Extrala is wrong (Did you know, that ... (Part 91))

extrala wrote:

Can you tell me why the first two are valid in comparison of the third?

- OtH + Maneuver to long + Majesty Disarm => Not valid.
- OtH + Selective Silence + Disarm => Not valid.
- OtH + Fear of the Void Below + Majesty + Disarm => Valid.

I'd love to hear this too. Fear of the Void Below defaults the range to long, and I'm thinking long is long - you can't play Disarm if the range is long.

This baffels me somewhat.

Ohlmann wrote:

Reyda wrote:

The very creation of a step where "range is not yet known but ..." is the perfect example of the failure of wording this card properly.

Oh, yes, because nothing happen before range. I will remeber that the next time I tore a signpost.

I don't know for you, but Outside the hourglass was worded exactly like a regular strike, while environmental card was not. Outside the hourglass is ... crystal clear, it's more a case of Disarm being here from day one and alway having a strange wording.

then if it's so clear, why does this thread exist ? When a card summons a lot of questions from players everywhere, it's either badly worded or badly designed, or both. That's a basic principle of game design. Sorry if you don't understand the "range is not yet known but..." It has nothing to do with "before range step", but has something to do with the timing where the damage is dealt. Weather control does not need to know about range. It does not "combo" with long/short range cards. OtH has to know because it has been decided (ruled ?) that the vampire inflicts the damage. Thus it has a possible combo with disarm/pulled fangs...

It's not a strike. It's not evironmental either. It's not related to strength... The proposed solution (making it environmental à la Weather control) certainly avoids most of those problems...

Reyda wrote:

When a card summons a lot of questions from players everywhere, it's either badly worded or badly designed, or both. That's a basic principle of game design.

Which is also a false basic principle. It can be the rule who are badly designed, or simply badly explained.

For the rest of your post, it boil down to "I would not have ruled this this way, so the ruling is stupid". Fine, I get it, you disagree with current ruling. And by the way the card change to disarm-like card proposed by Pascal Bertrand also avoid most of thoses problem, without removing the "damage done by the vampire" part.

Ohlmann wrote:

Reyda wrote:

When a card summons a lot of questions from players everywhere, it's either badly worded or badly designed, or both. That's a basic principle of game design.

Which is also a false basic principle. It can be the rule who are badly designed, or simply badly explained.

What you say may make perfect sense when designing a game from ground up.
But when you add a card to a 15 years old game that have rules which works with all tons of other cards already printed, then you must take those rules and those cards in account. Failure in doing so does not mean that the rules are flawed : it means that the card itself is badly designed/ badly worded or both. Just as I said above.
So I beg to differ.

Ohlmann wrote:

For the rest of your post, it boil down to "I would not have ruled this this way, so the ruling is stupid". Fine, I get it, you disagree with current ruling. And by the way the card change to disarm-like card proposed by Pascal Bertrand also avoid most of thoses problem, without removing the "damage done by the vampire" part.

No, it's not really "this ruling is stupid". It's more "There should be no ruling if the card was made while having the rules and interaction with other cards in mind." Which is completely different. The suggestion of weather control is just here to propose something. that's all.
Again, a card that suggest mandatory change on already printed and played cards is ... well, you guessed, badly designed/worded or both. Again