LSJ: Life Boon timing Q
John Flournoy
Life Boon already played cross-table on Player B (Paul.) Paul has no
anarch vampires.
Paul's untap begins.
Can Mike gain the pool per Life Boon from Paul before Paul pays for
the Anarch Revolt?
We ruled no, under the following notions.
Per the rules on Untap Phase: "Any cards or effects that require or
allow you to do something during your untap phase take effect after
you have untapped your cards. You may choose the order in which these
effects take place."
Life Boon is not an effect that requires or allows _Paul_ to do
something, therefore Mike must wait for the normal sequencing to
declare that he is choosing to use the effect granted to him (i.e. to
Mike) to take one of Paul's pool.
And Paul cannot pass that sequencing to Mike unless he has handled the
Anarch Revolt, because if Mike said "I don't use the effect" Paul's
untap would end (barring other player's using effects) without the AR
being handled, which is clearly wrong.
So we ruled that Mike cannot be given the chance to use Life Boon's
effect until and unless Paul has dealt with all must-be-handled untap-
phase effects, including paying for the Anarch Revolt.
Is this ruling accurate?
-John Flournoy
LSJ
> Player A (We'll call him Mike Ooi) has an Anarch Revolt in play, and a
> Life Boon already played cross-table on Player B (Paul.) Paul has no
> anarch vampires.
>
> Paul's untap begins.
>
> Can Mike gain the pool per Life Boon from Paul before Paul pays for
> the Anarch Revolt?
>
> We ruled no, under the following notions.
> Anarch Revolt, because if Mike said "I don't use the effect" Paul's
> untap would end (barring other player's using effects) without the AR
> being handled, which is clearly wrong.
Correct.
Hodgestar
> John Flournoy wrote:
> > We ruled no, under the following notions.
> > And Paul cannot pass that sequencing to Mike unless he has handled the
> > Anarch Revolt, because if Mike said "I don't use the effect" Paul's
> > untap would end (barring other player's using effects) without the AR
> > being handled, which is clearly wrong.
>
> Correct.
From the rules outline (http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/?line=outline)
Section II. A. 1. c:
"Once the last player in the order passes, the timing window is closed
(and the game moves on to the next timing window). The acting player
cannot wait for others to pass and then play an effect."
May I ask what the purpose of restricting the active player like this
is?
My concern is that the restriction doesn't match up particularly well
with casual play (where I often see the acting player offering the
defending player the opportunity to play effects, rather than passing)
and that it opens the door to all sorts of annoying gaming of the rule
(player B promises to play an effect and the reneges, closing the
window and denying the acting player from playing further cards).
My proposed modification would be:
"Once the last player in the order passes, the acting player must
either play an effect (restarting the order) or close the timing
window."
Schiavo
Simon
James Coupe
>My concern is that the restriction doesn't match up particularly well
>with casual play (where I often see the acting player offering the
>defending player the opportunity to play effects, rather than passing)
>and that it opens the door to all sorts of annoying gaming of the rule
>(player B promises to play an effect and the reneges, closing the
>window and denying the acting player from playing further cards).
If your only concern is that players don't know the rules and/or are
cheating, explain the real rules. Note that offering the defending
player the chance to play effects *is* passing control of the timing
window - you can't play anything afterwards if the player passes.
If a player offers to play something and then backs out, that's no
different than a player offering to not bleed you next turn and then
bleeding the crap out of you.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
librarian
>
> May I ask what the purpose of restricting the active player like this
> is?
>
> My concern is that the restriction doesn't match up particularly well
> with casual play (where I often see the acting player offering the
> defending player the opportunity to play effects, rather than passing)
> and that it opens the door to all sorts of annoying gaming of the rule
> (player B promises to play an effect and the reneges, closing the
> window and denying the acting player from playing further cards).
>
Deals are meant to be broken, even in casual play. Break the deal,
you'll feel better about yourself, really!
best -
chris