I read and have a question
"
Requirements for Playing Cards (p. 7)
Unless explicitly stated, costs you pay must be paid with resources you control: your pool, blood on vampires you control, cards in your ash heap, etc. For instance, you cannot play Enticement if you do not control the Edge, since you must burn it as part of its cost."
If "burn Edge to" is part of cost Enticement, "burn blood to" is part of cost of Form of Mist or Army of Apparition and can be reduced by Paths?
No because is not a card cost. its a part of card effect(effect cost). Paths can only reduce cards cost and its represented as a blood drop icon on the card, everything else is not considered a card cost.
Edit. I meant card cost
I think it is a cost. But it’s not the cost of the card, it’s the cost of an effect so is not reduced by paths. See maybe this ruling:
> >Is the 2 blood the cost for playing superior Shadow Step? If so, can
> >it be reduced by the Citadel or ignored by Dragos? If not, can a vampire
> >with 0 blood use the effect (ignoring burn blood effects past his current
> >blood supply?)
>
> No. It is the cost for setting the range. Shadow Step (superior) merely
> grants the vampire the (mandatory) ability to use that effect. The cost
> cannot be reduced by the Citadel nor ignored by Dragos, since it is not
> the cost of playing a card. A vampire with zero blood cannot pay the cost,
> so cannot set the range.
>
[LSJ 19970224](groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/80KRDjVFkyg/TBJso9Ra_9QJ)
Where it the rules is stated that while "burn edge to..." is cost, "burn blood to..." is not?
Actually ...
"A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn)."
...so it is stated in the rulebook that cost="burn blood".
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> Where it the rules is stated that while "burn edge to..." is cost, "burn blood to..." is not?
>
> Actually ...
>
> "A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn)."
>
> ...so it is stated in the rulebook that cost="burn blood".
>
"A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn). Only a vampire with enough blood on them can play a card with a blood cost"
Rulebook states that card cost is represent by a blood icon. Burning blood is an means(effect) of paying cost and not the cost itself. Anything else is not considered a card cost.
There is a difference in VTES between a cost of an effect and cost of playing a card.
- You can't play a card if you can't pay a card cost
- You can play a card if you can pay a card cost and you are not able to pay an effect cost. In this case the part of an effect that is price gated will not trigger
Paths refer to card cost not effect cost
@lip I should have clarified, I meant card cost in my previous post.
> Kirill wrote:
> So cost = "burn blood" => Paths works?
>
No,on "burn blood" efect Paths doesnt work,but you must have 2 blood to play Army of Apparitions superior.
Path work only on pay card,if card cost. Army of Apparitions superior is not cost,is just burn blod to card take efect
> lip wrote:
> I think it is a cost. But it’s not the cost of the card, it’s the cost of an effect so is not reduced by paths. See maybe this ruling:
>
> > >Is the 2 blood the cost for playing superior Shadow Step? If so, can
> > >it be reduced by the Citadel or ignored by Dragos? If not, can a vampire
> > >with 0 blood use the effect (ignoring burn blood effects past his current
> > >blood supply?)
> >
> > No. It is the cost for setting the range. Shadow Step (superior) merely
> > grants the vampire the (mandatory) ability to use that effect. The cost
> > cannot be reduced by the Citadel nor ignored by Dragos, since it is not
> > the cost of playing a card. A vampire with zero blood cannot pay the cost,
> > so cannot set the range.
> >
> [LSJ 19970224](groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/80KRDjVFkyg/TBJso9Ra_9QJ)
>
Correct.
> elotar wrote:
> Where it the rules is stated that while "burn edge to..." is cost, "burn blood to..." is not?
>
> Actually ...
>
> "A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn)."
>
> ...so it is stated in the rulebook that cost="burn blood".
>
No, there are not equivalent. Paying the cost of a card in blood implies burning blood, but burning blood does not imply paying the cost of a card (in this case, you are paying the cost of an effect).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Tadori wrote:
> - You can't play a card if you can't pay a card cost
> - You can play a card if you can pay a card cost and you are not able to pay an effect cost. In this case the part of an effect that is price gated will not trigger
>
I think the latter is wrong.
For example, a vampire with 1 or 0 blood will not be allowed to play a superior army of apparition for no effect because the "target" (here the vampire playing the card) will not be eligible for the effect.
It is different for Form of mist superior because there is 2 different effect for the card, the first one being S: CE with no cost and the second being "burn 1 blood to" so a vampire with no blood will be allowed to play FoM at superior and would be stuck after the first step but would still have played the first one.
> Timo wrote:
>
> > Tadori wrote:
> > - You can't play a card if you can't pay a card cost
> > - You can play a card if you can pay a card cost and you are not able to pay an effect cost. In this case the part of an effect that is price gated will not trigger
> >
> I think the latter is wrong.
>
> For example, a vampire with 1 or 0 blood will not be allowed to play a superior army of apparition for no effect because the "target" (here the vampire playing the card) will not be eligible for the effect.
>
> It is different for Form of mist superior because there is 2 different effect for the card, the first one being S: CE with no cost and the second being "burn 1 blood to" so a vampire with no blood will be allowed to play FoM at superior and would be stuck after the first step but would still have played the first one.
>
If you have 1 or 0 blood you can play army of apparition because this card has card cost = 0.
However you can do that only on basic, becsoue it has also 0 effect cost.Superior has an effect cost of 2 blood. You are not able to pay it so you can't choose this option as a legal effect. Because cost rules are the same for card and effect cost, if you are not able to pay it action/effect is not a legal play. So if you cant pay 2 blood you can't trigger the effect of superior therefore it's not a legal play
So may statement that you can play a card if you can pay a card cost and you can't afford one of the effect costs is correct. I should have specified what is happening if you are not able to pay the effect cost more sorry.
Playing card sequence is:
1. announce a card play
2. pay card cost. You have to always pay the card cost to even consider any effect of the card. If you can't pay the card cost its not a legal play
3. chose its effect (you can't choose an effect you can't afford or you don't meet other requirements). If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
4. pay effect cost
5.resolve.
Do you have any ruling supporting this « can play the card if you don’t have the blood to burn for the effect » thing? That would help make your point plus I could add it to the codex on the relevant cards.
> lip wrote:
> Do you have any ruling supporting this « can play the card if you don’t have the blood to burn for the effect » thing? That would help make your point plus I could add it to the codex on the relevant cards.
>
Also it seems wrong, but I'm not sure what Tadori is talking about.
> Tadori wrote:
> Playing card sequence is:
>
> 1. announce a card play
> 2. pay card cost. You have to always pay the card cost to even consider any effect of the card. If you can't pay the card cost its not a legal play
> 3. chose its effect (you can't choose an effect you can't afford or you don't meet other requirements). If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
> 4. pay effect cost
> 5.resolve.
>
I don't know where this comes from, but step 3/ should merged with step 1. And the "pay effect" cost (step 4) seems wrong, since it would be part (if I understand correctly what you mean by "effect cost") of the resolution.
www.vekn.net/rulebook
Playing a Card
A card is played by announcing its effects, showing the card and placing it from the hand in the ash heap. Sometimes a card will state to put it into play, you should announce its effects and place the card in the play area.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > lip wrote:
> > Do you have any ruling supporting this « can play the card if you don’t have the blood to burn for the effect » thing? That would help make your point plus I could add it to the codex on the relevant cards.
> >
> Also it seems wrong, but I'm not sure what Tadori is talking about.
>
> > Tadori wrote:
> > Playing card sequence is:
> >
> > 1. announce a card play
> > 2. pay card cost. You have to always pay the card cost to even consider any effect of the card. If you can't pay the card cost its not a legal play
> > 3. chose its effect (you can't choose an effect you can't afford or you don't meet other requirements). If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
> > 4. pay effect cost
> > 5.resolve.
> >
> I don't know where this comes from, but step 3/ should merged with step 1. And the "pay effect" cost (step 4) seems wrong, since it would be part (if I understand correctly what you mean by "effect cost") of the resolution.
>
> www.vekn.net/rulebook
>
> Playing a Card
>
> A card is played by announcing its effects, showing the card and placing it from the hand in the ash heap. Sometimes a card will state to put it into play, you should announce its effects and place the card in the play area.
>
@Ankha Ok I understand what You are seeing so it should be like this:
1. announce a card play and chose its effect. If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
2. pay card cost
3 relsove
In this case step 1 only chcek legality by blood icon and desciplins icons on the right side of the cards acc. to the rulebook:
"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."
"A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn). Only a vampire with enough blood on them can play a card with a blood cost. A number in a white diamond with a skull represents pool cost (the amount of pool the Methuselah must burn). Only a Methuselah with enough pool can play a card with a pool cost."
if there is no step 4:
So any cost included in text should not have an impact on legality of play because it's part of effect that resolves. So in this case you would be able to play for example shadow step on superior with 1 blood for example, besocue you meet all of requirements. Then in resolution you burn this blood with no card effect because you can't play full cost. However LSJ siad:
"Superior Shadow Step has no cost. The two blood is the cost of using the range-setting effect. It cannot be ignored by Dragos, nor used by a vampire with less than two blood. [LSJ 19970224]"
Also how Anrach cards work then. because acc. to the rulebook they have no requirement to play(nessery disciplins are not on the marble stripe on the left side ) and ability icon check is part of resolution so you should be able to play them without effect if you don't have this discipline.
When you play a card, you should announce its full effects such as additional cost (like "burn 2 blood to" or "lock to") or additional requirement (like "camarilla", "prince or justicar" or "anarch") and if the additional costs or additional requirement or not possible when you play the card, you just can't play it. Not at all.
> Timo wrote:
> When you play a card, you should announce its full effects such as additional cost (like "burn 2 blood to" or "lock to") or additional requirement (like "camarilla", "prince or justicar" or "anarch") and if the additional costs or additional requirement or not possible when you play the card, you just can't play it. Not at all.
>
yes you have to but acc. to the rulebook There are only two requirement to legally play a card (cost and icons on the left) + texts that say it required to play it on the card. "Burn 2" blood is a part of the effect acc to what Ankha said and what is in the rulebook its not a requirement or a cost because it's part of an effect.
the same goes with multi discipline anarch cards only requirement that have is the text were require an anarch because discipline requirement should be on the left acc. to the rule book and there is none on this cards (guardian vigily for example)
Dont get me wrong I understand perfectly how it should work and was intended to work. I just think The rulebook is lacking in this department and we are missing this kind of deep explanations.
If you use this schematic
1. announce a card play and chose its effect. If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
2. pay card cost
3 relsove
and say that the text of an effect has impact on card cost its fundamental wrong. Because effect that did not trigger cannot affect the requirement to play the card, it doesn't exist yet. To trigger an effect you have to play the card first( pay the cost).
> Tadori wrote:
> "Superior Shadow Step has no cost. The two blood is the cost of using the range-setting effect. It cannot be ignored by Dragos, nor used by a vampire with less than two blood. [LSJ 19970224]"
>
Tadori, you are misquoting the ruling. This is [LSJ 19970224] :
> > Is the 2 blood the cost for playing superior Shadow Step? If so, can it be reduced by the Citadel or ignored by Dragos? If not, can a vampire with 0 blood use the effect (ignoring burn blood effects past his current blood supply?)
> >
> No. It is the cost for setting the range. Shadow Step (superior) merely
> grants the vampire the (mandatory) ability to use that effect. The cost
> cannot be reduced by the Citadel nor ignored by Dragos, since it is not
> the cost of playing a card. A vampire with zero blood cannot pay the cost,
> so cannot set the range.
>
LSJ never ruled you can't play it if you don't have the blood.
My Eng is bad but I think this is very strange wording. In new Errata from BC I see "must burn it as part of its cost". Part of "effect cost" aka 1 part from 1? Or part of new term "summary cost"? Or cost as study of playing card? Maybe add this terms to rulebook or edit the Errata?
> Tadori wrote:
> "Superior Shadow Step has no cost. The two blood is the cost of using the range-setting effect. It cannot be ignored by Dragos, nor used by a vampire with less than two blood. [LSJ 19970224]"
>
Tadori, you are misquoting the ruling. This is [LSJ 19970224] :
>
> > Is the 2 blood the cost for playing superior Shadow Step? If so, can it be reduced by the Citadel or ignored by Dragos? If not, can a vampire with 0 blood use the effect (ignoring burn blood effects past his current blood supply?)
> >
> No. It is the cost for setting the range. Shadow Step (superior) merely
> grants the vampire the (mandatory) ability to use that effect. The cost
> cannot be reduced by the Citadel nor ignored by Dragos, since it is not
> the cost of playing a card. A vampire with zero blood cannot pay the cost,
> so cannot set the range.
>
> LSJ never ruled you can't play it if you don't have the blood.
>
Thank you Lip I totally was misled by the summary tekst on site saying "nor used by a vampire with less than two blood". Your are right.
> Kirill wrote:
> www.blackchantry.com/page/5/
>
Link to the same as the above but with a more static link (if anyone wants to read it in the future)
www.blackchantry.com/2020/12/25/
I have been reading this thread and in regards to the original question i believe it has been answered, the Path´s kind of cards (reducing cards blood cost) only apply to the card costs which is shown as a number in a red "blood" drop on the attribute bar on the left. side of the card.
It now seems focus have turned to a second question (perhaps it should be in its own thread) of whether cards can be played or not when not being able to pay the cost of the effect to among other things possibly try to cycle cards. I don´t have a ruling I can link to but my understanding is that besides the requirements of playing a card one must be able to actually execute the effect intended at the time of playing it ...meaning that as much as for example a target of a card/effect must be valid to be able to play the card/effect, the ability to pay the cost of the effect also must be possible... a card/effect can´t by its own effect be played with the intent to make it fizzle, that would only be the result because of other cards/effects changing the state of things... like not having a valid target anymore.
My understanding when it comes to blood cost is that only Actions have a delayed payment of cost that only is paid upon a successful action and that the cost of the action is the sum of the cost of the card plus the cost of the effect played which is paid all at the same time as a single payment.
> inm8 wrote:
> I have been reading this thread and in regards to the original question i believe it has been answered, the Path´s kind of cards (reducing cards blood cost) only apply to the card costs which is shown as a number in a red "blood" drop on the attribute bar on the left. side of the card.
>
Correct.
Card cost refers only to the cost printed in the lower left corner. These can be reduced by a Path for instance.
"Burn X blood to " is a "do X to Y" effect that involves burning blood to produce an effect. Those are not considered to be card costs and cannot be reduced.
I was ambiguous when I wrote (www.blackchantry.com/2020/12/25/)
> Requirements for Playing Cards (p. 7)
> Unless explicitly stated, costs you pay must be paid with resources you control: your pool, blood on vampires you control, cards in your ash heap, etc. For instance, you cannot play Enticement if you do not control the Edge, since you must burn it as part of its cost.
>
It should read "as part of its 'burn the Edge to...' effect".
"costs you pay must be paid with resources you control" is a valid statement: in order to pay the cost of a "burn the Edge to..." effect, you must control the Edge.
> inm8 wrote:
> It now seems focus have turned to a second question (perhaps it should be in its own thread) of whether cards can be played or not when not being able to pay the cost of the effect to among other things possibly try to cycle cards. I don´t have a ruling I can link to but my understanding is that besides the requirements of playing a card one must be able to actually execute the effect intended at the time of playing it ...meaning that as much as for example a target of a card/effect must be valid to be able to play the card/effect, the ability to pay the cost of the effect also must be possible...
>
Correct. When one plays a card, one must announce all the effects and how costs (whether printed in the lower left corner of the card or otherwise indicated on the card as part of an effect) must be paid.
For instance, it is legal to play an Embrace (costs 2 blood) with a vampire that has only 1 blood if you declare using 1 or 2 blood for a Ravnos Carnival.
A vampire cannot however play a Shadow Step at superior if they don't have 2 blood to burn.
A vampire cannot play Enticement if their controller does not control the Edge.
> inm8 wrote:
> a card/effect can´t by its own effect be played with the intent to make it fizzle, that would only be the result because of other cards/effects changing the state of things... like not having a valid target anymore.
>
Correct.
> inm8 wrote:
> My understanding when it comes to blood cost is that only Actions have a delayed payment of cost that only is paid upon a successful action
>
Correct.
> inm8 wrote:
> and that the cost of the action is the sum of the cost of the card plus the cost of the effect played which is paid all at the same time as a single payment.
>
The sum is not the "cost". The sum is the amount of blood (for instance) that the vampire would burn.
For an action card, the sum is paid when the action resolves successfully.
Some other cards (such as Form of Mist) have a "burn blood to..." effect that is declared (and paid) later.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director