Paths and burn blood requrement

Ankha wrote:

lip wrote:

Do you have any ruling supporting this « can play the card if you don’t have the blood to burn for the effect » thing? That would help make your point plus I could add it to the codex on the relevant cards.

Also it seems wrong, but I'm not sure what Tadori is talking about.

Tadori wrote:

Playing card sequence is:

1. announce a card play
2. pay card cost. You have to always pay the card cost to even consider any effect of the card. If you can't pay the card cost its not a legal play
3. chose its effect (you can't choose an effect you can't afford or you don't meet other requirements). If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
4. pay effect cost
5.resolve.

I don't know where this comes from, but step 3/ should merged with step 1. And the "pay effect" cost (step 4) seems wrong, since it would be part (if I understand correctly what you mean by "effect cost") of the resolution.

www.vekn.net/rulebook

Playing a Card

A card is played by announcing its effects, showing the card and placing it from the hand in the ash heap. Sometimes a card will state to put it into play, you should announce its effects and place the card in the play area.

@Ankha Ok I understand what You are seeing so it should be like this:

1. announce a card play and chose its effect. If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
2. pay card cost
3 relsove


In this case step 1 only chcek legality by blood icon and desciplins icons on the right side of the cards acc. to the rulebook:

"Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan, or Discipline (if any) required to play the card, and the cost (if any) of playing that card."

"A number in a red drop represents blood cost (the amount of blood the vampire must burn). Only a vampire with enough blood on them can play a card with a blood cost. A number in a white diamond with a skull represents pool cost (the amount of pool the Methuselah must burn). Only a Methuselah with enough pool can play a card with a pool cost."

if there is no step 4:

So any cost included in text should not have an impact on legality of play because it's part of effect that resolves. So in this case you would be able to play for example shadow step on superior with 1 blood for example, besocue you meet all of requirements. Then in resolution you burn this blood with no card effect because you can't play full cost. However LSJ siad:

"Superior Shadow Step has no cost. The two blood is the cost of using the range-setting effect. It cannot be ignored by Dragos, nor used by a vampire with less than two blood. [LSJ 19970224]"

Also how Anrach cards work then. because acc. to the rulebook they have no requirement to play(nessery disciplins are not on the marble stripe on the left side ) and ability icon check is part of resolution so you should be able to play them without effect if you don't have this discipline.

When you play a card, you should announce its full effects such as additional cost (like "burn 2 blood to" or "lock to") or additional requirement (like "camarilla", "prince or justicar" or "anarch") and if the additional costs or additional requirement or not possible when you play the card, you just can't play it. Not at all.

Timo wrote:

When you play a card, you should announce its full effects such as additional cost (like "burn 2 blood to" or "lock to") or additional requirement (like "camarilla", "prince or justicar" or "anarch") and if the additional costs or additional requirement or not possible when you play the card, you just can't play it. Not at all.

yes you have to but acc. to the rulebook There are only two requirement to legally play a card (cost and icons on the left) + texts that say it required to play it on the card. "Burn 2" blood is a part of the effect acc to what Ankha said and what is in the rulebook its not a requirement or a cost because it's part of an effect.

the same goes with multi discipline anarch cards only requirement that have is the text were require an anarch because discipline requirement should be on the left acc. to the rule book and there is none on this cards (guardian vigily for example)

Dont get me wrong I understand perfectly how it should work and was intended to work. I just think The rulebook is lacking in this department and we are missing this kind of deep explanations.

If you use this schematic

1. announce a card play and chose its effect. If you can't choose any legal effect its not a legal play and card cost is not played,
2. pay card cost
3 relsove

and say that the text of an effect has impact on card cost its fundamental wrong. Because effect that did not trigger cannot affect the requirement to play the card, it doesn't exist yet. To trigger an effect you have to play the card first( pay the cost).

Tadori wrote:

"Superior Shadow Step has no cost. The two blood is the cost of using the range-setting effect. It cannot be ignored by Dragos, nor used by a vampire with less than two blood. [LSJ 19970224]"

Tadori, you are misquoting the ruling. This is [LSJ 19970224] :

Is the 2 blood the cost for playing superior Shadow Step? If so, can it be reduced by the Citadel or ignored by Dragos? If not, can a vampire with 0 blood use the effect (ignoring burn blood effects past his current blood supply?)

No. It is the cost for setting the range. Shadow Step (superior) merely
grants the vampire the (mandatory) ability to use that effect. The cost
cannot be reduced by the Citadel nor ignored by Dragos, since it is not
the cost of playing a card. A vampire with zero blood cannot pay the cost,
so cannot set the range.

LSJ never ruled you can't play it if you don't have the blood.

My Eng is bad but I think this is very strange wording. In new Errata from BC I see "must burn it as part of its cost". Part of "effect cost" aka 1 part from 1? Or part of new term "summary cost"? Or cost as study of playing card? Maybe add this terms to rulebook or edit the Errata?

Hi Kirill, what "new Errata from BC" are you referring to? Can you quote and/or give a link?