Old Rules Team Rulings

I looked through Lasombra's archive of Rules Team Rulings (I believe that's all the post-WotC RTR's, right?) and the following piqued my interest. (My apologies if they have been talked to death!) My comments have B's before them. 23-JUN-98 March Halcyon: New card text: "If March is diablerized, no one can call a Blood Hunt against the diablerizing vampire." B This reminded me: There's no such thing as a Wild Hunt, is there? B I mean, otherwise, her ability doesn't do much. Rutor's Hand: A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand. New card text: "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the damage." # # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to # prevent non-combat damage" errata. B Although today, after the agg rules changed, taking one agg damage B and pre-paying what it would have cost him to get out of torpor B would cost no blood for the damage, and then two to leave torpor - B is it possible Rutor's superior could be changed to "pay 2 blood to B prevent the damage"? This would have been easier to change at the B same time as the agg rules, like Goth Band/D actions, but it's not B too late. 11-JUL-01 Q: If you have a Thanks for the Donation in play for a location you're contesting with Democritus's controller, your prey burns 2 pool when you untap (assuming you choose not to yield). What happens when your prey has only 1 pool during your untap (and you choose not to yield)? A: She tries to pay the cost to contest, so she's ousted, but you still yield since you haven't paid the price to contest. (Parallel with Vast Wealth retrieving a weapon that costs more pool than you have). B Vast Wealth's ruling, if I am not mistaken, was a general ruling B telling us what to do when a cost must be paid for but cannot. B Democritus does not increase the cost of contesting. Vampires that B affect costs, like Mitchell and Delmardigan, say so. He makes the B other player burn an additional 1 pool to avoid yielding. Compare B to Javier Montoya, whose rescue actions still cost 2 blood, but he B burns 1 less - these vampires are worded similarly. So, the cost B of contesting would be 1 pool, the cost of not yielding would also B be 1 pool, and your prey can only pay one of these. The other B must be paid by your new prey. And, I think, if prey #1 pays the B Democritus cost, prey #2 would then be contesting and have to pay B that cost also. Anyway, that's my two cents, and it makes sense, to me. Have at it. --Brian

In message <80bafd85.02060...@posting.google.com>, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about: >B This reminded me: There's no such thing as a Wild Hunt, is there? >B I mean, otherwise, her ability doesn't do much. Correct. >B Although today, after the agg rules changed, taking one agg damage >B and pre-paying what it would have cost him to get out of torpor >B would cost no blood for the damage, and then two to leave torpor - >B is it possible Rutor's superior could be changed to "pay 2 blood to >B prevent the damage"? This would have been easier to change at the >B same time as the agg rules, like Goth Band/D actions, but it's not >B too late. The Rules Team has stated several times their policy of not issuing errata for trivial reasons, and not issuing errata to improve "wallpaper". Rutor's Hand is far from wallpaper, but the idea still applies. Think of the extra blood cost as the price of doing it all in one action and paying nothing and not risking diablerie if you get blocked. Also, Rutor's Hand is a sufficiently powerful **non-removable** effect that reducing its total cost to 3 blood would make it a little bit too good. As it stands now, if you get a Rutor's Hand on an 8-cap, you've got something close to the equivalent of two 4-caps. You certainly don't have an action disadvantage anymore compared to those 4-caps, and you have a discipline ADvantage -- all yours are superior. That's pretty strong. >A: She tries to pay the cost to contest, so she's ousted, but you >still yield since you haven't paid the price to contest. (Parallel with >Vast Wealth retrieving a weapon that costs more pool than you have). > >B Vast Wealth's ruling, if I am not mistaken, was a general ruling >B telling us what to do when a cost must be paid for but cannot. >B Democritus does not increase the cost of contesting. Vampires that Right. But Democritus' text does say that in order to not yield the card, one extra pool must be burnt. This means that 2 pool must be burned or the contested card is yielded. (Democritus' text, for reference: "... any Methuselah contesting a card with you burns 1 extra pool to avoid yielding that card." The "burn...to" card text follows the same template as "tap...to" and other "X to Y" instances; if X isn't fully satisfied, Y doesn't happen.) >B affect costs, like Mitchell and Delmardigan, say so. He makes the >B other player burn an additional 1 pool to avoid yielding. Compare >B to Javier Montoya, whose rescue actions still cost 2 blood, but he >B burns 1 less - these vampires are worded similarly. So, the cost >B of contesting would be 1 pool, the cost of not yielding would also >B be 1 pool, and your prey can only pay one of these. The other >B must be paid by your new prey. And, I think, if prey #1 pays the >B Democritus cost, prey #2 would then be contesting and have to pay >B that cost also. Choosing to yield or not yield a contested card would be concluded at that point, though. The payment required by contesting, modified by Democritus, modified by Thanks for the Donation, is still a single effect. You can't burn "one from here, and later, one from here"; you have to burn two at once to avoid yielding. In this case, your prey burns one, is ousted, and fails to burn two because he doesn't have enough pool to do so. The card is then yielded, as the conditions set up by rules and card text have not been met at the time the effect happened. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

> Think of the extra blood cost as the price of doing it all in one action > and paying nothing and not risking diablerie if you get blocked. Also, > Rutor's Hand is a sufficiently powerful **non-removable** effect that > reducing its total cost to 3 blood would make it a little bit too good. I agree, making the total cost 3 might be too powerful. I don't play it at 4, though. Can it cost 3.5? :+) > >A: She tries to pay the cost to contest, so she's ousted, but you > >still yield since you haven't paid the price to contest. (Parallel with > >Vast Wealth retrieving a weapon that costs more pool than you have). > > > >B Vast Wealth's ruling, if I am not mistaken, was a general ruling > >B telling us what to do when a cost must be paid for but cannot. > >B Democritus does not increase the cost of contesting. Vampires that > > Right. But Democritus' text does say that in order to not yield the > card, one extra pool must be burnt. This means that 2 pool must be > burned or the contested card is yielded. OK, but 2 pool total, not necessarily at once. Democritus does NOT say that one extra pool must be burnt simultaneously. It appears Democritus generates another effect, separate from contesting, and since your untap happens in the order of your choosing, you should be able to say, "I pay Democritus' fee not to yield. Now, I pay to contest." To illustrate the point, one could say: "I pay 1 to contest. But, I don't pay for Democritus. I yield." Or even: "I pay 1 to Democritus. Then, I do not pay to contest. I yield." > (Democritus' text, for reference: "... any Methuselah contesting a card > with you burns 1 extra pool to avoid yielding that card." The > "burn...to" card text follows the same template as "tap...to" and other > "X to Y" instances; if X isn't fully satisfied, Y doesn't happen.) Granted, "X to Y" effects require that X be done or Y is not. Still, that says nothing about timing. Democritus does not say "do X to Y at the same time as Z". It is a separate effect and should be handled accordingly. > Choosing to yield or not yield a contested card would be concluded at > that point, though. The payment required by contesting, modified by > Democritus, modified by Thanks for the Donation, is still a single > effect. You can't burn "one from here, and later, one from here"; you > have to burn two at once to avoid yielding. Thanks for the Donation says, "Your cost to avoid yielding the contested card is now paid by your prey." It modifies an existing effect (contestion). If Democritus said "2 pool instead of 1 to contest", or "contesting costs 1 more", he also would modify that effect. However, he generates a new effect which requires burning 1 pool/untap, and can be paid at any time during untap, to be in line with other effects. > In this case, your prey burns one, is ousted, and fails to burn two > because he doesn't have enough pool to do so. The card is then yielded, > as the conditions set up by rules and card text have not been met at the > time the effect happened. Assuming there is only one effect, you are correct; the above is true. If there are two effects, however, then there are two conditions to satisfy, and each must be met separately. Let me illustrate this with a Vast Wealth/Life Boon example. I am at 3 pool, using Vast Wealth to get...Talbot's Chainsaw. If I have a hypothetical card in play which says "weapons cost me one more pool", I lose all 3 of my pool trying to pay 4, get no chainsaw, and immediately die. If I get Life Booned, I have that amount of pool left (and no chainsaw). If I have a hypothetical card in play which says "when I play a weapon, I burn 1 pool or burn the weapon", I lose 3 pool paying for Talbot's Chainsaw, and immediately die. If I get Life Booned, I still must burn 1 pool or the weapon. Do you see where I'm coming from on this? --Brian

I'm tired of marking this "unread" until I can get around to responding to it, so I'm just gonna answer some of the bits, instead of all of them. Dammit. =) In message <80bafd85.02061...@posting.google.com>, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about: >> Think of the extra blood cost as the price of doing it all in one action >> and paying nothing and not risking diablerie if you get blocked. Also, >> Rutor's Hand is a sufficiently powerful **non-removable** effect that >> reducing its total cost to 3 blood would make it a little bit too good. > >I agree, making the total cost 3 might be too powerful. I don't play >it at 4, though. Can it cost 3.5? :+) Wow. I play it at 4 lots; it's easily worth all 4 blood, especially in a discipline that has a strike card reading "steal 2 blood". I played a bleed-and-bruise THA/DOM deck for awhile; it went "Govern, Seduction, Bonding" an awful lot, and occasionally "Foreshadowing" or "Sleeping Mind" as well. If you blocked it anyway, it had Movement of the Mind and Theft of Vitae in huge quantities. It had loads of Blood Dolls and Rutor's Hand, and the obligatory 2 Magic of the Smith/1 Ankara Citadel. Movements served as Rush defense as well as "bruise" offense; sure, it rarely (if ever) killed anything it got into combat with, but when you have five 8-caps all bleeding for 3 or more each turn, and some of those 8-caps taking other actions as well (such as "i get Tasha Morgan", "i get a Leather Jacket"), you remember that you don't HAVE to kill everything in sight to win. >> Right. But Democritus' text does say that in order to not yield the >> card, one extra pool must be burnt. This means that 2 pool must be >> burned or the contested card is yielded. > >OK, but 2 pool total, not necessarily at once. Democritus does NOT >say that one extra pool must be burnt simultaneously. It appears >Democritus generates another effect, separate from contesting, and Hmm. No, Democritus' effect is part and parcel of the "contesting" effect; it modifies the amount that must be paid in order to not yield. >since your untap happens in the order of your choosing, you should be >able to say, "I pay Democritus' fee not to yield. Now, I pay to >contest." > >To illustrate the point, one could say: >"I pay 1 to contest. But, I don't pay for Democritus. I yield." >Or even: >"I pay 1 to Democritus. Then, I do not pay to contest. I yield." These aren't separate effects though. The "contest" effect is atomic (aw, man, i used that word, please don't start that whole freaking flamewar again, all you momos out there) for each card; either the card is yielded, or it is not, and the effect is concluded at that point. The cost to avoid yielding is determined for each card as part of that effect, much like the whether Rex can play a combat card or not is determined as a single effect, even though umpteen-million cards can be modifying it. >> (Democritus' text, for reference: "... any Methuselah contesting a card >> with you burns 1 extra pool to avoid yielding that card." The >> "burn...to" card text follows the same template as "tap...to" and other >> "X to Y" instances; if X isn't fully satisfied, Y doesn't happen.) > >Granted, "X to Y" effects require that X be done or Y is not. Still, And that's why contestation is a single effect. >that says nothing about timing. Democritus does not say "do X to Y at >the same time as Z". It is a separate effect and should be handled >accordingly. see above cf. "part and parcel", etc. yada yada and stuff. >Thanks for the Donation says, "Your cost to avoid yielding the >contested card is now paid by your prey." It modifies an existing >effect (contestion). If Democritus said "2 pool instead of 1 to >contest", or "contesting costs 1 more", he also would modify that >effect. However, he generates a new effect which requires burning 1 >pool/untap, and can be paid at any time during untap, to be in line >with other effects. see above cf. "part and parcel", etc. yada yada and stuff. >Let me illustrate this with a Vast Wealth/Life Boon example. > >I am at 3 pool, using Vast Wealth to get...Talbot's Chainsaw. > >If I have a hypothetical card in play which says "weapons cost me one >more pool", I lose all 3 of my pool trying to pay 4, get no chainsaw, >and immediately die. If I get Life Booned, I have that amount of pool >left (and no chainsaw). Single effect, right. The effect of equipping the chainsaw concludes with you having failed to pay it; the Life Boon is a new, post-failure effect which returns pool to you and prevents your ousting. >If I have a hypothetical card in play which says "when I play a >weapon, I burn 1 pool or burn the weapon", I lose 3 pool paying for >Talbot's Chainsaw, and immediately die. If I get Life Booned, I still >must burn 1 pool or the weapon. (headshake) The Chainsaw is already gone when you're ousted; you can't burn 1 pool because you have no more pool, so the Chainsaw goes away. By the time you're Life Booned, you're no longer "playing" the weapon. I see where you're coming from, yes, but everything which modifies an effect has to take place during the effect. I couldn't, for example, play Clandestine Contract on my prey's vampire when I only had 1 pool, be Life Booned, and then have combat continue as normal. Nor could I play Clandestine Contract on Moncada when I only had 2 pool and be Life Booned to still enter combat with him, even though Moncada's special is a separate effect modifying CC's cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >To illustrate the point, one could say: > >"I pay 1 to contest. But, I don't pay for Democritus. I yield." > >Or even: > >"I pay 1 to Democritus. Then, I do not pay to contest. I yield." > > These aren't separate effects though. The "contest" effect is atomic > (aw, man, i used that word, please don't start that whole freaking > flamewar again, all you momos out there) for each card; either the card > is yielded, or it is not, and the effect is concluded at that point. Attempting to understand: Premise 1: "Contest" effect is atomic. Premise 2: Democritus' effect modifies contestion. Conclusion: These two effects are handled simultaneously. The above seems to be what you are saying. Premise 1: "Contest" effect is atomic. Premise 2: Democritus' effect happens in addition to, not modifies, contestion. Conclusion: There is no statement about timing. This is what I am saying. > The cost to avoid yielding is determined for each card as part of that > effect, much like the whether Rex can play a combat card or not is > determined as a single effect, even though umpteen-million cards can be > modifying it. But Rex states he modifies cost, whereas Democritus does not. Democritus has been ruled to work as though he modifies cost, without wording him to do so. That's why I brought this up. I think Democritus should either work slightly differently, or be reworded to modify cost. > >Let me illustrate this with a Vast Wealth/Life Boon example. > > > >If I have a hypothetical card in play which says "when I play a > >weapon, I burn 1 pool or burn the weapon", I lose 3 pool paying for > >Talbot's Chainsaw, and immediately die. If I get Life Booned, I still > >must burn 1 pool or the weapon. > > (headshake) The Chainsaw is already gone when you're ousted; you can't > burn 1 pool because you have no more pool, so the Chainsaw goes away. > By the time you're Life Booned, you're no longer "playing" the weapon. Although Talbot's Chainsaw would burn if you were ousted, you're not. When you are ousted, all your cards are burned [1.3]; if Life Boon waited for the oust, it would be pretty worthless. It must be playable when you _would_ be ousted, not after. Disclaimer: I have looked up section [1.3], but not Life Boon. If there's errata saying you do burn all your cards and then return them to play, I wouldn't know...I'm just going on what I've got. > I see where you're coming from, yes, but everything which modifies an > effect has to take place during the effect. I couldn't, for example, > play Clandestine Contract on my prey's vampire when I only had 1 pool, > be Life Booned, and then have combat continue as normal. Really? I would assume you could. Rather like an acting Methuselah could play Conditioning, and then Direct Intervention could be played, because despite it being acting Methuselah's chance to play cards, it's an effect which interrupts something else. I would assume Life Boon would have to interrupt the oust to prevent the cards from returning to their respective ash heaps. > Nor could I > play Clandestine Contract on Moncada when I only had 2 pool and be Life > Booned to still enter combat with him, even though Moncada's special is > a separate effect modifying CC's cost. Aha! This sentence tells me I have not communicated properly. I am not claiming Democritus' ability is a separate effect modifying an existing cost, I am claiming Democritus' ability is a separate effect generating a new cost/effect scenario. Like Arika says "Pay 1 pool or burn location", Democritus says "Pay 1 pool or yield contested card". Cost clearly stated. Effect clearly stated. Modification to existing effect: None. Similarly, if a location had the ability, "During your untap, pay 1 pool or burn this location", Arika would not make you pay 2 pool once to keep it. She would generate a new effect which, although cumulative, still represents a separate effect. A card which said "You may contest cards without burning pool" would not protect you from vampires that make you burn pool or yield, but would protect you from vampires which said "contesting cards with this vampire's controller costs an additional pool". Which I'm hoping becomes Democritus' text, if he continues to function that way. Maybe I've babbled on, but it's so we can see eye to eye on this. --Brian

Brian wrote: > > > >To illustrate the point, one could say: > > >"I pay 1 to contest. But, I don't pay for Democritus. I yield." > > >Or even: > > >"I pay 1 to Democritus. Then, I do not pay to contest. I yield." > > > > These aren't separate effects though. The "contest" effect is atomic > > (aw, man, i used that word, please don't start that whole freaking > > flamewar again, all you momos out there) for each card; either the card > > is yielded, or it is not, and the effect is concluded at that point. > > Attempting to understand: > > Premise 1: "Contest" effect is atomic. > Premise 2: Democritus' effect modifies contestion. > Conclusion: These two effects are handled simultaneously. > > The above seems to be what you are saying. > > Premise 1: "Contest" effect is atomic. > Premise 2: Democritus' effect happens in addition to, not modifies, > contestion. > Conclusion: There is no statement about timing. > > This is what I am saying. Democritus's effect adds to the cost to contest. The opposing contestor has to burn an extra pool to avoid yielding. So if the cost to avoid yielding was 1 pool, the opposing contestor must burn 2 pool to avoid yielding (or yield). > > The cost to avoid yielding is determined for each card as part of that > > effect, much like the whether Rex can play a combat card or not is > > determined as a single effect, even though umpteen-million cards can be > > modifying it. > > But Rex states he modifies cost, whereas Democritus does not. Rex refers to card costs. Democritus to the "avoid yielding". > Democritus has been ruled to work as though he modifies cost, without > wording him to do so. No change needed. The pool burned to avoid yielding *is* the cost to contest. > That's why I brought this up. I think Democritus should either work > slightly differently, or be reworded to modify cost. > > > >Let me illustrate this with a Vast Wealth/Life Boon example. > > > > > >If I have a hypothetical card in play which says "when I play a > > >weapon, I burn 1 pool or burn the weapon", I lose 3 pool paying for > > >Talbot's Chainsaw, and immediately die. If I get Life Booned, I still > > >must burn 1 pool or the weapon. > > > > (headshake) The Chainsaw is already gone when you're ousted; you can't > > burn 1 pool because you have no more pool, so the Chainsaw goes away. > > By the time you're Life Booned, you're no longer "playing" the weapon. > > Although Talbot's Chainsaw would burn if you were ousted, you're not. > When you are ousted, all your cards are burned [1.3]; if Life Boon > waited for the oust, it would be pretty worthless. It must be > playable when you _would_ be ousted, not after. > > Disclaimer: I have looked up section [1.3], but not Life Boon. If > there's errata saying you do burn all your cards and then return them > to play, I wouldn't know...I'm just going on what I've got. The hypothetical card is worded as pay for play - a cost which is unrelated to the success of the action. 1) Play TC. 2) burn 1 pool for the hypothetical card (now have 2 pool left). 3) resolve block attempts 4) action resolves successfully, but you can only pay 2. So you pay 2 and the action fizzles. [RTR 10-JUL-2001] 5) Life boon is played - someone gives you pool. The action still fizzled. TC is still in the ash heap. > > I see where you're coming from, yes, but everything which modifies an > > effect has to take place during the effect. I couldn't, for example, > > play Clandestine Contract on my prey's vampire when I only had 1 pool, > > be Life Booned, and then have combat continue as normal. > > Really? I would assume you could. You could. 1) Play CC 2) resolve block attempts (all fail) 3) action resolves successfully (since you can afford the cost). Pay 1 pool. 4) Life boon is played. 5) Begin combat. > Rather like an acting Methuselah could play Conditioning, and then > Direct Intervention could be played, because despite it being acting > Methuselah's chance to play cards, it's an effect which interrupts > something else. > I would assume Life Boon would have to interrupt the oust to prevent > the cards from returning to their respective ash heaps. > > > Nor could I > > play Clandestine Contract on Moncada when I only had 2 pool and be Life > > Booned to still enter combat with him, even though Moncada's special is > > a separate effect modifying CC's cost. > > Aha! This sentence tells me I have not communicated properly. > I am not claiming Democritus' ability is a separate effect modifying > an existing cost, I am claiming Democritus' ability is a separate > effect generating a new cost/effect scenario. > Like Arika says "Pay 1 pool or burn location", > Democritus says "Pay 1 pool or yield contested card". Actually, it's: "<Contestor> burns 1 extra pool to avoid yielding". -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> Democritus's effect adds to the cost to contest. The opposing contestor has > to burn an extra pool to avoid yielding. So if the cost to avoid yielding was > 1 pool, the opposing contestor must burn 2 pool to avoid yielding (or yield). So then, instead of saying "I modify the cost to contest", he describes the cost to contest, and then says "I modify that"? Is that desirable? > > Democritus has been ruled to work as though he modifies cost, without > > wording him to do so. > > No change needed. The pool burned to avoid yielding *is* the cost to > contest. Then he's describing it instead of just saying it. Functionally identical, but obtuse. > The hypothetical card is worded as pay for play - a cost which is unrelated > to the success of the action. > > 1) Play TC. > 2) burn 1 pool for the hypothetical card (now have 2 pool left). > 3) resolve block attempts > 4) action resolves successfully, but you can only pay 2. So you pay 2 and > the action fizzles. [RTR 10-JUL-2001] > 5) Life boon is played - someone gives you pool. > > The action still fizzled. TC is still in the ash heap. Oops...I meant for the hypothetical card to read "Whenever a minion you control successfully equips a weapon, you must burn 1 pool or burn the weapon." Then, is it different? 1) Have 3 pool, play TC. 2) Resolve block atttempts. 3) Action resolves successfully, you pay 3. TC comes into play. 4) Both Life Boon and the hypothetical card are "triggered". Either effect is allowed to be played first. That's my guess--unless you must choose hypothetical card first (being acting minion's effect) or unless you must handle being dead first. > > Like Arika says "Pay 1 pool or burn location", > > Democritus says "Pay 1 pool or yield contested card". > > Actually, it's: "<Contestor> burns 1 extra pool to avoid yielding". So, why not "Contesting with you costs 1 extra pool"? That way he'd clearly modify a cost. Probably, because he's been ruled to work that way anyway, and likelihood that TftD actually being played by Democritus' opponent and Demo's controller doesn't yield is very small, making changing Democritus' text non-urgent. Still, I think the above is simpler + less likely to be misinterpreted. Still, thanks both of you for clearing things up. ;) --Brian

Brian wrote: > > The hypothetical card is worded as pay for play - a cost which is unrelated > > to the success of the action. > > > > 1) Play TC. > > 2) burn 1 pool for the hypothetical card (now have 2 pool left). > > 3) resolve block attempts > > 4) action resolves successfully, but you can only pay 2. So you pay 2 and > > the action fizzles. [RTR 10-JUL-2001] > > 5) Life boon is played - someone gives you pool. > > > > The action still fizzled. TC is still in the ash heap. > > Oops...I meant for the hypothetical card to read "Whenever a minion > you control successfully equips a weapon, you must burn 1 pool or burn > the weapon." Then, is it different? > > 1) Have 3 pool, play TC. > 2) Resolve block atttempts. > 3) Action resolves successfully, you pay 3. TC comes into play. > 4) Both Life Boon and the hypothetical card are "triggered". Either > effect is allowed to be played first. > > That's my guess--unless you must choose hypothetical card first (being > acting minion's effect) or unless you must handle being dead first. Your guess sounds fine. [ quoted text not captured ]