Infernal Pursuit and Watenda
Jozxyqk
For the remainder of the combat, each time you replace a card (including
when you draw to replace this card), draw an additional card and then burn
one card in your hand for each additional card drawn.
Do you still draw an additional card when you replace Infernal Pursuit
itself, if Watenda cancels the card? Or does Watenda cancel it before
you replace it?
LSJ
A canceled card has no effect.
You would draw only the standard replacement card. No additional cards.
--
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/
Jozxyqk
>> itself, if Watenda cancels the card? Or does Watenda cancel it before
>> you replace it?
> A canceled card has no effect.
> You would draw only the standard replacement card. No additional cards.
I just meant the timing is a little bit strange.. but I guess, if Watenda's
in the combat, you'll wait for his controller to say something before you
replace IP...
Henrik Isaksson
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3DB5395F...@white-wolf.com...
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> >
> > Infernal Pursuit at superior says:
> >
> > For the remainder of the combat, each time you replace a card (including
> > when you draw to replace this card), draw an additional card and then burn
> > one card in your hand for each additional card drawn.
> >
> > Do you still draw an additional card when you replace Infernal Pursuit
> > itself, if Watenda cancels the card? Or does Watenda cancel it before
> > you replace it?
>
> A canceled card has no effect.
> You would draw only the standard replacement card. No additional cards.
>
cancels it? Do I replace the DoMC? Do I have time to discard cards before watenda cancels it?
/henrik
LSJ
No. Replacement is a function of play, not of the card's resolution.
> Do I have time to discard cards before watenda cancels it?
No.
tetragrammaton
news:3DB57E3F...@white-wolf.com...<snip>
> > >
> > What if opposing vampire plays a "do not replace" card, say death of my
conscience and watenda
> > cancels it? Do I replace the DoMC?
>
> No. Replacement is a function of play, not of the card's resolution.
>
Hy, does the above apply to Direct intervention vs wake with the evening
freshness ?
I mean, if a DI is played against a WweF the WweF player still does not
replace it
until the next untap phase ?
thanks
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3DB57E3F...@white-wolf.com...
> > Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> > >
> > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > What if opposing vampire plays a "do not replace" card, say death of my
> conscience and watenda
> > > cancels it? Do I replace the DoMC?
> >
> > No. Replacement is a function of play, not of the card's resolution.
> >
>
> Hy, does the above apply to Direct intervention vs wake with the evening
> freshness ?
As is. The replacement delay is not affected by the canceling of the card.
> I mean, if a DI is played against a WweF the WweF player still does not
> replace it
> until the next untap phase ?
Right.
reyda
::::
::: What if opposing vampire plays a "do not replace" card, say death
::: of my conscience and watenda cancels it? Do I replace the DoMC?
::
:: No. Replacement is a function of play, not of the card's
:: resolution.
Help !
i've got a problem here. If I D.I a superior Read The Winds, the reacting
meth does not replace the card until the action is concluded ?
Stone
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3DB5DA13...@white-wolf.com...
> > I mean, if a DI is played against a WweF the WweF player still does not
> > replace it
> > until the next untap phase ?
>
> Right.
is this a reversal of LSJ 10 23 2001? Thread called :
LSJ Qs: Direct Intervention, Toreador Grand Ball, Protected Resources,
Carlotta Giovanni, Wave of Lethargy, withdrawing from the Jyhad
(begin quote)
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> DI: If a Direct Intervention is played to cancel a card with
> "Do Not Replace" text, is the "Do Not Replace" cancelled
> along with the effects of the card, or is it still in
> effect?
Canceled.
(end quote)
Stone
LSJ
> > > replace it
> > > until the next untap phase ?
> >
> > Right.
>
> is this a reversal of LSJ 10 23 2001? Thread called :
> LSJ Qs: Direct Intervention, Toreador Grand Ball, Protected Resources,
> Carlotta Giovanni, Wave of Lethargy, withdrawing from the Jyhad
>
> (begin quote)
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> >
> > DI: If a Direct Intervention is played to cancel a card with
> > "Do Not Replace" text, is the "Do Not Replace" cancelled
> > along with the effects of the card, or is it still in
> > effect?
>
> Canceled.
> (end quote)
>
> Stone
Hmm. Looks like. While the former ruling is more intuitive, it is
more difficult to get a proper explanation for. Still, the
intuitiveness probably outweighs the prospect of loopholes, so
(until a serious enough loophole is found), it's probably best to
go with the former ruling.
So, canceling a "Do Not Replace Until Later" card as it is played
will result in that card getting replaced at the time it is
canceled (unless another effect cancels the canceling card).
Thanks for alerting me to the discrepancy.
Loophole/minutia follows. Feel free to skip the remainder of this
article if it gets too convoluted.
If you play a Wake and it gets DI'ed and you draw a Sudden Reversal
to replace the Wake, you can then use the Sudden Reversal to cancel
the DI. Then you would replace the SR (as normal) and continue with
life as normal. The Wake has already been replaced, so the delayed
replacement is lost - the Wake is no longer a card you are not
replacing, so it no longer counts against your hand size. Since
you ostensibly replaced the Wake as it was played, you could even
use Agaitas's special ability to draw the replacement card from
your prey's library.
There is a slight parallel there with, for example, tapping a
contested Barrens. You cannot tap a contested Barrens, of course.
But if your Barrens is untapped (and uncontested) and someone
else plays a Barrens (to contest yours) *and* someone plays
Sudden Reversal to cancel the new Barrens, then you could tap
your Barrens (since it is not contested) draw a Sudden Reversal
and play the Sudden Reversal to cancel the previous Sudden.
Result: your Barrens is contested by the incoming (uncanceled)
Barrens, but you have managed to "sneak in" an opportunity to
tap the Barrens first.
LSJ
Cancel the above ruling.
The DI'ed card is replaced as normal.
See my response to Stone's message.
Curevei
>will result in that card getting replaced at the time it is
>canceled (unless another effect cancels the canceling card).
>
>Thanks for alerting me to the discrepancy.
>
>Loophole/minutia follows. Feel free to skip the remainder of this
>article if it gets too convoluted.
>
>If you play a Wake and it gets DI'ed and you draw a Sudden Reversal
>to replace the Wake, you can then use the Sudden Reversal to cancel
>the DI. Then you would replace the SR (as normal) and continue with
>life as normal. The Wake has already been replaced, so the delayed
>replacement is lost - the Wake is no longer a card you are not
>replacing, so it no longer counts against your hand size. Since
>you ostensibly replaced the Wake as it was played, you could even
>use Agaitas's special ability to draw the replacement card from
>your prey's library.
Why wouldn't the replacement of the Wake get delayed until it is known whether
the DI was cancelled or not?
Not that the game works this way, but I could see something like:
Play Wake, Wake has a triggered effect upon it resolving;
DI gets played while Wake is trying to resolve making it unable to figure out
whether the trigger kicks in until it resolves;
If DI does resolve, then the triggered effect is cancelled, if not, then the
triggered effect occurs.
Sure, it conflicts with the basic idea in the game of replace a card when it is
played. But, it seems to me letting the DI replace the Wake even if the DI
"later" gets cancelled is the difference between undoing effects after the fact
and interrupting the effects as they are happening. Some CCGs try the former
precisely to avoid the latter. While other CCGs can avoid the former because
of timing rules for the latter.
vermillian
> Loophole/minutia follows. Feel free to skip the remainder of this
> article if it gets too convoluted.
>
> If you play a Wake and it gets DI'ed and you draw a Sudden Reversal
> to replace the Wake, you can then use the Sudden Reversal to cancel
> the DI. Then you would replace the SR (as normal) and continue with
> life as normal. The Wake has already been replaced, so the delayed
> replacement is lost - the Wake is no longer a card you are not
> replacing, so it no longer counts against your hand size. Since
> you ostensibly replaced the Wake as it was played, you could even
> use Agaitas's special ability to draw the replacement card from
> your prey's library.
>
> There is a slight parallel there with, for example, tapping a
> contested Barrens. You cannot tap a contested Barrens, of course.
> But if your Barrens is untapped (and uncontested) and someone
> else plays a Barrens (to contest yours) *and* someone plays
> Sudden Reversal to cancel the new Barrens, then you could tap
> your Barrens (since it is not contested) draw a Sudden Reversal
> and play the Sudden Reversal to cancel the previous Sudden.
> Result: your Barrens is contested by the incoming (uncanceled)
> Barrens, but you have managed to "sneak in" an opportunity to
> tap the Barrens first.
God damn that's hot. Sorry, but I'm serious. I love this game. :P
~SV
Joshua Duffin
> Loophole/minutia follows. Feel free to skip the remainder of this
> article if it gets too convoluted.
Dude, that's a freaky loophole all right.
> There is a slight parallel there with, for example, tapping a
> contested Barrens. You cannot tap a contested Barrens, of course.
> But if your Barrens is untapped (and uncontested) and someone
> else plays a Barrens (to contest yours) *and* someone plays
> Sudden Reversal to cancel the new Barrens, then you could tap
> your Barrens (since it is not contested) draw a Sudden Reversal
> and play the Sudden Reversal to cancel the previous Sudden.
> Result: your Barrens is contested by the incoming (uncanceled)
> Barrens, but you have managed to "sneak in" an opportunity to
> tap the Barrens first.
Does that really work? I would have thought that, when the
incoming Barrens is Suddened, and you tap your barrens to discard
and draw a card, it would then be too late to Sudden the Sudden.
My intuition was that anything that needs to be done "while a
card is being played" has to be done during a sort of "while a
card is being played" step during which other types of effects
aren't legal. So I wouldn't have expected you could either
Barrens to get a Sudden and play it immediately (regardless of
whether your Barrens was in the middle of trying to become
contested) or use Fragment of the Book of Nod to get a Sudden
and immediately use it on a master that someone else had already
played, etc.
I can see "normal card replacement" being "immediate" enough to
allow a card being drawn to be played during the "while a card
is being played" time-space, but I wouldn't have thought that
voluntary effects would also be playable without leaving that
"while card X is being played" time.
Josh
looped in the hole
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB68DEC...@white-wolf.com...
>
> > Loophole/minutia follows. Feel free to skip the remainder of this
> > article if it gets too convoluted.
>
> Dude, that's a freaky loophole all right.
>
> > There is a slight parallel there with, for example, tapping a
> > contested Barrens. You cannot tap a contested Barrens, of course.
> > But if your Barrens is untapped (and uncontested) and someone
> > else plays a Barrens (to contest yours) *and* someone plays
> > Sudden Reversal to cancel the new Barrens, then you could tap
> > your Barrens (since it is not contested) draw a Sudden Reversal
> > and play the Sudden Reversal to cancel the previous Sudden.
> > Result: your Barrens is contested by the incoming (uncanceled)
> > Barrens, but you have managed to "sneak in" an opportunity to
> > tap the Barrens first.
>
> Does that really work? I would have thought that, when the
> incoming Barrens is Suddened, and you tap your barrens to discard
> and draw a card, it would then be too late to Sudden the Sudden.
> My intuition was that anything that needs to be done "while a
> card is being played" has to be done during a sort of "while a
> card is being played" step during which other types of effects
> aren't legal.
Yeah, except that that would mean that you couldn't Wake to play
Rewind Time on someone's action card. Which "your intuition"
probably tells you you can. So one of the intuitions loses.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > Does that really work? I would have thought that, when the
> > incoming Barrens is Suddened, and you tap your barrens to discard
> > and draw a card, it would then be too late to Sudden the Sudden.
> > My intuition was that anything that needs to be done "while a
> > card is being played" has to be done during a sort of "while a
> > card is being played" step during which other types of effects
> > aren't legal.
>
> Yeah, except that that would mean that you couldn't Wake to play
> Rewind Time on someone's action card. Which "your intuition"
> probably tells you you can. So one of the intuitions loses.
Actually no, I would have thought that Wake + Rewind Time on an
action card wasn't legal. (Forgetting, I now see, that you've
ruled that it is.)
It doesn't entirely make sense to me that there's "enough time" to
play Wake first and then Rewind Time against an action "as it is
played", but not enough time for the acting Methuselah to play a
Seduction (since Seduction's "as the action is announced" time
frame is later than "as the action card is played").
I guess the situation is that during the "as the card is played"
time-space, pretty much any kind of activity not prohibited is
legal - Seduction is perhaps specifically prohibited by having a
timing window indicated on the card - so you can tap the Barrens,
tap Fragment of the Book of Nod, or play a Wake, all during the
"as an action card is played" timing window. But then it doesn't
make sense to me that you can't play Dawn Operation during this
same timing window - it doesn't have any more restrictive text
than Wake does.
Josh
holding the loop
LSJ
> >Loophole/minutia follows. Feel free to skip the remainder of this
> >article if it gets too convoluted.
> Why wouldn't the replacement of the Wake get delayed until it is known whether
> the DI was cancelled or not?
Not unless you want to change how, for example, Wake+Rewind Time works.
Snapcase
says...
> There is a slight parallel there with, for example, tapping a
> contested Barrens. You cannot tap a contested Barrens, of course.
> But if your Barrens is untapped (and uncontested) and someone
> else plays a Barrens (to contest yours) *and* someone plays
> Sudden Reversal to cancel the new Barrens, then you could tap
> your Barrens (since it is not contested) draw a Sudden Reversal
> and play the Sudden Reversal to cancel the previous Sudden.
> Result: your Barrens is contested by the incoming (uncanceled)
> Barrens, but you have managed to "sneak in" an opportunity to
> tap the Barrens first.
The question arises of "how much 'time' do people have to play
response/cancelling effects after a card is played?" In the contested
Barrens example above, could I tap the Barrens to draw an additional
card, then tap Fragment, then tap Dreams of the Sphinx to finally get to
my Sudden Reversal? Could I then play a Rewind Time to cancel the
Barrens (ignoring the exchange of the Sudden Reversals)? If my untapped
True Brujah only had 1 blood, could I tap a Coven or burn a Blood Tears
to give him enough blood to Rewind Time? Where does the window for
responding to the event end?
-Snapcase
LSJ
>
> In article <3DB68DEC...@white-wolf.com>, vte...@white-wolf.com
> says...
>
> > There is a slight parallel there with, for example, tapping a
> > contested Barrens. You cannot tap a contested Barrens, of course.
> > But if your Barrens is untapped (and uncontested) and someone
> > else plays a Barrens (to contest yours) *and* someone plays
> > Sudden Reversal to cancel the new Barrens, then you could tap
> > your Barrens (since it is not contested) draw a Sudden Reversal
> > and play the Sudden Reversal to cancel the previous Sudden.
> > Result: your Barrens is contested by the incoming (uncanceled)
> > Barrens, but you have managed to "sneak in" an opportunity to
> > tap the Barrens first.
>
> The question arises of "how much 'time' do people have to play
> response/cancelling effects after a card is played?"
As much as necessary. Same as how much time that have to play any
other effect.
> In the contested
> Barrens example above, could I tap the Barrens to draw an additional
> card, then tap Fragment, then tap Dreams of the Sphinx to finally get to
> my Sudden Reversal?
Sure.
> Could I then play a Rewind Time to cancel the
> Barrens (ignoring the exchange of the Sudden Reversals)?
Sure.
> If my untapped
> True Brujah only had 1 blood, could I tap a Coven or burn a Blood Tears
> to give him enough blood to Rewind Time?
Sure.
> Where does the window for
> responding to the event end?
When you move on.
Joshua Duffin
The Dawn Operation vs Wake comparison is the important/confusing
part, to my mind.
Josh
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ap734c$ri9k1$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
LSJ
>
> Scott - any response to this? Was posted late yesterday afternoon.
> The Dawn Operation vs Wake comparison is the important/confusing
> part, to my mind.
I didn't see anything that needed a response.
When you start modifying an action with non-as-announced modifiers,
then you've passed the as-announced timing.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> >
> > Scott - any response to this? Was posted late yesterday afternoon.
> > The Dawn Operation vs Wake comparison is the important/confusing
> > part, to my mind.
>
> I didn't see anything that needed a response.
>
> When you start modifying an action with non-as-announced modifiers,
> then you've passed the as-announced timing.
But then why are non-as-a-card-is-played reactions (Wake) allowed
during the as-a-card-is-played time?
If it's legal to tap The Barrens to get a card during "as a card
is played" because that might get you the Direct Intervention you
want to use, why not to play a Dawn Operation because it might get
you the Direct Intervention you want to use? The cards that *don't*
have "as a card is played" or "as an action is announced" on them
have no more restrictive text (or rules in the rulebook) than non-
card-from-hand effects (like The Barrens).
Josh
restricted: no vampires under capacity seventeen admitted without
methuselah
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB82354...@white-wolf.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott - any response to this? Was posted late yesterday afternoon.
> > > The Dawn Operation vs Wake comparison is the important/confusing
> > > part, to my mind.
> >
> > I didn't see anything that needed a response.
> >
> > When you start modifying an action with non-as-announced modifiers,
> > then you've passed the as-announced timing.
>
> But then why are non-as-a-card-is-played reactions (Wake) allowed
> during the as-a-card-is-played time?
It's not modifying the action.
> If it's legal to tap The Barrens to get a card during "as a card
> is played" because that might get you the Direct Intervention you
> want to use, why not to play a Dawn Operation because it might get
> you the Direct Intervention you want to use?
Because you're modifying the action.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DB82354...@white-wolf.com...
> > > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scott - any response to this? Was posted late yesterday afternoon.
> > > > The Dawn Operation vs Wake comparison is the important/confusing
> > > > part, to my mind.
> > >
> > > I didn't see anything that needed a response.
> > >
> > > When you start modifying an action with non-as-announced modifiers,
> > > then you've passed the as-announced timing.
> >
> > But then why are non-as-a-card-is-played reactions (Wake) allowed
> > during the as-a-card-is-played time?
>
> It's not modifying the action.
>
> > If it's legal to tap The Barrens to get a card during "as a card
> > is played" because that might get you the Direct Intervention you
> > want to use, why not to play a Dawn Operation because it might get
> > you the Direct Intervention you want to use?
>
> Because you're modifying the action.
It sounds like the distinction you're drawing is that you can't modify
the action (with Dawn Operation) because the action doesn't exist yet?
If that's the case, then how can you Wake, since there's no action to
react to yet?
If that's not the reason (the action does exist, it's just not
modifiable), why should an action be reactable-to but not modifiable?
It's so weird. :-)
The ruling that canceled Wakes were replaced immediately made sense
to me at the time, on the logic that when a card is canceled, *all*
of its text is canceled. So when a Political Stranglehold is Direct
Interventioned, later Strangleholds are illegal by *their* card text,
not by the first one's card text. And when a Conditioning is DIed,
you can still play a Foreshadowing Destruction instead.
But the odd loophole you're pointing out now seems potentially very
confusing. Here's an example, contrived, but still:
Anna declares an Arson action (and doesn't replace the Arson).
Bob plays Wake, intending to Rewind Time with Synesios (not
replacing the Wake).
Carol plays Direct Intervention on the Wake.
If Bob replaces the Wake and draws a Forced Awakening, can he now
play that and Rewind Time on the Arson? It seems that the "as
card X is played" window does not close for card X as soon as it
opens for card Y, since it's possible to Wake (which produces an
"as Wake is played" window) and then Rewind Time (another "as
Rewind Time is played" window), all during the original "as Arson
is played" window.
I don't see any obvious paradoxes here, but it definitely seems
confusing.
Josh
inconceivable?
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB8282D...@white-wolf.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > >
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3DB82354...@white-wolf.com...
> > > > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott - any response to this? Was posted late yesterday afternoon.
> > > > > The Dawn Operation vs Wake comparison is the important/confusing
> > > > > part, to my mind.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see anything that needed a response.
> > > >
> > > > When you start modifying an action with non-as-announced modifiers,
> > > > then you've passed the as-announced timing.
> > >
> > > But then why are non-as-a-card-is-played reactions (Wake) allowed
> > > during the as-a-card-is-played time?
> >
> > It's not modifying the action.
> >
> > > If it's legal to tap The Barrens to get a card during "as a card
> > > is played" because that might get you the Direct Intervention you
> > > want to use, why not to play a Dawn Operation because it might get
> > > you the Direct Intervention you want to use?
> >
> > Because you're modifying the action.
>
> It sounds like the distinction you're drawing is that you can't modify
> the action (with Dawn Operation) because the action doesn't exist yet?
No. The distinction is that once you modify it (with a "common" modifier
instead of a "as announced" modifier), you're not longer at the "as
announced" stage.
> If that's not the reason (the action does exist, it's just not
> modifiable), why should an action be reactable-to but not modifiable?
It's modifiable.
Treat Wake as a special case if needed.
> But the odd loophole you're pointing out now seems potentially very
> confusing. Here's an example, contrived, but still:
>
> Anna declares an Arson action (and doesn't replace the Arson).
>
> Bob plays Wake, intending to Rewind Time with Synesios (not
> replacing the Wake).
>
> Carol plays Direct Intervention on the Wake.
>
> If Bob replaces the Wake and draws a Forced Awakening, can he now
> play that and Rewind Time on the Arson? It seems that the "as
> card X is played" window does not close for card X as soon as it
> opens for card Y, since it's possible to Wake (which produces an
> "as Wake is played" window) and then Rewind Time (another "as
> Rewind Time is played" window), all during the original "as Arson
> is played" window.
>
> I don't see any obvious paradoxes here, but it definitely seems
> confusing.
This is nothing new.
Ascendance gets Suddened, but the Sudden itself is Suddened.
Now the Ascendance can again be Suddened.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes:
>This is nothing new.
>
>Ascendance gets Suddened, but the Sudden itself is Suddened.
>Now the Ascendance can again be Suddened.
It is entirely possible, however, to rule that the required sequence of
play would be:
Ascendance
Sudden Reversal 1 (cancelling Ascendance)
Sudden Reversal 2 (cancelling SR 1)
Sudden Reversal 3 (cancelling SR 2)
which leaves the same end result, for most practical effects.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D uk.* Committee Elections in progress
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D See uk.net.news.announce for more details
LSJ
>
> In message <3DB830EC...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes:
> >This is nothing new.
> >
> >Ascendance gets Suddened, but the Sudden itself is Suddened.
> >Now the Ascendance can again be Suddened.
>
> It is entirely possible, however, to rule that the required sequence of
> play would be:
>
> Ascendance
> Sudden Reversal 1 (cancelling Ascendance)
> Sudden Reversal 2 (cancelling SR 1)
> Sudden Reversal 3 (cancelling SR 2)
>
> which leaves the same end result, for most practical effects.
The sequence: Ascendance, Sudden, Sudden, Rewind Time [TEM]
is currently legal (and intuitively so).
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > It sounds like the distinction you're drawing is that you can't modify
> > the action (with Dawn Operation) because the action doesn't exist yet?
>
> No. The distinction is that once you modify it (with a "common" modifier
> instead of a "as announced" modifier), you're not longer at the "as
> announced" stage.
>
> > If that's not the reason (the action does exist, it's just not
> > modifiable), why should an action be reactable-to but not modifiable?
>
> It's modifiable.
But not by any cards that currently exist, if I read your previous
responses correctly - the "Rewind Timeable" step of announcing an
action, you said, comes before the "as announcing" step where
Seduction and similar cards are played, so as far as I can tell
there are no action modifiers that are legal when Wake is legal in
this example.
> Treat Wake as a special case if needed.
It's not at all intuitive to me to treat Wake as a special case.
If Wake is able to do this, then presumably you can also Rat's
Warning to Rewind Time on a bleed action card? Or Guard Dogs?
Or Forced Awakening? The distinction that "you can't play
general cards "as a card is played", only ones that specifically
say to play them at that time" makes sense once you know about
it, but for there to be an exception for Wake and similar cards
isn't what I would have expected.
Josh
i wish i was special
LSJ
> But not by any cards that currently exist, if I read your previous
> responses correctly - the "Rewind Timeable" step of announcing an
> action, you said, comes before the "as announcing" step where
> Seduction and similar cards are played, so as far as I can tell
> there are no action modifiers that are legal when Wake is legal in
> this example.
Rewind Timeable: "as the card is played"
Seductionable: "as the action is announced" (which comes later).
> > Treat Wake as a special case if needed.
>
> It's not at all intuitive to me to treat Wake as a special case.
?
It doesn't have to be intuitive.
Special case: Wake is playable "as an action card is played" even
if it would not normally be playable at that time if it were not
a special case.
> If Wake is able to do this, then presumably you can also Rat's
> Warning to Rewind Time on a bleed action card? Or Guard Dogs?
No. Wake would be a special case.
> Or Forced Awakening?
Of cource.
Forced Awakening *is* a Wake.
> The distinction that "you can't play
> general cards "as a card is played", only ones that specifically
> say to play them at that time" makes sense once you know about
> it, but for there to be an exception for Wake and similar cards
> isn't what I would have expected.
Which is why they'd be exceptions.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > But not by any cards that currently exist, if I read your previous
> > responses correctly - the "Rewind Timeable" step of announcing an
> > action, you said, comes before the "as announcing" step where
> > Seduction and similar cards are played, so as far as I can tell
> > there are no action modifiers that are legal when Wake is legal in
> > this example.
>
> Rewind Timeable: "as the card is played"
> Seductionable: "as the action is announced" (which comes later).
Right. So, although you wrote that the action is modifiable, it is
not modifiable by any existing action modifier.
> Of cource.
> Forced Awakening *is* a Wake.
Uh... I guess it is if you say it is. It's not like Wake/Forced
have some natural claim on extra playability vs Rat's Warning/
Guard Dogs, as far as I can see, though.
> > for there to be an exception for Wake and similar cards
> > isn't what I would have expected.
>
> Which is why they'd be exceptions.
But why should they be exceptions? I thought the argument was that
it was intuitive that Wake/Rewind Time should be legal, so therefore
it is legal. But if Wake has to be an exception for that to work,
why should it work? Wake being an exception is not intuitive.
Josh
at least not to my intuition...
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB846C8...@white-wolf.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > But not by any cards that currently exist, if I read your previous
> > > responses correctly - the "Rewind Timeable" step of announcing an
> > > action, you said, comes before the "as announcing" step where
> > > Seduction and similar cards are played, so as far as I can tell
> > > there are no action modifiers that are legal when Wake is legal in
> > > this example.
> >
> > Rewind Timeable: "as the card is played"
> > Seductionable: "as the action is announced" (which comes later).
>
> Right. So, although you wrote that the action is modifiable, it is
> not modifiable by any existing action modifier.
?
> > Of cource.
> > Forced Awakening *is* a Wake.
>
> Uh... I guess it is if you say it is.
Wake = { Wake with Evening's Freshness, Forced Awakening }
in my usage, which matches the common usage, I believe.
> It's not like Wake/Forced
> have some natural claim on extra playability vs Rat's Warning/
> Guard Dogs, as far as I can see, though.
Right.
If they had a natural claim, they wouldn't need an exception.
> > > for there to be an exception for Wake and similar cards
> > > isn't what I would have expected.
> >
> > Which is why they'd be exceptions.
>
> But why should they be exceptions? I thought the argument was that
> it was intuitive that Wake/Rewind Time should be legal, so therefore
> it is legal. But if Wake has to be an exception for that to work,
> why should it work? Wake being an exception is not intuitive.
You're crossing wires here.
The Wake to RT is intuitive.
The mechanism to allow Wake to be played is not.
Intuitive: you should be able to Wake and RT.
Mechanics: doesn't look that way
Exception: so it is, by making Wake an exception
Curevei
>in my usage, which matches the common usage, I believe.
My standard notation is:
Wake = WWEF = Wake With Evening's Freshness;
wake = Wake plus Forced Awakening and sometimes the rest of the untappy
reactions.
Saves having to type WWEF every time I'm specifically talking about the one
card.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > Right. So, although you wrote that the action is modifiable, it is
> > not modifiable by any existing action modifier.
>
> ?
I wrote:
> > If that's not the reason (the action does exist, it's just not
> > modifiable), why should an action be reactable-to but not modifiable?
You wrote:
> It's modifiable.
Apparently you don't consider this important. It's not, really,
if Wake/Forced is a special exception all to itself and is legal
in that timeslot only by fiat.
> > But why should they be exceptions? I thought the argument was that
> > it was intuitive that Wake/Rewind Time should be legal, so therefore
> > it is legal. But if Wake has to be an exception for that to work,
> > why should it work? Wake being an exception is not intuitive.
>
> You're crossing wires here.
>
> The Wake to RT is intuitive.
> The mechanism to allow Wake to be played is not.
>
> Intuitive: you should be able to Wake and RT.
> Mechanics: doesn't look that way
> Exception: so it is, by making Wake an exception
OK, fine. I'll just mention again that the Intuitive step is
not intuitive to me, probably because the usual mechanics of
the game suggested that it shouldn't work.
My argument above is that if an "intuitive" interaction
actually requires one of the cards in it to behave non-
intuitively, maybe that interaction isn't intuitive at all
and shouldn't have an exception created to make it work
"intuitively".
Josh
left my intuition at home, apparently
James Coupe
If the action is only announced later, why are we in the action already?
How does the action exist prior to the action being announced?
reyda
||| It is entirely possible, however, to rule that the required
||| sequence of play would be:
|||
||| Ascendance
||| Sudden Reversal 1 (cancelling Ascendance)
||| Sudden Reversal 2 (cancelling SR 1)
||| Sudden Reversal 3 (cancelling SR 2)
|||
||| which leaves the same end result, for most practical effects.
||
|| The sequence: Ascendance, Sudden, Sudden, Rewind Time [TEM]
|| is currently legal (and intuitively so).
precisely, it occured on saturday's tournament :
my prey plays Ecoterrorist. I play sudden on it. My predator plays sudden on
the sudden. My Krassimir then plays Rewind time on the Ecoterrorists.
fortunately nobody asked questions since everyone seemed to think that i
played rewind time on the Sudden (which would have been illegal, sudden
reversal being an out of turn). For the sake of the game i did not mention
it.
reyda
|| In message <3DB846C8...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
|| wolf.com> writes:
||| Seductionable: "as the action is announced" (which comes later).
||
|| If the action is only announced later, why are we in the action
|| already?
||
|| How does the action exist prior to the action being announced?
I guess the problem here is the timing of Wake + Rewind time...
since there must be an action to be able to play a reaction card (wake) and
another reaction card that nullifies the action...
why not errata Rewind time to make it playable by a tapped vampire ?
LSJ
>
> In message <3DB846C8...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes:
> >Seductionable: "as the action is announced" (which comes later).
>
> If the action is only announced later, why are we in the action already?
>
> How does the action exist prior to the action being announced?
By the play of the card. By fiat.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes:
>> How does the action exist prior to the action being announced?
>
>By the play of the card.
So we have an action prior to the action being announced?
Isn't that just a little bit non-intuitive?
LSJ
>
> In message <3DB92E6E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes:
> >> How does the action exist prior to the action being announced?
> >
> >By the play of the card.
>
> So we have an action prior to the action being announced?
>
> Isn't that just a little bit non-intuitive?
Same non-intuitiveness that allows Rewind Time to be played against
an action card, or Sudden Reversal to be played before the effects
of the master card are applied, etc.
Snapcase
> I guess the problem here is the timing of Wake + Rewind time...
> since there must be an action to be able to play a reaction card (wake) and
> another reaction card that nullifies the action...
>
> why not errata Rewind time to make it playable by a tapped vampire ?
No need to boost the power of Rewind Time. A better solution might be
to simply not allow a window for wakes to be played during the window
someone can play Rewind Time (and Direct Intervention for that
matter).
While it's intuitive to allow a vampire to wake to play any reaction
card, it's not intuitive that WWEF and FA are allowable duing this
window while a Seduction (and every other "as the action is announced"
modifier) is not. But allowing Seduction & company to be played would
result in scenarios where the Seduction is played before the Rewind
Time (what happens to the Seduction then?).
Another alternative is to errata Wake With Evening's Freshness and
Forced Awakening with text saying "playable as an action card is
played before announcement of the action" or "playable as an action
card is played before the action can be modified or reacted to" or
something similar. It's a bit confusing, and I know the rules team
likes to avoid errata (wisely so). I guess the "WWEF/FA are
exceptions" rule that LSJ has stated can be taken as law?
Here's a question- could I play the wake before the action card is
announced/Seduction can be played and _not_ play the rewind time, just
to play/cycle a card before the acting player gets a chance to modify
the action?
I think the resistance I'm having to this idea is that it's further
breaking the "acting player always has priority" rule that DI and RT
already break to a certain extent.
-Snapcase
bored at work
Joshua Duffin
"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15337c97.02102...@posting.google.com...
> No need to boost the power of Rewind Time. A better solution might be
> to simply not allow a window for wakes to be played during the window
> someone can play Rewind Time (and Direct Intervention for that
> matter).
Well, that's what I thought. :-)
> While it's intuitive to allow a vampire to wake to play any reaction
> card, it's not intuitive that WWEF and FA are allowable duing this
> window while a Seduction (and every other "as the action is announced"
> modifier) is not. But allowing Seduction & company to be played would
> result in scenarios where the Seduction is played before the Rewind
> Time (what happens to the Seduction then?).
That wouldn't be that hard to deal with; the natural response would
be that it's simply burned. A similar (though not precisely) situation
already exists when a vampire calls a referendum with a political action
card, plays Bribes, and then the vote is canceled with Delaying Tactics.
The Bribes remains in the ash heap. (The acting Methuselah gets the
pool for it, because it says to on the card, but nobody else does,
because the referendum never made it as far as votes being tallied.)
> Here's a question- could I play the wake before the action card is
> announced/Seduction can be played and _not_ play the rewind time, just
> to play/cycle a card before the acting player gets a chance to modify
> the action?
Presumably yes. If it's legal to play the Wake at all in a Wake/
Rewind Time combo, it must be legal to play the Wake without the
Rewind Time. Barring more exceptions to how things normally work,
of course. :-)
> I think the resistance I'm having to this idea is that it's further
> breaking the "acting player always has priority" rule that DI and RT
> already break to a certain extent.
That rule's not as ironclad a rule as you might think - it only applies
during any particular stage of "doing things before people get the
opportunity to respond". Because DI exists, everyone else can always
respond to any card you play before you play any following card (though
most of the time, DI is the only possible response at that point).
This same phenomenon has existed since the beginning of the game as a
result of Sudden Reversal's existence - it just didn't extend outside
the master phase most of the time until DI came along.
So now, the existence of Rewind Time essentially forces Wake/Forced
to be playable when Rewind Time would be. We're just a little
further down the slippery slope. ;-)
Josh
distance equals rate times time
Snapcase
says...
> That wouldn't be that hard to deal with; the natural response would
> be that it's simply burned.
That seems logical. Any action modifiers that it would cause a problem
with?
> Because DI exists, everyone else can always
> respond to any card you play before you play any following card (though
> most of the time, DI is the only possible response at that point).
Right. But DI doesn't potentially force WWEF/FA into this odd
exception.
> This same phenomenon has existed since the beginning of the game as a
> result of Sudden Reversal's existence - it just didn't extend outside
> the master phase most of the time until DI came along.
Right. But Sudden Reversal doesn't cause any other timing issues, since
the active player can't "modify" a master. The active methuselah won't
need priority again. It's a little more cut and dry.
> So now, the existence of Rewind Time essentially forces Wake/Forced
> to be playable when Rewind Time would be. We're just a little
> further down the slippery slope. ;-)
Unfortunately. I'd still prefer the suggested option of RT not being
useable with a wake, since the action you're reacting to isn't
"announced" yet, just "as the card is being played". One of the
wonderful things about this game is the overall lack of timing problems
(played Magic for many years; it's a nightmare I hope we continue to
avoid). The less exceptions the better, imo.
-Snapcase
tetragrammaton
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ap9a87$slqu5$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB8282D...@white-wolf.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > >
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3DB82354...@white-wolf.com...
> > > > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > > >
> It's so weird. :-)
>
<snip>
> And when a Conditioning is DIed,
> you can still play a Foreshadowing Destruction instead.
>
Wait wait: is the above conditioning-->direct intervented-->"plays another
bleed increaser"
correct under the actual "WweF and direct intervention ruling" ?
I mean, for which reason a
"you cannot play another action modifier" template is *not* still in effect
under DI (or similar effect),
while a "do not replace until after combat" template *is still* in effect
under DI (or similar)?
clarification welcome
thanks
Emiliano
<snip other stuff>
LSJ
> > you can still play a Foreshadowing Destruction instead.
> >
>
> Wait wait: is the above conditioning-->direct intervented-->"plays another
> bleed increaser"
> correct under the actual "WweF and direct intervention ruling" ?
Um, sure?
> I mean, for which reason a
> "you cannot play another action modifier" template is *not* still in effect
> under DI (or similar effect),
> while a "do not replace until after combat" template *is still* in effect
> under DI (or similar)?
The "Do Not Replace" is not still in effect.