file Erlik and Illusions of the Kindred

24 Jul 2024 06:02 - 24 Jul 2024 06:02 #112151 by Ankha

Ankha could you please provide your rationale for the ruling?

I and others thought because of the separate sentences; of moving the vampire to the ready region, and the gaining blood, that the “as Erlik enter play” would happen in relation to the first part of being put in play and thereby before actually gaining any blood.

By default, cardtext resolves atomically. The separation between sentences only matters if something interrupts an effect (e.g., Psyche!) but then it requires specific cardtext such as a replacement effect ("would... instead") or a "is about to..." effect.
Erlik's effect is neither, so you resolve IotK then apply Erlik's effect.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 24 Jul 2024 06:02 by Ankha.

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

More
24 Jul 2024 10:16 #112154 by inm8
If we look at Rötschreck’s wording it is intentionally divided into two sentences, if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be possible to interrupt/play eg Psyche (being two separate sentences is the reason why it has been ruled that Psyche is playable in its timing window “End of Round” which happens between the two sentences and not because it is an “interrupt” effect ).

“Combat ends. This vampire is locked and sent to torpor.”

[RTR 20020501]

The ”As Erlik enters play” effect based on the Rötschreck rationale should resolve in the same timing window as “That minion does not contest any other minions or titles in play.” which logically is before the blood gaining effect that isn’t in any way a mandatory or prerequisite effect for putting the vampire in the ready region.


“Move the bottom card from your crypt to your ready region. That minion does not contest any other minions or titles in play. That vampire gains blood equal to half their capacity rounded down.”

I understand that the intent of the card might be to work as ruled but imo if that is the wish a re-wording is what is needed and not a ruling.

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

More
24 Jul 2024 23:03 - 24 Jul 2024 23:04 #112168 by TryDeflectingThisGrapple
Here's the 2009 LSJ ruling for Fourth Cycle (pre-errata) which established a precedent for execution in written order - in this case even when provided in a single sentence. That thread post-dates the Bima ruling [LSJ 20080512] which established at least some of the atomic timing precedents.

groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/4VRjly38IPo/m/hyjMZeaQmjUJ

I can see why 1) there's confusion on this topic and 2) why Fourth Cycle was given errata.
Last edit: 24 Jul 2024 23:04 by TryDeflectingThisGrapple.

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

More
25 Jul 2024 21:13 #112177 by Ankha

Here's the 2009 LSJ ruling for Fourth Cycle (pre-errata) which established a precedent for execution in written order - in this case even when provided in a single sentence. That thread post-dates the Bima ruling [LSJ 20080512] which established at least some of the atomic timing precedents.

Just to be clear, "atomically" does not mean "simultaneously".

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.080 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum