file Gwyedd and Horrific Countenance

14 May 2012 19:24 - 14 May 2012 19:26 #30330 by Megabaja
@ Ankha - Not the same - Mirror Walk ends the action. Movement and Horrific do not.

EDIT:

and, of course it bothers me - that is why I asked in the first place...

Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix

:trub:
Last edit: 14 May 2012 19:26 by Megabaja.

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

More
15 May 2012 10:26 #30444 by jamesatzephyr

Hm.
The blocking minion did block (requirement to play Horrific Coutenance), so the blocking minion isn't tapped by Gwyedd's ability.


As a follow-up, this appears (to me) to be pretty much the same issue that led to RTR 2011-12-02. Specifically, the change from "successfully bleeds" to "would be successful".

It would seem internally consistent that cards which go (roughly speaking): "Play when [X happens]. [X happening is messed up.]" would all fit into the "Play when [X would happen]" template brought in for bleeds by that RTR.

For example, Andre LeRoux could previously have a vampire who "successfully bleeds", but then reduce the amount to zero. And you then get into questions like "Can Major Boon be played on a successful bleed for zero?" and "Can I play Enkil Cog? Well, Andre says I've successfully bled..."

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

More
15 May 2012 11:32 - 15 May 2012 11:33 #30451 by Ankha

Hm.
The blocking minion did block (requirement to play Horrific Coutenance), so the blocking minion isn't tapped by Gwyedd's ability.


As a follow-up, this appears (to me) to be pretty much the same issue that led to RTR 2011-12-02. Specifically, the change from "successfully bleeds" to "would be successful".

It would seem internally consistent that cards which go (roughly speaking): "Play when [X happens]. [X happening is messed up.]" would all fit into the "Play when [X would happen]" template brought in for bleeds by that RTR.

For example, Andre LeRoux could previously have a vampire who "successfully bleeds", but then reduce the amount to zero. And you then get into questions like "Can Major Boon be played on a successful bleed for zero?" and "Can I play Enkil Cog? Well, Andre says I've successfully bled..."


"Would" in "Only usable when this vampire would be blocked." would be more consistant, true, because of the RTR and because modifying a state (blocked/not blocked) before the first state is reached is easier/clearer than once it has been reached.
Of course, this would slightly alter how Horrific Countenance behaves today.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 15 May 2012 11:33 by Ankha.

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

More
15 May 2012 12:18 #30453 by Pascal Bertrand
I'm reading this discussion and thinking at the same time.
I'm trying to find a comparison with Psychomachia (notice how that one changed from "is attempting to block" to "successfully blocks"), which clearly states "The block fails."
[LSJ 20020301] The vampire is blocked, triggering "when a vampire is blocked" effects (barring any "when this vampire would be blocked" erratum).

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

More
15 May 2012 13:16 - 15 May 2012 13:16 #30458 by jamesatzephyr

[LSJ 20020301] The vampire is blocked, triggering "when a vampire is blocked" effects (barring any "when this vampire would be blocked" erratum).


This one is slightly problematic - but supported in, for example, [LSJ 20030902] - that means that for some reason, Millicent beats other cards that appear to specify the same timing window.

It's not obvious to me why Millicent beats Change of Target, and that it isn't the acting Methuselah's choice. For example, the acting Methuselah can play Carrion Crowds (or any other before range effect) before resolving a pending Weather Control damage. Not sure why that's not the case here.


In any event, this still appears to leave us in the successfully bled/unsuccessful bleed situation.
Last edit: 15 May 2012 13:16 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
15 May 2012 13:48 #30461 by Ankha

I'm reading this discussion and thinking at the same time.
I'm trying to find a comparison with Psychomachia (notice how that one changed from "is attempting to block" to "successfully blocks"), which clearly states "The block fails."
[LSJ 20020301] The vampire is blocked, triggering "when a vampire is blocked" effects (barring any "when this vampire would be blocked" erratum).


The reason behind Psychomachia's errata is that before the
 effect was similar to Tangle Atropo's Handle (thus not triggering the NRA), which wasn't the designer intent.
Now, the errata has introduced a new side-effect, which is you can't avoid being burned by Milicent Smith with the [dai] effect of the card (block fails).

The real errata should have been (since the
 timing is different from the [dai] timing):

 Only usable when an ally or younger vampire successfully blocks. Cancel the current action and untap this acting vampire. The blocking minion is not tapped.
[dai] Only usable when an ally or younger vampire attempts to block. The attempt fails (do not tap that blocking minion). That minion cannot attempt to block this action again.
[DAI] As [dai] above, and the blocking minion takes 1 damage (damage not preventable).


(I copied the wording of Elder Impersonation for the [dai] effect. )

Of course, this is much longer.

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: 0.087 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum