1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. Andre LeRoux + spying mission

file Andre LeRoux + spying mission

13 Jun 2015 10:16 #71705 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission

I strongly believe the interaction of these 2 effects as outlined above exists because of sloppy card text, specifically the phrases "would successfully bleed" and "bleed would be successful.” Replacing these phrases with "successfully bleeds" and "bleed is successful," respectively, would clarify that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects, and there'd instead be a much clearer (but different) way in which these cards interact.

The “would” conditional verb form is used on approximately 1.2% of cards. I can't figure out what the advantage of using this verb form is for any of those cards. Is there any?

Using the indicative verb form doesn't work, because if X happens (indicative), it's even more confusing to say "stop! it doesn't happens, something else happens".

An example of confusing card text is the one and only Horrific Countenance: "Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [...] This action is not blocked".
Is it blocked? Or not? Would it trigger an effect that says "when X blocks"?

Using the conditional verb form is mainly used for replacement effects: "if X would happen, then Y happens instead." Spying Mission uses that pattern.

André Leroux doesn't use "instead" since it's not a replacement effect. It uses the conditional because if the bleed is successful (indicative), it's too late to modify it.

Interactions between two effects that have the same window of play will always require a bit of thinking, and using the indicative wouldn't make things more easy to understand (in fact, it would make them more complicated for the reasons I stated before).
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The following user(s) said Thank You: self biased

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

More
14 Jun 2015 00:40 #71720 by TwoRazorReign
Replied by TwoRazorReign on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission
Thank you for your response! I appreciate your viewpoint, but I disagree on some things.

Using the indicative verb form doesn't work, because if X happens (indicative), it's even more confusing to say "stop! it doesn't happens, something else happens".


Most cards use the indicative verb form. A lot of cards also say "Stop! something else happens." I think both of these things work just fine in most cases.

An example of confusing card text is the one and only Horrific Countenance: "Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [...] This action is not blocked".
Is it blocked? Or not? Would it trigger an effect that says "when X blocks"?


Horrific Countenance says "the action is not blocked." So the action is not blocked, and therefore the "when x blocks" requirement is not fulfilled. This is obvious, per card text

Using the conditional verb form is mainly used for replacement effects: "if X would happen, then Y happens instead." Spying Mission uses that pattern.


The original post in this thread is pointing out one example of a problem with this template.

André Leroux doesn't use "instead" since it's not a replacement effect. It uses the conditional because if the bleed is successful (indicative), it's too late to modify it.


Not according to the Complete Rules Reference. A bleed that "would be successful" and a bleed that "is successful" both fall into the same step:

"If action was not blocked, then the action is successful. [6.2.3]"

Using the indicative form clarifies we are dealing in this step of the Complete Rules Reference. Using the conditional creates a "timing window" adjacent to this step that I argue should not exist because it causes confusion.

Interactions between two effects that have the same window of play will always require a bit of thinking, and using the indicative wouldn't make things more easy to understand (in fact, it would make them more complicated for the reasons I stated before).


What you call "require a bit of thinking" I call "requiring mental gymnastics."

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

More
14 Jun 2015 05:39 - 14 Jun 2015 05:43 #71723 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission

Thank you for your response! I appreciate your viewpoint, but I disagree on some things.

Using the indicative verb form doesn't work, because if X happens (indicative), it's even more confusing to say "stop! it doesn't happens, something else happens".


Most cards use the indicative verb form. A lot of cards also say "Stop! something else happens." I think both of these things work just fine in most cases.

Then you should have no difficulties to provide an example, right? I'm curious.

An example of confusing card text is the one and only Horrific Countenance: "Only usable when this vampire is blocked. [...] This action is not blocked".
Is it blocked? Or not? Would it trigger an effect that says "when X blocks"?


Horrific Countenance says "the action is not blocked." So the action is not blocked, and therefore the "when x blocks" requirement is not fulfilled. This is obvious, per card text

This is so "obvious" that you're wrong, the action is blocked at some point and the "when x blocks" requirement is fulfilled.
For instance, acting minion A is blocked by Lucas Halton. A doesn't play any card, Lucas has the priority and uses his special because the action is blocked. Then A gets back priority and plays Horrific Countenance. The action isn't blocked anymore.
so the action was blocked, and is no longer blocked.

Using the conditional verb form is mainly used for replacement effects: "if X would happen, then Y happens instead." Spying Mission uses that pattern.


The original post in this thread is pointing out one example of a problem with this template.

Using the indicative, the question would have been exactly the same. The issue is timing, not the use of the conditional.

André Leroux doesn't use "instead" since it's not a replacement effect. It uses the conditional because if the bleed is successful (indicative), it's too late to modify it.


Not according to the Complete Rules Reference. A bleed that "would be successful" and a bleed that "is successful" both fall into the same step:

"If action was not blocked, then the action is successful. [6.2.3]"

The bleed action being successful doesn't mean the bleed is successful. You can play Freak Drive, or gain 1 from the Perfectionist after having played Spying Mission.
Both André Leroux and Spying Mission refer to the bleed, not the bleed action, so the rule you quoted is irrelevant in that case.

Using the indicative form clarifies we are dealing in this step of the Complete Rules Reference. Using the conditional creates a "timing window" adjacent to this step that I argue should not exist because it causes confusion.

It doesn't create a timing window, it modifies an effect before it happens. You can't play other effects in that would-be window. Just as a "+2 bleed" modifier changes the bleed effect (making it eligible to an Archon Investigation) without creating a new "window" (apart the "as is played" window).
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 14 Jun 2015 05:43 by Ankha.

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

More
14 Jun 2015 13:25 #71727 by TwoRazorReign
Replied by TwoRazorReign on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission
See, I don’t really have a problem with the interaction between Horrific Countenance (which, incidentally, is my example you asked for) and Lucas Halton because it follows the sequencing rules outlined in the rulebook. Is it a weird interaction? Yes. But you can point to a reference (in this case, the rulebook) to explain why the effects happen this way. My real issue is when there is nothing to use as a reference for weird interactions, a la Spying Mission and Andre LeRoux. For this interaction, we have to use the Complete Rules Reference as a guide to figure out when exactly these effects are taking place. In general, using the indicative verb form on cad text usually places effects in a step clearly outlined in the Complete Rules Reference. Using the conditional places the effects somewhere not indicated in the Complete Rules Reference, hence making it “irrelevant” and causing confusion (whether this creates a new timing window is an argument for another thread). Either the Complete Rules Reference needs to change to account for every little effect that takes place, or the effects in the game need to change to fit the Complete Rules Reference. In the case of Spying Mission/Andre Leroux, I am arguing that the effects need to change (apparently you missed that and think I misunderstand how the interaction currently works). The Complete Rules Reference is not irrelevant to the people who use it and want a clean explanation for how things in this game work.

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

More
14 Jun 2015 14:25 - 14 Jun 2015 14:27 #71728 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission

See, I don’t really have a problem with the interaction between Horrific Countenance (which, incidentally, is my example you asked for) and Lucas Halton because it follows the sequencing rules outlined in the rulebook. Is it a weird interaction? Yes. But you can point to a reference (in this case, the rulebook) to explain why the effects happen this way. My real issue is when there is nothing to use as a reference for weird interactions, a la Spying Mission and Andre LeRoux.


You're very confused about what sequencing means. You were similarly confused over here .

Sequencing handles what happens when two cards or effects can be played at the same time - who gets to play what, in what order. But it's only about tie-breaking cards that would be played with the same timing (E.g. "before range", "as the card is played"). Sequencing does not work to determine the order in which cards are played if they have different timing. The rules on sequencing do not define timing windows - just what happens if two things want to happen in the same timing window.

For this interaction, we have to use the Complete Rules Reference as a guide to figure out when exactly these effects are taking place.


Yes, it's entirely intentional that the thing that explains the timing steps is used to explain the timing steps. Sequencing, it does not do that, that is not what it is for, it is not the purpose for which it exists.
Last edit: 14 Jun 2015 14:27 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
14 Jun 2015 15:28 - 14 Jun 2015 16:09 #71729 by TwoRazorReign
Replied by TwoRazorReign on topic Re: Andre LeRoux + spying mission
The example Ankha gave for the interaction between Horrific Countenance and Lucas Halton uses sequencing to explain his point. It's a good point: a weird effect is created when following standard sequencing rules in his example. Ankha has an issue with this interaction, I do not. I'd really like to hear your take on that issue, jamesatzephyr.


Something I want to point out: "Timing windows" is not defined in the rulebook. Sequencing is. Players are going to use sequencing to solve problems because it is outlined in the rulebook. It is not fair to expect players to understand a concept that is not defined in the rulebook, then say they are confused when they are using a concept outlined in the rulebook to solve problems.
Last edit: 14 Jun 2015 16:09 by TwoRazorReign.

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. Andre LeRoux + spying mission
Time to create page: 0.106 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum