Paying the Cost of Villein

I know I remember reading this in the past, but my Google-fu is weak tonight...

LSJ has ruled in the past that the cost of Villein can be paid out of the pool you gain from Villein (or Minion Tap).

Example:
I have 1 pool, I play Villein on a vampire that already has 1 Villein (or use Minion Tap when there is one Villein on the table) and take, say, 5 blood off and put 4 counters into my pool.

Can someone with greater Google-fu please post up a link for that ruling. I am sure it exists, I just can't remember where or find it.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

LSJ has ruled in the past that the cost of Villein can be paid out of the pool you gain from Villein (or Minion Tap).

Not exactly...

What you can do is pay for a master card whose cost uses up all your pool (taking you to zero), gain some pool from the effect of the master card (taking you up from zero), and not be ousted. Play, pay and resolution are simultaneous, so there isn't a point when you actually hit zero pool.

However: if, for example, Minion Tap cost 2 pool (two Villeins in play), and you have 1 pool, and the vampire you want to target has oodles of blood, you can't play Minion Tap because you can't afford it. (Similarly, if that target vampire had both Villeins on it.)


Also, corner-case-fun: Santaleous can cancel master cards, but doesn't include the "no cost is paid text". The default is that you pay the cost, unless the "no cost is paid" text is there. So Santaleous cancelling your MT/Villein can oust you. Don't do that.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

LSJ has ruled in the past that the cost of Villein can be paid out of the pool you gain from Villein (or Minion Tap).

Not exactly...

What you can do is pay for a master card whose cost uses up all your pool (taking you to zero), gain some pool from the effect of the master card (taking you up from zero), and not be ousted. Play, pay and resolution are simultaneous, so there isn't a point when you actually hit zero pool.

Play happens first, goes with the declaration of terms, and is followed by the "as played" window, in which Sudden Reversal et al. other cards could be played.
Pay, resolve and replace are "simultaneous", and come after that "as played" window.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

However: if, for example, Minion Tap cost 2 pool (two Villeins in play), and you have 1 pool, and the vampire you want to target has oodles of blood, you can't play Minion Tap because you can't afford it. (Similarly, if that target vampire had both Villeins on it.)


Also, corner-case-fun: Santaleous can cancel master cards, but doesn't include the "no cost is paid text". The default is that you pay the cost, unless the "no cost is paid" text is there. So Santaleous cancelling your MT/Villein can oust you. Don't do that.

Correct.
[LSJ 20090815] for the MT with 2 V in play when on 1 pool;
[LSJ 20080612] (but it's a generic ruling which can be found here: [LSJ 20090601] ) for the Santaleous part.

Pascal wrote:

Play happens first, goes with the declaration of terms, and is followed by the "as played" window, in which Sudden Reversal et al. other cards could be played.
Pay, resolve and replace are "simultaneous", and come after that "as played" window.
Correct.
[LSJ 20090815] for the MT with 2 V in play when on 1 pool;
[LSJ 20080612] (but it's a generic ruling which can be found here: [LSJ 20090601] ) for the Santaleous part.

I have a technical problem with this breakdown of actions or card plays (assuming that it can also apply across to Minion cards, which is not excluded by the general ruling).

Using this as the general template for the resolution of all cards, there would be no way to fail to pay for the cost of cards like Govern the Unaligned without their resolution also occuring. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but the vast number of times I have other people splitting hairs on me it seems stupid not to "join them".

If you have 1 blood on a vampire, and declare an action costing 1 blood, then use or lose that one blood... you are in the position where the card is resolving simultaneously with you paying for it. I just can't see a point in that sequence where you 'check if the cost can be paid before the card is resolved' which is also a point LSJ has made in the past. (I'm particularly thinking of the partial payment of unblocked actions ruling, which as usual I don't know the link to but I'm sure we all know that ruling.)

I don't see how one of those rulings in particular plays out. If you can play a card that would oust you (because its pool cost equals your pool) but you aren't ousted if you would gain enough pool to cover the cost (e.g. you have 1 pool and play Villein to gain 2, leaving you on 2 pool)... why can you not manage to do the same thing if playing that Villein (or Minion Tap) would cost MORE than your pool total (e.g. Villein would cost 2 pool, you have 1 pool playing the Villein would gain you 4 blood into pool and leaving you on 3 pool)? (1)

So either logically:

• we are all paying the cost first and then resolving the card's effects (cost and resolution are not simultaneous), OR
• we can always have actions successfully resolve (if they are not blocked) and partially pay the cost with whatever blood is available (cost and resolution are simultaneous)

(1): If you're assuming a cancellation of the card without cancelling its cost, then that would merely trigger the partial payment of costs scenario.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

If you have 1 blood on a vampire, and declare an action costing 1 blood, then use or lose that one blood... you are in the position where the card is resolving simultaneously with you paying for it.

They're simultaneous, but you're required to meet the cost. If you (say) play an action modifier that costs a blood, then the action is unblocked, you fail to pay for it, so the action fizzles.

This is unlike the master card situation where you have the pool to pay for it, pay for it and resolve it, and never hit zero pool during that process.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I just can't see a point in that sequence where you 'check if the cost can be paid before the card is resolved' which is also a point LSJ has made in the past.

For actions - which have a significant delay between play and resolution - you check twice.

1) When you play the card, you check to see if you meet all the requirements - including blood cost. If you don't, you can't play the card. (This is much the same for all cards.)

2) Because an action goes into limbo for a period of time, you re-check the requirements when the action is unblocked. Can you pay the cost? Are the targets still legal? (For example, Ambush will fizzle if the target untaps.) And so on.

Strikes also follow point 2 (because of their separate play/resolve timing), except that the cost has already been paid.

If you can't pay the full cost, you pay as much as you can - and then the action fizzles.

www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR71101.htm

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

why can you not manage to do the same thing if playing that Villein (or Minion Tap) would cost MORE than your pool total

You have 1 pool. The card costs 2 pool. When you announce the card play, you have to be able to meet the cost. You can't meet the cost, so you can't play the card.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

• we are all paying the cost first and then resolving the card's effects (cost and resolution are not simultaneous), OR
• we can always have actions successfully resolve (if they are not blocked) and partially pay the cost with whatever blood is available (cost and resolution are simultaneous)

Cost and resolution are simultaneous in both cases. In case one, you pay the full cost and the successful resolution happens simultaneously. In case two, you pay the partial cost and the fizzled resolution happens simultaneously. (Although fizzled resolution is much less interesting.)