Revelation of Ecstasy
+1 stealth action.
Serpentis Tap one of your prey's ready minions.
Serpentis As above, and place a corruption counter on that minion. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds his or her capacity or cost, you may burn those counters to take control of him or her.
Can I play this when all my prey's minions are tapped?
Is this explained in the rulebook anywhere? That you can tap a tapped minion? If not, it should be, because, looking at it from a pure logic standpoint, tapping a tapped minion seems like it should be impossible.
Being able to (add) "tap" (to) a tapped minion is plausible when you are used/have learned to think that way.
Some tapping cards, like "Art's Traumatic Essence", read: "Tap any untapped minion."
If you have such a wording, "tap a tapped minion" is included in "tap a minion".
(But, yes, at first instance, tapping a tapped minion is a bit weird. I remember my troubles when "Deep Song" came out. I don't know if it made sense to add a phrase like "everything that is not forbidden by existing rules or cards texts is allowed" to the rulebook.)
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> Being able to (add) "tap" (to) a tapped minion is plausible when you are used/have learned to think that way.
> Some tapping cards, like "Art's Traumatic Essence", read: "Tap any untapped minion."
> If you have such a wording, "tap a tapped minion" is included in "tap a minion".
>
> (But, yes, at first instance, tapping a tapped minion is a bit weird. I remember my troubles when "Deep Song" came out. I don't know if it made sense to add a phrase like "everything that is not forbidden by existing rules or cards texts is allowed" to the rulebook.)
>
Thanks for the post, this is great insight. It is my belief a problem arises when VTES puts the onus on the player to learn to think unconventionally. When VTES assumes the player knows that tapping an tapped minion is allowed, while at the same time not explaining this reversal in conventional logic in the rulebook, it creates an extremely high learning curve. For instance, to glean this unconventional thinking, the unlearned player either needs to see a more experienced player tap a tapped minion, or they have to glean this unconventional wisdom from myriad rulings/threads on this forum such as the current forum.Unless these things happen, the unlearned player will continue to approach the game "wrong."
I think adding a general statement to the rulebook along the lines of what you suggest above is a good start, but I wonder whether it is going to help much. I believe each piece of unconventional thinking in VTES needs to be addressed in specific terms in the rulebook, else the learning curve will remain high (perhaps prohibitively).
It might be easier for the op to distinguish between a requirement and an effect.
Tapping a minion is an effect that simply requires a minion. An already tapped minion satisfies this requirement and the effect is redundant, which doesnt prevent the card from being played.
As Hakuron pointed out, tapping and untapped minion is a more onerous requirement, one that a tapped minion does not meet, therefore the effect cannot be applied (in this case).
> talonz wrote:
> Tapping a minion is an effect that simply requires a minion. An already tapped minion satisfies this requirement and the effect is redundant, which doesnt prevent the card from being played.
>
Thanks for the clarification. My point is that this important piece of information is missing from the rulebook. A player who has not learned this will almost certainly assume that a tapped minion cannot be tapped. VTES includes a lot of non-intuitive logic, and the rulebook does a bad job codifying this logic.
The main difference between cost and effect is the wording:
Do x to do y = cost
Do x and then do y = effect
Of course, tapping a tapped minion does not satisfy a cost, but may be part of an effect.
In this case, wording is "tap a minion and add a corruption counter"
Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy
Yes. And the player who has not learned the steps in logic and wording templates you just laid out (those are not quite the wording templates used in the rulebook) will immediately think, "I can't use this, the minion is already tapped."
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Yes. And the player who has not learned the steps in logic and wording templates you just laid out (those are not quite the wording templates used in the rulebook) will immediately think, "I can't use this, the minion is already tapped."
>
Does this mean that the same player will think "I can't play a Theft of Vitae against a vampire with no blood"?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Yes. And the player who has not learned the steps in logic and wording templates you just laid out (those are not quite the wording templates used in the rulebook) will immediately think, "I can't use this, the minion is already tapped."
> >
> Does this mean that the same player will think "I can't play a Theft of Vitae against a vampire with no blood"?
>
No. How many times have you seen a new player try to send an opposing vampire to torpor using Theft of Vitae? I've seen it many times.
Doing something to a minion with zero blood in combat is not restricted by the rules. Theft of Vitae is likely regarded as no different than playing Lucky Blow in this situation because there are no stop signs when an opposing minion has no blood in combat. Now, a minion being tapped generally restricts that minion from doing anything (tapped minions can't act, can't block, can't react...). I mean, there are stop signs left and right when a minion is tapped. Thus why this player would think tapping a tapped minion is restricted.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > Yes. And the player who has not learned the steps in logic and wording templates you just laid out (those are not quite the wording templates used in the rulebook) will immediately think, "I can't use this, the minion is already tapped."
> > >
> > Does this mean that the same player will think "I can't play a Theft of Vitae against a vampire with no blood"?
> >
> No. How many times have you seen a new player try to send an opposing vampire to torpor using Theft of Vitae? I've seen it many times.
>
I'll put it in the same category of mistakes. New players will do mistakes, however clear the rules and the cardtexts are. At some point, the players must learn logical rules that make the game work. I put an emphasis on "learn" because logical rules are not necessarily intuitive (and what's called "intuitive" also varies along with the players)
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Doing something to a minion with zero blood in combat is not restricted by the rules.
>
Tapping a tapped card is not restricted by the rules neither.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Theft of Vitae is likely regarded as no different than playing Lucky Blow in this situation because there are no stop signs when an opposing minion has no blood in combat.
>
Stealing something from someone who has nothing is not intuitive.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Now, a minion being tapped generally restricts that minion from doing anything (tapped minions can't act, can't block, can't react...). I mean, there are stop signs left and right when a minion is tapped. Thus why this player would think tapping a tapped minion is restricted.
>
Tapping a tapped card is not intuitive neither. I understand you find it less intuitive than stealing things from someone who has nothing. But it's nonetheless logical, and for some players, a thing they must learn.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > Yes. And the player who has not learned the steps in logic and wording templates you just laid out (those are not quite the wording templates used in the rulebook) will immediately think, "I can't use this, the minion is already tapped."
> > >
> > Does this mean that the same player will think "I can't play a Theft of Vitae against a vampire with no blood"?
> >
> No. How many times have you seen a new player try to send an opposing vampire to torpor using Theft of Vitae? I've seen it many times.
>
I'll put it in the same category of mistakes. New players will do mistakes, however clear the rules and the cardtexts are. At some point, the players must learn logical rules that make the game work. I put an emphasis on "learn" because logical rules are not necessarily intuitive (and what's called "intuitive" also varies along with the players)
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Doing something to a minion with zero blood in combat is not restricted by the rules.
>
Tapping a tapped card is not restricted by the rules neither.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Theft of Vitae is likely regarded as no different than playing Lucky Blow in this situation because there are no stop signs when an opposing minion has no blood in combat.
>
Stealing something from someone who has nothing is not intuitive.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Now, a minion being tapped generally restricts that minion from doing anything (tapped minions can't act, can't block, can't react...). I mean, there are stop signs left and right when a minion is tapped. Thus why this player would think tapping a tapped minion is restricted.
>
Tapping a tapped card is not intuitive neither. I understand you find it less intuitive than stealing things from someone who has nothing. But it's nonetheless logical, and for some players, a thing they must learn.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > > Yes. And the player who has not learned the steps in logic and wording templates you just laid out (those are not quite the wording templates used in the rulebook) will immediately think, "I can't use this, the minion is already tapped."
> > > >
> > > Does this mean that the same player will think "I can't play a Theft of Vitae against a vampire with no blood"?
> > >
> > >
> > No. How many times have you seen a new player try to send an opposing vampire to torpor using Theft of Vitae? I've seen it many times.
> >
> I'll put it in the same category of mistakes. New players will do mistakes, however clear the rules and the cardtexts are. At some point, the players must learn logical rules that make the game work. I put an emphasis on "learn" because logical rules are not necessarily intuitive (and what's called "intuitive" also varies along with the players)
>
I agree that the Theft of Vitae example is a legitimate mistake by the player. But, getting back to tapping tapped minions, when new players are making the mistake of thinking that tapped minions can't be tapped over and over again, and there's no explanation in the rulebook about why it is a mistake, at what point do you address the problem behind that mistake? Do you really believe putting the onus on the player make extra effort to learn the unspoken logic of the game is such a wise idea? I realize sometimes rules are going to be non-intuitive, like stealing blood. But VTES seems to be on the far end of the non-intuitive rule spectrum. I believe it can and needs to be nudged in the other direction, at least in certain spots. Like by explaining in the rulebook that tapped minions can be tapped.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Doing something to a minion with zero blood in combat is not restricted by the rules.
> >
> Tapping a tapped card is not restricted by the rules neither.
>
Tapping a tapped card is not mentioned at all in the rules. It's completely on the player to discover that it's not restricted by the rules. At some point, this is going to have a detrimental effect on the game, where players don't want to make that extra effort to discover things.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Theft of Vitae is likely regarded as no different than playing Lucky Blow in this situation because there are no stop signs when an opposing minion has no blood in combat.
> >
> Stealing something from someone who has nothing is not intuitive.
>
I think you're getting too meta here. Think in terms of VTES. Playing a combat card that deals damage, as the majority of combat cards do, on a minion with zero blood is intuitive and encouraged by the rules. The 1% of cards that say "steal blood" are an exception, and thus it is easy for a new player to try and deal damage to a minion with zero blood with Theft of Vitae. The difference between misplaying Theft and not tapping tapped minions is that stealing blood is explained in detail in the rulebook. So, intuitive or not, the rules do explain how to handle stealing blood. The player doesn't need to discover the logic, it's laid out right there for them, even if they don't see it at first. That's the difference between a player making a mistake and the game being difficult to learn.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Now, a minion being tapped generally restricts that minion from doing anything (tapped minions can't act, can't block, can't react...). I mean, there are stop signs left and right when a minion is tapped. Thus why this player would think tapping a tapped minion is restricted.
> >
> Tapping a tapped card is not intuitive neither. I understand you find it less intuitive than stealing things from someone who has nothing. But it's nonetheless logical, and for some players, a thing they must learn.
>
Again, tapping doesn't happen in the real world, so I'm having a hard time understanding your comparison. Tapping something that is tapped in the context of VTES is very not intuitive because of the restrictions placed on tapped minions. Stealing blood from a minion with no blood is intuitive because of the lack of restrictions placed on playing combat cards to affect a minion with zero blood.