Gwen Morse wrote:
>
> 'Hidden Lurker' has card text to start new combat with a blocker. It
> includes the line 'The first round of this combat, the blocking minion
> cannot use any strikes.'
>
> I say that means other cards can be played (by the blocker being
> ambushed) so long as they're not 'strike' cards (a maneuver was the card
> in question during a game). My opponent says nothing can be played.
> Finally, could a press be played to end combat, since it wouldn't be a
> strike?
The opposing minion gets no strike. This does not just mean that they
cannot play strike cards, but that they simply do not get a strike. So,
for example, if the lurked minion has a gun, they may not use it, as
they get no strike. Since Maneuvers and Presses are not strikes, they
may be played during the appropriate combat phases.
James
--
James Hamblin
je...@cornell.edu
> 'Hidden Lurker' has card text to start new combat with a blocker. It
> includes the line 'The first round of this combat, the blocking minion
>
> cannot use any strikes.'
>
> I say that means other cards can be played (by the blocker being
> ambushed) so long as they're not 'strike' cards (a maneuver was the
> card
> in question during a game). My opponent says nothing can be played.
> Finally, could a press be played to end combat, since it wouldn't be a
>
> strike?
Of course this means cards other than strikes can be played. If
your opponent continues to disagree with you on this point, decapitate
him/her.
S.
James Hamblin wrote:
>
> Gwen Morse wrote:
> >
> > 'Hidden Lurker' has card text to start new combat with a blocker. It
> > includes the line 'The first round of this combat, the blocking minion
> > cannot use any strikes.'
> >
> > I say that means other cards can be played (by the blocker being
> > ambushed) so long as they're not 'strike' cards (a maneuver was the card
> > in question during a game). My opponent says nothing can be played.
> > Finally, could a press be played to end combat, since it wouldn't be a
> > strike?
>> The opposing minion gets no strike. This does not just mean that they
> cannot play strike cards, but that they simply do not get a strike. So,
> for example, if the lurked minion has a gun, they may not use it, as
> they get no strike. Since Maneuvers and Presses are not strikes, they
> may be played during the appropriate combat phases.
This is correct.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
[I'm using my brother's account while I'm home... I am James, not Terry]
> > > The opposing minion gets no strike. This does not just mean that they
> > > cannot play strike cards, but that they simply do not get a strike. So,
> > > for example, if the lurked minion has a gun, they may not use it, as
> > > they get no strike. Since Maneuvers and Presses are not strikes, they
> > > may be played during the appropriate combat phases.
I quoted my original response, since I think you missed a small detail.
> Okay, I thought I was following this, till I saw the statement "This
> does not mean that they cannot play strike card, but that they simply do> not get a strike".
I said "This does not just mean that they cannot play strike cards, but
that they simply do not get a strike." _just_
> In what sort of situation would you play a strike card, if you do not
> get a strike. The *only* thing I can think of is to 'burn' a card in
> your hand (IE: if you find there's a 'jam' of cards). Is this what's
> being referred to? Is there some other option as far as playing strikes
> that I've missed?
If you have no strike, you may not play a strike card. But, if you were
in a situation where you could not play a strike card (e.g., your
Thoughts are Betrayed), you could still have a cardless strike, like a
gun or fists.
Also, _if_ you play a strike card, that is your strike. Period. You
cannot dump strike cards.
James
--
Reply to: je...@cornell.edu
LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > Gwen Morse wrote:
> > >
> > > 'Hidden Lurker' has card text to start new combat with a blocker. It
> > > includes the line 'The first round of this combat, the blocking minion
> > > cannot use any strikes.'
> > >
> > > I say that means other cards can be played (by the blocker being
> > > ambushed) so long as they're not 'strike' cards (a maneuver was the card
> > > in question during a game). My opponent says nothing can be played.
> > > Finally, could a press be played to end combat, since it wouldn't be a
> > > strike?
> >> > The opposing minion gets no strike. This does not just mean that they
> > cannot play strike cards, but that they simply do not get a strike. So,
> > for example, if the lurked minion has a gun, they may not use it, as
> > they get no strike. Since Maneuvers and Presses are not strikes, they
> > may be played during the appropriate combat phases.
>> This is correct.
Okay, I thought I was following this, till I saw the statement "This
does not mean that they cannot play strike card, but that they simply do
not get a strike".
In what sort of situation would you play a strike card, if you do not
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <33F2ED...@regency.wizards.com>,
LSJ (VtES Rep) <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:
>You can't play a strike card if you don't have a strike.
>
>The statement "This does not mean..." was meant to extend the original
>poster's incorrectly stated restriction (if I understand James Hamblin
>correctly).
>
>"Cannot strike" is strictly more restrictive than "Cannot play strike
>cards". The latter allows hand strikes, the former does not.
>
>Hidden Lurker does not "only" prevent the victim from playing strike
>cards, but actually prevents him from striking at all.
>
>This restriction has the side effect of preventing him from playing
>strike cards, but it also prevents him from striking with hands (or
>any other innate strike) as well.
So here's the confusion:
While you're the victim of Hidden Lurker can you or can you not burn Blur,
etc. to no effect?
I say you can't. Am I right?
--Judy
--
*-------------------------------*
Judith Grunberger
jcoo...@mccabe.com
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson
Judith Cookson Grunberger wrote:
> While you're the victim of Hidden Lurker can you or can you not burn Blur,
> etc. to no effect?
>
> I say you can't. Am I right?
Hidden Lurker prevents teh victim from striking.
The victim is still free to do whatever else he wants - including
maneuvering, pressing, gaining additional strikes, playing pre-range
cards, etc.
So, yes, you can play Blur.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Terry R. Hamblin wrote:
> I quoted my original response, since I think you missed a small detail.
>> > Okay, I thought I was following this, till I saw the statement "This
> > does not mean that they cannot play strike card, but that they simply do
> > not get a strike".
>> I said "This does not just mean that they cannot play strike cards, but
> that they simply do not get a strike." _just_
Okay, now that you pointed that out (that my eyes skipped over the word
'just'), it makes a great deal more sense :). I did not previously think
you could just burn strike cards in your hand, it was only the
misunderstanding of misinterpreting your statement that gave me the
momentary idea it might be possible.
In any case, I appreciate your and the other people on the list
responses to all the various questions I have asked. I am the only one
in my local circle of players (up to about 4 + me) who asks questions
online to settle disputes.
Gwen
Gwen Morse wrote:
> Okay, I thought I was following this, till I saw the statement "This
> does not mean that they cannot play strike card, but that they simply do
> not get a strike".
>> In what sort of situation would you play a strike card, if you do not
> get a strike. The *only* thing I can think of is to 'burn' a card in
> your hand (IE: if you find there's a 'jam' of cards). Is this what's
> being referred to? Is there some other option as far as playing strikes
> that I've missed?
You can't play a strike card if you don't have a strike.
The statement "This does not mean..." was meant to extend the original
poster's incorrectly stated restriction (if I understand James Hamblin
correctly).
"Cannot strike" is strictly more restrictive than "Cannot play strike
cards". The latter allows hand strikes, the former does not.
Hidden Lurker does not "only" prevent the victim from playing strike
cards, but actually prevents him from striking at all.
This restriction has the side effect of preventing him from playing
strike cards, but it also prevents him from striking with hands (or
any other innate strike) as well.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]