Guide and Mentor - Perfectionist

Ohlmann,
The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards.

And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Ohlmann,
The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards.

Luckily, that's not what I was talking of.

If the rule and ruling say that it should be read in a way, there is exactly no reason to expect it to be interpreted otherwise. Which is what you try. This have nothing to see with the fact that thoses rules and ruling don't follow the supposed original intent.

You want to impose a new way to read the rules. For reasons I have said, the current reading, in addition to be well-known and working, is also more intuitive. So you're more or less fighting the wrong battle.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules.

Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. I believe you find easier to answer to strawman.

What I was meaning, and what I clearly said, is that another game show that the current way of resolving actually work without problems and is widely understood. Staying at the same interpretation is therefor validated.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

[Eternals of Sirius]Yes, because pool total I think should be a constant-check, not a 'resolution only' check.

It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five.

This is different from two distinct effects occuring simultaneously, which essentially doesn't happen in V:TES outside of strike resolution.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

It's all about a dispute on the meaning of "immediate". Immediate != concurrent.

This appears to be a dispute that you have invented so that you can have an argument with yourself and prove the superiority of your point over a point that wasn't at issue. Ho hum.

Ohlmann wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Ohlmann,
The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards.

Luckily, that's not what I was talking of.

If the rule and ruling say that it should be read in a way, there is exactly no reason to expect it to be interpreted otherwise. Which is what you try. This have nothing to see with the fact that thoses rules and ruling don't follow the supposed original intent.

You want to impose a new way to read the rules. For reasons I have said, the current reading, in addition to be well-known and working, is also more intuitive. So you're more or less fighting the wrong battle.

Many people at a variety of times have commented on the learning curve to VTES. One of the ways that the learning curve can be reduced is to make the rulings either "confirmations of the rule" or to make amendments to the rules or effective amendments to the cards.

I am not advocating for a 'new way to read the rules'. I'm asking for the rules to be rewritten to mirror the way they are 'meant to be read'.

People tend to dislike amendments to the cards themselves, mostly because of the fact that VTES does not cycle cards out of tournament play. This is a valid enough reason not to amend card texts frequently, but that creates a set of problems where if the rules are not changed we create a 'third set' of rules (i.e. individual card rulings) (in reality a 4th set, since the CRR is generally held up to be part of the rules).

1) I think we should merge the CRR into the rules so that the rules are more complete and don't need to be read in parallel with another document.

2) I think when Card Rulings change the core mechanics of the game, we should amend the rules to in effect make the ruling unnecessary (i.e. if a Ruling changes the game, then change the game).

3) Card Rulings would then become basically a place where interactions between two cards are detailed and not the 'core functioning' of the card.

Ohlmann wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules.

Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. I believe you find easier to answer to strawman.

What I was meaning, and what I clearly said, is that another game show that the current way of resolving actually work without problems and is widely understood. Staying at the same interpretation is therefor validated.

It isn't a strawman argument. You are advocating for us to adopt MtG system for resolving actions. I am saying that it is not required to do so despite how MtG may be considered to be an "industry leader". We can choose so, or not. I advocate not, mostly because the other functioning of VTES is sufficiently different to MtG to mean a different solution may be better than a copied solution from MtG. Also, as is obvious, VTES rules were never written with the same perspective as MtG because of the very different structural differences in the game.

JamesAtZephyr wrote:

It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five.

Exactly, the Eternals of Sirius ruling has said that "immediate" is a synonym for "concurrent". My point entirely. If that is the effect of the ruling, then the Rulebook or the CRR should be changed to reflect that.

And as far as it being a dispute of my own creation... I have been advocating for a good time to have the CRR and Rulebook be amended to make major game-mechanic rulings (like the Eternals of Sirius ruling) not need to be recorded against "Eternals of Sirius" or even as a "Ruling on Paying Costs" but actually in the rules. To be honest, I'd want to see the CRR vanish and merge into the Rulebook.

Ankha wrote:

We all know that the correct sequence is:
1/ play Eternal of Sirius and pay the cost
2/ apply the effect: gain 5 pool
3/ check your pool total: 5. You're not ousted.

Yes, we know this, but allow us the right to think this is very silly.

Ohlmann wrote:

But it don't work like that in VtES, and it don't work like that on other TCG either.

Fabrice "Luckily" a surtout oublié sa conjugaison anglaise

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

JamesAtZephyr wrote:

It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five.

Exactly, the Eternals of Sirius ruling has said that "immediate" is a synonym for "concurrent". My point entirely.

Still no. Please stop making crap up.