First Tradition and Unlock Phase

If the cards were made so poorly then ban them. Total garbage rules is a hinderance for old players and a massive barrier for new ones. Really turns people off having to churn through all these old google groups only to find it has been changed.

Non-existant user wrote:

Tadori wrote:

And that that answers are treated as one group effect. But what about a situation in with you answer differently to each copy. For example

1: skip
2: brun
3: skip

Not how the card works. First Tradition has two distinct effects that happen at different times:
1) Players can choose to skip their turn.
2) Players burn 2 pool during their untap phase.

The two effects are not linked logically, only temporally. For effect number 1, the player has only 1 turn to skip, so only 1 opportunity to make a decision no matter how First Tradition are in play. If the player decides to take his turn, then he has an untap phase with all that entails. The second effect of each First Tradition triggers in the exact same way as each Anarch Revolt or Smiling Jack would trigger.

FT:M is not like Anarch Revolt or Smiling Jack because they don't interfere with their trigger condition and if there is only one opportunity to make a decision and there is no Stack in the game you should trigger only one FT:M.It's different from Anarch Revolt or Smiling Jack because they actually work as an "action" cards in unlock phase. They are not interrupts.

EDIT: You are right about burning. You burn 2 for each copy.

The problem with Ankha answer is that it includes mechanics of stack(you trigger multiple interupt/reaction effects to one condition and then solve them) but as I know there is no such mechanism in VTES rulebook

EDIT 2:So actually this card should ready:

interupt: Before a turn begins, each Methuselah can choose to skip it. If controller of this card skips a turn put a "time" counter on it. Burns this card if there are 3 "time" counters.

During Thier unlock phase each Methuselah burn 2 pool. If controller of this card burns pool put a "fire" counter on it. Burns this card if there are 3 "fire" counters.

The difference between what you and Ankha wrote is that. Acc. to you there is only one trigger of FT:M so only one copy checks the first condition and gets a time counter. But all of them will get Fire counter. In Ankhas version all cards will get a time counter. (because all of them check timing) but it would indicate stack mechanism in VTES and what happens with different answers.

If the cards were made so poorly then ban them. Total garbage rules is a hinderance for old players and a massive barrier for new ones. Really turns people off having to churn through all these old google groups only to find it has been changed.

The only issue is that VTES has no definite timeline by the rules. IIf you look on any other modern CCG on each card you "action:, reaction:, interrupt:" cards specified time with key words and the rulebook has a clear definition of timeline. VTES doesn't have this kind of clear order and you have to analyze timeline from cards text.

Yea, it's not good to make cards without considering the rules of the game.

Tadori wrote:

The only issue is that VTES has no definite timeline by the rules. IIf you look on any other modern CCG on each card you "action:, reaction:, interrupt:" cards specified time with key words and the rulebook has a clear definition of timeline. VTES doesn't have this kind of clear order and you have to analyze timeline from cards text.

Indeed. Compounding this issue is that, historically, card texts in VTES were not vigilant about using consistent language across different cards to denote the same timing. Now that consistent text will be used on cards moving forward (I am hearing that's the plan), the rulebook can be updated with what those consistent texts are and what they mean. For example, "would" and "is about to" can be added to the list of templates in the rulebook, with the description that "would" replacement effects take place before whatever effect they are replacing, with "is about to" effects happening immediately thereafter (or whatever).

An attempt to solve that issue is being made, albeit without introducing new keywords. Is this fix elegant in the context of modern CCGs? No. Is it better than what VTES historically has done? Yes.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Tadori wrote:

The only issue is that VTES has no definite timeline by the rules. IIf you look on any other modern CCG on each card you "action:, reaction:, interrupt:" cards specified time with key words and the rulebook has a clear definition of timeline. VTES doesn't have this kind of clear order and you have to analyze timeline from cards text.

Indeed. Compounding this issue is that, historically, card texts in VTES were not vigilant about using consistent language across different cards to denote the same timing. Now that consistent text will be used on cards moving forward (I am hearing that's the plan), the rulebook can be updated with what those consistent texts are and what they mean. For example, "would" and "is about to" can be added to the list of templates in the rulebook, with the description that "would" replacement effects take place before whatever effect they are replacing, with "is about to" effects happening immediately thereafter (or whatever).

An attempt to solve that issue is being made, albeit without introducing new keywords. Is this fix elegant in the context of modern CCGs? No. Is it better than what VTES historically has done? Yes.

I agree 100%. Iit's not possible to create special key words in 25 year old game. They will have to create keywords as you said from template words. It's just more complicated because every time when you will use those words in descriptions you have to be careful.

I think the most common words used in games are Before(interrupt), After(Reaction), During (action), may (choice)

Realitsitcally the only way to clean up the rules is do a reset or errata every old card.