Effect groupings and segregation
L. Scott Johnson
(debated) rulings for blood hunt referendums (part of the
otherwise-uninterruptable 5 steps of diablerie) has, if not the
backing of the rulebook text, at least a sort of nice simplicity:
Only effects which are referendum effects can be used in the
referendum.
(Where "referendum effect" is used to mean an effect which is only
applicable to a referendum - the "vote stuff").
NON-OFFICIAL RULING DISCUSSION FOLLOWS
It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
ruling:
Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
not usable at all during an action, etc.
Naturally, card text would be allowed to override this (so effects
which are usable as both combat effects and reaction effects could
be used as normal, like Reform Body).
So the Heideberg Castle would work as it does now even under its
original wording (and Fragment of the Book of Nod and The Barrens
would be ruled the same way - not usable during an action).
The case of burning the Edge "in response" to a successful bleed
to get rid of your Threat counters would evaporate, making that
decision a bit more strategic. This would also remove timing/newbie
questions about the above as well as how it works in relation to
an action to steal the edge.
The quirks of the War Ghoul tapping and burning herself in response
to an attempted Far Mastery or Entombment (or Drain Essence :-) would
also vanish.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu)
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson
L. Scott Johnson
>The quirks of the War Ghoul tapping and burning herself in response
>to an attempted Far Mastery or Entombment (or Drain Essence :-) would
>also vanish.
The last two are fictional quirks that would occur if the War
Ghoul's text didn't already prohibit in-combat usage :-). The ruling
would, in that case, merely allow the text to be shortened.
Joshua Duffin
"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:a8sn6d$utihp$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de...
> NON-OFFICIAL RULING DISCUSSION FOLLOWS
>
> It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
> and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
> ruling:
>
> Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
>
> Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
>
> That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
> not usable at all during an action, etc.
This is somewhat appealing. I have to admit, I've grown
very fond of using effects like Fragment, the Barrens,
Dreams of the Sphinx, etc. during combats. But you're
right, it would eliminate a lot of complicated stuff that
we have now (like being able to burn Temptation counters
during combat to take control of the opposing vampire,
immediately ending combat).
I guess the question is, do we like that complicated stuff?
Or is it just a headache and confusing to players? It
seems to me like it would reduce the number of 'sneaky
tricks' that people can pull based on opponents not noticing
something that Mr. Sneaky can do at the last minute, but would
increase the amount of thinking required *between* actions
(as to whether or not one should use the Barrens, Temptation
counters, etc).
I suppose the result would be that any effect not designated
(or obviously) an "X" effect would be usable only while the
game was in a "neutral" state? This would be fine for
effects you want to use on your own turn, but would probably
result in people having to interrupt other players to say
"wait, before you take that action, I want to do Y". ie,
you'd still have people burning the Edge for Threat counters
before getting bled, they'd just have to do it right before
they expect their predator to take a successful bleed action
rather than during the bleed action; this is liable, in
practice, to result in predators declaring bleeds and the
prey then saying "wait, back up, I wanted to burn the Edge"
(since the prey might want to not burn the Edge if she
expected to keep it).
Josh
burning the midnight edge
CurtAdams
>It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
>and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
>ruling:
>Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
>Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
>That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
>not usable at all during an action, etc.
Explicit rules on when effects can be used will clear up a host
of (mostly corner-case) difficulties. However, the type of an
effect is often not clear, and in any case there should be explicit
rules on which type each effect is. Some effects can be readily
pegged as combat or referendum, but you're going to need a list
of the remainder, and that is effectively errata.
Also, isn't "action" more complicated? Some effects (+ intercept)
have to happen during actions, perhaps in a particular phase. Others,
like Temptation, are best restricted to between-action just to avert
a host of weird stuff that can arise from minions switching sides
or disappearing in the middle of an action.
It would be nice to have a list of the cards which could be affected
by this ruling, just to know what's in question. I assume many
effects define their own timing well enough and don't have to
be on the "affected" list. Personally, I prefer
lax rules on play and errating cards like War Ghoul if they're enough
of a problem, on the grounds that this shift generates a lot of
effective errata.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
tetragrammaton
"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:a8sn6d$utihp$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de...
> The discussion on "vote stuff" as it applies under the current
> (debated) rulings for blood hunt referendums (part of the
> otherwise-uninterruptable 5 steps of diablerie) has, if not the
> backing of the rulebook text, at least a sort of nice simplicity:
>
> Only effects which are referendum effects can be used in the
> referendum.
> (Where "referendum effect" is used to mean an effect which is only
> applicable to a referendum - the "vote stuff").
>
> NON-OFFICIAL RULING DISCUSSION FOLLOWS
>
> It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
> and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
> ruling:
>
> Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
>
> Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
>
I think that this would not spare us oddities.
Much like the one i submitted you (remaining unanswered)
in the "diablerie and sudden death" thread.
If Husamettin diablerizes an older vamp with a contract,
he gets the master card granted by the older vamp *before*
the BH referendum, right? but he would get the master card granted by his
ability *after* the BH vote...
By the same token, we get similar cases:
a) Nakova is diablerized with an amaranth in combat: the opposing vamp takes
the 4 damage *before* or *after* the BH vote ?
b) Unre diablerizes a vamp in combat, she gets the trap counter *before* or
*after* the BH vote ?
That's was my point:
if an effect triggers during step 4 of the diablerie (the burning -
husamettin
can get a master card
if the vamp got a contract on him/her - the vamp opposing Nakove takes the
4 damage - Unre gets her trap counter) ), why delay it
until the "uninterrupable" step 5 (bh vote) is resolved...?
(but the bh is interruppable anyway with "vote stuff").
> That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
> not usable at all during an action, etc.
>
> Naturally, card text would be allowed to override this (so effects
> which are usable as both combat effects and reaction effects could
> be used as normal, like Reform Body).
>
> So the Heideberg Castle would work as it does now even under its
> original wording (and Fragment of the Book of Nod and The Barrens
> would be ruled the same way - not usable during an action).
>
Simplifiying the rule enviroment could be nice and advised.
However, i wonder about how specialized and permanent effects
could deal with the ruling you suggest above.
We would need a lot of erratas i think, for example, during an action or
combat, could you use:
1) Synesios "pay 1 pool to get another master phase..." ability.?
2) Nu "untap" ability. ?
3) Both Akram and Jalal Sayad "burn 1 blood after combat to begin a new
one.." ability verus a S:CE that continues the action (like form of mist).
The action continues, so, their ability could be used
"during" the action ?
4) The burning of temptation counters to get the "untap & control" effect
before/during a combat (during an action too) ?
5) Alexandra's Ability ?
6) Ruthor's Hand Ability ?
These are the first to come to mind, but there are many others, i'm sure.
Emiliano, vekn Prince ofm Rome
<snip>
> --
L. Scott Johnson
>"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
>> and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
>> ruling:
>> Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
>> Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
>> That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
>> not usable at all during an action, etc.
>result in people having to interrupt other players to say
>"wait, before you take that action, I want to do Y". ie,
>you'd still have people burning the Edge for Threat counters
>before getting bled, they'd just have to do it right before
>they expect their predator to take a successful bleed action
>rather than during the bleed action; this is liable, in
>practice, to result in predators declaring bleeds and the
>prey then saying "wait, back up, I wanted to burn the Edge"
Well, you've already got that "problem" with Heidelberg. The
proposed ruling would merely amplify that problem. Perhaps to
untolerable levels.
And if you give your prey the opportunity to burn the Edge
and she declines, she doesn't get to back up after finding
out that you're taking a bleed action, of course.
L. Scott Johnson
>sjoh...@math.sc.edu writes:
>
>>It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
>>and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
>>ruling:
>
>>Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
>
>>Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
>
>>That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
>>not usable at all during an action, etc.
>
>Explicit rules on when effects can be used will clear up a host
>of (mostly corner-case) difficulties. However, the type of an
>effect is often not clear, and in any case there should be explicit
>rules on which type each effect is. Some effects can be readily
>pegged as combat or referendum, but you're going to need a list
>of the remainder, and that is effectively errata.
?
It seems that all of the cards are clearly covered by the proposed
ruling. Do you have any in mind ("the remainder") that would need
additional piecemeal rulings?
>Also, isn't "action" more complicated? Some effects (+ intercept)
>have to happen during actions, perhaps in a particular phase. Others,
>like Temptation, are best restricted to between-action just to avert
>a host of weird stuff that can arise from minions switching sides
>or disappearing in the middle of an action.
That doesn't seem complicated.
>It would be nice to have a list of the cards which could be affected
>by this ruling, just to know what's in question. I assume many
All of them.
>effects define their own timing well enough and don't have to
>be on the "affected" list. Personally, I prefer
>lax rules on play and errating cards like War Ghoul if they're enough
>of a problem, on the grounds that this shift generates a lot of
>effective errata.
?
Changing a rule is errata to the rule. It is much different than
the equivalent card-by-card errata in terms of volume of errata
("a lot of errata"). Cf. the change in aggravated damage rules, vote
pushing, NRA, etc.
LSJ
>in the "diablerie and sudden death" thread.
>If Husamettin diablerizes an older vamp with a contract,
>he gets the master card granted by the older vamp *before*
>the BH referendum, right? but he would get the master card granted by his
>ability *after* the BH vote...
You mean the discipline card? Yes. [6.5.5.4]
Ability? Right. [indivisible ruling]
>By the same token, we get similar cases:
>a) Nakova is diablerized with an amaranth in combat: the opposing vamp takes
>the 4 damage *before* or *after* the BH vote ?
After the diablerie. Before the diablerie is not an option, since the vampire hasn't been burned yet.
>b) Unre diablerizes a vamp in combat, she gets the trap counter *before* or
>*after* the BH vote ?
Who cares? The effect is exactly the same.
(Anyway: the effect occurs after the burning -> after the diablerie -> after the 5th step of diablerie -> after the BH referendum)
> That's was my point:
> if an effect triggers during step 4 of the diablerie (the burning -
> husamettin
> can get a master card
> if the vamp got a contract on him/her - the vamp opposing Nakove takes the
> 4 damage - Unre gets her trap counter) ), why delay it
> until the "uninterrupable" step 5 (bh vote) is resolved...?
> (but the bh is interruppable anyway with "vote stuff").
The diablerie is uninterruptable - all of it, not just step 5.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
L. Scott Johnson
>"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>
>> It seems that this sort of rule would make many assorted corner-case
>> and not-so-corner-case oddities disappear. Consider the non-official
>> ruling:
>>
>> Only effects which are X effects can be used during an X.
>>
>> Where X is any of: "action", "combat", or "referendum".
>
>I think that this would not spare us oddities.
>Much like the one i submitted you (remaining unanswered)
"me"? I'm not posting as the net.rep here. See headers, etc.
> [snip stuff that belongs in another thread]
>> That is: effects which are not only usable during an action are
>> not usable at all during an action, etc.
>>
>> Naturally, card text would be allowed to override this (so effects
>> which are usable as both combat effects and reaction effects could
>> be used as normal, like Reform Body).
>>
>> So the Heideberg Castle would work as it does now even under its
>> original wording (and Fragment of the Book of Nod and The Barrens
>> would be ruled the same way - not usable during an action).
>>
>
>Simplifiying the rule enviroment could be nice and advised.
>However, i wonder about how specialized and permanent effects
>could deal with the ruling you suggest above.
>We would need a lot of erratas i think, for example, during an action or
>combat, could you use:
You seem to have missed one of the "only"s in the proposed rule.
"only effects which are *only* usable during X can be used during X.
other effects cannot be." I'll refer to this as [R] in the following.
>1) Synesios "pay 1 pool to get another master phase..." ability.?
By the rule, no. This is a good example of a problem with the rule
(and thus, exactly what this thread was started to discuss). Quite
naturally, effects which are "as <other card> is played..." effects
should be usable whenever the "<other card> is played" event occurs.
So even though Sudden Reversal is usable outside of an action, it
should still be usable to cancel, say, an XTC-Laced blood or a
Rotschreck.
Thanks for pointing that out.
>2) Nu "untap" ability. ?
No. [R]
>3) Both Akram and Jalal Sayad "burn 1 blood after combat to begin a new
>one.." ability verus a S:CE that continues the action (like form of mist).
>The action continues, so, their ability could be used
> "during" the action ?
Yes. (don't even see what the confusion could be here - combat is
always a part of some action).
>4) The burning of temptation counters to get the "untap & control" effect
>before/during a combat (during an action too) ?
No. [R]
>5) Alexandra's Ability ?
No. [R]
>6) Ruthor's Hand Ability ?
No. [R]
>These are the first to come to mind, but there are many others, i'm sure.
All (or almost all) of which are handled equally well by the rule, I'm
sure.
Joshua Duffin
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >result in people having to interrupt other players to say
> >"wait, before you take that action, I want to do Y".
>
> Well, you've already got that "problem" with Heidelberg. The
> proposed ruling would merely amplify that problem. Perhaps to
> untolerable levels.
Right. This is my only major reservation about the hypothetical
rule. And that it'd be a fairly major change to the rules that
people are used to, enough so that you'd need to consider whether
the benefit for new players (assuming that they find this easier
to understand than the current situation) outweighs the annoyance
of old players (assuming that they don't like change).
(I agree that "play when Thing X is played" effects should be
considered to break this rule, too, so Sudden Reversal would
be playable against Gangrel Conspiracy - even though the
Conspiracy is being played during a Blood Hunt referendum - and
Synesios' ability would be usable when you played the Sudden,
too. This adds a little complexity but it's a pretty intuitive
way to play, I think, and Shadowfist uses essentially the same
rule for "times that certain effects can't normally be played".)
> And if you give your prey the opportunity to burn the Edge
> and she declines, she doesn't get to back up after finding
> out that you're taking a bleed action, of course.
Sure, just like you don't get to back up and play Sudden
Reversal on somebody's Hunting Ground after they've used their
Blood Doll, if you weren't paying attention when they played
it. In casual play people will tend to skip most of the
possible 'wait for responses' phases of their turn and then
people want to back up at least slightly. Fine for tournament
games to require everyone to pay attention and call for
responses, of course.
Josh
nanoo
LSJ
> > and she declines, she doesn't get to back up after finding
> > out that you're taking a bleed action, of course.
>
> Sure, just like you don't get to back up and play Sudden
> Reversal on somebody's Hunting Ground after they've used their
> Blood Doll, if you weren't paying attention when they played
> it. In casual play people will tend to skip most of the
If you didn't get the opportunity to respond (i.e., the acting
player played Hunting Ground and then used the Blood Doll
before you decided whether to SR the HG or not), then you should
back up or, if not possible, find some other remedy.
Similarly, the acting player cannot skip his opponent's opportunity
to play pre-range effects by maneuvering while his opponent is
"not paying attention". You cannot deprive other players of their
opportunity to respond.
See the lengthy thread(s) on VTES in LA:
http://www.vtesinla.org/msgboard.mv
tetragrammaton
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> NON-OFFICIAL RULING DISCUSSION FOLLOWS
> >I think that this would not spare us oddities.
> >Much like the one i submitted you (remaining unanswered)
>
> "me"? I'm not posting as the net.rep here. See headers, etc.
>
I'm sorry, i didn't noticed that.
> > [snip stuff that belongs in another thread]
>
<snip>
> >> So the Heideberg Castle would work as it does now even under its
> >> original wording (and Fragment of the Book of Nod and The Barrens
> >> would be ruled the same way - not usable during an action).
> >>
> >
> >Simplifiying the rule enviroment could be nice and advised.
> >However, i wonder about how specialized and permanent effects
> >could deal with the ruling you suggest above.
> >We would need a lot of erratas i think, for example, during an action or
> >combat, could you use:
>
> You seem to have missed one of the "only"s in the proposed rule.
> "only effects which are *only* usable during X can be used during X.
> other effects cannot be." I'll refer to this as [R] in the following.
<snip on various would-be question>
> >4) The burning of temptation counters to get the "untap & control" effect
> >before/during a combat (during an action too) ?
>
> No. [R]
>
No ? smmh, but burning the corruption counters
is worded quite similar to the temptation counters,
and by the venenation the corruption c. seem
quite usable *during* an action.
> All (or almost all) of which are handled equally well by the rule, I'm
> sure.
>
I'm sure we would need a lot of errata; however,
if that semplifies the game rules,
it would be very welcome.
Emiliano
> --
tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CB2DE16...@white-wolf.com...
If that were true, then we could have a time segment
to make activable both march halcyon and archon's
ability, or to play an absolution of the
diabolist/city gangrel connection,
"interrupting" the diablerie in process.
Emiliano
> --
L. Scott Johnson
>> >4) The burning of temptation counters to get the "untap & control" effect
>> >before/during a combat (during an action too) ?
>>
>> No. [R]
>>
>
>No ? smmh, but burning the corruption counters
>is worded quite similar to the temptation counters,
>and by the venenation the corruption c. seem
>quite usable *during* an action.
Are you talking about Corruption counters or Temptation counters?
Corruption counters are not inherently burnable for any effect.
A Corruption action is "only during an action", the burning of
counters effect of that action is part of the resolution, so it
is usable during an action. Similarly Venenation's effect.
Temptation counters are not, so are not.
See card text.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CB3017A...@white-wolf.com...
> If you didn't get the opportunity to respond (i.e., the acting
> player played Hunting Ground and then used the Blood Doll
> before you decided whether to SR the HG or not), then you should
> back up or, if not possible, find some other remedy.
>
> Similarly, the acting player cannot skip his opponent's opportunity
> to play pre-range effects by maneuvering while his opponent is
> "not paying attention". You cannot deprive other players of their
> opportunity to respond.
Of course. That's exactly what I'm saying: that not depriving
people of their opportunity to respond will result in backing
up sometimes, or else lots of prompting. Either of which is
fine, but slightly cumbersome.
> See the lengthy thread(s) on VTES in LA:
> http://www.vtesinla.org/msgboard.mv
Jeez, you're not kidding about lengthy. I didn't know you
were so patient as to be able to have discussions like that
on web-discussion-boards too. :-)
I'm a little amused to see that they were just discussing
this same topic there, though. And in all honesty, surprised
that they can't resolve more of these issues by reference to
the concept of sportsmanship.
Josh
tries to be a good sport
Robert Goudie
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3CB3017A...@white-wolf.com...
>
> > If you didn't get the opportunity to respond (i.e., the acting
> > player played Hunting Ground and then used the Blood Doll
> > before you decided whether to SR the HG or not), then you should
> > back up or, if not possible, find some other remedy.
> >
> > Similarly, the acting player cannot skip his opponent's opportunity
> > to play pre-range effects by maneuvering while his opponent is
> > "not paying attention". You cannot deprive other players of their
> > opportunity to respond.
>
> Of course. That's exactly what I'm saying: that not depriving
> people of their opportunity to respond will result in backing
> up sometimes, or else lots of prompting. Either of which is
> fine, but slightly cumbersome.
>
> > See the lengthy thread(s) on VTES in LA:
> > http://www.vtesinla.org/msgboard.mv
>
> Jeez, you're not kidding about lengthy. I didn't know you
> were so patient as to be able to have discussions like that
> on web-discussion-boards too. :-)
Amazing, isn't he. :)
> I'm a little amused to see that they were just discussing
> this same topic there, though. And in all honesty, surprised
> that they can't resolve more of these issues by reference to
> the concept of sportsmanship.
That's a fine thing to reference if everyone agrees to what is or
isn't sportsmanlike. Sadly, it only takes 1 (in our case, 2)
person(s) to define sportsmanship in such a narrow way that the game
becomes nearly unplayable and certainly unenjoyable.
-Robert
Ben Swainbank
develop into interesting strategies. The Scrying the Secrets and
Slaughterhouse deck-sniping combo that's come up recently is one
example.
So, I'd be hesitant to give that up (and, worse, add new rules)
without good reasons.
Undoubtedly this came from some old, long, and painful thread. But can
you (someone) provide a reminder of why the bloodhunts-are-atomic
ruling was required in the first place?
I can see why Heidelberg needed some clarification. But its not as
obvious to me why more controls where needed around a bloodhunt. Sure,
a diabolist might self-destruct to burn the Camarilla Segregation in
the middle of his bloodhunt. But I'd think the vote would go on, and
then the outcome would be largely irrelevant. The defendant martyred
herself during the trial.
Perhaps there's a better, more ambiguous example that I'm not aware
of.
>
> The quirks of the War Ghoul tapping and burning herself in response
> to an attempted Far Mastery or Entombment (or Drain Essence :-) would
> also vanish.
Ohhh... good one. Never thought of that...
-Ben Swainbank
LSJ
> can you (someone) provide a reminder of why the bloodhunts-are-atomic
> ruling was required in the first place?
Handling problems, avoiding oddities, or resolving ambiguities with:
Ritual of the Bitter Rose
Reform Body
Heidelberg Castle
Day Operation
Freak Drive
Illusions of the Kindred and Amaranth
etc.
L. Scott Johnson
>Some of those tap-whenever-I-want effects can be fun to find and
>develop into interesting strategies. The Scrying the Secrets and
>Slaughterhouse deck-sniping combo that's come up recently is one
>example.
The strategy would be slightly weakened by the proposed ruling,
yes. But it would stil be an interesting strategy and still be
worthwhile, IMO.
Still, it seems that the X=action aspect may be more trouble than it's
worth. The X=combat and X=referendum cases, however, don't seem quite
so.
Ben Swainbank
> Ben Swainbank top-posted:
(Is this a gentle netiquette hint?)
> > can you (someone) provide a reminder of why the bloodhunts-are-atomic
> > ruling was required in the first place?
>
> Handling problems, avoiding oddities, or resolving ambiguities with:
>
> Ritual of the Bitter Rose
> Reform Body
> Heidelberg Castle
> Day Operation
> Freak Drive
> Illusions of the Kindred and Amaranth
>
> etc.
Oh yeah. Them.
Some of these problems seem to come from the whole
Bloodhunt-isn't-part-of-the-action thing. This rule also makes a
Bloodhunt a special referendum with different rules from all the others,
and has always seemed kludgy, confusing, and un-fun to explain to new
players.
Wouldn't it be easier if an action that results in a bloodhunt (torpor
visit or anything that leads to an amaranth-inducing combat) is treated
just like any other action that results in a referendum? You'd probably
want to make it automatic instead of something some Methuselah has to
"call". But that wouldn't be a big change.
The bloodhunt is then after the combat (if any), but inside the action.
The diabolist could toss a Bewitching Oration in his own defense (if he
was acting), and other vamps could toss out Dread Gazes. But that's got
good flavor.
This wanders into the ambiguity between "political action" and
referendum. Presumably, a bloodhunt would be a referendum without a
political action. Do any of these exist already? Are there currently
times when you can play Bewitching Oration but not tap Demonstration?
Can you tap Demonstration during a vote to burn an Anarch Revolt? Or is
this a distinction without a difference?*
But if we return to the troublemakers list with this change in mind...
Ritual of the Bitter Rose - During the diablerie. Before the bloodhunt.
Reform Body - During the diablerie. Before the bloodhunt.
Heidelberg Castle - Can't tap. Action aint over.
Day Operation - Action aint over.
Freak Drive - Action aint over.
Illusions of the Kindred and Amaranth - Combat is over. Illusion is
gone.
Seems like it would simplify a bunch of things. It doesn't (entirely)
address the timing of moving the blood and equipment, getting a master,
and burning the victim. But that seems less controversial.
-Ben Swainbank
*Now that I think about it, I'm guessing "political action" is used to
indicate non action mod/reaction cards (Quentin, Demonstration) effects
that can currently be used in everything but a bloodhunt? Right? If so,
treating bloodhunts like other referendums would allow us to eliminate
this distinction.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
lehrbuch
> Still, it seems that the X=action aspect may be more trouble than it's
> worth. The X=combat and X=referendum cases, however, don't seem quite
> so.
Personally, I like the proposed rule.
I think, an equivalent statement of it would be:
During the action of a minion, only other minions may react. A
Methuselah cannot react, for example by using an effect granted to
them by a card in play.
A clarification would need to be made that cards which grant intercept
or stealth, for example [KRCG News Radio] may be used during the
determine-blockers-phase of an action. But, I think, this
clarification needs to be made under your version of the rule, as
well.
Most other tap-for-effect or master-out-of-turn cards, that need to be
used during a type of action, already have card text that specify when
they can be used, and so still operate under this rule.
Combat and referendum are subsets of action, so no separate statement
needs to made concerning them. A blood hunt is a special type of
referendum, which (by the rulebook) minions cannot react to. This
rule prevents any Methuselah reaction, except those with card text
stating they are usable during referendum.
I'm not certain that much is gained by restating the rule like this,
but it may aid in thinking about it.
* lehrbuch
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> Ben Swainbank top-posted:
> > can you (someone) provide a reminder of why the bloodhunts-are-atomic
> > ruling was required in the first place?
>
> Handling problems, avoiding oddities, or resolving ambiguities with:
>
> Ritual of the Bitter Rose
> Reform Body
> Heidelberg Castle
> Day Operation
> Freak Drive
> Illusions of the Kindred and Amaranth
By card text, I don't think FD needs to be there. (In ref to Diablery)
Raille
Raille
Ben Swainbank wrote:
>
> But if we return to the troublemakers list with this change in mind...
>
> Ritual of the Bitter Rose - During the diablerie. Before the bloodhunt.
> Reform Body - During the diablerie. Before the bloodhunt.
> Heidelberg Castle - Can't tap. Action aint over.
> Day Operation - Action aint over.
> Freak Drive - Action aint over.
[for] Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that
is not blocked. Untap this vampire.
So action does not need to be over. Unless you use the SUP.
Raille
Ben Swainbank
> is not blocked. Untap this vampire.
>
> So action does not need to be over. Unless you use the SUP.
>
Really? Doesn't the word "after" imply that it does need to be over.
Otherwise it would be during.
-Ben Swainbank
Joshua Duffin
> bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote:
> >Some of those tap-whenever-I-want effects can be fun to find and
> >develop into interesting strategies. The Scrying the Secrets and
> >Slaughterhouse deck-sniping combo that's come up recently is one
> >example.
>
> The strategy would be slightly weakened by the proposed ruling,
> yes. But it would stil be an interesting strategy and still be
> worthwhile, IMO.
>
> Still, it seems that the X=action aspect may be more trouble than it's
> worth. The X=combat and X=referendum cases, however, don't seem quite
> so.
I'd actually prefer that, if this became a rule for combat and
referendums, it be a rule for actions too. It seems to me
like we don't gain enough simplification of timing issues by
applying it to combat and referendums to justify that much of a
change to the rules. Which I guess is to say, if we're going
to change the rules for the sake of simplicity, I'd say we should
go all out. :-)
Josh
Halcyan 2
>very fond of using effects like Fragment, the Barrens,
>Dreams of the Sphinx, etc. during combats. But you're
>right, it would eliminate a lot of complicated stuff that
>we have now (like being able to burn Temptation counters
>during combat to take control of the opposing vampire,
>immediately ending combat).
I think it would be way too much trouble for what it's worth.
By classifying every effect in the game into a few distinct categories, we're
going to have lots of fun trying to memorize them all. It's sort of similar to
the type designations for allies and retainers (which I do like because at the
very least they're fairly intuitive). But in this case, we'll have to memorize
that The Barrens and The Fragment are in Category A. Temptation is Category B.
Heidelburg is C. Etc, etc. It just seems like it'll just become a giant mess!
Halcyan 2
Sten During
Halcyan 2 wrote:
A generic rule coule be:
Tapping effects may only occur during a players Untap Phase, Master
Phase, Between minion actions and Influence Phase unless the effect
states otherwise.
How many strange and unwanted sideeffects would this cause?
Sten During
Raille
Perhaps, but at what point have you been 'not blocked' I think the
after means that after you fail to block.
What does it mean to you and why?
Raille
L. Scott Johnson
No (aditional) memorization needed.
Look at the effect. Is it usable at a time other than during X? If so,
it cannot be used during X.
If it can only be used during X, then it can be used during X.
(With the exception for cards that are played "when a card is played"
can be played if the target card is played during X, even though the
general (canceling) card could be played outside of X.)
Joshua Duffin
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020412051519...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> I think it would be way too much trouble for what it's worth.
>
> By classifying every effect in the game into a few distinct categories,
we're
> going to have lots of fun trying to memorize them all. It's sort of
similar to
> the type designations for allies and retainers (which I do like because at
the
> very least they're fairly intuitive). But in this case, we'll have to
memorize
> that The Barrens and The Fragment are in Category A. Temptation is
Category B.
> Heidelburg is C. Etc, etc. It just seems like it'll just become a giant
mess!
I think it's less messy than you're assuming here - almost
all such cards would be the same category, Category Cannot-
Be-Used-During-Actions. :-) Barrens, Fragment, Temptation,
Heidelberg all fail to have text saying you *can* or *must*
use them during an action, combat, or referendum, and therefore
wouldn't be usable during any of the three.
It'd basically be a sweeping reversal of the current position
that "whatever isn't specifically prohibited is allowed" in favor
of a "whatever isn't specifically allowed is prohibited" stance.
So you couldn't do *anything* during an action unless the card
either told you you could, or was a cardtype that *has* to be
played during an action (eg reaction, action modifier, combat
card).
Josh
big change though
Joshua Duffin
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:3CB6A79...@netg.se...
> A generic rule coule be:
>
> Tapping effects may only occur during a players Untap Phase, Master
> Phase, Between minion actions and Influence Phase unless the effect
> states otherwise.
>
> How many strange and unwanted sideeffects would this cause?
This is what the "during X only X effects" rule would do,
except that the "during X" rule would also restrict effects
that don't require tapping (eg using Temptation's counters).
(The "during X" rule would also be more restrictive in that
it additionally restricts in-combat and during-referendum
effects to those specifically usable at those times, but most
effects would already be restricted just by the during-action
part.)
Well, and the "during X" rule wouldn't restrict things done
during the discard phase either, but I don't know if you
meant to exclude that one. :-)
Josh
Curevei
>isn't sportsmanlike. Sadly, it only takes 1 (in our case, 2)
>person(s) to define sportsmanship in such a narrow way that the game
>becomes nearly unplayable and certainly unenjoyable.
>
>-Robert
Given the thread on the Austin group's troubles, these sorts of comments make
me wonder if the game is becoming less enjoyable for those who routinely play
tournaments.
Has the game been getting to serious to be fun?
Joshua Duffin
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020412150935...@mb-cs.aol.com...
Good question.
I haven't found that to be the case at all with the people
I play with around Washington DC. But then I don't think
we've actually started taking the game "too seriously".
It's all well and good, as far as I'm concerned, to both
try to make sure the rules are followed pretty strictly and
to try to get everyone on the same page as far as 'playing
to win' goes. But getting nasty about it just isn't cool.
(Not implying that anyone anywhere *has* gotten nasty, just
saying I don't think it's cool, and that I'm glad nobody
in the games I've seen has done it.)
We've been playing tournaments pretty regularly lately;
nearly one a month. (Seven in the last ten.) Of course,
not everybody in the area makes it to every tournament.
I think someone on the LA message board made the point that,
as a multiside game, VTES can probably never be played at
the same level of competitiveness as, say, tennis. (Because
of the kingmaking issue, mainly.) As such, it seems that
trying to force 'serious' competitiveness into the game
leads somewhat inevitably to bad behavior and hurt feelings.
Or something.
Josh
or not
Raille
Curevei wrote:
>
> Has the game been getting to serious to be fun?
No
Never
Raille
Frederick Scott
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> >That's a fine thing to reference if everyone agrees to what is or
> >isn't sportsmanlike. Sadly, it only takes 1 (in our case, 2)
> >person(s) to define sportsmanship in such a narrow way that the game
> >becomes nearly unplayable and certainly unenjoyable.
>
> me wonder if the game is becoming less enjoyable for those who routinely play
> tournaments.
>
> Has the game been getting to serious to be fun?
I don't think the Austin playgroup's issues show anything of the sort. If anything
it shows the opposite. I look at stuff like this in light of the concept of enough
monkeys banging on enough typewriters that they'll eventually write Shakespeare's
entire collected works by accident. We have enough monkeys in this game that sooner
or later you'll hear about all sorts of things going on, including some stuff that
may not sound terribly positive when translated onto Usenet but ought to be considered
a local problem unless you know of a specific reason to look at it otherwise.
As far as Robert's comment above goes, it's a very perceptive observation which was
as true the day the Jyhad as invented as it is today. And just as true for other
games as this one, I might add. You can't expect "sportsmanship" to resolve what
needs to be defined unambiguously in the game rules or you're just asking for trouble.
Or looked at from a different perspective, if the game requires that players create
involved informal protocols to deal with game mechanics, I think something's very
definitely wrong with the game.
Fred
Sten During
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> This is what the "during X only X effects" rule would do,
> except that the "during X" rule would also restrict effects
> that don't require tapping (eg using Temptation's counters).
> (The "during X" rule would also be more restrictive in that
> it additionally restricts in-combat and during-referendum
> effects to those specifically usable at those times, but most
> effects would already be restricted just by the during-action
> part.)
>
> Well, and the "during X" rule wouldn't restrict things done
> during the discard phase either, but I don't know if you
> meant to exclude that one. :-)
>
Ok, I see (and I forgot about discard).
What I was aiming at was the multitude of effects (which I
incorrectly placed all of into the 'tapping' cathegory)
which lack an explicit "during X". An example would be
Vagabond Mystic.
I think I may have been too thorough though. Most of the
problems would vanish if effects not explicitly usable
during the course of a minionaction were banned from them,
but I also have a feeling that a few new problems would
pop up instead.
Sten During
Joshua Duffin
> What I was aiming at was the multitude of effects (which I
> incorrectly placed all of into the 'tapping' cathegory)
> which lack an explicit "during X". An example would be
> Vagabond Mystic.
Right. The "during X, only effects that say to use them
during X may be used" proposal is intended to restrict
things like Vagabond Mystic, burning of Temptation counters
to take control of the minion, etc, to not be used during
actions. (It would also only allow combat-specific effects
during combat and referendum-specific effects during
referendums, but those are slightly different pieces of the
proposed rule.)
> I think I may have been too thorough though. Most of the
> problems would vanish if effects not explicitly usable
> during the course of a minionaction were banned from them,
> but I also have a feeling that a few new problems would
> pop up instead.
They might. But can you think of any? Obviously it would
eliminate certain functionalities of cards as played under
the current system (eg tapping and burning a War Ghoul to
burn a location rather than letting it be stolen when someone
declares a Far Mastery action against it). But those may be
functionalities that would be better lost than kept. :-)
Josh
finders keepers
Joshua Duffin
"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
news:3CB77963...@removethis.com...
> > Robert Goudie wrote:
> > >That's a fine thing to reference if everyone agrees to what is or
> > >isn't sportsmanlike. Sadly, it only takes 1 (in our case, 2)
> > >person(s) to define sportsmanship in such a narrow way that the game
> > >becomes nearly unplayable and certainly unenjoyable.
> As far as Robert's comment above goes, it's a very perceptive observation
which was
> as true the day the Jyhad as invented as it is today. And just as true
for other
> games as this one, I might add. You can't expect "sportsmanship" to
resolve what
> needs to be defined unambiguously in the game rules or you're just asking
for trouble.
No, sportsmanship can't take the place of explicit rules, but
in a game like this the explicit rules can be involved enough
that people get tired of asking "Do you DI that? Do you DI
that? Do you DI that?" around the table for every card played.
And if you skip over steps like that, people will need to say
"wait back up" when they actually *do* want to DI something.
And when that happens, if everyone's on the same page as far
as being good sports and not trying to take advantage of the
situation from either side, it's fine. But if people decide
to be jerks about it, the game becomes less fun.
> Or looked at from a different perspective, if the game requires that
players create
> involved informal protocols to deal with game mechanics, I think
something's very
> definitely wrong with the game.
That may be, but is it something fixable? As a multiplayer
game V:TES will always have the feature (or problem) of
kingmaking. Also as a multiplayer game, it will always
have the problem (or feature) of being able to try to mess
with the other players to your advantage.
Josh
messin'
Frederick Scott
>
> "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:3CB77963...@removethis.com...
>
> > unambiguously in the game rules or you're just asking for trouble.
>
> No, sportsmanship can't take the place of explicit rules, but
> in a game like this the explicit rules can be involved enough
> that people get tired of asking "Do you DI that? Do you DI
> that? Do you DI that?" around the table for every card played.
> And if you skip over steps like that, people will need to say
> "wait back up" when they actually *do* want to DI something.
> And when that happens, if everyone's on the same page as far
> as being good sports and not trying to take advantage of the
> situation from either side, it's fine. But if people decide
> to be jerks about it, the game becomes less fun.
The trouble with that point of view comes when people have different ideas
of just who is being the jerk in any given situation. If common sense
(as understood by 95-99% of the people playing the game) can be invoked
to figure that out, then OK. If it turns into a matter of perspective
or values or what habits each individual has formed from playing in
their particular group, then something's wrong. If you wind up having
to decide between not having fun playing a game because of awkward,
clunky, tedious game mechanics vs. not having fun because of mechanics
that tend to give rise to repeated disputes, then you've got a lousy
game that needs to be fixed.
> That may be, but is it something fixable? As a multiplayer
> game V:TES will always have the feature (or problem) of
> kingmaking. Also as a multiplayer game, it will always
> have the problem (or feature) of being able to try to mess
> with the other players to your advantage.
Perhaps. But notice how certain kinds of mechanics seem to work a
lot better than others. In the case of master cards, everyone knows
that they can and frequently are canceled. Same with actions. So
conclude that that kind of thing works well. On the other hand,
I've always had problems with Heidelberg Castle for exactly this
reason: it's seldom ever used so players seldom want to or think
about stopping and checking between every single stupid action just
in case its owner wishes to use it. Yet when the owner does want
to use it, he often has trouble signaling quickly enough to prevent
the acting Methuselah from revealing something important about his
next action before the former can stop play. Usually good players
manage to avoid the problem by heightening their awareness when it's
in play, but I'd hate to play like that on a regular basis.
Essentially, adding a "wait-for-others-to-interrupt" phase between
every action adds far too much to the mechanics for what it's worth
in terms of actual interesting play. Heidelburg-Castle-type between
action stuff is the kind of thing we should be looking to doing away
with completely, not add to.
Fred
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > But if people decide
> > to be jerks about it, the game becomes less fun.
>
> The trouble with that point of view comes when people have different ideas
> of just who is being the jerk in any given situation.
Naturally. Somewhat irrelevant but possibly amusing anecdote:
last night I went to a Garbage show at the 9:30 club in DC. My
friends and I saw a section of railing on the second floor that
didn't have anyone leaning up against it and made our way over
there to stand there and watch the show (which hadn't started
yet; the first band's set was over and they were changing over
the stage). When we got there, the people who were sitting down
on the steps behind the railing were upset with, as they saw it,
our attempt to take "their spots". From my point of view, they
were the ones breaking "concert etiquette" by wanting to "save"
some particular space without actually occupying it the whole
time. As it turned out, there would've been plenty of room for
us to stand behind them (or vice versa) near the railing, but
we didn't want to hang out with such "jerks" so went to a
different section of the upper level where we instead stood
behind some excessively tall people and had to crane our necks
to see around them. :-)
> If common sense
> (as understood by 95-99% of the people playing the game) can be invoked
> to figure that out, then OK. If it turns into a matter of perspective
> or values or what habits each individual has formed from playing in
> their particular group, then something's wrong. If you wind up having
> to decide between not having fun playing a game because of awkward,
> clunky, tedious game mechanics vs. not having fun because of mechanics
> that tend to give rise to repeated disputes, then you've got a lousy
> game that needs to be fixed.
You say "lousy game", "something's wrong", and "needs to be fixed",
but I don't think it's really possible to "fix" the different ways
people approach a game. I mean yeah, if you're not having fun no
matter what, then there's definitely a problem, but avoiding or
correcting clunky mechanics might not be feasible here without
junking the whole game and starting over.
> Essentially, adding a "wait-for-others-to-interrupt" phase between
> every action adds far too much to the mechanics for what it's worth
> in terms of actual interesting play. Heidelburg-Castle-type between
> action stuff is the kind of thing we should be looking to doing away
> with completely, not add to.
I'd have to say that's a good point, although "knowing that master
cards are often canceled" seems like only another appeal to expected
player behavior rather than explicit or natural game mechanics. If
*lots* of things were "only between actions", then people would
announce "going on to the next action" every time and it might not
be a problem. Whether it'd be better or worse is probably really
a question that can only be answered through playtesting.
Josh
verbose...
Frederick Scott
>
> "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:3CCDA661...@removethis.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> > If you wind up having
> > to decide between not having fun playing a game because of awkward,
> > clunky, tedious game mechanics vs. not having fun because of mechanics
> > that tend to give rise to repeated disputes, then you've got a lousy
> > game that needs to be fixed.
>
> You say "lousy game", "something's wrong", and "needs to be fixed",
> but I don't think it's really possible to "fix" the different ways
> people approach a game. I mean yeah, if you're not having fun no
> matter what, then there's definitely a problem, but avoiding or
> correcting clunky mechanics might not be feasible here without
> junking the whole game and starting over.
I find that somewhat hard to imagine. Unfortunately, I'm out of touch
with what the original problems were that inspired this thread (every time
I look at the threads involving all that bickering over diablerie I quickly
mark them "read" and go on because I don't care to vomit) but I have a
problem understanding why some provision couldn't be made to do this in
a better way. For instance, I'm not sure I see a serious problem in
allowing people to tap Heidelberg Castle _in response to_ actions
(as one would play a reaction card) instead forcing them to declare it
between actions. It would make Heidelberg Castle more powerful but is
that really a problem? I don't know if that's a solution for all the
other stuff (War Ghouls destroying locations and all that) but note that
it needn't be allowed during combat.
It seems to me like as long as one is prepared to be somewhat open-minded
and imaginative about solutions, it's really unlikely that correcting
clunky mechanics would ever be unfeasible.
> > Essentially, adding a "wait-for-others-to-interrupt" phase between
> > every action adds far too much to the mechanics for what it's worth
> > in terms of actual interesting play. Heidelburg-Castle-type between
> > action stuff is the kind of thing we should be looking to doing away
> > with completely, not add to.
>
> I'd have to say that's a good point, although "knowing that master
> cards are often canceled" seems like only another appeal to expected
> player behavior rather than explicit or natural game mechanics. If
> *lots* of things were "only between actions", then people would
> announce "going on to the next action" every time and it might not
> be a problem. Whether it'd be better or worse is probably really
> a question that can only be answered through playtesting.
I think there would have a lot of new and interesting stuff added to make
it worthwhile. Between actions mechanics is a *huge* pain in the butt,
IMHO.
Fred
Halcyan 2
>with what the original problems were that inspired this thread (every time
>I look at the threads involving all that bickering over diablerie I quickly
>mark them "read" and go on because I don't care to vomit) but I have a
>problem understanding why some provision couldn't be made to do this in
>a better way. For instance, I'm not sure I see a serious problem in
>allowing people to tap Heidelberg Castle _in response to_ actions
>(as one would play a reaction card) instead forcing them to declare it
>between actions. It would make Heidelberg Castle more powerful but is
>that really a problem? I don't know if that's a solution for all the
>other stuff (War Ghouls destroying locations and all that) but note that
>it needn't be allowed during combat.
Well, with Heidelburg at least, there were logistical problems with letting it
be usable during combat. What happens if you try to destroy or steal my Ivory
Bow but I move it away instead? (For one, it would make it way too hard to
destroy/steal powerful weapons). And you get weird things like what happens if
you manuever with a gun but before strike resolution, you pass it to someone
else. And icky situations like my vampire strikes with an Assault Rifle with
First Strike and your vampire steals the Rifle with inferior Fast Hands. But
after my First Strike resolution (and you've been shot for 5), I move it to
someone outside of combat so you can't steal it. And then totally cheesy
situations like: okay fine. Your Beast does 6 damage to my full Ranjan Rishi.
Since he'll be going to torpor either way, I might as well move all his blood
to empty Jan. It's just like a free 5th Tradition!
So that's why Heidelburg was changed to prohibit it from being used during an
action because it caused all sorts of icky situations. But I don't think that
all other effects should be modified like that. They're fine as it is and
aren't as complicated as Heidelburg.
Halcyan 2
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> >
> > avoiding or
> > correcting clunky mechanics might not be feasible here without
> > junking the whole game and starting over.
>
> I find that somewhat hard to imagine. Unfortunately, I'm out of touch
> with what the original problems were that inspired this thread (every time
> I look at the threads involving all that bickering over diablerie I
quickly
> mark them "read" and go on because I don't care to vomit) but I have a
> problem understanding why some provision couldn't be made to do this in
> a better way.
Well, the original thing on the newsgroup that brought it up was
the "diablerie is indivisible therefore no non-referendum stuff
during the blood hunt referendum" ruling, but that was since
overturned. The related point that brought up the "sportsmanship"
and "timing" issues was the discussion on the VTESinLA.org message
board about "going back" and "loose play" and such.
> For instance, I'm not sure I see a serious problem in
> allowing people to tap Heidelberg Castle _in response to_ actions
> (as one would play a reaction card) instead forcing them to declare it
> between actions. It would make Heidelberg Castle more powerful but is
> that really a problem?
It was perceived as a problem, I think, which is why Heidelberg
originally got errata restricting its use to "not during actions".
I'm not sure *why* it was seen as too powerful. Perhaps it
seemed to be too strong with the unique weapons/equipment/retainers
such as Ivory Bow, Mr. Winthrop, Tasha Morgan, etc. It would let
you, as either acting or blocking minion, threaten to have "the
scary equipment" on whatever minion you were currently acting or
blocking with, for example.
> I don't know if that's a solution for all the
> other stuff (War Ghouls destroying locations and all that) but note that
> it needn't be allowed during combat.
Right now, you can tap War Ghoul to destroy a location "in
response to" a Far Mastery directed at the War Ghoul. That's
probably not a big problem, but it's sort of against the spirit,
or something.
> It seems to me like as long as one is prepared to be somewhat open-minded
> and imaginative about solutions, it's really unlikely that correcting
> clunky mechanics would ever be unfeasible.
I think you're right, now that I think about it more. Pretty
much anything that doesn't "cancel" other players' cards could
be "solved" mechanically by allowing it to be played at any time
(subject to card type).
That still requires people to abide by [1.6.1.6] sequencing rules,
which basically say that the acting player has to (and gets to)
make all her decisions/effect plays first and everyone else has
to wait for her to be done before they try anything "in response".
This does mean that if the acting Meth sits there "thinking" for
a moment and someone else tries to play some effect, she may have
to say "wait, I'm not done with my effects yet". (This is basically
analogous to what happens when acting Meth plays Conditioning and
then tries to play Daring the Dawn but someone else says "wait, I
wanted to play Direct Intervention on the Conditioning" - someone
can gain, even if inadvertently, useful information that she wasn't
supposed to have.)
Do you know of any good ways to solve that problem?
Josh
informationally challenged
Frederick Scott
>
> "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:3CCECB57...@removethis.com...
> > and imaginative about solutions, it's really unlikely that correcting
> > clunky mechanics would ever be unfeasible.
>
> I think you're right, now that I think about it more. Pretty
> much anything that doesn't "cancel" other players' cards could
> be "solved" mechanically by allowing it to be played at any time
> (subject to card type).
>
> That still requires people to abide by [1.6.1.6] sequencing rules,
> which basically say that the acting player has to (and gets to)
> make all her decisions/effect plays first and everyone else has
> to wait for her to be done before they try anything "in response".
> This does mean that if the acting Meth sits there "thinking" for
> a moment and someone else tries to play some effect, she may have
> to say "wait, I'm not done with my effects yet". (This is basically
> analogous to what happens when acting Meth plays Conditioning and
> then tries to play Daring the Dawn but someone else says "wait, I
> wanted to play Direct Intervention on the Conditioning" - someone
> can gain, even if inadvertently, useful information that she wasn't
> supposed to have.)
>
> Do you know of any good ways to solve that problem?
Nope. I agree that that kind of stuff tends to defy non-clunky solutions.
Generally, if people are going to get snitty about such things, you
have to stop and check each part of each phase. In important Magic
tournaments, people *do* get snitty about such things and as such,
play gets sort of stilted and formalized and decidedly less fun. This
is why I mentioned the 95-99% common sense thing. Most people in
this game do not care about such minor issues enough to dispute them
and they do not arise enough in the vast majority of play for most of
us to worry about. But yea, if you mean that imagination and open-
mindedness don't solve every problem, I would have to agree. Not when
the problem is so minor (IMO, of course).
Fred