Conditioning + DI - SOS answer needed

Ohlmann wrote:

Haze wrote:

Yes, I agree. If only everyone were psychic and knew all the internet-only card rulings ahead of time, we wouldn't need this sub-forum.

What is funny is that here it is not an internet only ruling. It's just applying common sense and the exact text on the card. Not reading card text is something extremely human ; still it cause questions like that to come up.

the exact VTES-definition of "cancel"* and all it entails is never actually defined on any printed material.
if questions about direct intervention come up this often, I'd say it's apparently a badly written card.

*what's worse is that it was written as "burn" instead of "cancel" for many many years.

There is no point in criticizing things that can't be changed. It would be more relevant to notice that "cancel" has a rulebook definition.

Thanks Floppy (and for all the others comments too)!

Pascal wrote:

There is no point in criticizing things that can't be changed. It would be more relevant to notice that "cancel" has a rulebook definition.

my criticism is more aimed at the people saying "just read the card text you idiots" and being actively unhelpful to the community.

Haze wrote:

my criticism is more aimed at the people saying "just read the card text you idiots" and being actively unhelpful to the community.

Well, I do believe that the people that want too much rule rewrite and actively whine at every card interaction as being too complex are actively unhelpful too.

Here, you may argue that it's strange to have two different card template for basically the same effect (carrion crow could be worded "you cannot play other carrion crow this combat" for example), but it's an example of rule that a lot of people have right without any ruling reading.

Especially since it was not a question about Direct intervention. This could happen with blocked action, and the NRA work on the same template as Carrion Crow.