"As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

James, thanks for your efforts to try and explain the cancellation process.

I'm aware that the rules say that you don't replace before the "cancellation window" closes.
My spidey-sense says it would make no actual difference if you could replace the played card *before* the cancellation window. I argue that there has to be some reason why the you are not allowed to replace immediatly, but I fail to give a good explanation. What can I tell my spidey-sense? B-)

Ok, with a more earnest note, what is the reason to not replace in that timing window? The cancellation would then take place between replacing the card and applying the effects, which would make the flow of the game a bit better.

And by the way, I think it would be more clear-cut if you were allowed to play a cancellation card from your hand, if you have one in your hand at the moment of the cardplay you want to cancel. No other effects (like Barrens or Dreams) or play of cards (like Wake-type cards) should be allowed.
That would be the most straight-forward method, don't you say?

Amenophobis wrote:

My spidey-sense says it would make no actual difference if you could replace the played card *before* the cancellation window. I argue that there has to be some reason why the you are not allowed to replace immediatly, but I fail to give a good explanation. What can I tell my spidey-sense? B-)

The simplest answer is: everyone's spidey-sense is different, so just read the rules and play the rules.

Not replacing cards in the 'as played' window means that things are (relatively) stream-lined. Having some cards be replaced in the 'as played' window, but not others, is a possible reconstruction of the rules, but then you have people saying "Why can I replace some and not others? My spidey-sense is throbbing differently to yours." So there's no significant benefit to changing, and since most of the problems being described occur because players have an inalienable right to not read the rulebook and then crap themselves when - shock, horror - they don't know the rules, there's little chance of making things better anyway, even if things needed to change.

Amenophobis wrote:

Ok, with a more earnest note, what is the reason to not replace in that timing window? The cancellation would then take place between replacing the card and applying the effects, which would make the flow of the game a bit better.

There's no improvement there. A player drawing a card now vs a player drawing a card after cancellation doesn't improve the flow, and since the aim is to keep the cancellation window simple, no replacements is a perfectly reasaonable way of handling this.

Further, every rules change has a downside. As shown in this thread, there are plenty of players for whom reading the rules is too hard. Communicating a rules change thus has a significant cost. When the current rules work fine (play/cancel/replace is really, really simple), there's no need to change them.

Amenophobis wrote:

And by the way, I think it would be more clear-cut if you were allowed to play a cancellation card from your hand, if you have one in your hand at the moment of the cardplay you want to cancel. No other effects (like Barrens or Dreams) or play of cards (like Wake-type cards) should be allowed.
That would be the most straight-forward method, don't you say?

That is how it currently works. You can't use The Barrens in the cancellation window, just the play of DI or Rewind Time etc. (or a wake, if necessary).

Thus, it is exactly as clear-cut as you want.

nc-italy wrote:

It is not a "model", no matter what definition you want to put here but that is just what actually happens when you play a card canceler (that instantly interrupts another card's resolution and actually occour *first* even if played last) and you're just failing to ackowledge this evidence,

I'm not acknowledging the model that you've made up in your head, no.

V:TES - it has no interrupts or instants or sorceries or enchants or unique artefacts or planeswalkers or Necropotence. It is not Magic. Cards are played in timing windows that they or the rules define. It's really that simple.

The fact that you can squeeze V:TES into Magic terminology in no ways means that I have to follow your bizarre assertions, or undermine the rules based on something that isn't part of V:TES. V:TES rules aren't changed just because Magic would handle something differently!

There's an explicit rule explaining what happens in a given timing window - just like there's an explicit rule explaining that I can play Undead Strength during Choose Strike. Why not play Undead Strength during pre-range? That's when Carrion Crows is played, and they both set up an effect that kicks off later. Since this is a clear and blatant contradiction(*) in the rules, we must fix it at once.


(* Not actually a contradiction. Just two different things working differently, because the rules say so.)

Amenophobis wrote:

On the other side, i do completely agree with you that the fewer things
are allowed in given window the less potential crap you add to it (and misunderstandings and convoluted play), and indeed by this i can't see (nor i could read in this discussion) a single valid reason to keep such poor ruling on, or behind the decision that made it the way it has been ruled (speaking of wakes playable in the "as announced" window)

Playing a wake to enable Rewind Time (for example) causes no issues - either card can itself be cancelled (which isn't new) and you can see by looking at your hand whether you can cancel the card or not. (Assuming there isn't a cancel of your cancel, of course.) This isn't creating an issue. Of course, it may cause misunderstandings amongst people who haven't read the rules - those who have can see that play/cancel/replace is how it works, and it's really simple.

The cost of changing the rules is not zero, because it has to be communicated and understood by many players. Since the rules are right there in the printed rulebook for anyone picking up a copy, the cost is higher. This isn't some obscure ruling that was made once in 1994 and never mentioned ever again - it's right there in the rulebook from which players learn. (Except those relying on spidey-senses, who won't be helped by any rules change because they rely on spidey-senses.)

Since any possible benefit from changing the rules would be small, and since the current rules are really simple (play/cancel/replace is about as simple as it gets), it doesn't seem to reach any reasonable threshold for changing the rules.

Emilio, I am surprised you are still trying to have a man to man discussion with James. The moment you mentioned something similar to magic by using the word "instant" or "interrupt" he just got into his endless rant ( pages after pages ) about how Vtes is not Magic -which we all already know. Everything he says is just repeating ad nauseam how Vtes has no enchantments, no planeswalkers etc. It's so pathetic you should just move on and try to ignore his posts to have a discussion with people who actually care.
I am also in favor of simplifying things but with that kind of people arguing after every post on how they are right and how you are wrong to differ, it's a shame really that I am just discouraged to advance any argument in favor of what you say...