Official release: May 11, 2017
Legal for Tournament Play: May 11, 2017
Welcome to the third week of previews of the Anthology set!
PREVIEWS
Enkil CogApolonia CzarneckiAisha az-Zahra
Clarification
All cards that are played after the resolution of an action (either successful or unsuccessful) have had their text clarified. The timing is now explicitely given, whereas previously it was left in a grey zone ("at the end of the action" that could happen before the action continues, or "when something happens" that occurs sometimes before or after the event). The text of Enkil Cog was typically describing the same timing window with two different terms ("when" and "after resolution"), due to older wordings that had been accumulated through the years without any massive cleanup. The rule team is aiming to remove as much unneccessary text as possible, and clarify the card texts with new, consistent wordings.
V:EKN Website Coordinator
Why doesn't Enkil Cog use the new "attached" wording? Shouldn't it say "the attached vampire" instead of "this vampire"?
Kinda feels like we're going back to the problem of inconsistent wording across cards.
Suaku
Inceptor Asian Continental Championship
興っ
www.youtube.com/SuakuOz
I think I know what the answer is going to be: For Enkil Cog, the card is put on the acting vampire; for field training, the card is put on another vampire other than the acting minion. So "attached" is used for Field Training and not for Enkil Cog. My question is, is Enkil Cog attached to the vampire? From the new addition to the rulebook, I believe it is.
That's a good point about inconsistent wording. Here's another one: why does Madness Network say "follow normal sequencing rules," but Enkil Cog does not? Is this just inconsistent application of "reminder" text, or do the two cards work differently in terms of sequencing?
And when exactly does a bleed resolve? Should Enkil Cog say "after resolution of a successful bleed action? Doesn't a bleed action resolve with either an unsuccessful (0 or less) or successful (1 or greater) bleed? I'm confused as to whether Enkil Cog is played when the action resolves (part D in the Detailed Play Summary) or when the bleed is successful (Part C in the Detailed Play Summary).
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> That's a good point about inconsistent wording. Here's another one: why does Madness Network say "follow normal sequencing rules," but Enkil Cog does not? Is this just inconsistent application of "reminder" text, or do the two cards work differently in terms of sequencing?
>
Every card follows the normal rules, except where they contradict each other (Golden Rule of Cards). Since Enkil Cog doesn't contradict the normal sequencing rules, it follows the normal sequencing rules.
(Enkil Cog does clearly contradict the rules about only not being able to act in other people's turns.)
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> And when exactly does a bleed resolve? Should Enkil Cog say "after resolution of a successful bleed action? Doesn't a bleed action resolve with either an unsuccessful (0 or less) or successful (1 or greater) bleed? I'm confused as to whether Enkil Cog is played when the action resolves (part D in the Detailed Play Summary) or when the bleed is successful (Part C in the Detailed Play Summary).
>
Part C tells you how to resolve a block attempt - not the whole action, or the action's effect. Once you've determined that all the block attempts fail (and no other magic effect is used to cause the action to fail), you move into D. It's only in D that any resolution of the bleed or bleed action occurs.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> You say "bleed or bleed action." Are they different?
>
The action can be successful (reached resolution unblocked), but the bleed be unsuccessful (resolved for zero or less). In much the same way, a political action can be successful (unblocked, referendum called), while the referendum fails.
So, here's where the confusion is: a "bleed" is either successful or unsuccessful. It does not resolve much like a referendum of a political action doesn't resolve. A "bleed action" resolves with a successful or unsuccessful bleed.
Enkil Cog changed the word "action" to "bleed."
Why?
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > That's a good point about inconsistent wording. Here's another one: why does Madness Network say "follow normal sequencing rules," but Enkil Cog does not? Is this just inconsistent application of "reminder" text, or do the two cards work differently in terms of sequencing?
> >
> Every card follows the normal rules, except where they contradict each other (Golden Rule of Cards). Since Enkil Cog doesn't contradict the normal sequencing rules, it follows the normal sequencing rules.
>
Madness Network states to follow normal sequencing rules. Enkil Cog does not.
Why?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Madness Network states to follow normal sequencing rules. Enkil Cog does not.
>
> Why?
>
Not all cards have the same reminder text, because they were written by different people at different times who had different concerns and different opinions and different uses for the available card text.
Not every card in V:TES is expressed in exactly the same way. It really isn't helpful to litter the board with yet another round of "But but but but the cards! They're phrased differently! Imma gonna tell my mom! Waaaaaah!" If the fact that some cards are worded differently upsets you so, why not do something constructive and:
1) make a list, and
2) mail the Inner Circle?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> It does not resolve much like a referendum of a political action doesn't resolve.
>
www.vekn.net/rulebook
The referendum consists of three steps: setting the terms, polling (casting votes and ballots) and resolving the referendum.
Referendums pretty clearly resolve, it's right there in the rulebook.
Who is upset? I asked a question because I'm confused why two cards that do the exact same thing are worded differently. Thanks for answering it, and I apologize if you think my discussions about language on the cards is "litter." I actually quite enjoy discussing this subject.
Your point about referendums is disingenuous and doesn't answer my question. Referendums resolve in Part C separately from the political action itself in Part D. I was referring to the resolution of the action having nothing to do with the referendum. I'd appreciate if you'd either answer the question or not respond.
TwoRazorReign, have you checked the wording for the upcoming revised version of Madness Network (opposed to the current one)?
Perhaps it is worded in the same way as the upcoming Enkil Cog reprint...
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> TwoRazorReign, have you checked the wording for the upcoming revised version of Madness Network (opposed to the current one)?
>
> Perhaps it is worded in the same way as the upcoming Enkil Cog reprint...
>
That's why I'm bringing it up. I'm wondering if the wordings will be consistent eventually.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> So, here's where the confusion is: a "bleed" is either successful or unsuccessful. It does not resolve much like a referendum of a political action doesn't resolve. A "bleed action" resolves with a successful or unsuccessful bleed.
>
> Enkil Cog changed the word "action" to "bleed."
>
> Why?
>
You are parsing it wrong. There is no difference between "bleed" and "bleed action." A bleed is an action, all actions resolve, and the resolution of the bleed is the resolution of the action if the action is successful.
However, there is a difference between "successful bleed" and "successful action," and surely you understand that if the wording "successful bleed action" were used, then "successful" would qualify the action, not the bleed. It is not about timing, it is about the criterion used to define success.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> You are parsing it wrong. There is no difference between "bleed" and "bleed action." A bleed is an action, all actions resolve, and the resolution of the bleed is the resolution of the action if the action is successful.
>
> However, there is a difference between "successful bleed" and "successful action," and surely you understand that if the wording "successful bleed action" were used, then "successful" would qualify the action, not the bleed.
>
Correct me if any of the following is wrong (bear with me here, I'm no expert at VTES):
When you bleed with + 1 bleed as a D action, do you assign the number to the bleed or the action? I'm thinking you assign it to the bleed, which can either be successful or unsuccessful. Then the action resolves regardless of the bleed being successful or not. "Bleed" and "action" are conceptually different things. Hence my reasoning that you can't "resolve" a bleed the same way you can't action at +1. And that's why I'm wondering why "action" was changed to "bleed" on Enkil Cog.
Let us clarify something first. You keep saying this:
>
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> "action" was changed to "bleed" on Enkil Cog.
>
That is incorrect. The old text of Enkil Cog reads: "Only usable when this vampire successfully bleeds your prey." That also requires a successful bleed, not a successful action. There has been no rule change on Enkil Cog.
Successful action action = apply the effect of the action, you may Freak Drive at .
Successful bleed = successful bleed action AND the bleed amount is at least 1.
> When you bleed with + 1 bleed as a D action, do you assign the number to the bleed or the action? (..) "Bleed" and "action" are conceptually different things.
>
They are not independent. A bleed is an action. It follows all the rules of actions. Section 6.2 on Actions specifies everything about actions, except what goes into a successful resolution, because each action has its own effect. For all the actions described in Section 6.1, the described effect is what goes into the successful action resolution. In the case of a bleed, resolving the bleed is resolving the action. Actions all fail in the same way, but each of them succeeds in its own way.
>
> I'm thinking you assign it to the bleed, which can either be successful or unsuccessful. Then the action resolves regardless of the bleed being successful or not.
>
That is not how it works. In terms of timing, there is only one resolution (i.e.: you cannot play between the different steps.) It terms of causality, the steps of that resolution are:
1) check whether the action is successful,
2) apply the corresponding effect.
The bleed amount is not checked until the action is successful, because if it is not, then the resolution is a combat, and that does not require a bleed amount to resolve.
New art on Cog feels more vtes-ish than original.(but why does Krusty the Clown have a sword?)
I'm an enormous fan of malkavians, but at that capacity, with no title, those disciplines aren't getting her anywhere.
and now anarch with all do wonders for malks. We all know malks is too good to mass produce, but a prince with is playable. A prince that groups with Unmada and has is playable. I'd settle for a 7-8 with who has and isn't Petaniqua that groups with Reiner and Alastair.
The Torrie is playable. A return to the long tradition of 9ish cap non prince or justicar torries and !Torries with interesting out if clan disciplines, all 3 in clans, and vaguely useful text.
This one can vote, fight with guns, and play foul blood..
Neat...
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Let us clarify something first. You keep saying this:
> >
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > "action" was changed to "bleed" on Enkil Cog.
> >
> That is incorrect.
>
Ah, you are right. I definitely misspoke in my last post. Please disregard.
I'll try to answer everyone.
First of all, our prioriy about cardtexts is clarity, and accuracy. Consistency is very important too, but if a card is clearer with a twist in the formulation, then we'll go for the clearest wording.
If two cards have exactly the same effect, both will have the same wording.
That being said, choices had to be made when we established the set of rules we are following. Those choices are complex and are still under progress, considering the amount of cards to review, all the special cases, and compatibility issues with older cards. Obviously, other choices that would have probably been valid too were possible.
With that in mind:
> the1andonlime wrote:
> Why doesn't Enkil Cog use the new "attached" wording? Shouldn't it say "the attached vampire" instead of "this vampire"?
>
> Kinda feels like we're going back to the problem of inconsistent wording across cards.
>
Attached is an alias for "the <whatever> with this card". It's used when there are multiple actors that are similar (two vampires for instance, one acting and one being a target typically) to remove any ambiguity. If there's no ambiguity, there's no need to use it.
Enkil Cog mentions only one minion, so there's no ambiguity when refering to "this vampire".
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> My question is, is Enkil Cog attached to the vampire? From the new addition to the rulebook, I believe it is.
>
Correct.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> That's a good point about inconsistent wording. Here's another one: why does Madness Network say "follow normal sequencing rules," but Enkil Cog does not? Is this just inconsistent application of "reminder" text, or do the two cards work differently in terms of sequencing?
>
Reminder texts are, by definition, optional. They are just a reminders of the rules.
Depending on the nature of the card and the space available, reminder texts are present or not. Of course, both Madness Network and Enkil Cog (as well as 99.99% of the cards) follow the "normal sequencing rules". That's a reason why we have a strict rule now about parenthesis: only reminder text can be between parenthesis to avoid confusion. For instance, "Cancel that card (no cost is paid)" was changed to "Cancel that card, and its cost is not paid" because not paying the cost of a cancelled card is not the behavior described in the rules.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> And when exactly does a bleed resolve? Should Enkil Cog say "after resolution of a successful bleed action? Doesn't a bleed action resolve with either an unsuccessful (0 or less) or successful (1 or greater) bleed?
>
Currently, a bleed is always part of a bleed action. In that case, if the bleed action is successful, the bleed resolves (= the effects of the bleed are applied, that is the target burns pool equal to the bleed amount) as part of the action resolution. (You could imagine a master card similar to Piper that would bleed a Methuselah with no action. Of course, the vampire won't be able to play Enkil Cog in that case since Enkil Cog is an action modifier, and there would be no action.)
A bleed is successful "if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more" (per rule). If a bleed action that is not blocked has its bleed amount reduced to 0, then the bleed action is successful but the bleed is not.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I'm confused as to whether Enkil Cog is played when the action resolves (part D in the Detailed Play Summary) or when the bleed is successful (Part C in the Detailed Play Summary).
>
Are you refering to part "HOW TO PERFORM ACTIONS - C. An attempt to block is resolved as follows:"? It doesn't say that the bleed would resolve during that step, could you be clearer?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> You say "bleed or bleed action." Are they different?
>
Yes.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> So, here's where the confusion is: a "bleed" is either successful or unsuccessful. It does not resolve much like a referendum of a political action doesn't resolve. A "bleed action" resolves with a successful or unsuccessful bleed.
>
> Enkil Cog changed the word "action" to "bleed."
> Why?
>
Because the only thing that matters is whether the vampire successfully bleeds the prey or not. Of course, in order to have a successful bleed, the action itself needs to be successful.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Madness Network states to follow normal sequencing rules. Enkil Cog does not.
> Why?
>
Both follow the normal rules because they don't explicitely say otherwise.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> If the fact that some cards are worded differently upsets you so, why not do something constructive and:
>
> 1) make a list, and
> 2) mail the Inner Circle?
>
Sure! Errors may slip through also, don't hesitate to report them.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> Your point about referendums is disingenuous and doesn't answer my question. Referendums resolve in Part C separately from the political action itself in Part D. I was referring to the resolution of the action having nothing to do with the referendum.
>
Political actions are too different from bleed actions for a valid comparison.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> > TwoRazorReign, have you checked the wording for the upcoming revised version of Madness Network (opposed to the current one)?
> >
> > Perhaps it is worded in the same way as the upcoming Enkil Cog reprint...
> >
> That's why I'm bringing it up. I'm wondering if the wordings will be consistent eventually.
>
Reminder texts are not taken into account when refering to consistency.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > I'm confused as to whether Enkil Cog is played when the action resolves (part D in the Detailed Play Summary) or when the bleed is successful (Part C in the Detailed Play Summary).
> >
> Are you refering to part "HOW TO PERFORM ACTIONS - C. An attempt to block is resolved as follows:"? It doesn't say that the bleed would resolve during that step, could you be clearer?
>
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I'm confused as to whether Enkil Cog is played when the action resolves (part D in the Detailed Play Summary) or when the bleed is successful (Part C in the Detailed Play Summary).
>
> Are you refering to part "HOW TO PERFORM ACTIONS - C. An attempt to block is resolved as follows:"? It doesn't say that the bleed would resolve during that step, could you be clearer?
>
The part I'm having an issue with stems more from how the rulebook refers to both "bleed" and "bleed action" to mean "bleed action," but then there is another meaning of "bleed" which is an ability associated with a number ("+1 bleed”). The two meanings are exemplified here: "bleed with 0 bleed, bleed with 1 bleed," etc. The latter meaning is an action that resolves in step D, the former meaning determines whether a bleed is successful/unsuccessful in step C. Confusion may arise because a "bleed" and an "action" both can resolve, but if one is thinking of the ability meaning of the word "bleed," they may confuse “resolution of a successful bleed” (which happens in part D) simply as being “successful” (happens in Part C, last line) because the ability meaning of the word "bleed" interacts only with Part C. The bottom line: it’s not ideal to have the same word mean two different things. It's more an issue with how the rulebook was originally written, but it’s being thrust into the spotlight with new rewording on Enkil Cog.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> The part I'm having an issue with stems more from how the rulebook refers to both "bleed" and "bleed action" to mean "bleed action," but then there is another meaning of "bleed" which is an ability associated with a number ("+1 bleed”).
>
Yes, in English, words often have more than one meaning. These often involve different parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs etc.) - such as "bleed" (verb) and "bleed" (noun), or "vote" (verb) and "vote" (noun), or "damage" (verb) and "damage" (noun), or "strike" (verb) and "strike" (noun), or "block" (verb) and "block" (noun). Sometimes, they are different meanings with the same part of speech, such as "ally" (noun meaning War Ghoul etc.) and "ally" (noun meaning my cross-table buddy).
This is not in any way controversial.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> they may confuse “resolution of a successful bleed” (which happens in part D) simply as being “successful” (happens in Part C
>
But:Part C is only about resolving block attempts. It doesn't tell you anything about resolving actions (Part D), or bleeds, or damage (Part VII), or combat (Part VI), or referendums (Part V).
Part C tells you that with no block attempts, the action becomes successful. But the card text you are quoting requires "resolution of a successful bleed". And nothing in Part C tells you to do anything regarding RESOLUTION of a successful bleed.
> Ankha wrote:
> Reminder texts are, by definition, optional. They are just a reminders of the rules.
> Depending on the nature of the card and the space available, reminder texts are present or not.
>
Just throwing in idea in there: the L5R CCG employed italic for reminders. That is very useful for someone learning the game because it tells them what generalizes and what does not.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > The part I'm having an issue with stems more from how the rulebook refers to both "bleed" and "bleed action" to mean "bleed action," but then there is another meaning of "bleed" which is an ability associated with a number ("+1 bleed”).
> >
> Yes, in English, words often have more than one meaning. These often involve different parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs etc.) - such as "bleed" (verb) and "bleed" (noun), or "vote" (verb) and "vote" (noun), or "damage" (verb) and "damage" (noun), or "strike" (verb) and "strike" (noun), or "block" (verb) and "block" (noun). Sometimes, they are different meanings with the same part of speech, such as "ally" (noun meaning War Ghoul etc.) and "ally" (noun meaning my cross-table buddy).
>
> This is not in any way controversial.
>
It's not controversial. It's unclear. Obviously there is no problem in normal discourse; however, it can be confusing in the context of instructions, and it might be something to have in mind when rewriting card text.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > they may confuse “resolution of a successful bleed” (which happens in part D) simply as being “successful” (happens in Part C
> >
> But:Part C is only about resolving block attempts. It doesn't tell you anything about resolving actions (Part D), or bleeds, or damage (Part VII), or combat (Part VI), or referendums (Part V).
>
> Part C tells you that with no block attempts, the action becomes successful. But the card text you are quoting requires "resolution of a successful bleed". And nothing in Part C tells you to do anything regarding RESOLUTION of a successful bleed.
>
I'm not disputing that. I'm saying using the word bleed (action) may be confused by some people to mean bleed (ability), and bleed (ability) interacts only with part C. What I am not saying is that this is a major flaw that needs to be fixed right this second or I'm going to be super upset and "tell my mother wah wah wah." Again, I'm saying it's unclear, and it might be a good thing to at least have in mind when rewording card text. That is all.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> I'm not disputing that. I'm saying using the word bleed (action) may be confused by some people to mean bleed (ability), and bleed (ability) interacts only with part C. What I am not saying is that this is a major flaw that needs to be fixed right this second or I'm going to be super upset and "tell my mother wah wah wah." Again, I'm saying it's unclear, and it might be a good thing to at least have in mind when rewording card text. That is all.
>
Can you explain what on earth you mean by a successful bleed ability, that wouldnt be an action?
I understood the rules till i started reading your posts =/
Sure. Take the example "Bleed with +1 Bleed". There are two different meanings of bleed in this sentence. There's "Bleed," which is an action a minion can take. Then there is "+1 Bleed," which is modifying the amount that minion is able to bleed. I referred to the first as "bleed (action)" and the second as "bleed (ability)" in my previous post.
If you look at the Detailed Play Summary, How to Perform Actions, a bleed becomes successful in Part C, last line. A bleed is successful when it is greater than zero at this point. This is the part that "+1 Bleed" interacts with. Then in Part D, the "Bleed," as in the action, resolves.
Enkil Cog says, "Only usable after resolution of a successful bleed against your prey." All I'm saying is that, if one is thinking of the ability meaning of the word bleed (+1 bleed in the example above), they may play the card when the bleed is successful in Part C because that's the only place where it would apply in the Detailed Play Summary.
In addition, the word "action" is inextricably connected to action resolution, so much so that there is a section of the Rulebook called "Resolve the Action." Conversely, "bleed" is a specific type of action, and because of this because of its dual meanings and interactions with the Detailed Play Summary, this makes it a less than optimal word to use with "resolution." So I think that word "action" needs to be in there.
"Only usable after resolution of a successful bleed action against your prey."
If you understand the rules, that's awesome. To someone who understands the rules, this level of detail may seem unnecessary. I understand that. However, I'm coming from the perspective of knowing nothing about VTES, so please bear with me.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I'm not disputing that. I'm saying using the word bleed (action) may be confused by some people to mean bleed (ability),
>
But action modifiers, and persistent abilities, aren't successful or unsuccessful. Actions are successful. Block attempts can be successful. Referendums can be successful. And so on. But there is nothing in the game that says that Arika's +2 bleed isn't resolving "successful" - it just modifies bleed actions she takes. Lucretia's +1 stealth isn't resolving successfully, it just modifies actions she takes. No part of the game's rules, including the Detailed Play Summary, supports a position that these resolve successfully or unsuccessfully.
If someone does somehow decide that Arika's +2 bleed is "successful", the only point at which it makes even the slightest logical sense to determine that is if she gets to the successful resolution of a bleed action. Consider the situation where Arika's +2 bleeds "resolves successfully" at some earlier point - when she starts the action (or takes it over with a Mask)? How would it ever be unsuccessful? Something that cannot be unsuccessful can hardly be successful!
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Again, I'm saying it's unclear, and it might be a good thing to at least have in mind when rewording card text. That is all.
>
You keep making this assertion that it's unclear. It's not. It's just that you spot ONE word on a card matches ONE word in the Detailed Play Summary, and then proceed to tell everyone that that makes things unclear.
Part C is not in any way about resolving anything other than block attempts. It tells you that's what it's for. The card text that is causing you to claim, speciously, that there is ambiguity is not about block attempts - it is about resolution of a successful bleed. Thus, Part C is irrelevant - no words in part C are about resolution of a successful bleed.
Part D includes resolution of a successful action, including all sorts of actions, whatever they might be - bleeds, hunts, Bum's Rushes, or whatever else. You get to Part D, you resolve the action.
Now, someone may potentially not know that "resolution" of a "successful bleed" happens in Part D. That doesn't, in any way, mean that Part C suddenly becomes relevant. For the same reason that they think Part D doesn't apply to them (it doesn't include the words "resolution of a successful bleed" or any close rearrangement of those words), Part C also doesn't apply to them (it doesn't include the words "resolution of a successful bleed" either).
Your argument is totally specious and not even remotely logical, even on its own terms. If there is a person who cannot work out that Part D is about resolution of a successful bleed (or a successful hunt, or a successful whatever else), Part C tells them it's about something else entirely - resolving block attempts. So Part C is clearly, explicitly not to do with resolving successful bleeds, because it says it's about block attempts.
If someone thinks that "bleeds" and "block attempts" are the same thing, they very probably shouldn't be reading the Detailed Play Summary.
I appreciate you guys might be busy, but when all the card wordings are finalised and the official card lists updated would we be able to get a post or announcement to that effect please?
> ShanDow wrote:
> I appreciate you guys might be busy, but when all the card wordings are finalised and the official card lists updated would we be able to get a post or announcement to that effect please?
>
Sure.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> I'll try to answer everyone.
> That being said, choices had to be made when we established the set of rules we are following. Those choices are complex and are still under progress, considering the amount of cards to review, all the special cases, and compatibility issues with older cards. Obviously, other choices that would have probably been valid too were possible.
>
Thanks for taking the time to answer
> Ankha wrote:
> With that in mind:
>
> > the1andonlime wrote:
> > Why doesn't Enkil Cog use the new "attached" wording? Shouldn't it say "the attached vampire" instead of "this vampire"?
> >
> > Kinda feels like we're going back to the problem of inconsistent wording across cards.
> >
> Attached is an alias for "the <whatever> with this card". It's used when there are multiple actors that are similar (two vampires for instance, one acting and one being a target typically) to remove any ambiguity. If there's no ambiguity, there's no need to use it.
> Enkil Cog mentions only one minion, so there's no ambiguity when refering to "this vampire".
>
I agree that there is no ambiguity in this case. However, I would advocate for the consistent use of rule wordings on card where it is possible, as long as it does not clutter.
In this case, referring to the attached vampire as "the attached vampire" instead of "this vampire" also makes it easier for other cards to reference "attached cards". While the rules are clear on this, "refer to the rulebook" is not something you really want to say when there is someone new at the table (you have no idea how often I need to say that even with existing players, especially returning players).
Suaku
Inceptor Asian Continental Championship
興っ
www.youtube.com/SuakuOz