Guide and Mentor - Perfectionist

@Ankha:
Yes, because pool total I think should be a constant-check, not a 'resolution only' check. Even though that is not the way LSJ has ruled. It's because I always read the rule, even in the CRR to be "Pay for action/card and then once paid nothing can stop its resolution occurring" and not "Pay for action/card and concurrently resolve it". It's all about a dispute on the meaning of "immediate". Immediate != concurrent. Immediate = without pause for other things.

So yes, if you are 4 pool, I think you should die when you play Eternals of Sirius to gain 5 pool. (Since your pool total reaches 0 when you pay the cost and then when the card attempts to resolve it finds you missing from the table and sends the pool to the blood bank)

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

So yes, if you are 4 pool, I think you should die when you play Eternals of Sirius to gain 5 pool. (Since your pool total reaches 0 when you pay the cost and then when the card attempts to resolve it finds you missing from the table and sends the pool to the blood bank)

But it don't work like that in VtES, and it don't work like that on other TCG either. And I don't believe this to be intuitive either.

Ohlmann,
Again, it is about how you read the word "immediate". How other CCG/TCGs work is irrelevant to how VTES is played. This is like complaining that D&D is not WoW and not VtM just because they are all 'RPGs'.

IN VTES...
IF the word "immediate" is taken to mean "cannot be prevented from occurring" then once the cost is fully paid, the cards effects will be resolved. BUT that does not mean that there cannot be a point where the player reaches 0 pool in the meantime and thereby result in them being ousted. The effects of the card would then resolve attempting to give an ousted player pool, which results in the card putting blood into the blood bank (since that is where all undelivered blood and pool counters go).

The previous LSJ rulings have construed the word "immediate" to be a synonym for "concurrent". Consequently many of these cost-type issues have arisen in the past (and will not doubt continue in the future).


Yes, it is a difference in basically Semantics. But if the rules (the CRR since the Rulebook mentions nothing about the windows available other than 'if paid it will occur) were meant to be 'concurrently pay cost and resolve their effects' then why was that wording used instead of 'immediately'?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Ohlmann,
Again, it is about how you read the word "immediate".

Yes. You read it another way than the intended one, and you complain you're not heard.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

How other CCG/TCGs work is irrelevant to how VTES is played. This is like complaining that D&D is not WoW and not VtM just because they are all 'RPGs'.

Luckily I didn't do that.

I was pointing out that the way VtES work in regard to resolution, player ousting, ally destruction, and everything, is currently the same as magic, who have rules that work, so it's not stupid at all.

Ohlmann,
The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards.

And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Ohlmann,
The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards.

Luckily, that's not what I was talking of.

If the rule and ruling say that it should be read in a way, there is exactly no reason to expect it to be interpreted otherwise. Which is what you try. This have nothing to see with the fact that thoses rules and ruling don't follow the supposed original intent.

You want to impose a new way to read the rules. For reasons I have said, the current reading, in addition to be well-known and working, is also more intuitive. So you're more or less fighting the wrong battle.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules.

Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. I believe you find easier to answer to strawman.

What I was meaning, and what I clearly said, is that another game show that the current way of resolving actually work without problems and is widely understood. Staying at the same interpretation is therefor validated.