Can Taste of Vitae be played after superior Telepathic Tracking has been played?
Can superior Telepathic Tracking be played before Taste of Vitae is played?
I'm inclined to say no, TT is played when "combat would end" which is after the window of ToV which is "at the end of a round of combat." i.e. ToV´s window has passed when TT can be played. Also TT´s effect resolves immediately and thereby moves the combat to "Round Begins" of a new round.
I would say that TT cannot be played before ToV because the "timing window" for them is different and the time window to play ToV comes before the time window of TT.
"Only usable at the end of a round of combat." (Step E) != "Only usable ... combat would end." (Step F)
Old play sequence, which as far as I know still is applicable and is/was relevant when the original ruling was issued.
> II) HOW TO RESOLVE A COMBAT
> A) Round begins.
> B) Determine (set) range
> C) Strike.
> D) Presses.
> E) Round Ends.
> F) Combat Ends.
>
The above would be in contradiction to the ruling [LSJ 20021113] (that is also refrenced by [ANK 20180910] ) which to me seems wrong,
If it isn´t please explain the logic of how it can be considered the "same timing window"?
Taste of Vitae
Cardtype: Combat
Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. A vampire can play only one Taste of Vitae each round.
This vampire gains blood equal to the amount of blood lost by the opposing vampire to damage this round.
Telepathic Tracking
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Auspex
Press, only usable to continue combat. If another round of combat occurs, this vampire gets 1 optional maneuver that round.
Only usable {if} both combatants are still ready and combat would end. {Instead,} start a new round{}.
hm... It's a really good question. I can't find in the rulebook window to play superior Telepathic Tracking or Psyche!
Assuming that Ankha ruling stands... that means that End of Round step is the step you have to play all these cards.
But this is just my educated guess.
Honestly.... I little bit tired that all the rules explanations are somewhat hidden in the obscure google groups from 90x. And like .... always someone answering a rules questions with the link from 20 years ago.
Maybe VTES needs something like a gatherer website in mtg? I know that a codex site is trying to do the same but, looks like it needs to have more content.
Very complicated,but answer is yes,you can play TT before of after ToV.
By ruling from 2018 Taste of Vitae / Disarm / Psyche / Telepathic Tracking you can play by any order,2021 ruling is changed to you cannot play Psyche before Telepathic Tracking.
But maybe is also something changed after 2021 year.
will put you 2 links here,you can read discusion:
www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76990-correct-order-impulse-for-combat-cards-after-combat?start=0
www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/78241-relentless-reaper-vs-blissful-agony-and-scheduled-combat-rulings-ambiguity?start=0
> Legion wrote:
> Maybe VTES needs something like a gatherer website in mtg? I know that a codex site is trying to do the same but, looks like it needs to have more content.
>
I do agree, and this is exactly why I started the rulings thing on the Codex. I'm always up for new content and contributions are welcome. This is an open-source project. Please reach out if you have any idea on improvements: here, on the GitHub page of the Codex project , or on the official Discord server.
Cheers!
> beslin wrote:
> Very complicated,but answer is yes,you can play TT before of after ToV.
> By ruling from 2018 Taste of Vitae / Disarm / Psyche / Telepathic Tracking you can play by any order,2021 ruling is changed to you cannot play Psyche before Telepathic Tracking.
> But maybe is also something changed after 2021 year.
> will put you 2 links here,you can read discusion:
> www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76990-correct-order-impulse-for-combat-cards-after-combat?start=0
>
> www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/78241-relentless-reaper-vs-blissful-agony-and-scheduled-combat-rulings-ambiguity?start=0
>
Thanks for sharing the links, I did read those threads and are actually linked in my initial post.
None of those explain how or why they are considered to be the same timing-window, which is what i am questioning/asking to be explained.
> inm8 wrote:
> Can Taste of Vitae be played after superior Telepathic Tracking has been played?
>
> Can superior Telepathic Tracking be played before Taste of Vitae is played?
>
Both are the same question. And the answer was already provided ("yes").
> inm8 wrote:
> If it isn´t please explain the logic of how it can be considered the "same timing window"?
>
The press step determines if another round of combat would occur, or if the combat would end.
Once the press step is over, we get that piece of information, that is during the "end of round" step (which is the following step).
During the end of round step, you can play Taste of Vitae (cardtext) and/or Telepathic Tracking since the combat "would end" because no other effect makes it continue.
Please note that the new round is queued the same way it would be queued due to an uncancelled press to continue.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> > Can Taste of Vitae be played after superior Telepathic Tracking has been played?
> >
> > Can superior Telepathic Tracking be played before Taste of Vitae is played?
> >
> Both are the same question. And the answer was already provided ("yes").
>
You are right, they are the same....haha...I messed up one of the questions...it was to be the opposite order of course
It should have said:
Can superior Telepathic Tracking be played after Taste of Vitae has been played?
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> > If it isn´t please explain the logic of how it can be considered the "same timing window"?
> >
> The press step determines if another round of combat would occur, or if the combat would end.
> Once the press step is over, we get that piece of information, that is during the "end of round" step (which is the following step).
>
> During the end of round step, you can play Taste of Vitae (cardtext) and/or Telepathic Tracking since the combat "would end" because no other effect makes it continue.
> Please note that the new round is queued the same way it would be queued due to an uncancelled press to continue.
>
The way I´m reading the text of TT (note that English isn´t my native language)
Only usable if both combatants are still ready and combat would end. Instead, start a new round.
the text portion "combat would end" refers to the event of the combat ending and not to the point in time when the conclusion of whether the combat will continue or not is reached.
The reason for me reading it as per above is because normally all card effects are to be resolved immediately with the exception of actions, strikes, and effects that explicitly state a delay or when it resolves... which the text of TT doesn´t do...the text portion "Instead, start a new round." is a replacement effect which to me only seems natural and logical if resolving immediately that one would be in/at the "Combat Ends" step replacing it with "starting a new round instead".
Another reason for my reasoning is that the word "would" at times is used when being at the step as an interruption...I'm thinking of Left for Dead "Only usable when an ally would be burned in combat." which if I'm not mistaken the "burning" is supposed to be the immediate result (that is interrupted) when taking an ally to zero life
Similarly, Spying Mission,
The text of Left for Dead used to be "as an ally is burned", and the rewording to "would be burned" resulted in the timing of it being moved to be slightly earlier to not be able to trigger both it and FBI.
Psyche! is a confusing one as it is both "at the end of a round" and "combat is about to end", at least both of them are after "would end" placing Telepathic Tracking as ruled before it
The above is what makes me think that "would" comes before "is about to" which comes before "at the end" and clearly "Round Ends" is before "Combat Ends"
Please explain how come there is a difference made when it comes to "would end" and "is about to end" (TT vs Psyche!) but not between "would end" and "at the end" (TT vs ToV)?
Left for Dead
Cardtype: Master
Master: out-of-turn.
Only usable when an ally would be burned in combat. Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned. Put 1 life on the ally from the blood bank if he or she has no life. Lock the ally. This ally does not unlock as normal. If he or she enters combat, he or she is burned. Burn this card during his or her next unlock phase.
Spying Mission
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Obfuscate
+1 stealth.
Only usable if a bleed would be successful. Instead, the bleed burns no pool, is unsuccessful, and this card is put on this vampire. The next time this vampire is about to successfully bleed the same Methuselah, burn this card and this vampire gets +2 bleed.
Psyche!
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Celerity
Press.
Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. After this round, begin another combat with the opposing minion.
> inm8 wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > inm8 wrote:
> > > Can Taste of Vitae be played after superior Telepathic Tracking has been played?
> > >
> > > Can superior Telepathic Tracking be played before Taste of Vitae is played?
> > >
> > Both are the same question. And the answer was already provided ("yes").
> >
> You are right, they are the same....haha...I messed up one of the questions...it was to be the opposite order of course
>
> It should have said:
> Can superior Telepathic Tracking be played after Taste of Vitae has been played?
>
Yes.
> inm8 wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > inm8 wrote:
> > > If it isn´t please explain the logic of how it can be considered the "same timing window"?
> > >
> > The press step determines if another round of combat would occur, or if the combat would end.
> > Once the press step is over, we get that piece of information, that is during the "end of round" step (which is the following step).
> >
> > During the end of round step, you can play Taste of Vitae (cardtext) and/or Telepathic Tracking since the combat "would end" because no other effect makes it continue.
> > Please note that the new round is queued the same way it would be queued due to an uncancelled press to continue.
> >
> The way I´m reading the text of TT (note that English isn´t my native language)
>
> Only usable if both combatants are still ready and combat would end. Instead, start a new round.
>
> the text portion "combat would end" refers to the event of the combat ending and not to the point in time when the conclusion of whether the combat will continue or not is reached.
>
Ask yourself: "would the combat end now that noone presses to continue?" since the answer is "yes", you can play TT.
> inm8 wrote:
> The reason for me reading it as per above is because normally all card effects are to be resolved immediately with the exception of actions, strikes, and effects that explicitly state a delay or when it resolves... which the text of TT doesn´t do...the text portion "Instead, start a new round." is a replacement effect which to me only seems natural and logical if resolving immediately that one would be in/at the "Combat Ends" step replacing it with "starting a new round instead".
>
I agree it can be disturbing since the card resolves immediately by "queing" a new round. I pondered using "queue a new round instead", but it would mean introducing a new term in the rulebook ("queuing rounds / queuing combats"). But maybe it would be better.
> inm8 wrote:
> Another reason for my reasoning is that the word "would" at times is used when being at the step as an interruption...I'm thinking of Left for Dead "Only usable when an ally would be burned in combat." which if I'm not mistaken the "burning" is supposed to be the immediate result (that is interrupted) when taking an ally to zero life
>
"would... instead" denotes only a replacement effect, it's not necessarily interrupting anything (eg., Visit from the Capuchin "Each time you would replace a card other than this card, instead burn 1 counter from this card.")
> inm8 wrote:
> The above is what makes me think that "would" comes before "is about to"
>
Correct. "is about to" applies to effect that are no longer subject to replacement effects (because everyone declined to play such an effect).
That is why TT must be played first, and if not, Psyche! can be played (because the combat is effectively going to end).
> inm8 wrote:
> which comes before "at the end" and clearly "Round Ends" is before "Combat Ends"
>
The "end of round" is the name of a combat step, it could be called "gong" or anything else that does not contain the word "end".
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Ask yourself: "would the combat end now that noone presses to continue?" since the answer is "yes", you can play TT.
>
A problem is that the rules don't explicitly define when does the transition occur. If its not clearly defined, people get differing ideas and play according to them. It is natural to think (in my opinion) that if both players have declined a press to continue, then we move to next stage, the end of combat. This is however not defined in the rulebook.
Some players have had different ideas and think that they can still play cards in that step even if both players have already passed.There was argument the past week on discord about this. There are also the tricky cards that let players act on a different players turn ( madness network, enkil cog, etc)
My point; things like this need to be clearly defined in the rules, because one players "obvious" is different from another player's.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Ask yourself: "would the combat end now that noone presses to continue?" since the answer is "yes", you can play TT.
> >
> A problem is that the rules don't explicitly define when does the transition occur. If its not clearly defined, people get differing ideas and play according to them. It is natural to think (in my opinion) that if both players have declined a press to continue, then we move to next stage, the end of combat. This is however not defined in the rulebook.
>
Indeed, the rulebook says that the next step is "end of round", not "end of combat".
I don't know if it seems natural, but the rulebook is pretty clear on that point.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Some players have had different ideas and think that they can still play cards in that step even if both players have already passed.
>
Which step? "end of combat" step does not exist. During the "end of round", players can play cards according to the impulse rule.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> There was argument the past week on discord about this. There are also the tricky cards that let players act on a different players turn ( madness network, enkil cog, etc)
>
Those have nothing to do with combat, I sense confusion here about the impulse, not the end of round step.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> My point; things like this need to be clearly defined in the rules, because one players "obvious" is different from another player's.
>
The rulebook is quite clear about the steps.
Perhaps a paragraph about "starting a new round/combat" could be helpful.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Ask yourself: "would the combat end now that noone presses to continue?" since the answer is "yes", you can play TT.
> >
> A problem is that the rules don't explicitly define when does the transition occur. If its not clearly defined, people get differing ideas and play according to them. It is natural to think (in my opinion) that if both players have declined a press to continue, then we move to next stage, the end of combat. This is however not defined in the rulebook.
>
> Some players have had different ideas and think that they can still play cards in that step even if both players have already passed.There was argument the past week on discord about this. There are also the tricky cards that let players act on a different players turn ( madness network, enkil cog, etc)
>
> My point; things like this need to be clearly defined in the rules, because one players "obvious" is different from another player's.
>
Seems to be a different topic about the fact that some people incorrectly think that the acting player is the one that decides when things move on to the next step e.g. that the acting player has to say the press step is over even though both players passed consecutively...which is wrong
Wouldn´t hurt if the rulebook did a better job in explaining how the priority/impulse system works.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > inm8 wrote:
> > > > If it isn´t please explain the logic of how it can be considered the "same timing window"?
> > > >
> > > The press step determines if another round of combat would occur, or if the combat would end.
> > > Once the press step is over, we get that piece of information, that is during the "end of round" step (which is the following step).
> > >
> > > During the end of round step, you can play Taste of Vitae (cardtext) and/or Telepathic Tracking since the combat "would end" because no other effect makes it continue.
> > > Please note that the new round is queued the same way it would be queued due to an uncancelled press to continue.
> > >
> > >
> > The way I´m reading the text of TT (note that English isn´t my native language)
> >
> > Only usable if both combatants are still ready and combat would end. Instead, start a new round.
> >
> > the text portion "combat would end" refers to the event of the combat ending and not to the point in time when the conclusion of whether the combat will continue or not is reached.
> >
> Ask yourself: "would the combat end now that noone presses to continue?" since the answer is "yes", you can play TT.
>
Thanks for explaining, I think I understand now.
All cards/effects in a combat are played/triggered in a given round of combat, this means that the latest one can play cards/trigger effects in a given round of combat is at the step "End of Round" aka "Round Ends" (per the play summary)...
In turn, the above leads to that "combat would end" is at the "End of Round" step and cannot be referring to the step "Combat Ends" (which isn´t mentioned in the rulebook but is there in the play summary).
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> > The reason for me reading it as per above is because normally all card effects are to be resolved immediately with the exception of actions, strikes, and effects that explicitly state a delay or when it resolves... which the text of TT doesn´t do...the text portion "Instead, start a new round." is a replacement effect which to me only seems natural and logical if resolving immediately that one would be in/at the "Combat Ends" step replacing it with "starting a new round instead".
> >
> I agree it can be disturbing since the card resolves immediately by "queing" a new round. I pondered using "queue a new round instead", but it would mean introducing a new term in the rulebook ("queuing rounds / queuing combats"). But maybe it would be better.
>
No, it wouldn´t be better to introduce new terms....though I don´t think that the wording "Instead, start a new round." is clear about it queueing up/delaying the effect.
I propose to word it similar to Psyche! (e.g. below, it's a combo of Psyche! and the rulebook wording)
> Only usable if both combatants are still ready and combat would end. After this round, another round of combat begins.
>
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> > which comes before "at the end" and clearly "Round Ends" is before "Combat Ends"
> >
> The "end of round" is the name of a combat step, it could be called "gong" or anything else that does not contain the word "end".
>
The steps are clear as defined in the latest rulebook. When I wrote "Round Ends" and "Combat Ends" I was referring to the steps defined in the play summary...doesn´t matter now as I understand the logic and the basis for the rulings.