(LSJ) victim of habit

hi there =) i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection. i manage to kill my prey. my new prey also happens to play deflections. Is victime of habit still effective against her ? if no, why ? thanks !

[ quoted text not captured ] When your prey is ousted, you are still left with a card whose text is 'During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap this card to remove three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash heap fom the game to cause your prey to burn 1 pool.' So yes, if your new prey has the same card you named originally, it works on them too. :) > thanks ! -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Correct. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:05t5e.5381$44....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net... [ quoted text not captured ] What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards still get burned but it will not result in loss of one pool? Or does it have to bee three (or more..) cards for them to get burned?` Daniel Eriksson Sweden

"Daniel Eriksson" <walkert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d35ta8$lpi$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se... > > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection. > What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards still get > burned but it will not result in loss of one pool? Correct. Life playing a Lupine Assault when someone's hand size is less than five or using Scrying of Secrets against a payer who's library has fewer than seven cards. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:d36288$c60$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > "Daniel Eriksson" <walkert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:d35ta8$lpi$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se... > > > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection. > > What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards still get > > burned but it will not result in loss of one pool? > > Correct. Life playing a Lupine Assault when someone's hand size is less than > five or using Scrying of Secrets against a payer who's library has fewer > than seven cards. Really? The text is "During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap this card to remove three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash heap fom the game to cause your prey to burn 1 pool." I thought that normally, if you're doing something as a "cost" rather than as an "effect", you can't do it partially - you can't even attempt it if you can't pay the full cost. As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted. Is tapping Victim of Habit to remove only 2 cards possible because the removing of three cards is an effect itself (of tapping the VoH), in addition to being a cost (for burning 1 pool)? Josh uber alles, california

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d368pj$nsp$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:d36288$c60$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > > "Daniel Eriksson" <walkert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d35ta8$lpi$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se... > > > > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection. > > > What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards > still get > > > burned but it will not result in loss of one pool? > > > > Correct. Life playing a Lupine Assault when someone's hand size is > less than > > five or using Scrying of Secrets against a payer who's library has > fewer > > than seven cards. > > Really? The text is "During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap > this card to remove three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash > heap fom the game to cause your prey to burn 1 pool." I thought that > normally, if you're doing something as a "cost" rather than as an > "effect", you can't do it partially - you can't even attempt it if you > can't pay the full cost. You tap VoH "to" burn three copies of the card. > As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun > if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool > and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you > can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted. True enough. > Is tapping Victim of Habit to remove only 2 cards possible because the > removing of three cards is an effect itself (of tapping the VoH), in > addition to being a cost (for burning 1 pool)? Yes. If it were just "remove three to cause pool loss", then you couldn't do it without three. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:d3693h$oah$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:d368pj$nsp$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > > Is tapping Victim of Habit to remove only 2 cards possible because the > > removing of three cards is an effect itself (of tapping the VoH), in > > addition to being a cost (for burning 1 pool)? > > Yes. > > If it were just "remove three to cause pool loss", then you couldn't > do it without three. OK, that's plausible. So likewise, another Methuselah can give you 1 pool (if they really want to) to tap Kingston Penitentiary, Ontario, even if it is already tapped and they can't get a blood for it, right? "Any other Methuselah may give you a pool during his or her untap phase to tap this card to move 1 blood from the blood bank to a ready vampire he or she controls." Oh, and I forgot about this earlier, but I seem to remember that even when it's not a cost, if an effect says to do something with exactly 3 cards, you can't do it to just 2. But this one I might just be imagining. Josh anywhere, we'll be there

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:50:27 -0400, "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:d368pj$nsp$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... >> As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun >> if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool >> and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you >> can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted. > >True enough. Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to retrive a gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4 pool, but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since I couldn't pay for that gun? best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta on the big screen! http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo a écrit : > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:50:27 -0400, "LSJ" > <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > > >>"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:d368pj$nsp$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... >> >>> As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun >>>if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool >>>and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you >>>can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted. >> >>True enough. > > > Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to retrive a > gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4 pool, > but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since I > couldn't pay for that gun? no, quite the opposite : you spend as much pool as you can, and get ousted, without putting the gun into play.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:23:37 +0200, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So the "you can't attempt what you can't pay for" general stance only applies to (action?) cards you play, not in-play effects. So that's why I get ousted in the Vast Wealth case - when I take that action, I'm going for a 0-cost action originally, so I can pay for it, so I can attempt it. That's it? [ quoted text not captured ]

Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:23:37 +0200, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to retrive a > >> gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4 pool, > >> but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since I > >> couldn't pay for that gun? > > > >no, quite the opposite : you spend as much pool as you can, and get > >ousted, without putting the gun into play. > > So the "you can't attempt what you can't pay for" general stance only > applies to (action?) cards you play, not in-play effects. So that's > why I get ousted in the Vast Wealth case - when I take that action, > I'm going for a 0-cost action originally, so I can pay for it, so I > can attempt it. That's it? Not quite. In-play effects also have to be able to be paid for. If there was a card in play that says 'any vampire can remove this card as a (D) action costing two blood', vampires with one blood could not attempt that action even though it's not a card being played. But Vast Wealth isn't being allowed because it's an in-play effect, but because it's simply a zero-cost action that has an effect that makes you spend pool (just as Summoning can). (Plus following the same logic that lets you use Vast Wealth when there are no equipment cards in your deck, or even no cards in your deck, Vast Wealth doesn't consider what the cost of the card you might pull is.) Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for. But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything of his for the action. :) > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1113318444.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for. > But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action > requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before > trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use > your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything > of his for the action. :) Not a great way to think about it, really. If you can't pay the pool, the minion cannot attempt the action. If you have 3 pool, your minion cannot attempt to recruit a Renegade Garou (barring cost reducers, etc.). If you have 5 pool, he can, and then when you pay it, you'll be ousted. In the case of Vast Wealth, the action costs nothing, so it can be attempted no matter what amount of pool you have. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > If you can't pay the pool, the minion cannot attempt the action. > > If you have 3 pool, your minion cannot attempt to recruit a > Renegade Garou (barring cost reducers, etc.). > > If you have 5 pool, he can, and then when you pay it, you'll > be ousted. Interesting; I wasn't sure if that was the case or not as I couldn't find this ruling someplace convenient (or at least not quickly.) (Mainly because the Ruling is listed under 'Playing Cards' even though it applies to taking cardless actions as well.) > LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). -John Flournoy

In message <1113327660.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes: >LSJ wrote: >> If you have 5 pool, he can, and then when you pay it, you'll >> be ousted. > >Interesting; I wasn't sure if that was the case or not as I couldn't >find this ruling someplace convenient (or at least not quickly.) In general, you can oust yourself, so it's not that difficult a ruling to infer anyway. Additional corner-cases, such as someone offering to Life Boon you when you do it, are also possible on top of this. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

> Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for. > But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action > requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before > trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use > your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything > of his for the action. :) I think this confuses the issue a bit, since you might find equipment which costs blood instead of pool. Ankur

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:56:33 -0400, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such). Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling). Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in my library. Can I use the Vast Wealth action to try to get it? Or Enkidu can't even attempt it because it's an equip action, and up to that point, we still can't say if he's attempting to equip with something he can have or not? Or is it simpler than that - you just do the action and if the equipment turns to be a "normal" one, it's burned? And in the latter case, do you get to pay for the equipment burned? [ quoted text not captured ]

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: > I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does > not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other > effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such). > > Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who > cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling). > Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can > have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in > my library. No, he can't; loquipment is only a location while in play. When not in play, it's equipment. Compare and contrast to Jake Washington not being a valid target for Compel the Spirit because, when not in play, he's a master card. (Also: if loquipment was not counted as equipment when not in play, Vast Wealth would not be able to find it.) > Can I use the Vast Wealth action to try to get it? Or Enkidu can't > even attempt it because it's an equip action, and up to that point, we > still can't say if he's attempting to equip with something he can have > or not? He can't do it, because it's an equip action. See also Black Cat and Vast Wealth. > Or is it simpler than that - you just do the action and if the > equipment turns to be a "normal" one, it's burned? > > And in the latter case, do you get to pay for the equipment burned? In the case where Vast Wealth causes you to attempt to equip with something that's not valid (Black Cat equipping with a Kali's Fang, for instance), the equipment is burned and no cost is paid. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: >> I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does >> not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other >> effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such). >> >> Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who >> cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling). >> Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can >> have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in >> my library. > > No, he can't; loquipment is only a location while in play. When not in > play, it's equipment. Compare and contrast to Jake Washington not being > a valid target for Compel the Spirit because, when not in play, he's a > master card. > > (Also: if loquipment was not counted as equipment when not in play, Vast > Wealth would not be able to find it.) > >> Can I use the Vast Wealth action to try to get it? Or Enkidu can't >> even attempt it because it's an equip action, and up to that point, we >> still can't say if he's attempting to equip with something he can have >> or not? > > He can't do it, because it's an equip action. See also Black Cat and > Vast Wealth. He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. >> Or is it simpler than that - you just do the action and if the >> equipment turns to be a "normal" one, it's burned? >> >> And in the latter case, do you get to pay for the equipment burned? > > In the case where Vast Wealth causes you to attempt to equip with > something that's not valid (Black Cat equipping with a Kali's Fang, for > instance), the equipment is burned and no cost is paid. Correct. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <S4mdnbmS59w...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> writes: >Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: >> I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does >> not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other >> effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such). >> Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who >> cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling). >> Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can >> have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in >> my library. > >No, he can't; loquipment is only a location while in play. When not in >play, it's equipment. Compare and contrast to Jake Washington not >being a valid target for Compel the Spirit because, when not in play, >he's a master card. However, he can use a Palatial Estate if it is moved to him. A parallel ruling exists on Beast [LSJ 20010209]: **** <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6 e2fe4398c07614f> > It seems that if you follow Beast's text verbatim, he can > actually use these. If he can get them, yes. > Since equipping them is an "Equip" action and not an "Action Card" > action, and since they are not Equipment once in play (so he still > doesn't "have or use equipment"), it seems to be completely legal. Nah. You have to get it in play first. Beast cannot attempt to get it into play since he cannot have it (the equipment card). **** [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <o3fo511ll4rejihts...@4ax.com>, "Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> writes: >I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does >not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other >effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such). Imagine Vast Wealth as saying: Take a +1 stealth action. During the successful resolution of that action, <do something> and roll a six-sided die. Burn pool equal to the number that the die turns up. You could take that action, even if you had one pool. Since the equipment isn't specified when you take the action from Vast Wealth, the action doesn't have a cost. It's simply that it instructs you to pay the cost to equip as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3MX6e.4639$go4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes: >He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with >a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. >And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. That overturns the ruling I just pointed to about Beast: <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6 e2fe4398c07614f> Specifically, it also cites that the current restriction on Beast matches Beast's old restriction: "Beast cannot equip" because the "cannot have equipment" notices that the card is an equipment card he can't have, and doesn't notice that it will be a location when in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with > a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. > And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. Isn't a location card that is not in play an equipment card, and therefore equipment? It seems that you state here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6e2fe4398c07614f?dmode=source That Beast cannot equip with loquipment. Am I reading it wrong? --Colin McGuigan

James Coupe wrote: > However, he can use a Palatial Estate if it is moved to him. How would one go about moving a Palatial Estate once its in play? --Colin McGuigan

In message <H5Sdnfp9aMN...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> However, he can use a Palatial Estate if it is moved to him. > >How would one go about moving a Palatial Estate once its in play? Same way as always: an ambiguous Disputed Territory. (The Succubus Club option is not possible anymore, of course.) # Loquipment may be put on any ready minion if moved in an ambiguous fashion (by Disputed Territory, e.g.). If the new controller has no minions, the locquipment is burned. (Note: currently all moves are ambiguous - TOM). [RTR 19960112] # Transferring Locquipment via Disputed Territory to the *same* Methuselah that currently controls the locquipment results in no effect - the locquipment cannot be moved to a different minion of the same Methuselah. [LSJ 19971002] [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <3MX6e.4639$go4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ > <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes: > >>He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with >>a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. >>And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. > > That overturns the ruling I just pointed to about Beast: > <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6 > e2fe4398c07614f> The Locquipment is still an action card. Beast cannot play it. > Specifically, it also cites that the current restriction on Beast > matches Beast's old restriction: "Beast cannot equip" because the > "cannot have equipment" notices that the card is an equipment card he > can't have, and doesn't notice that it will be a location when in play. Specifically it notes that that was spurios, as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Bt_6e.4705$go4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <3MX6e.4639$go4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ >> <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes: >> >>>He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with >>>a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. >>>And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. >> That overturns the ruling I just pointed to about Beast: >> <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6 >> e2fe4398c07614f> > >The Locquipment is still an action card. Beast cannot play it. Not true when that ruling was made. <http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=3C19FC5B.66BE3DA6%40white- wolf.com> > As a sidequestion I assume that Rewind Time is moot anyway as an > equipment card is not an action card. Correct? Yes. Although the Jyhad rulebook identified them as action cards. That changed in the 1995 V:TES rulebook. It may change back in the Camarilla edition; I'll have the DT look into it. *** The ruling on Beast was made significantly pre-Camarilla Edition, thus the action card restriction could not be invoked at that time - loquipment wasn't an action card in that sense. Can you explain how that ruling functions at that time? Specifically so that the card text matched the original intent of "Beast cannot equip" which clearly prevented Beast taking an action to get loquipment. >> Specifically, it also cites that the current restriction on Beast >> matches Beast's old restriction: "Beast cannot equip" because the >> "cannot have equipment" notices that the card is an equipment card he >> can't have, and doesn't notice that it will be a location when in play. > >Specifically it notes that that was spurios, as well. "A bit", "a lot?" and "maybe" don't seem quite so certain, from where I stand. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:H5Sdnft9aMM...@speakeasy.net... > LSJ wrote: > > He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with > > a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. > > And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. > > Isn't a location card that is not in play an equipment card, and > therefore equipment? > > It seems that you state here: > That Beast cannot equip with loquipment. Am I reading it wrong? Here's the current ruling: Beast can get locquipment via Vast Wealth, since it is neither an action card action nor does it violate his prohibition on having equipment (since he never has equipment -- by the time he has it, it's in play and a location). -- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vtesr...@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message > news:H5Sdnft9aMM...@speakeasy.net... >> LSJ wrote: >> > He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with >> > a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition. >> > And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location. >> >> Isn't a location card that is not in play an equipment card, and >> therefore equipment? >> >> It seems that you state here: >> That Beast cannot equip with loquipment. Am I reading it wrong? > Here's the current ruling: > Beast can get locquipment via Vast Wealth, since it is neither > an action card action nor does it violate his prohibition on > having equipment (since he never has equipment -- by the time > he has it, it's in play and a location). If Beast were in the Camarilla (Out of the Frying Pan), could he be the recipient of a locquipment if Sheldon calls Alastor?

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:IeSdnSo1a5I...@comcast.com... > LSJ <vtesr...@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > > Here's the current ruling: > > > Beast can get locquipment via Vast Wealth, since it is neither > > an action card action nor does it violate his prohibition on > > having equipment (since he never has equipment -- by the time > > he has it, it's in play and a location). > > If Beast were in the Camarilla (Out of the Frying Pan), could he > be the recipient of a locquipment if Sheldon calls Alastor? If it doesn't involve Beast playing an action card or having equipment, then it doesn't violate those two restrictions on his card text, as above. [ quoted text not captured ]