LSJ - Ruling question on the timing of action modifier reaction cards being played - please.
d21...@yahoo.com.au
out correctly for them.
Chris bleeds me with Marcanous using Scouting Mission with a Laptop
computer.
I play WWEF and attempt to block with Enzo Giovanni.
Chris increases his stealth to +1 with Aura Apsortion (card name) the
one that can be used for intercept/stealth with Mythiceria.
Chris asks if "I am bouncing?" I decline, happy to take the bleed of
3.
Chris then plays Threats at Superior.
I then play a Redirection/Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection i.e.
"cards that bounce bleeds".
I am informed that I cannot do this. The ruling apparently has been
changed.
Huh?
I must play any reaction cards before the actual bleed modifier is
increased.
WTF?
When did this happen? Twelve months ago...apparently. I have been on
crack the whole time I have been playing vampire.....10
years.....pretty impressive.
A correct and concise ruling on this issue would be greatly
appreciated.
J
obligated to answer (truthfully or otherwise).
You are more than entitled to flick it after he has played his
modifiers. He has misinterpreted (truthfully or otherwise) the ruling
that LSJ handed out recently. Do a search on it and you'll find it -
I think the subject was something like modifiers and the crack i've
been smoking.
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
James Coupe
d21...@yahoo.com.au writes:
>I must play any reaction cards before the actual bleed modifier is
>increased.
>
>WTF?
WTF indeed.
He's played an action modifier. Once he stops playing more effects in
the same timing window (e.g. playing Command of the Beast, then
Conditioning, then tapping Pentex Loves You), he passes the "impulse" to
you - you get a chance to play cards and effects.
So you can play bounce.
The recent discussions involving this confirm:
- if you (try to) play a bounce card, you have given up your chance to
block (unless the bleed is bounced back to you later, when a new
window opens up)
- only the decision "not to block" is final. If the bleed still isn't
successful and you have the "impulse" (i.e. it's your go to play
a card or effect), you can bounce, even if you chose not to
bounce earlier
- the defending Methuselah has an advantage here in that whenever the
acting Methuselah plays a bleed modifier, the defending
Methuselah will get the impulse afterwards (eventually, if the
acting Methuselah plays many effects at once), and can bounce.
However, if the acting Methuselah passes the impulse *without*
playing his modifiers, and the reacting Methuselah doesn't play
any effects, the acting Methuselah doesn't get a chance to in
the same timing slot.
- the decision not to block is an "effect", so the acting Methuselah can
play modifiers after that.
So the following is perfectly legal play.
A: Bleed you. (No modifiers played, so impulse implicitly goes to B.)
B: No block. (An effect, so impulse automatically goes back to A.)
A: +1 bleed with Threats. (Impulse stays with A, but he chooses not to
play another effect after this, so it passes to B.)
B: Bounce with Telepathic. (Impulse goes back to A, and A continues the
bleed against C.)
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
leon.t...@gmail.com
It's actually really simple. it's a general rule that applies in a lot
of other CCGs (e.g. That Other Game), and in a bunch of other non
Collectible card (and otherwise) games too.
You have a player with "priority", i.e. an opportunity to play cards
and effects. She (gender as per rulebook) gets a chance to Do Stuff.
If they decide to Do Stuff (i.e. play cards and/or effects), all other
players get a chance to also Do Stuff (starting with the priority
player). If she doesn't Do Stuff, priority passes to someone else.
They get a chance to Do Stuff. If they don't, it passes to another
player, who gets a chance to Do Stuff. Etc. etc. etc. You keep
restarting the loop as soon as anyone does anything. But ZOMG the loop
isn't infinite! Why?
Because as soon as *all players consecutively decline to Do Stuff*
(i.e. once all relevant players have passed priority and choose not to
play cards / effects), you Resolve Stuff.
Very very simple. If someone plays a card, other people get a chance
to play a card. Always. If someone doesn't play a card, and NOBODY
else wants to play a card, you resolve whatever is going on.
This has been the general timing rule in this, and pretty much every
other CCG, since the dawn of time. It's really very simple. So you get
to flick, because the bleeder played a card / effect! Hooray!
(Note: for *most* intents and purposes, the only two participants in a
bleed action are the bleeder and the bleed-ee. So if the bleeder
declines to play cards/effects (i.e. passes priority) and the bleed-ee
declines also, you resolve it right away. Technically, priority passes
to all players in case someone wants to be a crazy mofo and Eagle
Sight block the bleed or reduce it with Folderol or whatever. But
generally we just skip that let someone wave and yell a bit if they
want to Eagle Sight (e.g. "I'm bleeding you for 2." "not Blocking".
"Not playing any cards." "Not reacting." "Ok the bleed resolves." "Hey
wait, Laz wants to block that shiznit!!"... you get the idea... it's
just that 99% of the time you can not worry about the other players so
you don't go around the table asking everyone if they're playing cards
every time you bleed someone, but technically you theoretically are
supposed to).
LSJ
> The question is quite simple, but stupid people need the rules spelled
> out correctly for them.
>
> Chris bleeds me with Marcanous using Scouting Mission with a Laptop
> computer.
.. and then implicitly passes (declining to play "as announced" modifiers or
other modifiers before your block attempts or other reactions.
> I play WWEF and attempt to block with Enzo Giovanni.
>
> Chris increases his stealth to +1 with Aura Apsortion (card name) the
> one that can be used for intercept/stealth with Mythiceria.
... and then you invoke the effect "decline to block", by acknowledging that you
do not increase Enzo's intercept (or decrease Marconius's stealth or attempt to
block with another vampire, &c.).
> Chris asks if "I am bouncing?"
Which is another way of Chris saying "pass", since it is his turn to play the
next effect by the rules -- he's the acting player, so he gets first chance
after the "I don't block" declaration (and after any other effect).
> I decline, happy to take the bleed of
> 3.
Which is another way of you saying "pass".
At this point (having reached all-pass -- assuming no other player invokes an
effect), the bleed resolves.
> Chris then plays Threats at Superior.
This step is misplayed -- Chris cannot modify after all-pass.
He should have played Threats instead of passing by asking if you bounce.
That was one of the things uncovered in the recent thread.
> I then play a Redirection/Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection i.e.
> "cards that bounce bleeds".
>
> I am informed that I cannot do this. The ruling apparently has been
> changed.
You were misinformed. The rule hasn't changed. You can do "this".
Assuming that the set-up involved Threats being legally played, then, after
Chris declines to play any more effects (he passes after playing Threats), you,
the defending player, get the opportunity to play effects (like bounce).
> Huh?
>
> I must play any reaction cards before the actual bleed modifier is
> increased.
No. But Chris must play Threats before all-pass.
> WTF?
>
> When did this happen? Twelve months ago...apparently. I have been on
> crack the whole time I have been playing vampire.....10
> years.....pretty impressive.
>
> A correct and concise ruling on this issue would be greatly
> appreciated.
The concise rule appears in the rulebook, section 1.6.1.5 (Sequencing).
That rule is correct as printed.
Peter D Bakija
d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> I must play any reaction cards before the actual bleed modifier is
> increased.
>
> WTF?
Heh. It is kinda like the rules for how to handle this sort of thing
could be clearer or something...
(runs and ducks :-)
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
LSJ
> In article <1172045062....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
>> I must play any reaction cards before the actual bleed modifier is
>> increased.
>>
>> WTF?
>
> Heh. It is kinda like the rules for how to handle this sort of thing
> could be clearer or something...
>
> (runs and ducks :-)
Heh. It's kinda like the rules for how to handle this sort of thing aren't being
consulted, since they are clear on this sort of thing.
:-)
Jeroen Rombouts
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:a1YCh.14950$gj4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
as...@hotmail.com
> > d21_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> >> I must play any reaction cards before the actual bleed modifier is
> >> increased.
>
> >> WTF?
>
> > Heh. It is kinda like the rules for how to handle this sort of thing
> > could be clearer or something...
>
> > (runs and ducks :-)
>
> Heh. It's kinda like the rules for how to handle this sort of thing aren't being
> consulted, since they are clear on this sort of thing.
>
> :-)
Obviously quite a few people don´t understand the rules. So they could
be clarified futher in the rulebook.
LSJ
> On 21 Feb, 14:44, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Heh. It's kinda like the rules for how to handle this sort of thing aren't being
>> consulted, since they are clear on this sort of thing.
>
Yes. What is not obvious is that those people have read the rules in an attempt
to resolve their misunderstanding (if they realize that they have a
misunderstanding at all).
> So they could
> be clarified futher in the rulebook.
Again, this would only help if:
1) the rules are being consulted to resolve the misunderstanding
and
2) that consultation yields a mistaken conclusion due to the inadequate clarity
of the rule as written.
1 may be arguable, but the case for 2 has not been made. The case for 2 would be
very difficult to make, because the rule cited clearly allows Deflection after
Threats: "Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending
Methuselah". (And that itself tends to cast a shadow on 1, as well).
Jonathan Beverley
Consider:
A: bleed for 2
B: no block
A: do you bounce?
B: I reduce bleed for 1.
A: pass
Does the bleed resolve here, or does B get a chance to pass?
If B does not get the impulse back before resolution, does another
interested party (C) get impulse before or after A's pass?
-Jonathan
witness1
> I have a somewhat similar question about this sequence.
>
> Consider:
>
> A: bleed for 2
> B: no block
> A: do you bounce?
> B: I reduce bleed for 1.
> A: pass
>
> Does the bleed resolve here, or does B get a chance to pass?
Until all players have passed _in a row_ the bleed will not resolve. B
will get another opportunity to play effects or pass at this point.
> If B does not get the impulse back before resolution, does another
> interested party (C) get impulse before or after A's pass?
After B passes, C gets an impulse (followed by D and E if
appropriate). If C and D and E all pass, the bleed resolves. If any
player plays an effect, return to A's impulse (followed by B, C, D,
and E) and repeat until all have passed.
witness1
-paralyze this
Dasein
> be clarified futher in the rulebook.
No way. The rules are actually really clear and simple. The problem is
people are playing sloppy. And they get confused when their sloppy way
of playing doesn't fit into the rules (surprise surprise).
By "playing sloppy", I mean doing things like:
- asking a player "are you flicking?"
- "fishing" for bleed mods by "reaching for" their pool
Both of those are totally meaningless crocks of poo from a game state
perspective. They do and mean NOTHING. Of course, it means something
to me semantically, i.e. I can understand the content of the sentence
and respond in a way that people might understand, but in terms of
processing cards / effects, passing priority, etc. it has no meaning
whatsoever. I might answer "yes" or "no" but I might as well answer
"gaggabajoo". If people decide in their playgroup that the question
"are you flicking?" is to be understood as implicitly stating the
player has no more effects to play, then fine, move on, and give the
other player/players a chance to do stuff.
But this is exactly where the confusion lies. Not in the rules, but in
the sloppy way they are used. People ask "are you flicking?" which to
them might not have anything to do with passing priority. The defender
declines to do anything, and then the bleeder thinks they can play
cards, either because they don't know the rules at all, or because
they think they didn't pass priority, they just "asked a question".
The rule is really REALLY simple. It goes like this:
Player with Priority gets to play cards. If they do, everyone can play
cards. If they don't, next player gets to play cards. If they do,
everyone gets to play cards. Repeat. Once ALL players have said they
don't want to play cards, you resolve whatever is going on.
Seriously, how complicated is that? This system is used in nearly
every card game out there. Hell it's even pretty much how poker works.
If you raise, everyone else still in the pot gets a chance to match
(or raise). Once EVERYONE has declined to raise (i.e. matched or
folded), you resolve the bet. People can understand poker, why can't
they understand this? It's a system that makes sure all players always
have a chance to respond to a "Doing Stuff" (i.e. playing of a card /
effect, raising a bet, whatever) by also "Doing Stuff", but also has
an exit from the infinite loop by closing and resolving once ALL
players have said they are not "Doing Stuff".
If people actually played by the rules as they are printed in the
rulebook, as opposed to their crappy sloppy ways of "asking questions"
and "fishing for pool" and other such malarkey, there wouldn't be this
confusion. The rulebook doesn't say you can "ask someone if they are
flicking", that's nonsense from a rules perspective. I might as well
"ask someone if they are going to Majesty" before I decide whether to
Body Flare them. If they say no, and I go "cool, Body Flare!", are you
saying I don't then get to play Majesty? (assume no Monacle of
Clarity, heh).
The rules are perfectly simple. The problem is people don't play by
them, they play by some other crappy sloppy system.
Dave...@gmail.com
Well, in the Case of the specific example by the first poster the
online rulebook was consulted and based upon reading it a number of
players did not understand the rules, and felt that it required
Defletion being played before the Threats. So there's some evidence.
The chief problem in the rulebook is, I think, that the section "6.2
Taking An Action" doesn't describe the sequence of card play, it
instead refers the players back to Section 1.6.1.6. Read together they
are fairly clear, but if a player doesn't refer back to 1.6.1.6 it
doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In addition the sequencing rules
don't state tat declining to black does not count as a pass, nor do I
see where it explicitly states that once all players have passed the
action resolves. Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seemed to be
part of the confusion in this case.
Another question.
According to an earlier thread declining to black is akin to playing
an effect, correct? So if A bleeds B, and B declines to block does the
impulse go back to A? Because if it does, does that mean C must wait
for A and B to pass again beforehe can attempt to block with an
Eagle's Sight? So that efore C can attempt to block B could have
reduced or bounced the bleed?
as...@hotmail.com
rules on what is allowed and not. Sadly it seems to be some kind of
prestige in writing rulebooks here.
James Coupe
One problem with doing this is that it increases the physical size
(thickness) and number of pages of the rulebook. So then do you drop
the number of cards in a starter to keep it the same size overall, or
increase the size of the starter boxes, and have to redesign a lot of
your stuff to fit that new size?
Fun fun fun.
LSJ
Sadly?
While I'll admit too taking pride in my work, I don't see anything sad about it.
How do you suggest the section could be written more clearly in the space allotted?
LSJ
> The chief problem in the rulebook is, I think, that the section "6.2
> Taking An Action" doesn't describe the sequence of card play, it
> instead refers the players back to Section 1.6.1.6. Read together they
> are fairly clear, but if a player doesn't refer back to 1.6.1.6 it
> doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But 1.6.1.5 apply to all aspects of the game, not just actions. So it is written
once, cleverly hidden under the heading "sequencing" under "library cards",
since that's the place for it.
Also, the bit about meeting requirements to play cards isn't repeated under
"taking an action" either.
> In addition the sequencing rules
> don't state tat declining to black does not count as a pass, nor do I
6.2.2 : "If a block fails (the acting minion's stealth exceeds the blocker's
intercept and the blocker's Methuselah cannot add or does not wish to add more
intercept), either another attempt is made (with the same or a different minion)
or the defending Methuselah declares that she will not make any further attempts
to block the action. Note that this declaration is an event and so allows the
acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects."
> see where it explicitly states that once all players have passed the
> action resolves.
Because that is implicit -- there can be no other option (unless you count
delaying resolution until the end of time as an option).
> Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seemed to be
> part of the confusion in this case.
Confusion involves two (or more) possibilities. What is the other possibility
(that conforms to the rules) was being considered that led to the confusion?
> Another question.
>
> According to an earlier thread declining to black is akin to playing
> an effect, correct? So if A bleeds B, and B declines to block does the
According to 6.2.2, yes.
> impulse go back to A? Because if it does, does that mean C must wait
Yes.
> for A and B to pass again beforehe can attempt to block with an
> Eagle's Sight? So that efore C can attempt to block B could have
> reduced or bounced the bleed?
By the rules, yes. In practice, the decline to block forms its own chain of
block attempts, paralleling the sequencing rules.
This is handled by the players intuitively, though.
LSJ
It could be handled by the rules as well. Rewriting 6.2.2 to:
Note that moving past the block attempts (when all Methuselahs have declined to
block) is an event and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more
cards and effects.
Look for that in the next rulebook.
LSJ
> On Feb 22, 3:00 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> So they could
>>> be clarified futher in the rulebook.
>> Again, this would only help if:
>> 1) the rules are being consulted to resolve the misunderstanding
>> and
>> 2) that consultation yields a mistaken conclusion due to the inadequate clarity
>> of the rule as written.
>>
>> 1 may be arguable, but the case for 2 has not been made. The case for 2 would be
>> very difficult to make, because the rule cited clearly allows Deflection after
>> Threats: "Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending
>> Methuselah". (And that itself tends to cast a shadow on 1, as well).
>
> Well, in the Case of the specific example by the first poster the
> online rulebook was consulted and based upon reading it a number of
> players did not understand the rules, and felt that it required
> Defletion being played before the Threats. So there's some evidence.
The online rulebook contains the sequencing rules, which include the passage
"Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah".
How does the rulebook indicate that it requires Deflection to be played before
Threats? What text in the rulebook leads to that conclusion?
Salem
> LSJ wrote:
>> Dave...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> for A and B to pass again beforehe can attempt to block with an
>>> Eagle's Sight? So that efore C can attempt to block B could have
>>> reduced or bounced the bleed?
>>
>> By the rules, yes. In practice, the decline to block forms its own
>> chain of block attempts, paralleling the sequencing rules.
>>
>> This is handled by the players intuitively, though.
>
> It could be handled by the rules as well. Rewriting 6.2.2 to:
>
> Note that moving past the block attempts (when all Methuselahs have
> declined to block) is an event and so allows the acting Methuselah (and
> others) to play more cards and effects.
>
> Look for that in the next rulebook.
why? Assume 3 players (but extend to more, as appropriate)
I would have thought it, now, officially, goes something like this:
1. B: decline to block.
(an effect. so impulse returns to A)
2. A: pass.
(impulse to B)
3. B: pass.
(impulse to C)
4. C: Pass
5. A: other block attempts?
6. C: decline
(declining to block is an effect. impulse returns to A)
7. A: Conditioning.
(impulse to A)
8. A: that's it
(impulse to B)
9. B: deflection
(play continues as normal)
I would have thought that the handling intuitively by the players would
have just meant that often you'll go straight from step 3 to step 7, for
situations where it's obvious C has nothing to add.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
LSJ
Because it adds nothing to treat "no block" as anything other than a pass. The
interesting bit comes after the block window closes, not after each individual
Methuselah declines to block.
Johannes Walch
>> action resolves.
>
> Because that is implicit -- there can be no other option (unless you
> count delaying resolution until the end of time as an option).
There could be the other option that someone plays another card and then
the action resolves, so probably it could be the rule that it resolves
after two rounds of passes and not one (just a stupid example).
As it seems the event of "all players passing" is a necessary AND
sufficient condition for resolving the action. As far as I understand
the rulebook it states only that it is necessary but not that it is
sufficient and implies the immediate resolving.
--
johannes walch
LSJ
>>> see where it explicitly states that once all players have passed the
>>> action resolves.
>>
>> Because that is implicit -- there can be no other option (unless you
>> count delaying resolution until the end of time as an option).
>
> There could be the other option that someone plays another card and then
> the action resolves, so probably it could be the rule that it resolves
> after two rounds of passes and not one (just a stupid example).
That option is the same as the end-of-time option, but with some out-of-rulebook
text thrown in.
> As it seems the event of "all players passing" is a necessary AND
> sufficient condition for resolving the action. As far as I understand
> the rulebook it states only that it is necessary but not that it is
> sufficient and implies the immediate resolving.
Because the "is sufficient" thing is inescapable. Again, though, if you have a
rewording of some section that doesn't take up any more room and won't confuse a
learning-to-play-by-reading-the-rulebook person, please share.
as...@hotmail.com
I don´t have any real suggestion for the wording right now, and I´m
not fluent in english, so I guess I should shut the fuck up. As usual.
But as questions on sequencing comes up here all the time (even from
players which have some experience), maybe something should be done in
the rulebook. But I guess that´s not logic?
LSJ
> But as questions on sequencing comes up here all the time (even from
> players which have some experience), maybe something should be done in
It is, if you take as a given the unstated assumption that people asking the
questions are consulting the rulebook to find the answer to their questions on
sequencing.
That assumption appears to be faulty, however, since the rules already address
sequencing and do so in a way that disallows the "acting player last" result at
which the people who claim the rules are confusing arrive.
Dave...@gmail.com
> DaveSe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The chief problem in the rulebook is, I think, that the section "6.2
> > Taking An Action" doesn't describe the sequence of card play, it
> > instead refers the players back to Section 1.6.1.6. Read together they
> > are fairly clear, but if a player doesn't refer back to 1.6.1.6 it
> > doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>
> But 1.6.1.5 apply to all aspects of the game, not just actions. So it is written
> once, cleverly hidden under the heading "sequencing" under "library cards",
> since that's the place for it.
>
> Also, the bit about meeting requirements to play cards isn't repeated under
> "taking an action" either.
>
> > In addition the sequencing rules
> > don't state tat declining to black does not count as a pass, nor do I
>
> 6.2.2 : "If a block fails (the acting minion's stealth exceeds the blocker's
> intercept and the blocker's Methuselah cannot add or does not wish to add more
> intercept), either another attempt is made (with the same or a different minion)
> or the defending Methuselah declares that she will not make any further attempts
> to block the action. Note that this declaration is an event and so allows the
> acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects."
>
> > see where it explicitly states that once all players have passed the
> > action resolves.
>
> Because that is implicit -- there can be no other option (unless you count
> delaying resolution until the end of time as an option).
I realise that it's implicit, and that's how I read the rules. But a
player here is arguing (though he's blatantly wrong) the fact that it
does not say explicitly that consecutive passes cause an action to
resolve somehow means that the acting player may still play effects
after everyone has passed, and that somehow the acting player gets to
play action modifiers at the end that can't be reacted to.
I just don't think it would take a whole lot of effert to add once
sentence that explicitly states when an action resolves.
> > Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seemed to be
> > part of the confusion in this case.
>
> Confusion involves two (or more) possibilities. What is the other possibility
> (that conforms to the rules) was being considered that led to the confusion?
I'm not entirely sure, as I've always read the rules to mean what has
been stated to be the correct but somehow the players mentioned above
do not accept that everyone passing consecutively results in the
action resolving. And in fact they claim that the rulebookas written
backs up their claim and are pretty much claiming that your ruling is
wrong. Which would be less of a problem is one of them wasn't a
Prince.
It just seems to me that the rules could be clearer about sequencing.
I don't know why players are reading it wrongly but apparently they
are which tends to suggest that it could be made clearer. And you can
say all you like that no other method conforms to what is written but
apparently people are finding a way.
LSJ
> I realise that it's implicit, and that's how I read the rules. But a
> player here is arguing (though he's blatantly wrong) the fact that it
> does not say explicitly that consecutive passes cause an action to
> resolve somehow means that the acting player may still play effects
> after everyone has passed,
Illogical -- name any other game (or any other system) which uses a double or
triple or infinite all-pass passing system.
The whole concept of "pass" embodies this idea.
> and that somehow the acting player gets to
> play action modifiers at the end that can't be reacted to.
Completely contrary to the rules. There is no support for this in the rules, and
the rules explicitly state the contrary. This argument is untenable. Since this
is the conclusion being reached, it is clear the rules are not the issue, but
rather the reader (or the player who isn't reading the rules) is the issue. The
solution is to read the rules.
If the conclusion then is still some non-supported double- or triple- or
quadruple- pass result, well, that's OK. Whatever N-pass system is used (N <
infinity), it yields the same result as the official 1-pass system once all
players agree on N -- that is, everyone passes N-1 times by default "do you
bounce (pass)" "do you boost (pass)" .... until the final round, which ends up
looking like the normal rules.
This is fine (albeit a waste of time) so long as the untenable
contrary-to-explicit-rules position of "acting player last" is not used.
> I just don't think it would take a whole lot of effert to add once
> sentence that explicitly states when an action resolves.
Nor would it help.
But then you'd also need a rule to state that after all-pass on the "as played"
window, a card play resolves. And after all-pass on an untap phase, the untap
phase ends and the master phase begins. And after all-pass on "successful block,
before combat begins" then combat begins. And so on.
>>> Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seemed to be
>>> part of the confusion in this case.
>> Confusion involves two (or more) possibilities. What is the other possibility
>> (that conforms to the rules) was being considered that led to the confusion?
>
> I'm not entirely sure, as I've always read the rules to mean what has
> been stated to be the correct but somehow the players mentioned above
> do not accept that everyone passing consecutively results in the
> action resolving.
Then ask him.
> And in fact they claim that the rulebookas written
> backs up their claim and are pretty much claiming that your ruling is
> wrong. Which would be less of a problem is one of them wasn't a
> Prince.
The rulebook as written doesn't, so please ask them which text they are reading.
Value handwaving of "the rulebook supports this" is pointless.
> It just seems to me that the rules could be clearer about sequencing.
How?
1.6.1.5 clearly opposes the idea of "acting player last" already. If that is the
conclusion being reached, then the rules are not being consulted.
> I don't know why players are reading it wrongly but apparently they
> are which tends to suggest that it could be made clearer.
Or that they aren't reading it. Which is why the question is "what text are you
reading to arrive at your conclusion" is important, and needs an answer.
> And you can
> say all you like that no other method conforms to what is written but
> apparently people are finding a way.
Apparently "people" are not consulting the written rules. If a player who is
actually arriving at the "acting player last" would kindly answer the question
of which text he is reading to arrive at this conclusion, this discussion would
be more constructive.