Where are cards at different stages?

Rule 1.6.1 A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. Rule 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 (it is moved to the ash heap) 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. When are cards from a succesfull action moved to ash heap? And how dose 1.6.1 and 6.2.3 not contradict each other? What cards are played into the play area and what cards are played into your ash heap? Is card moved to or from the ash heap when an action is first blocked and then the action is continued by some card in combat? What if the card aint in the Ash Heap anymore when the action is continued?

Action cards are "in limbo" between the declaration and the resolution. groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/jzMOxZ9oxOs/o0X7GUFmii0J If the action is blocked, the card goes to the ash heap. If the action is successful, the card either goes to the ash heap or in play, depending on what's written on the card. In order to continue the action after a block with for example a Form of Mist, the action card must be in the ash heap (it is then retrieved). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Action cards are "in limbo" between the declaration and the resolution. > The Limbo-ness is also in the Detailed Play Summary. www.vekn.net/detailed-play-summary 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] ... 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] ... 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]

Jesper's comment of why does this not contradict rule 1.6.1 still stands as that implies play card move to ash heap as instantaneous stuff.

1.6.1 in the rulebook definitely contradicts the Detailed Play Summary. The rulebook indicates cards can be played directly to the ash heap, the Detailed Play Summary indicates cards are always played to the playing area. Which one is correct?

1.6.1 gives a general description of how to play a card: show the card, place it face up either in play or in the ash heap. This is a general rule. Timing is not described here because it will be in the following chapters, since it depends on the type of card played. 6.2.3 details how this happens for action cards. Notice that the card is played accordingly to 1.6.1 and ends up in play or in the ash heap, so it doesn't contradict rule 1.6.1. 6.2.3 also indicates that the card goes to the ash heap or in play when the action is resolved. Between the declaration and the resolution, the card is "somewhere" (not in the hand, not in play, not in the ash heap), in what is called the "limbo". Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > 1.6.1 in the rulebook definitely contradicts the Detailed Play Summary. The rulebook indicates cards can be played directly to the ash heap, the Detailed Play Summary indicates cards are always played to the playing area. Which one is correct? > Welcome to another way in which VTES is held together by good luck, sellotape and string. The rules have lots of these 'gaps' and 'contradictions' that have been papered over. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > 1.6.1 in the rulebook definitely contradicts the Detailed Play Summary. The rulebook indicates cards can be played directly to the ash heap, the Detailed Play Summary indicates cards are always played to the playing area. Which one is correct? > > > Welcome to another way in which VTES is held together by good luck, sellotape and string. The rules have lots of these 'gaps' and 'contradictions' that have been papered over. > It has gaps, but no contradiction I know. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > 1.6.1 in the rulebook definitely contradicts the Detailed Play Summary. The rulebook indicates cards can be played directly to the ash heap, the Detailed Play Summary indicates cards are always played to the playing area. Which one is correct? > > > > > Welcome to another way in which VTES is held together by good luck, sellotape and string. The rules have lots of these 'gaps' and 'contradictions' that have been papered over. > > > It has gaps, but no contradiction I know. > There is no contradiction in practice; however, there is an apparent contradiction that three people have commented on. 1.6.1 in the rulebook should state the following to match the Detailed Play Summary: "A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played." The ash heap does not need to be mentioned here because that detail will be explained later in 6.2.3.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > There is no contradiction in practice; however, there is an apparent contradiction that three people have commented on. > 1.6.1 in the rulebook should state the following to match the Detailed Play Summary: "A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played." The ash heap does not need to be mentioned here because that detail will be explained later in 6.2.3. > The reference for the rules is the rulebook, not the Detailed Play Summary. The DPS is a secondary document that explains the *same things* a different way. It also details all steps one by one, trying to be exhaustive. If you prefer the way things are detailed in the DPS, it's fine, you can use it. But there's no sense in copying the DPS in the rulebook, or you'll end having a copy of the DPS as the rulebook. The apparent contradiction comes from people that read the rulebook as if it was the DPS, a detailed step-by-step rulebook, or by picking a part out of context . That's wrong. 1.6.1 is not supposed to describe exhaustively all the possible steps happening when playing a card. Only the conjunction of 1.6.1 and the other relevant chapters make sense. And if you do, you'll see there's no contradiction. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> The apparent contradiction comes from people that read the rulebook as if it was the DPS, a detailed step-by-step rulebook, or by picking a part out of context . That's wrong. > The apparent contradiction comes from the rulebook and Detailed Play Summary being poorly written. Three people have pointed out the apparent contradiction because the rulebook is poorly written. I agree that these people are definitely wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules. But when multiple people are wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules, there's a problem. I think the problem is with the rulebook, not the people. You think the problem is the people, not the rulebook. And so we disagree.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > The apparent contradiction comes from people that read the rulebook as if it was the DPS, a detailed step-by-step rbelowulebook, or by picking a part out of context . That's wrong. > > > The apparent contradiction comes from the rulebook and Detailed Play Summary being poorly written. Three people have pointed out the apparent contradiction because the rulebook is poorly written. > > I agree that these people are definitely wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules. But when multiple people are wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules, there's a problem. I think the problem is with the rulebook, not the people. You think the problem is the people, not the rulebook. And so we disagree. > What we see are more than 2 interpretations on one rule topic. 2 interpretations = clarification is needed. Ie a ruling, erratta, obligatory troll hyperlinking "Google search results:dictionary.com" , whatever. More than 2 shows a bigger issue. Which people are aware of. Once we know the situation with Paradox, Pascal will presumably be more hands on with this issue, and card erratta in general. Until then, we have rulings to tide us over. Copyright with wotc is an issue for some streamlining that would make life easier(such as followed by a colon indication activation cost. Those are linked to vtes, but the tap symbol would help and isn't) and in depth rules for priority/initiative/card resolution/timing/legal game areas need to be made and less riddled with holes. I'm sure this is on the itinerary, but behind other things, like seeing print ever again. We can all find idiosyncrasies to nitpick. Jesper has found he isn't"AJesper" in vtes, for example. The rules will be streamlined, they just aren't yet. We can all see this being a reasonably attainable thing eventually, right?

> Ankha wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > There is no contradiction in practice; however, there is an apparent contradiction that three people have commented on. > > 1.6.1 in the rulebook should state the following to match the Detailed Play Summary: "A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played." The ash heap does not need to be mentioned here because that detail will be explained later in 6.2.3. > > > The reference for the rules is the rulebook, not the Detailed Play Summary. The DPS is a secondary document that explains the *same things* a different way. It also details all steps one by one, trying to be exhaustive. > This by default, makes the DPS rules, since it is what allows the rules to be used. This is identical to the situation of 'case law'. And because we do have control over the game, and could easily amend the rules of the game, it seems stupid not to 'amend the rules to include the case-law' so to speak. This is a point I've been arguing for a while. We have three sets of rules on how to play the game, and at least one of them should be merged into another. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > There is no contradiction in practice; however, there is an apparent contradiction that three people have commented on. > > > 1.6.1 in the rulebook should state the following to match the Detailed Play Summary: "A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played." The ash heap does not need to be mentioned here because that detail will be explained later in 6.2.3. > > > > > The reference for the rules is the rulebook, not the Detailed Play Summary. The DPS is a secondary document that explains the *same things* a different way. It also details all steps one by one, trying to be exhaustive. > > > This by default, makes the DPS rules, since it is what allows the rules to be used. This is identical to the situation of 'case law'. And because we do have control over the game, and could easily amend the rules of the game, it seems stupid not to 'amend the rules to include the case-law' so to speak. > > This is a point I've been arguing for a while. We have three sets of rules on how to play the game, and at least one of them should be merged into another. > The DPS has errors in it. The DPS can't cover all the cases, unless it's 1000 lines long. I suggest we remove it because people use it as the reference rules, which it is not. What is the third set of rules? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > This is a point I've been arguing for a while. We have three sets of rules on how to play the game, and at least one of them should be merged into another. > The DPS has errors in it. The DPS can't cover all the cases, unless it's 1000 lines long. I suggest we remove it because people use it as the reference rules, which it is not. What is the third set of rules?[/quote] I concider v:tes a more complex game then mtg in may ways, also rulewise. MTG have a 200+ comperhensive rulebook. But then there also really aint any corner case that is missed. Yeah we really need a clear cut, we cant get into a semantic argument over stuff ruleset. But well mtg(wizards) have also had the guts to rewrite core rules so streamline and make things more intuative quite a few times. /Jesper

> Jesper wrote: > But well mtg(wizards) have also had the guts to rewrite core rules so streamline and make things more intuative quite a few times./Jesper > It's not a question of guts. It's a question of (very heavy) work, and purpose. The rulebook has been amended and perfected for about 20 years. It's unwise to scratch it because some people would like it to be written differently, not because it's wrong, but just because they'd prefer a "200+" (pages I suppose) document. Or because they read it wrongly. Nor it's not because two or three people on the forum complain that they represent a majority. The majority is silent, and I trust more a document that has been proof-read for 20 years than nitpicking arguments that don't stand. Ultimately, I have nothing against the DPS, except that it's currently wrong on some parts, and that people use it against the rulebook saying: "the rulebook is wrong because the DPS says something else." It doesn't make sense, as it is the rulebook and nothing else that defines the rules. For cases that aren't explicitely covered by the rulebook, there are rulings that can be reverted or added. For instance, the rulebook states that an action card played goes to the ash heap or in play when the action resolves. The original question was: where is the card in the meantime? Actually, we can live without knowing that. We know it's "somewhere" not in the hand, not in play, not in the ash heap. Because people really wanted to know what is this place, a ruling gave it a name: limbo. Does it change anything to the game? No. There are plenty of things that aren't explicitely described, for instance: how is called the location in the play area where my library is? Do we care? No. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I suggest we remove it because people use it as the reference rules, which it is not. > > What is the third set of rules? > The card "Rulings". You have "Rulebook", the CRR/Detailed Play Summary and the Rulings. Those constitute the three sets of rules. The CRR/Detailed Play Summary seems to basically be a set of explanatory notes that should be subsumed into the Rules themselves (they are the rules which need to be the least separate than the rulings). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> The DPS has errors in it. The DPS can't cover all the cases, unless it's 1000 lines long. I suggest we remove it because people use it as the reference rules, which it is not. > Be careful blaming people using the DPS wrong. It is not their fault that they don’t immediately understand an extremely complex game and are using the resources available to them to the best of their ability. It is the fault of those resources for not conveying clearly enough how the game is played. > > It's not a question of guts. It's a question of (very heavy) work, and purpose. > This is a very valid point. If the amount of work is really the problem, you should just say this instead of defending a poorly written rulebook and calling people wrong for misunderstanding it. > > The rulebook has been amended and perfected for about 20 years. It's unwise to scratch it because some people would like it to be written differently, not because it's wrong, but just because they'd prefer a "200+" (pages I suppose) document. Or because they read it wrongly. > Again, be careful blaming people for reading the rulebook wrongly. The problem with the rulebook is that it is not clear, not that it is wrong. And “perfected” is not the word I would use. It was codified over 20 years. But it certainly wasn’t perfected over that time. That’s why most of the posts on this forum are rules questions. > > Nor it's not because two or three people on the forum complain that they represent a majority. The majority is silent, and I trust more a document that has been proof-read for 20 years than nitpicking arguments that don't stand. > The silent majority you are thinking of are players who have been playing the game for a number of years. They are not relevant to this discussion because they don’t need to read the rulebook. The few people who are commenting are newer players who read the rulebook and have fresh ideas on how to convey the rules of the game more clearly. Simply shunning their opinions and telling them they’re wrong is an interesting approach. It’s very defensive, almost like you’re taking these ideas as personal attacks. They’re not attacks, they’re just ideas. Let’s have a discussion. > > Ultimately, I have nothing against the DPS, except that it's currently wrong on some parts, and that people use it against the rulebook saying: "the rulebook is wrong because the DPS says something else." It doesn't make sense, as it is the rulebook and nothing else that defines the rules. > The rulebook and DPS are inconsistent, and that’s why this is happening. They should be consistent. Getting rid of the DPS is a terrible idea. It is the only place where sequencing and combat are explained in enough detail to understand all of the concepts involved. > > For cases that aren't explicitely covered by the rulebook, there are rulings that can be reverted or added. > Neither the rulebook nor the rulings give a clear enough description of sequencing or combat to understand all of the concepts involved. > > For instance, the rulebook states that an action card played goes to the ash heap or in play when the action resolves. The original question was: where is the card in the meantime? > That is not what the rulebook states. It states that players play a card by either placing it in the playing area or in the ash heap. You added in “when the action resolves” to make your point. If the rulebook said that, I would not be having this discussion with you. > > Actually, we can live without knowing that. We know it's "somewhere" not in the hand, not in play, not in the ash heap. Because people really wanted to know what is this place, a ruling gave it a name: limbo. Does it change anything to the game? No. > It doesn’t change anything in the game, but it makes the game easier to understand. Living “without knowing that” leaves things open to interpretation. If you leave things open to interpretation, you will get those pesky commenters wrongly interpreting the rules. And the cycle will continue. > > There are plenty of things that aren't explicitely described, for instance: how is called the location in the play area where my library is? Do we care? No. > We don’t care because nothing interacts with that play area. So for this, we don’t need to make anything explicitly clear.

Since we're already offtopic. I'm just gonna chime in my opinion about the rules/rulebook/clarity as a new player. 1) I really like the dps because it's sadly the only place you can find an overview on the sequencing and timing of cards other than in the webs of the mind of the old methuselah explaining the game to you. This should really get a decent visualisation and should be added in the centerfold of the next rulebook. 2) The rulebook is consise, I think this is good. The rules are a short but dense read. But I will follow Jeptha in this: "Because lsj said so" "rulings" like The Baron not being a Baron. I dislike the mental gymnastics used to say The Baron is not a Baron. Why would you name it a Baron if it's not? I have the same feeling about queen anne but less so about roland bishop or eze the demon prince. Though in my opinion name is part of the card text and keywords like prince in the name are for me the same as keywords in the cardtext. As a new player I was also 'corrected' on this but I don't agree with the because LSJ said so argument (because it's not an argument and I think the explanation about it in the other topic was lacking any foot to stand on). Which is why this and other "because lsj said so" rulings should be included in text in the next version of the rulebook. (Like bima + agent of power which received a takeback from lsj after he saw the devastation but according to cardtext is totally viable) 3) The clarifications and addendums of cardtext/mechanisms need a central searchable databasebwith consise answers linking to the reference topic it stems from. Currently searching on ancient news groups is unfeasible for me as a new player. The answers are usually also spread over multiple topics and years/sites. Also the vekn search is lacking because the search field is very limited and you can't filter for the rules board. I hang out on the rulesboard a lot and am happy about the clear and expansive responses provided by Ankha and James. For me personally it's a good answer. But for the person looking for it it's bad because it's a 12 post long topic that might or might not answer theirs and includes a lot of speculation and guesswork as well as the answer. Wat we need is for each of these a consise version that hyperlinks through to the reference topic. Unified in one place and searchable by card/combo to see if any questions about it have been asked and answered. Much like: www.vteschecklist.com/library/show/941 But with even more questions and anwers and with hyperlinks

Let's raise enough money for like 4 people to leave their jobs for a month and add all these rulings to every card in secret library. It'll be like the Gatherer used to be, we can have an expandable list of rulings button on ever page. I'm just excited by Jeepers questions, as I interpreted it to mean he was building another deck. Finally. I won't always play spirit marionette, grave rob, or a billion deflections to make Nergal a good table threat to have around.