"As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

Izaak wrote:

If you don't want to, you call the judge over and ask them to correct the misplay.

Except... there is no misplay. See below.

If the player was under the impression that they could make the decision after replacing, there has been a misplay - either they didn't fully declare the effect, or they replaced too early. So call the judge. The judge may not feel the need to apply a state correction, but they can explain the rules to the player as necessary.

If the player is intentionally trying to cheat, then that's a separate problem.

In either case, call the judge over.


Of course, a player may also be declaring an effect fully, makign their redraw and then wishing they'd done something different. Who hasn't played a Minion Tap for 3, drawn into their copy of Giant's Blood and wished it had been for 6 instead? That's life, obviously.

Izaak wrote:

The difference in misplays is that you *must* announce for how much you play Villein. You *must* choose if you want to have transfers when Leandro is in play. Burning the Blood Doll is optional.

Fully declaring the effect of a card you're using is not optional.

"The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played."

Thus, they have to choose whether or not to use any optional effects, which level to play it at, how much blood to spend on it (for cards with a cost of X), and so on. (Of course, this sort of choice is different from the 'optional press later this round' sort of optional, which simply means you don't have to use it later this round.) Referendum terms are the principle exception (defined in the rulebook) - you know what the possibly referendum is, but not which Methuselahs are being chosen, or whatever. Card text could also define exceptions here - I can't think of any off-hand.

@Anka: I think you missed my post about stacks, I guess you were busy finding that thank you button on all of james' posts:

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.

nc-italy wrote:

I've already said: call it whatever you want, but with card cancelers
you have instant effect which interrupts other cards - period

No, you've simply decided that this is a model you want V:TES to follow.

There are no instant effects. The instant effect of DI is no more instant than playing Freak Drive - they both resolve when played. DI is played in a different timing window to Freak, which is played in a different timing window to Undead Strength (which has a split play/resolve, similar to actions, unlike DI and Freak), which is played in a different timing window to Eagle Sight.

Rules and card text define what goes on in various timing windows.

nc-italy wrote:

Going ahead ignoring the plain fact and evidence will not help

The plain fact here is that you're taking concepts from other games that don't apply to V:TES, and then trying to use them to justify breaking a simple explicit rule in V:TES.

V:TES doesn't have effects happening at 'instant' speed. The Barrens is banned from being used in a particular timing window because of explicit rule text. Even if you can justify it being 'instant', it still can't go in that window - because of:

a) explicit rules text, and
b) the problem being solved by that rules text.

Megabaja wrote:

@Anka: I think you missed my post about stacks, I guess you were busy finding that thank you button on all of james' posts:

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.

Whether you choose to model that as multiple stacks, or one large stack, isn't terribly relevant.

What is relevant is that the fewer things that can be used in that window, the less likely you are to have humongous piles of this crap to plough through. Which is, in fact, the main point of keeping the cancellation window as simple as it is - so far as is possible with the effects that existed in the game at the time (principally DI, of course, since it's so easy to use), allow the game to proceed in a timely fashion if you can. Playing or not playing DI may be a difficult, time-consuming decision, of course - but that's still simpler than the alternatives with potentially many more effects going off first.

You might choose to keep wakes out of it - and I probably wouldn't have ruled this way had it been me making the choice way back when - but it doesn't actually cause any problems (for players who've read the rules, obviously - those relying on spidey-senses can't be helped) and enables some more options in a fairly harmless fashion. And removing the ability to play Wakes wouldn't actually remove the whole "there's something going before replace" issue anyway, since it would still apply to cancellation cards. And since it's in printed rulebooks, there seems little incentive to change at this point.


I'll note that it seems odd that "play/cancel/resolve" is apparently causing players such hardship to understand, yet the same people complaining appear to want to stuff many, many stacks of effects into the cancellation window for the sake of all the poor, poor players who can't understand play/cancel/resolve. And if a player can't understand play/cancel/resolve, 97 simultaneous stacks being interrupted by me tapping two Mountains and an Island, then sac-ing my enchant? Not really gonna fly. This seems... inconsistent.