If I have a Brother's Grimm in play and someone pitches a master to
take it (during their master ohase of course), can I tap cards (such
as dreams of the sphinx, barrens, fragment of the book of Nod, etc...)
to sift for a master to cancel their attempt?
I would think yes, but am not positive.
Thanks,
-scrote
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually, I think the answer would be no. Unlike "that other game," in VTES
there is no stack or first-in-last-out rule. Unless specified otherwise just
about everything (outside of actions and strikes) happens instantaneously. Once
an effect is played, there is no chance to do something before that happens
(though there is still a chance to cancel that effect).
If someone Golcondas your vampire, you can't interrupt the effect by
Heidelburg'ing blood off and then taking the pool for the Golconda. And if
someone is going to play Anachronism on Masika you can't use the Heidelburg "as
a fast effect" to move your Assault Rifle. When someone contests your Dreams
you can't tap it right before it comes into play b/c there is no timing window
for that.
As soon as the other player uses his master phase (in this case, to steal
Brothers Grimm), you have the chance to cancel the effect (by discarding) but
that's all you can do. You can't "time-out" everything and use other effects
and play cards (though of course you could always do that before his master
phase. Similarly timing issues have existed for quite some time with cards like
Heidelburg).
Note that actions and strikes have delayed effects. So if someone takes the
action to steal the Fragment or Disputed Territory your Barrens, you can tap
the Frag/Barrens before the action is resolved.
Halcyan 2
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030904043129...@mb-m20.aol.com...
[scrote wrote]
> >If I have a Brother's Grimm in play and someone pitches a master to
> >take it (during their master ohase of course), can I tap cards (such
> >as dreams of the sphinx, barrens, fragment of the book of Nod, etc...)
> >to sift for a master to cancel their attempt?
> >
> >I would think yes, but am not positive.
>
> Actually, I think the answer would be no. Unlike "that other game," in VTES
> there is no stack or first-in-last-out rule. Unless specified otherwise just
> about everything (outside of actions and strikes) happens instantaneously.
Once
> an effect is played, there is no chance to do something before that happens
> (though there is still a chance to cancel that effect).
But because of the existence of chances to cancel those effects
(Sudden Reversal, Direct Intervention), it is legal to do things
like tapping the Fragment of the Book of Nod or The Barrens to
search for a canceling card when an opportunity to cancel comes
along.
LSJ 30-Dec-2002:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E10E08A.F5484A32%40white-wolf.com> If someone Golcondas your vampire, you can't interrupt the effect by
> Heidelburg'ing blood off and then taking the pool for the Golconda. And if
> someone is going to play Anachronism on Masika you can't use the Heidelburg
"as
> a fast effect" to move your Assault Rifle. When someone contests your Dreams
> you can't tap it right before it comes into play b/c there is no timing
window
> for that.
Correct, but you can try to Fragment to look for a Sudden in all
of these cases. Heidelberg isn't allowed because it isn't a
card-drawing-to-get-a-Sudden effect, I think, and you can't tap
the Dreams *itself* to look for a Sudden, but you could tap your
Barrens to look for a Sudden (or, if you Barrens was what's about
to be contested instead, you could tap your Dreams to look for a
Sudden).
And, as LSJ pointed out in a confusing (to me) thread a while
back, if your Dreams is getting contested, and someone else
Suddens the incoming Dreams, you *can* then tap your own Dreams
to draw 2 cards and play a Sudden on the *other* Sudden -
making your Dreams become contested after all - if you wanted
to.
LSJ 23-Oct-2002:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3DB68DEC.61DD854C%40white-wolf.com> As soon as the other player uses his master phase (in this case, to steal
> Brothers Grimm), you have the chance to cancel the effect (by discarding)
but
> that's all you can do. You can't "time-out" everything and use other effects
> and play cards (though of course you could always do that before his master
> phase. Similarly timing issues have existed for quite some time with cards
like
> Heidelburg).
I suspect that, by analogy to other effects (ie playing cards)
that can be canceled with cards in hand, card-drawing effects
*are* legal here to look for a master to cancel Brothers-Grimm-
stealing with. But I'm not 100% sure. Scott?
Josh
am i my brother's grimm?
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> [scrote wrote]>>>If I have a Brother's Grimm in play and someone pitches a master to
>>>take it (during their master ohase of course), can I tap cards (such
>>>as dreams of the sphinx, barrens, fragment of the book of Nod, etc...)
>>>to sift for a master to cancel their attempt?
>>>
>>>I would think yes, but am not positive.>>> I suspect that, by analogy to other effects (ie playing cards)
> that can be canceled with cards in hand, card-drawing effects
> *are* legal here to look for a master to cancel Brothers-Grimm-
> stealing with. But I'm not 100% sure. Scott?
Yes.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
>> Actually, I think the answer would be no. Unlike "that other game," in VTES
>> there is no stack or first-in-last-out rule. Unless specified otherwise>just>> about everything (outside of actions and strikes) happens instantaneously.>Once>> an effect is played, there is no chance to do something before that happens
>> (though there is still a chance to cancel that effect).>
>But because of the existence of chances to cancel those effects
>(Sudden Reversal, Direct Intervention), it is legal to do things
>like tapping the Fragment of the Book of Nod or The Barrens to
>search for a canceling card when an opportunity to cancel comes
>along.
>
>LSJ 30-Dec-2002:
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E10E08A.F5484A32%40white-wolf.com
I'm curious as to the basis for these - tapping card cyclers - being interrupt
speed effects, i.e. faster/different speed than other effects.
>> If someone Golcondas your vampire, you can't interrupt the effect by
>> Heidelburg'ing blood off and then taking the pool for the Golconda. And if
>> someone is going to play Anachronism on Masika you can't use the Heidelburg>"as>> a fast effect" to move your Assault Rifle. When someone contests your>Dreams>> you can't tap it right before it comes into play b/c there is no timing>window>> for that.>
>Correct, but you can try to Fragment to look for a Sudden in all
>of these cases. Heidelberg isn't allowed because it isn't a
>card-drawing-to-get-a-Sudden effect, I think, and you can't tap
>the Dreams *itself* to look for a Sudden, but you could tap your
>Barrens to look for a Sudden (or, if you Barrens was what's about
>to be contested instead, you could tap your Dreams to look for a
>Sudden).
See, this is just an inconsistent mess to me. If you can tap Dreams
"interrupting" the play of a master to dig for a Sudden so you can interrupt
the master's play, why couldn't you do it if Dreams itself is the master? Why
can't you use Heidelberg at the same time? What is the principle? Best guess
is that it's play cards as appropriate, but what's appropriate about tapping
The Barrens while a master is trying to resolve versus tapping Heidelberg at
the same time?
Timing is always crucial in CCGs even when most folks gloss over it. AFAICT,
there are some elements of timing in this game which haven't been clearly
explained.
<snip confusing part about timing and contested dreams>
>Timing is always crucial in CCGs even when most folks gloss over it.
AFAICT,
> there are some elements of timing in this game which haven't been
clearly
> explained.
Much like Timing windows, say, between block attempt and actual block
(can add intercept, but can't redirect, both of which are reactions) and
timing windows before-before range, after range, but before-before
strikes, before strikes, actual strikes, the phase between strikes and
strike resolution (where stuff like Rotschrek happens), actual strike
resulution, between resolution and damage step, damage healing, end of
round, press. Or something like that.
Indeed some situations are just too confusing and non-consistent. What
indeed IS the difference between tapping dreams and Heidelburg. Neither
of them have specific card text or errata, escept Heidelburg's "cannot
be used during an action". I don't think playing a master is an action
right?
I really like this ones
"I play Dreams, thereby contesting yours"
"Tap Fragment, oh cool a sudden, I sudden your dreams"
Legal.
"I play Dreams, thereby contesting yours"
"Tap MY Dreams, oh cool a sudden, I sudden your dreams"
Illegal.
"I play Dreams, thereby contesting yours"
"Tap Barrens, oh cool a sudden, I sudden your dreams"
Legal.
"I Golconda your Democritus"
"Tap Heidelburg, I drain the blood on him to Nash and take the 10 pool"
Illegal
"I Golconda your Democritus"
"Tap Dreams, oh cool a Sudden, I sudden the Golconda"
Legal.
Wtf?
There's a gazillion more strange situations that kinda occur all the
time. Most of these are found with reactions vs action modifiers and
pre-some-phase combat cards. Some time windows really need a definition.
Curevei wrote:
> I'm curious as to the basis for these - tapping card cyclers - being interrupt
> speed effects, i.e. faster/different speed than other effects.
The same as for Suddens.
> See, this is just an inconsistent mess to me. If you can tap Dreams
> "interrupting" the play of a master to dig for a Sudden so you can interrupt
> the master's play, why couldn't you do it if Dreams itself is the master? Why
> can't you use Heidelberg at the same time? What is the principle? Best guess
> is that it's play cards as appropriate, but what's appropriate about tapping
> The Barrens while a master is trying to resolve versus tapping Heidelberg at
> the same time?
One is being contested. A card being contested isn't usable.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:45:10 +0200, "Ulugh Beg II"
<dontfe...@spam.me> scrawled:
[snip]
>Indeed some situations are just too confusing and non-consistent. What
>indeed IS the difference between tapping dreams and Heidelburg. Neither
>of them have specific card text or errata, escept Heidelburg's "cannot
>be used during an action". I don't think playing a master is an action
>right?
I always assumed, based on the 'you can't tap dreams when someone
contests your dreams', that you couldn't do _anything_, other than
things that specifically had to be done when a master card is played.
Like sudden or rewind time from hand.
"I play Art of Love on your untapped War Ghoul"
"I tap War Ghoul to burn your Hunting Ground"
Legal or not?
"I play Art of Love on your untapped War Ghoul"
"I tap Fragment to try and get a sudden, I don't get a sudden, you get
warghoul"
"I tap War Ghoul to burn your Barrens"
"I tap Barrens to ....get a card. Ok, War Ghoul burns my tapped
Barrens"
Legal or not?
>I really like this ones
>
>"I play Dreams, thereby contesting yours"
>"Tap Fragment, oh cool a sudden, I sudden your dreams"
>Legal.
Can a third person then tap _their_ dreams, as it is no longer 'going
to be contested', get a sudden, and sudden the sudden, thereby
contesting their dreams?
Really, played effects that resolve as played should not be allowed to
be 'interrupted' by tapping stuff or anything else that doesn't have
specific 'as played' text.
'I arson your barrens'
'i tap the barrens, and draw a Direct Intervention. I play it to
cancel the arson as it is played'
Is it still 'as it is played', or have we moved past that timing point
by the tapping of the barrens?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
>A card being contested isn't usable.
"being" as in "is" or "being" as in "in the process of becoming"? The former
doesn't seem to be the case due to cancelling effects*. The latter makes me
wonder why it can't be used as other effects can be used.
* Unless cancelling/whatever in this game is an undoing effect as it is in at
least a couple other CCGs with their "counterspells" - e.g. Not Meant To Be,
Yithian Mental Contact. Undoing effects is horrendously complicated, very
likely worse than interrupts.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i meddelandet news:3F57DF0...@white-wolf.com...
> Curevei wrote:
> > I'm curious as to the basis for these - tapping card cyclers - being interrupt
> > speed effects, i.e. faster/different speed than other effects.
>
> The same as for Suddens.
>
> > See, this is just an inconsistent mess to me. If you can tap Dreams
> > "interrupting" the play of a master to dig for a Sudden so you can interrupt
> > the master's play, why couldn't you do it if Dreams itself is the master? Why
> > can't you use Heidelberg at the same time? What is the principle? Best guess
> > is that it's play cards as appropriate, but what's appropriate about tapping
> > The Barrens while a master is trying to resolve versus tapping Heidelberg at
> > the same time?
>
> One is being contested. A card being contested isn't usable.
>
I think it would be good for the game if the tapping of cards timing woulb be consistent. You have
to admit that it's a bit illogical right now LSJ?
Either rule that all cards can be tapped/used before a mastercard resolves, or rule that no cards
can be used/tapped before. Best bet would probably be to disallow tapping fragment fishing for a
sudden. If you wanted that sudden you should have tapped the fragment before the mastercard was
played...
/henrik isaksson
Curevei wrote:
>>A card being contested isn't usable.> "being" as in "is" or "being" as in "in the process of becoming"? The former
> doesn't seem to be the case due to cancelling effects*. The latter makes me
> wonder why it can't be used as other effects can be used.
It is contested as soon as the other card is played.
Other (non-contested) cards can be used at that time to fish for a canceller.
Contested cards cannot be used.
If the incoming copy is Suddened, then the Barrens is not being contested, so
it can be used to fish for a canceller to cancel the Sudden.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ expounded:
> Curevei wrote:
> >>A card being contested isn't usable.
> > "being" as in "is" or "being" as in "in the process of becoming"? The former
> > doesn't seem to be the case due to cancelling effects*. The latter makes me
> > wonder why it can't be used as other effects can be used.
>
> It is contested as soon as the other card is played.
> Other (non-contested) cards can be used at that time to fish for a canceller.
> Contested cards cannot be used.
> If the incoming copy is Suddened, then the Barrens is not being contested, so
> it can be used to fish for a canceller to cancel the Sudden.
It would be a lot simpler if you just couldn't tap anything between the
contesting Barrens (or whatever) being played and the resolution of any
Suddens (/DIs) people want to play.
But who wants it to be simple? ;-)
"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36uflvstka7qq3qbi...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:45:10 +0200, "Ulugh Beg II"
> <dontfe...@spam.me> scrawled:
> [snip]
> >Indeed some situations are just too confusing and non-consistent. What
> >indeed IS the difference between tapping dreams and Heidelburg. Neither
> >of them have specific card text or errata, escept Heidelburg's "cannot
> >be used during an action". I don't think playing a master is an action
> >right?
>
> I always assumed, based on the 'you can't tap dreams when someone
> contests your dreams', that you couldn't do _anything_, other than
> things that specifically had to be done when a master card is played.
> Like sudden or rewind time from hand.
>
> "I play Art of Love on your untapped War Ghoul"
> "I tap War Ghoul to burn your Hunting Ground"
> Legal or not?
Not. All you can do here is Sudden or fish for a Sudden.
> "I play Art of Love on your untapped War Ghoul"
> "I tap Fragment to try and get a sudden, I don't get a sudden, you get
> warghoul"
> "I tap War Ghoul to burn your Barrens"
> "I tap Barrens to ....get a card. Ok, War Ghoul burns my tapped
> Barrens"
> Legal or not?
I think legal up to the point that you tap the Barrens. Since
there's no way to keep the now-stolen War Ghoul from burning
the Barrens (ie there is nothing that would cancel it that you
could be fishing for by tapping Barrens), you can't "respond"
to the War Ghoul tap-and-burn effect - once it's announced, it
happens, and anything that anyone else wants to do will happen
*after* the burning, not before it.
> Really, played effects that resolve as played should not be allowed to
> be 'interrupted' by tapping stuff or anything else that doesn't have
> specific 'as played' text.
>
> 'I arson your barrens'
> 'i tap the barrens, and draw a Direct Intervention. I play it to
> cancel the arson as it is played'
> Is it still 'as it is played', or have we moved past that timing point
> by the tapping of the barrens?
Yes, you can do that too. Anything that can be canceled with
Direct Intervention or Sudden Reversal has an "as it is played"
window that exists and card-drawing effects are allowed in that
window.
You're right, though, that it is confusing and inconsistent to
allow card-searching effects in that window. If the window
exists only because of the existence of Sudden Reversal and
Direct Intervention, it makes a lot more sense to not allow
anything else to happen in that window besides the play of
Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention from hand. Card-
searching effects are not intuitively "faster" than others,
given that VTES is not supposed to have "interrupts" other
than cards with text explicitly telling you that they cancel
things "as played".
Josh
play it out
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> You're right, though, that it is confusing and inconsistent to
> allow card-searching effects in that window. If the window
> exists only because of the existence of Sudden Reversal and
> Direct Intervention, it makes a lot more sense to not allow
> anything else to happen in that window besides the play of
> Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention from hand. Card-
> searching effects are not intuitively "faster" than others,
> given that VTES is not supposed to have "interrupts" other
> than cards with text explicitly telling you that they cancel
> things "as played".
On the RT list for review.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:40:01 +0100, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.com> scrawled:
>It would be a lot simpler if you just couldn't tap anything between the
>contesting Barrens (or whatever) being played and the resolution of any
>Suddens (/DIs) people want to play.
damn stright.
>But who wants it to be simple? ;-)
ummm...me! But first you have to convince me that AR is broken..no,
wait. wrong thread...
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F58A257...@white-wolf.com>...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > You're right, though, that it is confusing and inconsistent to
> > allow card-searching effects in that window. If the window
> > exists only because of the existence of Sudden Reversal and
> > Direct Intervention, it makes a lot more sense to not allow
> > anything else to happen in that window besides the play of
> > Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention from hand. Card-
> > searching effects are not intuitively "faster" than others,
> > given that VTES is not supposed to have "interrupts" other
> > than cards with text explicitly telling you that they cancel
> > things "as played".
>
> On the RT list for review.
Suppose it gets reveiwed and changed to the "no intterupt/sift"
version that Josh suggests.
Problem scenario:
Player A has useless master card in hand.
Player B has Brother's Grimm with four counters and an untapped
Barrens.
Player A's turn, master phase. Sitting thinking about turn (blood
dolls, shit like that). Player B sees player A gaze longingly at the
Brother's Grimm and declares *quickly* I tap my barrens (to search for
a master to cancel any possible "steal attempt").
If player A had have been quicker off the mark, they could have stolen
the Brother's before the Barrens oppportunity arose ie. if they had
have declared it straight away, at the start of their master phase.
Seems, in the suggested change, that it becomes a case of the
"quickest draw" gets the goods...which is just stupid.
Any suggested solutions?
-Scrote
scrote expounded:
> Problem scenario:
>
> Player A has useless master card in hand.
> Player B has Brother's Grimm with four counters and an untapped
> Barrens.
>
> Player A's turn, master phase. Sitting thinking about turn (blood
> dolls, shit like that). Player B sees player A gaze longingly at the
> Brother's Grimm and declares *quickly* I tap my barrens (to search for
> a master to cancel any possible "steal attempt").
>
> If player A had have been quicker off the mark, they could have stolen
> the Brother's before the Barrens oppportunity arose ie. if they had
> have declared it straight away, at the start of their master phase.
Doesn't seem very likely to be a problem to me. If someone wants to
Barrens in the hope of finding a counter to someone's Master then they
will probably do it in the untap phase -it's not like they don't know
they have Grimm there.
"scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b618d4f6.03091...@posting.google.com...
> Suppose it gets reveiwed and changed to the "no intterupt/sift"
> version that Josh suggests.
>
> Problem scenario:
>
> Player A has useless master card in hand.
> Player B has Brother's Grimm with four counters and an untapped
> Barrens.
>
> Player A's turn, master phase. Sitting thinking about turn (blood
> dolls, shit like that). Player B sees player A gaze longingly at the
> Brother's Grimm and declares *quickly* I tap my barrens (to search for
> a master to cancel any possible "steal attempt").
>
> If player A had have been quicker off the mark, they could have stolen
> the Brother's before the Barrens oppportunity arose ie. if they had
> have declared it straight away, at the start of their master phase.
>
> Seems, in the suggested change, that it becomes a case of the
> "quickest draw" gets the goods...which is just stupid.
>
> Any suggested solutions?
The problem of "quickest draw" already exists, to the
extent that it exists, in a ton of situations. Imagine
that player B is thinking about using Heidelberg Castle
before player A decides whether to use his Temptation
to take control of player B's vampire.
The solution is generally 1.6.1.6 in the rulebook, which
says that the player whose turn it is always gets to use
his or her effect first if more than one player wants to
do something at the same time.
The solution for player B is to decide to Barrens before
player A gets to his master phase. Otherwise, player B
has to ask player A if A wants to do anything, because B
wants to play an effect; A can then say "yeah, I'll
steal your Brothers Grimm".
Does this not seem like a workable system?
Josh
a grimm outlook
mud...@hotmail.com writes:
>Problem scenario
>Player A has useless master card in hand.
>Player B has Brother's Grimm with four counters and an untapped
Barrens.
>Player A's turn, master phase. Sitting thinking about turn (blood
>dolls, shit like that). Player B sees player A gaze longingly at the
>Brother's Grimm and declares *quickly* I tap my barrens (to search for
>a master to cancel any possible "steal attempt").
Not a novel problem. Already exists with, say, Arsoning
Heidelburg Castle. OTOH creating a class of interrupts and
trying to decide which cards belong in the class is a
big headache which doesn't exist otherwise.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson