Salvador Garcia
Capacity: 7
Group: 4
Independent anarch: While Salvador is ready, cards requiring an anarch cost you and anarchs you control 1 less blood or pool.
Rant!
Requires a ready anarch. Only usable during a referendum before any votes and ballots are cast.
During this referendum, each ready anarch may burn 1 blood to gain 1 additional vote. If the referendum fails, this acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable damage.
Circumstance: My ready anarch, calls a KRC (or any vote for that matter).
My assumption is that my ready Anarchs during a referendum, pay 1 less blood for "Rant!" while Salvador Garcia is ready. Effectively 0 blood for 1 vote. Correct?
Modedit\\ Changed the topic name to properly reflect discussion.
Maybe I am being obtuse. But how is it not a cost? Can an anarch with 0 zero, attempt to burn a blood, not be able to, and still get the vote? I would think not, but you are telling me it isn't a cost.
> jblacey wrote:
> Maybe I am being obtuse. But how is it not a cost?
>
The lingering effect Rant creates has a burn blood requirement that you must meet. However, that's not the cost of the card, and it's the card that costs one less blood or pool, by card text.
Along similar lines, Dragos ("Dragos does not have to burn blood to pay the cost of combat cards he plays.") has to burn a blood to get the effect of superior Chiropteran Marauder, because the "This vampire burns 1 blood to make the damage from his or her hand strikes aggravated for the current round." text is not part of the cost of the card.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > jblacey wrote:
> > Maybe I am being obtuse. But how is it not a cost?
> >
> The lingering effect Rant creates has a burn blood requirement that you must meet. However, that's not the cost of the card, and it's the card that costs one less blood or pool, by card text.
>
> Along similar lines, Dragos ("Dragos does not have to burn blood to pay the cost of combat cards he plays.") has to burn a blood to get the effect of superior Chiropteran Marauder, because the "This vampire burns 1 blood to make the damage from his or her hand strikes aggravated for the current round." text is not part of the cost of the card.
>
So generally, most card mechanics are either cost or effect. We have a ruling on costs from LSJ. He said if the cost of a card is negated then the effect is negated. However if part of an effect is negated and it will not negate the whole effect.
So burn a blood for a vote is part of the effect, similarly Dragos' text only applies to costs, not effects.
By that reasoning, the opposite is also true. If a card prevents a vampire from burning blood for a cost, it would not effect the superior text of Chiropteran Marauder or Rant!
Is that correct?
Or Jenna Cross.
Jenna Cross
Capacity: 4
Group: 4
Independent anarch: Cards that cost blood cost Jenna 1 additional blood to play. Sterile.
Jenna doesn't pay extra for Rant! because it is not a part of the cost?
> jblacey wrote:
> So generally, most card mechanics are either cost or effect.
>
False. Some parts of card mechanics are, for example, requirements that must be met. Other parts of cards are keywords.
Effects can also include further elements that have their own costs, requirements, or effects, such as burn clauses or things for other Methuselahs to trigger off (e.g. Business Pressure).
> jblacey wrote:
> We have a ruling on costs from LSJ. He said if the cost of a card is negated then the effect is negated.
>
When Black Cat reduces Saturday Night Special's cost to zero, it still goes in play.
When Dragos plays any combat card for free, it still has an effect.
> jblacey wrote:
> So burn a blood for a vote is part of the effect, similarly Dragos' text only applies to costs, not effects.
>
Dragos's text only applies to the cost of combat cards. Any costs that aren't the cost of the combat cards are irrelevant to his special, however those costs might be generated.
> jblacey wrote:
> By that reasoning,
>
Your reasoning is misconceived.
> jblacey wrote:
> If a card prevents a vampire from burning blood for a cost, it would not effect the superior text of Chiropteran Marauder or Rant!
>
> Is that correct?
>
If you don't burn a blood for Chiropteran Marauder superior, you don't get aggravated hand damage. If you don't burn blood for Rant, you don't get votes.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> False. Some parts of card mechanics are, for example, requirements that must be met. Other parts of cards are keywords.
>
Ok, so you are saying requirements are not a part of the cost or the effect.
Interesting.
Do you have reference from where you are getting this from?
Specifically, where I can find a definition for "cost"?
Cost referenced hundreds of times in the rulebook and it is loosely defined based on the context of the topic. Some times it refers to blood, pool, conviction, etc. I definitely didn't see it in the term section, which is where I expected to see it.
> Effects can also include further elements that have their own costs, requirements, or effects, such as burn clauses or things for other Methuselahs to trigger off (e.g. Business Pressure).
>
Okay, so embedded costs exist.
> When Black Cat reduces Saturday Night Special's cost to zero, it still goes in play.
>
> When Dragos plays any combat card for free, it still has an effect.
>
I was referring to this:
If a minion cannot pay the entire cost of an action when the action resolves, what cost can be paid is paid, and the action continues with no effect ("fizzles"). It is considered successful. [RTR 20011007]
You cannot play a card whose cost cannot be paid. If, between the time a action card is played (or an action is attempted) and the time the cost of the action is paid, you no longer can pay the cost, then you pay as much as you can and the card is burned without effect (or the action has no effect). [TOM 19960514] [RTR 20010710]
Also in the rule book is this statement.
Requirements for Playing Cards. Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan or Discipline (if any) required to play the card and the cost (if any) of playing that card. Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, while only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
A drop of blood with a number on the left side of a library card (in the middle of the side or in the bottom corner) indicates the amount of blood or pool that must be burned to play the card. A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn). A number in a white diamond with a skull represents pool cost (the amount of pool the Methuselah must burn).
> Dragos's text only applies to the cost of combat cards. Any costs that aren't the cost of the combat cards are irrelevant to his special, however those costs might be generated.
>
Jenna Cross' ability says "Cards that cost blood cost Jenna 1 additional blood to play".
You are suggesting that "burn x blood to do y" is not a cost, such as in Chiropteran Marauder. So Jenna does not need to pay extra for the anarch effect of Rant! or any card that says "burn x blood to do y", since that isn't a cost, correct?
> Your reasoning is misconceived.
>
Maybe. Your statements give me reason to believe you didn't understand what I was asking.
> If you don't burn a blood for Chiropteran Marauder superior, you don't get aggravated hand damage. If you don't burn blood for Rant, you don't get votes.
>
Again, you missed my point. "burn x blood to do y" is fine.
Jenna Cross, plays KRC. The action isn't blocked and goes to referendum. Jenna Cross plays Rant!. How much blood does she pay?
If ["burn x bood" != cost]
then
echo "x=1, Jenna Cross pays 1 blood for Rant!"
else
echo "x=2, Jenna Cross pays 2 blood for Rant!"
fi
> jblacey wrote:
> Jenna Cross, plays KRC. The action isn't blocked and goes to referendum. Jenna Cross plays Rant!. How much blood does she pay?
>
> If ["burn x bood" != cost]
> then
> echo "x=1, Jenna Cross pays 1 blood for Rant!"
> else
> echo "x=2, Jenna Cross pays 2 blood for Rant!"
> fi
>
Jenna pays zero blood to play Rant! because it is not a CARD that costs blood. Once Rant! is successfully played, during the referendum, she may burn 1 blood to gain 1 vote.
Playing a card from your hand is not the same thing as taking advantage of ongoing effects. Rant! grants a temporary ability to Anarchs, allowing them to burn blood to gain a vote.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Other parts of cards are keywords.
>
Except as Ankha recently told me, VTES does not have keywords.
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
> jblacey wrote:
> Ok, so you are saying requirements are not a part of the cost or the effect.
>
The rulebook distinguishes between a variety of things, such as:
- the blood cost or pool cost
- the clan or discipline required to play the card
- attributes of the card
See, for example, 1.6.1.
> jblacey wrote:
> I was referring to this:
>
> If a minion cannot pay the entire cost of an action when the action resolves, what cost can be paid is paid, and the action continues with no effect ("fizzles"). It is considered successful. [RTR 20011007]
>
Costs have to be met, yes. That is different from you claiming that if "the cost of a card is negated" the effect is negated, which is a wildly different thing.
> jblacey wrote:
> Also in the rule book is this statement.
>
> Requirements for Playing Cards. Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan or Discipline (if any) required to play the card and the cost (if any) of playing that card. Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, while only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
>
> A drop of blood with a number on the left side of a library card (in the middle of the side or in the bottom corner) indicates the amount of blood or pool that must be burned to play the card. A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn). A number in a white diamond with a skull represents pool cost (the amount of pool the Methuselah must burn).
>
Oh look, it's the section of the rulebook that explains the difference between requirements and costs!
> jblacey wrote:
> Jenna Cross' ability says "Cards that cost blood cost Jenna 1 additional blood to play".
>
> You are suggesting that "burn x blood to do y" is not a cost,
>
No, I'm suggesting that Chiropteran Marauder's effect is not a cost of the card. The very first words of Jenna Cross's ability limit what it applies to - cards that cost blood. Chiropteran Marauder is not a card that costs blood.
> jblacey wrote:
> Jenna Cross, plays KRC. The action isn't blocked and goes to referendum. Jenna Cross plays Rant!. How much blood does she pay?
>
Rant costs zero blood. So it isn't a card that costs blood. So it's not affected by her text.
Once played, it then allows all anarch vampires to burn blood for its lingering effect. But that isn't the cost of the card.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> Except as Ankha recently told me, VTES does not have keywords.
>
It has a variety of terms like "electronic", "gun" etc. on library cards, and some similar terms on some vampires cards such as "Black Hand" and "Seraph", which are clearly not costs, and have no rule-based or card-text-based effect on the game, in the way that other defined terms do, such as "bleed" or "Prince".
However you want to distinguish between those two groups, it has both of them.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > LivesByProxy wrote:
> > Except as Ankha recently told me, VTES does not have keywords.
> >
> It has a variety of terms like "electronic", "gun" etc. on library cards, and some similar terms on some vampires cards such as "Black Hand" and "Seraph", which are clearly not costs, and have no rule-based or card-text-based effect on the game, in the way that other defined terms do, such as "bleed" or "Prince".
>
> However you want to distinguish between those two groups, it has both of them.
>
Correct.
@LivesByProxy: VTES does not define a "keyword" because it is not necessary to the rules.It does not mean that terms that could be coined as "keywords" (or "technical term" etc.) do not exist.
To answer the original topic,
- Rant has no card cost (nothing is written in the lower left corner of the card)
- It has an effect that allows you to burn 1 blood to get +1 vote. The cost of the effect is 1 blood, but it is not the cost of the card.
Some cardless actions or actions granted by cards in play have a cost explicitely written, such as "X can do Y as a +1 stealth action that costs ..."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> @LivesByProxy: VTES does not define a "keyword" because it is not necessary to the rules.It does not mean that terms that could be coined as "keywords" (or "technical term" etc.) do not exist.
>
Terms under "special terms" in the rulebook are for all intents and purposes, keywords.
Keyword is a word with a set of rules attached to it in the rulebook. As in, rules text on a card can be replaced with corresponding keyword, and it still works. This is done to keep card texts concise.
Hunt is a keyword (for example +1 hunt), wake is a keyword, infernal is a keyword, etc. VTES sometimes tries to purposefully avoid using certain terminology which tends to lead to more confusion rather than clear things up.
OT: I agree with James' original ruling. (This is in line with how magic the gathering handles costs too, btw). The term "cost" refers to the cost to play a card. You have to pay the cost in order to play the card. The cost to play Rant! is zero.
That you can burn blood to gain votes is the cards effect. Its not a cost.
Followup:
Dragos (does not pay blood costs of combat cards he plays) is in combat. Opponent plays terror frenzy at superior (combat cards cost opposing vampire extra 1 blood). Dragos plays chiropteran marauder, does not pay the extra since its a cost. Does have to pay 1 blood in order to make his hands aggravated since that is the cards effect rather than a cost.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > @LivesByProxy: VTES does not define a "keyword" because it is not necessary to the rules.It does not mean that terms that could be coined as "keywords" (or "technical term" etc.) do not exist.
> >
> Terms under "special terms" in the rulebook are for all intents and purposes, keywords.
> Keyword is a word with a set of rules attached to it in the rulebook. As in, rules text on a card can be replaced with corresponding keyword, and it still works. This is done to keep card texts concise.
> Hunt is a keyword (for example +1 hunt), wake is a keyword, infernal is a keyword, etc. VTES sometimes tries to purposefully avoid using certain terminology which tends to lead to more confusion rather than clear things up.
>
I don't see how adding that those terms are keywords would help since we don't need to refer to them.
For instance, "can", "have", etc. are verbs, but do we need to explicitely say so? No.
You can call them keywords if you want to; but you are then on a metalevel, not on the rule level.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> OT: I agree with James' original ruling. (This is in line with how magic the gathering handles costs too, btw). The term "cost" refers to the cost to play a card. You have to pay the cost in order to play the card. The cost to play Rant! is zero.
> That you can burn blood to gain votes is the cards effect. Its not a cost.
>
It's not what James said. James was talking about the cost of a card, "Cards cost him..." means that Salavador reduces the cost of the card.
Now, the card has no cost. Its effect (A) is to create another "lingering" effect (B) for each ready anarch, which is "burn 1 blood to get +1 vote".
That effect B has a cost (which is not the same as the card cost) which is "burning 1 blood". A ready anarch can't use this effect if they don't pay the cost.
To help understanding that point, let's consider an alternative (B') effect: "Each ready anarch can gain +1 vote and burn 1 blood.". This effect has no cost.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Followup:
> Dragos (does not pay blood costs of combat cards he plays) is in combat. Opponent plays terror frenzy at superior (combat cards cost opposing vampire extra 1 blood). Dragos plays chiropteran marauder, does not pay the extra since its a cost. Does have to pay 1 blood in order to make his hands aggravated
>
Correct until now.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> since that is the cards effect rather than a cost.
>
This is inaccurate. It is a card effect that has a cost. You are comparing oranges (effects) and apples (costs).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Does have to pay 1 blood in order to make his hands aggravated since that is the cards effect rather than a cost.
>
Yeah, since that effect has nothing to do with the card's cost (it is the cost of the effect, which you may or may not pay).
EDIT: beaten to it by Ankha in a post above, who is an authority on the subject...
> It has an effect that allows you to burn 1 blood to get +1 vote. The cost of the effect is 1 blood, but it is not the cost of the card.
>
Thank you, that clears up quite a bit.
Using the Magic reference, this is like a triggered effect. The trigger has to happen before the effect can occur. It is created by a card, but it is a separate instance (with it's own cost, effect, and requirements; not to be confused with the original card)
> Ankha wrote:
> It's not what James said. James was talking about the cost of a card, "Cards cost him..." means that Salavador reduces the cost of the card.
>
How does "cost of a card" differ from "cost of playing a card"?
Since James is talking about cost of a card's effect, is it the cost of a card then?
....
I think you are merely confusing things further.
"Cost of playing a card" is explicit, "Cost of a card" is ambiguous.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> jblacey wrote:
> Using the Magic reference...
>
You'll save yourself a lot of headache if you stop trying to parse VTES rules through the lens of Magic rules.
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > It's not what James said. James was talking about the cost of a card, "Cards cost him..." means that Salavador reduces the cost of the card.
> >
> How does "cost of a card" differ from "cost of playing a card"?
>
Some cards consider the cost of the card, even if you don't play it.
For instance, you can't play an Illegal Search and Seizure on a Combat Shotgun equipped by Black Cat.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Since James is talking about cost of a card's effect, is it the cost of a card then? ....
>
Moot.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I think you are merely confusing things further.
> "Cost of playing a card" is explicit, "Cost of a card" is ambiguous.
>
I think it confuses only those who seek to be confused.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > Terms under "special terms" in the rulebook are for all intents and purposes, keywords.
> > Keyword is a word with a set of rules attached to it in the rulebook. As in, rules text on a card can be replaced with corresponding keyword, and it still works. This is done to keep card texts concise.
> > Hunt is a keyword (for example +1 hunt), wake is a keyword, infernal is a keyword, etc. VTES sometimes tries to purposefully avoid using certain terminology which tends to lead to more confusion rather than clear things up.
> >
> I don't see how adding that those terms are keywords would help since we don't need to refer to them.
>
I agree with this. VTES does not need new language incorporated, at least not right now. "Special Terms" is already established.
> For instance, "can", "have", etc. are verbs, but do we need to explicitely say so? No.
> You can call them keywords if you want to; but you are then on a metalevel, not on the rule level.
>
Well, you have to explicitly call them Special Terms, because that's what the rulebook does. This thread is evidence of the can of worms that using non-rulebook language, such as keyword, can open. One can argue that because some special terms function like a keyword, it's necessary to call those certain special terms keywords. I don't agree with this. Traditionally, VTES has had Special Terms, where the rulebook provides clear definitions of how those special terms function. Organizing these terms better in the rulebook instead of just lumping them together in one place is one thing, and I'm 100% behind that. But incorporating new language such as "keyword", where definition of such a term can vary greatly, is an entirely other thing, and is best avoided.
> jblacey wrote:
> Using the Magic reference, this is like a triggered effect. The trigger has to happen before the effect can occur. It is created by a card, but it is a separate instance (with it's own cost, effect, and requirements; not to be confused with the original card).
>
No, it's what Magic would call an Activated Ability. The card effect specifically gives each of your Anarchs the Activated Ability: "Pay 1 Blood: Get 1 Vote. This ability can't be activated more than once during this referendum."
Triggered Abilities always use the terms, "When," "Whenever," "Each time," "After," "At the beginning of [phase]," or "At the end of [phase]," etc. They are 'triggered' by certain events or game-states.
> Kushiel wrote:
> You'll save yourself a lot of headache if you stop trying to parse VTES rules through the lens of Magic rules.
>
Considering the Magic Comprehensive Rules are written like an actual legal document and come with examples of every rule, maybe VTES could learn something from Magic? I mean, it is the older child in this situation, one that has been exponentially more successful and has really changed and evolved - I'd dare say 'grown up' - over the last two decades. Maybe the guys responsible for developing Magic could be learned from? Maybe the lens that Magic offers would be useful for VTES?
> Ankha wrote:
> I don't see how adding that those terms are keywords would help since we don't need to refer to them.
>
You could have effects like "This minion copies all of that minion's keyword abilities." Or "The chosen minion loses all keyword abilities." There are so many cool effects and things Magic does with its wording and terms that are absent from VTES. You could also play with Traits or Subtypes (like Electronic, Weapon, Black Hand, Seraph, Location, etc.) but you would need to clearly define what constitutes as such. Calling these "technical terms" or "game terms" like James says doesn't suffice.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I agree with this. VTES does not need new language incorporated, at least not right now. "Special Terms" is already established. [...] But incorporating new language such as "keyword", where definition of such a term can vary greatly, is an entirely other thing, and is best avoided.
>
Except the term "keyword" is not "new language". It was introduced by Magic decades ago, and has been so useful that virtually every collectible / trading card-game - analog or digital - has since adopted the term to describe card-effects or abilities that appear over and over again and can be replaced by a simple one-word or two-word term.
BloodArtist is right, all of the "Special Terms" of VTES would be considered "keywords" in any other card-game.
All of this opposition to using useful language developments of the industry reminds me of the dozens of stories of companies and innovators not changing with the times and adopting the latest technology and getting left behind as a result.
"Oxygen? Bah-humbug. Phlogiston theory is already well established. No need to introduce new terms like 'oxygen' - that'll only create confusion and is best avoided."
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> All of this opposition to using useful language developments of the industry reminds me of the dozens of stories of companies and innovators not changing with the times and adopting the latest technology and getting left behind as a result.
>
> "Oxygen? Bah-humbug. Phlogiston theory is already well established. No need to introduce new terms like 'oxygen' - that'll only create confusion and is best avoided."
>
What does phlogiston theory have to do with Ebeneezer Scrooge? Anyway calling "Special Terms" keywords isn't innovative, it's actually just not really necessary. For example, some cards contain the Special Term "Unique." It's doing all the "innovative" things you want (ie, "describe card-effects or abilities that appear over and over again and can be replaced by a simple one-word or two-word term"). What do we gain by calling this a keyword? I'm convinced the answer is "nothing."
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> You could have effects like "This minion copies all of that minion's keyword abilities." Or "The chosen minion loses all keyword abilities." There are so many cool effects and things Magic does with its wording and terms that are absent from VTES.
>
What is "cool" in Magic is not necessarily "cool" in VTES. The effects you are suggesting are well... not a good idea in VTES.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Some cards consider the cost of the card, even if you don't play it.
> For instance, you can't play an Illegal Search and Seizure on a Combat Shotgun equipped by Black Cat.
>
Great example of how confusing VTES rules are. In my opinion and interpretation of the rules you should be able to burn the Combat Shotgun.
The reason: The cost to play Combat Shotgun is 3, as printed on the card.
Instead, you are apparently using the fleeting, transient cost specific to this instance of the Combat Shotgun card, that black Cat HAPPENED to make cheaper by Black Cat's ability. The problem is that this is a transient thing that players must keep track of and that is not marked in any way. You must keep track of the fact that this particular gun was made cheaper by Black Cat, and in my opinion, this is wholly unnecessary. This is an example of a rule that makes game more complex, without adding game depth. It does not make players ponder the strategy any more than the other interpretation would, it merely increases the likelihood of game mistakes and failure to maintain game state by adding one more thing that players must remember during the current game, instead of using a card that's RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE IN FRONT OF THE PLAYERS.
We discussed this a year or so back if I'm not mistaken. This is a BAD thing for many reasons. In particular, these kind of rules make games slower because players must check and recheck these things whenever they are making a play. They are wasting time ensuring that they are not making a mistake, instead of concentrating on actual gameplay. Not to mention that mistakes are inevitable, and misinterpretations of the rules are abundant.
If you cannot see the difference between a rule simple to understand and to apply, and that doesn't hinder gameplay, and this - then I just... give up. You will continue making poor rules.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Some cards consider the cost of the card, even if you don't play it.
> > For instance, you can't play an Illegal Search and Seizure on a Combat Shotgun equipped by Black Cat.
> >
> Great example of how confusing VTES rules are. In my opinion and interpretation of the rules you should be able to burn the Combat Shotgun.
>
> The reason: The cost to play Combat Shotgun is 3, as printed on the card.
>
> Instead, you are apparently using the fleeting, transient cost specific to this instance of the Combat Shotgun card, that black Cat HAPPENED to make cheaper by Black Cat's ability. The problem is that this is a transient thing that players must keep track of and that is not marked in any way. You must keep track of the fact that this particular gun was made cheaper by Black Cat, and in my opinion, this is wholly unnecessary.
>
Before ranting aggressively, please check the rules. Ironically, you are right on only one point: it is wholly unnecessary to track which gun was equipped by Black Cat at some point. You only have to look at the equipment currently equipped by Black Cat. No tracking.
All you have to do is read the card: "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." She has a Combat Shotgun whose printed cost is 3? Well, she reduces its cost by 1 => it costs 2. This apply when she has to pay the cost, and when some effects takes the cost into consideration.
The weapon is moved to someone else? Its cost is no longer reduced, it costs 3.
Also, keep in mind that some cards are not "played" but put in play by other cards (eg. Concealed Weapon) and still, you have to pay the cost of it.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Bloodartist wrote:
> If you cannot see the difference between a rule simple to understand and to apply, and that doesn't hinder gameplay, and this - then I just... give up. You will continue making poor rules.
>
I think you need to realize that these rules, while potentially needing an extra bit of brain power to understand, are here to stay in VTES. The only real way to incorporate less complex rules regarding cost is to blow things up and start over. It's been made very clear by those involved with producing the game that this is not happening. So the complex rules regarding cost are here to stay.
Now, our next best option besides actually changing rules regarding cost is to modify how the rules regarding costs are communicated. We can add further clarification and a concrete definition of cost in the rulebook. I believe simply communicating the rules better can ameliorate many of the issues regarding complex rules in VTES.
If you're expecting VTES to adapt and incorporate less complex rules, that is likely not going to happen, barring remaking the game from scratch. I would stress that focusing on communicating existing rules should be a priority for now.
> Ankha wrote:
> Before ranting aggressively, please check the rules. Ironically, you are right on only one point: it is wholly unnecessary to track which gun was equipped by Black Cat at some point. You only have to look at the equipment currently equipped by Black Cat. No tracking.
>
> All you have to do is read the card: "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." She has a Combat Shotgun whose printed cost is 3? Well, she reduces its cost by 1 => it costs 2. This apply when she has to pay the cost, and when some effects takes the cost into consideration.
> The weapon is moved to someone else? Its cost is no longer reduced, it costs 3.
>
I hope I'm not derailing things further, but what about a Combat Shotgun equipped via a Jack of Both Sides? Can it be illegaly searched and seizured?
Card Text
Jack of Both Sides
[Action] Action
[1 Blood]
+2 stealth action. Requires a ready vampire.
This vampire equips or employs an equipment or retainer from your hand. The cost of that card is reduced by 1 pool or by up to 2 blood.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Yomyael wrote:
> I hope I'm not derailing things further, but what about a submachine gun equipped via a Jack of Both Sides? Can it be illegaly searched and seizured?
>
Yes. You check the cost of the weapon when IS&S was played. The cost of a Submachine Gun is 4 pool or 3 in the case of Black Cat, either of which is greater than 2, the threshold for IS&S.
> Ankha wrote:
> Before ranting aggressively, please check the rules.
>
Since it apparently has to be repeated every time I rant about something: I often rant about how things SHOULD be. I complain about how things are in comparison to hypothetically changed rule. Seems like many people are quick to point out that I am wrong about a rule, when I am in actuality campaigning for changing said rule.
(And if Im wrong about a rule, then it just further confirms my claim that VTES rules are unnecessarily complex and invite misinterpretations. So there.)
This is one of many cases of a rule creating unnecessary complexity with no strategic depth. Exactly the kind of thing we need to root out from VTES.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> If you're expecting VTES to adapt and incorporate less complex rules, that is likely not going to happen.
>
Except that Black Chantry has been introducing errata and changing rules at a regular pace. Its the reason why I keep ranting: because black chantry board actually CAN and already HAS changed rules. Just agonizingly slowly.
Black Cat could acquire a weapon by diablerie, by fast hands, etc. Its not always equipped in a way that costs Black Cats owner something. It still needs to be tracked how she acquired it. Its not immediately obvious when looking at the table.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Black Cat could acquire a weapon by diablerie, by fast hands, etc. Its not always equipped in a way that costs Black Cats owner something. It still needs to be tracked how she acquired it. Its not immediately obvious when looking at the table.
>
No, it doesn't. The lower cost applies while she's got it equipped, regardless of how she got it.
This is covered in the same post of Ankha's that you're quoting here.
> Kushiel wrote:
>
> > Bloodartist wrote:
> > Black Cat could acquire a weapon by diablerie, by fast hands, etc. Its not always equipped in a way that costs Black Cats owner something. It still needs to be tracked how she acquired it. Its not immediately obvious when looking at the table.
> >
> No, it doesn't. The lower cost applies while she's got it equipped, regardless of how she got it.
>
> This is covered in the same post of Ankha's that you're quoting here.
>
Even so, that's still a pretty weird ruling. Her ability would seem to reduce the cost to play equipment "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." Not, "The printed cost of equipment on Black Cat is reduced by 1." Those are two very different things. Currently, the ruling makes it sound like her ability is both of those entwined, but her card clearly only gives her the 1st effect.
It would seem like her ability to get Equipment for 1 pool cheaper is transient and wouldn't interact with Illegal Search & Seizure (a card played at a later time that looks at the printed cost of weapons.)
I know of no card-game (besides VTES) where a ruling like this applies. FFG has been very careful to state 'printed cost' when it matters. In Magic, certain effects can reduce the casting cost of spells, but cards that check for converted (total) mana cost don't retroactively look to see if, and by how much, the spell was reduced by when it was played.
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
In going to play devil's advocate here:
What card in magic has an interaction like Black Cat? Converted cost applies(applied; I'm like 9 years out now) nominally to cards being played(spellsnare) or in some non-in play state (deck, chord of calling, being drawn, Dark Confidant) when in play stuff is affected, (pernicious deed) theres never an equivalent thing that cares about a cost of a permanent on another permanent....
So, an energy cost on Pokemon tcg, or a dream creature cost in magi nation have more to do with this than mana cost. Because mana is a player playing, the other examples are an in game resource playing or paying......
I don't see the issue. The burn a blood isn't a cost. Do this to gain this. The rulebook isn't great, but this isnt a glaring problem...........
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> Even so, that's still a pretty weird ruling. Her ability would seem to reduce the cost to play equipment "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool."
>
Black Cat doesn't have the "to play" restriction, so it applies to everything that checks the cost. I agree it is easily overlooked because her cardtext is quite unique, but if you play her as it reads, it works as intended.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I have a question: in general, without taking into account any specific card or card ruling, does "cost" refer to the cost paid and not the cost as written on the card? Or is the opposite true? Or is it really a case-by-case basis, as determined by various card rulings? I'm trying to figure out the baseline we are working with regarding "cost" as a defined term used in VTES.
Magic has several cards, usually creatures or enchantments, that passively reduce or increase the cost to cast spells.
There are also many effects which check for total mana cost.
If I played Grand Arbiter Augustine IV and my opponent has a Pyrostatic Pillar in play, I'm not going to take damage from the Pillar every time I summon a Hussar Patrol. Why? Because the Pillar checks for the printed cost of the card, not how much I paid. Likewise, if I played Consume The Meek, it wouldn't destroy the Hussar Patrol, even if an effect made it cheaper to play, because cost-reducing effects don't retroactively apply unless specific card effects check for "how much was paid" or say "the converted mana cost is considered to be 1 less" or something.
Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool. Considering she was in Jyhad, they probably felt it was unnecessary to add the "she plays" or "to play". Ankha says her ability modifies the printed cost of the equipment on effects that would check for the cost of that equipment, but I'd be willing to bet no native English speaker would interpret it that way. Because the "cost" of something is how much you pay (or play in the case of VTES) for it. If you moved Equipment onto Black Cat, giving it to her for free, then it didn't cost anything. If it didn't cost her anything, how can she reduce it's cost? If I get something for a discount because I have a store membership or as a gift for Christmas, it doesn't make the actual price of the item any cheaper.
But then Ankha says that certain cards are not played but "put in play" by other cards. So Concealed Weapon puts a weapon in play despite saying "This minion equips a non-unique weapon from your hand, (requirements and cost apply as normal.)" So Black Cat doesn't make a Concealed Weapon she equips (and thus pays for) cheaper, but weapons given to her are considered to have their printed cost reduced by 1, and cards that check for the printed cost of weapons have to take her ability into account even if she didn't pay for it.
Completely unintuitive and backwards to me, but whatever.
https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/mma/176.jpg?1517813031https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/td0/B25.jpg?1517813031https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/ddn/55.jpg?1517813031https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/ddp/49.jpg?1530591450
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> But then Ankha says that certain cards are not played but "put in play" by other cards. So Concealed Weapon puts a weapon in play despite saying "This minion equips a non-unique weapon from your hand, (requirements and cost apply as normal.)" So Black Cat doesn't make a Concealed Weapon she equips (and thus pays for) cheaper, but weapons given to her are considered to have their printed cost reduced by 1, and cards that check for the printed cost of weapons have to take her ability into account even if she didn't pay for it.
>
It makes perfect sense to me - while Black Cat might be paying a 3-cost weapon less, it is still a 3-cost weapon and as such, cannot be equipped via Concealed Weapon.
Should she be forced to repay the cost of a weapon she has on herself (via Peace Treaty, for example) - the reduction in cost would kick in, since she's repaying the cost to equip. It still doesn't change the actual cost of the weapon, just the ammount she's paying...
If there were a card that says - destroy a 3+ cost weapon, you could target a 3-cost weapon on Black Cat, although she might have paid for it less - it doesn't suddenly become a 2-cost weapon when on her.
For me, the interactions between Black Cat, Combat Shotgun, Peace Treaty, and Concealed Weapon being perceived as unintuitive is a symptom of a language issue. What I think I’m starting to understand (but I’m likely misunderstanding) is that there are two meanings to “cost”: the cost printed on the card (what Concealed Weapon refers to) and the cost that was paid (what Peace Treaty refers to). If there are two meanings of the word “cost,” these meanings probably should be clarified in the rules and each card should clarify which meaning of “cost” it is referring to. Had more thought originally been given to the language used (in this case, “cost” having more than one meaning), perhaps how intuitive these interactions are perceived wouldn’t be such an issue?
> Kiddo wrote:
> It makes perfect sense to me - while Black Cat might be paying a 3-cost weapon less, it is still a 3-cost weapon and as such, cannot be equipped via Concealed Weapon.
>
Wrong. "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." A Combat Shotgun would cost her 2 pool, so she can equip with it using a Concealed Weapon.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/HcCobkGPcFI/GlBdNwMvAjwJ
To sum up:
Cards have a cost printed on them. That cost is paid when you play the card (99% of the cases) or when a card asks you to pay its cost.
Some effects affect the cost either on a one-shot basis (eg., Jack of Both Side who is an action that resolves once) or permanently (eg., Black Cat, Centralized Background Check that are cards that stay in play).
Some effects only affects the cost "to play", as written on the card (eg. The Ankara Citadel, Turkey).
Most of the time those effects are very similar, hence the confusion. But I wouldn't errata Black Cat if she's not reprinted, which is unlikely to happen soon.
Name: Black Cat
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Brujah
Group: 1
Capacity: 5
Discipline: pot pre CEL
Camarilla: Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool (but never less than 0 pool).
Name: Centralized Background Check
Cardtype: Master
Master: unique location.
Weapons cost an additional pool.
Name: Jack of Both Sides
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
+2 stealth action. Requires a ready vampire.
This vampire equips or employs an equipment or retainer from your hand. The cost of that card is reduced by 1 pool or by up to 2 blood.
Name: The Ankara Citadel, Turkey
Cardtype: Equipment
Clan: Tremere
Cost: 2 blood
This equipment card represents a location and does not count as equipment while in play. Unique.
Cards that cost blood cost this vampire half as much blood to play (round down).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Kiddo wrote:
> > It makes perfect sense to me - while Black Cat might be paying a 3-cost weapon less, it is still a 3-cost weapon and as such, cannot be equipped via Concealed Weapon.
> >
> Wrong. "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." A Submachine would cost her 2 pool, so she can equip with it using a Concealed Weapon.
>
It's killing me that the only card whose text you didn't add to this post is that of Submachine Gun, which might be the reason for some of the confusion in this thread. Its printed cost is four pool, not three.
Replace all instances of SMG with Combat Shotgun, though, and this thread makes a lot more sense.
I replaced all occurences of Submachine Gun by Combat Shotgun to avoid further confusion in the future.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
