Horrific Countenance

Megabaja wrote:

This card was written long time ago, and I do not have a clue what was designer's intention at the time.

V:TES isn't a game where cards are played based on designer intent. Designer intent is relevant in some situations such as, for example, a card that is massively broken in some fashion - ridiculously awful card text due to a massive screw up at the printers, for example, or due to a missed problem in playtesting - may well be rewritten to do something similar in intent, but more appropriate.


But it is quite odd that you can't even manage a clue about the designer's intention.

1) The card is playable when you're blocked.
2) The card makes the action unblockable.
3) The card is quite expensive.

So, it strikes me as just maybe possible that designer intent was that... you get blocked, but you make the action succeed anyway, and because the blocker might have to waste a lot of resources before you pull this rabbit out of the hat, you get the privilege of paying quite a lot of blood for it. That seems like a pretty obvious reading of what the designer wanted.


If it were played after resolution, it wouldn't make sense. The action has already resolved unsuccessfully. The card contains no text reversing this - as is found on, for example, Form of Mist. So you'd just be paying 4 blood for no benefit, other than cycling a card.

Megabaja wrote:

When it can be used? - Only usable when this vampire is blocked.

And there is a standing ruling that a card needs to indicate that it is playable after resolution (including the block combat). Since it doesn't have this, it goes before.

Megabaja wrote:

action modifiers cannot be played after resolution, in general.

I completely understand this statement, but, as I said, I do not have a clue what designer meant this card should do.

The card text is what it is. The ruling is what it is. Designer intent doesn't figure into it unless there's a problem. There's no problem.


Also, we're never going to be able to find out what designer intent was. So your claims of needing to know it? Don't matter, because the WotC designers are long gone.

So, it strikes me as just maybe possible that designer intent was that... you get blocked, but you make the action succeed anyway, and because the blocker might have to waste a lot of resources before you pull this rabbit out of the hat, you get the privilege of paying quite a lot of blood for it.

See, what I had in mind was a very expensive version of Momentary Delay.
Now, both ideas, mine and yours, are figment of imagination, as neither your, nor my version is written explicitly on this card.

And there is a standing ruling that a card needs to indicate that it is playable after resolution (including the block combat)

That ruling, kind sir, does not exist.
LSJ stated that modifiers cannot be played after combat, in general.
This case is not "in general". This is a case of Horrific Countenance.

Example is Pocket Out of Time on superior Temporis, that can be played either before or after combat. It's not written on a card but the cardtext "indicates" possibility. Horrific's text also "indicates" posibility as only requirement is met.

Pocket Out of Time
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Temporis / Obtenebration
[obt] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 stealth.
[tem] +1 stealth.
[TEM] After any combat this action, this vampire can burn 1 blood to start a new combat with the opposing minion (if both combatants are still ready).

EDIT:

There's no problem.

Yes, there is. This card is very specific in many ways. For example, there is no other card that requires a single discipline, but does not have superior ability. There is not a single card that makes action unblockable after it has been blocked already. And the main problem for this card is that it is very rarely played. No one wants to makes something that will never be used, and I disagree that this was a designer's intent.

Megabaja wrote:

And there is a standing ruling that a card needs to indicate that it is playable after resolution (including the block combat)

That ruling, kind sir, does not exist.

Except it does.

[LSJ 20091120]

LSJ wrote:

The original ruling stems from the ruling that reaction cards (and action
modifiers, for that matter) can be played only before action resolution by
default. Explicit card text is needed to be played during or after resolution.

Since you have no explicit card text on Horrific Countenance, it cannot be played after resolution.

Megabaja wrote:

For example, there is no other card that requires a single discipline, but does not have superior ability.

Well, there's at least Army of Rats...

+1 stealth action.
[ani] Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1 pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any minion can burn the Army of Rats as a action.

[LSJ 20091120]

The original ruling stems from the ruling that reaction cards (and action
modifiers, for that matter) can be played only before action resolution by
default. Explicit card text is needed to be played during or after resolution.

If you read thru whole topic you noticed that even that ruling has a reversal in it. Wakes do not have specific text and they are still playable by the very same ruling...

and then again - Pocket Out of Time.

Pocket is released in HttB after this ruling and the card doesn't have any such text.

You are saying that cardtext is clear. 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?

Megabaja wrote:

Can this card be played after the combat if the action is blocked?

Horrific Countenance
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Protean
Cost: 4 blood
Only usable when this vampire is blocked.
[pro] Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now unblockable.

Card text suggests that it's playable when (not "if" or "while") the action is blocked, meaning that you play it immediately when blocked, not before or after.

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