Outside the hour glass, rotschreck and disarm

Bloodartist wrote:

[ps. I would love to do a lengthy rant about how these cards should be written, but that would just confuse the topic even further...

Floppy and Vincent have gone through all the VTES cards in order to clarify,unify and make them more easily playable.

AFAIK, this revision is just waiting for the game to be picked up again by a publisher.


There probably have been several instances where these new wording have been linked to...

Lönkka wrote:

There probably have been several instances where these new wording have been linked to...

Yep, all the cards on Amaranth use this text: amaranth.vtes.co.nz

jamesatzephyr wrote:

It's completely 100% right. It is exactly why Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking work. It's worked this way specifically on Rotschreck since 2002. The fact that combat ends-followed-by-something effects could be interrupted had been established long, long ago with Form of Mist, where if something "sufficiently disruptive" happened, the continue action effect was lost. This principle was formalized into something coherent in the 2002 ruling.

If there is one positive thing in this debacle, its that you have given me a new, powerful weapon against Rotschreck. Recently I was destroyed in a tournament game by rotschreck playing a deck that actually plays psyches. The idea that I could play psyche during rotschrecks resolution would never ever crossed my mind without this thread...

So? Paying a card and getting pool back from its effect don't oust you. That's how V:TES works. It's pretty simple.

But you are already tracking one part of game state and allowing it to affect the game during a card's resolution (whether combat continues or not during rotschreck) , while ignoring another (whether player has 0 pool or not and whether he is ousted during eternals). I don't see any logic in why these cases are handled differently. Even if a player can play the pool cost, he is still at 0 pool during eternals resolution.

The main reason why I keep complaining about these things, is that I foresee a whole host of problems in designing new cards should VTES return to print and new expansions be published. If you allow these things during a cards resolution, you have to be extremely careful with the wording of each new card so you don't accidentally 'blow up the world' so to speak due to unforeseen interaction with another card. Card design would be far easier to handle if you only needed to worry about status quo after a card has resolved, not between every sentence of its card text. I'm trying to herald common sense here.

Bloodartist wrote:

But you are already tracking one part of game state and allowing it to affect the game during a card's resolution (whether combat continues or not during rotschreck) , while ignoring another (whether player has 0 pool or not and whether he is ousted during eternals). I don't see any logic in why these cases are handled differently. Even if a player can play the pool cost, he is still at 0 pool during eternals resolution.

During Rotschreck, combat ends. Effects that are playable when combat ends are thus playable, because combat is ending, due to the fact that a combat ends effect played during combat has made the combat end, in a combat-ending fashion.

Paying the cost of a master card and receiving pool back from it at the same time doesn't oust you.

It's literally that simple. They are two different things.

Bloodartist wrote:

The main reason why I keep complaining about these things,

...is because V:TES isn't Magic, yes, we know.

Do you also watch American football and yell at them that they in another game using a similarly-shaped ball with players called backs and forwards (rugby), they'd be penalised for throwing the ball forwards?

Bloodartist wrote:

is that I foresee a whole host of problems in designing new cards should VTES return to print and new expansions be published.

Yet Rotschreck has worked fine this way since 2002, and one of the reasons for the specific ruling was, in fact:
Having it work the way you think it should work made the game worse. Much worse. Having a relatively easily accessible set of counters made the game better.

So:
1) You don't know how the game works
2) The changes you propose make the game worse, which we know - because it was worse in the past


So if V:TES returns to print, making the game quantifiably worse by having Rotschreck the way you want would be a bad idea. Making Rotschreck more powerful and extremely difficult to counter made such decks incredibly un-fun to oppose. Making things unfun for players is bad for the game. Your 'foresight' makes the game worse.