Discussion: Card costs and presentation

Ankha wrote: Before ranting aggressively, please check the rules.

Since it apparently has to be repeated every time I rant about something: I often rant about how things SHOULD be. I complain about how things are in comparison to hypothetically changed rule. Seems like many people are quick to point out that I am wrong about a rule, when I am in actuality campaigning for changing said rule.

(And if Im wrong about a rule, then it just further confirms my claim that VTES rules are unnecessarily complex and invite misinterpretations. So there.)

This is one of many cases of a rule creating unnecessary complexity with no strategic depth. Exactly the kind of thing we need to root out from VTES.

TwoRazorReign wrote: If you're expecting VTES to adapt and incorporate less complex rules, that is likely not going to happen.

Except that Black Chantry has been introducing errata and changing rules at a regular pace. Its the reason why I keep ranting: because black chantry board actually CAN and already HAS changed rules. Just agonizingly slowly.

Black Cat could acquire a weapon by diablerie, by fast hands, etc. Its not always equipped in a way that costs Black Cats owner something. It still needs to be tracked how she acquired it. Its not immediately obvious when looking at the table.

Bloodartist wrote: Black Cat could acquire a weapon by diablerie, by fast hands, etc. Its not always equipped in a way that costs Black Cats owner something. It still needs to be tracked how she acquired it. Its not immediately obvious when looking at the table.

No, it doesn't. The lower cost applies while she's got it equipped, regardless of how she got it.

This is covered in the same post of Ankha's that you're quoting here.

Kushiel wrote:

Bloodartist wrote: Black Cat could acquire a weapon by diablerie, by fast hands, etc. Its not always equipped in a way that costs Black Cats owner something. It still needs to be tracked how she acquired it. Its not immediately obvious when looking at the table.

No, it doesn't. The lower cost applies while she's got it equipped, regardless of how she got it.

This is covered in the same post of Ankha's that you're quoting here.

Even so, that's still a pretty weird ruling. Her ability would seem to reduce the cost to play equipment "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less pool." Not, "The printed cost of equipment on Black Cat is reduced by 1." Those are two very different things. Currently, the ruling makes it sound like her ability is both of those entwined, but her card clearly only gives her the 1st effect.

It would seem like her ability to get Equipment for 1 pool cheaper is transient and wouldn't interact with Illegal Search & Seizure (a card played at a later time that looks at the printed cost of weapons.)

I know of no card-game (besides VTES) where a ruling like this applies. FFG has been very careful to state 'printed cost' when it matters. In Magic, certain effects can reduce the casting cost of spells, but cards that check for converted (total) mana cost don't retroactively look to see if, and by how much, the spell was reduced by when it was played.

In going to play devil's advocate here:
What card in magic has an interaction like Black Cat? Converted cost applies(applied; I'm like 9 years out now) nominally to cards being played(spellsnare) or in some non-in play state (deck, chord of calling, being drawn, Dark Confidant) when in play stuff is affected, (pernicious deed) theres never an equivalent thing that cares about a cost of a permanent on another permanent....

So, an energy cost on Pokemon tcg, or a dream creature cost in magi nation have more to do with this than mana cost. Because mana is a player playing, the other examples are an in game resource playing or paying......


I don't see the issue. The burn a blood isn't a cost. Do this to gain this. The rulebook isn't great, but this isnt a glaring problem...........

I have a question: in general, without taking into account any specific card or card ruling, does "cost" refer to the cost paid and not the cost as written on the card? Or is the opposite true? Or is it really a case-by-case basis, as determined by various card rulings? I'm trying to figure out the baseline we are working with regarding "cost" as a defined term used in VTES.