Andre LeRoux + spying mission
24 Jun 2015 15:30 - 24 Jun 2015 15:33 #71842
by jamesatzephyr
Except that's not when it would be successful. A variety of effects are still playable at that time, such as bleed bounce, and the action/bleed may still not be successful. Telepathic Counter can be played after blocks are declined, and lead to the bleed being unsuccessful by reducing it to less than one(*). Scobax superior can be played, ending the action.(**) One of the other Methuselahs could oust him or herself while Last Stand was in play, causing the turn to end (and the action to end therefore).(***)
So, that interpretation is wrong.
(*) The amount can go negative for tracking purposes.
(**) Since it provides negative stealth, not intercept, you don't need a blocking attempt in progress with a minion who needs intercept.
(***) Consider a Methuselah in a lost position who can legally self-oust, who plays a card that requires pool. For example, after blocks are declined, I play Conditioning and the Methuselah in the lost position plays Direct Intervention (costing him his last pool) to pay me back for breaking a deal.
Not clearer. Indeed, much more murky. A blocked bleed is still a bleed and still resolves (unsuccessfully, with a block combat in most circumstances).
Sadly, this is all too clear.
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission
“When a bleed would be successful” (conditional) can be interpreted as “after blocks are declined but before resolving the bleed.”
Except that's not when it would be successful. A variety of effects are still playable at that time, such as bleed bounce, and the action/bleed may still not be successful. Telepathic Counter can be played after blocks are declined, and lead to the bleed being unsuccessful by reducing it to less than one(*). Scobax superior can be played, ending the action.(**) One of the other Methuselahs could oust him or herself while Last Stand was in play, causing the turn to end (and the action to end therefore).(***)
So, that interpretation is wrong.
(*) The amount can go negative for tracking purposes.
(**) Since it provides negative stealth, not intercept, you don't need a blocking attempt in progress with a minion who needs intercept.
(***) Consider a Methuselah in a lost position who can legally self-oust, who plays a card that requires pool. For example, after blocks are declined, I play Conditioning and the Methuselah in the lost position plays Direct Intervention (costing him his last pool) to pay me back for breaking a deal.
“Play immediately before the bleed is resolved”
Not clearer. Indeed, much more murky. A blocked bleed is still a bleed and still resolves (unsuccessfully, with a block combat in most circumstances).
It’s about misinterpreting how cards work.
Sadly, this is all too clear.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
24 Jun 2015 19:01 - 24 Jun 2015 19:08 #71846
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission
Ok, so you're suggesting to replace the conditional that you find unclear by an imperative verb form that is unclear too (and that changes also the effect of the card).
I don't find logical to let a thing happen, then revert the thing and say it didn't.
I'm quoting one of your first posts:
You're asking for the advantage: conditional is useful for replacement effects because it changes something before it would happen (that matches exactly the purpose of conditional also in English. How convenient). The bleed WOULD be successful (IF no cards were played) but is not in the end (for Spying Mission).
As for clarifying "that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects": first, that's no clarification but a rule change because currently you can play Andre's special and Spying Mission in that order, provided that André's bleed after reduction is still > 0 (see Pascal's post)
Secondly, it's just a matter of logic. If you play Spying Mission, the bleed is not successful per cardtext. Since it's not successful, you can't use André's special after that. Think of a time machine
if I go back in the past before something would happen, and prevent it, it never happens 
I don't find logical to let a thing happen, then revert the thing and say it didn't.
I'm quoting one of your first posts:
I strongly believe the interaction of these 2 effects as outlined above exists because of sloppy card text, specifically the phrases "would successfully bleed" and "bleed would be successful.” Replacing these phrases with "successfully bleeds" and "bleed is successful," respectively, would clarify that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects, and there'd instead be a much clearer (but different) way in which these cards interact.
The “would” conditional verb form is used on approximately 1.2% of cards. I can't figure out what the advantage of using this verb form is for any of those cards. Is there any?
You're asking for the advantage: conditional is useful for replacement effects because it changes something before it would happen (that matches exactly the purpose of conditional also in English. How convenient). The bleed WOULD be successful (IF no cards were played) but is not in the end (for Spying Mission).
As for clarifying "that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects": first, that's no clarification but a rule change because currently you can play Andre's special and Spying Mission in that order, provided that André's bleed after reduction is still > 0 (see Pascal's post)
Secondly, it's just a matter of logic. If you play Spying Mission, the bleed is not successful per cardtext. Since it's not successful, you can't use André's special after that. Think of a time machine
if I go back in the past before something would happen, and prevent it, it never happens
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.118 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Andre LeRoux + spying mission