Paying the Cost of Villein

That is what makes no sense.

There are two major points here:
1. A card cannot be declared if its effective cost cannto be paid (e.g.s You cannot declare a 2 blood action with a vampire with 1 blood. You cannot declare a 2 pool card be played if you cannot pay the cost because you have 1 pool).

2. A card cannot be successfully resolved until its cost is fully paid. (e.g. You take a 1 blood action and spend 1 blood on a stealth card, leaving the minion on 0 blood and so when the action reaches the point where it is about to be resolved its full cost must be paid for it to successfully resolve).

So, in taking it across to master cards, I can accept the "If you haven't got it at the start you can't play" it argument (Point #1)... but partial payment of actions by its very existence implies that cards must be fully paid for before they can resolve.

If they must be fully paid before they resolve, then you cannot gain the pool from Villein/Minion Tap before you have fully paid for its effect (which ousts you).

I'd like to see where you find a gap in that logic without explicity referring to a separate ruling.

It seems that LSJs ruling, in the case of Minion Tap and Villein, logically breaks his own rulings about the partial payment of the costs of cards.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

2. A card cannot be successfully resolved until its cost is fully paid. (e.g. You take a 1 blood action and spend 1 blood on a stealth card, leaving the minion on 0 blood and so when the action reaches the point where it is about to be resolved its full cost must be paid for it to successfully resolve).

Not quite, no. You pay the cost and resolve the card simultaneously. (Except for strike cards.)

However, it is quite apparent whether you can meet the cost or not.

If you can meet the cost, you pay the full cost and resolve the card successfully.

If you can't meet the cost, you pay what you can and fizzle.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

So, in taking it across to master cards, I can accept the "If you haven't got it at the start you can't play" it argument (Point #1)... but partial payment of actions by its very existence implies that cards must be fully paid for before they can resolve.

No, it doesn't. It could equally imply "Can I meet the full cost? Yes, then:... No, then:..." Which, coincidentally, is what we do.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I'd like to see where you find a gap in that logic without explicity referring to a separate ruling.

That you're implying things out of so-called necessity when there is no actual necessity.

Sure, things _could_ work the way you say. But they don't. And there's no need for them to, despite your illogic.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

That is what makes no sense.

There are two major points here:
1. A card cannot be declared if its effective cost cannto be paid (e.g.s You cannot declare a 2 blood action with a vampire with 1 blood. You cannot declare a 2 pool card be played if you cannot pay the cost because you have 1 pool).

2. A card cannot be successfully resolved until its cost is fully paid. (e.g. You take a 1 blood action and spend 1 blood on a stealth card, leaving the minion on 0 blood and so when the action reaches the point where it is about to be resolved its full cost must be paid for it to successfully resolve).

So, in taking it across to master cards, I can accept the "If you haven't got it at the start you can't play" it argument (Point #1)... but partial payment of actions by its very existence implies that cards must be fully paid for before they can resolve.

If they must be fully paid before they resolve, then you cannot gain the pool from Villein/Minion Tap before you have fully paid for its effect (which ousts you).

You're supposing the existence a window between payment and resolution that doesn't exist (for non-strike cards).
With this (false) logic, there would be an issue. But if your premises are wrong, your conclusions are moot.

Your point #2 above only affects actions (this is not a ruling, but merely a conclusion of the fact that only actions get their cost paid way after they were declared). Trying to apply action-logic to masters is dangerous.

Maybe it's clearer if I make a short list of how play / pay / resolve [and eventually replace ] works depending on the cardtype. This list follows the classic Golden Rule of Cardtext (if the cards says otherwise, it takes precedence - for instance Wake with Evening's Freshness isn't replaced until untap phase):
["->" represents the existence of a window, "+" represents simultaneity]

1 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+resolve+replace: Masters, action modifiers, reaction cards, non-strike combat cards, reflex.
2 - Play (and announce terms) => replace => pay+resolve: Action cards.
3 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+replace => resolve: Strike cards.


Using logic of cards of type #2 for cards of type #1 (or of cards of type #3 for cards of type #2, contradicting the Bima+Govern clarification) is not recommended.

Pascal wrote:

Maybe it's clearer if I make a short list of how play / pay / resolve [and eventually replace ] works depending on the cardtype. This list follows the classic Golden Rule of Cardtext (if the cards says otherwise, it takes precedence - for instance Wake with Evening's Freshness isn't replaced until untap phase):
["->" represents the existence of a window, "+" represents simultaneity]

1 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+resolve+replace: Masters, action modifiers, reaction cards, non-strike combat cards, reflex.
2 - Play (and announce terms) => replace => pay+resolve: Action cards.
3 - Play (and announce terms) => pay+replace => resolve: Strike cards.


Using logic of cards of type #2 for cards of type #1 (or of cards of type #3 for cards of type #2, contradicting the Bima+Govern clarification) is not recommended.

I am sorry, but why should we have three forms of card play? That seems to be a pointless and needless complexity.

Simple steps for ALL card plays that will negate past rulings and the need for future rulings on these sorts of sequences.
Each step would have its own 'window'.

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

In the case of Actions, there is a longer Step 3; Action Cards are not successful unless they are unblocked and so this sequence is then used to resolve the individual card plays within Step 3 for the Action.

'As played' cards would be required to be played during step 1. Cards which cancel others 'as played' would be played before a replacement was drawn. Cards that must be played 'as an action is declared' or 'as an action is played' are also played during Step 1, before the original card is replaced (which eliminates the need for rulings on cards such as Concealed Weapon, Disguised Weapon, Pack Alpha, Charming Lobby, etc).

That is one sequence that would cover all card plays. It elegantly explains how cancelling cards will commonly not pay their cost (i.e. the card fails at Step 3). It elegantly explains partial payment (i.e. the card fails at Step 4). It elegantly explains how cancelling the effect of cards still requires payment for the card (i.e. the card fails at Step 5).

The only complicating type would be Political Actions. And in this sequence it would have a "Sequence for Political Actions" occur after the card resolves (at Step 5) which is basically the current situation anyway.

Spoiler section below contains an explicit example of the above sequence to each type of the broader category of card: Master, Action, Action Mod, Combat & Reaction.

Card Types

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?

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

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