"As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

Megabaja wrote:

You are the one who quoted and marked one and a half of other section.

Err, no. This is a common problem. The rulebook is not a series of isolated sentences. You have to read the whole thing.

Did you know that when you play a card, you don't replace it? How do I know that? I read 1.6.1.1 and then failed to carry on reading the rest of the rulebook. Cards are never replaced. Ever.



LSJ pointed out, on occasion, that many problems would be solved if players actually read the whole rulebook, rather than believing they'd learned it by osmosis. This is one of those times.

Megabaja wrote:

In fact word immediately is obsolete in a given marked sentence, and meaning is the same if you erase the word. And more accurate, I might add.

Given that we have players such as yourself who yell at me for daring to suggest that reading the immediately preceeding sentence is a helpful thing to do, the word "immediately" conveys that it happens right there and then. For players from other games which don't have a constant replace mechanism, this is helpful clarification. It would be entirely possible to intuit, for example, that you replace cards for an action at the end of the action, or for the round at the end of the round. Once you encountered cards that said something similar, it might cause enlightenment (or deepen confusion). It is interesting to note, for example, that when - as I recall - White Wolf played and taught people the game back in 1994 at conventions and the like, there were tales that combat was handled by playing precisely one card. Oh look, you played a maneuver, I played Undead Strength... nothing happens. Err, thanks. People intuit all sorts of randomly wrong things. Given that some of the most popular card games on the planet do things differently, emphatic clarifications are not a bad idea.

The word immediately was there in the rulebook back in 2001, by the way. You had to read to the following sentence to find out about an exception (card text, and referendums - the rules on referendums were different back then). Think of the poor, poor players who had to read two whole sentences that were right next to each other. I weep for them.

Historically, you have always had to read whole sections and not just grab random isolated sentences, and then wet yourself when your random isolated sentence "contradicts" another sentence explaining an exception. That other sentence doesn't contradict it - it's explaining an exception.

Regardless of what's in the rulebook, this rule is in reality a totally unnecessary complication to what is otherwise a perfectly understandable system.

Why should there be a timing window between playing and replacing the card? For what reason is this required? There is absolutely no sensible reason for this other than "LSJ said so" and all it ends up doing is cause (unnecessary) arguments at tables because someone wants to play a DI after the card has been replaced.

As icing on the cake is also results in all sorts of required (messy) rulings regarding Barrens (or other card drawing effects) and Rewind Time. None of this mess would be required if the rule was just that - "you play it, you *immediately* replace it (unless the card says otherwise)".

Izaak wrote:

Why should there be a timing window between playing and replacing the card? For what reason is this required? There is absolutely no sensible reason for this other than "LSJ said so" and all it ends up doing is cause (unnecessary) arguments at tables because someone wants to play a DI after the card has been replaced.

When Wakes are playable in this window, it's simpler for players to be able to say "I can cancel" or "I can't cancel" fairly quickly, without having to um and ah about whether they'll play a Wake because they're not sure if they'll draw into a DI etc. Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.

Obviously, similar thoughts occur at later points - do I play this, hoping to draw a bounce? etc. - but at the point of 'has this card actually been played or not?', you want this quick and simple. It already causes enough aggravation because, in theory, you have to hold up every controversial card play. Adding another layer of indecision? Not so cool.

It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming. It's not exactly the same thing, but as a package it fits fairly well.



You could also decide that Wakes aren't playable in this window, but there was considerable back and forth on the issue as to what people thought should happen, and we are where we are.


Arguments about "This card has already been replaced" are handled in exactly the same way as any other attempt by a player to close a timing window early, such as attempting to play a maneuver before the opponent has the opportunity to play Drawing out the Beast. Back up and correct the issue, just like normal. If a player wants a second to think about cancellation to prevent this, saying "Wait a sec" is obviously helpful. But backing up and correcting an unintentional misplay is a perfectly ordinary part of the game, found in combat phases, votes ("before votes are cast" etc.), action resolution (skipping ahead before the opponent plays Cat's Guidance), starting new actions (e.g. Heidelberg) etc. Correcting these issues should be second nature. Someone saying "Well, I've already replaced so you can't" is being as much a dick as someone saying "Well, I've played Fake Out, so you can't play Carrion Crows."

nc-italy wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming

This is just untrue on some extent
As the rule allows actually more magic stacks in the very moment the playing of wakes+canceler is allowed (as it is):

No, the fact that card cancellation exists at all introduces it. LSJ attempted to limit its creep by, for example, banning the use of The Barrens et al in this window, and preventing replaces until the "as played" window closes is a related element.

In general, cards should play+resolve without interruptions - except for possible cancellation. There have been attempts, at times, to wedge in ever more stack-life effects, which LSJ generally resisted where possible, and limited where not, and just lived with where it would essentially involve banning a whole swathe of cards.

There have been a number of attempts to create something that would look like Magic circa mid-90s, with things resolving on a stack. In general, you play a card and resolve it, which massively simplifies things. Card cancellation exists, but is a small exception to the general principle of play/resolve, move on to the next effect, play/resolve etc.

nc-italy wrote:

If just the card canceler could be played in response in the "as announced/played" window you would spare, at least potentially, some stacks in that pile

It wouldn't remove the possibility, so there's little point messing around the edges. You could still have me killing your card with a minion card, which you DI, which that guy SRs, which that other guy Rewinds Time on.

nc-italy wrote:

You could also decide that Wakes aren't playable in this window

To me that would be indeed much desiderable

And yet wouldn't actually simplify anything and, as LSJ pointed out at the time, there were numerous conflicting 'intuitions' on the subject. So there's a straightforward explanation in the rules.

Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.

Huh?

I don't see how this correlates with the "as played window".

If card cancellation would be in the rules more or less as you write it in that quote, then *that* would make sense. It would still be an exception, but at least it would be be clean, easy to understand and not in need of any confusing rulings, nor would it cause table arguments involving the "as-played" window.

To me, it's just an exercise in rules nit picking that, admittedly, "solves" the problem at hand, but at the same time introduces half a dozen more.