Can I cancel
Rötschreck
Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy.
Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is locked and sent to torpor. This vampire does not unlock as normal. During this vampire's next unlock phase, burn this card
With this effect of Meditative Grove?
Meditative Grove
Unique location. Hunting ground.
During your unlock phase, a ready Salubri you control can gain 1 blood. You can lock this card to cancel a frenzy card as it is played on a Salubri you control (cost is still paid). A vampire can gain blood from only one hunting ground each turn.
Can i Cancel Rötschreck with Bollix?
Bollix
Requires an Anarch.
Celerity Maneuver or press.
Presence Cancel an aim, frenzy, or grapple card as it is played by the opposing minion, and its cost is not paid.
> Raven wrote:
> Can I cancel
>
> Rötschreck
> Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy.
> Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is locked and sent to torpor. This vampire does not unlock as normal. During this vampire's next unlock phase, burn this card
>
> With this effect of Meditative Grove?
>
> Meditative Grove
> Unique location. Hunting ground.
> During your unlock phase, a ready Salubri you control can gain 1 blood. You can lock this card to cancel a frenzy card as it is played on a Salubri you control (cost is still paid). A vampire can gain blood from only one hunting ground each turn.
>
Yes.
> Raven wrote:
> Can i Cancel Rötschreck with Bollix?
>
> Bollix
>
> Requires an Anarch.
> Celerity Maneuver or press.
> Presence Cancel an aim, frenzy, or grapple card as it is played by the opposing minion, and its cost is not paid.
>
No. Rötschreck is not played by the opposing minion.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Hi,
Could you elaborate why Meditative Grove can cancel Rötschreck, taking into account Meditative Grove's ruling:
Can => ONLY CANCEL MINION CARDS <= played from the hand in the normal fashion (eg. can't cancel allies played via Piper )
The rulling was taken from: vtesdecks.com/cards/library?name=Grov
What do I miss?
Thanks in advance.
> filavander wrote:
> Hi,
> Could you elaborate why Meditative Grove can cancel Rötschreck, taking into account Meditative Grove's ruling:
>
> Can => ONLY CANCEL MINION CARDS <= played from the hand in the normal fashion (eg. can't cancel allies played via Piper )
>
> The rulling was taken from: vtesdecks.com/cards/library?name=Grov
>
> What do I miss?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
You are trusting a third party site quoting a ruling without checking the original ruling and it's context.
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GvxNYsYsWJ4/m/EY7NOjdsGCsJ
It's referring to this one while for whatever reason not using the full text of it. Again, blame the third party and always check the original ruling for context.
> 2. SUDDEN REVERSAL and DIRECT INTERVENTION can only cancel cards that
> are played from the hand in the normal fashion.
>
> Cards put in play (from the hand, ash heap, library, or elsewhere) by
> some means other than being played as normal are not subject to being
> canceled by Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention.
>
> In particular, this ruling reverses the RTR 08-JUL-1996 ruling that
> Sudden Reversal can target the cards put into play by Bindusara's
> special ability. It also reverses LSJ 04-MAY-1999 regarding the
> canceling of the weapon brought into play with Disguised Weapon (The
> Disguised Weapon can be canceled, but if it is not, the weapon
> brought out cannot be canceled by Direct Intervention). Other things
> that cannot be canceled by Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention:
> Equipment brought out by Magic of the Smith or Vast Wealth or Horrid
> Reality, Discipline cards played when an Embrace or Third Tradition
> or Creation Rites is played (or when a vampire diablerizes an older
> vampire), etc.
>
> Note: playing a card "as a vampire of capacity X with discipline D"
> or paying less than the usual cost to play a card is still playing a
> card in the normal sense. Cards played in these ways can still be
> canceled as normal.
>
How do I know that's the ruling it's referencing? It's the only ruling with cancel on it made by LSJ (rules director at that time) on that topic. I do not know why third party sites like to shorten and misquote rulings and use them for cards that they are not related on as clearly the cardtext in Meditative Grove does not specify "can only cancel minion cards" and instead states "a frenzy card as it is played on a Salubri you control". I can only assume its part of automating process where certain words in cards like "cancel" automatically get certain rulings without QA oversight and instead they rely on people reporting them.
Lack of QA misses interaction between cards and their rulings. For example in this Rötschreck ruling that it is "played on a minion" which is enough to work with grove despite cardtext having words "put this card on". groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/tSpd9dtTElc/m/-CuHJF54_n0J
> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.
>
Name: Meditative Grove [V5C:PSal1] Cardtype: Master Clan: Salubri Cost: 2 pool Unique location. Hunting ground. During your unlock phase, a ready Salubri you control can gain 1 blood. You can lock this card to cancel a frenzy card as it is played on a Salubri you control (cost is still paid). A vampire can gain blood from only one hunting ground each turn. Artist: Peter Bergting
Name: Rötschreck [Jyhad:U, CE:U, Anarchs:PG, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB, LoB:PA, Third:PTz] Cardtype: Master Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy. Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is locked and sent to torpor. This vampire does not unlock as normal. During this vampire's next unlock phase, burn this card. Artist: Mike Danza
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
"You are trusting a third party site quoting a ruling without checking the original ruling and it's context."
If I would absolutely trust the "vtesdeck stie" I didn't ask the the additional queston regarding "Meditative Grove" here.
I assume that you state that the ruling provided by vtesdeck site is not worth of trust - ok.
So I've got another question, is there a site for casual players which provides ORIGINAL RULES in more friendly format then this google jyhad group?
Or do you have an endpoint (maybe endpoints) which provides ORIGINAL RULES in i.e. JSON format?
> filavander wrote:
> So I've got another question, is there a site for casual players which provides ORIGINAL RULES in more friendly format then this google jyhad group?
>
We call it a ruling, not a rule, and even less "original rule" that doesn't mean much as an original rule could be overridden.
Unfortunately, there aren't other websites with that content.
> filavander wrote:
> Or do you have an endpoint (maybe endpoints) which provides ORIGINAL RULES in i.e. JSON format?
>
I made an archive:
www.vekn.net/images/stories/rec.jyhad.7z
In any case, the answer to your first questions is: cardtext. The ruling is about cancelling cards not played from the hand.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> filavander wrote:
> "You are trusting a third party site quoting a ruling without checking the original ruling and it's context."
>
> If I would absolutely trust the "vtesdeck stie" I didn't ask the the additional queston regarding "Meditative Grove" here.
>
> I assume that you state that the ruling provided by vtesdeck site is not worth of trust - ok.
>
> So I've got another question, is there a site for casual players which provides ORIGINAL RULES in more friendly format then this google jyhad group?
>
> Or do you have an endpoint (maybe endpoints) which provides ORIGINAL RULES in i.e. JSON format?
>
You asked what you missed, I pointed out you failed to check the original ruling for it's context. Whether or not a third party site is trustworthy is a complicated matter. People who were not playing at the time cannot outright spot errors at a glance without knowledge, like rulings from 2000 somehow mentioning card not existing until it's 2003 promo printing (Piper) which highlights how important is to check the original rulings context that I quoted with both hotlinked source and full text to save you time. That enables you to see how whoever added that sentence of the ruling to the database was playing very loose that has resulted in multiple confusions over the years, yours being latest.
If you wish to dive deeper to the rulings history, Ankha provided the rec.games database that was LSJ's timeframe, however between it and VEKN.NET timeframe there is also the boardgamegeek time when vtes was dropped by white wolf and before vekn created this site and bcp picked the game up again. Check this topic for what is "official" www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/81670-official-rulings#112267
You need to remember that for all good vtesdecks, vdb, rulings.krcg etc are doing, they are third party volunteers and not the original sources. Hence the importance to also check whether or not the original source linked below their rulings actually matches the shortened quote, it's also why they have the hotlink in there (pic1,2). If you do not find match, you need to start doing digging to attempt to find what it might be referring and whether or not it is relevant by cross referencing the card interaction (pic3).
The reason for poorly worded quote lies in rulings.krcg which makes it seem like meditative grove could only target minion cards even when original ruling is on Sudden reversal and direct intervention, targeting master and minion cards and specifically playing them from the hand as opposed to being just restricted to only minion cards. Unfortunately correcting those issues requires jumping more third party hoops and whatnot so it's up to the people maintaining those databases as we have no access (pic 4, 5) You could try contacting them directly but prepare to either get your wish or receive a reply where they see no reason to change it as they see no issue. I have experience on both, one more then the other.
As the rulings are just interpretations of the cards by acting rules director at the time in response to community questions, they are quite free form and varied over time. Which is why sometimes you need to read multiple reply chains to understand why "Yes." or "Correct." reply is a ruling. Sometimes there are mistakes in rulings as card interactions and their timings can get quite complex (we are all human) that change after the years resulting in reversals of previous rulings www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/78568-the-capuchin-burns-temporary-control?start=18#99620 . VTES can appear as simple game but as it's based on emphasis on; "The Golden Rule for Cards: Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence." with rewordings and redesigns on the cards and the rules over the decades, it's important to understand the context when, where and why a ruling was given. Some are for effects that no longer exist in said cards but exist in others, some are related to rules that are no longer in rulebook (anarchs were not a sect originally etc) and some have been human errors that are later been corrected (hence the latest ruling/reversal overriding earlier ones). Not to mention there might still be contradictions and unresolved issues that are just waiting for the cards to be added to the print on demand service ( www.blackchantry.com/2026/01/19/84-vampire-the-eternal-struggle-cards-added-to-print-on-demand/ ) with updated text before receiving update to their official card text www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt which means all possible rulings related to those changes now are null and void when it comes to those cards, but the mechanics behind such rulings still can exist if they are found in other cards (as there are rulings just linking to previous rulings saying "card X works like card Y.")
It's why people are encouraged to ask rules questions here as the only current official rulings channel, and why the first answers are usually short and fast. There's no need to understand valve timings to drive a car, but if you wish to understand *why* something is what it is, you'll need to do the work and start peeling the onion. It's matter of hungry person either just getting the fish handed to them or learning to do the fishing themself. I believe we benefit from having more people fishing and being self-sufficient on rules, hence I tend to provide more sources and point out the *why* to encourage people to learn how to interpret rulings to fit current time and their needs. That allows you to make your own choice whether or not you wish to dive to the murky depths of 30+ years of vtes history or just accept asking the current rules director answers that most of the time are "yes." "no." "one sentence clear cut explanation instead Kilrauko wall-o-text."
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix ruling is. You have to see it for yourself.
I hope that was enough elaborating to explain most of it.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.