file Andre LeRoux + spying mission

15 Jun 2015 10:24 - 15 Jun 2015 10:33 #71743 by Ankha

It's still pretty much nothing to do with sequencing. Sequencing says: when two (or more) players want to use an effect at the same time, which of them goes first? That's it. That is the sum total of what sequencing is about.


That's not really what the rulebook says.


Uh? That's exactly what the rulebook says:

Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect.


But we're drifting here.

Important things are:
  1. "would" introduces an effect that alters another effect, either by modifying it (Andre Leroux) or replacing it (Spying Mission, use of "instead"), before it happens
  2. this does not introduce a new window or whatever. It simply modifies an effect before it happens to avoid rollbacks
  3. using indicative implies rollback (X happens. X doesn't happens) which is illustrated by:
  4. Horrific Countenance introduces a rollback ("is blocked" then "is not blocked") that I illustrated by an example which use sequencing, but it's not related to sequencing. I could have used another effect that triggers when X is blocked, for instance Schuyler whose special doesn't use sequencing ("When Schuyler is blocked, your prey may move a library card from his or her ash heap to the top of his or her library.")

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 15 Jun 2015 10:33 by Ankha.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jamesatzephyr

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2015 11:19 - 15 Jun 2015 11:20 #71745 by TwoRazorReign

Uh? That's exactly what the rulebook says:

Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect.


But we're drifting here.

Important things are:
  1. "would" introduces an effect that alters another effect, either by modifying it (Andre Leroux) or replacing it (Spying Mission, use of "instead"), before it happens
  2. this does not introduce a new window or whatever. It simply modifies an effect before it happens to avoid rollbacks
  3. using indicative implies rollback (X happens. X doesn't happens) which is illustrated by:
  4. Horrific Countenance introduces a rollback ("is blocked" then "is not blocked") that I illustrated by an example which use sequencing, but it's not related to sequencing. I could have used another effect that triggers when X is blocked, for instance Schuyler whose special doesn't use sequencing ("When Schuyler is blocked, your prey may move a library card from his or her ash heap to the top of his or her library.")


Thank you for bringing us back to the discussion. My larger point is this: a lot of what Ankha is talking about here is not in the rulebook. "Rollbacks" are not defined. Modification of an effect before it happens is not outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. Effects that use sequencing also have other concepts involved (in the case of Horrific Countenance, rollbacks) that are not defined in the rulebook. I am simply trying to fit all of these undefined effects in the game within the confines of our resources of understanding the game. As has been pointed out, I am confused about how things work because nothing is clearly outlined anywhere. This is a major problem with this game that I think needs to change. Either we need to fit all of these effects into the confines of the resources that we have to understand the game (which is what I am trying to do), or we need to change the resources that we use to understand the game to fit the effects in the game. This is really the point I want to get across. Thank you for having this discussion with me.
Last edit: 15 Jun 2015 11:20 by TwoRazorReign.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2015 12:58 #71746 by Ankha

a lot of what Ankha is talking about here is not in the rulebook. "Rollbacks" are not defined. Modification of an effect before it happens is not outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. Effects that use sequencing also have other concepts involved (in the case of Horrific Countenance, rollbacks) that are not defined in the rulebook. I am simply trying to fit all of these undefined effects in the game within the confines of our resources of understanding the game.


They are not defined in the rulebook, because they don't need to. I use "rollback" because it's a english word that don't need a rule definition: it has no special meaning in the game. There are no mecanics involved. It simply describes a concept.

"If X would happen, then Y happens instead" is plain english too. I checked the M:TG rules that are ultra-detailled, and written in a kind of exhaustive way, and they use conditional without explaining what is conditional in English :)

I call them "replacement effects" because it's how they're called in Magic, and the name suits well the concept. But André Leroux is not a replacement effect, it's just a modifier that happens before something would happen (plain English again).

Here's how replacement effects are defined in Magic. It doesn't really apply to V:TES:

614. Replacement Effects

614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.

614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.

614.1b Effects that use the word “skip” are replacement effects. These replacement effects use the word “skip” to indicate what events, steps, phases, or turns will be replaced with nothing.

614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement effects.

614.1d Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects.

614.1e Effects that read “As [this permanent] is turned face up . . . ,” are replacement effects.

614.2. Some replacement effects apply to damage from a source. See rule 609.7.

614.3. There are no special restrictions on casting a spell or activating an ability that generates a replacement effect. Such effects last until they’re used up or their duration has expired.

614.4. Replacement effects must exist before the appropriate event occurs—they can’t “go back in time” and change something that’s already happened. Spells or abilities that generate these effects are often cast or activated in response to whatever would produce the event and thus resolve before that event would occur.
Example: A player can activate an ability to regenerate a creature in response to a spell that would destroy it. Once the spell resolves, though, it’s too late to regenerate the creature.

614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it.
Example: A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads “If a creature you control would deal damage to a creature or player, it deals double that damage to that creature or player instead.” A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage—not just 4, and not an infinite amount.

614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

614.7. If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn’t do anything.

614.7a If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. Replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.

614.8. Regeneration is a destruction-replacement effect. The word “instead” doesn’t appear on the card but is implicit in the definition of regeneration. “Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.” Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates. See rule 701.12.

614.9. Some effects replace damage dealt to one creature, planeswalker, or player with the same damage dealt to another creature, planeswalker, or player; such effects are called redirection effects. If either creature or planeswalker is no longer on the battlefield when the damage would be redirected, or is no longer a creature or planeswalker when the damage would be redirected, the effect does nothing. If damage would be redirected to or from a player who has left the game, the effect does nothing.

614.10. An effect that causes a player to skip an event, step, phase, or turn is a replacement effect. “Skip [something]” is the same as “Instead of doing [something], do nothing.” Once a step, phase, or turn has started, it can no longer be skipped—any skip effects will wait until the next occurrence.

614.10a Anything scheduled for a skipped step, phase, or turn won’t happen. Anything scheduled for the “next” occurrence of something waits for the first occurrence that isn’t skipped. If two effects each cause a player to skip his or her next occurrence, that player must skip the next two; one effect will be satisfied in skipping the first occurrence, while the other will remain until another occurrence can be skipped.

614.10b Some effects cause a player to skip a step, phase, or turn, then take another action. That action is considered to be the first thing that happens during the next step, phase, or turn to actually occur.

614.11. Some effects replace card draws. These effects are applied even if no cards could be drawn because there are no cards in the affected player’s library.

614.11a If an effect replaces a draw within a sequence of card draws, all actions required by the replacement are completed, if possible, before resuming the sequence.

614.11b If an effect would have a player both draw a card and perform an additional action on that card, and the draw is replaced, the additional action is not performed on any cards that are drawn as a result of that replacement effect.

614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.
Example: Voice of All says “As Voice of All enters the battlefield, choose a color” and “Voice of All has protection from the chosen color.” An effect creates a token that’s a copy of Voice of All. As that token is put onto the battlefield, its controller chooses a color for it.
Example: Yixlid Jailer says “Cards in graveyards lose all abilities.” Scarwood Treefolk says “Scarwood Treefolk enters the battlefield tapped.” A Scarwood Treefolk that’s put onto the battlefield from a graveyard enters the battlefield tapped.
Example: Orb of Dreams is an artifact that says “Permanents enter the battlefield tapped.” It won’t affect itself, so Orb of Dreams enters the battlefield untapped.

614.12a If a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield requires a choice, that choice is made before the permanent enters the battlefield.

614.13. An effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield may cause other objects to change zones.

614.13a When applying an effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield, you can’t make a choice that would cause that permanent to go to a different zone and not enter the battlefield.
Example: Sutured Ghoul says, in part, “As Sutured Ghoul enters the battlefield, exile any number of creature cards from your graveyard.” If Sutured Ghoul enters the battlefield from your graveyard, you can’t choose to exile Sutured Ghoul itself.

614.13b The same object can’t be chosen to change zones more than once when applying replacement effects that modify how a single permanent enters the battlefield.
Example: Jund (a plane card) says, “Whenever a player casts a black, red, or green creature spell, it gains devour 5.” A player controls Runeclaw Bear and casts Thunder-Thrash Elder, a red creature spell with devour 3. As Thunder-Thrash Elder enters the battlefield, its controller can choose to sacrifice Runeclaw Bear when applying the devour 3 effect or when applying the devour 5 effect, but not both. Thunder-Thrash Elder will enter the battlefield with zero, three, or five +1/+1 counters, depending on this choice.

614.14. An object may have one ability printed on it that generates a replacement effect which causes one or more cards to be exiled, and another ability that refers either to “the exiled cards” or to cards “exiled with [this object].” These abilities are linked: the second refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as a direct result of the replacement event caused by the first. If another object gains a pair of linked abilities, the abilities will be similarly linked on that object. They can’t be linked to any other ability, regardless of what other abilities the object may currently have or may have had in the past. See rule 607, “Linked Abilities.”

614.15. Some replacement effects are not continuous effects. Rather, they are an effect of a resolving spell or ability that replace part or all of that spell or ability’s own effect(s). Such effects are called self-replacement effects. The text creating a self-replacement effect is usually part of the ability whose effect is being replaced, but the text can be a separate ability, particularly when preceded by an ability word. When applying replacement effects to an event, self-replacement effects are applied before other replacement effects.


Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jun 2015 19:54 - 15 Jun 2015 19:56 #71749 by TwoRazorReign

They are not defined in the rulebook, because they don't need to.


You are arguing that Horrific Countenance is using a concept where an effect is being reversed, and you’re calling this “rollback.” If this concept exists, it needs to be outlined somewhere. Players need to know that this effect exists, or else they will substitute something else to explain the effect of Horrific Countenance (such as what I did with sequencing, wherein the “rollback” was occurring, but it was fine with me because the players passed priority appropriately and the weird effect was a consequence of that).

I use "rollback" because it's a english word that don't need a rule definition: it has no special meaning in the game. There are no mecanics involved. It simply describes a concept.


You are arguing that rollback is a concept that that has special meaning for effects such as those used in Horrific Countenance. By using rollback as an explanation of how an effect is working, you are attaching meaning to it and the concept needs to be outlined somewhere. I personally do not think rollback needs to be explained. Weird effects are allowed to occur as long as normal sequencing (passing the priority back and forth) is followed.

"If X would happen, then Y happens instead" is plain english too.


And “If X happens, Y happens instead” is also English and is clearer in some instances, especially when using the Complete Rules Reference as a guide.

I checked the M:TG rules that are ultra-detailled, and written in a kind of exhaustive way, and they use conditional without explaining what is conditional in English


I’ll reiterate my point about using the conditional versus indicative because I think I am not being clear about what I am arguing: using the conditional on certain cards places effects at steps in the Complete Rules Reference that are not there. Using the indicative places effects somewhere within the steps outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. “Bleed is successful” places the effect at 6.2.3. “bleed would be successful” places the effect at some undefined point before 6.2.3. This causes confusion. It is not a matter of general English language usage and the conditional being suboptimal, it is a matter of how the use of the conditional in this specific instance causes confusion when also using the Complete Rules Reference as a guide.

I call them "replacement effects" because it's how they're called in Magic, and the name suits well the concept. But André Leroux is not a replacement effect, it's just a modifier that happens before something would happen (plain English again).


VTES is not Magic. That game is apples, this game is oranges. If “replacement effects” is a concept that exists in V:TES, then it needs to be defined somewhere.

Please understand something: I am saying that making Andre LeRoux’s special ability happen at the point when the “bleed is successful” (what you are calling a “replacement effect”) would clarify things. I am in no way saying that it is currently a replacement effect, because, since the card text uses the conditional, it is not a replacement effect. It is actually happening at some undefined point before the bleed is successful. This is now the second time I have tried explaining this. I am arguing that it should be a replacement effect by changing Andre LeRoux's card text to the indicative verb format, not that it is currently a replacement effect.

Here's how replacement effects are defined in Magic. It doesn't really apply to V:TES:


Apples and oranges. Plus, I am not reading all that. Haha!
Last edit: 15 Jun 2015 19:56 by TwoRazorReign.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Jun 2015 06:56 - 16 Jun 2015 07:04 #71753 by Ankha
Ok, I'll put it another way: stop using the CRR the way you do. It's in no mean supposed to be exhaustive as you'd like it to be. It shouldn't even be called "Complete Rule Reference", rather "Game sequencing summary". It describes in a detailed but not exhaustive way how the game runs, phase by phase.

Then: be smart. Using the indicative because it would match a line in the CRR is :
- a nonsense: the CRR isn't exhaustive. Everything can't be matched
- a plain mistake because it wouldn't have the effect it's supposed to have (since it would trigger other effects, then replace the effect with something else)

You totally missed the point with the rollback. It's not a game concept, it's just logic:
A happens. B triggers because A happens. A now doesn't happen.

is different from:

A would happen, but doesn't. Instead something else happens (and B never triggers because A never happens)

At some point, understanding rules has a prerequisite that can't be written in the book: you must be logical and understand English.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 16 Jun 2015 07:04 by Ankha.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Pascek

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Jun 2015 08:23 - 16 Jun 2015 08:32 #71755 by 2wayspeaker
In regards to the timing. How does bleed reduction from the prey fit in?
Can the predator claim that he had "priority" and use the special first?
Because andre will wait for a bounce before applying either spying mission or/and the power.

Does priority of modifiers and reaction cards change, when? Or is it simply a "I threw the card on the table first" deal?

If Andre bleeds for 2.
I do not block.
I wake and reduce by two (telepathic counter)
Can the predator cause a fuss about how he had priority?

Also when you use Andre's special on himself, he get's +2 bleed that turn.
So andre tries to bleed for 1, doesnt get blocked, he uses the special, it's now a bleed of 2 (1-1+2), that bleed get's bounced and andre uses spying mission.

Even witouth the bounce.
Andre bleeds for 1.
No block bounce reduce.
Special on himself.
The bleed gets -1 but andre has now a bleed of 3, therefore it's still a succesful bleed of 2.
That means he can play spying mission as well, after the special.

Edit: Original Post specified andre using special on another vampire, not himself
Last edit: 16 Jun 2015 08:32 by 2wayspeaker.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.121 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum