Something that came up during the lackey final:
If a player influences out Nana Buruku who is contested, does he momentarily gain the +1 handsize and then discards down?
The rules only say that you bring out the vampire and THEN it is contested.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
No.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/NOBWXWrd-vA/iEOpQp1uhvAJ
Contesting: The incoming contested card has no effect prior to being contested. That is, if you contest an Elder Library, you don't draw up to your new Elder Library hand size and then discard when the Library becomes contested - it is simply contested. Likewise contesting Jan Pieterzoon doesn't cycle a card from each player's hand.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
This rule should probably be added to the rulebook with no fuss due to how short and explicit it is.
"Cards that come into play have no effects prior to being contested". to section 4.1, contested cards.
I cant remember how the situation was handled in the final, but it was nigh impossible to find rulings that are not in the rulebook while the game is going.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Cards that come into play have no effects prior to being contested". to section 4.1, contested cards.
>
Except this isn't true. Anarch Convert can convert a vampire before contesting and Erlik can give blood away.
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Bloodartist wrote:
> > Cards that come into play have no effects prior to being contested". to section 4.1, contested cards.
> >
> Except this isn't true. Anarch Convert can convert a vampire before contesting and Erlik can give blood away.
>
Yea well, its up to Ankha to explain this conflicting information. He just ruled otherwise.
Worth noting that the LSJ ruling is over 15 years old (may 2003).
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
"As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
>
That really doesn't make sense.
> Ankha wrote:
> "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
>
Anarch convert isn't played, he merely enters play. I have hard time understanding how his ability is an "as played" effect.
I was under impression that cards "being played" mean specifically cards that are played from hand
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Ankha wrote:
> "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
>
Then convert should contest a convert if used to change sect? The 2nd convert would become ready in the influence phase of the controller I guess. We can look at Sonja blue for precedent. Sonja gains you 4 pool for as played ability, but never enters play in the first place so it shouldn't matter if the new convert actually enters (would enter) play.
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> > Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
> >
> Anarch convert isn't played, he merely enters play. I have hard time understanding how his ability is an "as played" effect.
>
> I was under impression that cards "being played" mean specifically cards that are played from hand
>
The crypt cards usually say as enters play. Again see Sonja blue rulings where as enters play triggers but never enters play.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> > Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
> >
> That really doesn't make sense.
>
You asked for the rulings, and they are consistent. Im sorry if it doesn't make sense to you.
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> > Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
> >
> Anarch convert isn't played, he merely enters play. I have hard time understanding how his ability is an "as played" effect.
>
There is an analogy between cards in your hand, and cards in your uncontrolled region. They are both played to enter play (but the mechanism is different).
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I was under impression that cards "being played" mean specifically cards that are played from hand
>
No. The general rule is that you have to play a card (either from your hand, crypt or somewhere) to make it enter play. Other way to put card in play are exceptions.
> Mewcat wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> > Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
> >
> Then convert should contest a convert if used to change sect?
>
No.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/zO3l3b76rjQ/da5R20AzyO4J
> LSJ wrote:
> You do the "enters play"/"is played" stuff when the card is played (like
> targeting the Rack or Anarch Convert's conversion). Effects of the
> to-be-contested card being in play (like Elder Library's +hand size) are not
> applied.
>
> So, yes, you can do the Anarch Convert effect (removing the Convert from the
> game to make another vampire an anarch) when the card enters play, even if
> another Anarch Convert is in play and would contest your incoming copy.
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Mewcat wrote:
> So does it contest? That was the question. Nothing there addresses that directly.
>
Since you are not quoting anything, you are referring to the original post, right? Nana contests, yes.
If you are talking about the Anarch Convert, I already answered explicitly above.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> "As played" effects apply because the card is played before it becomes contested.
> Other effects don't apply because they would apply when the card is in play, but it is contested instead.
>
So to be clear; with crypt cards only the "When X enters play" or "When Y is moved to the ready region" part of card text has an effect — all other parts of the card text are ignored.
So Erlik's transfer special kicks in, but not his hand size:
Erlik Sabbat: As Erlik enters play, you can distribute up to 5 blood from him to any of your uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls. +1 bleed. +1 hand size.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > So does it contest? That was the question. Nothing there addresses that directly.
> >
> Since you are not quoting anything, you are referring to the original post, right? Nana contests, yes.
>
> If you are talking about the Anarch Convert, I already answered explicitly above.
>
I'm sorry I was unclear. Please explain the steps to influencing out a minion in a step by step manner.
It seems like this
1, may reveal minion if enough blood
2, as played effects happen
3, if minion still exists and would contest do so
4, if no contest minion enters play
Even though this is direct contradiction of rule book, so be it.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Even though this is direct contradiction of rule book, so be it.
>
I agree, This is about as contradictory as it can get. The handsize from Nana is not an "as played"-effect, it is a continuous effect. It should be checked always and immediately, since nowhere is it ruled otherwise.
> The number of cards in your hand should always match your hand size (cards that are replaced later reduce your hand size for the duration of the effect). Whenever they don't match (when an effect changes your hand size or adds or removes cards from your hand, for example), immediately discard down to or draw up to your hand size.
>
EDIT: In the rulebook, the term "playing cards" is only defined under the library cards section (see: 1.6.1.1 playing cards). According to the rulebook, vampires being influenced out is not playing cards. They are placed in the ready region. Can you at least make a cursory attempt to follow your own rulebook?
>
> An uncontrolled vampire (see Play Area, sec. 2.3) will have blood counters stacked on it representing the amount of influence that has been invested in him. When that stack equals his blood capacity at the end of the influence phase, you reveal the vampire and place him in the ready region (see Play Area, sec. 2.3). He retains the blood counters used to influence him on his card to serve as his blood (see Influence Phase, sec. 7).
>
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> The handsize from Nana is not an "as played"-effect,
>
It's not, no. That's why it doesn't go off in the "as played" / "enters play" window.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> it is a continuous effect. It should be checked always and immediately, since nowhere is it ruled otherwise.
>
It's an effect of Nana being in play, which gets turned on after she enters play without being contested.
Other in play effects work the same way, such as Elder Library - your hand size increases after it enters play without being contested. If you're contesting someone else's, you don't get increased hand size for an infinitesimal amount of time and then immediately discard.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> It's not, no. That's why it doesn't go off in the "as played" / "enters play" window.
>
Enters play window is not defined in the rulebook, it doesnt exist.
Also: nowhere is it defined when continuous effects are checked. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that they are checked always, ie. they overlap every window. Otherwise they wouldnt be checked at all.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I understand the frustration blood. The issue I see here if 4.1 of rulebook says brought into play then contests and we are not doing that. That is the direct contradiction I was talking about.
It's fine though. If that is the way at least we can understand if explained completely.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Enters play window is not defined in the rulebook, it doesnt exist.
>
I guess the fact that a contested The Coven gives you a trifle master phase when it is played is also going to blow your mind.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> EDIT: In the rulebook, the term "playing cards" is only defined under the library cards section (see: 1.6.1.1 playing cards). According to the rulebook, vampires being influenced out is not playing cards. They are placed in the ready region.
>
Even worse, the Detailed Play Summary indicates they are “moved” to the ready region. Should the reader of the rules assume “placed” and “moved” are synonymous with “played”? If not, then why are the rules deliberately using other words besides “played” here, if in fact crypt cards are being played from the uncontrolled region?
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > It's not, no. That's why it doesn't go off in the "as played" / "enters play" window.
> >
> Enters play window is not defined in the rulebook, it doesnt exist.
>
The Golden Rule for Cards means that cards can do things that are inconsistent with the rulebook. It therefore does exist.
If you think that cards can only do things that are defined in the rulebook, you are playing the wrong game.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Even worse, the Detailed Play Summary indicates they are “moved” to the ready region. Should the reader of the rules assume “placed” and “moved” are synonymous with “played”? If not, then why are the rules deliberately using other words besides “played” here, if in fact crypt cards are being played from the uncontrolled region?
>
It's fairly irrelevant. The point Ankha is making is that the "enters play" effect of crypt cards are handled using the same principle as the "as played" type effects of library cards that go into play - and both are kept distinct from general effects that happen when the card is "in play" after it has gone into play without being contested.
The "enters play" effect of Anarch Convert, for example, could optionally be triggered when it enters play via some other effect - because that is entering play. For example, you can use an Anarch Convert if it enters play via Chain of Command (which says "put... in play") or Illusions of the Kindred (a "move" effect), because both cards cause Anarch Convert to enter play. [LSJ 20091125]
> LSJ wrote:
> > #1. Just doublechecking (because card text seems to allow it), but if
> > an Anarch Convert enters play via Illusions of the Kindred or Chain of
> > Command, I assume that I can remove it from the game (make someone an
> > anarch and gain a pool or a crypt card), right?
>
> Yes.
>
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Bloodartist wrote:
> >
> > > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > > It's not, no. That's why it doesn't go off in the "as played" / "enters play" window.
> > >
> > Enters play window is not defined in the rulebook, it doesnt exist.
> >
> The Golden Rule for Cards means that cards can do things that are inconsistent with the rulebook. It therefore does exist.
>
> If you think that cards can only do things that are defined in the rulebook, you are playing the wrong game.
>
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point of this entire thread. That crypt cards "enter play" when they are flipped during the influence phase is really not the problem. It's that the rules do not expressly state that cards "enter play" and instead use mealy mouthed expressions such as "move" or "place". It misleads the reader, and they are left to either assume correctly that cards enter play or assume incorrectly that cards do not enter play at that specific point in the influence phase. This is one example of the rulebook leaving a huge opportunity for people to fill in their own "rules," as can be seen in some of the responses in this thread. And that the Detailed Play Summary does the same thing is inexcusable, because that is the document that is supposed to clearly define timing windows.
If crypt cards "enter play" at the end of the influence phase, then the rulebook should explicitly state this. 90% of the problems people are having would disappear.
My next question would be if there is a reason why "move" and "place" are used in the rules and and if "enters play" was deliberately left out, but I was told this is all "fairly irrelevant," so I guess that's one answer.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> If you think that cards can only do things that are defined in the rulebook, you are playing the wrong game.
>
Wow. Just wow. Add this to your "irrelevant" comment and I can see why you're the perfect advocate for this game.
There is a saying among board-game design hobbyists and enthusiasts:
"If it isn't in the rules, it isn't in the game."
Fortunately, stuff like The Golden Rule covers a lot of ground. Unfortunately, The Golden Rule just means when a card contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence.
If a card is referencing steps or phases or terms or values not expressed or defined in the rules, how can it contradict them?
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.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> With all due respect, I think you're missing the point of this entire thread.
>
With all due respect, I think you are missing the point of V:TES.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> That crypt cards "enter play" when they are flipped during the influence phase is really not the problem. It's that the rules do not expressly state that cards "enter play" and instead use mealy mouthed expressions such as "move" or "place".
>
V:TES's rulebook does not - and never will - explain what happens for every single card play in the entire game. This is why you are missing the point.
V:TES's cards can literally create effects that are not in the rulebook at all. More than a few cards create timing windows that are not codified in the rulebook. Some of the commoner created timing windows have since been codified in the rulebook, but many have not.
V:TES's cards will often use ordinary English words and expect you to understand their meaning. When something goes from not being in play to being in play, it enters play - that is what those words mean. It does not matter if it is moved or put or placed or flipped or transferred - it can enter play (potentially) in any of those ways.
What happens if a card does something that isn't in the rulebook? The Golden Rule for Cards applies. What happens if people disagree about the right way to use the effect of a card? The official rules authorities (over time) provide clarifications, rulings, and errata.
Why does this matter? Because if you say that things that are on cards, but aren't mentioned in the rulebook, don't exist, they are fundamentally misunderstanding how V:TES works. Cards are not restricted by the rulebook.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> If crypt cards "enter play" at the end of the influence phase, then the rulebook should explicitly state this. 90% of the problems people are having would disappear.
>
But that would be wrong, because crypt cards enter play whenever they enter play.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> My next question would be if there is a reason why "move" and "place" are used in the rules and and if "enters play" was deliberately left out, but I was told this is all "fairly irrelevant," so I guess that's one answer.
>
That you're trying to interpret "enters play" to mean "only when it enters play in one specific way at one specific time, despite card text providing literally no support for your belief" may provide some guidance for why you are missing the point.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > If you think that cards can only do things that are defined in the rulebook, you are playing the wrong game.
> >
> Wow. Just wow. Add this to your "irrelevant" comment
>
I'm confused as to why you're upset that I'm pointing out that the central issue is that "enters play" and "as played" follow similar principles. It doesn't matter whether the rulebook says "moved" or "played" or "placed" or "put", because you can "enter play" in both ways - it is irrelevant which term is used, because you can enter play in both ways.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> and I can see why you're the perfect advocate for this game.
>
Pointing out that the Golden Rule for Cards is presented as the most important rule - the Golden Rule! - for V:TES means that anyone saying things don't exist because they're not in the rulebook is fundamentally wrong. V:TES's golden rule is that things that aren't in the rulebook can, do and will exist.
I can totally understand that people like games where only certain things can happen that are codified in a complete framework of rules and terminology, and that all cards must fit in - no card (or miniature, or whatever) not fitting that framework can exist. But that game is not V:TES. V:TES's cards, from the very start of the game and from V:TES's most important rule - go beyond the rulebook. To cite something not being in the rulebook as being a reason for why it cannot happen or exist is, at the most fundamental level of the game, wrong.
I think he suggesting that a flippant attitude to wanting clean rules is not helpful. Players just want to understand how the game functions and not look up a bunch of rulings all the time.
New vtes card
Name: Yessir
Text: 40% of the time it works every time
Golden rule says … yes
> Mewcat wrote:
> I think he suggesting that a flippant attitude to wanting clean rules is not helpful.
>
I'm not being flippant, in any way. I'm saying that the line of thought around whether "enters play" only triggers with a "move" or a "put" or a "place" or a "transfer" or a "flip" or whatever, because Ankha drew the clear analogy with library cards being played, isn't relevant. If a cards move from not being in play to being in play, it enters play - whether that's from your uncontrolled region to your ready region via transfers, or via Illusions of the Kindred, or via Chain of Command.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Players just want to understand how the game functions
>
That's why I explained how it works.
Let's look at this hypothetical response.
It is indeed troubling that the rulebook and the detailed play summary don't put us on firm ground to answer these questions ourselves. Ideally this would get cleaned up but the resources don't exist, I fear. A card entering play region from hand or uncontrolled region is considered played.
> Mewcat wrote:
> It is indeed troubling that the rulebook and the detailed play summary don't put us on firm ground to answer these questions ourselves.
>
I wouldn't say this, because I don't find this troubling. V:TES cards use the normal meaning of English words to do all sorts of things that aren't defined in the detailed play summary or rulebook. That this can happen is a fundamental norm in V:TES.
The detailed play summary it explains many of the obvious timing windows that occur in the game. It certainly doesn't cover everything that can occur - it is a summary. The point about the meaning of "enters play" is difficult to put into that, because crypt cards can "enter play" at a wide variety of times in the game.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Ideally this would get cleaned up but the resources don't exist, I fear. A card entering play region from hand or uncontrolled region is considered played.
>
When the issue at hands is what "enters play" means, you're answering a different question. Whether Anarch Convert can trigger, or Nana's in-play effect takes effect before being contested etc., isn't about whether something is "considered played" or not. It's about what "enters play" means. You haven't explained what "entering play" means - just that if it enters play, it is considered played.
"When the issue at hands is what "enters play" means, you're answering a different question. Whether Anarch Convert can trigger, or Nana's in-play effect takes effect before being contested etc., isn't about whether something is "considered played" or not. It's about what "enters play" means. You haven't explained what "entering play" means - just that if it enters play, it is considered played."
Read that non-sense wall of text and explain how anyone is supposed to understand the spaghetti rules that LSJ shit out through poor card design and templating.
Things should work a certain way and in a consistent fashion. Let's look at Sonja Blue:
"...if Sonja leaves play, remove her from the game."
So she moves to the ready region during my influence I gain 4. Based on your explanation, she definitely "enters play" and would trigger any text during that window that would apply, and then leaves play to become contested. This would, in my mind, mean that both copies of Sonja blue are removed from the game. BUT WAIT! It turns out that my copy never entered play and only the second copy did so I keep my copy (this is the LSJ ruling).
Nothing on the card would indicate this is the case. No "golden rule" text to override the rules of the game. Just super shitty rulings on poorly created cards and instead of anyone advocating for fixing the game you're here talking down to people who just want the game to make sense.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Pointing out that the Golden Rule for Cards is presented as the most important rule - the Golden Rule! - for V:TES means that anyone saying things don't exist because they're not in the rulebook is fundamentally wrong. V:TES's golden rule is that things that aren't in the rulebook can, do and will exist.
>
I don't think that's right. The Golden Rule for Cards allows cards to contradict an existing rule. It does not allow cards to make up rules that don't contradict others in the rulebook. Big difference.
> The detailed play summary it explains many of the obvious timing windows that occur in the game. It certainly doesn't cover everything that can occur - it is a summary.
>
Actually, it was originally called the "Complete Rules Reference." So it was meant to be exhaustive by the original author of that document, but was later changed to be a "summary." So there's a little bit of revisionist history you're doing here. It's basically proving the point that not including important aspects to the rules causes problems, hence the decision to "just call the damn thing a summary and be done."
> The point about the meaning of "enters play" is difficult to put into that, because crypt cards can "enter play" at a wide variety of times in the game.
>
Yes, but only by card text, which should clarify the when and how. There is only one situation in which a crypt card enters play normally: at the end of the influence phase. This is where crypt cards entering play should be described by default.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> "When the issue at hands is what "enters play" means, you're answering a different question. Whether Anarch Convert can trigger, or Nana's in-play effect takes effect before being contested etc., isn't about whether something is "considered played" or not. It's about what "enters play" means. You haven't explained what "entering play" means - just that if it enters play, it is considered played."
>
> Read that non-sense wall of text and explain how anyone is supposed to understand the spaghetti rules that LSJ shit out through poor card design and templating.
>
I'm not sure why you're using something I wrote about the fact that something Mewcat wrote not actually addressing the issue he wants solved is somehow relevant to anything LSJ did?
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> Things should work a certain way and in a consistent fashion.
>
Broadly, people try as hard as they can to make that happen.
The fact that you think spewing abuse about things previous designers have done is constructive doesn't really contribute to that, however.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> Let's look at Sonja Blue:
> "...if Sonja leaves play, remove her from the game."
> So she moves to the ready region during my influence I gain 4. Based on your explanation, she definitely "enters play" and would trigger any text during that window that would apply, and then leaves play to become contested.
>
Not really. The point being expressed is that effects that trigger on entering play (such as Anarch Convert) go off, even if the vampire is immediately contested. But any effects on the vampire that require the vampire to be in play to happen don't take effect - so you don't, with Nana, get a momentary increase in hand size; you don't, with Alexandra, get the ability to untap a vampire in a fraction of a section that she is in-play and then contested.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> This would, in my mind, mean that both copies of Sonja blue are removed from the game. BUT WAIT! It turns out that my copy never entered play and only the second copy did so I keep my copy (this is the LSJ ruling).
>
Yes. The currently-in-play Sonja Blue has text that can trigger, because she is actually in-play. Sonja Blue needs to be in-play for her text to trigger, as is the case with all vampire specials (that don't say otherwise under the Golden Rule for Cards, of course). In the case of the contested Nana, the 'new' Nana's +1 hand size text doesn't apply momentarily. In the case of the contested Sonja Blue, the 'new' Sonja's text doesn't apply momentarily.
This is things working in a certain way and in a consistent fashion. Contested Sonja works the same way as Contested Nana - card text that isn't about entering play doesn't apply.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> Nothing on the card would indicate this is the case. No "golden rule" text to override the rules of the game. Just super shitty rulings on poorly created cards and instead of anyone advocating for fixing the game you're here talking down to people who just want the game to make sense.
>
But you're now asking for the game to be inconsistent. You want Sonja to not work the same way as Nana.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Pointing out that the Golden Rule for Cards is presented as the most important rule - the Golden Rule! - for V:TES means that anyone saying things don't exist because they're not in the rulebook is fundamentally wrong. V:TES's golden rule is that things that aren't in the rulebook can, do and will exist.
> >
> I don't think that's right. The Golden Rule for Cards allows cards to contradict an existing rule. It does not allow cards to make up rules that don't contradict others in the rulebook. Big difference.
>
Not really. The rulebook says what the timing phases of combat are. The rulebook doesn't provide a timing phase to play Immortal Grapple. Immortal Grapple creates a brand new timing phase. It has made up a 'rule' that doesn't exist in the rulebook. Cards do this all the time - end of round, end of combat etc. The pre-range step we take for granted was not in the Jyhad rulebook, though is mentioned now, of course - presumably text about it was added because it's so common. This happens fairly often for common effects. or effects that are hideous to explain in card text (e.g. allies playing cards as a vampire and gaining/losing life etc., to take a non-timing example), but it can't happen for everything while V:TES still allows cards to potentially do anything, including things that have never been thought of before.
All these things take effect when they do, because card text means that the steps established in the rulebook are supplemented by whatever the card says.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > The detailed play summary it explains many of the obvious timing windows that occur in the game. It certainly doesn't cover everything that can occur - it is a summary.
> >
> Actually, it was originally called the "Complete Rules Reference." So it was meant to be exhaustive by the original author of that document, but was later changed to be a "summary."
>
It was clearly never a Complete Rules Reference, however, whatever the name was. It has only ever explained (a lot of) V:TES's timing. There are lots of things that go on in V:TES that aren't really related to timing, because cards do exciting and novel things. A common question, for example, is whether you can activate Temptation with zero counters to untap an empty vampire. (Answer: yes.) It doesn't make sense to include that anywhere on the Complete Rules Reference, so it's a ruling on that specific card.
The new name of "Detailed Play Summary" is much better in terms of accurately representing what it actually does.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> So there's a little bit of revisionist history you're doing here.
>
Not really? The fact that someone else may have intended it to be complete at some point in the past doesn't mean that: a) it was a complete rules reference then (it wasn't) or b) that it's complete now (it isn't).
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> It's basically proving the point that not including important aspects to the rules causes problems, hence the decision to "just call the damn thing a summary and be done."
>
The thing is, if you include literally everything on a chart like that, it becomes utterly impenetrable, and hard to use to answer common questions, because you have to include every corner case. There certainly can be uses for things that are utterly exhaustive, but they will generally only be used by the tiny handful of people who understand them.
The - apparent - intent of the Detailed Play Summary is to cover lots of timing aspects that reasonably commonly occur, in a way that means that a broader cross-section of people are likely to be able to understand it if they dig in. Because V:TES is a complicated game, there is a balance to be struck between keeping it understandable and how much detail you go into. Of course, different people can reasonably disagree about what the appropriate level of detail is - but I'm guessing that most people don't want the Detailed Play Summary to be covered with trivia about terrible cards that are barely played but which raise a variety of subtle and awkward issues.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > The point about the meaning of "enters play" is difficult to put into that, because crypt cards can "enter play" at a wide variety of times in the game.
> >
> Yes, but only by card text, which should clarify the when and how. There is only one situation in which a crypt card enters play normally: at the end of the influence phase. This is where crypt cards entering play should be described by default.
>
Not really? I mean, you obviously can have that written down somewhere, but V:TES uses English words and expressions in their normal fashion all over the place. Malkavian Game doesn't explain what Rock-Paper-Scissors is, for example, and nor does the rulebook, and nor does the Detailed Play Summary, and nor did the Complete Rules Reference before it. Do we need a full explanation of what Rock-Paper-Scissors is on the card, or in the rulebook, or in the Detailed Play Summary?
If you move a card from being out of play to being in play, it enters play, because that is what "enters play" means. If a card does that by moving a card, or putting a card, or placing a card, or flipping a card, or whatever else, the card enters play.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > It is indeed troubling that the rulebook and the detailed play summary don't put us on firm ground to answer these questions ourselves.
> >
> I wouldn't say this, because I don't find this troubling. V:TES cards use the normal meaning of English words to do all sorts of things that aren't defined in the detailed play summary or rulebook. That this can happen is a fundamental norm in V:TES.
>
> The detailed play summary it explains many of the obvious timing windows that occur in the game. It certainly doesn't cover everything that can occur - it is a summary. The point about the meaning of "enters play" is difficult to put into that, because crypt cards can "enter play" at a wide variety of times in the game.
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > Ideally this would get cleaned up but the resources don't exist, I fear. A card entering play region from hand or uncontrolled region is considered played.
> >
> When the issue at hands is what "enters play" means, you're answering a different question. Whether Anarch Convert can trigger, or Nana's in-play effect takes effect before being contested etc., isn't about whether something is "considered played" or not. It's about what "enters play" means. You haven't explained what "entering play" means - just that if it enters play, it is considered played.
>
Oh boy. So it is ok for the rulebook to not describe how to play the game. It is ok for rulings to be made in binary yes/no fashion. It is ok to ignore my in depth analysis of influence phase and perpetuate guessing.
If you don't see any of these things as problems that are 'obvious', , to me I guess we just have to 'agree to disagree'.
A few tips.
1) stating some ones question is irrelevant is flippant
2) using the word obvious in a discussion is demeaning. Is like tacit consent when there is no consent of any type
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Yes. The currently-in-play Sonja Blue has text that can trigger, because she is actually in-play. Sonja Blue needs to be in-play for her text to trigger, as is the case with all vampire specials (that don't say otherwise under the Golden Rule for Cards, of course). In the case of the contested Nana, the 'new' Nana's +1 hand size text doesn't apply momentarily. In the case of the contested Sonja Blue, the 'new' Sonja's text doesn't apply momentarily.
>
> This is things working in a certain way and in a consistent fashion. Contested Sonja works the same way as Contested Nana - card text that isn't about entering play doesn't apply.
>
> But you're now asking for the game to be inconsistent. You want Sonja to not work the same way as Nana.
>
How can something enter play and not leave it? If "enter play" effects happen when the card enters the ready region, they have entered play. That seems pretty clear. Then they leave play, which her ability specifically states as a condition of removing her from the game.
That is the least consistent, most backwards understanding of how things should work and isn't supported by anything in the rule book or on the cards.
And again, your demeaning and condescending tone is not appreciated.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Oh boy. So it is ok for the rulebook to not describe how to play the game.
>
The rulebook explains how to play the game. It does not explain every single piece of card text that appears on every card, because in V:TES cards are free to create any effect they want.
Do you want a full copy of the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors in the rulebook? That is necessary to understand Malkavian Game. Are you okay with not having the explanation for that in the rulebook?
> Mewcat wrote:
> It is ok for rulings to be made in binary yes/no fashion.
>
Well, that depends somewhat on the ruling. Some rulings are going to be yes/no, obviously. Does such-and-such card work with so-and-so's special? That'll be a yes/no answer.
> Mewcat wrote:
> It is ok to ignore my in depth analysis of influence phase and perpetuate guessing.
>
"Enters play" isn't just about the influence phase, however. Vampires can enter play in several phases, including the untap phase (Web of Knives - and could theoretically be relevant to Revocation of Tyre) and the minion phase in a variety of ways (Chain of Command, Illusions of the Kindred, Undue Influence). They can also enter play in the influence phase via methods that aren't related to being full from transfers, such as Gather.
> Mewcat wrote:
> A few tips.
> 1) stating some ones question is irrelevant is flippant
>
If the distinction someone is trying to eke out isn't relevant to the issue at hand, then how would you prefer I tell them it's not relevant to the issue at hand?
> Mewcat wrote:
> 2) using the word obvious in a discussion is demeaning. Is like tacit consent when there is no consent of any type
>
But you use it?
www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/76837-fairyworld-examining-combat-cards-and-strategies-and-how-they-should-work?start=18#89280
>
> Mewcat wrote:
> This is obvious because I have a birds eye view from my high perch but cant see you in the sewers.
>
I'm pretty sure that nothing you said there was demeaning, so you may want to consider not establishing hard and fast linguistic rules that don't, you know, work.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> How can something enter play and not leave it? If "enter play" effects happen when the card enters the ready region, they have entered play.
>
The "enters play" effects trigger - but that the vampire goes straight to being contested and so its normal card text doesn't apply. This is why you don't get the +1 hand size from Nana for a nano-second.
If you prefer to think of it as new Sonja actually entering play for a nano-second and then leaves play, the point is that - like other vampires, such as Nana - her special text doesn't apply in that nano-second, because she is about to be contested. If you prefer to think of it this way, the consistent ruling is something like: "When a vampire enters plays but is going to be contested: a) card text that relates to entering play triggers (this allows Anarch Convert to work) but b) other special text doesn't trigger before the contest happens." Sonja Blue's "leave play" text would then be in part b.
> DJHedgehog wrote:
> And again, your demeaning and condescending tone is not appreciated.
>
Your hurling of insults and obscenities suggests you don't actually want the tone of the conversation to improve.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Let's look at this hypothetical response.
>
> It is indeed troubling that the rulebook and the detailed play summary don't put us on firm ground to answer these questions ourselves. Ideally this would get cleaned up but the resources don't exist, I fear. A card entering play region from hand or uncontrolled region is considered played.
>
I'd like to point out that this was the last thing said in this thread that wasn't james beating a dead horse or relating to him or said deceased mammal of an equine nature.
So I'll add to this hypothetical response.
This particular function seems to look consistent with every other occurrence of said sequences of things Interacting. Sounds Legit.
Maybe we should discuss a project where we compile relevant rulings to a detailed card list so that when someone with the time and talent to make a more user friendly database pops up, they dont see too daunting a project.
I'm part of the cork sniffer crowd (rules are nominally groovy, I have disagreements, but for fluff or power reasons) that doesn't see a point in literally writing a companion book for the rulebook for every card interaction.
But for the ease of access, maybe compiling text for someone to make an app may be cool In the future.
Search up "Nana"
Find her current text, artist(s) , printings, and rulings relating to her text, such as:
Additional MPA
Increased hand size.
Tap increased hand size and find rulings regarding it, including the wording triggering aa long as controlled vs. As long as ready, and dealing with
Contesting.
Click that and get details.
Click another tab, get relevant rulings.
We have accesse to these things, but I'll admit it could be easier. Especially in the original example where it's at a table.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > > > Pointing out that the Golden Rule for Cards is presented as the most important rule - the Golden Rule! - for V:TES means that anyone saying things don't exist because they're not in the rulebook is fundamentally wrong. V:TES's golden rule is that things that aren't in the rulebook can, do and will exist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I don't think that's right. The Golden Rule for Cards allows cards to contradict an existing rule. It does not allow cards to make up rules that don't contradict others in the rulebook. Big difference.
> > >
> > >
> > Not really. The rulebook says what the timing phases of combat are. The rulebook doesn't provide a timing phase to play Immortal Grapple. Immortal Grapple creates a brand new timing phase.
> >
> No. It contradicts playing cards in the "strike" phase. You play Immortal Grapple before the strike phase instead. There is a clear contradiction of rules, ie, when you can play combat cards normally, and a new rule, the "before strikes are chosen" window, per text on Immortal grapple.
>
> > It has made up a 'rule' that doesn't exist in the rulebook. Cards do this all the time - end of round, end of combat etc. The pre-range step we take for granted was not in the Jyhad rulebook, though is mentioned now, of course - presumably text about it was added because it's so common. This happens fairly often for common effects. or effects that are hideous to explain in card text (e.g. allies playing cards as a vampire and gaining/losing life etc., to take a non-timing example), but it can't happen for everything while V:TES still allows cards to potentially do anything, including things that have never been thought of before.
> >
> Again, allies playing cards as vampires is a clear contradiction of rules, so I don't follow the argument you are making. I also disagree that it "can't happen for everything in VTES." If this were true, there would never be any rulings. Rulings exist because of the need for explanations to exist in the rules in lieu of existing in the rulebook.
>
> > All these things take effect when they do, because card text means that the steps established in the rulebook are supplemented by whatever the card says.
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The detailed play summary it explains many of the obvious timing windows that occur in the game. It certainly doesn't cover everything that can occur - it is a summary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Actually, it was originally called the "Complete Rules Reference." So it was meant to be exhaustive by the original author of that document, but was later changed to be a "summary."
> > >
> > >
> > It was clearly never a Complete Rules Reference, however, whatever the name was. It has only ever explained (a lot of) V:TES's timing. There are lots of things that go on in V:TES that aren't really related to timing, because cards do exciting and novel things. A common question, for example, is whether you can activate Temptation with zero counters to untap an empty vampire. (Answer: yes.) It doesn't make sense to include that anywhere on the Complete Rules Reference, so it's a ruling on that specific card.
> >
> > The new name of "Detailed Play Summary" is much better in terms of accurately representing what it actually does.
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > So there's a little bit of revisionist history you're doing here.
> > >
> > >
> > Not really? The fact that someone else may have intended it to be complete at some point in the past doesn't mean that: a) it was a complete rules reference then (it wasn't) or b) that it's complete now (it isn't).
> >
> It's revisionist history in the sense that the previous person in charge of the rules was providing that document as an exhaustive source. They clearly intended it as such. You're arguing from the standpoint that VTES always included rules that were not included in the rulebook, as was intended, and therefore to point out when things aren't explained clearly in the rulebook is fallacious because VTES has always done this. That the Complete Rules Reference was intended as an exhaustive source undermines the argument you are making here. There were failed attempts to codify everything and to not have rules that did not exist in the rulebook. So I doubt having rules exist that are not in the rulebook was the original intention, it's just what is happening now out of convenience.
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > It's basically proving the point that not including important aspects to the rules causes problems, hence the decision to "just call the damn thing a summary and be done."
> >
> > The thing is, if you include literally everything on a chart like that, it becomes utterly impenetrable, and hard to use to answer common questions, because you have to include every corner case. There certainly can be uses for things that are utterly exhaustive, but they will generally only be used by the tiny handful of people who understand them.
> >
> I think you underestimate the intelligence level of average VTES player. I doubt a chart like that would be "impenetrable."
>
> > The - apparent - intent of the Detailed Play Summary is to cover lots of timing aspects that reasonably commonly occur, in a way that means that a broader cross-section of people are likely to be able to understand it if they dig in. Because V:TES is a complicated game, there is a balance to be struck between keeping it understandable and how much detail you go into. Of course, different people can reasonably disagree about what the appropriate level of detail is - but I'm guessing that most people don't want the Detailed Play Summary to be covered with trivia about terrible cards that are barely played but which raise a variety of subtle and awkward issues.
> >
> And I'd disagree. That's why the rulebook exists separate from the Detailed Play Summary. People don't have to use the Detailed Play Summary if they don't want. They can make house rules to fill in whatever gaps exist in the rulebook if they'd rather do that.
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > > The point about the meaning of "enters play" is difficult to put into that, because crypt cards can "enter play" at a wide variety of times in the game.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, but only by card text, which should clarify the when and how. There is only one situation in which a crypt card enters play normally: at the end of the influence phase. This is where crypt cards entering play should be described by default.
> >
> > Not really? I mean, you obviously can have that written down somewhere, but V:TES uses English words and expressions in their normal fashion all over the place.
> >
> Yes. This is part of the problem we are discussing.
>
> > Malkavian Game doesn't explain what Rock-Paper-Scissors is, for example, and nor does the rulebook, and nor does the Detailed Play Summary, and nor did the Complete Rules Reference before it. Do we need a full explanation of what Rock-Paper-Scissors is on the card, or in the rulebook, or in the Detailed Play Summary?
> >
> There's an obvious difference: All cards can "enter play." Only one card mandates a game of rock-paper-scissors.
>
> > If you move a card from being out of play to being in play, it enters play, because that is what "enters play" means. If a card does that by moving a card, or putting a card, or placing a card, or flipping a card, or whatever else, the card enters play.
> >
> I'd counter that with: "unique" cards only have one copy ever printed, because that's what unique means. Really, it's right there in the dictionary. Seriously though, all game terms need to be defined because there's just too much room for misinterpretation otherwise.
>
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > Oh boy. So it is ok for the rulebook to not describe how to play the game.
> >
> The rulebook explains how to play the game. It does not explain every single piece of card text that appears on every card, because in V:TES cards are free to create any effect they want.
>
> Do you want a full copy of the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors in the rulebook? That is necessary to understand Malkavian Game. Are you okay with not having the explanation for that in the rulebook?
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > It is ok for rulings to be made in binary yes/no fashion.
> >
> Well, that depends somewhat on the ruling. Some rulings are going to be yes/no, obviously. Does such-and-such card work with so-and-so's special? That'll be a yes/no answer.
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > It is ok to ignore my in depth analysis of influence phase and perpetuate guessing.
> >
> "Enters play" isn't just about the influence phase, however. Vampires can enter play in several phases, including the untap phase (Web of Knives - and could theoretically be relevant to Revocation of Tyre) and the minion phase in a variety of ways (Chain of Command, Illusions of the Kindred, Undue Influence). They can also enter play in the influence phase via methods that aren't related to being full from transfers, such as Gather.
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > A few tips.
> > 1) stating some ones question is irrelevant is flippant
> >
> If the distinction someone is trying to eke out isn't relevant to the issue at hand, then how would you prefer I tell them it's not relevant to the issue at hand?
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > 2) using the word obvious in a discussion is demeaning. Is like tacit consent when there is no consent of any type
> >
> But you use it?
>
> www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/76837-fairyworld-examining-combat-cards-and-strategies-and-how-they-should-work?start=18#89280
> >
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > This is obvious because I have a birds eye view from my high perch but cant see you in the sewers.
> >
> I'm pretty sure that nothing you said there was demeaning, so you may want to consider not establishing hard and fast linguistic rules that don't, you know, work.
>
I wouldn't recommend me as a target for anyone, myself included. Try to Be better than me.
@rev
I would say it's just easier to make an actual rulebook than compile all the rulings. I'm fairly certain that is what people are saying here. Why are there so few rules and so many rulings?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> [
> >
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Not really. The rulebook says what the timing phases of combat are. The rulebook doesn't provide a timing phase to play Immortal Grapple. Immortal Grapple creates a brand new timing phase.
> >
> No. It contradicts playing cards in the "strike" phase.
>
It doesn't say to play it in the "strike" phase at all. Card text for its timing:
Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. Grapple.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> You play Immortal Grapple before the strike phase instead.
>
First you said you play it in the strike phase (which card text doesn't specify), now you say you play it before the strike phase.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> There is a clear contradiction of rules, ie, when you can play combat cards normally, and a new rule, the "before strikes are chosen" window, per text on Immortal grapple.
>
Yep, the rules define certain specific timing windows. Immortal Grapple goes before one of those, in a way which is not defined in the rulebook. "Enters play" effects are in the same category - the rulebook doesn't explicitly mention them, they define themselves. If you - more as a thought experiment than actual reality - treat the rulebook as a complete definition of the entire game's framework, anything that happens on card text that isn't anticipated by the rulebook is contradicting it.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Again, allies playing cards as vampires is a clear contradiction of rules, so I don't follow the argument you are making.
>
Basically, the rulebook sometimes (but obviously not always) evolves in response to card text. Hence when I say:
The pre-range step we take for granted was not in the Jyhad rulebook, though is mentioned now, of course - presumably text about it was added because it's so common. This happens fairly often for common effects. or effects that are hideous to explain in card text (e.g. allies playing cards as a vampire and gaining/losing life etc., to take a non-timing example),
...what I means is that some things that cards do that are weird or require lengthy explanations or that don't fit with the steps described in the rulebook - an older version of it - get explained in more detail in a later version of the rulebook. Allies-as-a-vampire is an example of that. Some things that cards do are outside the normal rules so commonly that it's helpful to explain them in the rules too. Combat cards that are played "before range" is a good example of that. So the rulebook has evolved over time to incorporate some things that previously only existed on card text.
But the rulebook will never cover everything that happens on card text. It may be that some things that are in the rulebook "should" be on card text, and some things that are on card text "should" be in the rulebook. People can obviously have different opinions on that, in terms of communicating things best to people. An example of something in the rulebook that should be on card text - at least, this is a view that Ankha has expressed sometimes - is the vulnerability rule (as in Cold Iron Vulnerability), which should perhaps lead to cards saying "This deals aggravated damage to Kiasyd vampires" or similar, rather than being the definition of "vulnerability" tucked away in the rulebook.
What's not really tenable, however, is to proceed from a position that things that card text says that isn't expressly handled in the rules doesn't exist.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I also disagree that it "can't happen for everything in VTES." If this were true, there would never be any rulings. Rulings exist because of the need for explanations to exist in the rules in lieu of existing in the rulebook.
>
That's very much my point, yes. We can disagree all we like about what should be in the rulebook, what should be in the detailed play summary, what should be on card text, what should be a card-specific ruling, and what should be a general ruling. We can then disagree some more about whether something that seems to be a plain reading of card text should be put in the card specific ruling section, or not. Sometimes people ask not because there's an actual issue with understanding, but because some player is saying "I don't wanna" and they want the confirmation that card text says what it says, so maybe those don't go in there, perhaps. But it isn't ever going to be possible to include everything in the rulebook.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> It's revisionist history in the sense that the previous person in charge of the rules was providing that document as an exhaustive source. They clearly intended it as such.
>
But:
a) just because someone purports something to be the complete rules reference doesn't mean that it is or was,
b) it's only ever been about timing and not the rest of the rules, so it while it might have been intended as a complete reference to the timing phases of the game, it has never, ever, ever tried to be a complete rules reference, because there are many more things to the rules than just the timing phases of what gets played when in what order (though that is obviously a significant element of the rules).
Pointing out that the CRR was never complete and never covered all the rules is not in any way revisionist. It may have been the intention to do that when it was started - I couldn't say what was in anyone's mind - but it didn't do it.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> You're arguing from the standpoint that VTES always included rules that were not included in the rulebook
>
If by "included rules", you mean "card text did things that weren't in the rules", yes, that's always happened from day one.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> That the Complete Rules Reference was intended as an exhaustive source undermines the argument you are making here.
>
It may have been intended as one. It has never, ever, ever been a complete rules reference. Never ever. Never ever ever, at any point. Nothing in the DPS explains when I can tap The Barrens. Nothing in the DPS explains when I can use Alexandra's special.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> There were failed attempts to codify everything and to not have rules that did not exist in the rulebook.
>
The CRR/DPS is not the rulebook.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> [
> >
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > The thing is, if you include literally everything on a chart like that, it becomes utterly impenetrable, and hard to use to answer common questions, because you have to include every corner case. There certainly can be uses for things that are utterly exhaustive, but they will generally only be used by the tiny handful of people who understand them.
> >
> I think you underestimate the intelligence level of average VTES player. I doubt a chart like that would be "impenetrable."
>
See, there are some areas of V:TES that have been in the game (or were in the game) for many years, and which - despite being written down as clearly as anyone possibly could - have caused more and bloodier arguments than anyone can comfortable conceive, over bits of the rulebook that are incredibly explicit.
For example, there have been a variety of arguments about the order in which cancellation effects (e.g. DI) and replacement of the card played should be handled. Now certainly in the past, there will have been good reasons for that lack of certainty. The rulebook now, however, handles it - and still players will tell you that it doesn't work that way. It's not hard to read in the rulebook:
Some effects can cancel a card "as it is played." These effects as well as wake effects (see Special Terms, sec. 11) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards comes after this time period.
And yet players will go blue in the face telling you it doesn't work that way. A bunch of players won't even read three sentences in the rulebook that is written for consumption by people learning the game from scratch, let alone a densely packed flowchart-like document that explains all sorts of ridiculous edge cases for cards they don't know, don't use, and don't have in their head.
Similar issues used to happen in the past with, say, the No Repeat Action rule from the Wizards-era tournament rules (before that got ditched and replaced with the current rulebook-based version, which has a somewhat similar intent but is not the same). Lots of very irate discussions could be had about what actions could be repeated, despite the tournament rules having an explicit list. (Here's the 1998-era DCI rules from archive.org: web.archive.org/web/19990421080612/http://www.wizards.com:80/DCI/VTES_Rules.html .)
A lot of people simply don't like reading lengthy, lengthy documents in order to find out simple answers. That's - partly - why a lot of questions get asked. It's easier to get LSJ, or Pascal, or Ankha, or whoever, to give you an answer.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> [
> >
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Not really? I mean, you obviously can have that written down somewhere, but V:TES uses English words and expressions in their normal fashion all over the place.
> >
> Yes. This is part of the problem we are discussing.
>
It's not really a problem, it's just part of V:TES's fundamental design. Cards don't have to use terms that are defined to the n-th degree in the rulebook, like you will find in some (hugely enjoyable) games.
Some of the most amazing games have really very short, very simple defined rules - potentially very elegant rules - and create amazingly deep, rich, complex games from there. Go is probably the best example I can think of, and it's an amazing game (at which I am very bad). Some wargames have units with a bunch of stats, and some rules-based special abilities, but most of the design of the game is just juggling those stats, and an expansion might add one or two special abilities and pair up some old stats in new and interesting ways, but isn't creating several dozen new lengthy new abilities that are bespoke to individual units (or cards or miniatures or whatever). These games can be awesomely good fun to play. But V:TES's design isn't one of those games, and never has been.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> [
> >
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Malkavian Game doesn't explain what Rock-Paper-Scissors is, for example, and nor does the rulebook, and nor does the Detailed Play Summary, and nor did the Complete Rules Reference before it. Do we need a full explanation of what Rock-Paper-Scissors is on the card, or in the rulebook, or in the Detailed Play Summary?
> >
> There's an obvious difference: All cards can "enter play." Only one card mandates a game of rock-paper-scissors.
>
Many, many cards never enter play, and are just played straight to the ash heap.
But if you (apparently?) agree that there are some things cards do that don't need to be in the rulebook, then rejoice! We agree. Some things don't need to be in the rulebook. Some things do. But while some things might be better off in the rulebook - like the fact that "before range" cards are handled in the rulebook when once they weren't - the fact that they're not currently in the rulebook doesn't mean that their effects don't work or don't exist.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> [
> >
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > If you move a card from being out of play to being in play, it enters play, because that is what "enters play" means. If a card does that by moving a card, or putting a card, or placing a card, or flipping a card, or whatever else, the card enters play.
> >
> I'd counter that with: "unique" cards only have one copy ever printed, because that's what unique means. Really, it's right there in the dictionary. Seriously though, all game terms need to be defined because there's just too much room for misinterpretation otherwise.
>
[/quote]
But that would mean you weren't reading the rulebook. Unique has a definition in the rulebook (in 4.1), because V:TES uses it in a specific way. Many (indeed, most) other words aren't given specific definitions in the rulebook.
So you seem to be saying that we should ignore the definition of unique in the rulebook, despite there being one - but then not follow the ordinary meaning of "enters play" because there must be one in the rulebook, despite there not being one.
If you're trying to counter me saying "It's not in the rulebook, it's just an ordinary English phrase" with "Well, I'm going to ignore this thing that is in the rulebook then", I'm afraid that you're not countering anything at all.
I think this thread highlights the biggest problem in VTES.
Which is rather unintuitive rules/cards (obviously not all but there are plenty such around). If it causes this much problems to hardened veteran players, think how puzzled new players must be!
Also, BTW, I do not think jamesatzephyr. has been condescending or negative in any way but instead has once again devoted lots of time, effort and patience trying to clarify how and why the cards work as they do (not sure if he is playing the devil's advocate or not).
Thank you for this, I for one appreciate it a lot!
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> I think this thread highlights the biggest problem in VTES.
> Which is rather unintuitive rules/cards (obviously not all but there are plenty such around). If it causes this much problems to hardened veteran players, think how puzzled new players must be!
>
If I'm not mistaken, every live tournament which I participated since start of summer here in Finland, had a ruling of some sort that turned out to be wrong in the aftermath (assuming James and Ankha are the authority, which I sometimes find questionable). I know I made one myself when Teemu asked me in Zillah's tears.
Rulebook is so poor, checking it while a game or tournament is ongoing is completely useless. If judges that have played the game for 10+ years can't make correct rulings, what hope do normal or new players have?
I hope Black Chantry is aware of the problem?
> Mewcat wrote:
> The rulebook explains how to play the game. It does not explain every single piece of card text that appears on every card, because in V:TES cards are free to create any effect they want.
>
> Do you want a full copy of the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors in the rulebook? That is necessary to understand Malkavian Game. Are you okay with not having the explanation for that in the rulebook? .
>
As I have campaigned before: the game needs a comprehensive rulebook FOR THE USE OF JUDGES.
Guide of how to play a game/basic rulebook and the comprehensive rulebook that answers every minute detail about the rules are two different things and we need both if we want to be a tournament game. Judges and whoever has a question could then use the comprehensive rules to figure out the solution, instead of pulling answers out of their ass that are frequently wrong. On the other hand, new players wouldn't be plagued by a massive rulebook since they don't need to read it.
Once again, I use the magic comprehensive rules from magic the gathering as an example of how to do things properly. The document has over 200 pages and answers every minute detail about the rules, keywords, and individual cards. If there existed a magic card that made you play rock-paper-scissors, then rules for rock-paper-scissors would be included in it. Nothing is left to interpretation if at all possible. I'm looking at that document in comparison and laughing at the inadequacy of the VTES rulebook. You seem so fixated on the idea that normal players and judges use the same rulebook.. Thats what we need for VTES.
ps. That VTES rules are unintuitive, illogical, crazy and stupid is a different matter worth discussing.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I think we talked this out.
Thanks to James for his patient (and correct) answers.
I'd like to point out that the Detailed Play Summary has never been exhaustive (and will never be), and that it is not a reference document (I do not, and don't want to, endorse it). It is provided as a courtesy. If it creates more trouble than it solves, I will delete it.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Once again, I use the magic comprehensive rules from magic the gathering
>
It is pretty much detailled, but doesn't contain the definition of a "game" ("A two-player game is a game that begins with only two players.") or "top of" in "top of the card" or "top of the library".
There is always a maximum depth in the explicit description of a game, as well as an implicit part (probably bigger in VTES rules + rulings than in MTG comprehensive rules). Being too detailed has also its drawbacks.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Lönkka wrote:
> Also, BTW, I do not think jamesatzephyr. has been condescending or negative in any way but instead has once again devoted lots of time, effort and patience trying to clarify how and why the cards work as they do (not sure if he is playing the devil's advocate or not).
>
> Thank you for this, I for one appreciate it a lot!
>
I agree, and although we were misunderstanding each other toward the end, an there are still some points I would disagree with, there were also some great points made by jamesatzephyr and the discussion was interesting and fun.
> Ankha wrote:
> I think we talked this out.
> I'd like to point out that the Detailed Play Summary has never been exhaustive (and will never be), and that it is not a reference document (I do not, and don't want to, endorse it). It is provided as a courtesy. If it creates more trouble than it solves, I will delete it.
>
I'd also like to clarify that I was merely suggesting that the Detailed Play Summary at one time in the past was meant to be exhaustive, and failed to be so. I did not mean to suggest it ever was or currently is exhaustive.
The issues that pop up always seem to be specific card Interactions, which is why complaints seem to get made about a "rulebook" for the Rulebook.
The reasons making Vtes rules like the Comp MtG ones isn't as good as it seems are (for me, who went from mtg to vtes) these 2 big issues:
Vtes rulebook is already complex to the point of being daunting to new players. Me at age 8/9 got a relatively solid idea on tapping, mana, creatures, and attacking with a mtg rulebook . Me a few years later (with the base understanding from mtg, and 20ish other tcgs from the mid to late 90s) had a hard time grasping the vtes rulebook packed in my CE Malk starter.
Vtes isn't a game where you pick up and run with few questions. Magic was always supposed to be, then hit a reasonable sweet spot, then ALMOST did awesome, but at roughly the same time they removed mana burn made combat damage not use the stack for theme reasons instead of consistency, setting them back to pre 5th ed ness, and for monetary reasons made planeswalkers quite important to being able to win.
Vtes has been on a gradual slide toward balance, and if nothing else Consistency with rulings. But every card printed created potential new interactions, so consistency with timing became the way to roll by the time it stabilized.
This creates LOTS of things that would be in a companion rulebook thingy.
Which leads to my other issue:
If you highlight every line of every page of a textbook, all is highlighted, but nothing is important . Its an example I typically use describing things to my employees, but it works well with anything with many parts that are all important in some way.
Such a large daunting thing would be not the same as digging for rulings, but equally as painful.
So, an App, not unlike Amaranth in form, but with associated rulings, would speed up these things.
Or, if a volunteer wants to reorganize the current rulings in a manner, that could help too.
Worth noting:
James isn't required to respond to rules questions because he has no "official " position; he does so because he knows the answers, and appears inclined to assist people asking rules questions to get a speedy answer, often with examples and explanations.
His wording might make people mad when opinions conflict(I deliberately hope he shows up exposing critical flaws or hating cards I submit, because that's useful to me, even if I'm annoyed by the particulars its often because theres some sort of logic I cant easily trump in there somewhere) but you ask a question, he has an answer.
This thread was a consistency thing, there aren't deviations.
Unintuitive can be universally applied to only a few things, because it's not a quantitatively assignable thing.
X comes into play. That's a thing that happened when it was traveling to play from wherever. X is contested, thus doesn't get to do its stuff that isn't in the comes into play zone. Consistent with other stuff. Done.
I'd be pissed If i felt slighted by something in this, or its lack of making easy sense to me, because I'm human and often unpleasant. But that doesn't make it not the answer. If i questioned why it was that way, if anything else was that way, etc, cool. Answerable in quantitative ways. If we move into qualitative things(intuitive-ness), regardless of the PERCEPTION of it being quantitative in my mind, and or another person's mind, we end up arguing if Han or Greedo shot first like a bunch of asshats.(which is ironic, since that bloody question should have a quantitative answer)
So, if my qualitative analysis of the issues disagreed upon leads me to stating something needed to exist, I'm hung up on why I wouldn't start working on such a thing. I think a pothole in an ally needs fixed. My neighbor doesn't. I can insinuate and suggest to my neighbor all day, or I can just throw gravel in the thing myself if it's that important. Right? Or did I miss something?
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> Or, if a volunteer wants to reorganize the current rulings in a manner, that could help too.
>
I am working on it. Ideally, I'd like to host the Secret Library on this server, and associate the rulings to the cards. But it's currently on Jussi's side, I don't know what he is planning for his website.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Ideally, I'd like to host the Secret Library on this server, and associate the rulings to the cards. But it's currently on Jussi's side, I don't know what he is planning for his website.
>
Hosting Secret Library here would be really cool!
Jussi is not doing anything with Secret Library.
Well development wise.
He is wrapping it up and selling it (announced in... Facebook (?) ) a month or two ago.
Apparently you didn't see it?
I'd suggest BCP purchases it and migrates it here.
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Ideally, I'd like to host the Secret Library on this server, and associate the rulings to the cards. But it's currently on Jussi's side, I don't know what he is planning for his website.
> >
> Hosting Secret Library here would be really cool!
>
> Jussi is not doing anything with Secret Library.
> Well development wise.
>
> He is wrapping it up and selling it (announced in... Facebook (?) ) a month or two ago.
> Apparently you didn't see it?
>
No, I've just heard that he was discontinuing it. Could you post the FB link?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Edited the topic subject for archiving and easier search hits.
"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
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > Ideally, I'd like to host the Secret Library on this server, and associate the rulings to the cards. But it's currently on Jussi's side, I don't know what he is planning for his website.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hosting Secret Library here would be really cool!
> >
> > Jussi is not doing anything with Secret Library.
> > Well development wise.
> >
> > He is wrapping it up and selling it (announced in... Facebook (?) ) a month or two ago.
> > Apparently you didn't see it?
> >
> No, I've just heard that he was discontinuing it. Could you post the FB link?
>
www.facebook.com/secretlibrary/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARAqj1fumDhGQFBK3d17XaZnIVHiM4bKsxO2hFbvgf6js1IpqZPr4arSBOLLCG1_zwL4b9KY67fBaezb
Note: search facebook for "secret library" and you get the message if above link doesn't work
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I know that the original topic of this post was a different one, but what about the Secret Library now? Has there been some kind of negotiation with Jussi, or will just cease to exist?
Thanks in advance!
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
A new topic can be made for Secret Library discussion.
"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