Infernal Pursuit and Aura Reading

It's best not to conflate the resolution of actions (and strikes) with the resolution of other cards. I recently made that mistake here in the fora and still hang my head in shame at that post. But it did highlight a (IMO, troublesome) difference in the way cards are handled

- payment and resolution of actions is deferred. This can cause actions to fizzle as blood is spent mid-action or target status changes. An ally sending his last life to pay for an action and it still leads to resolution.
- payment of strikes is immediate but resolution is deferred. This can cause an ally to spontaneously evaporate while declaring a strike, before it can resolve (huh, this is different for actions, wonder why that is....grin).
- payment and resolution of all other cards are immediate.

Boris is correct in citing the Detailed Play Summary which outlines this process. This document was in sole need of revision the last time I looked at it - but V:tES play tends to be a convoluted mess and trying to describe it programatically is extremely tough. At any rate....for non-action cards (for which resolution is NOT deferred), 2.C.3 and 2.D of the Summary should apply.

Note: Cancellation occurs before this, in 2.B Declaration - and that section has an error stating that cancellation forces a skip to 2.D Replacement. That's not strictly true, because Santaleous exists and players get stuck playing in 2.C under his effect - despite the summary suggesting cost payment should be skipped. Sigh, I said programmatically describing play is tough, right? (Well, either that, or there should be some errata to unify effects - or paranthetical text and/or lack thereof should really only be reminders).

References from Summary:

2.C Pay cost and resolve effect (unless canceled in step "B").
[parts snipped]

2.C.3. For all other cards, pay cost to resolve effect immediately.
2.C.3.a. Pay cost.
2.C.3.b. Resolve effect.

[parts snipped]

2.D. Replace the card (after handling all pending "as played" windows).

[parts snipped]

So.......Draw as needed to replace Infernal Pursuits 1, 2 and 3. Hand size is 7. moving towards Aura Reading. Play Aura Reading. Hand size is 6 pending replacement. No cancels. Resolve Aura Reading (hand size is 8 ). Draw to replace (hand size is 9). Draw 3 extras per Infernal Pursuit (12 in hand, but hand size is 9?). Discard 3 to reach hand size.

Note: This is different than I would have ruled without considering the Summary, as we always considered replacement to be the immediate effect, then the card resolved. This correct for actions and strikes....but apparently for nothing else.

At least, I think this is right

TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:

. This document was in sole need of revision the last time I looked at it - but V:tES play tends to be a convoluted mess and trying to describe it programatically is extremely tough.

That is because the rules and templating have not been handled well from day 1 and is it just sort of accepted as ok. It is like code that is so old and bloated that it just needs to be redone from scratch.

<shrugs>

At least we have dominate.

Mewcat wrote:

TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:

V:tES play tends to be a convoluted mess and trying to describe it programatically is extremely tough.

That is because the rules and templating have not been handled well from day 1 and is it just sort of accepted as ok.

The reason for the convoluted rules and these being accepted as okay is because VTES would be unplayable if playing according to the letter of the rules.

For example, the rulebook does not describe how impulse works in detail, rather there's a paragraph on "sequencing" that provides a rough guideline. The reason why is that if impulse were described in more detail in the rulebook, combat would turn into people declaring they had no card to play, if applicable, for every single phase and sub-phase. This would not be fun at all. In reality, people just skip any phases and sub phases that are not relevant, with people interrupting (and rewinding the game state, if applicable) if they do in fact have a card to play. This is a more ideal way to handle combat, but it's technically breaking the rules.

There really should be two rulebooks: one that spells out every single detail on how the game should function in theory (kind of like the Detailed Play Summary, but definitive and exhaustive), and a second rulebook that is way more simplified than what currently exists, wherein players are given a roadmap how to play the game in simplistic terms, leaving the player to fill in the blanks as they wish. If there's a dispute that the first rulebook doesn't resolve, go to the exhaustive rulebook. This is the rulebook that judges would use.

If there are any cards that prevent an exhaustive rulebook from being written, such that the cards' effect would not fit into any part of that exhaustive rulebook, then provide a clear ruling on those cards, rewrite them, or ban them (hello, Seeds of Corruption).