Paying the Cost of Villein

I know I remember reading this in the past, but my Google-fu is weak tonight... LSJ has ruled in the past that the cost of Villein can be paid out of the pool you gain from Villein (or Minion Tap). Example: I have 1 pool, I play Villein on a vampire that already has 1 Villein (or use Minion Tap when there is one Villein on the table) and take, say, 5 blood off and put 4 counters into my pool. Can someone with greater Google-fu please post up a link for that ruling. I am sure it exists, I just can't remember where or find it. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4f2adaa18414d8e5 (replace Minion Tap by Villein). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > LSJ has ruled in the past that the cost of Villein can be paid out of the pool you gain from Villein (or Minion Tap). > Not exactly... What you can do is pay for a master card whose cost uses up all your pool (taking you to zero), gain some pool from the effect of the master card (taking you up from zero), and not be ousted. Play, pay and resolution are simultaneous, so there isn't a point when you actually hit zero pool. However: if, for example, Minion Tap cost 2 pool (two Villeins in play), and you have 1 pool, and the vampire you want to target has oodles of blood, you can't play Minion Tap because you can't afford it. (Similarly, if that target vampire had both Villeins on it.) Also, corner-case-fun: Santaleous can cancel master cards, but doesn't include the "no cost is paid text". The default is that you pay the cost, unless the "no cost is paid" text is there. So Santaleous cancelling your MT/Villein can oust you. Don't do that.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > LSJ has ruled in the past that the cost of Villein can be paid out of the pool you gain from Villein (or Minion Tap). > > > Not exactly... > > What you can do is pay for a master card whose cost uses up all your pool (taking you to zero), gain some pool from the effect of the master card (taking you up from zero), and not be ousted. Play, pay and resolution are simultaneous, so there isn't a point when you actually hit zero pool. > Play happens first, goes with the declaration of terms, and is followed by the "as played" window, in which Sudden Reversal et al. other cards could be played. Pay, resolve and replace are "simultaneous", and come after that "as played" window. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > However: if, for example, Minion Tap cost 2 pool (two Villeins in play), and you have 1 pool, and the vampire you want to target has oodles of blood, you can't play Minion Tap because you can't afford it. (Similarly, if that target vampire had both Villeins on it.) > > Also, corner-case-fun: Santaleous can cancel master cards, but doesn't include the "no cost is paid text". The default is that you pay the cost, unless the "no cost is paid" text is there. So Santaleous cancelling your MT/Villein can oust you. Don't do that. > Correct. [LSJ 20090815] for the MT with 2 V in play when on 1 pool; [LSJ 20080612] (but it's a generic ruling which can be found here: [LSJ 20090601] ) for the Santaleous part.

> Pascal wrote: > Play happens first, goes with the declaration of terms, and is followed by the "as played" window, in which Sudden Reversal et al. other cards could be played. > Pay, resolve and replace are "simultaneous", and come after that "as played" window. > Correct. > [LSJ 20090815] for the MT with 2 V in play when on 1 pool; > [LSJ 20080612] (but it's a generic ruling which can be found here: [LSJ 20090601] ) for the Santaleous part. > I have a technical problem with this breakdown of actions or card plays (assuming that it can also apply across to Minion cards, which is not excluded by the general ruling). Using this as the general template for the resolution of all cards, there would be no way to fail to pay for the cost of cards like Govern the Unaligned without their resolution also occuring. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but the vast number of times I have other people splitting hairs on me it seems stupid not to "join them". If you have 1 blood on a vampire, and declare an action costing 1 blood, then use or lose that one blood... you are in the position where the card is resolving simultaneously with you paying for it. I just can't see a point in that sequence where you 'check if the cost can be paid before the card is resolved' which is also a point LSJ has made in the past. (I'm particularly thinking of the partial payment of unblocked actions ruling, which as usual I don't know the link to but I'm sure we all know that ruling.) I don't see how one of those rulings in particular plays out. If you can play a card that would oust you (because its pool cost equals your pool) but you aren't ousted if you would gain enough pool to cover the cost (e.g. you have 1 pool and play Villein to gain 2, leaving you on 2 pool)... why can you not manage to do the same thing if playing that Villein (or Minion Tap) would cost MORE than your pool total (e.g. Villein would cost 2 pool, you have 1 pool playing the Villein would gain you 4 blood into pool and leaving you on 3 pool)? (1) So either logically: we are all paying the cost first and then resolving the card's effects (cost and resolution are not simultaneous), OR we can always have actions successfully resolve (if they are not blocked) and partially pay the cost with whatever blood is available (cost and resolution are simultaneous) (1): If you're assuming a cancellation of the card without cancelling its cost, then that would merely trigger the partial payment of costs scenario. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > If you have 1 blood on a vampire, and declare an action costing 1 blood, then use or lose that one blood... you are in the position where the card is resolving simultaneously with you paying for it. > They're simultaneous, but you're required to meet the cost. If you (say) play an action modifier that costs a blood, then the action is unblocked, you fail to pay for it, so the action fizzles. This is unlike the master card situation where you have the pool to pay for it, pay for it and resolve it, and never hit zero pool during that process. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I just can't see a point in that sequence where you 'check if the cost can be paid before the card is resolved' which is also a point LSJ has made in the past. > For actions - which have a significant delay between play and resolution - you check twice. 1) When you play the card, you check to see if you meet all the requirements - including blood cost. If you don't, you can't play the card. (This is much the same for all cards.) 2) Because an action goes into limbo for a period of time, you re-check the requirements when the action is unblocked. Can you pay the cost? Are the targets still legal? (For example, Ambush will fizzle if the target untaps.) And so on. Strikes also follow point 2 (because of their separate play/resolve timing), except that the cost has already been paid. If you can't pay the full cost, you pay as much as you can - and then the action fizzles. www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR71101.htm > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > why can you not manage to do the same thing if playing that Villein (or Minion Tap) would cost MORE than your pool total > You have 1 pool. The card costs 2 pool. When you announce the card play, you have to be able to meet the cost. You can't meet the cost, so you can't play the card. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > we are all paying the cost first and then resolving the card's effects (cost and resolution are not simultaneous), OR we can always have actions successfully resolve (if they are not blocked) and partially pay the cost with whatever blood is available (cost and resolution are simultaneous) > Cost and resolution are simultaneous in both cases. In case one, you pay the full cost and the successful resolution happens simultaneously. In case two, you pay the partial cost and the fizzled resolution happens simultaneously. (Although fizzled resolution is much less interesting.)

That is what makes no sense. There are two major points here: 1. A card cannot be declared if its effective cost cannto be paid (e.g.s You cannot declare a 2 blood action with a vampire with 1 blood. You cannot declare a 2 pool card be played if you cannot pay the cost because you have 1 pool). 2. A card cannot be successfully resolved until its cost is fully paid. (e.g. You take a 1 blood action and spend 1 blood on a stealth card, leaving the minion on 0 blood and so when the action reaches the point where it is about to be resolved its full cost must be paid for it to successfully resolve). So, in taking it across to master cards, I can accept the "If you haven't got it at the start you can't play" it argument (Point #1)... but partial payment of actions by its very existence implies that cards must be fully paid for before they can resolve. If they must be fully paid before they resolve, then you cannot gain the pool from Villein/Minion Tap before you have fully paid for its effect (which ousts you). I'd like to see where you find a gap in that logic without explicity referring to a separate ruling. It seems that LSJs ruling, in the case of Minion Tap and Villein, logically breaks his own rulings about the partial payment of the costs of cards. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > 2. A card cannot be successfully resolved until its cost is fully paid. (e.g. You take a 1 blood action and spend 1 blood on a stealth card, leaving the minion on 0 blood and so when the action reaches the point where it is about to be resolved its full cost must be paid for it to successfully resolve). > Not quite, no. You pay the cost and resolve the card simultaneously. (Except for strike cards.) However, it is quite apparent whether you can meet the cost or not. If you can meet the cost, you pay the full cost and resolve the card successfully. If you can't meet the cost, you pay what you can and fizzle. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > So, in taking it across to master cards, I can accept the "If you haven't got it at the start you can't play" it argument (Point #1)... but partial payment of actions by its very existence implies that cards must be fully paid for before they can resolve. > No, it doesn't. It could equally imply "Can I meet the full cost? Yes, then:... No, then:..." Which, coincidentally, is what we do. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I'd like to see where you find a gap in that logic without explicity referring to a separate ruling. > That you're implying things out of so-called necessity when there is no actual necessity. Sure, things _could_ work the way you say. But they don't. And there's no need for them to, despite your illogic.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > That is what makes no sense. > > There are two major points here: > 1. A card cannot be declared if its effective cost cannto be paid (e.g.s You cannot declare a 2 blood action with a vampire with 1 blood. You cannot declare a 2 pool card be played if you cannot pay the cost because you have 1 pool). > > 2. A card cannot be successfully resolved until its cost is fully paid. (e.g. You take a 1 blood action and spend 1 blood on a stealth card, leaving the minion on 0 blood and so when the action reaches the point where it is about to be resolved its full cost must be paid for it to successfully resolve). > > So, in taking it across to master cards, I can accept the "If you haven't got it at the start you can't play" it argument (Point #1)... but partial payment of actions by its very existence implies that cards must be fully paid for before they can resolve. > > If they must be fully paid before they resolve, then you cannot gain the pool from Villein/Minion Tap before you have fully paid for its effect (which ousts you). > You're supposing the existence a window between payment and resolution that doesn't exist (for non-strike cards). With this (false) logic, there would be an issue. But if your premises are wrong, your conclusions are moot. Your point #2 above only affects actions (this is not a ruling, but merely a conclusion of the fact that only actions get their cost paid way after they were declared). Trying to apply action-logic to masters is dangerous. Maybe it's clearer if I make a short list of how play / pay / resolve [and eventually replace ] works depending on the cardtype. This list follows the classic Golden Rule of Cardtext (if the cards says otherwise, it takes precedence - for instance Wake with Evening's Freshness isn't replaced until untap phase): ["->" represents the existence of a window, "+" represents simultaneity] 1 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+resolve+replace: Masters, action modifiers, reaction cards, non-strike combat cards, reflex. 2 - Play (and announce terms) => replace => pay+resolve: Action cards. 3 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+replace => resolve: Strike cards. Using logic of cards of type #2 for cards of type #1 (or of cards of type #3 for cards of type #2, contradicting the Bima+Govern clarification) is not recommended.

> Pascal wrote: > Maybe it's clearer if I make a short list of how play / pay / resolve [and eventually replace ] works depending on the cardtype. This list follows the classic Golden Rule of Cardtext (if the cards says otherwise, it takes precedence - for instance Wake with Evening's Freshness isn't replaced until untap phase): > ["->" represents the existence of a window, "+" represents simultaneity] > > 1 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+resolve+replace: Masters, action modifiers, reaction cards, non-strike combat cards, reflex. > 2 - Play (and announce terms) => replace => pay+resolve: Action cards. > 3 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+replace => resolve: Strike cards. > > Using logic of cards of type #2 for cards of type #1 (or of cards of type #3 for cards of type #2, contradicting the Bima+Govern clarification) is not recommended. > I am sorry, but why should we have three forms of card play? That seems to be a pointless and needless complexity. Simple steps for ALL card plays that will negate past rulings and the need for future rulings on these sorts of sequences. Each step would have its own 'window'. A Sequence for playing cards in VTES Play (and announce details) Replace card unless directed otherwise Check if the card is 'successful' Pay for card Resolve the card In the case of Actions, there is a longer Step 3; Action Cards are not successful unless they are unblocked and so this sequence is then used to resolve the individual card plays within Step 3 for the Action. 'As played' cards would be required to be played during step 1. Cards which cancel others 'as played' would be played before a replacement was drawn. Cards that must be played 'as an action is declared' or 'as an action is played' are also played during Step 1, before the original card is replaced (which eliminates the need for rulings on cards such as Concealed Weapon, Disguised Weapon, Pack Alpha, Charming Lobby, etc). That is one sequence that would cover all card plays. It elegantly explains how cancelling cards will commonly not pay their cost (i.e. the card fails at Step 3). It elegantly explains partial payment (i.e. the card fails at Step 4). It elegantly explains how cancelling the effect of cards still requires payment for the card (i.e. the card fails at Step 5). The only complicating type would be Political Actions. And in this sequence it would have a "Sequence for Political Actions" occur after the card resolves (at Step 5) which is basically the current situation anyway. Spoiler section below contains an explicit example of the above sequence to each type of the broader category of card: Master, Action, Action Mod, Combat & Reaction. Card Types Warning: Spoiler! Combat: Declare combat card (and its target) ==> Replace ==> Check success/failure of the card (e.g. DI, the new Salubri card, Charismatic Aura) ==> Pay for cost ==> Resolve card Actions: Declare action (and its terms) ==> Replace ==> Check success/failure of the action ==> Pay for cost ==> Resolve card Action Modifiers: Declare action modifier (and its terms) ==> Replace ==> Check success/failure ==> Pay for cost ==> Resolve card Master: Declare card (and any targets) ==> Replace ==> Check for success of the card play (i.e. no Wash/Sudden) ==> Pay for cost ==> Resolve card Reaction: Declare card (and any targets) ==> Replace ==> Check for success of the card (e.g. DI) ==> Pay for cost ==> Resolve card Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I am sorry, but why should we have three forms of card play? > Because since 1994, that's what the rules have been set up to do. Actions work differently to strikes which work differently to other cards. Why do vampires work differently to allies? Why can't all minions work the same? Why why why why why?

As jamesatzephyr said, that's the way the rules work and have been working for 15+ years. Any change in the sequence of Play, Pay, Resolve is not under consideration so far. Unless someone comes up with an example that actually breaks the rules (rather than an opinion on what would be more convenient in certain cases), I see no reason to change the rules. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > A Sequence for playing cards in VTES Play (and announce details) Replace card unless directed otherwise Check if the card is 'successful' Pay for card Resolve the card > This sequence should have "check if the card's payment was successful" after "pay for the card", I suppose.

1a: Wait for cancellation effects. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > I am sorry, but why should we have three forms of card play? > > > Because since 1994, that's what the rules have been set up to do. Actions work differently to strikes which work differently to other cards. > > Why do vampires work differently to allies? Why can't all minions work the same? Why why why why why? > And James, please show me where the sequence I have put there that does anything differently except explicitly requiring the cost of a card to be paid before it is resolved. And also, even if something has been done the same way for 15 years, does it mean now is not the time to IMPROVE on it. To make the way we play the game SIMPLER and easier to teach so we can EXPAND our player groups? The number of disciplines, the sequence of turns, the card types, the order of play of cards... all of these are complexities we have to have. Why shouldn't we make things EASIER on everyone?? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Pascal wrote: > As jamesatzephyr said, that's the way the rules work and have been working for 15+ years. Any change in the sequence of Play, Pay, Resolve is not under consideration so far. Unless someone comes up with an example that actually breaks the rules (rather than an opinion on what would be more convenient in certain cases), I see no reason to change the rules. > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > A Sequence for playing cards in VTES Play (and announce details) Replace card unless directed otherwise Check if the card is 'successful' Pay for card Resolve the card > > > Pascal wrote: > This sequence should have "check if the card's payment was successful" after "pay for the card", I suppose. > That 'checking the payment of the card' is the entire point of the "Pay for Card" step. That is the point where you have, failed payment, partial payment and successful payment. > KevinM wrote: > 1a: Wait for cancellation effects. > Not to sound too harsh, but if you'd read fully before... 1a) does not need to exist. The effect required in your 1a) by combining this step with the Impulse Rules (which pass the impulse around to all others after a card is played) is unneccesary. You play the card, announce its effect (without replacing) wait for players to not do anything about it then follow the rest of the sequence such as "As announced" cards (again passing impulse) and so on. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > And James, please show me where the sequence I have put there that does anything differently except explicitly requiring the cost of a card to be paid before it is resolved. > > And also, even if something has been done the same way for 15 years, does it mean now is not the time to IMPROVE on it. To make the way we play the game SIMPLER and easier to teach so we can EXPAND our player groups? > > The number of disciplines, the sequence of turns, the card types, the order of play of cards... all of these are complexities we have to have. Why shouldn't we make things EASIER on everyone?? > Changing rules that are working fine will not really make things easier for everyone. While it might be slighlty easier for new players, it will cause very much confusion for those of us that has played for a few years and learned the rules. And regarding the new players ability to learn the rules I kinda doubt the stuff discussed here is even close to being the worst part. There are no real weirdness except that different card types function a bit different.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > And James, please show me where the sequence I have put there that does anything differently except explicitly requiring the cost of a card to be paid before it is resolved. > That's a completely bizarre statement. What you have just written is essentially: "Please show me how the change I'm proposing does something other than the change I'm proposing." Which is completely circular. The change you're proposing does what it does. It doesn't do what it doesn't do. That applies to: Every. Single. Change. Ever. If I could show how your change did something your change didn't do, that would mean that it did do it. So why would I waste my time showing that your change does what it does, when it already does what it does? And why would I waste my time doing that when it wouldn't add one iota to the discussion of whether it's a useful change? Or a necessary change? Or the best change out of a range of possible changes, once it's been decided one is needed?

> henrik wrote: > Changing rules that are working fine will not really make things easier for everyone. > While it might be slighlty easier for new players, it will cause very much confusion for those of us that has played for a few years and learned the rules. And regarding the new players ability to learn the rules I kinda doubt the stuff discussed here is even close to being the worst part. There are no real weirdness except that different card types function a bit different. > Henrik, The core wierdness I have is that cards that cost enough to kill you, do not kill you if they resolve with giving you more pool. This seems to be a logical stupidity. If you do not pay for a card it cannot resolve, It removes a number of the 'timing window' issues/questions that have occurred MANY times over in the past. It will elegantly replace 3 different rules to create one rule. It elegantly explains why effects of a card may fail at different points (e.g. Why cancelling cards 'as played' results in 'no payment of cost', cancelling cards 'before resolution' results in their cost being paid or cancelling the effect of a card cannot affect the requirement to pay its cost). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It elegantly explains why effects of a card may fail at different points (e.g. Why cancelling cards 'as played' results in 'no payment of cost', > Cancelling a card as it is played results in the cost being paid - unless card text says otherwise. The default is to pay the cost. For example, with Santaleous, you pay the cost of the master card because his text doesn't tell you not to. You appear to be trying to change the rules without understanding the current rules.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Cancelling a card as it is played results in the cost being paid - unless card text says otherwise. The default is to pay the cost. > Here you made a mistake, you never pay the pool/blood cost of cancelled cards.

> Smaul wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Cancelling a card as it is played results in the cost being paid - unless card text says otherwise. The default is to pay the cost. > > > Here you made a mistake, you never pay the pool/blood cost of cancelled cards. > Incorrect, as I mentioned earlier in this thread: [LSJ 20090601] wrote: > > If it doesn't say "no cost", then the cost of the canceled card is paid. >

That is only meant for delaying tactics which does not cancel a card but cancels a referendum. Following your canceling cards posts, a cancelled card is never paid. That means, you never pay cost of cancelled cards, Cancelling a referendum is not the same as cancelling a card. In case of primal instincts, the card does not cancel the strike card, cancels the strike. In case of Santaleous, if you play a pentex and santaleous cancels it, it shouldn´t be paid, as you never get to the step of the resolution, and his hability sais nothing about not paying. To cancel a card is not the same as cancelling an "effect", so "You never pay pool for a cancelled card", still I think it is a valid statemenet

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > You appear to be trying to change the rules without understanding the current rules. > There is more than one way to 'cancel' in VTES. Broadly they fit into two categories... those that cancel the effect and those that cancel the card itself. While not all of the texts are identical in their wording, the net effects of these cards fit into these two categories: Cancel the Card as Played, Cancel the Effect of a Card. Cancel the Card As Played: Key examples are DI, Bleeding the Vine, Charismatic Aura, etc. These cards do not require the cost to be paid for the cancelled effect/card. These would be the kind of card I would suggest (if we are going to reword them into two unified categories) that would be the "Cancel the Card" (the card is prevented from ever resolving and no cost is ever paid for the card). Cancel the Effect of a Card: Key examples are Aye's cancel effect, Santaleous, Abombwe's Reflex cards that cancel Frenzies, Groundfighting, I am Legion, etc. These cards are clearly intended to nullify the effects of a card, but not prevent the card being played; so in a "Cancel the Effect" category (costs are paid but the card does nothing). Regarding the other element (and realistically the main element I was getting at in the previous posts) > > 6.2.3. Resolve the Action > > If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. If the action is blocked, then any card played to take the action is burned and the blocking minion is tapped and enters combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). The effects of the action do not take place when the action is blocked. Note that the action's cost, if any, is only paid if the action succeeds; the cost is not paid if the action is blocked. The costs of action modifiers and reaction cards are always paid when the cards are played, regardless of the success of the action. > This is the only section of the rulebook which has anything to do with the resolution of cards. If you look in the "Rules Reference" (which has 3 sections for the resolution of cards but is not mirrored by any statement in the rulebook except 6.2.3) you find the following: > > Pay cost and resolve effect (unless canceled in step B ). > > 1) For actions > a) Wait until action resolution to pay cost and resolve (if successful). (IV.D.2) > b) If the action succeeds but the effect (or part of the effect) is no longer valid/legal (because the target leaves play, for example), the cost, if any, is still paid (since the action resolves unblocked) but the invalid portion of the action "fizzles" (is not applied). > c) If the action succeeds but the cost cannot be paid, whatever portion of the cost that can be paid is paid and the action "fizzles" (has no effect) instead. > d) The action card is "in limbo" (not in play and not in the ash heap) until it is put in play or sent to the ash heap (or removed from play) at resolution. [RTR] > 2) For strike cards > a) Pay cost. > b) Wait until strike resolution to resolve. (VI.C.2) > c) The strike card is "in limbo" until it is put in play or sent to the ash heap (or removed from play) at resolution. [RTR] > 3) For all other cards, pay cost to resolve effect immediately. > a) Pay cost. > b) Resolve effect. > c) Action modifiers and reaction cards that may be put in play depending on the success of the action (or of a block attempt) are "in limbo" until that is determined. [RTR] > May I draw your attention to 3). "Pay cost to resolve effect immediately". There are 3 steps in 3), 3a) Payment of cost, 3b) resolve effect. As I have said before, this structure clearly implies that the cost MUST be paid before the immediate resolution of the card. It is not the payment and resolution of the effect which is immediate (or even simultaneous). It is that once the card has been paid (3a) you then immediately resolve its effect (3b). VTES does not create a "stack" where effects are placed and then resolved in a sequence; hence the "resolve effect immediately". So, as I mentioned before, these three different versions can all be compressed into a single sequence which is just as easily explained and also allows for simplicity in future rulings on the payment of card costs when they are cancelled (e.g. If paying for a Villein would equal my pool, am I ousted? Do I pay the cost for a card cancelled 'as played'?). Since 'pay for the card' would be its own discrete step, any cancel cards that target the effects occur after payment and those that target "as played" would occur before payment. 1. Play the card and declare all aspects of that card play (the "As Played" window) 2. Replaced the played card (unless otherwise directed) 3. Check if the played card was successful (for Actions, this is the usual Intercept vs Stealth Window and is far more protracted than all other cards) 4. Pay for the card (For Actions: 1a, For Strikes: 2a, For Others: 3a) and also incorporating the current rulings on Partial Payment of cards that were legally declared in Step 1. 5. Resolve the Effect of the card (For Actions: 1a-c), For Strikes: 2b), For Others: 3b-c) ) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Smaul wrote: > That is only meant for delaying tactics which does not cancel a card but cancels a referendum. > Following your canceling cards posts, a cancelled card is never paid. That means, you never pay cost of cancelled cards, Cancelling a referendum is not the same as cancelling a card. > In case of primal instincts, the card does not cancel the strike card, cancels the strike. > In case of Santaleous, if you play a pentex and santaleous cancels it, it shouldn´t be paid, as you never get to the step of the resolution, and his hability sais nothing about not paying. > To cancel a card is not the same as cancelling an "effect", so "You never pay pool for a cancelled card", still I think it is a valid statemenet > The problem is that a number of the cards which say "Cancel a Card" result in the cancelling of its effect. (Basically an inconsistency in wording that is in the game over time). The Abombwe cards which cancel a Frenzy are the easiest example of a "Cancel a Card" without cancelling the cost. I agree that they should have potentially been written from the start to say "Cancel the effect of a Frenzy card" and not "Cancel a Frenzy Card"... but they do not mention the cost of that card so they must only be cancelling the effect of the card and not the act of playing the card (unlike say DI). Delaying Tactics specifically says it cancels a Referendum, which sets it apart. Like Gangrel Conspiracy and a few others that specifically target things like Bloodhunts or Referendums. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Smaul wrote: > To cancel a card is not the same as cancelling an "effect" > It actually is. [LSJ 20040608] . The ruling was for all cards that don't read "no cost is paid". Here's an example (same thread as the one I linked just above: [LSJ 20090601] Other example: [LSJ 20100718] Paying the cost of a card cancelled by Santaleous I'll make this part clearer in the next RTR. @Juggernaut: There is no difference between "cancel a card as it is played" on Santaleous' cardtext, and "cancel a card as it is played" on Direct Intervention. So there is no difference on the way the cost is handled in each case (that is: refer to cardtext). I think the rulebook doesn't read "You can't play a card if you can't pay its cost" because that's what "cost to play a card" means. And I see no reason to revert this. DI only cancels the effects of a card played. It doesn't cancel the "played" aspect of the card. For instance, if someone DI's your Conditioning, you can't play a second one, per the Action Modifiers definition - Rulebook 1.6.3.2 . If somone DI's your Immortal Grapple or Carrion Crows, you can't play a second one, etc...

> Pascal wrote: > @Juggernaut: There is no difference between "cancel a card as it is played" on Santaleous' cardtext, and "cancel a card as it is played" on Direct Intervention. So there is no difference on the way the cost is handled in each case (that is: refer to cardtext). > Same thing with Veil of Darkness, which has the same effect as a DI, despite a different wording (and not mentionning the priority of VoD vs DI). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Pascal wrote: > > Maybe it's clearer if I make a short list of how play / pay / resolve [and eventually replace ] works depending on the cardtype. This list follows the classic Golden Rule of Cardtext (if the cards says otherwise, it takes precedence - for instance Wake with Evening's Freshness isn't replaced until untap phase): > ["->" represents the existence of a window, "+" represents simultaneity] > > 1 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+resolve+replace: Masters, action modifiers, reaction cards, non-strike combat cards, reflex. > 2 - Play (and announce terms) => replace => pay+resolve: Action cards. > 3 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+replace => resolve: Strike cards. > > Using logic of cards of type #2 for cards of type #1 (or of cards of type #3 for cards of type #2, contradicting the Bima+Govern clarification) is not recommended. > Using logic of cards type 1 I play a pentex announce the target, Santaleous cancels as played, I really have a big trouble understanding why you keep paying the cost, really. I've read LSJs thread, but a simple no answer is not what I really like to see. Is this what you wrote incorrect or somehow different for Santaleous? With the expression "effect" I wanted to mean, another thing, I just couldn't find a propper world. "Effect" was refered to things like: referendum, strike, blood hunt... I don't know if it´s seen what I mean.

I'm working on the next rules release, but you should start considering that a canceled card is treated as if it has no cardtext. Simply remove all the text inside the box. A canceled card has no effect. What remains is: - name (can't play a second Conditioning or IG) - requirements (and how the card was played - sup', inf', out' - can't play a second sup' Outside the Hourglass) - targets, if any - cost (which is paid unless explicitely written) For instance, here is the DI'd Conditioning: Name: Conditioning Requirements: dom Type: Action modifier [played at: DOM] Cost: 1 blood [not paid with DI] Text: Here is the DI'd Wake with Evening's Freshness: Name: Wake with Evening's Freshness Requirements: - Type: Reaction Cost: - Text: - (notice that you replace it) Here is the DI'd Majesty: Name: Majesty Requirement: Presence Type: Combat [played at: PRE] Cost: 1 blood [not paid with DI] Text: - (DI'd Majesty doesn't declare your strike) Here is the Power of All'd Pentex Subversion on a vampire with a Secure Haven Name: Pentex Subversion Requirement: - Type: Master [played on: vampire with a Secure Haven] Cost: 2+1 pool Text: - (Power of All'd Pentex Subversion doesn't stay in play). Here's an example of a Santaleous'd Villein on a vampire with 1 Villein: Name: Villein Type: Master Master: Trifle (but remember that canceled Trfles don't give extra MPAs) Requirement: - [played on: someone with a Villein] Cost: 1 pool [has to be paid] Text: - Here's an exampleof a Power of All'd Archon Investigation played on Lucia, the Perfect Name: Archon Investigation Type: Master Master: Out of Turn [does still consume 1 MPA from next master phase] Requirement: - [Played on: Lucian, the Perfect] Cost: 3 pool Text: -

I understand how it works, I just don't really see the logic. Appart from being a faq, to cancelling meaning that a card is played only without text, I see it just strange. If rulemakers designed it that way, I´ll play it that way, but seems really strange. This makes santaleous gorgeous as crazy bleeder. Bleed for 6 archon, cancel, the target pays 3 pool and he still gets the 6 bleed... amazing

> Smaul wrote: > This makes santaleous gorgeous as crazy bleeder. Bleed for 6 archon, cancel, the target pays 3 pool and he still gets the 6 bleed... amazing > It has always been that way with Santaleous, it's not new. Still, we don't see him that often on the tables. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Smaul wrote: > Using logic of cards type 1 > I play a pentex announce the target, Santaleous cancels as played, I really have a big trouble understanding why you keep paying the cost, really. I've read LSJs thread, but a simple no answer is not what I really like to see. Is this what you wrote incorrect or somehow different for Santaleous? > > With the expression "effect" I wanted to mean, another thing, I just couldn't find a propper world. "Effect" was refered to things like: referendum, strike, blood hunt... I don't know if it´s seen what I mean. > It might help to know the following.... (No guarantees.) Historically, card cancellation (of cards that weren't actions) came after the cost was paid. Taking the Jyhad text from the scan at www.vtes.pl: Burn a a master card played by another Methuselah. That card has no effect, but any blood [sic] spent on the master card is retrieved by the Methuselah who paid it. This later changed: > Rules wrote: > Canceling cards and retrieving costs: Cards that cancel other cards as they are played and retrieve the cost (resulting in a loss as the cost is paid and then a gain as the cost is retrieved) instead cancel the card and nullify the cost (no cost is paid for the canceled card). The Anarchs version of Sudden Reversal has the new "(no cost is paid)" wording, and other cancel cards are to be handled similarly. Those other cards are Contingency Planning, Denial of Aphrodite's Favor, Direct Intervention, Iron Heart, The Jones, and Rewind Time. >

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Historically, card cancellation (of cards that weren't actions) came after the cost was paid. Taking the Jyhad text from the scan at www.vtes.pl: > > Burn a a master card played by another Methuselah. That > card has no effect, but any blood [sic] spent on the master > card is retrieved by the Methuselah who paid it. > > This later changed: > Yes, in the old days, that actually made a difference with Realm of the Black Sun. "Lose a pool due to cost, gain a pool back because it was canceled" triggered the Realm, whereas the current model "Pool doesn't change at all" doesn't. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

@Pascal: Can you please explain how Complete Rules Reference Part II C ('CCR.II.C') says that there is simultaneous resolution and payment? From what I can see written there, there 'immediate resolution' appears to be a reminder that VTES does not contain the old "MtG Stack of Effects" and instead once cards are paid for they resolve. From CCR.II.C there seems to be a discrete moment where you must pay, and then later another point where you resolve the effects. In particular CCR.II.C.3a "Pay cost" and CCR.II.C.3b "Resolve effect" are separated (again the only reference to anything that suggest simultaneity is the "immediate resolution"). CCR.II.C.2 (which is for strikes) again has a gap between payment and resolution. It is only in CCR.II.C.1 where payment and resolution appear in the same subpoint (CCR.II.C.1a) with all of the rest of the subpoints explaining the various ways an action can fail while costs are still being paid. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Can you please explain how Complete Rules Reference Part II C ('CCR.II.C') says that there is simultaneous resolution and payment? > The published Reference wasn't updated by LSJ for several years. (As was the case for a number of items on the White Wolf website, it appeared that LSJ didn't have direct access to them himself when WW moved from simple HTML files in their own directory to a PHP-driven website.) As a result, there are various rulings that it isn't accurate for.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > The published Reference wasn't updated by LSJ for several years. (As was the case for a number of items on the White Wolf website, it appeared that LSJ didn't have direct access to them himself when WW moved from simple HTML files in their own directory to a PHP-driven website.) > > As a result, there are various rulings that it isn't accurate for. > So in other words, the VEKN has incorrect rules published on its site? This should at least be one of the earliest things that should be done. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418