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

file "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

02 Aug 2012 05:34 #34125 by Juggernaut1981
Replied by Juggernaut1981 on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?
I understand the dislike for allowing Reactions when there is no "action" to react to. It does lead to other odd possibilities such as using reactions like Scalpel Tongue in Bloodhunt Referendums (since there is no acting minion during a bloodhunt referendum). I'm not a great fan of Reactions being playable when there is no acting minion without specific card text. In general, I've found the 'You can Wake to play Rewind Time' ruling to just erode the place of the Golden Rule of Card Text and further push Rulings to a place higher than Cardtext.

Currently as it stands there is a tacit rule that there is a "Golden Rule of Rulings" which states that Rulings always override cards and the rulebooks and are chosen so by the current Ruling Team Leader (i.e. LSJ/PB). It means that if Pascal wanted to, tomorrow he could change it so that Rewind Time was a Master Card and WWEF was a Reflex Card... and so on. Sure it might get shouted down, but the point is there. Cardtext is not king over the rules, which means that players and Judges need to know far more about the decisions and thinking process of the Ruling Team Leader than even be able to read the cards.
:bruj::CEL::POT::PRE::tha: Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

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

More
02 Aug 2012 06:46 - 02 Aug 2012 06:56 #34127 by er-principe
Replied by er-principe 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.


Well again this is just plain denying evidence, fact is that in the very moment you allow certain more effects in a given window or you disallow them you *are* making difference and therefore they can't be "equivalent" in term of game design (more stacks in the window can't be equivalent to less, plain logic)

@James: contradictory is just allowing a thing instant and disallowing
other thing instant arbitrarily in the window just to fill an hole in the rules about card cancelers
Will repeat one last time (think we pointed enough on this): ruling that is too late to draw an then play a canceler to one side (which is perfectly fine and makes sense) but on the other that isn't too late when playing another instant effect (waking effect) in between and then playing the canceler *is* a contradiction and was poor ruling (barring again other convolutions with replacements, eg ira rivers ability when playing sup eyes of argus, sasha vykos drawing in front of a direct intervention, maybe with utter stacks of wake effects in the window delaying the use of otherwise instant abilities-effects tied to "when card X is played")
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
Last edit: 02 Aug 2012 06:56 by er-principe.

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

More
02 Aug 2012 07:06 - 02 Aug 2012 07:07 #34132 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.


Well again this is just plain denying evidence, fact is that in the very moment you allow certain more effects in a given window or you disallow them you *are* making difference and therefore they can't be "equivalent" in term of game design (more stacks in the window can't be equivalent to less, plain logic)

Emiliano, we can't discuss if you quote one sentence and don't read the rest. You stopped the quoting before the bold part, why?
And please demonstrate how there will be more stacks, I've demonstrated in my answer to Megabaja that it doesn't change anything.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 02 Aug 2012 07:07 by Ankha.

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

More
02 Aug 2012 07:21 - 02 Aug 2012 08:00 #34133 by er-principe
Replied by er-principe 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.


Well again this is just plain denying evidence, fact is that in the very moment you allow certain more effects in a given window or you disallow them you *are* making difference and therefore they can't be "equivalent" in term of game design (more stacks in the window can't be equivalent to less, plain logic)

Emiliano, we can't discuss if you quote one sentence and don't read the rest. You stopped the quoting before the bold part, why?
And please demonstrate how there will be more stacks, I've demonstrated in my answer to Megabaja that it doesn't change anything.


I've quoted the relevant part - you can't say it's equivalent,
as you add stacks (to the instant card pile in the window) the more card you allow to be played in the given window (so not only cards with explicit wording), it *does* make notable difference and can't be seen as equivalent by any means
Everything else is just flawed logic and blatant ignoring of plain fact sorry
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
Last edit: 02 Aug 2012 08:00 by er-principe.

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

More
02 Aug 2012 07:30 #34134 by Megabaja
Replied by Megabaja on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?
But your demonstration is not correct.
Let say we have five player table. Five anarch decks. Acting minion calls an action. All players have wakes, DI's and Power of All in decks. Number of stacks made this way is really big, and not just two. And they all open inside new "as announced/as played" windows.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix

:trub:

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

More
02 Aug 2012 08:02 #34136 by Izaak
Replied by Izaak on topic Re: "As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?
Let it go guys...

The rules lawyers themselves understand the rules and THUS in their narrow-minded vision they are fine. The fact that 90% of the players don't know them or don't follow them properly is not the fault of rules being changed to be less intuitive and/or more complex. It is entirely the fault of the thousands of players that don't even know there is a "between played and replacement" window.

Fixing the hole means that when someone else comes up with a similar issue, you can apply the same principle.


If the hole is created by a single card, then it's the card that needs to be fixed. Especially if plugging the hole means changing a multitude of other cards and/or rules (again, see Outside the Hourglass).

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.


Except...

That this actually can come up very frequently given how many cards that cost pool give you pool and doesn't change any interaction between cards. So, sure, this warrants a ruling because it's generic and relevant.

Your point?

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: 0.172 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum