Kindred Society Games

Can you describe what you interpret as the intended design and how the current effect is counter-intuitive?

TwoRazorReign wrote: Can you describe what you interpret as the intended design and how the current effect is counter-intuitive?

The effect as set by WotC era rulings, that appear to be to preserve either designer intent or some view about how to make it better, mean that this text:

doesn't work as an ordinary interpretation of the text would imply.

In an ordinary application of card text, you could:

1) Not untap as normal.
2) Burn a blood to untap to Games A, and actually untap because this is not untapping as normal.
3) Pass on Games B to another vampire (or burn it).

Resulting in an untapped vampire. (2 and 3 could function either way round.)

The WotC-era rulings imply that burning a blood to Games A is 'untapping as normal', and hence prevented unless you also burn a blood to Games B.

This is somewhat problematic in that Kindred Society Games is itself regarded as a non-normal untap for the purpose of cutting through other, non-KSG "does not untap as normal" effects:

[LSJ 20001005]

LSJ wrote: > So, if a vamp is both Mind Numbed and Deranged (having quite a day), can that
> vamp pay one blood during its untap phase to untap?

Yes. Mind Numb only prevents the minion from untapping as normal during
the untap phase. If the minion has some non-normal means of untapping
during his untap phase (e.g., Derange, Detection, Homunculus, Children of
Osiris, Obsession, Kindred Society Games), then he is free to use that
method.

Changing KSG to say something like "or burns X blood to unlock, where X is the number of KSG on them and none can be moved/burned" would potentially make it function the way the WotC ruling says it does.

The card was rewritten well after the WotC rulings. We should throw the WotC rulings out because they only serve to be confusing about the current design of the card.

Throwing out old rulings on rewritten cards should be standard practice when cards receive updates, it's just something that's never happened.

So there's a problem with the 1995 ruling as well. I'm thinking that this ruling is just a case of people back in 1995 not understanding what "untapping as normal" means, or using a different definition of "untapping as normal" that no longer exists. Do we really need to rewrite seemingly coherent card text so this ruling can exist?

TwoRazorReign wrote: So there's a problem with the 1995 ruling as well. I'm thinking that this ruling is just a case of people back in 1995 not understanding what "untapping as normal" means

Not really, because that wasn't how the card was worded in 1995.

You're right that the ruling was made in response to card text that is now outdated. Thus the ruling is outdated and is based on a definition of "untap as normal" that is different the the current meaning. The question remains: what is the benefit of rewriting a card so that this outdated ruling can exist?