file Form of Mist: Unplayable as currently ruled?

20 Nov 2015 14:24 - 20 Nov 2015 14:54 #74475 by Malcolm Sprye

Ankha wrote: Answer has been given, the troll has been fed, the topic can be closed.


I'm sorry, I'm a troll?

I asked a reasoned question, I pointed out what appear to be massive holes in the ruling's logic. I then even asked for clarification about the ramifications of that ruling if the flaws aren't ironed out (or are decided to not be flaws).

So far, no one has answered the, IMO, valid questions that have been raised, namely:
1)The rules clearly put 6.2.2.Resolve any block attempts, and 6.2.3.Resolve the action in different steps. The combat takes place during the "Resolve the action" step. Therefore any block attempt has been resolved, and there is no block attempt currently underway to compare stealth against.
2) If you ignore point 1, and say that FoM triggers a magical new block attempt, the current blocking minion is TAPPED... and therefore cannot block. Which means that you could never play FoM unless the opposing minion had played a wake beforehand.

There were only 2 attempts at answering. One of them totally ignored the actual rule book, and its separation of block attempts from action resolution.
The other re-iterated the flawed parallel between FoM and stealth cards which say "playable even if stealth is not yet needed". I call it a flawed parallel because there are no other combat cards that add stealth. Why? Because you're not allowed to play stealth in combat! FoM is already firmly in "Golden Rule" territory (card text trumps rules)... so when it says you keep going with +1 stealth, even though you've already been blocked, and are in combat... you keep going with +1 stealth.

If you either justify, or hand wave 1 and 2... I still had some questions, unresolved by either the ruling or the rule book (the latter because this situation is outside the normal rules).
3)Since your stealth is compared to the opposing minion's intercept, does that mean he MUST block if possible? After all, this ruling seems to assume an ongoing block attempt. Example of why this could matter: OBF, PRO, with faceless night... the opponent Majesties up... is he then assumed to be attempting to block... therefore tapping if he doesn't have/want to play extra intercept to counter FoM?
OR
4)If the block attempt is optional. Can you point at ANY legal blocker and use their intercept as a springboard to enable you to play FoM? It makes as much sense as comparing your stealth to a tapped minion's intercept.

Sorry to be pushy, but none of my questions were answered rigorously, and the last 2 weren't addressed at all.

Edit:
I'm pushing this because, as almost everybody realizes the game is already quite complicated and arcane. This is a giant hurdle to new players... and while you can try to keep them away from sharp corners during their intro period... it helps to smooth out as many corners as we can. In situations like this, you're left with the choice of either blasting the newbie with all the rulings and errata on a card when they first encounter it (which drives deeper the sense of enormity to learn the game)... or you can wait till they trip over this or something like it in game. That leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. If they're lucky, and it happens in a casual game, maybe you just rewind... but in a tournament, you may just lose the player... or at least a lot of their enthusiasm.
Since the "Golden Rule" option allows everything to work smoothly and intuitively, while the current ruling is incomplete AND complicated AND non-intuitive (and from a tight reading of the rules, just wrong)... I see no upside and many downsides to keeping it as is.
Last edit: 20 Nov 2015 14:54 by Malcolm Sprye.

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

More
20 Nov 2015 15:13 #74476 by BenPeal
In case any of you haven't read the current text of Form of Mist:

Form of Mist
:combat:
:pro: Strike: dodge.
:PRO: Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting and needs stealth when this strike resolves, he or she may burn 1 blood after combat ends to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked. A vampire may play only one Form of Mist at superior each action.

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

More
20 Nov 2015 15:16 - 20 Nov 2015 15:17 #74477 by ReverendRevolver
We all agree the streamlining of rules is on the agenda.

I think your hang up here is in resolution(s).
I bleed, you block, I SCE. This action is over. Form of mist adds if I'm acting and needed stealth (because if Enkidu rushes you we are fighting after a successful action, etc) the action keeps going. Now, the action was already announced, blockers declared, stealth/intercept math done, combat started. We pick back up in the same action. I'm acting. You blocked successfully. FOM gave me an additional stealth. its the same action. Stealth/intercept is the same. I cant play duplicate action modifiers. I think its the same block attempt, for the purposes of aching beauty or whatever.
We do math. I bled with Rachel Brandywine, you block with second trad on Anson. I FoM. We are tapped, im bleeding with Rachel(Googly Moogly) you are blocking with Anson. You have 2 intercept, me 1 stealth. I can play crocs tongue. You pay. I play deny, we are tied, I play confusion at DEM. Im currently past you. You can play intercept, and i can play stealth if you do. Action is still going, block attempt failed, i have priority to do whatever if I hadn't pumped, etc. You can bounce or reduce or say its through, I get priority and you burn pool.

Its the same action, but a different step. Golden rule is card beats rules, so rules say its done, card puts us back to what was done, everything is the same as it was since its the same action.

We are all aware this shows complexity, but is frankly less terrible than other stuff. Its a known issue.

I think the troll comment referenced a trend this week with a certain player picking at wording on card names that this was similarly constructed as.
Last edit: 20 Nov 2015 15:17 by ReverendRevolver.

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

More
20 Nov 2015 15:20 - 20 Nov 2015 15:25 #74478 by Ankha
There is a very simple rule: you can't add stealth if the acting minion has already more stealth than the blocking minion has intercept.

That's all. Many you're not comfortable with "blocking minion". The blocking minion is the minion that has blocked the action, and is still blocking the action. Because yes, the action is still "being blocked" after the block attempt succeeded, even in combat. That's why Form of Mist states that the action "continues [...] as if unblocked."



groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/EX-3_9zu5Zw/5CxtqNcawM0J

LSJ wrote: Frederick Scott wrote:
> A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that
> if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked
> by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that
> Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all
> because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and
> the vampire with intercept is tapped.
He needs stealth.
There is a current blocking minion with intercept >= stealth.


> And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
> FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
> that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
> vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
> perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
> didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.
Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of
the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule.


Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 20 Nov 2015 15:25 by Ankha.

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

More
20 Nov 2015 15:25 - 20 Nov 2015 15:25 #74479 by BenPeal

Malcolm Sprye wrote: I'm pushing this because, as almost everybody realizes the game is already quite complicated and arcane. This is a giant hurdle to new players...


Can we please stop invoking this during discussions of rules issues? Or at least ask rules questions and discuss them with the blanket assumption that we're all concerned about it? Every rules question represents a potential hurdle to new (and current) players.
Last edit: 20 Nov 2015 15:25 by BenPeal.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Juggernaut1981

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

More
20 Nov 2015 15:28 #74481 by Malcolm Sprye

BenPeal wrote:

Malcolm Sprye wrote: I'm pushing this because, as almost everybody realizes the game is already quite complicated and arcane. This is a giant hurdle to new players...


Can we please stop invoking this during discussions of rules issues? Or at least ask rules questions and discuss them with the blanket assumption that we're all concerned about it? Every rules question represents a potential hurdle to new (and current) players.


Sorry Ben, but you will notice I didn't include it in my initial post... and really only felt the need to bring it up in response to being called a troll. I wasn't actually speaking to the rules at that point, but rather my motives.

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