Discussion: Card costs and presentation

Ankha wrote:

It's not what James said. James was talking about the cost of a card, "Cards cost him..." means that Salavador reduces the cost of the card.

How does "cost of a card" differ from "cost of playing a card"?
Since James is talking about cost of a card's effect, is it the cost of a card then?
....

I think you are merely confusing things further.
"Cost of playing a card" is explicit, "Cost of a card" is ambiguous.

jblacey wrote:

Using the Magic reference...

You'll save yourself a lot of headache if you stop trying to parse VTES rules through the lens of Magic rules.

Bloodartist wrote:

Ankha wrote:

Terms under "special terms" in the rulebook are for all intents and purposes, keywords.
Keyword is a word with a set of rules attached to it in the rulebook. As in, rules text on a card can be replaced with corresponding keyword, and it still works. This is done to keep card texts concise.
Hunt is a keyword (for example +1 hunt), wake is a keyword, infernal is a keyword, etc. VTES sometimes tries to purposefully avoid using certain terminology which tends to lead to more confusion rather than clear things up.

I don't see how adding that those terms are keywords would help since we don't need to refer to them.

I agree with this. VTES does not need new language incorporated, at least not right now. "Special Terms" is already established.

For instance, "can", "have", etc. are verbs, but do we need to explicitely say so? No.
You can call them keywords if you want to; but you are then on a metalevel, not on the rule level.

Well, you have to explicitly call them Special Terms, because that's what the rulebook does. This thread is evidence of the can of worms that using non-rulebook language, such as keyword, can open. One can argue that because some special terms function like a keyword, it's necessary to call those certain special terms keywords. I don't agree with this. Traditionally, VTES has had Special Terms, where the rulebook provides clear definitions of how those special terms function. Organizing these terms better in the rulebook instead of just lumping them together in one place is one thing, and I'm 100% behind that. But incorporating new language such as "keyword", where definition of such a term can vary greatly, is an entirely other thing, and is best avoided.

jblacey wrote:

Using the Magic reference, this is like a triggered effect. The trigger has to happen before the effect can occur. It is created by a card, but it is a separate instance (with it's own cost, effect, and requirements; not to be confused with the original card).

No, it's what Magic would call an Activated Ability. The card effect specifically gives each of your Anarchs the Activated Ability: "Pay 1 Blood: Get 1 Vote. This ability can't be activated more than once during this referendum."

Triggered Abilities always use the terms, "When," "Whenever," "Each time," "After," "At the beginning of [phase]," or "At the end of [phase]," etc. They are 'triggered' by certain events or game-states.

Kushiel wrote:

You'll save yourself a lot of headache if you stop trying to parse VTES rules through the lens of Magic rules.

Considering the Magic Comprehensive Rules are written like an actual legal document and come with examples of every rule, maybe VTES could learn something from Magic? I mean, it is the older child in this situation, one that has been exponentially more successful and has really changed and evolved - I'd dare say 'grown up' - over the last two decades. Maybe the guys responsible for developing Magic could be learned from? Maybe the lens that Magic offers would be useful for VTES?

Ankha wrote:

I don't see how adding that those terms are keywords would help since we don't need to refer to them.

You could have effects like "This minion copies all of that minion's keyword abilities." Or "The chosen minion loses all keyword abilities." There are so many cool effects and things Magic does with its wording and terms that are absent from VTES. You could also play with Traits or Subtypes (like Electronic, Weapon, Black Hand, Seraph, Location, etc.) but you would need to clearly define what constitutes as such. Calling these "technical terms" or "game terms" like James says doesn't suffice.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I agree with this. VTES does not need new language incorporated, at least not right now. "Special Terms" is already established. [...] But incorporating new language such as "keyword", where definition of such a term can vary greatly, is an entirely other thing, and is best avoided.

Except the term "keyword" is not "new language". It was introduced by Magic decades ago, and has been so useful that virtually every collectible / trading card-game - analog or digital - has since adopted the term to describe card-effects or abilities that appear over and over again and can be replaced by a simple one-word or two-word term.

BloodArtist is right, all of the "Special Terms" of VTES would be considered "keywords" in any other card-game.

All of this opposition to using useful language developments of the industry reminds me of the dozens of stories of companies and innovators not changing with the times and adopting the latest technology and getting left behind as a result.

"Oxygen? Bah-humbug. Phlogiston theory is already well established. No need to introduce new terms like 'oxygen' - that'll only create confusion and is best avoided."

LivesByProxy wrote:

All of this opposition to using useful language developments of the industry reminds me of the dozens of stories of companies and innovators not changing with the times and adopting the latest technology and getting left behind as a result.

"Oxygen? Bah-humbug. Phlogiston theory is already well established. No need to introduce new terms like 'oxygen' - that'll only create confusion and is best avoided."

What does phlogiston theory have to do with Ebeneezer Scrooge? Anyway calling "Special Terms" keywords isn't innovative, it's actually just not really necessary. For example, some cards contain the Special Term "Unique." It's doing all the "innovative" things you want (ie, "describe card-effects or abilities that appear over and over again and can be replaced by a simple one-word or two-word term"). What do we gain by calling this a keyword? I'm convinced the answer is "nothing."