V:TES Rulebook update question

With the removal of deckmaster and changing of tap to lock, will the color pdf rule book be update anytime soon (www.vekn.net/rulebook)? If so, is there a loose date on when this may happen?

Hi I am currently updating the colour rulebook. Hope to have something posted in the next week or so!

Hi Link for new updated rulebook below: www.dropbox.com/s/yd6xgz31nb0g2cu/VTES%20Rulebook%202017.pdf?dl=0 Please post any errors found. Fingers crossed there won't be any! Cheers!

By glance it still looks great! Finnish Politics!

Visually the rulebook looks great! It's going to take time to read through the whole document, but here is one typo I think; At least I don't understand what this sentence means. Page 20 upper corner, title > Title: A Jis a placeholder for a title. If the title is yielded or lost, the card is burned. If the title is unique, contests are paid with vampire blood, as normal for titles > A Jis? Something is? Under naming templates: > > “Cancel a card”: A “cancelled” card has no effect, but it is still considered played. Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid. > Wait what? Shouldn't this be cost is NOT paid? Page 6 there is a typo: > > 4. Ally, Equipmnet and Retainer > Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > Under naming templates: > > > > “Cancel a card”: A “cancelled” card has no effect, but it is still considered played. Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid. > > > Wait what? Shouldn't this be cost is NOT paid? > This is correct as it stands. The cost IS paid, except when explicit card text states that the cost is NOT paid. "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

> hardyrange wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > > > Under naming templates: > > > > > > “Cancel a card”: A “cancelled” card has no effect, but it is still considered played. Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid. > > > > > > > > Wait what? Shouldn't this be cost is NOT paid? > > > This is correct as it stands. > The cost IS paid, except when explicit card text states that the cost is NOT paid. > Correct, since 1994. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > hardyrange wrote: > > This is correct as it stands. > > The cost IS paid, except when explicit card text states that the cost is NOT paid. > > > Correct, since 1994. > Well I guess so, since every card that I can think of offhand explicitly states that the cost is not paid... Example: sudden reversal, wash, bleeding the vine, direct intervention, evil eye.... Makes me wonder whats the point of this rule if its almost never in effect? I always just assumed that the card texts were merely reminding of the rule of no cost paid. Especially since the "no cost is paid" text is in brackets. edit: Ok, I am legion doesn't mention that cost would not be paid.. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Also Santaleous. Keep on spamming those Zillahs! It's pretty important, that rule. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > hardyrange wrote: > > > This is correct as it stands. > > > The cost IS paid, except when explicit card text states that the cost is NOT paid. > > > > > Correct, since 1994. > > > Well I guess so, since every card that I can think of offhand explicitly states that the cost is not paid... Example: sudden reversal, wash, bleeding the vine, direct intervention, evil eye.... > > Makes me wonder whats the point of this rule if its almost never in effect? I always just assumed that the card texts were merely reminding of the rule of no cost paid. Especially since the "no cost is paid" text is in brackets. > > edit: Ok, I am legion doesn't mention that cost would not be paid.. > That's the trouble with some cardtext that is (was) between parenthesis, and that is not reminder text. Anyway, it's been the rule since at least 1997 (groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/JwpgbD9Ihy0/-T-0QUYDXW8J). There are plenty more cards that don't give you back the cost paid, as listed by Pascal: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/RkEUabeJNdM/R6t3F2I5RzYJ Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The problem isn't really the parentheses and reminder text (although that doesn't help). It's that half the time when a card is cancelled, the cost is paid and half the time it's not, with a seemingly arbitrary "default" of paying the cost. It makes no sense to have this default "Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid" in the rulebook if this many cards are going to override it. An exception to a default should be (1) rare and/or (2) a blatant, obvious exception to the default. An example is the additional strikes coming from one source rule ("a minion cannot use more than one card or effect to gain additional strikes per round of combat"), and Jacko's exception to this default ("Jacko gets an optional additional strike during the first round of combat. This does not count against his additional strike effect limit for that round.)" The cancel rule and ubiquitous cards with an exception to this default goes against the spirit of having a default in the first place. The "Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid" text should be removed from the rulebook and card text should state whether the cost is paid in every case.

> Ankha wrote: > > There are plenty more cards that don't give you back the cost paid, as listed by Pascal: > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/RkEUabeJNdM/R6t3F2I5RzYJ > Well, I went thru that and the list has actually more cards in "cost is not paid" list than "cost is paid" list (29 vs 27 respectively). Also several cards in the second list are special multi-card interaction cases that were probably not thought of when the card was designed, usually involving cards that say "playing X costs additional pool". The majority of cards seems to be in the "cost is not paid" camp. Just saying. My personal opinion is that if a rule has more exceptions than actual applications, something is wrong. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > hardyrange wrote: > > > This is correct as it stands. > > > The cost IS paid, except when explicit card text states that the cost is NOT paid. > > > > > Correct, since 1994. > > > Well I guess so, since every card that I can think of offhand explicitly states that the cost is not paid... Example: sudden reversal, wash, bleeding the vine, direct intervention, evil eye.... > > Makes me wonder whats the point of this rule if its almost never in effect? I always just assumed that the card texts were merely reminding of the rule of no cost paid. Especially since the "no cost is paid" text is in brackets. > > edit: Ok, I am legion doesn't mention that cost would not be paid.. > Evil eye at basic refunds the combat cart cost, but at Superior cost is paid for the action card iirc.

> Bloodartist wrote: > Visually the rulebook looks great! > Under naming templates: > > > > “Cancel a card”: A “cancelled” card has no effect, but it is still considered played. Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid. > > > Wait what? Shouldn't this be cost is NOT paid? > You probably are confusing his with intercepted, unsuccessful, actions. You do not pay the cost for unsuccessful actions. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > Visually the rulebook looks great! > > Under naming templates: > > > > > > “Cancel a card”: A “cancelled” card has no effect, but it is still considered played. Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid. > > > > > > > > Wait what? Shouldn't this be cost is NOT paid? > > > You probably are confusing his with intercepted, unsuccessful, actions. > You do not pay the cost for unsuccessful actions. > If I Archon Investigation Arika does she still pay for conditioning and govern? Rules say only conditioning, but Arika needs more balancing..... On canceling, afair it states if you still pay on anything other than actions (botched move burns the extras, cancels the card, you pay for the card, and take damage) but evil eye @basic doesn't make you pay for the card, and @superior, other action canceling reactions and modifiers typically have (reminder text) saying no cost is paid. Typically there's also a restriction on playing that card too.