Paying the Cost of Villein

1a: Wait for cancellation effects.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I am sorry, but why should we have three forms of card play?

Because since 1994, that's what the rules have been set up to do. Actions work differently to strikes which work differently to other cards.

Why do vampires work differently to allies? Why can't all minions work the same? Why why why why why?

And James, please show me where the sequence I have put there that does anything differently except explicitly requiring the cost of a card to be paid before it is resolved.

And also, even if something has been done the same way for 15 years, does it mean now is not the time to IMPROVE on it. To make the way we play the game SIMPLER and easier to teach so we can EXPAND our player groups?

The number of disciplines, the sequence of turns, the card types, the order of play of cards... all of these are complexities we have to have. Why shouldn't we make things EASIER on everyone??

Pascal wrote:

As jamesatzephyr said, that's the way the rules work and have been working for 15+ years. Any change in the sequence of Play, Pay, Resolve is not under consideration so far. Unless someone comes up with an example that actually breaks the rules (rather than an opinion on what would be more convenient in certain cases), I see no reason to change the rules.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

A Sequence for playing cards in VTES

1. Play (and announce details)
2. Replace card unless directed otherwise
3. Check if the card is 'successful'
4. Pay for card
5. Resolve the card

Pascal wrote:

This sequence should have "check if the card's payment was successful" after "pay for the card", I suppose.

That 'checking the payment of the card' is the entire point of the "Pay for Card" step. That is the point where you have, failed payment, partial payment and successful payment.

KevinM wrote:

1a: Wait for cancellation effects.

Not to sound too harsh, but if you'd read fully before... 1a) does not need to exist. The effect required in your 1a) by combining this step with the Impulse Rules (which pass the impulse around to all others after a card is played) is unneccesary. You play the card, announce its effect (without replacing) wait for players to not do anything about it then follow the rest of the sequence such as "As announced" cards (again passing impulse) and so on.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And James, please show me where the sequence I have put there that does anything differently except explicitly requiring the cost of a card to be paid before it is resolved.

And also, even if something has been done the same way for 15 years, does it mean now is not the time to IMPROVE on it. To make the way we play the game SIMPLER and easier to teach so we can EXPAND our player groups?

The number of disciplines, the sequence of turns, the card types, the order of play of cards... all of these are complexities we have to have. Why shouldn't we make things EASIER on everyone??

Changing rules that are working fine will not really make things easier for everyone.
While it might be slighlty easier for new players, it will cause very much confusion for those of us that has played for a few years and learned the rules. And regarding the new players ability to learn the rules I kinda doubt the stuff discussed here is even close to being the worst part. There are no real weirdness except that different card types function a bit different.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And James, please show me where the sequence I have put there that does anything differently except explicitly requiring the cost of a card to be paid before it is resolved.

That's a completely bizarre statement.

What you have just written is essentially:

"Please show me how the change I'm proposing does something other than the change I'm proposing."

Which is completely circular. The change you're proposing does what it does. It doesn't do what it doesn't do.

That applies to: Every. Single. Change. Ever.

If I could show how your change did something your change didn't do, that would mean that it did do it. So why would I waste my time showing that your change does what it does, when it already does what it does?

And why would I waste my time doing that when it wouldn't add one iota to the discussion of whether it's a useful change? Or a necessary change? Or the best change out of a range of possible changes, once it's been decided one is needed?

henrik wrote:

Changing rules that are working fine will not really make things easier for everyone.
While it might be slighlty easier for new players, it will cause very much confusion for those of us that has played for a few years and learned the rules. And regarding the new players ability to learn the rules I kinda doubt the stuff discussed here is even close to being the worst part. There are no real weirdness except that different card types function a bit different.

Henrik,
The core wierdness I have is that cards that cost enough to kill you, do not kill you if they resolve with giving you more pool. This seems to be a logical stupidity. If you do not pay for a card it cannot resolve,
It removes a number of the 'timing window' issues/questions that have occurred MANY times over in the past.
It will elegantly replace 3 different rules to create one rule.
It elegantly explains why effects of a card may fail at different points (e.g. Why cancelling cards 'as played' results in 'no payment of cost', cancelling cards 'before resolution' results in their cost being paid or cancelling the effect of a card cannot affect the requirement to pay its cost).