Discussion: Card costs and presentation

Magic has several cards, usually creatures or enchantments, that passively reduce or increase the cost to cast spells.

There are also many effects which check for total mana cost.

If I played Grand Arbiter Augustine IV and my opponent has a Pyrostatic Pillar in play, I'm not going to take damage from the Pillar every time I summon a Hussar Patrol. Why? Because the Pillar checks for the printed cost of the card, not how much I paid. Likewise, if I played Consume The Meek, it wouldn't destroy the Hussar Patrol, even if an effect made it cheaper to play, because cost-reducing effects don't retroactively apply unless specific card effects check for "how much was paid" or say "the converted mana cost is considered to be 1 less" or something.

Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool. Considering she was in Jyhad, they probably felt it was unnecessary to add the "she plays" or "to play". Ankha says her ability modifies the printed cost of the equipment on effects that would check for the cost of that equipment, but I'd be willing to bet no native English speaker would interpret it that way. Because the "cost" of something is how much you pay (or play in the case of VTES) for it. If you moved Equipment onto Black Cat, giving it to her for free, then it didn't cost anything. If it didn't cost her anything, how can she reduce it's cost? If I get something for a discount because I have a store membership or as a gift for Christmas, it doesn't make the actual price of the item any cheaper.

But then Ankha says that certain cards are not played but "put in play" by other cards. So Concealed Weapon puts a weapon in play despite saying "This minion equips a non-unique weapon from your hand, (requirements and cost apply as normal.)" So Black Cat doesn't make a Concealed Weapon she equips (and thus pays for) cheaper, but weapons given to her are considered to have their printed cost reduced by 1, and cards that check for the printed cost of weapons have to take her ability into account even if she didn't pay for it.

Completely unintuitive and backwards to me, but whatever.

https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/mma/176.jpg?1517813031
https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/td0/B25.jpg?1517813031
https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/ddn/55.jpg?1517813031
https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/ddp/49.jpg?1530591450

LivesByProxy wrote: But then Ankha says that certain cards are not played but "put in play" by other cards. So Concealed Weapon puts a weapon in play despite saying "This minion equips a non-unique weapon from your hand, (requirements and cost apply as normal.)" So Black Cat doesn't make a Concealed Weapon she equips (and thus pays for) cheaper, but weapons given to her are considered to have their printed cost reduced by 1, and cards that check for the printed cost of weapons have to take her ability into account even if she didn't pay for it.

It makes perfect sense to me - while Black Cat might be paying a 3-cost weapon less, it is still a 3-cost weapon and as such, cannot be equipped via Concealed Weapon.

Should she be forced to repay the cost of a weapon she has on herself (via Peace Treaty, for example) - the reduction in cost would kick in, since she's repaying the cost to equip. It still doesn't change the actual cost of the weapon, just the ammount she's paying...

If there were a card that says - destroy a 3+ cost weapon, you could target a 3-cost weapon on Black Cat, although she might have paid for it less - it doesn't suddenly become a 2-cost weapon when on her.

For me, the interactions between Black Cat, Combat Shotgun, Peace Treaty, and Concealed Weapon being perceived as unintuitive is a symptom of a language issue. What I think I’m starting to understand (but I’m likely misunderstanding) is that there are two meanings to “cost”: the cost printed on the card (what Concealed Weapon refers to) and the cost that was paid (what Peace Treaty refers to). If there are two meanings of the word “cost,” these meanings probably should be clarified in the rules and each card should clarify which meaning of “cost” it is referring to. Had more thought originally been given to the language used (in this case, “cost” having more than one meaning), perhaps how intuitive these interactions are perceived wouldn’t be such an issue?

Well, I stand corrected...

Ankha wrote:

Kiddo wrote: It makes perfect sense to me - while Black Cat might be paying a 3-cost weapon less, it is still a 3-cost weapon and as such, cannot be equipped via Concealed Weapon.

Wrong. "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." A Submachine would cost her 2 pool, so she can equip with it using a Concealed Weapon.

It's killing me that the only card whose text you didn't add to this post is that of Submachine Gun, which might be the reason for some of the confusion in this thread. Its printed cost is four pool, not three.

Replace all instances of SMG with Combat Shotgun, though, and this thread makes a lot more sense.