Rules Team Rulings 11-JUL-01

199 views
Skip to first unread message

LSJ

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:23:13 PM7/10/01
to
Q: What effect does a successful Kindred Segregation have on an ally that
costs blood (Courier, for example)?
A: The pool cost to recruit (0 pool) is repaid trivially, so the ally
is kept for free, like any ally that costs no pool. This answer is the
same for Peace Treaty, should any weapons come along that cost blood.

Q: Can a Peace Treaty/Kindred Segregation be called when no weapons/allies are
in play?
A: Yes. If there are no weapons/allies, then Peace Treaty/Kindred Segregation
can burn all of them (all zero of them) with no problem.

Q: If you have a Thanks for the Donation in play for a location you're
contesting with Democritus's controller, your prey burns 2 pool when you
untap (assuming you choose not to yield). What happens when your prey has
only 1 pool during your untap (and you choose not to yield)?
A: She tries to pay the cost to contest, so she's ousted, but you still
yield since you haven't paid the price to contest. (Parallel with Vast
Wealth retrieving a weapon that costs more pool than you have).

Q: Speaking of Vast Wealth, there are disparate rulings for what happens when
a peice of equipment is found that costs too much. If it costs too much
pool, then the Methuselah is ousted (i.e., partial cost is paid). If it
costs too much blood, then the card is discarded with no other effect
(i.e., partial cost is not paid). Also, if a vampire spends enough blood
on action modifiers so that the blood cost of the action can no longer be
paid, then the action fizzles, but no partial cost is paid. Why the
difference? Also, what would happen if I have 2 pool and try to equip
with a .44 using Madness Network so that I can play Direct Intervention
on an intercept reaction card. If the action is successful, do I pay
the 1 pool or not?
A: Good question. In the interest of uniformity and, as an added bonus, to
remove the strangeness of the cases where a more expensive card costs
you less than a cheaper on (because the cost cannot be paid), the partial
cost ruling is reversed:
* You still cannot play a card or take an action whose cost cannot be paid.
* If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost is
paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much of the
cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action "fizzles"
(resolves with no effect).
* If you are obliged to pay a cost that you cannot afford (via Vast Wealth
or similar), then you pay as much of the cost as you can and the card
whose cost you were paying has no effect (and goes to the ash heap).

Q: When vampire A ends combat with superior Catatonic Fear (or Oubliette or
Riposte) and the opposing vampire B plays Telepathic Traking to continue
combat into a new round, what happens to the damage to be done by Catatonic
Fear?
A. It is applied when combat eventually ends. The same is true of the "go to
torpor" effect of Undead Persistence. This is slightly different than the
"end combat and continue action" effects which are disrupted when combat
continues or is started again.

Q: When does a Methuselah lose pool for superior Treachery (voting for the
referendum)?
A: When the results are tallied, same as when the basic version's pool loss
occurs.

Q: Can a Blood Brother Ambush be played if combat was not about to occur (i.e.,
the acting Brujah antitribu was attempting to leave torpor)?
A: Yes. In this case, the BBA-combat would negate the option of diablerizing
the acting vampire; since it cancels combat, it cancels the diablerie
option as well. (This latter part is a reversal of RTR 19970306.)

Q: A vampire takes agg damage and doesn't prevent. He wants to play Undead
Persistence, his opponent wants to play Decapitate. What happens?
A: Since the timings are the same ("when the vampire is going to torpor"),
the acting minion gets the first chance to play whichever one is his.
Either one will preclude the opposing minion from playing his.

Q: A vampire with no Potence equips with Hand of Conrad. In combat, his
opponent plays Drawing Out the Beast. Can the vampire use Undead Strength?
A: No. Anything he can do only by virtue of equipment he possesses is off
limits to him while under the effects of Drawing Out the Beast.

Q: If I use Horrid Reality and find a weapon with a Clan requirement that the
acting vampire doesn't meet, what happens?
A: The weapon cannot be "equipped" (which is the way Horrid Reality treats
the effect), so the weapon is discarded (and Horrid Reality has no other
effect).

Q: Can I play Cryptic Mission against a vampire with no blood? How about
Blood to Water against a vampire with only 2 blood?
A: Yes. Steal/burn blood/life effects target the minion, not the individual
blood counters. Similarly, burn pool effects target the Methuselah, not
the individual pool counters.

Q: A vampire who has performed Return to Innocence (yes, I know it's currently
on the banned list) is Banished. During her next influence phase, his
Methuselah puts more blood on him than his capacity. He moves into the
ready region and the excess blood drains off. Does this burn Return to
Innocence?
A: Yes, this counts as "losing blood" and Return to Innocence (which is back in
play at the time) notices and, by card text (previous errata), is burned.

Q: Mummy allies say to return them to the library when they are burned. What
happens when I discard one from my hand?
A: It goes to the ash heap. Card text ("Do not replace", "shuffle into your
library", "gain a master phase action", etc.) isn't inspected for discarded
cards.

Q: What happens when the action to recruit a mummy is blocked?
A: The mummy card goes to the ash heap, as normal. Only stuff about playing
an action card ("do not replace until...", "requires a prince or justicar")
or about the action to play it ("+1 stealth action") has any bearing on
an (as-yet) incomplete action. The plain text (and superior form, if any)
has no effect unless the action is successful (except for the few cases
where the superior form modifies the action's stealth or cost or some
other attribute that applies before the action resolves).

Q: Now that self-contesting is not allowed, what happens when [insert any
one of the many examples of how you can, by accident or design, be
"forced" to bring in a second copy of a unique card you control]?
A: If you are forced to contest with yourself, the incoming copy is burned
without contesting.

Q: OK. But what happens if the "incoming copy" has a Soul Gem? (That is, I've
got vamp A out already. Older vampire B, with a Soul Gem, is burned and the
top card of my crypt is another copy of vamp A)
A: The incoming copy is burned, triggering the Soul Gem's effect again.

Q: If I use Blood of the Cobra and play Dagon's Call as my strike at long
range, is it still a hand strike?
A: No. Dagon's call becomes "Strike: ranged. Make a hand strike ... and the
opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step..."
The modified Dagon's Call strike is not a hand strike, and the hand strike
made as part of its effect is not effective at long range, although the
rest of the Dagon's Call effect is.

Q: If I use Blood of the Cobra and play Scorpion's Touch as my strike and use
it with my Bastard Sword, what effect does it have?
A: Similar to above. Scorpion's Touch makes your Bastard Sword strike a
"Strike: Make a bastard sword strike and put this card on the opposing
minion..." and Blood of the Cobra makes that a "Strike: ranged. Make a
bastard sword strike and put this card on the opposing minion..." The
Bastard Sword strike does no damage at long range, but the rest of the
effect ("put this card on the opposing minion...") is applied.

Final Nights Design Team Rulings/Errata:
========================================

Al-Ashrad, Amr of Alamut: has +1 bleed, as per the Ancient Hearts version
(errata to the Final Nights version).

Catacombs: costs 1 blood, not 2, as per the Ancient Hearts version (errata to
the Final Nights version).

Malleable Visage: is only usable by an untapped vampire. (errata)

Ur-Shulgi, The Shepherd: has +1 bleed (errata).


Review of changes found in Final Nights
=======================================

Changes to the rulebook:

A few sections have been slightly clarified: [1.1], [6.2.2], and [6.4.6].

You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some
temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contesting with
yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. If you were
previously contesting the card, you continue contesting until your untap phase.
If you had uncontested control of the card, then you retain uncontested control
of the card [DTR]. Note: your vampires can still contest titles with each other.

Assamites cannot commit diablerie by the rules [6.5.5] and have reminder text
"(Blood Cursed)" on them instead of the "cannot commit diablerie" text. This
rule also affects those Assamites created in play who lack the "(Blood Cursed)"
reminder text (such as a vampire created by an Assamite via The Embrace
action). Explicit card text is needed to allow an Assamite to overcome this
restriction. If a vampire changes clans to become an Assamite, he acquires the
Blood Curse. If an Assamite changes to a different clan, he loses the blood
curse.

Changes to card texts:

Acquired Ventrue Assets costs no pool and is only activated on your own master
phase.
Alamut can give only vampires (not allies) votes.
Banishment cannot choose a vampire the same age or older than the acting
vampire.
Blood Tears can prevent damage only in combat (the gain blood effect can still
be used at any time).
Fata Morgana can be used for just +1 bleed at superior (if the stealth is not
needed, for instance).
Heidelburg Castle's name is corrected to "Heidelberg Castle". Both spellings
represent the same unique location.
Kali's Fang does strength+1 damage instead of a flat 2 damage (and the damage
is still aggravated).
Powerbase: Rome costs no pool.
Purity of the Beast: costs no blood and doesn't reduce the acting vampire's
capacity.
Ravnos Cache costs no pool.
Rudolpho Giovanni's name is corrected to "Rudolfo". Both spellings represent
the same unique vampire.
Ruins of the Villers Abbey costs no blood and "Villers" is corrected from
"Villars". Both spellings represent the same unique locaction.
Summon the Serpent puts a blood from the blood bank on the retrieved vampire.
Thetmes's title of Calif is corrected to "Caliph". Both spellings of the card
name represent the same unique vampire.

Typos and Corrections for Final Nights:

Ecstatic Agony: is an action, but is missing the action symbol.
Forgotten Labyrinth: artwork is by Drew Tucker.
Free States Rant: the word "vampire" on the third line should be plural.
Guard Duty: "block" is misspelled.
Mark of Damnation: uses the art from Mark of the Damned.
Mirror Image: the inferior should be "+1 stealth" not "+1 stealth action."
Perfect Clarity: "duration" is misspelled.
Powerbase: Rome: "form" should be "from" in the first sentence.
Tariq: "can not" should be one word.
Temptation: "Counters" is misspelled.

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Pat Ricochet

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 4:15:32 PM7/10/01
to
> Q: A vampire with no Potence equips with Hand of Conrad. In combat, his
> opponent plays Drawing Out the Beast. Can the vampire use Undead Strength?
> A: No. Anything he can do only by virtue of equipment he possesses is off
> limits to him while under the effects of Drawing Out the Beast.

What about cards already played? If the acting minion, with the Hand,
plays Torn Signpost, and then the blocking minion plays DotB, is the Torn
Signpost in effect or not?


> Powerbase: Rome costs no pool.

I don't have the card in front of me, but weren't there some other
changes?


> Rudolpho Giovanni's name is corrected to "Rudolfo". Both spellings represent
> the same unique vampire.

And didn't Guiseppe get a "legal name change," as well? (Again,
assuming it's the same Unique retainer).


--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

LSJ

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 3:30:04 PM7/10/01
to
>===== Original Message From Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> =====

>> Q: A vampire with no Potence equips with Hand of Conrad. In combat, his
>> opponent plays Drawing Out the Beast. Can the vampire use Undead Strength?
>> A: No. Anything he can do only by virtue of equipment he possesses is off
>> limits to him while under the effects of Drawing Out the Beast.
>
> What about cards already played? If the acting minion, with the Hand,
>plays Torn Signpost, and then the blocking minion plays DotB, is the Torn
>Signpost in effect or not?

Of course. Nothing to indicate effects are canceled.

>> Powerbase: Rome costs no pool.
> I don't have the card in front of me, but weren't there some other
>changes?

Card text was clarified.

>> Rudolpho Giovanni's name is corrected to "Rudolfo". Both spellings
represent
>> the same unique vampire.
> And didn't Guiseppe get a "legal name change," as well? (Again,
>assuming it's the same Unique retainer).

Giuseppe did, yes.

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 3:40:06 PM7/10/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote

>A: Good question. In the interest of uniformity and, as an added bonus, to
> remove the strangeness of the cases where a more expensive card costs
> you less than a cheaper on (because the cost cannot be paid), the
partial
> cost ruling is reversed:
> * You still cannot play a card or take an action whose cost cannot be
paid.
> * If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost is
> paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much of
the
> cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action
"fizzles"
> (resolves with no effect).
> * If you are obliged to pay a cost that you cannot afford (via Vast
Wealth
> or similar), then you pay as much of the cost as you can and the card
> whose cost you were paying has no effect (and goes to the ash heap).

I want to be clear on this new rule. If my vampire with 2 blood plays
Propaganda (2 blood bleed action), and then uses Elder Impersonation
(1 blood action) to stealth the action through, my vampire then pays
his last blood for Propaganda, but it has no effect?
I think this is a bad reversal.

- Jason Bell


Derek Ray

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 4:23:59 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:40:06 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
wrote:

>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote


>> * You still cannot play a card or take an action whose cost cannot be
>paid.
>> * If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost is
>> paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much of
>the
>> cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action
>"fizzles"
>> (resolves with no effect).
>

>I want to be clear on this new rule. If my vampire with 2 blood plays
>Propaganda (2 blood bleed action), and then uses Elder Impersonation
>(1 blood action) to stealth the action through, my vampire then pays
>his last blood for Propaganda, but it has no effect?
>I think this is a bad reversal.

Why?

Why should you be able to take actions you can't pay for, or
deliberately overspend for an action to "save" yourself when you're
being blocked, without penalty?

In the above example, the old ruling let you spend one blood to cycle
two cards with no risk of combat, and have one blood left at the end.

For another example under the old rulings, Salbatore Bokkengro with 3
blood could play Sense Dep, then when someone Wakes and attempts to
block, play Fata Morgana to stealth it through, and then be unable to
pay for his Sense Dep and conclude his action with 2 blood - and no
risk of combat, and someone with a wasted Wake.

That's just wrong - it's another advantage for stealth decks, and they
already hold a huge advantage as it is.

-- Derek

Maintenance: Keep the balls dry and clean and prevent them from violent collisions.
Disclaimer: We make no claim that use of these balls will improve health.

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 9:57:29 PM7/10/01
to
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote

>"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> >> * You still cannot play a card or take an action whose cost cannot be
> >paid.
> >> * If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost
is
> >> paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much
of
> >the
> >> cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action
> >"fizzles"
> >> (resolves with no effect).
> >
> >I want to be clear on this new rule. If my vampire with 2 blood plays
> >Propaganda (2 blood bleed action), and then uses Elder Impersonation
> >(1 blood action) to stealth the action through, my vampire then pays
> >his last blood for Propaganda, but it has no effect?
> >I think this is a bad reversal.
>
> Why?
>
> Why should you be able to take actions you can't pay for

You've never been able to take actions you can't pay
for, as far as I know.

> , or
> deliberately overspend for an action to "save" yourself when you're
> being blocked, without penalty?

The failed action is a penalty, and there already exists a card
that allows you to deliberately "save" yourself from combat,
with even less penalty, and untaps your acting minion for you
(Change of Target, and Red Herring more recently).

> In the above example, the old ruling let you spend one blood to cycle
> two cards with no risk of combat, and have one blood left at the end.

Incorrect, there was a risk of combat, had there been intercept
or an alternate blocker (depending on play level of Elder).
Costs for actions are only paid at the successful resolution
of the action (until this week), so using the Elder would not
have fizzled the action until it had beaten the block.
Your position suggests that Change of Target and Red Herring
be banned from Jyhad, or have errata where the acting minion
must pay the action's cost. I doubt you hold that position.
Before this new rule, name one other mechanism
whereby an action could fail, but its costs would still have to
be paid. I cannot, and that sort of consistency is reassuring
in game rules. No longer.

> For another example under the old rulings, Salbatore Bokkengro with 3
> blood could play Sense Dep, then when someone Wakes and attempts to
> block, play Fata Morgana to stealth it through, and then be unable to
> pay for his Sense Dep and conclude his action with 2 blood - and no
> risk of combat, and someone with a wasted Wake.
>
> That's just wrong - it's another advantage for stealth decks, and they
> already hold a huge advantage as it is.

Surely this can't be the same Derek who offered the sage advice
last week that the purpose of blocking is to stop the action.
In this particular case, the Wake stopped the action, at the cost
of two cards, a blood, and a failed action (of course, now it's
3 blood, two cards, and a failed action). I'm having difficulty
seeing where the Wake-ing player got the shaft. That player would
have gotten shafted had the acting player played Change of Target
instead, would have spent no blood, would be untapped to act,
and only would have lost the Sense Dep and Change. That play
is not affected by this ruling, and is still perfectly legal as
far as I know.

This reversal feels like just the sort of thing I dislike the most
in reversals (from my experience in the wild wild world of
Magic rule-of-the-month). One example (the expensive weapon on a
Vast Wealth action) seems out of place with comparable examples
(the less expensive weapon that would self-oust), or doesn't work
with another current ruling (the half-paid Thanks when Democritus
is in play, how rare is that?) so a rule is changed that has ripples
through many other cards. And it makes the game pointlessly
more complicated (especially when you consider the alternate
ruling, where the player with Thanks can't continue to contest
because the cost cannot be paid by the paying player, simple,
no ripples as far as I can tell).
Now I have to explain a new rule (and explain why my last explanation
expired as of this week), as well as explain how it is different than
non-payment when an action fails for any other reason (Blocked,
Changed of Target, DI, what have you).

I don't like it.

- Jason Bell


jeroen rombouts

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:52:38 AM7/11/01
to

Just to be clear on things:
<about Vast wealth and actions that can't be paid for)...>

> A: Good question. In the interest of uniformity and, as an added bonus, to
> remove the strangeness of the cases where a more expensive card costs
> you less than a cheaper on (because the cost cannot be paid), the
partial
> cost ruling is reversed:
> * You still cannot play a card or take an action whose cost cannot be
paid.

OK

> * If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost is
> paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much of
the
> cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action
"fizzles"
> (resolves with no effect).

Got it.

> * If you are obliged to pay a cost that you cannot afford (via Vast
Wealth
> or similar), then you pay as much of the cost as you can and the card
> whose cost you were paying has no effect (and goes to the ash heap).
>

This is the tricky one.
Let me start with an example: I have only 4 pool and -via VW- I get an
Assult Rifle.
The old rulings said that I'm ousted now. correct?
The reversal sais that I'm not ousted but must pay "as much of the cost as
you can". Does this mean I end up with only 1 pool and no AR?

Jeroen

LSJ

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:40:31 AM7/11/01
to
>===== Original Message From "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be>
=====

>Just to be clear on things:
><about Vast wealth and actions that can't be paid for)...>
>This is the tricky one.
>Let me start with an example: I have only 4 pool and -via VW- I get an
>Assult Rifle.
>The old rulings said that I'm ousted now. correct?

Yes.

>The reversal sais that I'm not ousted but must pay "as much of the cost as
>you can". Does this mean I end up with only 1 pool and no AR?

No. You can still pay 4 (since you have 4), so you pay 4 and are ousted.

Derek Ray

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:43:02 AM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:57:29 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
wrote:

>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote


>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Why should you be able to take actions you can't pay for
>
>You've never been able to take actions you can't pay
>for, as far as I know.

Oops. Wrong word. Why should you be able to ATTEMPT an action you
can't pay for, something you've never been able to do? By spending 3
blood on actions + action modifiers, you are deliberately attempting
an action you know you can't pay for.

>> , or
>> deliberately overspend for an action to "save" yourself when you're
>> being blocked, without penalty?
>
>The failed action is a penalty, and there already exists a card
>that allows you to deliberately "save" yourself from combat,
>with even less penalty, and untaps your acting minion for you
>(Change of Target, and Red Herring more recently).

However, with both Change of Target and Red Herring, you aren't
crossing the line into "attempting actions you can't pay for". Both
cards cancel the action when played, no matter WHAT; they can't be
used for anything OTHER than cancelling an action.

Elder Impersonation is not in your deck to cancel actions, it's in
your deck to make actions SUCCEED. Being able to use it (or other
cards, this is a convenient example) to cancel an action that you
don't want to have happen, as WELL as let actions succeed, is an
extension of this card that doesn't need to happen; stealth is too
powerful.

>> In the above example, the old ruling let you spend one blood to cycle
>> two cards with no risk of combat, and have one blood left at the end.
>
>Incorrect, there was a risk of combat, had there been intercept
>or an alternate blocker (depending on play level of Elder).

Let me rephrase: without playing the card, there was a 100%
guaranteed risk of combat happening. By playing the card, you reduce
the risk significantly (while KNOWINGLY attempting an action you can't
pay for), and if you end up blocked anyway, you at least had a CHANCE.

It's always easier to pack stealth than it is to pack intercept. A
stealth deck generally has enough in hand to not be caught at any
given point in time; usually the problem is getting it OUT of your
hand, after people stop trying to block.

And as far as the situation above: Lost in Crowds/Elder Impersonation
is a very effective way to ruin intercept decks. Make them generate
+2 intercept from somewhere, then forbid that vampire from blocking
(probably wasting a Wake and transient), then see if they can get
another vampire awake and with ANOTHER +2 intercept. Add some Cloaks
into the deck, so you can get to +3 stealth in emergencies.

Highly dedicated intercept with a lot of transients can manage this,
but not consistently. Highly dedicated intercept with a lot of
permanents will die miserably. Almost nothing else can even come
close.

>Your position suggests that Change of Target and Red Herring
>be banned from Jyhad, or have errata where the acting minion
>must pay the action's cost. I doubt you hold that position.

No, I don't hold that position: Change of Target and Red Herring are
not the same mechanic. They are a card that is INTENDED to cancel
your own action, and they don't ever set up a situation where you're
deliberately attempting an action you can't pay for. (Red Herring has
a cost, but you can't play action modifiers without paying the cost
immediately, and Red Herring's effect explicitly cancels the action.)

>> For another example under the old rulings, Salbatore Bokkengro with 3
>> blood could play Sense Dep, then when someone Wakes and attempts to
>> block, play Fata Morgana to stealth it through, and then be unable to
>> pay for his Sense Dep and conclude his action with 2 blood - and no
>> risk of combat, and someone with a wasted Wake.
>>
>> That's just wrong - it's another advantage for stealth decks, and they
>> already hold a huge advantage as it is.
>
>Surely this can't be the same Derek who offered the sage advice
>last week that the purpose of blocking is to stop the action.

First, this has no bearing on whether or not stealth decks need
another advantage in the form of a cost loophole.

Second, you misquoted me: the PRIMARY purpose of blocking is to stop
the action. The SECONDARY purpose is to discourage them from ever
taking that action again. This is why S:CE doesn't matter that much
to intercept decks; when you block the action and go to combat, the
acting minion is required to spend his S:CE resources without knowing
(usually) whether or not you have the stuff in hand to kill him. As
long as you keep stopping actions, they'll run out, and then either
you get them, or they no longer take that action. The combo listed
above is two cards, has a very good chance of avoiding combat, and
it's not that tough to get superior OBF; its downside is that it costs
a blood. Being able to use that cost to your own benefit to 'fizzle'
an action and try again is simply wrong.

>In this particular case, the Wake stopped the action, at the cost
>of two cards, a blood, and a failed action (of course, now it's
>3 blood, two cards, and a failed action). I'm having difficulty
>seeing where the Wake-ing player got the shaft. That player would
>have gotten shafted had the acting player played Change of Target
>instead, would have spent no blood, would be untapped to act,

And the acting player would have designed his deck to do just that -
cancel his own action at no cost and waste people's transients. I
have no problem with rewarding INTENTIONAL deck design, especially
since the cards have their own downside; they require a block.

Want to bugger up a Change of Target deck? Stop blocking it and watch
them jam up on "secondary" action cards and CoTs.

>through many other cards. And it makes the game pointlessly
>more complicated (especially when you consider the alternate
>ruling, where the player with Thanks can't continue to contest
>because the cost cannot be paid by the paying player, simple,
>no ripples as far as I can tell).

Wow, that's a dreadful idea. Now I have a Thanks in play, I have
something contested, and despite the card being specifically written
to cause pool loss to one's prey, I can't oust my prey with it, and
instead I have to yield my contested card???

I think that ruling will cause just a FEW more ripples -- especially
the bit where you get to explain how a card that makes your prey lose
pool won't actually oust your prey.

>Now I have to explain a new rule (and explain why my last explanation
>expired as of this week), as well as explain how it is different than
>non-payment when an action fails for any other reason (Blocked,
>Changed of Target, DI, what have you).

Because in no other circumstance are you intentionally attempting an
action you can't pay for. That was easy.

Of course, this does leave the situation where Igo, the Hungry plays
Legal Manipulations, plays Earth Control when a block is announced to
add stealth, and then immediately taps the Coven to add two blood to
himself and be able to pay for the Legal. But this still isn't
intentionally attempting an action you can't pay for; it's finding an
alternate way to pay for an action.

Raille

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:33:54 AM7/11/01
to
Jason Bell wrote:
> You've never been able to take actions you can't pay
> for, as far as I know.

Uhm, you said you were kind of new here, so..

You always could take any action with a blood cost and attempt it.
Costs were not played until the point at which the action succeeded. At
that point if the cost could not be paid the action fizzled, and you
would get the blood paid back. This mechanic is still partially in
play, when you announce an action, pay your blood and you get blocked.

The this ruling is the logical end, if your going to start an action,
you have to pay the cost, even in part.

Personally I think its a good move. The old rule allowed you to draw
out people into blocking, when you had really just wanted to get into
combat. I have seen this ploy used first hand in my play group.

Raille

LSJ

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 10:12:55 AM7/11/01
to
>===== Original Message From Raille <rai...@mich.com> =====

>Jason Bell wrote:
>> You've never been able to take actions you can't pay
>> for, as far as I know.
>
>Uhm, you said you were kind of new here, so..
>
>You always could take any action with a blood cost and attempt it.

You've never been able to attempt an action whose cost could not
be paid. A vampire with 1 blood has never been able to attempt an
The Embrace action, for instance. This has not changed and is still
the case.

>Costs were not played until the point at which the action succeeded. At

This is true.

>that point if the cost could not be paid the action fizzled, and you
>would get the blood paid back. This mechanic is still partially in

Since the cost is not paid until the action is successful, there is
no "blood paid", so there is no getting the blood paid back.

>play, when you announce an action, pay your blood and you get blocked.

You do not pay when the action is announced. This has not changed.
The cost is only paid when the action resolves unblocked (i.e., "is
successful").

>The this ruling is the logical end, if your going to start an action,
>you have to pay the cost, even in part.

If the action is unblocked, you have to pay the cost, even in part.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 11:38:15 AM7/11/01
to
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<doO27.65390$ih.14...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>...

> This reversal feels like just the sort of thing I dislike the most
> in reversals (from my experience in the wild wild world of
> Magic rule-of-the-month). One example (the expensive weapon on a
> Vast Wealth action) seems out of place with comparable examples
> (the less expensive weapon that would self-oust), or doesn't work
> with another current ruling (the half-paid Thanks when Democritus
> is in play, how rare is that?) so a rule is changed that has ripples
> through many other cards. And it makes the game pointlessly
> more complicated (especially when you consider the alternate
> ruling, where the player with Thanks can't continue to contest
> because the cost cannot be paid by the paying player, simple,
> no ripples as far as I can tell).

I don't think there's anything more intuitive about "costs you
can't pay all of, you don't pay any of" than "costs you can't
pay all of, you pay as much as you can of (but you only get an
effect if you paid the full cost)".

It is a change, though, which means that, yeah, there should be a
good reason to change it.

> Now I have to explain a new rule (and explain why my last explanation
> expired as of this week), as well as explain how it is different than
> non-payment when an action fails for any other reason (Blocked,

The rulebook tells you that you don't pay for a blocked action.
[6.2.3]

> Changed of Target,

By explicit cardtext on Change of Target ('cancel the current action').

> DI, what have you).

By explicit cardtext on Direct Intervention.


Josh

i want to devise a virus
to bring total chaos to your environment

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 1:40:22 PM7/11/01
to
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote

> I don't think there's anything more intuitive about "costs you
> can't pay all of, you don't pay any of" than "costs you can't
> pay all of, you pay as much as you can of (but you only get an
> effect if you paid the full cost)".

Right, try taking that "intuition" to a grocery store when
you don't have enough cash for your entire basket.
In my experience, I don't pay my last dollar for the
3 dollar milk and then have to put it back (I suppose
to make this example exactly correlative, I would have
to somehow lose 2 or more dollars during the trip to the
checkout, perhaps because I played Lost to Salvation Army,
for +1 Kharma).
I think the rule before this week is far more intuitive,
and worked much more logically with the rules for
all the other failed action conditions (non-payment
of all costs).

- Jason Bell


LSJ

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 2:10:05 PM7/11/01
to
>===== Original Message From "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> =====

>"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote
>
>> I don't think there's anything more intuitive about "costs you
>> can't pay all of, you don't pay any of" than "costs you can't
>> pay all of, you pay as much as you can of (but you only get an
>> effect if you paid the full cost)".
>
>Right, try taking that "intuition" to a grocery store when
>you don't have enough cash for your entire basket.
>In my experience, I don't pay my last dollar for the
>3 dollar milk and then have to put it back (I suppose
>to make this example exactly correlative, I would have
>to somehow lose 2 or more dollars during the trip to the
>checkout, perhaps because I played Lost to Salvation Army,
>for +1 Kharma).

The World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart.
Think of playing the card as taking out a loan.
(Thinking of a loan shark helps even more).

Now, when it comes time to pay, things look a
bit more like the current ruling.

(Plus the rules are now uniform - always a plus for
explaining rules to your friends).

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 3:43:04 PM7/11/01
to

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
> wrote:

> Oops. Wrong word. Why should you be able to ATTEMPT an action you
> can't pay for, something you've never been able to do? By spending 3
> blood on actions + action modifiers, you are deliberately attempting
> an action you know you can't pay for.

Well, your argument is moot, since you still can do this and have
always been able to do this, it now just costs a little more.

> However, with both Change of Target and Red Herring, you aren't
> crossing the line into "attempting actions you can't pay for".

Well, you can be, as nothing prevents playing Change after the
action modifier that makes the action unpayable (assuming the
block still holds).

> Both
> cards cancel the action when played, no matter WHAT; they can't be
> used for anything OTHER than cancelling an action.

So?

> Elder Impersonation is not in your deck to cancel actions, it's in
> your deck to make actions SUCCEED. Being able to use it (or other
> cards, this is a convenient example) to cancel an action that you
> don't want to have happen, as WELL as let actions succeed, is an
> extension of this card that doesn't need to happen; stealth is too
> powerful.

Disagree. First, since the new rule does not address your
point, that it is unfair for action modifiers to be used to avoid
a combat when they fizzle the action, the cost is just a little higher.
Second, I believe the example, if used to avoid a bad combat, is
good play skill. And anyway, I don't accept your point about EI,
I could be playing stealth primarily to avoid combat, with the
increased probability of successful actions being a added benefit.
This is not as glib as you might take it, as I tend to find that decks
with good intercept have to lose some ability to be really scary
combat decks (or at least as scary as they could be if they didn't
have to pack intercept).

> Let me rephrase: without playing the card, there was a 100%
> guaranteed risk of combat happening. By playing the card, you reduce
> the risk significantly (while KNOWINGLY attempting an action you can't
> pay for), and if you end up blocked anyway, you at least had a CHANCE.

"(while knowing that your action can no longer succeed)" HTH.
And I don't see anything wrong with having your action fail
on your terms instead of the blocker's. In any event, you can
still do this, it just costs more.

> It's always easier to pack stealth than it is to pack intercept. A
> stealth deck generally has enough in hand to not be caught at any
> given point in time; usually the problem is getting it OUT of your
> hand, after people stop trying to block.

I have no idea how this is in any way relevant to the new rule, or
how it should have been a consideration in making the new rule.

> And as far as the situation above: Lost in Crowds/Elder Impersonation
> is a very effective way to ruin intercept decks. Make them generate
> +2 intercept from somewhere, then forbid that vampire from blocking
> (probably wasting a Wake and transient), then see if they can get
> another vampire awake and with ANOTHER +2 intercept. Add some Cloaks
> into the deck, so you can get to +3 stealth in emergencies.

This is all very exciting, but I still have no idea how it is
relevant to the new rule.

> Highly dedicated intercept with a lot of transients can manage this,
> but not consistently. Highly dedicated intercept with a lot of
> permanents will die miserably. Almost nothing else can even come
> close.

Now I just have no idea what you're talking about.

> >Your position suggests that Change of Target and Red Herring
> >be banned from Jyhad, or have errata where the acting minion
> >must pay the action's cost. I doubt you hold that position.
>
> No, I don't hold that position: Change of Target and Red Herring are
> not the same mechanic. They are a card that is INTENDED to cancel
> your own action, and they don't ever set up a situation where you're
> deliberately attempting an action you can't pay for. (Red Herring has
> a cost, but you can't play action modifiers without paying the cost
> immediately, and Red Herring's effect explicitly cancels the action.)

You can play an action modifier that would make the action
unpayable before you play Red Herring (assuming the block still
holds), and you don't empty your pockets (that's my new shorthand
for this rule, where you pay everything you've got and get nothing).

I didn't figure a long time player for advocating rules that
punish a player for using cards for novel purposes,
but sure, go ahead.

> Being able to use that cost to your own benefit to 'fizzle'
> an action and try again is simply wrong.

First, it's unclear to me how that is "simply wrong."
Second, you can't try again, you're tapped.
Third, you can still use that cost to fizzle an action,
even with the new rule.

> And the acting player would have designed his deck to do just that -
> cancel his own action at no cost and waste people's transients. I
> have no problem with rewarding INTENTIONAL deck design, especially
> since the cards have their own downside; they require a block.

You just have a problem rewarding novel game play and skillful
use of cards? New rules all around then.

> Want to bugger up a Change of Target deck? Stop blocking it and watch
> them jam up on "secondary" action cards and CoTs.

If you've stopped blocking all my actions because you don't
want to risk us both untapping after the block, just to
avoid the danger of me cycling Change of Targets, you've
already lost the game. Or my deck is filled with useless
actions. None of this is relevant to the new rule.

> Wow, that's a dreadful idea. Now I have a Thanks in play, I have
> something contested, and despite the card being specifically written
> to cause pool loss to one's prey, I can't oust my prey with it, and
> instead I have to yield my contested card???

Yes, in the specific instance when you have You have Thanks and
the person you're contesting with has Democritus in play simultaneously,
an extremely narrow set of circumstances, and an extremely narrow ruling.
Instead we get an extremely broad ruling to solve a narrow problem.
You still must yield your contested card with the new rule, by the way,
so your point is, at least to some extent, moot. I half expect a
solution to come around next week saying that the ousted prey
pays what he can, and the new prey pays the rest, it would be
just as senseless as this week's rule.

> I think that ruling will cause just a FEW more ripples -- especially
> the bit where you get to explain how a card that makes your prey lose
> pool won't actually oust your prey.

Easy explanation. Since the cost can't be paid, the cost is not paid,
card must be yielded. Current explanation: cost can't be paid,
pay some of the cost, card must be yielded. Inconsistent rule
in regards to every other failed action event in the game, and
inconsistent with current rules regarding contesting.

> Because in no other circumstance are you intentionally attempting an
> action you can't pay for. That was easy.

This is wrong. I cannot attempt any action I cannot pay for.
In all other circumstances, payment is not made for actions
that do not happen. Only in this case, only because of this
new rule. Inconsistency tends to be more difficult to explain
than consistency. It is not easy.

- Jason Bell

LSJ

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 4:14:28 PM7/11/01
to
>===== Original Message From "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> =====
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> I think that ruling will cause just a FEW more ripples -- especially
>> the bit where you get to explain how a card that makes your prey lose
>> pool won't actually oust your prey.
>
>Easy explanation. Since the cost can't be paid, the cost is not paid,
>card must be yielded. Current explanation: cost can't be paid,
>pay some of the cost, card must be yielded. Inconsistent rule
>in regards to every other failed action event in the game, and
>inconsistent with current rules regarding contesting.

With what is it inconsistent?

It used to be inconsistent (sometime partial cost was paid, sometimes
not), but the new ruling has removed the inconsistency.

>> Because in no other circumstance are you intentionally attempting an
>> action you can't pay for. That was easy.
>
>This is wrong. I cannot attempt any action I cannot pay for.
>In all other circumstances, payment is not made for actions
>that do not happen. Only in this case, only because of this
>new rule. Inconsistency tends to be more difficult to explain
>than consistency. It is not easy.

It is consistent:

If the action reaches the resolution phase and is not blocked,
pay the cost. Partial cost is paid, if possible (for consistency).

If you don't reach the resolution phase, of course, then the
cost of the action is not paid.

Derek Ray

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:14:21 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:43:04 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
wrote:

>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote


>>"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> Oops. Wrong word. Why should you be able to ATTEMPT an action you
>> can't pay for, something you've never been able to do? By spending 3
>> blood on actions + action modifiers, you are deliberately attempting
>> an action you know you can't pay for.
>
>Well, your argument is moot, since you still can do this and have
>always been able to do this, it now just costs a little more.

Um, no, you've NEVER been able to attempt an action you can't pay for.
You've been able to play action modifiers to fizzle it on purpose, but
that's been a loophole in the rules for some time now. There are
rules which state that you must be able to pay for the action when you
initiate it, and you must pay for a card (action modifier) when it's
played. These clearly indicate design intent. It ALSO makes sense
that blocked actions do not have their costs paid, as otherwise a
number of cards would become extra-worthless (Sense Dep, a highly
blockable action). But it doesn't make sense that you should be able
to overspend your vampire's blood to cycle cards - you don't KNOW that
he's going to be blocked and won't have to pay for the action, so
until you are actually blocked, you're intentionally attempting an
action you can't pay for - a loophole in the rules that is now fixed.

>> However, with both Change of Target and Red Herring, you aren't
>> crossing the line into "attempting actions you can't pay for".
>
>Well, you can be, as nothing prevents playing Change after the
>action modifier that makes the action unpayable (assuming the
>block still holds).

But the Change of Target isn't what makes the action cross the line
into something you can't pay for. Playing the action modifier that
DOES cross the line is the issue; which leaves the fact that Change of
Target doesn't EVER cause the situation of attempting an action you
can't pay for, and neither does Red Herring.

>> Both
>> cards cancel the action when played, no matter WHAT; they can't be
>> used for anything OTHER than cancelling an action.
>
>So?
>
>> Elder Impersonation is not in your deck to cancel actions, it's in
>> your deck to make actions SUCCEED. Being able to use it (or other
>> cards, this is a convenient example) to cancel an action that you
>> don't want to have happen, as WELL as let actions succeed, is an
>> extension of this card that doesn't need to happen; stealth is too
>> powerful.
>
>Disagree. First, since the new rule does not address your
>point, that it is unfair for action modifiers to be used to avoid
>a combat when they fizzle the action, the cost is just a little higher.

The cost is what makes it fair. It's not unreasonable to assume that
any combat might leave your vampire empty, which is what will happen
now if you attempt to take an action you can't pay for. This seems a
suitable penalty to ME - you avoid combat, but at the cost of all the
blood on your vampire. I know I'd be disinclined to play with a card
that read "Play before range is determined. All the blood on this
vampire is returned to the blood bank. Combat ends."

>Second, I believe the example, if used to avoid a bad combat, is
>good play skill. And anyway, I don't accept your point about EI,

It's a smart play, as long as it's legal. It's still legal, it just
sucks a lot more to do it now. I approve.

>I could be playing stealth primarily to avoid combat, with the
>increased probability of successful actions being a added benefit.

You could be, but I seriously doubt it. The reason people add stealth
to actions is to make the action successful. I don't know anyone who
habitually takes actions that they DON'T want to be successful. The
closest I can come is my bruise-and-bleed deck, where I lob out a
Computer Hacking and don't care if you block or not - if you don't,
it's a bleed for 2. If you do, I pummel your vampire - it works out
about the same for me both ways. But I will be PERFECTLY happy if you
let all my Computer Hacks through (the deck is designed for that
eventuality's possibility -- and as you see, I'm not playing stealth
in it because the action itself isn't my primary concern).

Just as with my statement about intercept, the converse applies; the
whole point of stealth is to make sure that your stuff happens. A
fringe benefit is that you also get to avoid the combat that results
from your stuff being blocked.

>This is not as glib as you might take it, as I tend to find that decks
>with good intercept have to lose some ability to be really scary
>combat decks (or at least as scary as they could be if they didn't
>have to pack intercept).

True, but the whole point is still the action itself. Without
stealth, it might not happen. With stealth, it frequently happens.
This is pretty straightforward. =/

>> Let me rephrase: without playing the card, there was a 100%
>> guaranteed risk of combat happening. By playing the card, you reduce
>> the risk significantly (while KNOWINGLY attempting an action you can't
>> pay for), and if you end up blocked anyway, you at least had a CHANCE.
>
>"(while knowing that your action can no longer succeed)" HTH.
>And I don't see anything wrong with having your action fail
>on your terms instead of the blocker's. In any event, you can
>still do this, it just costs more.

I find the cost quite appropriate as a penalty.

>> It's always easier to pack stealth than it is to pack intercept. A
>> stealth deck generally has enough in hand to not be caught at any
>> given point in time; usually the problem is getting it OUT of your
>> hand, after people stop trying to block.
>
>I have no idea how this is in any way relevant to the new rule, or
>how it should have been a consideration in making the new rule.

Any change should consider the state of the game and how such a change
will affect that state. The above is a brief summary of the state.

The old rule gave a noticeable disadvantage to intercept. The new
rule doesn't directly improve intercept (and by extension, combat),
which is a good thing, but it does penalize stealth and
combat-avoidance decks noticeably. This sort of situation frequently
occurs late-game, where every action and combat matters, by the way.

>> (probably wasting a Wake and transient), then see if they can get
>> another vampire awake and with ANOTHER +2 intercept. Add some Cloaks
>> into the deck, so you can get to +3 stealth in emergencies.
>
>This is all very exciting, but I still have no idea how it is
>relevant to the new rule.

See above.

>> Highly dedicated intercept with a lot of transients can manage this,
>> but not consistently. Highly dedicated intercept with a lot of
>> permanents will die miserably. Almost nothing else can even come
>> close.
>
>Now I just have no idea what you're talking about.

Play more intercept?

>> No, I don't hold that position: Change of Target and Red Herring are
>> not the same mechanic. They are a card that is INTENDED to cancel
>> your own action, and they don't ever set up a situation where you're
>> deliberately attempting an action you can't pay for. (Red Herring has
>> a cost, but you can't play action modifiers without paying the cost
>> immediately, and Red Herring's effect explicitly cancels the action.)
>
>You can play an action modifier that would make the action
>unpayable before you play Red Herring (assuming the block still
>holds), and you don't empty your pockets (that's my new shorthand
>for this rule, where you pay everything you've got and get nothing).

This is not CoT/RH's fault, however. Again, those cards are INTENDED
to cancel your own action - however much blood you'd like to spend on
action modifiers before cancelling your action is assumed to be your
own problem.

>> Being able to use that cost to your own benefit to 'fizzle'
>> an action and try again is simply wrong.
>
>First, it's unclear to me how that is "simply wrong."

Are you a terminally minmax sort of gamer?

>Second, you can't try again, you're tapped.

...try again with another vampire, perhaps? That's the usual trick
*I* see pulled; "Oh, I play this Earth Control; RATS, the action
fails, no combat, you move nothing out of your hand and don't play
Cat's Guidance, either, do you? Next vampire over will bleed with
Computer Hack..."

>Third, you can still use that cost to fizzle an action,
>even with the new rule.

And now there is an appropriate penalty for doing so.

>> Want to bugger up a Change of Target deck? Stop blocking it and watch
>> them jam up on "secondary" action cards and CoTs.
>
>If you've stopped blocking all my actions because you don't
>want to risk us both untapping after the block, just to
>avoid the danger of me cycling Change of Targets, you've
>already lost the game. Or my deck is filled with useless
>actions. None of this is relevant to the new rule.

Jason, I hate to break it to you, but "not blocking" is STILL a very
good strategy when you're faced with a predator who *depends* on you
blocking. It's not just Change of Targets, it's the OTHER action
cards that you also jam up on, not to mention anything else sitting
around in your deck. A Toreador bleed/CoT/vote deck often will
include a few Mind Numbs, to keep people from just leaving a vampire
untapped and blocking the bleed at no cost to themselves. If you tap
out every turn and don't block the bleed, the vote doesn't happen, and
the Mind Numbs and CoTs start to pile up in their hand.

Now I know you just can't seem to get your brain around it, but the
strategy simply DOES work extremely well. Try it sometime. No,
really! Try it. And I'm going to have to point out to you that my
playgroup just had two players make the trip to Origins... both of
whom made the finals... in both constructed tournaments. This
indicates to me that these players are probably pretty damn good. And
I'm going to FURTHER point out to you that my playgroup is quite
evenly balanced; nobody tends to win more than anyone else around
here.

What this means to me is that I'm trying this strategy and seeing it
work against some very good players. Most things that work against
good players tend to also work against poor players. Therefore I can
assume that this is a valid strategy. It is a valid strategy that
requires HUGE COJONES OF BRASS to even attempt, but most of the time,
it works. Sometimes it fails. Shit happens. I can assure you that
playing into the hands of a Change of Target deck by trying to block
everything it does is simply contributing to your own destruction.

>> Wow, that's a dreadful idea. Now I have a Thanks in play, I have
>> something contested, and despite the card being specifically written
>> to cause pool loss to one's prey, I can't oust my prey with it, and
>> instead I have to yield my contested card???
>
>Yes, in the specific instance when you have You have Thanks and
>the person you're contesting with has Democritus in play simultaneously,
>an extremely narrow set of circumstances, and an extremely narrow ruling.

However, extremely narrow circumstances can and DO crop up, and it
would be very embarrassing to have that happen, now don't you think?

>Instead we get an extremely broad ruling to solve a narrow problem.
>You still must yield your contested card with the new rule, by the way,
>so your point is, at least to some extent, moot. I half expect a

I can assure you that I will, in 99% of the circumstances, gladly
yield my contested card to gain 6 pool and a VP. In the remaining 1%,
I will be a little annoyed about losing my card, but I will still
gladly accept the 6 pool and VP as partial compensation for my
sadness.

>> I think that ruling will cause just a FEW more ripples -- especially
>> the bit where you get to explain how a card that makes your prey lose
>> pool won't actually oust your prey.
>
>Easy explanation. Since the cost can't be paid, the cost is not paid,
>card must be yielded. Current explanation: cost can't be paid,

The cost CAN be paid, however. There is no rule barring someone from
paying the cost to contest, even though it would oust them. So the
current ruling is in fact dead-on, even though your prey is being
forced to pay by YOU choosing not to yield.

>pay some of the cost, card must be yielded. Inconsistent rule
>in regards to every other failed action event in the game, and
>inconsistent with current rules regarding contesting.

Square ON with current rules, actually.

It's not "can't" be paid, it's whether or not you DO pay it.

>> Because in no other circumstance are you intentionally attempting an
>> action you can't pay for. That was easy.
>
>This is wrong. I cannot attempt any action I cannot pay for.
>In all other circumstances, payment is not made for actions
>that do not happen. Only in this case, only because of this

And in all other circumstances, the action has failed because of
someone ELSE'S reactions; or by you playing one of the two cards from
your hand that specifically read "Cancel this action".

Aaron

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:51:57 PM7/11/01
to
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<ac037.115291$Md.29...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>...

Seems to me, that you are all right.
Derek is right, it is not cool to be able to back out of actions by
playing stealth.
You are right, it is totally out the window to pay as much as you can,
and not succeed.
Can anyone see a middle ground?? Hello, why is it possible for you to
set aside part of a cost, then use it up again?
Example: My vampire bleeds you with Mind Rape. I only have 2 blood on
him. Who decided that I can now pay one of my only 2 blood, to play
elder impersonation. Without this problem, what would this rule do?
Obviously Vast wealth is an equip action. if my vampire pulls up an
equipment I can't pay for I lose it. Paying for part of it is silly.
If I wasn't using the vast wealth, then I wouldn't be able to take the
action. Somehow taping my minion, taking a blockable action, and
burning an equipment isn't a large enough cost for shuffling my deck.

Aaron

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:39:13 PM7/11/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote

> The World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart.
> Think of playing the card as taking out a loan.
> (Thinking of a loan shark helps even more).
>
> Now, when it comes time to pay, things look a
> bit more like the current ruling.
>
> (Plus the rules are now uniform - always a plus for
> explaining rules to your friends).

Bad, bad metaphor. Mostly since the "comes time
to pay" has no effect when the action fails for
other reasons (blocking, card or action cancellation).
The time to pay never comes due for a blocked
Propaganda.

Which makes the rules non-uniform. A failed action
is not a failed action, it now depends on why and
how, which is never a plus for explaining rules to
my friends.

- Jason Bell


LSJ

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:08:11 PM7/11/01
to
>===== Original Message From "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> =====
>"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
>
>> The World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart.
>> Think of playing the card as taking out a loan.
>> (Thinking of a loan shark helps even more).
>>
>> Now, when it comes time to pay, things look a
>> bit more like the current ruling.
>>
>> (Plus the rules are now uniform - always a plus for
>> explaining rules to your friends).
>
>Bad, bad metaphor. Mostly since the "comes time

If you like.

>to pay" has no effect when the action fails for
>other reasons (blocking, card or action cancellation).
>The time to pay never comes due for a blocked
>Propaganda.

Exactly.

>Which makes the rules non-uniform. A failed action
>is not a failed action, it now depends on why and
>how, which is never a plus for explaining rules to
>my friends.

Not true.
The rules are consistent.
If the action is successful (inasfar as not being
blocked), then the cost is paid.
This is always true.
If the action is blocked or otehrwise doesn't reach
the resolution step indicated in the rulebook (which
is when the cost is to be paid) then the cost is not
paid.
This is always true.

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:53:29 PM7/11/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> =====

> >Easy explanation. Since the cost can't be paid, the cost is not paid,
> >card must be yielded. Current explanation: cost can't be paid,
> >pay some of the cost, card must be yielded. Inconsistent rule
> >in regards to every other failed action event in the game, and
> >inconsistent with current rules regarding contesting.
>
> With what is it inconsistent?

Rule for Player A contesting card 1 with Player B who
controls Democritus.

If Player A has 1 pool, Player A is not entitled to
contest card 1, since he cannot pay the cost.

Please don't tell me that Player A can decide to
contest, and pay 1/2 the cost to contest and oust
himself. That would start a much longer discussion
than we're having right now.

- Jason Bell

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:20:28 PM7/11/01
to

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote

> Seems to me, that you are all right.
> Derek is right, it is not cool to be able to back out of actions by
> playing stealth.
> You are right, it is totally out the window to pay as much as you can,
> and not succeed.
> Can anyone see a middle ground?? Hello, why is it possible for you to
> set aside part of a cost, then use it up again?
> Example: My vampire bleeds you with Mind Rape. I only have 2 blood on
> him. Who decided that I can now pay one of my only 2 blood, to play
> elder impersonation. Without this problem, what would this rule do?
> Obviously Vast wealth is an equip action. if my vampire pulls up an
> equipment I can't pay for I lose it. Paying for part of it is silly.
> If I wasn't using the vast wealth, then I wouldn't be able to take the
> action. Somehow taping my minion, taking a blockable action, and
> burning an equipment isn't a large enough cost for shuffling my deck.
>
> Aaron

I agree with all of this.

I do realize that I am just grumbling over here, it wouldn't
do anyone any good to have a re-reversal on the books for
this game (I believe Magic had one re-re-reversal for Zur's
Weirding, some time before they decided to re-write how
all of the rules worked).

I had no sense that this fizzled action thing or Vast Wealth
shuffle or the Thanks, Democritus situation was a burning
problem in Jyhad, or that the Rules Team or whoever was
mulling it over.

In all my years of playing (which stretches back well
before Wylie started muddling with the rules to make
this a tournament game), I've seen the Vast Wealth
situation come up exactly once, and the fizzled aciton
thing come up maybe 6 times, so on that level, it's just
a wrinkle in the rules. One that makes little sense, but
I suppose not terribly important in any real way.

- Jason Bell


Kevin M.

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 12:27:05 AM7/12/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B83...@MailAndNews.com...

[snip everything]

>
> The World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart.

[snip everything else]

> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/


This quote has got to go somewhere. Maybe on Lasombra's webpage? ;)


Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI
(remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier


Reyda

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:31:52 AM7/12/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com>

> The rules are consistent.
> If the action is successful (inasfar as not being
> blocked), then the cost is paid.
> This is always true.
> If the action is blocked or otehrwise doesn't reach
> the resolution step indicated in the rulebook (which
> is when the cost is to be paid) then the cost is not
> paid.
> This is always true.

on the contrary of Jason bell's arguments.

Raille

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 9:33:11 AM7/12/01
to

Jason Bell wrote:
> Right, try taking that "intuition" to a grocery store when
> you don't have enough cash for your entire basket.
> In my experience, I don't pay my last dollar for the
> 3 dollar milk and then have to put it back (I suppose
> to make this example exactly correlative, I would have
> to somehow lose 2 or more dollars during the trip to the
> checkout, perhaps because I played Lost to Salvation Army,
> for +1 Kharma).
> I think the rule before this week is far more intuitive,
> and worked much more logically with the rules for
> all the other failed action conditions (non-payment
> of all costs).
>
> - Jason Bell

How about this comparison.

Look at the Marathon runner, you start the race, and about half way you
get exhuasted, and fail to complete the race.

Do you get your time and energy back?

I take the view that the minion is investing his energy into generating
the effects of the card, if the minion finds out that half way through,
they are to tired to continue, its just to late, no one waves a magic
wand over him to return all the invested vitae.

Raille

Raille

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 9:36:11 AM7/12/01
to

They could attempt to pay the 2 pool cost, fail, oust themselves, and
allow the other Meth to carry on like normal.

All is fair in war.

Raille

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:02:13 AM7/12/01
to
roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote in message news:<7ab27d37.01071...@posting.google.com>...

> Seems to me, that you are all right.
> Derek is right, it is not cool to be able to back out of actions by
> playing stealth.
> You are right, it is totally out the window to pay as much as you can,
> and not succeed.
> Can anyone see a middle ground?? Hello, why is it possible for you to
> set aside part of a cost, then use it up again?

Well, mainly because it's hard to prohibit you from doing that, I'd
guess. You could add to the rules "you can't spend blood that has
a pending cost on it", which would keep you from playing action
modifiers that would take you below the cost of the action. But
suppose you got blocked, got hit for enough damage to reduce your
blood below the action cost, and then played Form of Mist superior
(or similar) to continue the action? You can't really prohibit that
in an intuitive way. You have to have a rule for handling situations
like this if they arise.

> Example: My vampire bleeds you with Mind Rape. I only have 2 blood on
> him. Who decided that I can now pay one of my only 2 blood, to play
> elder impersonation. Without this problem, what would this rule do?
> Obviously Vast wealth is an equip action. if my vampire pulls up an
> equipment I can't pay for I lose it. Paying for part of it is silly.
> If I wasn't using the vast wealth, then I wouldn't be able to take the
> action. Somehow taping my minion, taking a blockable action, and
> burning an equipment isn't a large enough cost for shuffling my deck.

As far as I know, you are entirely allowed to take an equip action
for an equipment you can't pay for: it'll oust you, but you can do it.


Josh

doesn't like ousting himself

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:17:12 AM7/12/01
to
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<Bs537.117275$Md.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>...

> "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
>
> > The World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart.
> > Think of playing the card as taking out a loan.
> > (Thinking of a loan shark helps even more).
> >
> > Now, when it comes time to pay, things look a
> > bit more like the current ruling.
> >
> > (Plus the rules are now uniform - always a plus for
> > explaining rules to your friends).
>
> Bad, bad metaphor. Mostly since the "comes time
> to pay" has no effect when the action fails for
> other reasons (blocking, card or action cancellation).
> The time to pay never comes due for a blocked
> Propaganda.

Well, the grocery-store metaphor is equally strained,
isn't it? You didn't promise the grocer you were going
to give him X amount of money when you walked in the
door.

> Which makes the rules non-uniform. A failed action
> is not a failed action, it now depends on why and
> how, which is never a plus for explaining rules to
> my friends.

The rulebook tells you very directly that you don't pay
for blocked actions; cancelled actions aren't paid for
because nothing cancelled is paid for in VTES. Other than
that, you always pay. How is that non-uniform?


Josh

loves a man in a uniform

LSJ

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:32:25 AM7/12/01
to
duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
>As far as I know, you are entirely allowed to take an equip action
>for an equipment you can't pay for: it'll oust you, but you can do it.

No. You cannot attempt an action that you cannot pay the cost of.
With 2 pool you can attempt to equip with a .44 (even though paying
the cost will oust you) because you can pay the cost.
With 2 pool you cannot attempt to equip with a Submachine Gun, since
you cannot pay the cost.

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 2:26:52 PM7/12/01
to

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote
> "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote

>
> [snip everything]
>
> > The World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart.
>
> [snip everything else]

If the World of Darkness isn't Wal-Mart,
why are pieces of the World sold at $2.75
per chunk?

- Jason Bell


Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 2:27:49 PM7/12/01
to

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote

> Jason Bell wrote:
> > Please don't tell me that Player A can decide to
> > contest, and pay 1/2 the cost to contest and oust
> > himself. That would start a much longer discussion
> > than we're having right now.
> >
> > - Jason Bell
>
> They could attempt to pay the 2 pool cost, fail, oust themselves, and
> allow the other Meth to carry on like normal.

LSJ,
Can I get a confirmation on this?

- Jason Bell


Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 2:32:17 PM7/12/01
to

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote

> Look at the Marathon runner, you start the race, and about half way you
> get exhuasted, and fail to complete the race.
>
> Do you get your time and energy back?
>
> I take the view that the minion is investing his energy into generating
> the effects of the card, if the minion finds out that half way through,
> they are to tired to continue, its just to late, no one waves a magic
> wand over him to return all the invested vitae.

This analogy fails to account for the situation where
the action is blocked. In the role playing game,
resources are spent on the action as described
in your example, and are not recovered when the
action is blocked. Not in the card game.

No, the grocery store analogy is apt, especially
for the Vast Wealth example. Sorry, I can't
pay for the Talbot's Chainsaw, but here's all
the money that I do have for nothing.

- Jason Bell


LSJ

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 3:37:23 PM7/12/01
to
>===== Original Message From "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> =====

Confirmed.

Reyda

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 3:56:20 PM7/12/01
to

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>

> This analogy fails to account for the situation where
> the action is blocked. In the role playing game,
> resources are spent on the action as described
> in your example, and are not recovered when the
> action is blocked. Not in the card game.

As you point it yourself: It's a card game.

> No, the grocery store analogy is apt, especially
> for the Vast Wealth example. Sorry, I can't
> pay for the Talbot's Chainsaw, but here's all
> the money that I do have for nothing.

Again, it's a card game, for God's sake.

> - Jason Bell
>
>


Aaron

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 4:52:39 PM7/12/01
to
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<MZl37.71525$ih.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>...

If the world of darkness isn't Wal-Mart, how does a deer rifle cost
more then a flak jacket?

Aaron

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 5:10:57 PM7/12/01
to
duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote in message news:<59b20daa.0107...@posting.google.com>...

> roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote in message news:<7ab27d37.01071...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Seems to me, that you are all right.
> > Derek is right, it is not cool to be able to back out of actions by
> > playing stealth.
> > You are right, it is totally out the window to pay as much as you can,
> > and not succeed.
> > Can anyone see a middle ground?? Hello, why is it possible for you to
> > set aside part of a cost, then use it up again?
>
> Well, mainly because it's hard to prohibit you from doing that, I'd
> guess. You could add to the rules "you can't spend blood that has
> a pending cost on it", which would keep you from playing action
> modifiers that would take you below the cost of the action. But

What would be wrong with that? Even if you left the rule at pay as
much as possible for the action, you still should not be able to spend
that on action modifiers.

> suppose you got blocked, got hit for enough damage to reduce your
> blood below the action cost, and then played Form of Mist superior
> (or similar) to continue the action? You can't really prohibit that
> in an intuitive way. You have to have a rule for handling situations
> like this if they arise.

What are you trying to prohibit? Why should you be able to play a
superior form of mist if you no longer are able to complete the
action. You can't play it if you are blocking. Or if you are in
combat, on your turn for some reason other then a valid
action(illusionary kindred) To make it simple, you should not be
allowed to continue an action, who's requirments you can no longer
meet. Same way you should not be allowed to play modifiers that
require costs which are pending in the current action.



> > Example: My vampire bleeds you with Mind Rape. I only have 2 blood on
> > him. Who decided that I can now pay one of my only 2 blood, to play
> > elder impersonation. Without this problem, what would this rule do?
> > Obviously Vast wealth is an equip action. if my vampire pulls up an
> > equipment I can't pay for I lose it. Paying for part of it is silly.
> > If I wasn't using the vast wealth, then I wouldn't be able to take the
> > action. Somehow taping my minion, taking a blockable action, and
> > burning an equipment isn't a large enough cost for shuffling my deck.
>
> As far as I know, you are entirely allowed to take an equip action
> for an equipment you can't pay for: it'll oust you, but you can do it.
>
>
> Josh
>
> doesn't like ousting himself

Thats kinda funny! :)
Aaron

Jason Bell

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:28:41 PM7/12/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote

> >LSJ,
> >Can I get a confirmation on this?
>
> Confirmed.

Wow.

So, with 1 pool, I am not allowed to attempt a 2 pool action
(equip with .44), but I am allowed to attempt to contest
a card that costs 2 pool to do so.
I am boggled.

- Jason Bell


James Coupe

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 12:54:03 AM7/13/01
to
In message <g3637.117385$Md.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes

>I had no sense that this fizzled action thing or Vast Wealth
>shuffle or the Thanks, Democritus situation was a burning
>problem in Jyhad, or that the Rules Team or whoever was
>mulling it over.

If you watch the Rules Team Rulings, it is quite clear that issues are
addressed based on merit, rather than whether or not they are "burning".


The Rules Team have shown a marked tendency to fix holes whether or not
they were being argued about. The Rules Team have not shown any
tendencies to rush out a new set of rules just because a spat is being
had on any of the V:TES forums.

Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise for the interested student.

--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses B457CA213D7E6
It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 12:56:33 AM7/13/01
to
In message <7ab27d37.01071...@posting.google.com>, Aaron
<roans...@yahoo.com> writes

>If the world of darkness isn't Wal-Mart, how does a deer rifle cost
>more then a flak jacket?

Shoddy taste in flak jackets?

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 12:54:35 AM7/13/01
to
In message <3B4C47B2...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes
>You always could take any action with a blood cost and attempt it.
>Costs were not played until the point at which the action succeeded.

Indeed. But if you didn't have the blood to pay for the action to start
with, you couldn't attempt it anyway.

Raille

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 9:00:49 AM7/13/01
to

Were discussing the event where your not blocked, but have to pay a
cost.

Your store example fits well with the blocked format, my marathon
example fits more with the unblocked example.

However, you and I argueing will not likely get LSJ to change the
current ruling.

Soo as Reyda so pointedly put it. Its a card game.

Lets Play!

Raille

Raille

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 9:05:13 AM7/13/01
to

I think what needs to be clarified here is that when you pay for a item,
you need the full cost or more.

However Pool has indirectly been allowed to be a negative number for
certain things.

Example. I have 1 pool, I get bled for 5. I now have a -4 pool, but
get ousted at the point where I reach 0.

Thus I can attampt to contest cards even if I should use all or more
than all of my current blood pool.

Raille
at least were not using imaginary numbers!

LSJ

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 11:43:42 AM7/13/01
to
>===== Original Message From "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> =====
>"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
>
>> >LSJ,
>> >Can I get a confirmation on this?
>>
>> Confirmed.
>
>Wow.
>
>So, with 1 pool, I am not allowed to attempt a 2 pool action
>(equip with .44), but I am allowed to attempt to contest
>a card that costs 2 pool to do so.

Good point.
If you don't have enough pool to pay for the contest (which can
only happen if Democritus is around), then you must yield.
(unconfirming my previous response).

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 11:59:34 AM7/13/01
to
roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote in message news:<7ab27d37.01071...@posting.google.com>...
> duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote in message news:<59b20daa.0107...@posting.google.com>...

> > suppose you got blocked, got hit for enough damage to reduce your


> > blood below the action cost, and then played Form of Mist superior
> > (or similar) to continue the action? You can't really prohibit that
> > in an intuitive way. You have to have a rule for handling situations
> > like this if they arise.
>
> What are you trying to prohibit? Why should you be able to play a
> superior form of mist if you no longer are able to complete the
> action. You can't play it if you are blocking. Or if you are in
> combat, on your turn for some reason other then a valid
> action(illusionary kindred) To make it simple, you should not be
> allowed to continue an action, who's requirments you can no longer
> meet. Same way you should not be allowed to play modifiers that
> require costs which are pending in the current action.

Well, last I heard, you can play superior FoM when blocking or unable
to continue; you just don't get the continue effect. But that's not
really the point.

You're right, it would be possible to make a rule like the one you're
suggesting, and it would probably work ok. But it would be different.
And as we see every time there's a new ruling, different is bad. ;-)

> > As far as I know, you are entirely allowed to take an equip action
> > for an equipment you can't pay for: it'll oust you, but you can do it.
> >
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > doesn't like ousting himself
>
> Thats kinda funny! :)
> Aaron

Thanks, I try. Turns out I was wrong about that though - it falls
under the category of "actions you can't attempt because you can't
pay for them".


Josh

minion tap/stealth-5th? still good.

Jozxyqk

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 1:23:00 PM7/13/01
to
> If you don't have enough pool to pay for the contest (which can
> only happen if Democritus is around), then you must yield.
> (unconfirming my previous response).

What about Thanks for the Donation? If my prey has 1 pool, and
I've got 2 TftD's in play (or just one and I'm contesting with the
controller of Democritus), can I oust my prey with contestation cost
of 2? Can I burn one of my prey's pool, and still fail the contest?
Do I have to pay for it myself?
Or must I yield since my prey can't pay for it?


Jozxyqk

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 1:34:19 PM7/13/01
to
> What about Thanks for the Donation? If my prey has 1 pool, and
> I've got 2 TftD's in play (or just one and I'm contesting with the
> controller of Democritus), can I oust my prey with contestation cost
> of 2? Can I burn one of my prey's pool, and still fail the contest?
> Do I have to pay for it myself?
> Or must I yield since my prey can't pay for it?

Oops, following up to myself, I misread TftD. Stacking it is as useful
as stacking Army of Rats.
But still, what about Thanks for the Donation + Democritus?

Josh, questioner of unlikely situations

LSJ

unread,
Jul 13, 2001, 1:58:19 PM7/13/01
to
Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>But still, what about Thanks for the Donation + Democritus?

Besides the TftD+Democritus answer in the first message in
this thread, I can think of nothing to add, sorry.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages