the vampire to torpor. Step 3 hasn't happened yet. That is why if you use an effect like Telepathic Tracking, combat continues and no-one goes to torpor - because step 3 hasn't happened, and doesn't happen when interrupted.
>
I am used to things not happening, triggered or conditions being checked until cards have resolved completely (or if their effects have been canceled). Since rotschreck both ends the combat AND sends vampire to torpor within its card text, I find it intuitively hard to understand why something like telepathic tracking would prevent this from happening since you would need to play and resolve it during rotschrecks resolution. Thats not ... right.
Now I may have to yield to your ruling of things, but I want to point out that much (I estimate something like 80%) of all issues, problems and confusion in card rulings in CCG's that are not magic the gathering, arise from trying to do stuff or check conditions DURING a card's resolution. Android netrunner suffers from this very same thing. If cards would always resolve completely and conditions would not be checked until after cards have finished resolving, things would be much simpler to handle, understand and rule. We may not have that option due to VTES card designers getting all these cards messed up, but I just can't resist voicing my frustration whenever (like once every couple weeks) this issue is brought up.
We already have a precedent in VTES about conditions NOT being checked during a cards resolution - playing eternals of sirius at exactly 4 pool. You are not ousted and instead go to 5 pool, because the losing condition (0 pool) is not checked during the cards resolution... There is just so much controversy..
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Since rotschreck both ends the combat AND sends vampire to torpor within its card text, I find it intuitively hard to understand why something like telepathic tracking would prevent this from happening since you would need to play and resolve it during rotschrecks resolution. Thats not ... right.
>
It's completely 100% right. It is exactly why Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking work. It's worked this way specifically on Rotschreck since 2002. The fact that combat ends-followed-by-something effects could be interrupted had been established long, long ago with Form of Mist, where if something "sufficiently disruptive" happened, the continue action effect was lost. This principle was formalized into something coherent in the 2002 ruling.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> If cards would always resolve completely and conditions would not be checked until after cards have finished resolving, things would be much simpler to handle, understand and rule. We may not have that option due to VTES card designers getting all these cards messed up, but I just can't resist voicing my frustration whenever (like once every couple weeks) this issue is brought up.
>
If you don't understand how a card works, asking in the Rules Questions forum makes sense.
If you want to campaign for cards to change to work like Magic, the Rules Questions forum is not an appropriate place to tell people that cards work the wrong way. Answers in the Rules Questions forum should be about how cards actually work.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> We already have a precedent in VTES about conditions NOT being checked during a cards resolution - playing eternals of sirius at exactly 4 pool. You are not ousted and instead go to 5 pool, because the losing condition (0 pool) is not checked during the cards resolution... There is just so much controversy..
>
So? Paying a card and getting pool back from its effect don't oust you. That's how V:TES works. It's pretty simple.
The fact that another card game splits this out differently is just fine for that card game. V:TES isn't that card game.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> [ps. I would love to do a lengthy rant about how these cards should be written, but that would just confuse the topic even further...
>
Floppy and Vincent have gone through all the VTES cards in order to clarify,unify and make them more easily playable.
AFAIK, this revision is just waiting for the game to be picked up again by a publisher.
There probably have been several instances where these new wording have been linked to...
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> There probably have been several instances where these new wording have been linked to...
>
Yep, all the cards on Amaranth use this text: amaranth.vtes.co.nz
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Ke. wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> > There probably have been several instances where these new wording have been linked to...
> >
> Yep, all the cards on Amaranth use this text: amaranth.vtes.co.nz
>
Please note that it's still work in progress.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> It's completely 100% right. It is exactly why Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking work. It's worked this way specifically on Rotschreck since 2002. The fact that combat ends-followed-by-something effects could be interrupted had been established long, long ago with Form of Mist, where if something "sufficiently disruptive" happened, the continue action effect was lost. This principle was formalized into something coherent in the 2002 ruling.
>
If there is one positive thing in this debacle, its that you have given me a new, powerful weapon against Rotschreck. Recently I was destroyed in a tournament game by rotschreck playing a deck that actually plays psyches. The idea that I could play psyche during rotschrecks resolution would never ever crossed my mind without this thread...
> So? Paying a card and getting pool back from its effect don't oust you. That's how V:TES works. It's pretty simple.
>
But you are already tracking one part of game state and allowing it to affect the game during a card's resolution (whether combat continues or not during rotschreck) , while ignoring another (whether player has 0 pool or not and whether he is ousted during eternals). I don't see any logic in why these cases are handled differently. Even if a player can play the pool cost, he is still at 0 pool during eternals resolution.
The main reason why I keep complaining about these things, is that I foresee a whole host of problems in designing new cards should VTES return to print and new expansions be published. If you allow these things during a cards resolution, you have to be extremely careful with the wording of each new card so you don't accidentally 'blow up the world' so to speak due to unforeseen interaction with another card. Card design would be far easier to handle if you only needed to worry about status quo after a card has resolved, not between every sentence of its card text. I'm trying to herald common sense here.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> But you are already tracking one part of game state and allowing it to affect the game during a card's resolution (whether combat continues or not during rotschreck) , while ignoring another (whether player has 0 pool or not and whether he is ousted during eternals). I don't see any logic in why these cases are handled differently. Even if a player can play the pool cost, he is still at 0 pool during eternals resolution.
>
During Rotschreck, combat ends. Effects that are playable when combat ends are thus playable, because combat is ending, due to the fact that a combat ends effect played during combat has made the combat end, in a combat-ending fashion.
Paying the cost of a master card and receiving pool back from it at the same time doesn't oust you.
It's literally that simple. They are two different things.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> The main reason why I keep complaining about these things,
>
...is because V:TES isn't Magic, yes, we know.
Do you also watch American football and yell at them that they in another game using a similarly-shaped ball with players called backs and forwards (rugby), they'd be penalised for throwing the ball forwards?
> Bloodartist wrote:
> is that I foresee a whole host of problems in designing new cards should VTES return to print and new expansions be published.
>
Yet Rotschreck has worked fine this way since 2002, and one of the reasons for the specific ruling was, in fact:
a new, powerful weapon against Rotschreck
Having it work the way you think it should work made the game worse. Much worse. Having a relatively easily accessible set of counters made the game better.
So:
1) You don't know how the game works
2) The changes you propose make the game worse, which we know - because it was worse in the past
So if V:TES returns to print, making the game quantifiably worse by having Rotschreck the way you want would be a bad idea. Making Rotschreck more powerful and extremely difficult to counter made such decks incredibly un-fun to oppose. Making things unfun for players is bad for the game. Your 'foresight' makes the game worse.
I think there's space to move the ruling to the cards themselves, e.g.:
Psyche!
Only usable when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. Not usable if another combat is already queued. Cancel any effect that would have occurred after the combat ends, and start a new combat (queued) with the opposing minion after this combat.
Telepathic Tracking
Only usable when both combatants are still ready and combat would end. Cancel any queued combat or effect that would have occurred after the combat ends, and start a new round instead.
Siren's Lure
Only usable by a ready unlocked vampire other than the acting minion when a minion attempts to block. Not usable if another combat is already queued. That attempt fails and that minion cannot attempt to block this action again. Lock this vampire and that minion. After the action resolution, start a combat (queued) between this vampire and that minion.
Or any better way to express the ruling.
"Pending" could be used instead of "queued" in "Not usable if another combat is already pending." but it would make the second part cumbersome (unless someone has an idea?).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I'd much prefer "pending"
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Siren's Lure does not seem to belong there: the window to play it is different and the trigger is different: it makes sense for effects due after combat to vanish if combat does not end because their window closes, but there will always be an end of action after all possible Psyche, Form of Mist,... have been played.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Siren's Lure does not seem to belong there: the window to play it is different and the trigger is different: it makes sense for effects due after combat to vanish if combat does not end because their window closes, but there will always be an end of action after all possible Psyche, Form of Mist,... have been played.
>
You can't play Siren's Lure if there's already a pending combat. The most common case is when, during the same action, you'd like to make two block attempts fail with two Siren's Lure.
The idea is to flag any card creating a pending combat.
Siren's Lure interacts with Psyche! for instance. If the acting vampire A is blocked by the vampire C after B's attempt has been foiled by a Siren's Lure, C can't play Psyche! because there's already a pending combat between A and B.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Is this all already official for the rulings or is this still pending before official rewordings? So that I know to inform our group in the off chance it becomes relevant.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
The proposed card texts are not official, though it leads to the same behavior as with the rulings.
The Siren's Lure ruling has been official for quite a long time now.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Tangential question: Can special abilities of Akram and Jalal Sayad also be used to interrupt torpor effect of rötscherck?
I would think not, as said abilities say after combat and röts should already have send vampire to torpor by then, but I want to make certain.
relevant card text:
Independent: Once each turn after completing combat, Jalal may burn 1 blood to begin another combat with the opposing minion. Blood cursed.
> Whisker wrote:
> Tangential question: Can special abilities of Akram and Jalal Sayad also be used to interrupt torpor effect of rötscherck?
> I would think not, as said abilities say after combat and röts should already have send vampire to torpor by then, but I want to make certain.
>
> relevant card text:
> Independent: Once each turn after completing combat, Jalal may burn 1 blood to begin another combat with the opposing minion. Blood cursed.
>
They work the same as Psyche! groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/-dqteu2lStc/d_MiarNe6QQJ
Someone already complained that they could have the same wording, which is a goal I strive to achieve.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director