Combat / Action Modifier

The ruling on Form of Mist says that it can only be played if you need stealth (or at least it did... I'm assuming it still does). By extension, it is possible to need stealth when you are in combat, no? If yes, then can I play Swiftness of the Stag at <SPI> about 10 times during combat, and then FoM and continue my action at +10 stealth? If not, why not? I'm under the impression that a dual-type card can be played as either type (i.e. I can play it as a combat card if I am blocking, so it doesn't need to be legal *both* as an action card and an action modifier), so can I play the <SPI> level as a combat card? On a similar note, can I play the <for><obf> level of Elemental Stoicism as an action (which doesn't do anything, natch)? Why not? I guess my point is that most of the split-discipline dual-type cards don't say *when* they can be used. For some of them, it's obvious. You can only gain intercept if you need it, and I *believe* it was finally established in the Great 2nd Tradition Debate that you can only need intercept if you're attempting to block. But some of the cards seem to allow you to do silly things that aren't specifically prohibited by the rules. I don't like the idea of using "common sense" to determine when the card is playable, since common sense has been shown to be not all that "common". Plus, what one person may do accidentally, another may do to exploit the lack of a rule, and this seems like it could lead to huge rules headaches at tournaments. So what's the deal?

>The ruling on Form of Mist says that it can only be played if you need >stealth (or at least it did... I'm assuming it still does). By >extension, it is possible to need stealth when you are in combat, no? A lot of the time if you are in combat, then you need the stealth. You do *not* need the stealth if the combat is the result of the action (Bum's Rush, Ambush), or the result of something other than a block (Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Siren's Lure). Also, even if you are in a combat that is a result of a block, corner-case scenarios might result in not needing the stealth (a Weather Control kills your opponent's Raven Spy, etc.). >If yes, then can I play Swiftness of the Stag at <SPI> about 10 times >during combat, and then FoM and continue my action at +10 stealth? If >not, why not? I'm under the impression that a dual-type card can be >played as either type (i.e. I can play it as a combat card if I am >blocking, so it doesn't need to be legal *both* as an action card and >an action modifier), so can I play the <SPI> level as a combat card? Although it should really be cleared up, I think in most cases, it's implicit what type of card most versions are. It's a bit weird since Madrigal can be played as an action modifier or reaction, but superior Swiftness of the Stag is clearly an action modifier (not combat) card. Otherwise you'd have people trying to play manuevers or presses outside of combat. >On a similar note, can I play the <for><obf> level of Elemental >Stoicism as an action (which doesn't do anything, natch)? Why not? I don't think so. The superior is explicit in that it is an action. The other versions don't have any such text. Anyway, the "remainder of combat" thing would make a potential action fruitless or confusing at best. Halcyan 2

In message <5287ede4.01122...@posting.google.com>, ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Chris Berger) mumbled something about: >The ruling on Form of Mist says that it can only be played if you need >stealth (or at least it did... I'm assuming it still does). By >extension, it is possible to need stealth when you are in combat, no? Not quite. You only "need" stealth at ANY time if there is a blocking minion whose intercept equals or exceeds the stealth of the acting minion. Combat resulting from a successful block satisfies these conditions, so you can play Form of Mist. Stanislava in combat after being blocked hunting by a minion with a Raven Spy could NOT play Form of Mist, as the Raven Spy's intercept is negated by her special. Weird and corner-case, yes. >If yes, then can I play Swiftness of the Stag at <SPI> about 10 times >during combat, and then FoM and continue my action at +10 stealth? If Nope. After you play the first Swiftness, there is no longer a blocking minion whose intercept equals or exceeds the stealth of the acting minion. You no longer need stealth -- you can play no additional StS, and you can no longer play FoM as an action modifier. (see below -- this may not even be legal in the first place). >not, why not? I'm under the impression that a dual-type card can be >played as either type (i.e. I can play it as a combat card if I am >blocking, so it doesn't need to be legal *both* as an action card and >an action modifier), so can I play the <SPI> level as a combat card? A dual-type card can only be played in an appropriate situation -- you couldn't play Aura Absorption to gain +1 intercept as an acting minion, for example, even though it is an action modifier/reaction. While there are plenty of precedents for playing action modifiers in combat, those are all specifically effects which provide a combat-related effect AND an action-modifier effect. I don't believe you could even play the SPI level as a card. >On a similar note, can I play the <for><obf> level of Elemental >Stoicism as an action (which doesn't do anything, natch)? Why not? That level is only playable as a combat card, because there must be a "remainder of combat". >I guess my point is that most of the split-discipline dual-type cards >don't say *when* they can be used. For some of them, it's obvious. Actually, I think they're ALL pretty obvious, myself. But. >only need intercept if you're attempting to block. But some of the >cards seem to allow you to do silly things that aren't specifically >prohibited by the rules. I don't like the idea of using "common >sense" to determine when the card is playable, since common sense has >been shown to be not all that "common". Plus, what one person may do Being excruciatingly literal in the text reading is a lot safer than common sense, probably. -- "Grod come smash THAT vampire now."

In message <t5pm2uolrknh02j8n...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >I don't believe you could even play the SPI level as a card. ...as a COMBAT card, obviously. It would be rare to see a card with a completely unplayable superior (old version of Summon the Serpent, anyone? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > The ruling on Form of Mist says that it can only be played if you need > stealth (or at least it did... I'm assuming it still does). By > extension, it is possible to need stealth when you are in combat, no? Defintion of "need stealth": The exists a blocking minion with intercept equal to (or greater than) this acting minion's stealth. > If yes, then can I play Swiftness of the Stag at <SPI> about 10 times > during combat, and then FoM and continue my action at +10 stealth? If No. > not, why not? I'm under the impression that a dual-type card can be 1) SPI is an action modifier ("+1 stealth"), not a combat effect. 2) Even if you could play it in combat, you could only play it 10 times if the blocking minion's intercept were 10 points greater than your stealth at the time you started (11 if you wanted to conclude with superior FoM). > played as either type (i.e. I can play it as a combat card if I am > blocking, so it doesn't need to be legal *both* as an action card and > an action modifier), so can I play the <SPI> level as a combat card? No, it is an action modifier. > On a similar note, can I play the <for><obf> level of Elemental > Stoicism as an action (which doesn't do anything, natch)? Why not? No. It's a combat effect. > I guess my point is that most of the split-discipline dual-type cards > don't say *when* they can be used. For some of them, it's obvious. For the ones that don't say, it's obvious. That is, for the ones for which it isn't obvious, the card states explicitly when it can be used. > You can only gain intercept if you need it, and I *believe* it was > finally established in the Great 2nd Tradition Debate that you can > only need intercept if you're attempting to block. But some of the > cards seem to allow you to do silly things that aren't specifically > prohibited by the rules. I don't like the idea of using "common > sense" to determine when the card is playable, since common sense has > been shown to be not all that "common". Plus, what one person may do > accidentally, another may do to exploit the lack of a rule, and this > seems like it could lead to huge rules headaches at tournaments. > > So what's the deal? "Painfully obvious sense" - something even more common than common sense, hopefully. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [Swiftness of the Stag] >1) SPI is an action modifier ("+1 stealth"), not a combat effect. How can you tell? Both symbols are in the corner, and as far as I know, there is no rule that specifically forbids you to gain stealth during combat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Nothing succeeds like excess"

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C2B6D6B...@white-wolf.com>... > > If yes, then can I play Swiftness of the Stag at <SPI> about 10 times > > during combat, and then FoM and continue my action at +10 stealth? If > > not, why not? I'm under the impression that a dual-type card can be > > 1) SPI is an action modifier ("+1 stealth"), not a combat effect. > 2) Even if you could play it in combat, you could only play it 10 times > if the blocking minion's intercept were 10 points greater than your > stealth at the time you started (11 if you wanted to conclude with > superior FoM). > My bad. I should have not have said anything about playing it 10 times. But if I needed to play it twice in order to supercede an Enhanced Senses, and then use Shadow Body to continue the action, then the question would make more sense. > > played as either type (i.e. I can play it as a combat card if I am > > blocking, so it doesn't need to be legal *both* as an action card and > > an action modifier), so can I play the <SPI> level as a combat card? > > No, it is an action modifier. > If you can *need* stealth in combat, then how do we know that it's not a combat/action modifier that can be played as both? Are you errata'ing the card at this point? It'd really be nice if there was some indication of such a thing on the card. It looks like a combat card to me. The card has the combat symbol on it. > "Painfully obvious sense" - something even more common than common > sense, hopefully. > As someone said above, a literal reading of the card is often safer than "common sense".

In message <5287ede4.01122...@posting.google.com>, ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Chris Berger) mumbled something about: >> > played as either type (i.e. I can play it as a combat card if I am >> > blocking, so it doesn't need to be legal *both* as an action card and >> > an action modifier), so can I play the <SPI> level as a combat card? >> >> No, it is an action modifier. >> >If you can *need* stealth in combat, then how do we know that it's not >a combat/action modifier that can be played as both? Are you Because it doesn't provide a combat effect, much like playing Aura Absorption for +1 intercept doesn't provide an action-modifier effect. >errata'ing the card at this point? It'd really be nice if there was >some indication of such a thing on the card. It looks like a combat >card to me. The card has the combat symbol on it. That's because the inferior level says "Maneuver or press", which are very definitely combat effects. By your logic, you would also be able to play the inferior of this card as an action modifier, resulting in a truly ridiculous (and quite illegal) situation. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>If you can *need* stealth in combat, then how do we know that it's not >>a combat/action modifier that can be played as both? Are you > >Because it doesn't provide a combat effect, much like playing Aura >Absorption for +1 intercept doesn't provide an action-modifier effect. You're only allowed to play Intercept when you need it. You never need it in one of your own actions. You can need Stealth in combat, though - cf Form of Mist. >>errata'ing the card at this point? It'd really be nice if there was >>some indication of such a thing on the card. It looks like a combat >>card to me. The card has the combat symbol on it. > >That's because the inferior level says "Maneuver or press", which are >very definitely combat effects. > >By your logic, you would also be able to play the inferior of this card >as an action modifier, resulting in a truly ridiculous (and quite >illegal) situation. You can't get manoeuvers outside of combat. Cards like Form of Mist indicates that having a card that is played in combat and provides stealth at least isn't a ludicrous proposition. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c2bb26a....@news.algonet.se>, jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>That's because the inferior level says "Maneuver or press", which are >>very definitely combat effects. >> >>By your logic, you would also be able to play the inferior of this card >>as an action modifier, resulting in a truly ridiculous (and quite >>illegal) situation. > >You can't get manoeuvers outside of combat. Cards like Form of Mist Clarification: You can't play combat effects outside of combat, which is why you can't just play Form of Mist superior to gain the stealth, and bypass combat entirely. You can only play combat effects while you are in combat. >indicates that having a card that is played in combat and provides >stealth at least isn't a ludicrous proposition. Right. Form of Mist, Mirror Image, Shadow Body, etc., both provide a combat effect (strike: combat ends), and an action-modifier effect (continue the action as if unblocked). Form of Mist also adds +1 stealth. Since all of these provide a combat effect, all are legal to play during combat, although they also modify the action. Swiftness of the Stag's superior reads only "+1 stealth", which does not provide a combat effect, only an action-modifier effect -- and therefore is not legal to play during combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > "Painfully obvious sense" - something even more common than common > > sense, hopefully. > > > As someone said above, a literal reading of the card is often safer > than "common sense". As someone else said: reduce the amount of card text. Result: card text is a verbose as necessary. Stating that "+1 stealth" is an action modifier effect and not a combat effect is not necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Derek Ray skrev i meddelandet , >jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) mumbled something about: > >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>That's because the inferior level says "Maneuver or press", which are >>>very definitely combat effects. >>> >>>By your logic, you would also be able to play the inferior of this card >>>as an action modifier, resulting in a truly ridiculous (and quite >>>illegal) situation. >> >>You can't get manoeuvers outside of combat. Cards like Form of Mist > >Clarification: You can't play combat effects outside of combat, which >is why you can't just play Form of Mist superior to gain the stealth, >and bypass combat entirely. > >You can only play combat effects while you are in combat. > >>indicates that having a card that is played in combat and provides >>stealth at least isn't a ludicrous proposition. > >Right. Form of Mist, Mirror Image, Shadow Body, etc., both provide a >combat effect (strike: combat ends), and an action-modifier effect >(continue the action as if unblocked). Form of Mist also adds +1 >stealth. Since all of these provide a combat effect, all are legal to >play during combat, although they also modify the action. I'd say that only Form of Mist is a action-modifier effect, as it's the only of the cards that only can be played once per action. If the "Continue action as unblocked" was a actionmodifier, I'd only be able to play Mirror Image once on my evil "Sensory deprivate Ozmo action"... /Henrik Isaksson

In message <3C2C673F...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Result: card text is a verbose as necessary. Stating that "+1 stealth" >is an action modifier effect and not a combat effect is not necessary. Potentially, it might have been possible to include the individual symbols along with the effects. (e.g. an action modifier symbol next to the action modifier bit) This would also clutter a card, however. -- James Coupe "I think Christmas has lost it's meaning... PGP 0x5D623D5D we're all too busy wrapped up in the commercial aspects EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 of the season that we forget the true meaning... 13D7E668C3695D623D5D it's as if Santa died on the cross in vane for us all!"

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C2C673F...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >Result: card text is a verbose as necessary. Stating that "+1 stealth" > >is an action modifier effect and not a combat effect is not necessary. > > Potentially, it might have been possible to include the individual > symbols along with the effects. (e.g. an action modifier symbol next to > the action modifier bit) That's a good idea. It would be very useful on cards like Madrigal (where some of the effects have to be explicitly "typed"). [ quoted text not captured ]

> My bad. I should have not have said anything about playing it 10 > times. But if I needed to play it twice in order to supercede an > Enhanced Senses, and then use Shadow Body to continue the action, then > the question would make more sense. You cannot play Swiftness of the Stag at SPI twice to supercede an Enhanced Senses. Stealth w/o a combat effect is an action modifer effect, and a single action modifier can only be played once on a given action. Fanboy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C2CCBA0...@white-wolf.com: > James Coupe wrote: >> >> Potentially, it might have been possible to include the individual >> symbols along with the effects. (e.g. an action modifier symbol next >> to the action modifier bit) > > That's a good idea. > It would be very useful on cards like Madrigal (where some > of the effects have to be explicitly "typed"). As long as you make it only a reminder for multi-type cards, and not a standard indication that would only clutter the vast majority of cards. Flux

texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.01122...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] This is in the rules, where?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:5287ede4.01122...@posting.google.com... [only one action mod per vampire per action] > This is in the rules, where? Chris, you've been playing long enough to know this one. Though if you could, theoretically, play the +1 stealth as a combat effect, then yeah, you could play 10 of them if you wanted, barring the "can't have more stealth than needed" bit. Anyway, try: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ 1.6.3 "2. Action modifier cards: The acting minion can play these cards to modify his action. For example, some action modifiers increase the acting minion's stealth or bleed amount or give him more votes. A minion cannot play the same action modifier more than once during a single action." Right near the front. As in, "no, you can't play Lost in Crowds twice on your Govern the Unaligned + Conditioning bleed." Xian

In message <5287ede4.01122...@posting.google.com>, ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Chris Berger) mumbled something about: >texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.01122...@posting.google.com>... >> >> You cannot play Swiftness of the Stag at SPI twice to supercede an >> Enhanced Senses. Stealth w/o a combat effect is an action modifer >> effect, and a single action modifier can only be played once on a >> given action. >> >This is in the rules, where? From http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/, and the printed rules: 1.6.3. Minion Cards 2. Action modifier cards: The acting minion can play these cards to modify his action. For example, some action modifiers increase the acting minion's stealth or bleed amount or give him more votes. A minion cannot play the same action modifier more than once during a single action. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a0itsk$lajpc$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes: >[only one action mod per vampire per action] >> This is in the rules, where? > >Chris, you've been playing long enough to know this one. Erm, I believe the point was rather more regarding "Why does +1 stealth have to be regarded as an action modifier when the card clearly has a combat symbol on it too?" [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:8$vL0VXt0...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Erm, I believe the point was rather more regarding "Why does +1 stealth > have to be regarded as an action modifier when the card clearly has a > combat symbol on it too?" Oh, could be. Silly me. Though Derek appears to have made the same assumption I did. But Derek is probably enjoying the little game he and Chris are playing. :) Xian

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:<a0itsk$lajpc$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:5287ede4.01122...@posting.google.com... > [only one action mod per vampire per action] > > This is in the rules, where? > > Chris, you've been playing long enough to know this one. > > Right near the front. As in, "no, you can't play Lost in Crowds twice on > your Govern the Unaligned + Conditioning bleed." > Not that part! The part that says "Stealth w/o a combat effect is an action modifer". I looked real hard, but I couldn't find it. Maybe it's in the "implied" section that people like to refer to. I don't have a copy of that section, myself.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >From http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/, and the printed rules: > >1.6.3. Minion Cards > >2. Action modifier cards: The acting minion can play these cards to >modify his action. For example, some action modifiers increase the >acting minion's stealth or bleed amount or give him more votes. A minion >cannot play the same action modifier more than once during a single >action. Of course, this doesn't exclude the possibilty that a combat card could provide stealth - as indeed FoM does. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Result: card text is a verbose as necessary. Stating that "+1 stealth" >is an action modifier effect and not a combat effect is not necessary. While stealth is something that is normally gained by action modifiers, I see nothing inconceivable in gaining it in combat. And since the card in question is a combat card, and grants stealth, there should be either a) A rule that (explicitly or implictly) tells us stealth can't be gained in combat, or b) A ruling/card errata. Of course, LSJ has *given* us a ruling now, but I can't say I see the basis for it, yet. Not that I particularly want SotS to playable in combat at superior, but I'd like to see why. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > Of course, LSJ has *given* us a ruling now, but I can't say I see the > basis for it, yet. > > Not that I particularly want SotS to playable in combat at superior, > but I'd like to see why. The card has an action modifier symbol on it. Which effect do you think is the action modifier effect: a) Press. b) Maneuver or Press. c) +1 stealth. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >From http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/, and the printed rules: > > > >1.6.3. Minion Cards > > > >2. Action modifier cards: The acting minion can play these cards to > >modify his action. For example, some action modifiers increase the > >acting minion's stealth or bleed amount or give him more votes. A minion > >cannot play the same action modifier more than once during a single > >action. > > Of course, this doesn't exclude the possibilty that a combat card > could provide stealth - as indeed FoM does. ... only when used as an action modifier. Not that there's anything in the rules that would preclude it; just trying to keep this spurious debate from becoming surreal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C2D302E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> Not that I particularly want SotS to playable in combat at superior, >> but I'd like to see why. > >The card has an action modifier symbol on it. >Which effect do you think is the action modifier effect: > >a) Press. >b) Maneuver or Press. >c) +1 stealth. Ah, but which part says you *have* to use it as an action modifier? cf Madrigal, which has some bits which seem to be playable as more than one type. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a0j4bi$kus7o$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> mumbled something about: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:8$vL0VXt0...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> Erm, I believe the point was rather more regarding "Why does +1 stealth >> have to be regarded as an action modifier when the card clearly has a >> combat symbol on it too?" > >Oh, could be. Silly me. Though Derek appears to have made the same >assumption I did. Nah. I'm just being painfully literal in an attempt to encourage people to post coherently ...and not be deliberately obtuse. I doubt Chris is that dense -- he's just being a munchkin. Any fool can tell that "+1 stealth" is an action-modifier effect. Attempting to claim otherwise is merely pointless rules-lawyering, and does nothing but waste time and make onlookers want to slap the munchkin in question and say "Get a life." >But Derek is probably enjoying the little game he and Chris are playing. :) "Whack-a-Mole"? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <3C2D302E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >The card has an action modifier symbol on it. > >Which effect do you think is the action modifier effect: > > > >a) Press. > >b) Maneuver or Press. > >c) +1 stealth. > > Ah, but which part says you *have* to use it as an action modifier? The options (action modifier or combat - per the card type), and the complete lack of anything at all to remotely hint at the ability to use it as a combat effect. > cf Madrigal, which has some bits which seem to be playable as more than > one type. Granted. Now, what about "+1 stealth" "seems" to be playable as a combat effect? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C2DBC4F...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> cf Madrigal, which has some bits which seem to be playable as more than >> one type. > >Granted. Now, what about "+1 stealth" "seems" to be playable as a combat >effect? Nothing. Which part of the rules, however, requires us to look at how playable an effect seems and not what the card text and symbols indicate? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C2DBC4F...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >> cf Madrigal, which has some bits which seem to be playable as more than > >> one type. > > > >Granted. Now, what about "+1 stealth" "seems" to be playable as a combat > >effect? > > Nothing. Which part of the rules, however, requires us to look at how > playable an effect seems and not what the card text and symbols > indicate? Please. The card states it is an action modifier or a combat card. It also list several effects. Two of the effects are so obviously combat effects and not action modifier effects so as not to need additional verbage to belabor the point. The other effect is so obviously an action modifier and not a combat effect so as not to require additional verbage to belabor the point. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C2E78B1...@white-wolf.com>... > The card states it is an action modifier or a combat card. It also list > several effects. > > Two of the effects are so obviously combat effects and not action modifier > effects so as not to need additional verbage to belabor the point. > > The other effect is so obviously an action modifier and not a combat > effect so as not to require additional verbage to belabor the point. If each effect were only allowed to be one type, then I'd have no problem here (then you'd say Maneuver is a combat effect and Stealth is the action modifier effect). However, many cards that are playable as two different types have a single effect that can be played as either type (Madrigal at mel/MEL can be either action modifier or reaction, so why can't Swallowed By the Night at obf be either an action modifier or a combat card?). I know that at one time, a dual-type card could only be played if it were legal as both types. That made poor Ritual of the Bitter Rose even tougher to use than it already is, since you had to be both the acting minion and in combat, i.e. using Amaranth in a Rush deck. At some point, it was apparently decided that you could use a card as either type. I had thought there was an explicit ruling to the effect of "cards with more than one type can be played as either type", but I couldn't find that in the online rulings. AFAICT, there is no mention of multi-typed cards in the rulebook either. Older cards used to say at the top "this card can be played as either an action modifier or a combat card", but I would guess this has been replaced with rules-text... somewhere. Also, AFAIK, there isn't any ruling against using cards in ways that "seem" wrong, or one that says you have to play a card in the way that "seems" obvious. I will probably never play a stealth card in combat (although it might be a good way to cycle cards), but I don't like little logical loopholes that need to be covered up with "oh, but common sense says that that's an action modifier effect and that's a combat effect." I suppose a ruling saying something to that effect would be better than it just being implied, but in hindsight, it might've been nice to explicitly type effects on multi-type cards.