Bleeding to oust with Lorrie Dunsirn at 1 pool

Just want to throw out a different scenario for consideration.

Hypothetical card in play says:
"Diablerie actions cost an additional pool."

Three players left. Each has 1 pool. "A" controls the Sandra White. ["If Sandra diablerizes an older vampire, the controller of that vampire burns 1 pool."] "B" has a no cards except a vampire in torpor, older than Sandra. "C" is irrelevant except that they are still in the game.

Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?


Different more convoluted secnario:

Hypothetical card BH:
" Call a blood hunt on a ready vampire."

Hypothetical vampire specials (on same vampire X):
"Actions cost this vampire 1 additional pool. Your prey burns 1 pool each time a vampire is burned."

Situation:
Meth A,B,C each have 1 pool.
Meth A controls vampire X who also has 2 votes. Meth B has no cards. Meth C has a ready vampire Z with 1 vote and a Pentex Subversion on them.

Vampire X plays card BH against vampire Z. What happens?

Jeff wrote:

Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?

What is supposed to be the subtlety ? A is ousted anyway. I don't remember the timing for Sandra's (or Lutz's) ability, so I can't say more.

Jeff wrote:

Vampire X plays card BH against vampire Z. What happens?

He is ousted immediatly before the blood hunt referendum, since he have 0 pool. Like Dunsirn playing a pool-gaining referendum. Here again, I don't see where you want to go, especially since Blood Hunt are already callable.

Jeff wrote:

Just want to throw out a different scenario for consideration.

Hypothetical card in play says:
"Diablerie actions cost an additional pool."

Three players left. Each has 1 pool. "A" controls the Sandra White. ["If Sandra diablerizes an older vampire, the controller of that vampire burns 1 pool."] "B" has a no cards except a vampire in torpor, older than Sandra. "C" is irrelevant except that they are still in the game.

Sandra diablerizes B's vampire, unblocked. What happens?


Different more convoluted secnario:

Hypothetical card BH:
" Call a blood hunt on a ready vampire."

Hypothetical vampire specials (on same vampire X):
"Actions cost this vampire 1 additional pool. Your prey burns 1 pool each time a vampire is burned."

Situation:
Meth A,B,C each have 1 pool.
Meth A controls vampire X who also has 2 votes. Meth B has no cards. Meth C has a ready vampire Z with 1 vote and a Pentex Subversion on them.

Vampire X plays card BH against vampire Z. What happens?

The second one seems an easy one. Since the BH needs to have a referendum (even if your card does not say "political action" so if the action is not bloqued A would be ousted. And the action will stop before complete resolution due to the disappearence of the acting vampire.

The first one, I would say both A and B are ousted simultaneously because everithing should trigger in the "basic resolution" window

TunFiskeMad wrote:

So if you take the pool from the oust you have declined to freak drive?

Maybe. But i think freak drive is ok, since it says after copleting an action (even though its an action modifier.) And the action doesnt immidiately end at your own initiative, such as with kiss of ra.

Pb could clarify, but after and action is also when you get the pool.

Magic had a stack.

I dsilike mtg, and we are nominally intilectually above mtg by and large

So, should vtes use a "queue" for the sake of sequencing explainations?

I punch with iliana, you punch with calebros. I play claws of the dead . Damages are on the queue, i play hidden strength, you glancing blow. Damages resolves from queue with pending, then resolving prevention(i could rotschreck between this though, even if you ended combay somehow as a strike) and my press, if i used sup hidden strength, is also in the queue, assuming we are both ready at press step(in ohio, its tradional to ask "would you like to press?" Regardless of if the opposing minion is ready ) and i can use it or not during press step, resolving or ignoring it at press step with possibly taste of vitae for zero entering somewhere.

This example is easy stuff explained complexely, but same terms could simplify and add easy logic to action resolution and game state checks, eapecially in the plainly important instances with cost, oust, and possible self oust.
Krc self oist is easy to understand, compared to lorrie example, but i feel terming things could help us.

Magic had a stack.

No no, it had batch system (until 2009), which was terrible. No, horrible. And even that doesn't fit the suffering MTG players had to go through when learning the game.

It has a stack system now, which is extremely elegant, easy to use and as intuitive as it gets. Once you understand how the stack works (10 minutes max, and that's if you're an idiot) you cannot possibly make an incorrect call what happens in a given situation.

Unlike in VTES, where you need to cross-ref 50 pages of rulebook, 2 forums of rulings and a hard-to-read-but-not-searchable rulings page. And you still end up wrong half the time.

I dsilike mtg, and we are nominally intilectually above mtg by and large

I like it, but I do not feel nominally and intellectually (I thought I'd spell it correctly) below VTES.

Rabble

Or, you could just use the stack properly (like, use it as it's used in M10 and on instead of mis-using the terrible 6th Edition combat rulings) and then understand why it's such an elegant way to handle things.

I'm not saying VTES needs a stack, but to dismiss the one thing that probably makes Magic so easy to pick up (and so succesfull as a result) is rather ignorant.

I learned magic after 6th, so it burns me royally that combat damage no longer uses the stack.

Although since im never playing it again unless im bored and rich(nothing against wotc, but they want too much money, and my thousands of cards were basically stolen, except for one legacy deck, which was sold to get money for my wedding, so its no longer my game. Add in the rules changes burning me, and arbitrary keywords every few sets, and yea, ill just stick with vtes.... although the modern masters set was a cool idea.)

Anyway, i think it was implied, but do you agree with me that some sort of stack esque system would help us at least some?

My phone stopped autocorrecting last year, so adjectives showing intellect escape me in spelling... not helping the point though, plainly........

Edit: wait, batch has to be older than 09. I started playing again around 2005, and did so competetively. There was definately a stack. 2009-2010 is probably when id stopped. Mogg fanatic could, at its last core set printing, block a1/1, put damage on the stack, then sac itsself to ping either another creature or player for one.