Hello friends!
there has been some discussion lately on eternals of sirius, specifically about the wording on the ruling.
'Pay the cost at the same time you gain pool from it, you do not get ousted in between'.
I asked about this on discord and have been told that you need to have at least 4 pool to play this, because you can't take on 'debt' and because when you play a card you must be able to pay its cost,
but this isnt what the ruling says at all.
Should this particular ruling be clarified so that people don't play this wrong in the future? I ask because I played on a tournament recently and my prey asked if he could play Eternals on 3 pool, we looked at the ruling and decided that he could, because the card specifically says 'you do not get ousted in between'.
Thanks for the help!
The Eternals of Sirius
Type
Master
Cost
4 Pool
Card Text
Gain 5 pool if you control a ready Follower of Set, or add 5 blood to a Follower of Set with capacity 9 or more in your uncontrolled region.
Rulings
- Pay the cost at the same time you gain pool from it, you do not get ousted in between. [LSJ 20020620] [LSJ 20080612]
Lasombra Archbishop of São José, SC, Brazil.
From the ruleboook (section requirement for playing cards): Only a Methuselah with enough pool can play a card with a pool cost.
So you in fact can't play a card that costs pool, if you don't have enough pool to pay the costs. Therefore at 3 Pool, you can't play Eternals of Sirius. The ruling applies only to the case in which you have exactly 4 Pool.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
The ground rule for being able to play a card/take an action is that you satisfy all requirements and are able to pay its cost in full which isn't overruled by the rulings mentioned. In fact the rulings only clarifies wether or not one is allowed to play a card/event that would take one down to 0 pool when paying its cost (without ousting the player) if it in the same time would gain you pool resulting in one having 1+ pool at the end....and the answer is yes.
No clarification needed i would say....mistake was to assume this ruling overrules also the ground rule for playing cards/actions.
Yomyael you were faster than me I was typing this before i saw your reply
Master card is resolved when you play it,so if you have 4 pool you can play it. rule is here: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/78418-resolution-paying-master-cards#98882
Hello friends, this is the first time I speak here on the forum I hope you have patience!
This doubt has been present for a few weeks and is giving something to talk about, because two sides are based on LSJ speeches saying it can play and that it applies to Eternal of Sirius and others saying it can't, all this mess in the same rulling!
Rulling:
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/WoXWzLYaFSY/m/ug3CHnpMCUQJ
LSJ Part 1:
> If a single master card (or, I suppose, other) "event" both
> costs you and gains you pool, will you be ousted if the cost
> would bring you to 0 pool?
Sure. For instance, you could play hypothetical card
Big Ascendance - Master - 35 pool - Gain 40 pool
if you had only 35 pool (and stay in the game).
>eg: You're at one pool. You play Minion Tap for 5 on a
> vampire you control, who has Secure Haven on him. So, it
> costs 1 additional pool (=1) to play the Minion Tap, but
> you'll gain pool in the same "event". Do you live? I'd
> think yes, by analogy to Ancient Influence, which makes
> everyone lose 5 pool as well as gain X pool, but I'm not
> sure.
Sure.
LSJ Part 2:
> What about Huitzilopochtli's ability? If you pay your last
> pool to gain an additional master phase action, do you get
> to play that master card before being ousted (thus allowing
> you to gain pool for a Minion Tap) or will it be too late?
> I think in this case it's too late, since it looks like
> Huitzilopochtli's ability gains you a master phase action
> "to be used later", so it's not all one "event".
Correct, it's "too late".
I would like to ask your help mainly from the current Vtes Rulemaker to give a verdict!
I can understand that the answer from LSJ (part 1) isn't very straight forward as he answers "..,will you be ousted if the cost would bring you to 0 pool?" with "Sure." but the ambiguity is clarified by his example provided "For instance, you could play hypothetical card Big Ascendance - Master - 35 pool - Gain 40 pool if you had only 35 pool (and stay in the game)."
In regards of LSJ part 2 it doesn't contradict part 1 as it just clarifies that something that would take you to 0 pool and at the same time would provide an additional master phase would oust you and not delay the oust till the additional master phase has been used. Bottom line is that cards/effects that resolve as they are played (master cards, events...) are ok to play even though they take you to 0 pool (because of cost to play, cost being paid in full) as long as they would increase your pool to 1+ at the end and wouldn't mean you are ousted.
I assume Ankha will answer soon to provide you the official confirmation of the ruling still being relevant.
You cannot play Eternals of Sirius if you cannot pay its cost, for instance if you are at 3 pool (Eternals of Sirius costs 4 pool).
You can play Eternals of Sirius if you are at 4 pool: you pay the card and gain the 5 pool at the same time, leaving you alive at 5 pool.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> You cannot play Eternals of Sirius if you cannot pay its cost, for instance if you are at 3 pool (Eternals of Sirius costs 4 pool).
>
If you have 3 pool, and you try to play Eternal of Sirus, could you oust yourself by error or you must rectify?
I see ousted players because these type of errors
"You cannot play" is pretty clear, it means you cannot play the card. If someone plays it by mistake, you have to treat it like any other misplay (eg. playing a card requiring a clan or discipline without the said clan or discipline). You do not oust yourself by mistake playing it that way.
Its not pretty clear for me.
You can not oust yoursel by error in any way, this is true?
Some players wants to oust himself (there are exemples that you can win a tournament if you oust yourself). Could one of these player play Eternal of Sirius if they have less than 4 pool?
Hi,
>
> Ankha wrote:
> You can play Eternals of Sirius if you are at 4 pool: you pay the card and gain the 5 pool at the same time, leaving you alive at 5 pool.
>
I understand that if you have less than the master pool cost, you cannot play it.
If you can affort the the master pool cost, you can play it and assume the consecuences.
=> If you have 4 pool and decided to get 5 pool from Eternal of Sirius, you have now 5 pool
=> if you have 4 pool and decided to put 5 blood from Eternal of Sirius on an uncontrolled vampire, you are ousted. I would think it is the same as playing Zillah's Valley if you have only 5 pool .
Regards,
Rémi.
I am Rémi Cavaillé (), Barcelona (Spain). I was the Prince of Lyon (France) around 2003. I am now Official Judge and the 5th Prince of Barcelona.
Enjoy VTES, Marvel Champions, L5R and more gaming activities in Khan Jugar:
sites.google.com/view/khanjugar/
You can oust yourself by mistake, for example with being at 1 Pool and trying to equip a Sport Bike.
However, what you cannot do is play a card, when you can't pay the cost of a card. At 4 Pool, you can play Eternals of sirius, which wouldn't oust you. At 3 Pool, the rules forbid you from playing the card at all. That is the reason why the action of playing Eternals of sirius at 3 or less pool has to be rolled back in the game, because you are not allowed to play the card. Nothing of this has to do with "accidentally ousting yourself". You can accidentally oust yourself, but only if you can pay the full cost of the card at the time you played it.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Glinlos wrote:
> Its not pretty clear for me.
> You can not oust yoursel by error in any way, this is true?
> Some players wants to oust himself (there are exemples that you can win a tournament if you oust yourself). Could one of these player play Eternal of Sirius if they have less than 4 pool?
>
There's a difference between ousting yourself by error according to the rules of the game AND ousting yourself by error by not following the rules of the game. Hence the statement that one cannot oust themself by error in an way is one that cannot be answered with blank statement. We first need to determine if the error is "oops, I had one pool and played DI" or if it's "oops, I forgot how the rules work and made illegal play."
It becomes very clear when you consider if there is a specific rule that allows you to attempt something you cannot do?
Can you attempt to play +bleed on non bleed action?
Can you attempt to oust yourself with 5 transfers when you only have 4 transfers?
Can you do thing x that you cannot do to gain game benefit?Rulebook is clear when it comes to cost and playing cards, and LSJ in the past has said quite clearly on attempting something that is not possible, and I quote both below;
>
> 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.
>
4 is enough, 3 is not. In tournament settings if it's intentional with aim to cheat, aka claiming 3 pool is enough to play eternals of sirius and knowing the difference would net tournament advantage;
>
> 163. Cheating - FraudDefinition:A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information.Example:A player uses a fake name and V:EKN number when registering for a tournament.Philosophy:There should be zero tolerance for this type of activity.Penalty:Disqualification without Prize.
>
and if unintentional, aka they have not in the past asked a question relating to the matter in VEKN forum, have not discussed it and are complete newb to how pool costs work, or forget that the cost is 4, assume it is 3, have 3 pool and declare it for 3;
>
> 114. Procedural Error - MisrepresentationDefinition:A player is considered to have committed this infraction when he or she unintentionally misplayed a card or a game rule.Example:(A) A player attempts to play Dread Gaze on a referendum that one of his vampires called.(B) A player attempts to play Frenzy during his own turn.(C) A player plays Art Museum when she doesn't have any ready Toreador.Philosophy:This penalty assumes an unintentional action on behalf of the player. If the judge believes the misrepresentation was intentional, see section 160 - Cheating.Penalty:Caution.
>
Oh and the LSJ quote on whether or not one can attempt something they cannot do;
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/cHdOwueG71I/m/BTBYvTZhrAUJ
>
> On Aug 23, 9:44 am, Sim < > wrote:
> > Hmmmm, I don't agree with this. I don't see why you can't do this
> > action knowing it will very likely fail.Because you can't attempt something you cannot do.
>
I recommend reading that LSJ topic, it's related to attempting illegal action where one does not meet all the requirements for it. Or consider it like this, if we allowed things that cannot be done, to be attempted in VTES, what's there to prevent me from "attempting" to move pool counters from blood bank to my pool, and have it be perfectly valid play as long as nobody catches me on it? Or other way around if it's matter of getting ousted faster. If attempting something that cannot be done would somehow be allowed, why bother with playing Eternals, why not just move the counters from your pool to blood bank on the sly?
I hope with those you can clear the situation and hopefully it will be clear to you as well.
TL:DR Rules say you cannot play cards you cannot pay the cost for, therefore you cannot even attempt to play them as otherwise you're breaking the rules saying you cannot play the cards you cannot pay the cost for.
TL:DR of the TL:DR You cannot attempt what you cannot do.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.