Horrific Countenance

Megabaja wrote:

Wakes do not have specific text and they are still playable by the very same ruling...

The example given - Waking to cancel a card - is covered by rule 1.6.1. (Between 1.6.1.1 and 1.6.1.2.) Wakes are explicitly allowed in the 'as played' slot, by the rules. There has been an evolution over numerous rulings towards Wakes being 'special'. (Why only Wakes, it's not clear. But it's pretty consistent.)

Megabaja wrote:

And you are obviously wrong, since cardtext is confusing on many levels. All I am saying that this card needs an official look into. Why are you against it so stubbornly?

All I am saying is that 3000 cards need an official look into, because I don't have a clue what the designer intent is on all 3000 cards.

Chop chop, get to it. Right now. I need designer intent on every card in the game, stat. In every conceivable situation. Irrespective of every ruling that's ever been issued. I need you to reformulate every card interaction that's ever been possible, ever, right now.


Why are you against following an explicit ruling - a ruling which you claimed was non-existent! - when it addresses the situation?

Suoli wrote:

Nevermind, Forced Vigilance suggests that being blocked is a lasting state. I think you're on the right tracks on this.

No more than Cats' Guidance does.

These are cards that meet the ruling on action modifiers and reactions - they say they can be played after a successful block and (if there's a combat) it goes after the block combat.

Horrific Countenance doesn't.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Nevermind, Forced Vigilance suggests that being blocked is a lasting state. I think you're on the right tracks on this.

No more than Cats' Guidance does.

These are cards that meet the ruling on action modifiers and reactions - they say they can be played after a successful block and (if there's a combat) it goes after the block combat.

Horrific Countenance doesn't.

I would agree with you if it wasn't for the ruling on Pocket Out of Time. There's no explicit text allowing it to be played after combat but the fact that the effect is triggered after combat was ruled to be an implicit permission.

Ankha wrote:

Suoli wrote:

I would agree with you if it wasn't for the ruling on Pocket Out of Time. There's no explicit text allowing it to be played after combat but the fact that the effect is triggered after combat was ruled to be an implicit permission.

It's about intuitiveness. The card allows to restart a combat, it is intuitive you can play it after a combat to restart a combat (though concerning Power of All, you can't play it during a combat, which is not intuitive at first sight).

groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bdd478084d856f4

Intuitiveness is not a good basis for a ruling when it goes against logic.

(As an interesting sidenote, LSJ never seems to have explicitly stated or confirmed that Pocket Out of Time is playable after combat. It's almost as if he is avoiding it.)

"when" in cardtexts such as Horrific Countenance (and rulings) indicates the moment the card can be played, so it's equivalent to "immediatly after/at the moment when". You can't play it later during the same action.

Rulings on cards like Deflection suggest that "when" means "within timing window x": you don't have to play Deflection immediately after blocks are declined.

Deflection
Type: Reaction
Requires: Dominate
Cost: 1 blood
[dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah.
[DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.

Forced Vigilance suggests that a block is a window that includes the following combat, if any.