V:TES Rulebook update question

Ankha wrote:

hardyrange wrote:

This is correct as it stands.
The cost IS paid, except when explicit card text states that the cost is NOT paid.

Correct, since 1994.

Well I guess so, since every card that I can think of offhand explicitly states that the cost is not paid... Example: sudden reversal, wash, bleeding the vine, direct intervention, evil eye....

Makes me wonder whats the point of this rule if its almost never in effect? I always just assumed that the card texts were merely reminding of the rule of no cost paid. Especially since the "no cost is paid" text is in brackets.

edit: Ok, I am legion doesn't mention that cost would not be paid..

Also Santaleous.

Keep on spamming those Zillahs!

It's pretty important, that rule.

The problem isn't really the parentheses and reminder text (although that doesn't help). It's that half the time when a card is cancelled, the cost is paid and half the time it's not, with a seemingly arbitrary "default" of paying the cost. It makes no sense to have this default "Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid" in the rulebook if this many cards are going to override it.

An exception to a default should be (1) rare and/or (2) a blatant, obvious exception to the default. An example is the additional strikes coming from one source rule ("a minion cannot use more than one card or effect to gain additional strikes per round of combat"), and Jacko's exception to this default ("Jacko gets an optional additional strike during the first round of combat. This does not count against his additional strike effect limit for that round.)"

The cancel rule and ubiquitous cards with an exception to this default goes against the spirit of having a default in the first place. The "Unless explicitly written, cost for the card is paid" text should be removed from the rulebook and card text should state whether the cost is paid in every case.

Ankha wrote:

There are plenty more cards that don't give you back the cost paid, as listed by Pascal:

groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/RkEUabeJNdM/R6t3F2I5RzYJ

Well, I went thru that and the list has actually more cards in "cost is not paid" list than "cost is paid" list (29 vs 27 respectively). Also several cards in the second list are special multi-card interaction cases that were probably not thought of when the card was designed, usually involving cards that say "playing X costs additional pool".

The majority of cards seems to be in the "cost is not paid" camp. Just saying.

My personal opinion is that if a rule has more exceptions than actual applications, something is wrong.