Vampires entering play: triggered effects and contesting

DJHedgehog wrote:

How can something enter play and not leave it? If "enter play" effects happen when the card enters the ready region, they have entered play.

The "enters play" effects trigger - but that the vampire goes straight to being contested and so its normal card text doesn't apply. This is why you don't get the +1 hand size from Nana for a nano-second.

If you prefer to think of it as new Sonja actually entering play for a nano-second and then leaves play, the point is that - like other vampires, such as Nana - her special text doesn't apply in that nano-second, because she is about to be contested. If you prefer to think of it this way, the consistent ruling is something like: "When a vampire enters plays but is going to be contested: a) card text that relates to entering play triggers (this allows Anarch Convert to work) but b) other special text doesn't trigger before the contest happens." Sonja Blue's "leave play" text would then be in part b.

DJHedgehog wrote:

And again, your demeaning and condescending tone is not appreciated.

Your hurling of insults and obscenities suggests you don't actually want the tone of the conversation to improve.

Mewcat wrote:

Let's look at this hypothetical response.

It is indeed troubling that the rulebook and the detailed play summary don't put us on firm ground to answer these questions ourselves. Ideally this would get cleaned up but the resources don't exist, I fear. A card entering play region from hand or uncontrolled region is considered played.

I'd like to point out that this was the last thing said in this thread that wasn't james beating a dead horse or relating to him or said deceased mammal of an equine nature.

So I'll add to this hypothetical response.

This particular function seems to look consistent with every other occurrence of said sequences of things Interacting. Sounds Legit.
Maybe we should discuss a project where we compile relevant rulings to a detailed card list so that when someone with the time and talent to make a more user friendly database pops up, they dont see too daunting a project.

I'm part of the cork sniffer crowd (rules are nominally groovy, I have disagreements, but for fluff or power reasons) that doesn't see a point in literally writing a companion book for the rulebook for every card interaction.

But for the ease of access, maybe compiling text for someone to make an app may be cool In the future.
Search up "Nana"
Find her current text, artist(s) , printings, and rulings relating to her text, such as:
Additional MPA
Increased hand size.
Tap increased hand size and find rulings regarding it, including the wording triggering aa long as controlled vs. As long as ready, and dealing with
Contesting.
Click that and get details.
Click another tab, get relevant rulings.

We have accesse to these things, but I'll admit it could be easier. Especially in the original example where it's at a table.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Pointing out that the Golden Rule for Cards is presented as the most important rule - the Golden Rule! - for V:TES means that anyone saying things don't exist because they're not in the rulebook is fundamentally wrong. V:TES's golden rule is that things that aren't in the rulebook can, do and will exist.

I don't think that's right. The Golden Rule for Cards allows cards to contradict an existing rule. It does not allow cards to make up rules that don't contradict others in the rulebook. Big difference.

Not really. The rulebook says what the timing phases of combat are. The rulebook doesn't provide a timing phase to play Immortal Grapple. Immortal Grapple creates a brand new timing phase.

No. It contradicts playing cards in the "strike" phase. You play Immortal Grapple before the strike phase instead. There is a clear contradiction of rules, ie, when you can play combat cards normally, and a new rule, the "before strikes are chosen" window, per text on Immortal grapple.

It has made up a 'rule' that doesn't exist in the rulebook. Cards do this all the time - end of round, end of combat etc. The pre-range step we take for granted was not in the Jyhad rulebook, though is mentioned now, of course - presumably text about it was added because it's so common. This happens fairly often for common effects. or effects that are hideous to explain in card text (e.g. allies playing cards as a vampire and gaining/losing life etc., to take a non-timing example), but it can't happen for everything while V:TES still allows cards to potentially do anything, including things that have never been thought of before.

Again, allies playing cards as vampires is a clear contradiction of rules, so I don't follow the argument you are making. I also disagree that it "can't happen for everything in VTES." If this were true, there would never be any rulings. Rulings exist because of the need for explanations to exist in the rules in lieu of existing in the rulebook.

All these things take effect when they do, because card text means that the steps established in the rulebook are supplemented by whatever the card says.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The detailed play summary it explains many of the obvious timing windows that occur in the game. It certainly doesn't cover everything that can occur - it is a summary.

Actually, it was originally called the "Complete Rules Reference." So it was meant to be exhaustive by the original author of that document, but was later changed to be a "summary."

It was clearly never a Complete Rules Reference, however, whatever the name was. It has only ever explained (a lot of) V:TES's timing. There are lots of things that go on in V:TES that aren't really related to timing, because cards do exciting and novel things. A common question, for example, is whether you can activate Temptation with zero counters to untap an empty vampire. (Answer: yes.) It doesn't make sense to include that anywhere on the Complete Rules Reference, so it's a ruling on that specific card.

The new name of "Detailed Play Summary" is much better in terms of accurately representing what it actually does.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

So there's a little bit of revisionist history you're doing here.

Not really? The fact that someone else may have intended it to be complete at some point in the past doesn't mean that: a) it was a complete rules reference then (it wasn't) or b) that it's complete now (it isn't).

It's revisionist history in the sense that the previous person in charge of the rules was providing that document as an exhaustive source. They clearly intended it as such. You're arguing from the standpoint that VTES always included rules that were not included in the rulebook, as was intended, and therefore to point out when things aren't explained clearly in the rulebook is fallacious because VTES has always done this. That the Complete Rules Reference was intended as an exhaustive source undermines the argument you are making here. There were failed attempts to codify everything and to not have rules that did not exist in the rulebook. So I doubt having rules exist that are not in the rulebook was the original intention, it's just what is happening now out of convenience.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

It's basically proving the point that not including important aspects to the rules causes problems, hence the decision to "just call the damn thing a summary and be done."

The thing is, if you include literally everything on a chart like that, it becomes utterly impenetrable, and hard to use to answer common questions, because you have to include every corner case. There certainly can be uses for things that are utterly exhaustive, but they will generally only be used by the tiny handful of people who understand them.

I think you underestimate the intelligence level of average VTES player. I doubt a chart like that would be "impenetrable."

The - apparent - intent of the Detailed Play Summary is to cover lots of timing aspects that reasonably commonly occur, in a way that means that a broader cross-section of people are likely to be able to understand it if they dig in. Because V:TES is a complicated game, there is a balance to be struck between keeping it understandable and how much detail you go into. Of course, different people can reasonably disagree about what the appropriate level of detail is - but I'm guessing that most people don't want the Detailed Play Summary to be covered with trivia about terrible cards that are barely played but which raise a variety of subtle and awkward issues.

And I'd disagree. That's why the rulebook exists separate from the Detailed Play Summary. People don't have to use the Detailed Play Summary if they don't want. They can make house rules to fill in whatever gaps exist in the rulebook if they'd rather do that.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The point about the meaning of "enters play" is difficult to put into that, because crypt cards can "enter play" at a wide variety of times in the game.

Yes, but only by card text, which should clarify the when and how. There is only one situation in which a crypt card enters play normally: at the end of the influence phase. This is where crypt cards entering play should be described by default.

Not really? I mean, you obviously can have that written down somewhere, but V:TES uses English words and expressions in their normal fashion all over the place.

Yes. This is part of the problem we are discussing.

Malkavian Game doesn't explain what Rock-Paper-Scissors is, for example, and nor does the rulebook, and nor does the Detailed Play Summary, and nor did the Complete Rules Reference before it. Do we need a full explanation of what Rock-Paper-Scissors is on the card, or in the rulebook, or in the Detailed Play Summary?

There's an obvious difference: All cards can "enter play." Only one card mandates a game of rock-paper-scissors.

If you move a card from being out of play to being in play, it enters play, because that is what "enters play" means. If a card does that by moving a card, or putting a card, or placing a card, or flipping a card, or whatever else, the card enters play.

I'd counter that with: "unique" cards only have one copy ever printed, because that's what unique means. Really, it's right there in the dictionary. Seriously though, all game terms need to be defined because there's just too much room for misinterpretation otherwise.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Mewcat wrote:

Oh boy. So it is ok for the rulebook to not describe how to play the game.

The rulebook explains how to play the game. It does not explain every single piece of card text that appears on every card, because in V:TES cards are free to create any effect they want.

Do you want a full copy of the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors in the rulebook? That is necessary to understand Malkavian Game. Are you okay with not having the explanation for that in the rulebook?

Mewcat wrote:

It is ok for rulings to be made in binary yes/no fashion.

Well, that depends somewhat on the ruling. Some rulings are going to be yes/no, obviously. Does such-and-such card work with so-and-so's special? That'll be a yes/no answer.

Mewcat wrote:

It is ok to ignore my in depth analysis of influence phase and perpetuate guessing.

"Enters play" isn't just about the influence phase, however. Vampires can enter play in several phases, including the untap phase (Web of Knives - and could theoretically be relevant to Revocation of Tyre) and the minion phase in a variety of ways (Chain of Command, Illusions of the Kindred, Undue Influence). They can also enter play in the influence phase via methods that aren't related to being full from transfers, such as Gather.

Mewcat wrote:

A few tips.
1) stating some ones question is irrelevant is flippant

If the distinction someone is trying to eke out isn't relevant to the issue at hand, then how would you prefer I tell them it's not relevant to the issue at hand?

Mewcat wrote:

2) using the word obvious in a discussion is demeaning. Is like tacit consent when there is no consent of any type

But you use it?

www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/76837-fairyworld-examining-combat-cards-and-strategies-and-how-they-should-work?start=18#89280

Mewcat wrote:

This is obvious because I have a birds eye view from my high perch but cant see you in the sewers.

I'm pretty sure that nothing you said there was demeaning, so you may want to consider not establishing hard and fast linguistic rules that don't, you know, work.

I wouldn't recommend me as a target for anyone, myself included. Try to Be better than me.

@rev

I would say it's just easier to make an actual rulebook than compile all the rulings. I'm fairly certain that is what people are saying here. Why are there so few rules and so many rulings?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

[

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Not really. The rulebook says what the timing phases of combat are. The rulebook doesn't provide a timing phase to play Immortal Grapple. Immortal Grapple creates a brand new timing phase.

No. It contradicts playing cards in the "strike" phase.

It doesn't say to play it in the "strike" phase at all. Card text for its timing:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

You play Immortal Grapple before the strike phase instead.

First you said you play it in the strike phase (which card text doesn't specify), now you say you play it before the strike phase.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

There is a clear contradiction of rules, ie, when you can play combat cards normally, and a new rule, the "before strikes are chosen" window, per text on Immortal grapple.

Yep, the rules define certain specific timing windows. Immortal Grapple goes before one of those, in a way which is not defined in the rulebook. "Enters play" effects are in the same category - the rulebook doesn't explicitly mention them, they define themselves. If you - more as a thought experiment than actual reality - treat the rulebook as a complete definition of the entire game's framework, anything that happens on card text that isn't anticipated by the rulebook is contradicting it.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Again, allies playing cards as vampires is a clear contradiction of rules, so I don't follow the argument you are making.

Basically, the rulebook sometimes (but obviously not always) evolves in response to card text. Hence when I say: ...what I means is that some things that cards do that are weird or require lengthy explanations or that don't fit with the steps described in the rulebook - an older version of it - get explained in more detail in a later version of the rulebook. Allies-as-a-vampire is an example of that. Some things that cards do are outside the normal rules so commonly that it's helpful to explain them in the rules too. Combat cards that are played "before range" is a good example of that. So the rulebook has evolved over time to incorporate some things that previously only existed on card text.

But the rulebook will never cover everything that happens on card text. It may be that some things that are in the rulebook "should" be on card text, and some things that are on card text "should" be in the rulebook. People can obviously have different opinions on that, in terms of communicating things best to people. An example of something in the rulebook that should be on card text - at least, this is a view that Ankha has expressed sometimes - is the vulnerability rule (as in Cold Iron Vulnerability), which should perhaps lead to cards saying "This deals aggravated damage to Kiasyd vampires" or similar, rather than being the definition of "vulnerability" tucked away in the rulebook.

What's not really tenable, however, is to proceed from a position that things that card text says that isn't expressly handled in the rules doesn't exist.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I also disagree that it "can't happen for everything in VTES." If this were true, there would never be any rulings. Rulings exist because of the need for explanations to exist in the rules in lieu of existing in the rulebook.

That's very much my point, yes. We can disagree all we like about what should be in the rulebook, what should be in the detailed play summary, what should be on card text, what should be a card-specific ruling, and what should be a general ruling. We can then disagree some more about whether something that seems to be a plain reading of card text should be put in the card specific ruling section, or not. Sometimes people ask not because there's an actual issue with understanding, but because some player is saying "I don't wanna" and they want the confirmation that card text says what it says, so maybe those don't go in there, perhaps. But it isn't ever going to be possible to include everything in the rulebook.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

It's revisionist history in the sense that the previous person in charge of the rules was providing that document as an exhaustive source. They clearly intended it as such.

But:

a) just because someone purports something to be the complete rules reference doesn't mean that it is or was,
b) it's only ever been about timing and not the rest of the rules, so it while it might have been intended as a complete reference to the timing phases of the game, it has never, ever, ever tried to be a complete rules reference, because there are many more things to the rules than just the timing phases of what gets played when in what order (though that is obviously a significant element of the rules).


Pointing out that the CRR was never complete and never covered all the rules is not in any way revisionist. It may have been the intention to do that when it was started - I couldn't say what was in anyone's mind - but it didn't do it.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

You're arguing from the standpoint that VTES always included rules that were not included in the rulebook

If by "included rules", you mean "card text did things that weren't in the rules", yes, that's always happened from day one.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

That the Complete Rules Reference was intended as an exhaustive source undermines the argument you are making here.

It may have been intended as one. It has never, ever, ever been a complete rules reference. Never ever. Never ever ever, at any point. Nothing in the DPS explains when I can tap The Barrens. Nothing in the DPS explains when I can use Alexandra's special.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

There were failed attempts to codify everything and to not have rules that did not exist in the rulebook.

The CRR/DPS is not the rulebook.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

[

jamesatzephyr wrote:

The thing is, if you include literally everything on a chart like that, it becomes utterly impenetrable, and hard to use to answer common questions, because you have to include every corner case. There certainly can be uses for things that are utterly exhaustive, but they will generally only be used by the tiny handful of people who understand them.

I think you underestimate the intelligence level of average VTES player. I doubt a chart like that would be "impenetrable."

See, there are some areas of V:TES that have been in the game (or were in the game) for many years, and which - despite being written down as clearly as anyone possibly could - have caused more and bloodier arguments than anyone can comfortable conceive, over bits of the rulebook that are incredibly explicit.

For example, there have been a variety of arguments about the order in which cancellation effects (e.g. DI) and replacement of the card played should be handled. Now certainly in the past, there will have been good reasons for that lack of certainty. The rulebook now, however, handles it - and still players will tell you that it doesn't work that way. It's not hard to read in the rulebook:

And yet players will go blue in the face telling you it doesn't work that way. A bunch of players won't even read three sentences in the rulebook that is written for consumption by people learning the game from scratch, let alone a densely packed flowchart-like document that explains all sorts of ridiculous edge cases for cards they don't know, don't use, and don't have in their head.

Similar issues used to happen in the past with, say, the No Repeat Action rule from the Wizards-era tournament rules (before that got ditched and replaced with the current rulebook-based version, which has a somewhat similar intent but is not the same). Lots of very irate discussions could be had about what actions could be repeated, despite the tournament rules having an explicit list. (Here's the 1998-era DCI rules from archive.org: web.archive.org/web/19990421080612/http://www.wizards.com:80/DCI/VTES_Rules.html .)

A lot of people simply don't like reading lengthy, lengthy documents in order to find out simple answers. That's - partly - why a lot of questions get asked. It's easier to get LSJ, or Pascal, or Ankha, or whoever, to give you an answer.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

[

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Not really? I mean, you obviously can have that written down somewhere, but V:TES uses English words and expressions in their normal fashion all over the place.

Yes. This is part of the problem we are discussing.

It's not really a problem, it's just part of V:TES's fundamental design. Cards don't have to use terms that are defined to the n-th degree in the rulebook, like you will find in some (hugely enjoyable) games.

Some of the most amazing games have really very short, very simple defined rules - potentially very elegant rules - and create amazingly deep, rich, complex games from there. Go is probably the best example I can think of, and it's an amazing game (at which I am very bad). Some wargames have units with a bunch of stats, and some rules-based special abilities, but most of the design of the game is just juggling those stats, and an expansion might add one or two special abilities and pair up some old stats in new and interesting ways, but isn't creating several dozen new lengthy new abilities that are bespoke to individual units (or cards or miniatures or whatever). These games can be awesomely good fun to play. But V:TES's design isn't one of those games, and never has been.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

[

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Malkavian Game doesn't explain what Rock-Paper-Scissors is, for example, and nor does the rulebook, and nor does the Detailed Play Summary, and nor did the Complete Rules Reference before it. Do we need a full explanation of what Rock-Paper-Scissors is on the card, or in the rulebook, or in the Detailed Play Summary?

There's an obvious difference: All cards can "enter play." Only one card mandates a game of rock-paper-scissors.

Many, many cards never enter play, and are just played straight to the ash heap.

But if you (apparently?) agree that there are some things cards do that don't need to be in the rulebook, then rejoice! We agree. Some things don't need to be in the rulebook. Some things do. But while some things might be better off in the rulebook - like the fact that "before range" cards are handled in the rulebook when once they weren't - the fact that they're not currently in the rulebook doesn't mean that their effects don't work or don't exist.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

[

jamesatzephyr wrote:

If you move a card from being out of play to being in play, it enters play, because that is what "enters play" means. If a card does that by moving a card, or putting a card, or placing a card, or flipping a card, or whatever else, the card enters play.

I'd counter that with: "unique" cards only have one copy ever printed, because that's what unique means. Really, it's right there in the dictionary. Seriously though, all game terms need to be defined because there's just too much room for misinterpretation otherwise.

[/quote]

But that would mean you weren't reading the rulebook. Unique has a definition in the rulebook (in 4.1), because V:TES uses it in a specific way. Many (indeed, most) other words aren't given specific definitions in the rulebook.

So you seem to be saying that we should ignore the definition of unique in the rulebook, despite there being one - but then not follow the ordinary meaning of "enters play" because there must be one in the rulebook, despite there not being one.

If you're trying to counter me saying "It's not in the rulebook, it's just an ordinary English phrase" with "Well, I'm going to ignore this thing that is in the rulebook then", I'm afraid that you're not countering anything at all.