Loquipments rulings and cost reductors

Recently on the Spanish community a question came up that: Can Regina Blake reduce the cost of a Palatial State? There are already rulings that point to the answer being yes, mainly Therbold Realty: "The reduction applies to equipments that are locations (eg. Palatial Estate). url=https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/XpZ6F53jK-c/m/wB6HHGzgFi4J class=""LSJ 20080107[/url" The problem for me comes when British Museum and Danylo/Magic of the Smith gets taken into account. According to the British Museum, you can also reduce the cost of loquipments with it, as they are considered equipments before entering play: "Checks the card type in hand, reduction and unlock apply to equipments that are locations when in play. url=https://www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/79986-the-british-museum-london-and-pier-13-port-of-baltimore?start=6#106118 class=""]ANK 20220824[/url" Getting deeper into rulings, we arrive at this answer: "If her special and TR both > do so, then at the moment the cost is paid loquipment must be both > equipment and location. Yes." groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/XpZ6F53jK-c/m/EQWCLO72MbsJ This means that loquipments are not a location in hand, ar not equipments in play, but for some reason they are both locations and equipments while being payed for it. This ruling isn't based on anything written on the rulebook, cannot be understood by reading the card, and therefore will not be understood by anyone unless we find a comment by LSJ on 2008 on a google forum. Rules that cannot be understood from card text and the rulebook are a bad idea for the game, as it makes it obscure to understand and people just stop trying to understand the game altogeher. As it is right now, all judges will rule these interactions wrong unless they happen to have read a relating LSJ comment. This is not how judges should work, nor how the game should work. So, the real question: is this ruling correct? What is the logic behind it? Is there something in the rulebook that can help us understand and explain this to other players? And, also, seeing that Regina can use her ability on loquipments... can she partially pay the cost of loquipments played by other minions you control? Recently we saw that cards that your minions play are also played by "you", so it would makes sense for her to be able to pay it.

Your post seems broken. Could you please fix it? > > Ratadin wrote: > So, the real question: is this ruling correct? > Which one? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Your post seems broken. Could you please fix it? > > > > Ratadin wrote: > > So, the real question: is this ruling correct? > > > Which one? > This one: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/XpZ6F53jK-c/m/2qcHRJ1UCCMJ V:EKN Website Coordinator

> Damnans wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Your post seems broken. Could you please fix it? > > > > > > > > > Ratadin wrote: > > > So, the real question: is this ruling correct? > > > > > Which one? > > > This one: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/XpZ6F53jK-c/m/2qcHRJ1UCCMJ > Yes, it is correct. You pay cards at the same time you resolve them. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The thing which is strange here is the part where LSJ state that when paying, the card is both an equipment and a location. And he never answer the logic behind this ruling. If you have it, I think we would be happy to understand why. EDITH : > Malone wrote: > > Does Marie Faucigny's special ("Non-weapon equipment cards cost her 1 > > less blood or pool to equip.") reduce the cost of loquipment? I have > > always assumed so, but now I'm not sure. If her special and TR both > > do so, then at the moment the cost is paid loquipment must be both > > equipment and location. > Yes. >

> Timo wrote: > The thing which is strange here is the part where LSJ state that when paying, the card is both an equipment and a location. > > And he never answer the logic behind this ruling. > > If you have it, I think we would be happy to understand why. > Because you pay and resolve at the same time. You pay for an equipment card. The card is a location while in play (as soon as you resolve it). Spoiler alert: it will be clearer soon. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

And as soon as you resolve it, the card stops being an equipment. So if I have a British Museum and a Therebold Realty, can I pay 0 for a Palatial State? Or only 1? If I can pay 0, i do not understand the ruling. The card cannot be a location and an equipment, because the text that makes it a location also unmakes it as an equipment. Card text cannot be resolved partially, it is resolved or it isn't. I could understand that the "resolve and pay is done at the same time" concept, but in the sense that "when effects resolve at the same time, you can order them", so I can pay (as an equipment) and then resolve it (now it is a location), or resolve it (it is now a location and not an equipment) and then pay (as a location), but I do not understand the "I start paying as an equipment, I resolve (now it is a location), I finish paying as a location" idea, nor "I am both resolving and not resolving, and so I am an equipment and a location, pay whatever you want", because that is magic. Now, if this were a Maleficia card, I could get behind it, but houses are not magic. (not trying to be confrontational, this just doesn't make much sense at all).

> Ratadin wrote: > So if I have a British Museum and a Therebold Realty, can I pay 0 for a Palatial State? Or only 1? > It would costs 0. There is a distinction between a) two things happening in the same time window (e.g. The Rack and Army of Rats) and b) two things happening simultaneously (e.g. strike resolution) The resolution and payment of an action falls into b), the loquipment is therefore at a transient state at this stage where it is considered to be both an equipment and a location which makes both the cost affecting effects applicable.

I see what you mean with simultaneous, and I could agree. But the "transient" thing makes little sense both through natural language and the rulebook, and no one could reach that conclusion on their own.

Interesting one here... a diferent point of view: your action is to equip so you must pay for the loquipment cost you won't pay until the action is succesfull, so until then the loquipment remains equipment after you pay for the ation it becomes a location, because if your vampire don't have enough blood the action won't be succesfull and the loquipment won't enter the game. Is this not a better way to describe what happens there so no possible reduction for becoming a Location?

> inm8 wrote: > It would costs 0. > It shouldn't though. Palatial estate is not a location until it is in play, ie. after it has resolved. After it has resolved it has already been paid for. (a card that cannot be paid for cannot resolve). In other words, it is paid before it resolves (ie. before it is a location) and thus should not get discount from Therbold realty. In my eyes, this is relatively straightforward and logical. However, rules are too often applied in an illogical way because there exists a desire to have a card function in a specific, traditional way that is in contradiction with rules. This is something that we should strive to get rid of. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech