The Jones, interrupting TV or not ?

Ankha wrote:

I works exactly the same as for any card cancelled: cancellation effects must be played before any "as the X is announced". This is valid for actions, strikes etc.

Reyda wrote:

Acting declares hands for 1 (albeit he has the Jones in his hand)
younger blocking declares undead strength immediately followed by target vitals. (TV from now on)

Opposing has played his TV too fast.

Reyda wrote:

At this point, Acting wants to play the Jones superior.
What happens ?
1- sounds legit : strike + TV is trumped and blocking has to choose another strike.
2- that's illegal : acting had to interrupt and tell blocking minion "wait, don't play TV, I cancel your strike" - and there's a problem because blocking has to take back TV in his hand, got his strike canceled, and can play TV on his new (probably cardless) strike.

Option 2. Same as someone playing a Govern bleed + Seduction before anyone could DI the Govern.

Reyda wrote:

So how can we judge this situation ? If blocking minion says "I let you play a card if you want", that is, giving the impulse, he cannot play TV anymore right ?

Cancellation has its own window and impulse.

Correct. And the "cancellation" impulse comes before the "as chosen"/"as announced" impulse.

@Ankha:
I dislike what seems to be a dogged adherance to having effects/states/situations which are only dictated by text which is not on the card or contained in the rulebook. So yes, I am trying to change the rules... To a certain extent, I would like to encourage PB and others to change the rules to the point where having to rule on specific cards is entirely unnecessary.

So yes, I either want the rules to reflect the general principles used in making rulings (making the rulings less needed) OR the cards to include the rulings in some systematic way that doesn't mean we end up having to make card-by-card rulings (i.e. the use of defined keywords).

@James:
The idea that a 'window' exists between "declaring a strike card" and "play when choosing a strike" is a play of semantics created by LSJ. I don't buy into that bit of semantics but it is clear that you do. I cannot see a LOGICAL reason (beyond the once-made-decision of LSJ) for why "declaring a strike" should actually be different to "choosing a strike" since you must delcare the terms of the strike as the strike is played... which is the same physical action (e.g. I play a Thrown Gate targeting Retainer X or the Minion, it also has T:V attached). This is also the same as I don't see there being a gap between "as announced" and "playing the card from the hand", since you cannot play the card without announcing its name and effects where required. HOWEVER, I realise that for whatever reason at some point LSJ had decided that... doesn't mean I think it was a good decision.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

@James:
The idea that a 'window' exists between "declaring a strike card" and "play when choosing a strike" is a play of semantics created by LSJ. I don't buy into that bit of semantics but it is clear that you do. I cannot see a LOGICAL reason (beyond the once-made-decision of LSJ) for why "declaring a strike" should actually be different to "choosing a strike" since you must delcare the terms of the strike as the strike is played...

There's no logical reason for your rewrite of the timing rules either. You've invented a whole new timing system, then decided that the old one is illogical, your new one is logical, and therefore it's better. Yet the old one is simple enough (play/cancel/announce) and internally consistent. Pretty logical.

And apparently, changing the rules like this, according to your every whim, is about esnuring long-term stability!