Horrific Countenance untaps a tapped blocking minion

mmm... I'd say there are inconsistencies in this game, and we have to live with them I guess...

Reyda wrote:

mmm... I'd say there are inconsistencies in this game, and we have to live with them I guess...

That's not really so. Rules can be changed, and card text can be updated.

The question is whether you want to live them. I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.

AaronC wrote:

Pascal wrote:

Involving "logic" (that is - applying real world mechanics to the game) won't make sense very long.
Especially when it comes to Disarming people - looks like they can grow an arm back. But wait - it's not all - even though vampires used to be human beings in the first place, you can only disarm them once.
And then you realize you can disarm Aabbt Kindred, which are snakes. Where's the logic there?

Does this mean that you agree with Direwolf?

With which of his points? I agree with the fact that what he posts is what he thinks.

I think applying our world's "logic" or "realisticality" to VTES, and try to get rules out of that doesn't work (otherwise, why would we have cardtexts and a rulebook?).

AaronC wrote:

I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.

That's a pretty broad statement. I think that there may be some remedies that are seen as being worse than the ailment (i.e. mass erratas/bannings). The rules are important, as is card text. If a card says that it untaps a guy then you have to play as written until(if) it is changed. Now there have been some crappy rulings (see Villein taking minimum two blood, unless you have less than two). Hopefully those can be corrected. There have also been inconsistent effects (i.e. Seraph's Second untaps a dude whether action is successful or not compared to basic freak drive, forced march, snake drive). I don't see how this kind of design helps the game because it makes you memorize a ton of cards. Where there is ambiguity in the effect, hopefully the rulesmonger would go with the intended effect. Bottom line is it depends and there is no easy answer.

Direwolf:

Horrific Countenance should be changed to be brought in line with "Change of Target" for wording, OR the cost should be reduced or some other restriction should be put on the card.

ReverendRevolver:

the untap is illogical from a mechanic standpoint, but from a fluffy standpoint, it makes sense.

Pascal wrote:

With which of his points? I agree with the fact that what he posts is what he thinks.

I think applying our world's "logic" or "realisticality" to VTES, and try to get rules out of that doesn't work (otherwise, why would we have cardtexts and a rulebook?).

You refuted an argument against a proposed change. I wanted to know if you refuted the argument because you agreed with the proposed change.

Direwolf was the one saying that card text should be changed so that it matched a similar card (which agrees with my sentiment as OP); he did NOT say that Horrific Countenance made sense because of "real world" logic.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

AaronC wrote:

I know that many (most?) players would rather live with inconsistencies than to make changes.

That's a pretty broad statement. I think that there may be some remedies that are seen as being worse than the ailment (i.e. mass erratas/bannings). The rules are important, as is card text. If a card says that it untaps a guy then you have to play as written until(if) it is changed. Now there have been some crappy rulings (see Villein taking minimum two blood, unless you have less than two). Hopefully those can be corrected. There have also been inconsistent effects (i.e. Seraph's Second untaps a dude whether action is successful or not compared to basic freak drive, forced march, snake drive). I don't see how this kind of design helps the game because it makes you memorize a ton of cards. Where there is ambiguity in the effect, hopefully the rulesmonger would go with the intended effect. Bottom line is it depends and there is no easy answer.

It's a broad statement, but I don't think it's an untrue statement. I would also say that from my experience reading the rulings, the rulesmonger, who was also the head designer, has favored the intended the effect of a card as opposed to the most literal wording of the card. Your second sentence makes me put you in the camp of those who think that card text should not be updated, but you don't seem entirely sure about your position.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that there have been "some crappy rulings". That is certainly a broad statement in itself. The ruling about Villein didn't change card text. It defined how the word "move" is used in VTES cards. Changing the ruling about what "move" means does not change card text, and so that example doesn't seem relevant for this discussion.

This thread is talking about an inconsistent effect, so it seems like you might agree that Horrific Countenance should work like Change of Target. You say that when there is an inconsistency of effect, you hope that the rulesmongers (of which there is only one), would go with intended effects. Does that mean that you agree with Direwolf that Horrific Countenance should be changed?