1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

file "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

01 Aug 2012 19:21 - 01 Aug 2012 19:24 #34109 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
Which to me is unnecessary complication
Simpler ruling: no reactions or effect can be played/used in the "as announced" window unless card text says otherwise (golden rule)
Simpler rulebook text: no cards are replaced until the "as announced" phase
is done (avoiding potential misleading sentences for handling special card cases from a pharagraph to the next one)

just my 2 cents

The trouble is that the "wake" ruling was introduced because some players (and at least LSJ) didn't find natural not to be able to play wake cards in order to play their Rewind Time. You may disagree, but your suggestions has the same value than the existing ones.

Between two equivalent propositions, I stick with the existing one, unless it's proven that it has too much impact on the current game. It has none.

I've seen so many people replacing their cards before the DI phase. Why would they change their habit with your new rule (I'm talking about the second one)? Do you think they'll suddenly start reading the rulebook?

The truth is that many players (I've met many at least) have played wrongly for more than 10 years and don't want to change their habit. And when you point out the rulebook, they're saying it's stupid. It won't change.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 01 Aug 2012 19:24 by Ankha.

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

More
01 Aug 2012 20:37 - 01 Aug 2012 20:41 #34115 by er-principe
Replied by er-principe on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
Which to me is unnecessary complication
Simpler ruling: no reactions or effect can be played/used in the "as announced" window unless card text says otherwise (golden rule)
Simpler rulebook text: no cards are replaced until the "as announced" phase
is done (avoiding potential misleading sentences for handling special card cases from a pharagraph to the next one)

just my 2 cents

The trouble is that the "wake" ruling was introduced because some players (and at least LSJ) didn't find natural not to be able to play wake cards in order to play their Rewind Time. You may disagree, but your suggestions has the same value than the existing ones.

Between two equivalent propositions


They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule
allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window

I've seen so many people replacing their cards before the DI phase. Why would they change their habit with your new rule (I'm talking about the second one)? Do you think they'll suddenly start reading the rulebook?

The truth is that many players (I've met many at least) have played wrongly for more than 10 years and don't want to change their habit. And when you point out the rulebook, they're saying it's stupid. It won't change.


I can't see how "habits" can be taken into account as valid argument for judging if a rule is good or bad (or poorly written) and needs therefore to be changed
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
Last edit: 01 Aug 2012 20:41 by er-principe.

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

More
01 Aug 2012 21:28 #34116 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

How do you quantify the difficulty to understand the rules? I know people who don't know the proper sequencing rule in a combat. Should we simplify combat, and how?


Oh that's actually really simple.

When a certain card or effect finds a significant (and relevant) hole in the ruleset, you make a ruling for that specific card instead of rewriting the rules entirely and complicating them in the process.



This method, while possible, is potentially extremely problematic.

Since every significant ruling is entirely specific to a card, there is no way for a judge to even attempt to get it right without phoning up the Rules Team. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes - but if players are left in a situation where there is no reliable precedent for anything significant, there's little room for reliability. Players understandably balk at the areas where it is simply necessary to rely on judge's discretion - such as determining play-to-win. Creating a whole new area of 'we cannot tell what these cards will do when we ask Pascal, so let us make up random shit' is lead balloon territory.

Fixing the hole means that when someone else comes up with a similar issue, you can apply the same principle. It is much better to know, for example, that the reason you can play Eternals of Sirius and stay in the game when your pool equals its cost is because the cost and effect are handled simultaneously. It would be much more annoying to be told that Eternals of Sirius has a ruling specific to it, and on which you can't rely for other cards that push you into the same situation.

(If the next step is "Well, of course we'd make cards that did the same thing have similar rulings", then you are fixing holes in the system but just pretending that you're not to make a point.)



The problem with Pocket Out Of Time was not whether it was handled by creating a general ruling or a specific ruling, it was that it was in a unique situation. (That is, once you allowed for it being dealt by the minion, which is appsrently designer intent.) There having been no way to deal non-environmental damage pre-range before, it has the potential to interact with a lot of cards that were initially written assuming that more or less all damage dealing effects were done in Strike Resolution or later (e.g. Pulled Fangs). You can then argue over the benefits or otherwise of the specific ruling that was created - but it has pretty much nothing to do with whether it was phrased as a general change to the game or a specific effect of the card. In a situation where the effect is pretty much unique, the effect is the same.

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

More
01 Aug 2012 21:40 #34117 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

It's contradicting as one kind of instant (eg play wake use its effect) is allowed and some other kind (use barrens's effect) it is not, in the same window
Which to me is unnecessary complication


It's a nuance, but it's not contradictory. "Contradict" simply doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. One thing is explicitly allowed, another thing explicitly isn't - that's how it works.

Similarly, there is no contradiction in that - for example - Direct Intervention can be played against a combat card (because the rules allow it) but Power of All cannot (because the rules don't).

Nor is it contradictory that blood costs are paid by the acting minion (because the rules say so), except in the case of rescue actions (because the rules define a small exception).

Nor is it contradictory that you pay the cost of a strike when you choose it, but the cost of an action when it resolves unblocked. They just work differently, because that's how the game is set up.


Each of these is just the rules defining what happens in one situation and what happens in a different situation. Sometimes, they're the same. Sometimes, they're different. Two similar-but-different things working differently is not a contradiction.


You might find the word 'inconsistent' more helpful, or simply 'complex'. Note that something being inconsistent or complex between two different areas of the game is not an immediate reason for changing it. Inconsistencies exists all over the place fairly harmlessly, and complexity may be helpful or useful. Removing one set of inconsistencies to be replaced with another, or simply tinkering at the edges so the fundamental issues still remain, isn't typically useful - teaching everyone a new set of rules which are still inconsistent, or still complex, just in a different way isn't terribly helpful.

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

More
02 Aug 2012 04:16 #34122 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?
Just as a quicknote: it's Outside the Hourglass (and not Pocket out of Time) that deals damage before the Determine Range step.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

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

More
02 Aug 2012 04:29 #34123 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

Between two equivalent propositions

They're no equivalent by any means, as an existing rule allows certain instants effects and disallows others just to
patch and hole in timings and sequencing of playing cards, the other just would make things more straight disallowing all card/effects unless text permits the playing in the given window

Huh? What you're saying is that they're different, which I'm aware of. I say they are equivalent in terms on game design. They are two possible choices equivalently reasonable. Replacing the current choice in the rule book by your choice would cause other problems (such as players that would not understand why they can't play wakes).
Personnaly, I'm happy with the current rules because they allow me to play Wake + Rewind Time and I don't find it difficult to understand the current rule.

I've seen so many people replacing their cards before the DI phase. Why would they change their habit with your new rule (I'm talking about the second one)? Do you think they'll suddenly start reading the rulebook?

The truth is that many players (I've met many at least) have played wrongly for more than 10 years and don't want to change their habit. And when you point out the rulebook, they're saying it's stupid. It won't change.


I can't see how "habits" can be taken into account as valid argument for judging if a rule is good or bad (or poorly written) and needs therefore to be changed

It's not why I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that many people complain about the rules because they have their habits take precedence over the rulebook. If your suggestion was integrated to the rulebook, it wouldn't change anything for them since they wouldn't read it anyway.
For people who read the rulebook, your suggestion is reasonable, but not "better" than the current one (that has the advantage of having existed for years).

If you're talking about tournament judging, then the current rule stands already and is perfectly clear.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

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

More
Moderators: Ankha, Kraus
  1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?
Time to create page: 0.101 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum