Where are cards at different stages?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

1.6.1 in the rulebook definitely contradicts the Detailed Play Summary. The rulebook indicates cards can be played directly to the ash heap, the Detailed Play Summary indicates cards are always played to the playing area. Which one is correct?

Welcome to another way in which VTES is held together by good luck, sellotape and string. The rules have lots of these 'gaps' and 'contradictions' that have been papered over.

Ankha wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

1.6.1 in the rulebook definitely contradicts the Detailed Play Summary. The rulebook indicates cards can be played directly to the ash heap, the Detailed Play Summary indicates cards are always played to the playing area. Which one is correct?

Welcome to another way in which VTES is held together by good luck, sellotape and string. The rules have lots of these 'gaps' and 'contradictions' that have been papered over.

It has gaps, but no contradiction I know.

There is no contradiction in practice; however, there is an apparent contradiction that three people have commented on. 1.6.1 in the rulebook should state the following to match the Detailed Play Summary: "A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played." The ash heap does not need to be mentioned here because that detail will be explained later in 6.2.3.

The apparent contradiction comes from people that read the rulebook as if it was the DPS, a detailed step-by-step rulebook, or by picking a part out of context . That's wrong.

The apparent contradiction comes from the rulebook and Detailed Play Summary being poorly written. Three people have pointed out the apparent contradiction because the rulebook is poorly written.

I agree that these people are definitely wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules. But when multiple people are wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules, there's a problem. I think the problem is with the rulebook, not the people. You think the problem is the people, not the rulebook. And so we disagree.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The apparent contradiction comes from people that read the rulebook as if it was the DPS, a detailed step-by-step rbelowulebook, or by picking a part out of context . That's wrong.

The apparent contradiction comes from the rulebook and Detailed Play Summary being poorly written. Three people have pointed out the apparent contradiction because the rulebook is poorly written.

I agree that these people are definitely wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules. But when multiple people are wrongly interpreting/contextualizing the rules, there's a problem. I think the problem is with the rulebook, not the people. You think the problem is the people, not the rulebook. And so we disagree.

What we see are more than 2 interpretations on one rule topic. 2 interpretations = clarification is needed. Ie a ruling, erratta, obligatory troll hyperlinking "Google search results:dictionary.com" , whatever.
More than 2 shows a bigger issue. Which people are aware of. Once we know the situation with Paradox, Pascal will presumably be more hands on with this issue, and card erratta in general. Until then, we have rulings to tide us over. Copyright with wotc is an issue for some streamlining that would make life easier(such as followed by a colon indication activation cost. Those are linked to vtes, but the tap symbol would help and isn't) and in depth rules for priority/initiative/card resolution/timing/legal game areas need to be made and less riddled with holes. I'm sure this is on the itinerary, but behind other things, like seeing print ever again.

We can all find idiosyncrasies to nitpick. Jesper has found he isn't"AJesper" in vtes, for example. The rules will be streamlined, they just aren't yet. We can all see this being a reasonably attainable thing eventually, right?