Ex Nihiled Mummies

What happens if Akhenaten or Kherebutu plays Ex Nihilo ? As they are allies, they're immune to burn blood effects, right ? This way, are they able to keep Ex Nihilo infinitely ? Ex Nihilo also forbids to gain blood. If Akhenaten or Kherebutu is under Ex Nihilo's effect, can they gain life with Summon Soul (as they are not gaining blood, but life instead) ? Pierre

[ quoted text not captured ] Ex Nihilo can only be played by vampires. If the word "vampire" appears anywhere on the card text (as opposed to "minion"), you probably need a vampire to play it [on].

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:19:18 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >On 22 Jul 2001 10:10:09 -0700, kuq...@hotmail.com (kuquami) wrote: > >>What happens if Akhenaten or Kherebutu plays Ex Nihilo ? >>As they are allies, they're immune to burn blood effects, right ? This >>way, are they able to keep Ex Nihilo infinitely ? >> >>Ex Nihilo also forbids to gain blood. If Akhenaten or Kherebutu is >>under Ex Nihilo's effect, can they gain life with Summon Soul (as they >>are not gaining blood, but life instead) ? >> > >Ex Nihilo can only be played by vampires. If the word "vampire" >appears anywhere on the card text (as opposed to "minion"), you >probably need a vampire to play it [on]. First two sentences of Ex Nihilo card text: "+1 stealth. [nec] Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with this card gets +1 stealth." Akhenaten is still "as a vampire" while the card is being put on him, so he can definitely play it. But he won't get the stealth, and the rest of the card says "minion", not "vampire", so he won't get the rest of the toys either. -- Derek do you have stairs in your house?

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:kcemltcef14l4urri...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Mmmh, i'm not sure about this, however i always guessed that both vampires and allies are "minions": and Akhenathen IS a minion, so what's the problem with the difference between "vampire" and "minion" on the card's text you speak of ? And, i'm sure, he loses life, under ex-nihilo, since on akhenathen we can read "any cost in blood is paid with his life" <for nec card he plays>. A bit unsure whether he canNot gain life under ExN. Your thoughts? Aemilianus, vekn prince of Rome

"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> > > Ex Nihilo can only be played by vampires. If the word "vampire" > appears anywhere on the card text (as opposed to "minion"), you > probably need a vampire to play it [on]. Wrong. Read the cards. I think both cards explicitly answer the question asked. Ex Nihilo Necromancy 1 blood +1 stealth action <nec> Put this card ON THIS VAMPIRE. The vampire with this card gets +1 stealth. Damage inflicted by this vampire in combat is reduced to zero, and this vampire is immune to non-aggravated damage. This vampire cannot gain blood; any blood this vampire gains goes to the blood bank instead. During your master phase, this vampire burns 1 blood or is burned. You may choose to burn this card during your untap phase. <NEC> As above, but you may burn this card during any Methuselah's untap phase ====================== Akhenaten, The Sun Pharoah 4 pool Unique Mummy with 3 life, 3 strength, 1 bleed. Akhenaten may play cards requiring basic Necromancy AS A VAMPIRE with a capacity of 3. ANY COST IN BLOOD IS PAID WITH HIS LIFE. If a card would give him blood, give hime life. If he is burned, shuffle him into your library. If he is in combat with a Follower of Set, any damage he inflicts is aggravated. Akhenaten can burn himself to burn a Follower of Set controlled by your prey as a (D) action. ===================== Akky is able to play Ex Nihilo the same way he can play *any* Necromancy cards--at basic level as if he were a vampire. Note that while he would normally be able to gain life by gaining blood, in this case he could *not* gain blood due to explicit limitations in the card text of Ex Nihilo. Similarly, the cost he would normally pay in blood is costing him life as per the card text of Ex Nihilo. So, he *could* play Ex Nihilo, but it would not necessarily be a great idea. Cheers, WES

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > First two sentences of Ex Nihilo card text: > > "+1 stealth. [nec] Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with > this card gets +1 stealth." > > Akhenaten is still "as a vampire" while the card is being put on him, > so he can definitely play it. But he won't get the stealth, and the > rest of the card says "minion", not "vampire", so he won't get the > rest of the toys either. Hmm... so he can put the card on himself as if he were a vampire, but cannot use the *effects* of the card as if he were a vampire? Weird.

Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9jfen...@enews2.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Correct. > Note that while he would normally be able to gain life by gaining blood, in > this case he could *not* gain blood due to explicit limitations in the card > text of Ex Nihilo. Wrong. Allies that can play cards as though they were vampires are only considered vampires while playing the cards. Any long term effect that refers to the vampire with this card will be completely ignored by the Ally. > Similarly, the cost he would normally pay in blood is costing him life as > per the card text of Ex Nihilo. Wrong. Re-read the card text of Ex-Nihilo. Notice that it refers to the vampire the card is on. Mummies are not vampires. The text will have no effect on them. > So, he *could* play Ex Nihilo, but it would not necessarily be a great idea. Mummies can play Ex Nihilo and it will have no effect on them whatsoever once it is in play. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

[ quoted text not captured ] And in the 'V:TES Official Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata' page under "Allies" (meaning it applies to all allies), it says, "Ignore all 'burn blood' effects entirely." The cost-in-blood thing is talking about a minion playing cards or paying for a voluntary effect on a permanent (e.g. to remove Slaughtering the Herd at superior) that list a cost to to play the card or use the effect, not a mandatory thing. Now, you might have an argument that it applies because it's worded as, "Do this to avoid this", which would make sense to to convert "burn blood" to "pay life". But I can't find any rules or rulings on that issue, myself. > A bit unsure whether he canNot gain life under ExN. Clearly not. At least, not from "gain blood" effects being interpreted as "gain life". Fred

> Akky is able to play Ex Nihilo the same way he can play *any* Necromancy > cards--at basic level as if he were a vampire. > > Note that while he would normally be able to gain life by gaining blood, in > this case he could *not* gain blood due to explicit limitations in the card > text of Ex Nihilo. > > Similarly, the cost he would normally pay in blood is costing him life as > per the card text of Ex Nihilo. > > So, he *could* play Ex Nihilo, but it would not necessarily be a great idea. Except, of course, Akky has played multiple Summon Soul for several turns before. Mmmh, a Mummy with 17 life plays an ex-nihilo... Even though, i won't built a deck around this concept.... > > Cheers, > WES > > >

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:55:52 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> >> >> Ex Nihilo can only be played by vampires. If the word "vampire" >> appears anywhere on the card text (as opposed to "minion"), you >> probably need a vampire to play it [on]. > >Wrong. Read the cards. I think both cards explicitly answer the question >asked. They do. =) >Akhenaten, The Sun Pharoah >4 pool >Unique Mummy with 3 life, 3 strength, 1 bleed. >Akhenaten may play cards requiring basic Necromancy AS A VAMPIRE with a >capacity of 3. ANY COST IN BLOOD IS PAID WITH HIS LIFE. If a card would give >===================== > >Akky is able to play Ex Nihilo the same way he can play *any* Necromancy >cards--at basic level as if he were a vampire. Right. But once the card is on him, he's no longer a vampire; he's only a vampire while he's PLAYING the card. And Ex Nihilo is -excruciatingly- specific about naming "this vampire", etc. in all of its clauses. So you get it onto him, and then it sits there looking silly. =) I believe (don't quote me) there's also an old ruling about trying to stick Shadow Court Satyr with a Taste of Vitae; he can only play -discipline- cards as a vampire by current card text, and Taste of Vitae specifies "This vampire..." [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:10:44 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >> >> First two sentences of Ex Nihilo card text: >> >> "+1 stealth. [nec] Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with >> this card gets +1 stealth." >> >> Akhenaten is still "as a vampire" while the card is being put on him, >> so he can definitely play it. But he won't get the stealth, and the >> rest of the card says "minion", not "vampire", so he won't get the >> rest of the toys either. > >Mmmh, i'm not sure about this, however i always guessed that both vampires >and allies are "minions": They are. It's the old "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs" thing. Vampires are minions. Allies are minions. Allies are not vampires. >and Akhenathen IS a minion, so what's the problem >with the difference between "vampire" and "minion" >on the card's text you speak of ? When it says "minion", it means either. When it says "vampire", it means "vampire". The text says "vampire" all throughout the card. >And, i'm sure, he loses life, under ex-nihilo, >since on akhenathen we can read "any cost in blood is paid with his life" ><for nec card he plays>. >A bit unsure whether he canNot gain life under ExN. full card text: "+1 stealth. [nec] Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with this card gets +1 stealth. Damage inflicted by this vampire in combat is reduced to zero, and this vampire is immune to non-aggravated damage. This vampire cannot gain blood; any blood this vampire gains goes to the blood bank instead. During your master phase, this vampire burns one blood or is burned. You may choose to burn this card during your untap phase. [NEC] As above, but you may burn this card during any Methuselah's untap phase." So Akhnaten can play the card at inferior, and put it on himself because he's still a vampire for the duration of the initial action (put this card on this vampire). He then does NOT get +1 stealth (vampire), has NO damage reduction (vampire), and is NOT immune to non-agg damage (vampire). He CAN gain life (vampire), and he DOESN'T have to burn blood on your master phase (vampire, also, allies ignore burn-blood effects). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <jdpmltch9nnkfg65e...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >I believe (don't quote me) there's also an old ruling about trying to >stick Shadow Court Satyr with a Taste of Vitae; he can only play >-discipline- cards as a vampire by current card text, and Taste of >Vitae specifies "This vampire..." It's his card text. It doesn't allow him to play disciplineless cards as a vampire, so he plays them as an ally (i.e. normally) . Hence, Taste of Vitae never kicks in. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "Surely somewhere out there there's a woman who's EBD690ECD7A1F been sodomized by her father and is capable of B457CA213D7E6 composing a few coherent sentences on the subject." 68C3695D623D5D

In message <9jfg3...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >Hmm... so he can put the card on himself as if he were a vampire, but cannot >use the *effects* of the card as if he were a vampire? Similar to the whole Talaq/Theft of Vitae thing. He plays it as a vampire. When it resolves, he's an ally. (Hence, he doesn't suffer the whole blood draining off and so can, theoretically, become very life-filled indeed.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > Note that while he would normally be able to gain life by gaining blood, > in > > this case he could *not* gain blood due to explicit limitations in the > card > > text of Ex Nihilo. > > Wrong. > > Allies that can play cards as though they were vampires are only considered > vampires while playing the cards. Any long term effect that refers to the > vampire with this card will be completely ignored by the Ally. > > > > Similarly, the cost he would normally pay in blood is costing him life as > > per the card text of Ex Nihilo. > > Wrong. > Re-read the card text of Ex-Nihilo. > Notice that it refers to the vampire the card is on. > Mummies are not vampires. The text will have no effect on them. > > > > So, he *could* play Ex Nihilo, but it would not necessarily be a great > idea. > > Mummies can play Ex Nihilo and it will have no effect on them whatsoever > once it is in play. I stand corrected, slightly. This doesn't seem very intuitive to me at all but I do understand what you are saying. It seems *more* reasonable that they are able to continue playing the card because they are still able to 'pretend' to be a vampire with Necromancy. *shrug* But whatever, it's not that great of a combo so I'm not too worried about it :) Cheers, WES This signature designed to confuse spam-bots... let's see if it works. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:44:37 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote You know, the Road Runner block is now really starting to piss me off, since it catches the Lasombra underneath it too. Grr. Anyway. We return you to your regularly scheduled side comment. >This signature designed to confuse spam-bots... let's see if it works. >tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com >ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov you forgot ech...@nsa.gov. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:g2pmlt058j6jfhl74...@4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:10:44 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >> <snip> > When it says "minion", it means either. When it says "vampire", it > means "vampire". The text says "vampire" all throughout the card. > > >And, i'm sure, he loses life, under ex-nihilo, > >since on akhenathen we can read "any cost in blood is paid with his life" > ><for nec card he plays>. > >A bit unsure whether he canNot gain life under ExN. > > full card text: > > "+1 stealth. [nec] Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with > this card gets +1 stealth. Damage inflicted by this vampire in combat > is reduced to zero, and this vampire is immune to non-aggravated > damage. This vampire cannot gain blood; any blood this vampire gains > goes to the blood bank instead. During your master phase, this vampire > burns one blood or is burned. You may choose to burn this card during > your untap phase. [NEC] As above, but you may burn this card during > any Methuselah's untap phase." > > So Akhnaten can play the card at inferior, and put it on himself > because he's still a vampire for the duration of the initial action > (put this card on this vampire). > Ok > He then does NOT get +1 stealth (vampire), has NO damage reduction > (vampire), and is NOT immune to non-agg damage (vampire). He CAN gain > life (vampire), and he DOESN'T have to burn blood on your master phase > (vampire, also, allies ignore burn-blood effects). > IMHO, i always guessed that allies who can play discipline card "as a vampire" take the full effect of the card, even if the card text refers to the "vampire". Else, i see little use of such ability for allies. Talaq the immortal doesn' get the (aggr) damage and additional untap under a succesful rutor's hand? Only because the card says "......the vampire takes 1 aggr damage........the vampire gets one additional untap......" ? I hope this is no an official rule, since i would find it maddening. Just my thought Aemilianus, vekn prince of Rome > [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > You know, the Road Runner block is now really starting to piss me off, > since it catches the Lasombra underneath it too. Grr. I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean... Road Runner? Catches the Lasombra? Speaky da Inglish? > >This signature designed to confuse spam-bots... let's see if it works. > >tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com > >ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov > > you forgot ech...@nsa.gov. :) Noted :) I presume they'd also get it by default. But they're also less likely to spam me. Cheers, WES -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5B59DB...@netcom.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:kcemltcef14l4urri...@4ax.com... > > > On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:19:18 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: > > > > > > >On 22 Jul 2001 10:10:09 -0700, kuq...@hotmail.com (kuquami) wrote: > > > > <snip> > [ quoted text not captured ] IMHO, the "burn blood" on ex-nihilo IS a cost: to avoid being burned An by Akhenathen's text it should be payed with his life. Yes, there's no specific ruling about "any do X or Y happens effect is to be considered a cost" But common sense would suggest that ( LSJ ? ). Aemilianus. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:jdpmltch9nnkfg65e...@4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:55:52 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > wrote: > > >"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> > >> <snip> > > > >Akky is able to play Ex Nihilo the same way he can play *any* Necromancy > >cards--at basic level as if he were a vampire. > > Right. But once the card is on him, he's no longer a vampire; he's > only a vampire while he's PLAYING the card. And Ex Nihilo is > -excruciatingly- specific about naming "this vampire", etc. in all of > its clauses. I must note it again: if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a vampire..", it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, imho. Aemilianus, the vekn prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >First two sentences of Ex Nihilo card text: > >"+1 stealth. [nec] Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with >this card gets +1 stealth." > >Akhenaten is still "as a vampire" while the card is being put on him, >so he can definitely play it. But he won't get the stealth, and the >rest of the card says "minion", not "vampire", so he won't get the >rest of the toys either. Correct. -- 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >IMHO, the "burn blood" on ex-nihilo IS a cost: to avoid being burned >An by Akhenathen's text it should be payed with his life. >Yes, there's no specific ruling about > >"any do X or Y happens effect is to be considered a cost" > >But common sense would suggest that ( LSJ ? ). The cost of a card is exactly the number printed in the blood drop on the side of the card. Never anything else. Some effects may have costs, but the "may play cards as vampires" allies' text refers to the cost of cards, not of effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >IMHO, i always guessed that allies who can play discipline card "as a >vampire" >take the full effect of the card, even if the card text refers to the >"vampire". No. Card text indicates that he's only "as a vampire" to *play* the card >Else, i see little use of such ability for allies. They find lots of use: undead strength, theft of vitae, etc. >Talaq the immortal doesn' get the (aggr) damage and additional untap under a >succesful rutor's hand? He takes the damage, but doesn't get the untap effect. He gets the effect of the play of the card, but not of the card in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a >vampire..", >it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, imho. It fits perfectly with the "allies ignore 'burn blood' effects". If you accept one, you should have no problem accepting the other. Allies don't get the benefit of being a vampire - they're not vampires. Allies don't get the penalty of being a vampire - they're not vampires. Ex Nihilo was written the was it is *because* allies aren't vampires. If allies could 'use' Ex Nihilo, then it would have been written to penalize them correctly (and at least as unpleasantly as vampires). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:31:06 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >news:g2pmlt058j6jfhl74...@4ax.com... >> So Akhnaten can play the card at inferior, and put it on himself >> because he's still a vampire for the duration of the initial action >> (put this card on this vampire). >> > >Ok > >> He then does NOT get +1 stealth (vampire), has NO damage reduction >> (vampire), and is NOT immune to non-agg damage (vampire). He CAN gain >> life (vampire), and he DOESN'T have to burn blood on your master phase >> (vampire, also, allies ignore burn-blood effects). >> > >IMHO, i always guessed that allies who can play discipline card "as a >vampire" >take the full effect of the card, even if the card text refers to the >"vampire". >Else, i see little use of such ability for allies. Akhenaten being able to play Summon Soul at inferior isn't a good thing? How about Jar the Soul? And of course there's always Whispers of the Dead, or Compel the Spirit. He can use Spectral Divination to give his action stealth... There's quite a bit of use. You just don't get to play all the extra-cool cards like Ex Nihilo that way. >I hope this is no an official rule, since i would find it maddening. A padded room has been reserved with a nice shiny white coat. ;) -- Derek [THIS SPACE FOR RENT]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 03:25:21 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> You know, the Road Runner block is now really starting to piss me off, >> since it catches the Lasombra underneath it too. Grr. > >I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean... Road Runner? Catches the >Lasombra? Speaky da Inglish? My (Earthlink's) news server is killing all posts originating from Road Runner (*.rr.com). Originally, I noticed this when Jason Bell "vanished" from an argument, and then James Coupe's replies to him started mysteriously appearing in the thread, without corresponding original messages. That itself was sufficiently annoying; I believe that killfiling people just because you disagree with them is the act of a child, and I don't like my news server doing it for me. Now it appears that Lasombra posts from rr.com as well (or at least austin.rr.com is in some of his headers), and that's even more annoying. >> >This signature designed to confuse spam-bots... let's see if it works. >> >tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com >> >ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov >> >> you forgot ech...@nsa.gov. :) > >Noted :) I presume they'd also get it by default. Well, I dunno. You didn't include any of the magic keywords like "terrorist", "bomb", or "LifeLike Latex Quality". So they might have missed it. =) >But they're also less likely to spam me. I dunno, I think I'd rather see Echelon spam than most other stuff these days... =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <LBS67.16882$NZ6.5...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a >vampire..", >it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, imho. Why? It does exactly what it says on the tin. Plays card as a vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a > >vampire..", > >it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, imho. > > It fits perfectly with the "allies ignore 'burn blood' effects". > If you accept one, you should have no problem accepting the other. > > Allies don't get the benefit of being a vampire - they're not vampires. > Allies don't get the penalty of being a vampire - they're not vampires. I'm try to say that, by logic, an ally who can play a disc card "as a vampire of..." should be elegible for all the "vampire" effect written on that card, whichever they may be. And i find no specific official rule on this matter (speaking of allies who can play discipline cards "as a vampire") Imho, it's absurd that allies "playing as", can play disc cards whose effect fizzle into nothing. Aemilianus, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9jga1...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >This signature designed to confuse spam-bots... let's see if it works. >tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com >ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov Most spam-bots only download headers. The vast majority (from the UCE I get) seem to look at From: type headers, but some look at them all (based on the number of times I've head UCE addressed to a Message-ID:) Try adding a header of X-Random-Spambot-Fodder:? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:I$hCiLE4nDX7Ew$e...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <LBS67.16882$NZ6.5...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a > >vampire..", > >it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, imho. > > Why? It does exactly what it says on the tin. > > Plays card as a vampire. Well, because if ally X can play a card as if it were a vamp, i find completing counter-intuitive to not read any reference to "vamp" on that card as elegible for the ally X. I can't believe the rule is as it is now...... Emiliano. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >> you forgot ech...@nsa.gov. :) > > > >Noted :) I presume they'd also get it by default. > > Well, I dunno. You didn't include any of the magic keywords like > "terrorist", "bomb", or "LifeLike Latex Quality". So they might have > missed it. =) Hmmm... I think the names of the cards themselves would suffice, n'est-ce pas? You just listed two of them... um, not the latex one. I'm sure this whole newsgroup is being watched by Echelon types since we regularly use keywords that would supposedly set it off. CSIS spies on Derek Ray and FBI/CIA spies on Wes. > >But they're also less likely to spam me. > > I dunno, I think I'd rather see Echelon spam than most other stuff > these days... =) What pray tell would Echelon-spam look like? FELLOW WORKER A COMMIE???? NEIGHBOUR AN ANARCHIST???? LET US KNOW AND WE'LL PROVIDE YOU WITH A LARGER PENIS!!!!

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <LBS67.16882$NZ6.5...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a > >vampire..", > >it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, imho. > > Why? It does exactly what it says on the tin. > > Plays card as a vampire. Because one would tend to think that the abilities to be a "pretend vampire" would not go away just because the card you played became a permanent. I agree with Tetragrammaton. I would never expect such a ruling and see no reason for it. Maybe there's some complex technical problems that arise if you don't play permanents requiring disciplines this way which aren't immediately apparent. But if not, I have my usual automatic objections to anything that isn't played in the simplest possible way unless it has some compensating fun factor - which this distinction certainly doesn't. Fred

In message <Z5X67.18516$NZ6.6...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >Well, because if ally X can play a card as if it were a vamp, >i find completing counter-intuitive to not read any reference to "vamp" on >that card >as elegible for the ally X. But card text says play as a vampire, not use as a vampire. >I can't believe the rule is as it is now...... Why? We're simply playing by the card texts. It's not a "ruling" per se, just a reading of card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:15:26 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >I'm sure this whole newsgroup is being watched by Echelon types since we >regularly use keywords that would supposedly set it off. CSIS spies on Derek >Ray and FBI/CIA spies on Wes. Soon, they'll knock on my door... and ask me about that 'subversive Vampire game' that i've been playing. Just wait for the men in the suits... paranoia... PARANOIA! (one of the few RPGs I really miss. =) Trust the Computer.) >> >But they're also less likely to spam me. >> >> I dunno, I think I'd rather see Echelon spam than most other stuff >> these days... =) > >What pray tell would Echelon-spam look like? > >FELLOW WORKER A COMMIE???? NEIGHBOUR AN ANARCHIST???? > >LET US KNOW AND WE'LL PROVIDE YOU WITH A LARGER PENIS!!!! *snicker* See? Wouldn't you much rather read that sort of thing, if you're going to get crap in your mailbox ANYWAY? =) I stand by my assertion that the Echelon project should spam random people it's spying on. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B5C43E8...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >I would never expect such a ruling and see no reason for >it. It's not a ruling, it's just reading card text. A lot of people don't expect Hidden Lurker to work the way it does, but it's just reading card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <Z5X67.18516$NZ6.6...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >Well, because if ally X can play a card as if it were a vamp, > >i find completing counter-intuitive to not read any reference to "vamp" on > >that card as elegible for the ally X. > > But card text says play as a vampire, not use as a vampire. I think he's saying that that's kind of a thin distinction. If you "played" a card as a vampire you would naturally expect to *use* the ongoing abilities that the card granted as a permanent as a vampire, too. Why setting the card down should be thought of as "playing the card" but actually looking at it and using it once it's on the table shouldn't be is just weird. > >I can't believe the rule is as it is now...... > > Why? We're simply playing by the card texts. > > It's not a "ruling" per se, just a reading of card text. Oh, bull. Like this superfine distinction of the definition of "playing" a card isn't arbitrary as hell. Fine. It's a completely workable way to interpret such cards. But let's not pretend there's anything natural or intuitive about it. "Not a 'ruling' per se", my pimply butt... Fred

In message <3B5C4EE2...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> Why? We're simply playing by the card texts. >> >> It's not a "ruling" per se, just a reading of card text. > >Oh, bull. It isn't. It's just card text. Really. When it comes to card text, a literal reading is needed. When rule- mongering, you tend to find that lots of people make readings based on assumptions, IME. These assumptions are sometimes based on how they'd actually like the card to work for a specific combo they have in mind. Just reading card text is what is needed. Training yourself to switch off assumptions is needed. (For instance, the Mariel Lady Thunder play of Legbiter a few weeks back. People assume she has to be ready. Turn off the assumption and you get the excellent play Legbiter made.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >if this is the official rule for allies playing discipline card "as a > > >vampire..", > > >it's really the most counter-intuitive and absurd one i ever heard of, > imho. > > > > It fits perfectly with the "allies ignore 'burn blood' effects". > > If you accept one, you should have no problem accepting the other. > > > > Allies don't get the benefit of being a vampire - they're not vampires. > > Allies don't get the penalty of being a vampire - they're not vampires. > > I'm try to say that, by logic, an ally who can play a disc card "as a > vampire of..." > should be elegible for all the "vampire" effect written on that card, > whichever they may be. To "play" of the card, yes. As kuquami noted in the first message of the thread, the ally isn't elligible for the "burn blood" effect of the card - a statement that no one seems to have had any problem with. If he was to be treated as a vampire for the card-in-play effect, then that should've been a point of contention. It isn't. The "play" of the card is different than the use of the card. For example, a hunting ground requires a certain clan to play, but not to use once it is in play. > And i find no specific official rule on this matter > (speaking of allies who can play discipline cards "as a vampire") Card text is sufficient. > Imho, it's absurd that allies "playing as", > can play disc cards whose effect fizzle into nothing. IMHO, it is not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > (meaning it applies to all allies), it says, "Ignore all 'burn blood' effects > entirely." The cost-in-blood thing is talking about a minion playing cards or > paying for a voluntary effect on a permanent (e.g. to remove Slaughtering the > Herd at superior) that list a cost to to play the card or use the effect, not It speaks only of the cost of playing cards. The "cost" of an effect in play is not addressed. Allies cannot remove a superior Slaughtering the Herd, since they have no blood. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B5C4EE2...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >> Why? We're simply playing by the card texts. > >> > >> It's not a "ruling" per se, just a reading of card text. > > > >Oh, bull. > > It isn't. It's just card text. Really. > > When it comes to card text, a literal reading is needed. I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. It's just that it doesn't work the way you claim it works unless one has this peculiar, bizarre, weird definition of the word "play" that nobody would normally intuitively assume "play" means. Don't get me wrong. I understand that Jyhad is simply forging its own definition of what the term, "playing a card" entails, which it has a perfect right to do. And I guess we need to learn the nuances of this meaning to understand the finer points of the game. Just not pretending that this meaning should be obvious to people is all I'm asking. Fred

fre...@netcom.com wrote: >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. It's just that it >doesn't work the way you claim it works unless one has this peculiar, >bizarre, weird definition of the word "play" that nobody would normally >intuitively assume "play" means. But this is the same definition that has always been used. Hunting Grounds require a ready member of a certain clan to "play". Hunting Grounds do not require a ready member of a certain clan to use. If a !Bru plays Sword of Judgement and then Clan Impersonates to Gangrel, he can't use it, even though he played it as a !Bru. >Don't get me wrong. I understand that Jyhad is simply forging its own >definition of what the term, "playing a card" entails, which it has a >perfect right to do. And I guess we need to learn the nuances of this >meaning to understand the finer points of the game. Just not pretending >that this meaning should be obvious to people is all I'm asking. It's been obvious until now, apparently. Just because one doesn't like the result in a particular case (when one assumes that another result would be more appropriate) doesn't mean that one should pretend that the lond-standing terminology has somehow turned obscure. -- 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/ [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > fre...@netcom.com wrote: > >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. It's just that it > >doesn't work the way you claim it works unless one has this peculiar, > >bizarre, weird definition of the word "play" that nobody would normally > >intuitively assume "play" means. > > But this is the same definition that has always been used. ... > >Don't get me wrong. I understand that Jyhad is simply forging its own > >definition of what the term, "playing a card" entails, which it has a > >perfect right to do. And I guess we need to learn the nuances of this > >meaning to understand the finer points of the game. Just not pretending > >that this meaning should be obvious to people is all I'm asking. > > It's been obvious until now, apparently. I'm not sure what leads you to make this comment. IMHO, this will cause the same problem any time an ally "plays" a permanent like a vampire or any other similar situation. For instance, if a vampire of one clan "plays" a permanent as it were a vampire of another clan or if a vampire without a discipline "plays" a permanent as if it had that discipline. If you think how this works has been obvious until now - that is, obvious in the sense of being intuitively understandable by a newer player - then I disagree you on that point, too. > Just because one doesn't like the result in a particular case (when > one assumes that another result would be more appropriate) doesn't > mean that one should pretend that the lond-standing terminology has > somehow turned obscure. I think you misunderstand my point. There's a difference between "long- standing" and "obvious". I don't have any issues about the definition of the word "play" in the context of VtES having changed recently or is being used in some inconsistent way. Just that, as it stands, it leads to some counter- intuitive implications. A lot of people would think "playing a card" and using it were synonymous; that if it became a permanent after it left your hand it was still being "played" until it entered the graveyard. I don't mind the result. I believe your analysis of cost vs. benefit is fairly reasonable, actually. And it's not likely to be earthshattering either way. I don't really understand why there needs to be a distinction of this sort ("play" being only the time at which it comes out of your hand; not after it hits the table) at all. Maybe there's a good technical reason. If not, then it would seem to be a pointless (if minor) complexity. IMHO. Anyway, it's not a big deal at all. I was just annoyed by James stating that understanding this was only a matter of "reading the card literally"...grrrr... Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5C5729...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > > > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> > The "play" of the > card is different than the use of the card. For example, a hunting ground > requires a certain clan to play, but not to use once it is in play. > I think that your example above has nothing to do with this allies "play as a vampire" question. HG is "playable" by a meth controlling a specific vamp, and doesn't "use" anything. But, ok, let's say that "play" and "use" means actually different things in game terms. Some examples on this argument: Crimson Fury is "Only usable" when a vampire is being diablerized, which what this means? that no vamp can actually "Play" it when a vamp is diablerized ? It just can be "played" as a combat or react....and is "Usable" by a vampire, not "playable" by a vampire..who's gonna to play it ? I can "use" two or more form of corruption (assuming a setite/serpentis table and a succubus club), even if i could "play" just one, once my former FoC is in play. Is right? Anyway, again and again, a "Playable" discipline card should means an "Usable" discipline card. If i can play the card, i can use it, if i can use the card, i can play it. It would be a very simple and straight rule. That's all. But now, i learn that there's another damned-non-written- difference between terms in our game. "play" and "use"... similar to the (very thin) difference between the "pays x WHEN playing cards" "pays x TO play cards" stuff. I sense further discussion in my gaming group, and other corner cases problem, sooner or later. Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5C737E...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree 100 % with you, dear Frederick. Aemilianus, prince of Rome

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3B5CA96A...@netcom.com... [snip] > I don't really understand why there needs to be a distinction of this sort ("play" > being only the time at which it comes out of your hand; not after it hits the > table) at all. Maybe there's a good technical reason. If not, then it would > seem to be a pointless (if minor) complexity. IMHO. Probably just "play" vs. "use"...I'm not certain that it's always been obvious, but it's definitely long-standing. And I realize that you used all of these terms in a similar manner in the part I clipped, I just thought I'd boil it down to one short sentence. Anyway, I can see needing the distinction between play and use, and why it's not necessarily intuitive...it shouldn't be to hard to pass on to players unfamiliar that play and use (if you use these terms) are different. Xian

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5CA96A...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Again, i agree 100% with you, Fred. And "reading literally", as James suggest, doesn't work all the time. Common sense should be used, a thing lacking in this damn "official literal reading" about allies "play as a vampire". Emiliano, prince of Rome

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:kg8olt0jt7ncuielq...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:31:06 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >news:g2pmlt058j6jfhl74...@4ax.com... <snip> > >IMHO, i always guessed that allies who can play discipline card "as a > >vampire" > >take the full effect of the card, even if the card text refers to the > >"vampire". > >Else, i see little use of such ability for allies. > > Akhenaten being able to play Summon Soul at inferior isn't a good > thing? How about Jar the Soul? And of course there's always Whispers > of the Dead, or Compel the Spirit. He can use Spectral Divination to > give his action stealth... > > There's quite a bit of use. You just don't get to play all the > extra-cool cards like Ex Nihilo that way. > > >I hope this is no an official rule, since i would find it maddening. > > A padded room has been reserved with a nice shiny white coat. ;) > Indeed Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B5C737E...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> When it comes to card text, a literal reading is needed. > >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. You are making unsupported (by card text) assumptions that play means "play and use whilst it is in play". See, for instance, the distinction of "play" and "use made in 1.6.2.1 [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <w1277.22677$NZ6.7...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >And "reading literally", as James suggest, doesn't work all the time. If you believe there are cards which, when read literally in conjunction with the rules and rulings, cannot be figured out, you should bring them to the attention of the Rules Team for a ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B5C737E...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >> When it comes to card text, a literal reading is needed. > > > >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. > > You are making unsupported (by card text) assumptions that play means > "play and use whilst it is in play". How is the meaning of a word "supported" or "unsupported" "by card text"? Card text does not define a term. Dictionaries define terms. Rules define terms. Card text does not define terms. Therefore any assumptions about what any term means are automatically "unsupported by card text", whether ultimately correct or incorrect. I acknowledge the definition of "play" and its distinction from the term "use" in VtES rules. I simply claim it's somewhat counterintuitive. Thus, a person can read the text of Akhenaten "literally" and still mistakenly presume it could use the abilities of Ex Nihilo at superior. Reading that text literally vs. non-literally (figuratively? - whatever that entail) is not the issue. It's understanding that the definition of "play" has an unexpected meaning in this context. By the way, 1.6.2.1 is a clue that "play" and "use" mean different things but not a definitive one. For instance, some games might refer to "building a fort" (or some structure or a railroad or whatever) which occurs over a period of time. Yet the rules also might refer to, "the turn it is built" - in this case the final turn of building instead of the initial turn. By the same token, these rules might have a concept of "playing a card" taking place over multiple turns yet still refer to the "turn the card is played", being the initial one. Fred

In message <3B5CCFE0...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. >> >> You are making unsupported (by card text) assumptions that play means >> "play and use whilst it is in play". > >How is the meaning of a word "supported" or "unsupported" "by card text"? >Card text does not define a term. Dictionaries define terms. Rules >define terms. Certainly. And the rules book demonstrates the difference between "use" and "play". Since the card text clearly indicates "play", readings of it to suggest "use" are not supported - because of the absence of a "use" construct. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ImtSksaJ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3B5CCFE0...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >> >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. > >> > >> You are making unsupported (by card text) assumptions that play means > >> "play and use whilst it is in play". > > > >How is the meaning of a word "supported" or "unsupported" "by card text"? > >Card text does not define a term. Dictionaries define terms. Rules > >define terms. > > Certainly. And the rules book demonstrates the difference between "use" > and "play". Where? Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

Reminder: "me too" posts are not particularly useful and are usually counter to netiquetee quidelines. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >IMHO, i always guessed that allies who can play discipline card "as a > >vampire" > >take the full effect of the card, even if the card text refers to the > >"vampire". > > No. Card text indicates that he's only "as a vampire" to *play* > the card > > >Else, i see little use of such ability for allies. > > They find lots of use: undead strength, theft of vitae, etc. > > >Talaq the immortal doesn' get the (aggr) damage and additional untap under a > >succesful rutor's hand? > > He takes the damage, but doesn't get the untap effect. Why he should take the damage? The card reads "the vampire take 1 aggravated damage (not preventable)".... Talaq is an ally. Emiliano, prince of Rome > He gets the effect of the play of the card, but not of the card in play. > > -- > 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/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B78...@MailAndNews.com... > fre...@netcom.com wrote: > >I >>>***AM***<<< reading the card literally. It's just that it > >doesn't work the way you claim it works unless one has this peculiar, > >bizarre, weird definition of the word "play" that nobody would normally > >intuitively assume "play" means. > > But this is the same definition that has always been used. > Hunting Grounds require a ready member of a certain clan to "play". > Hunting Grounds do not require a ready member of a certain clan to use. > If a !Bru plays Sword of Judgement and then Clan Impersonates to > Gangrel, he can't use it, even though he played it as a !Bru. > > >Don't get me wrong. I understand that Jyhad is simply forging its own > >definition of what the term, "playing a card" entails, which it has a > >perfect right to do. And I guess we need to learn the nuances of this > >meaning to understand the finer points of the game. Just not pretending > >that this meaning should be obvious to people is all I'm asking. > > It's been obvious until now, apparently. > > Just because one doesn't like the result in a particular case (when > one assumes that another result would be more appropriate) My opinion about this matter is not against the "result", still weird, (eg talaq Can "play" ruthor's hand, but cannot "use" it), i don't like the logic (?) behind it. Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Talaq the immortal doesn' get the (aggr) damage and additional untap > under a > > >succesful rutor's hand? > > > > He takes the damage, but doesn't get the untap effect. > > Why he should take the damage? > The card reads "the vampire take 1 aggravated damage (not preventable)".... > Talaq is an ally. Card text: Talaq plays Rutor's Hand "as a vampire". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <xWb77.24256$NZ6.8...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> Certainly. And the rules book demonstrates the difference between "use" >> and "play". > > >Where? One such instance has been cited, in the Master card section. However, on a different matter, please fix your news client. Your line length is wrong, causing problems with display, and you are failing to snip *anything*, including the signature. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5D8C2C...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > > > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Talaq the immortal doesn' get the (aggr) damage and additional untap > > under a > > > >succesful rutor's hand? > > > > > > He takes the damage, but doesn't get the untap effect. > > > > Why he should take the damage? > > The card reads "the vampire take 1 aggravated damage (not preventable)".... > > Talaq is an ally. > > Card text: Talaq plays Rutor's Hand "as a vampire". Ouch, then i'm losing it.... Why Talaq playing RH "as a vampire", takes the damage but cannot untap by the ruthor's effect ? Both the sentence ("take the aggr damage" and "untap") on RH are referred to "vampire". Why one is applied and not the other? Please clarify. Thanks Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8Dh77.26322$NZ6.8...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >Why Talaq playing RH "as a vampire", >takes the damage but cannot untap by the ruthor's effect ? > >Both the sentence ("take the aggr damage" and "untap") on RH are referred to >"vampire". >Why one is applied and not the other? Because one is playing the card; the other is not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3B5D8C2C...@white-wolf.com... > > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > news:3B72...@MailAndNews.com... > > > > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Talaq the immortal doesn' get the (aggr) damage and additional untap > > > under a > > > > >succesful rutor's hand? > > > > > > > > He takes the damage, but doesn't get the untap effect. > > > > > > Why he should take the damage? > > > The card reads "the vampire take 1 aggravated damage (not > preventable)".... > > > Talaq is an ally. > > > > Card text: Talaq plays Rutor's Hand "as a vampire". > > Ouch, then i'm losing it.... > Why Talaq playing RH "as a vampire", > takes the damage but cannot untap by the ruthor's effect ? > > Both the sentence ("take the aggr damage" and "untap") on RH are referred to > "vampire". > Why one is applied and not the other? > Please clarify. One effect is from playing the card. The other is from the card being in play. Obviously, the vampire doesn't continually take a point of aggravated damage while the card is in play. Similarly, playing the card doesn't untap him. Talaq can play the card as a vampire. So he is treated as a vampire for the purposes of playing the card. He is not continously a vampire, however. Nothing on his card text nor the rules indicates that he is to be continually considered a vampire after having played a card as one. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > One effect is from playing the card. > The other is from the card being in play. Yikes, I'd better be more careful the next time I ask my friends to play Jyhad. Perhaps I will suggest that we play Jyhad and use the Jyhad cards while they are in play. Grin. - Jason Bell

In message <3B5DB186...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >> Both the sentence ("take the aggr damage" and "untap") on RH are referred to >> "vampire". >> Why one is applied and not the other? >> Please clarify. > >One effect is from playing the card. >The other is from the card being in play. Analogously, one might look at Drawing Out the Beast. This stops you *using* equipment, but doesn't stop you playing it. (Via Disguised Weapon, say.) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It does sound so literal as to be obtuse, but people here (especially this month, geez) need to give LSJ a *break*. It's a strategic card game (sure, collect it and trade it if you like. Or don't. But "if it's a 3 cap with [pot] [obf]...") and as such, relies upon rock solid definitions. It's Scott's task on this NG to interperet the rules as rules, not as "what would be neat." It's not unlike a parent. It's more important for parents to be consistent than "right." Common sense is fuzzy some times, but card text and rules are black and white. If you give a little "here and there" with kids, they'll walk all over you, and game players are no different, except they whine MORE when rules that were loose become re-tightened again because of the results of loose "parenting." If anyone else here had L. Scott's job, they'd have to do it the EXACT same way. Or do a very bad job. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

> > >> >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote >>> >>> One effect is from playing the card. >>> The other is from the card being in play. >> >> Yikes, I'd better be more careful the next time >> I ask my friends to play Jyhad. >> >> Perhaps I will suggest that we play Jyhad >> and use the Jyhad cards while they are in play. >> >> Grin. > > It does sound so literal as to be obtuse, but people here (especially > this month, geez) need to give LSJ a *break*. [snip self] Oops, there. Forgot the <rant> and </rant> tags, so people know that I saw the "Grin" and wasn't addressing Jason directly (sorry bout that, Jason), just using his comment as a springboard for something that needed to be said. Well, maybe it didn't need to be heard, but I sure needed to say it. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B78357E5.5CB6%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > It's a strategic card game Yay! [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5DB186...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3B5D8C2C...@white-wolf.com... > > > Tetragrammaton wrote: snip > > Both the sentence ("take the aggr damage" and "untap") on RH are referred to > > "vampire". > > Why one is applied and not the other? > > Please clarify. > > One effect is from playing the card. > The other is from the card being in play. > I can't still see your point here. Sorry.: The first sentence on rutor's hand is: "put this card on the acting vampire". Then, the vampire takes the aggr damage (once) and gets the untap bonus (each turn). But, isn't the RH card considered to be "already" in play when it inflicts the aggr damage? So, how you can tell that the aggr damage is "from playing the card", and the untap bonus from "being in play" ? To my point of wiev, both the effect (one happening once, the other each turn) are from the card "being" in play. Just my thought Emiliano, prince of Rome snip [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > It does sound so literal as to be obtuse, but people here (especially > this month, geez) need to give LSJ a *break*. > > It's a strategic card game (sure, collect it and trade it if you like. > Or don't. But "if it's a 3 cap with [pot] [obf]...") and as such, relies > upon rock solid definitions. It's Scott's task on this NG to interperet the > rules as rules, not as "what would be neat." Actually, it seems to me that only White Wolf and Scott himself are qualified to decide what Scott's job actually is. I say that because I note that there could differing priorities placed on different issues, such as rules consistency vs. completeness vs. brevity vs. self-evident clarity vs. a number of other possible things. Some aspects of this, such as the constancy and completeness pieces strike me as being handled incredibly well. It's very hard to find anything he doesn't have a ready answer for and a line of reasoning by which he arrived at the answer and by which we, too, could have arrived at that answer without his help if we had understood all the relevant principals to being with. There are times, however, that I wonder if more couldn't be done to prevent sending people to Internet to need an answer to begin with. This issue and the independents-with-votes thing are just a couple of items hitting me lately that seem like they didn't need to be discussed ad nasuem in this newsgroup but are spawning long threads. In the past, I've noticed at times different things in the game I couldn't intuitively figure out the answer to and went running to the rulings page (and/or poured over relevant sections of the current rules when appropriate) and found no answers. They always do have answers and when I find out what they are, I discover some principal I guess I'm expected to have understood beforehand but didn't. I don't think there's a hard and fast formula for fixing this. But I'd like to feel like there's some priority and open-mindedness that it would be good to fix wherever possible and practical. > If anyone else here had L. Scott's job, they'd have to do it the EXACT > same way. Or do a very bad job. I'm not sure I agree. Scott's abilities to understand the entire rules structure and perceive how it fits together and works and should work best are extremely rare and would be tough to ever replace. I can envision a different philosophy about how to communicate the rules and rulings and how to print card text that might work as well or better. No one's perfect, Pat. Fred

In message <3B5E0813...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >There are times, however, that I wonder if more couldn't be done to prevent >sending people to Internet to need an answer to begin with. This issue and >the independents-with-votes thing are just a couple of items hitting me >lately that seem like they didn't need to be discussed ad nasuem in this >newsgroup but are spawning long threads. In the past, I've noticed at times >different things in the game I couldn't intuitively figure out the answer to >and went running to the rulings page (and/or poured over relevant sections of >the current rules when appropriate) and found no answers. Normally, such things can be done with: - a THOROUGH reading of the rules book. No offence to you or anyone else, but we all know just how often questions are asked which are covered in some detail in the rulebook. A lot of people have a basic grasp of the rules, but have never sat down and properly read the rulebook. I'd commend it to anyone with some spare time e.g. going on a bus/train ride with not a lot else to do. Being able to cite isn't necessary, of course, but knowing what's in there and being able to think "Oh yeah, that rule on when I get a contested card back......" and be able to flick through it quickly. - the rulings and online card text files (or another source of the most up to date card text) - a fair ability to know "Oh yes, there's a similar set of wording on <X>. How's that handled?" This one works because of the consistency you cite. Again, this doesn't require an encyclopaedia, just a familiarity with them so you can double check for yourself. I find this one quite valuable when judging/rulemongering. Being able to turn to a player and saying "Okay, this works like this. It's fairly simple to remember when you know that <Y> works like that too." It provides a useful explanation and in-built memory aid. - the ability to turn off "common sense" when applying such things. Remember, what you think is common sense and what the man on the Clapham Ombinus thinks is common sense can be different. So, once you have the rules and wording down, you need to just apply them literally, so far as you can, such that you're consistent. When I can get some design ideas, I'll probably actually devote some time to a web-site. (My major problem is *always* design.) On that note, would a fully annotated rulesbook be of use to anyone? Take the current rulesbook, cite it (as on Lasombra's site etc.) but stopping for explanations, memory aids, useful points to bear in mind, examples of what this means with detailed play examples and so on? Possibly helpful for newbies. Anyone? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B5E0813...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >There are times, however, that I wonder if more couldn't be done to prevent > >sending people to Internet to need an answer to begin with. This issue and > >the independents-with-votes thing are just a couple of items hitting me > >lately that seem like they didn't need to be discussed ad nasuem in this > >newsgroup but are spawning long threads. In the past, I've noticed at times > >different things in the game I couldn't intuitively figure out the answer to > >and went running to the rulings page (and/or poured over relevant sections of > >the current rules when appropriate) and found no answers. > > Normally, such things can be done with: > > - a THOROUGH reading of the rules book > ... > > - the rulings and online card text files (or another source of the most > up to date card text) > > - a fair ability to know "Oh yes, there's a similar set of wording on > <X>. How's that handled?" > ... > > - the ability to turn off "common sense" when applying such things. > ... I agree that all of these things help. I'm just somewhat disturbed that they don't always help enough. For instance, your means of discovering the true definition of the word "play" in Jyhad. Reading it out of 1.6.2.1 makes me feel that if Scott weren't present to serve as the final word, you probably would still have convinced me that on balance, you're more likely to be correct about this point than incorrect. But I wouldn't have been certain - which is an unfortunate state of affairs. Given that allies exist aplenty who "play cards requiring discipline X as a vampire" and given that players need to be alert to the fact that "playing a card" and using its abilities after the card became a permanent are two different things in this game, I would think that it would behoove someone to make that point explicit somewhere; in the rulebook or rulings or somewhere. I've never been in the role of managing the design of an ongoing CCG, however. Perhaps there are so many little nits like this that could get misinterpreted that it turns out to be pointless to make sure they're all clarified explicitly. > On that note, would a fully annotated rulesbook be of use to anyone? > Take the current rulesbook, cite it (as on Lasombra's site etc.) but > stopping for explanations, memory aids, useful points to bear in mind, > examples of what this means with detailed play examples and so on? > Possibly helpful for newbies. Anyone? I think it would be great, for beginners and local princes who have to serve as judges alike. The main drawback I see is that the rulebook keeps changing with every new expansion, thus would have to be supported as an ongoing work. Fred

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >news:3B5DB186...@white-wolf.com... >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >> > Both the sentence ("take the aggr damage" and "untap") on RH are >referred to >> > "vampire". >> > Why one is applied and not the other? >> > Please clarify. >> >> One effect is from playing the card. >> The other is from the card being in play. > >I can't still see your point here. Sorry.: A minion "plays" a card by taking it from your hand and, if he meets the requirements of the card, applying the effects thereon. Once in play, the card may have some additional effect - an effect that isn't just a one-time "as the card is played" effect. >The first sentence on rutor's hand is: > >"put this card on the acting vampire". Right. This is an effect of playing the card (from the hand). >Then, the vampire takes the aggr damage (once) and gets the untap bonus >(each turn). Yes. This is also an effect of playing the card. It is not something that the card in play causes to happen. Contrast the damaging effect of Charnas the Imp or the burn blood effect of Society of Leopold. >But, isn't the RH card considered to be "already" in play when it inflicts >the aggr damage? Sure, but it doesn't matter. >So, how you can tell that the aggr damage is "from playing the card", and >the untap bonus from "being in play" ? There's no other timing given for the application of the damage. The untap is stated as being "during each of your minion phases". >To my point of wiev, both the effect (one happening once, the other each >turn) are from the card "being" in play. Then you believe that, while the card is in play, the minion continues to recieve aggravated damage? I don't see how the card could be used to any benefit in that case. And how do you determine when the aggravated damage is applied? Every untap phase? When the other effect (untap during the minion phase) is used? Every five seconds? -- 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/ [ quoted text not captured ]

fre...@netcom.com wrote: >I agree that all of these things help. I'm just somewhat disturbed that >they don't always help enough. For instance, your means of discovering >the true definition of the word "play" in Jyhad. Reading it out of >1.6.2.1 makes me feel that if Scott weren't present to serve as the final >word, you probably would still have convinced me that on balance, you're >more likely to be correct about this point than incorrect. But I wouldn't >have been certain - which is an unfortunate state of affairs. Given that >allies exist aplenty who "play cards requiring discipline X as a vampire" >and given that players need to be alert to the fact that "playing a card" >and using its abilities after the card became a permanent are two >different things in this game, I would think that it would behoove someone >to make that point explicit somewhere; in the rulebook or rulings or >somewhere. > >I've never been in the role of managing the design of an ongoing CCG, >however. Perhaps there are so many little nits like this that could get >misinterpreted that it turns out to be pointless to make sure they're all >clarified explicitly. V:TES uses the standard definition of "play a card", so there's no need to include it explicitly in the rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:GoMx3oSP...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > On that note, would a fully annotated rulesbook be of use to anyone? Yes. > Take the current rulesbook, cite it (as on Lasombra's site etc.) but > stopping for explanations, memory aids, useful points to bear in mind, > examples of what this means with detailed play examples and so on? Indeed. > Possibly helpful for newbies. Anyone? Please. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

In message <3B5E1DC1...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> On that note, would a fully annotated rulesbook be of use to anyone? >> Take the current rulesbook, cite it (as on Lasombra's site etc.) but >> stopping for explanations, memory aids, useful points to bear in mind, >> examples of what this means with detailed play examples and so on? >> Possibly helpful for newbies. Anyone? > >I think it would be great, for beginners and local princes who have to >serve as judges alike. The main drawback I see is that the rulebook keeps >changing with every new expansion, thus would have to be supported as an >ongoing work. Not terribly difficult. Very few of the *rules* change, just the layout. If I have something designed that I have content for which changes, I can cope with that. It's how I got roped into being webmaster for my student union. (The last three, myself included, have been an English student (me), a Classics (Greek and Latin, and the associated cultures, etc.) student and a guy who did one year of law and two years of linguistics. Heh.) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > V:TES uses the standard definition of "play a card", so there's no need > to include it explicitly in the rulebook. I guess I'm not aware of any standard definition of "play a card" that makes the resolution of this nuance which occurs when playing cards in this game astoundingly clear. No matter. Such semantics would seem to be a matter of opinion. If it's just myself and Mr. Emiliano who would ever see things differently, then screw it. If, OTOH, you get keep getting pestered with this question, there's something you can do about it. If you like. Fred

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > > Yikes, I'd better be more careful the next time > > I ask my friends to play Jyhad. > > > > Perhaps I will suggest that we play Jyhad > > and use the Jyhad cards while they are in play. > > > > Grin. > > It does sound so literal as to be obtuse, but people here (especially > this month, geez) need to give LSJ a *break*. Keep in mind that quite a few of the discussions going on are not abusing LSJ, merely abusing one another. But if LSJ must scan all of our detritus to make sure that there are no questions directed at him, well then you definitely have a point. - Jason Bell

In message <3B5E5931...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >I guess I'm not aware of any standard definition of "play a card" that makes >the resolution of this nuance which occurs when playing cards in this game >astoundingly clear. When you play a card in Magic, you are moving it from your hand to the play area. Tapping it whilst in play, say, it not playing the card. When I play a card in Cribbage, I am moving it from my hand to the table. I get bonus points for certain things happening with cards I play, not for cards that I've already played. An old copy of Legend of the Five Rings: "Before you can use any card, it must be /brought into play/. To bring a card into play, you must meet all of the conditions required to play that particular card as described on the card and in these rules." Monty Python: "Any player may play a card face-up on/in any opponent.... A card may be played face-down in any...." Illuminati: New World Order: "Note that saying you /might/ pay a card, or making a threat, is not the same as playing the card. For instance, if A plays an instant Disaster, B may not respond by booster the Power of the target. But if A /threatens/ to play an Instant attack, B may pre-emptively play a card which boosts the defensive power of the target. When in doubt, B should always ask 'Are you doing it, or just threatening?'" "It [Plot cards] stays in your hand, "hidden," until you play it or return it to the deck..... When one of your Plots is /exposed/, turn it up in front of you. It stays face-up until it's used, returned to your deck, stolen, discarded, or hidden again." Shadowrun "Runners, Gear Locations, Contacts and Specials cost nuyen to deploy. This is a one-time cost, paid when the player puts the card into play." Final Nights rulebook: "If the left side of a master card has a clan symbol, it can only be played by a Methuselah who controls a ready member of that clan. If a minion card has a clan symbol, it can only be played by a vampire who belongs to that clan." [If using was the same as playing, a Hunting Ground couldn't be used if the vampire of that clan was burned - since "it can only be played by a Methuselah who controls a ready member of that clan." This is contrary to the current rules. Compare card-text of Powerbase: Berlin.] [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:kFupcg5F...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3B5E5931...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > [If using was the same as playing, a Hunting Ground couldn't be used if > the vampire of that clan was burned - since "it can only be played by a > Methuselah who controls a ready member of that clan." This is contrary > to the current rules. Compare card-text of Powerbase: Berlin.] It demonstrate that the methuselah can "use" the card even if there's no longer the conditions requested for "playing" it. And you know, with allies "playing as a vampire", but no longer "being" it after playing, the card cannot be "used" by the ally. Quite the contrary of the HG case. Anyway, your point above doesn't fit with the question on allies "playing as", mr. Coupe. The HG card is played by a "Methuselah", not by a minion. The methuselah doesn't need to "use" the HG card, or use it "as he/she controls a ready xxxx". I know the standard rules, and about that point they are perfectly straight and logic. Going further: A Brujah anti can "play! a sword of judgement and "use" it as long as he's a Brujah anti. The same for a Malkavian antitribu with an enchanted marionette. But that because the conditions of "use" are WORDED on the cards ! If those "use" conditions were supposed or established by the standard rules(book), as you are trying to demonstrate, there has been not need to put them on the cards. Something like: 1.1.1 if a card requires a certain clan to be "played", that card can be "used" only by a member of that clan. There is no such rule on the standard rulebook, only conditions on the actual cards' text. So, don't pretend that such conditions become a rule for intrepreting ambiguos effects, like the "play as a vampire" abilty of certain allies we are speaking of. And, going further with the "play" and "use" stuff, let me give an additional question about it: Yan forestal can "play" discipline cards "as he has the basic version of that discipline", Then, he cannot "use" these cards effect. Is that right ? He could actually "play" an inferior Crimson Fury as a reaction or combat, is right ? But, he could not "use" it. Following your official reasoning on play and use and by the CF's bold text: USABLE by a vampire in torpor. USABLE by a tapped vampire And Ian (without a master animalism card) cannot "use" CF, he can only "play" it with his abilty. It sound right all of this ? Of course no, at least for me, but i'm reading "literally", as you previosly suggested. However, with common sense, it's obvious that "usable" in CF's bold text actually means "playable". Your opinion ? Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5F...@MailAndNews.com... > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >news:3B5DB186...@white-wolf.com... > >> Tetragrammaton wrote: snip > >I can't still see your point here. Sorry.: > > A minion "plays" a card by taking it from your hand and, if he > meets the requirements of the card, applying the effects thereon. > > Once in play, the card may have some additional effect - an effect > that isn't just a one-time "as the card is played" effect. > > >The first sentence on rutor's hand is: > > > >"put this card on the acting vampire". > > Right. This is an effect of playing the card (from the hand). > > >Then, the vampire takes the aggr damage (once) and gets the untap bonus > >(each turn). > > Yes. This is also an effect of playing the card. > It is not something that the card in play causes to happen. > Contrast the damaging effect of Charnas the Imp or the burn > blood effect of Society of Leopold. So, all the card's effect happening "once after the card is played" are from "playing the card". All the card's effect happening "more than once" are from the card "being in play". I hope i'm right... > >But, isn't the RH card considered to be "already" in play when it inflicts > >the aggr damage? > > Sure, but it doesn't matter. > > >So, how you can tell that the aggr damage is "from playing the card", and > >the untap bonus from "being in play" ? > > There's no other timing given for the application of the damage. > The untap is stated as being "during each of your minion phases". > > >To my point of wiev, both the effect (one happening once, the other each > >turn) are from the card "being" in play. > > Then you believe that, while the card is in play, the minion > continues to recieve aggravated damage? I don't see how the card > could be used to any benefit in that case. And how do you determine > when the aggravated damage is applied? Every untap phase? When > the other effect (untap during the minion phase) is used? Every > five seconds? I'm not believing so. I'm try to say, by your previous response (one effect is from "playing" the card, the other from the card "being" in play) that i find unsatisfating such definitions. In a straight logic, both the effect are from "playing" succesfully the card, both the effects comes from the card "being in play". I see no difference in the fact that one effect is happening once, and the other each turn, timied as you note above. Anyway, i think this misunderstandings troubles come by such dinstinction we have to do for "play" and "use" definitions, about allies "play as". The result is that we must read line by line every card, looking for possible reference < - no / yes - from -"Playing"- the-card > effects, and telling by that wheter they are applicable to an ally "playing as" or not. I find all of this very complicated, above all for non-english people, like me. Just my thought Emiliano, prince of Rome > -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0Zo77.691$v5.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>... > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > news:GoMx3oSP...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > Take the current rulesbook, cite it (as on Lasombra's site etc.) but > > stopping for explanations, memory aids, useful points to bear in mind, > > examples of what this means with detailed play examples and so on? > > Indeed. > > > Possibly helpful for newbies. Anyone? It will be helpful for newbies, but also for all players. If it's not possible to have it on paper, maybe at least a online version that the players and princes can use ? For now, I have done a text version of the rulesbook with the errata and many questions and answers taken from the newsgroup, but it's not perfect and hard to stay updated. Maybe with that annotated rulebook the need for that will be over. Bye, Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis VEKN Canada : http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/index_ang.htm

Tetragrammaton wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:kFupcg5F...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > In message <3B5E5931...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > > > [If using was the same as playing, a Hunting Ground couldn't be used if > > the vampire of that clan was burned - since "it can only be played by a > > Methuselah who controls a ready member of that clan." This is contrary > > to the current rules. Compare card-text of Powerbase: Berlin.] > > It demonstrate that the methuselah > can "use" the card even if there's no longer the conditions > requested for "playing" it. > And you know, with allies "playing as a vampire", > but no longer "being" it after playing, the card cannot be "used" by the > ally. > Quite the contrary of the HG case. Exactly parallel, actually. The restriction on playing doesn't extend to use. The ability of play doesn't extend to use. > Going further: > A Brujah anti can "play! a sword of judgement and "use" it as long as he's a > Brujah anti. > The same for a Malkavian antitribu with an enchanted marionette. > But that because the conditions of "use" are WORDED on the cards ! Conditions for use of Ex Nihilo ("vampire") are also worded on the card. > Yan forestal can "play" discipline cards "as he has the basic version of > that discipline", > Then, he cannot "use" these cards effect. > Is that right ? Right. > He could actually "play" an inferior Crimson Fury as a reaction or combat, > is right ? Right. > But, he could not "use" it. > Following your official reasoning on play and use > and by the CF's bold text: > USABLE by a vampire in torpor. USABLE by a tapped vampire He can play it. It doesn't stick around for later use, so the question of later use is moot. "Playing a card" is "using" the card (not a card in play). But "using" a card in play is not "playing" the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B5E5931...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >I guess I'm not aware of any standard definition of "play a card" that makes > >the resolution of this nuance which occurs when playing cards in this game > >astoundingly clear. > > When you play a card in Magic, you are moving it from your hand to the > play area. Tapping it whilst in play, say, it not playing the card. (snip other anecdotes from other games and quotes from various game rules) Sure, it's a reasonable enough definition. I would even, in retrospect - now that we're talking about it at length - call it a common definition. What makes it a *standard* definition, however, is another matter. Remember, the issue is whether some word or clause ("play as a vampire") can still be considered to be functional after the card is on the table given that the card is now considered "played" and therefore the player is no longer "playing" it. That's a pretty thin distinction in my book. If any dictionary definitions of the word were sufficiently descriptive to make *this* aspect clear, I'd be shocked. And the point is not to bicker endlessly about whether this is or is not the correct way to interpret the card. Frankly, I couldn't care less about that. What *I* want is to be able to look at the inert material in my possession and be able to determine this for myself and feel pretty confident about the answer I find. What's bugging me, at the core, is that I don't feel I can do that with the stuff we have. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > > In message <3B5E5931...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > > >I guess I'm not aware of any standard definition of "play a card" that makes > > >the resolution of this nuance which occurs when playing cards in this game > > >astoundingly clear. > > > > When you play a card in Magic, you are moving it from your hand to the > > play area. Tapping it whilst in play, say, it not playing the card. > > (snip other anecdotes from other games and quotes from various game > rules) > > Sure, it's a reasonable enough definition. I would even, in retrospect - > now that we're talking about it at length - call it a common definition. > What makes it a *standard* definition, however, is another matter. Remember, > the issue is whether some word or clause ("play as a vampire") can still be > considered to be functional after the card is on the table given that the > card is now considered "played" and therefore the player is no longer "playing" > it. That's a pretty thin distinction in my book. If any dictionary definitions > of the word were sufficiently descriptive to make *this* aspect clear, I'd be > shocked. http://www.m-w.com Play. transitive verb 4c : to put into action in a game; especially : to remove (a playing card) from one's hand and place usually faceup on a table... Players haven't had any confusion with this concept regarding playing master: out-of-turn cards vs. using an in-play out-of-turn card (Life Boon or Major Boon, for example). I don't see why this ally-may-play-the-card-as-a-vampire case should be any more confusing. > And the point is not to bicker endlessly about whether this is or is not the > correct way to interpret the card. Frankly, I couldn't care less about that. > What *I* want is to be able to look at the inert material in my possession and > be able to determine this for myself and feel pretty confident about the answer > I find. What's bugging me, at the core, is that I don't feel I can do that with > the stuff we have. "A card is played by placing it faceup in the playing area..." [1.6.1.1] [1.6.1.2], [1.6.1.3] and [1.6.3] also make this usage pretty clear. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, you're kind of leaving out the part after the ellipses: "..and place usually faceup on a table in one's turn either as part of a scoring combination or as one's contribution to a trick". In short, this definition is hardly an apt one to use for a game like Jyhad, which has neither scoring combinations (unless the play leads directly to an oust :) ) nor tricks. I still think it's a thin distinction and I think it isn't real clear whether "playing it as a vampire" might imply that the ally could continue to use it as a vampire. Meaning that I can imagine another netrep who might advance the logic that having played the thing as a vampire the ally could thereupon in the future expect to be able to abilities on it as a vampire because its relationship to the card was established upon play - sort of like how a permanent which can be played at inferior or superior (e.g. Raven with one life or two) is set when played. I can imagine that netrep being just as adamant about *his* logic about it, too. > Players haven't had any confusion with this concept regarding playing master: > out-of-turn cards vs. using an in-play out-of-turn card (Life Boon or Major > Boon, for example). I don't see why this ally-may-play-the-card-as-a-vampire > case should be any more confusing. The difference seems abundantly clear to me. An out-of-turn card has very explicit rules about when it can be played, as does an action card as does an action modifier, reaction, and combat cards. I believe all of these can become permanents by card text on some card or another (Life Boon, The Embrace, Spying Mission, Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission, respectively). Once in play, the card text on these cards now governs the use of the card, not the rules about how the particular type of card enters play. There's nothing anywhere in the rules, however, that directly address or even remotely suggest that having minion X "play a card as a Y" (some other type of minion than what X is) only works while putting the card in play and NOT afterward when the card is in play. However much you'd like to portray this point as being obvious, it simply isn't. It's strange. It's a bit surreal. In any event, it's easy (for me, anyway) to imagine this point going either way. > > And the point is not to bicker endlessly about whether this is or is not the > > correct way to interpret the card. Frankly, I couldn't care less about that. > > What *I* want is to be able to look at the inert material in my possession and > > be able to determine this for myself and feel pretty confident about the answer > > I find. What's bugging me, at the core, is that I don't feel I can do that with > > the stuff we have. > > "A card is played by placing it faceup in the playing area..." [1.6.1.1] > [1.6.1.2], [1.6.1.3] and [1.6.3] also make this usage pretty clear. If you say so. It isn't to me. That's why I repeat: if it's only me that doesn't get it, then it's not important. If it's a thing that tends to confuse some number of other people, then there's a potential to prevent that confusion in the future, which would be a helpful thing. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > http://www.m-w.com > > > > Play. transitive verb > > 4c : to put into action in a game; especially : to remove (a playing card) from > > one's hand and place usually faceup on a table... > > Well, you're kind of leaving out the part after the ellipses: "..and place usually > faceup on a table in one's turn either as part of a scoring combination or as one's > contribution to a trick". In short, this definition is hardly an apt one to use for > a game like Jyhad, which has neither scoring combinations (unless the play leads > directly to an oust :) ) nor tricks. I still think it's a thin distinction and I I don't undestand your objection to the ellipses. The definition applies. It is not taken out of context nor is its meaning perverted. The parallel to "scoring combinations" is obvious. Every card play in V:TES is hoped (by the player playing it) to be part of a scoring combination. > think it isn't real clear whether "playing it as a vampire" might imply that the > ally could continue to use it as a vampire. Meaning that I can imagine another > netrep who might advance the logic that having played the thing as a vampire the > ally could thereupon in the future expect to be able to abilities on it as a vampire > because its relationship to the card was established upon play - sort of like how How could it? A !Bruj playing Sword of Judgement as a !Bru doesn't get the benefit of the implication you claim when he's no longer a !Bru. > a permanent which can be played at inferior or superior (e.g. Raven with one life > or two) is set when played. I can imagine that netrep being just as adamant about > *his* logic about it, too. The inferior/superior supports my position more than yours, I think. The later state of the vampire doesn't change how the card was played. There's a clear "when played" part there wherein the requirements of playing the card are established. The play of the card is thus distinct from the state of the game later. So playing a card "as a vampire" doesn't make the ally a vampire. It merely allows him to meet the requirements of playing the card. Which, as you note, is then independent of later state (i.e., when the ally is just an ally again - after the play of the card). > > Players haven't had any confusion with this concept regarding playing master: > > out-of-turn cards vs. using an in-play out-of-turn card (Life Boon or Major > > Boon, for example). I don't see why this ally-may-play-the-card-as-a-vampire > > case should be any more confusing. > > The difference seems abundantly clear to me. An out-of-turn card has very explicit > rules about when it can be played, as does an action card as does an action modifier, > reaction, and combat cards. I believe all of these can become permanents by card > text on some card or another (Life Boon, The Embrace, Spying Mission, Cardinal Sin: > Failure of Mission, respectively). Once in play, the card text on these cards now > governs the use of the card, not the rules about how the particular type of card > enters play. There's nothing anywhere in the rules, however, that directly address > or even remotely suggest that having minion X "play a card as a Y" (some other type > of minion than what X is) only works while putting the card in play and NOT afterward > when the card is in play. However much you'd like to portray this point as being > obvious, it simply isn't. It's strange. It's a bit surreal. In any event, it's > easy (for me, anyway) to imagine this point going either way. I can't see how that argument supports your position. Once in play, the card text on the card governs the use of the card, as you say. This is exactly the point for "play-as-a-vampire" allies. There's nothihng anywhere in the rules that directly or even remotely suggests that having minion X "play a card as a Y" would somehow mystically turn the minion into a Y for any purpose beyond that stated on the card - that of playing the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > http://www.m-w.com > > > > > > Play. transitive verb > > > 4c : to put into action in a game; especially : to remove (a playing card) from > > > one's hand and place usually faceup on a table... > > > > Well, you're kind of leaving out the part after the ellipses: "..and place usually > > faceup on a table in one's turn either as part of a scoring combination or as one's > > contribution to a trick". In short, this definition is hardly an apt one to use for > > a game like Jyhad, which has neither scoring combinations (unless the play leads > > directly to an oust :) ) nor tricks. I still think it's a thin distinction and I > > I don't undestand your objection to the ellipses. > The definition applies. It is not taken out of context nor is its meaning perverted. > > The parallel to "scoring combinations" is obvious. Every card play in V:TES is > hoped (by the player playing it) to be part of a scoring combination. Scott, scoring combinations and tricks don't allow for ongoing abilities. I don't see what you don't see about the distinction. You cite a definition which refers to games where people just set the cards down and that's it. And you expect us to infer something from that about the ongoing capabilities the played card grants? Non sequitar. The two are nothing alike. > > think it isn't real clear whether "playing it as a vampire" might imply that the > > ally could continue to use it as a vampire. Meaning that I can imagine another > > netrep who might advance the logic that having played the thing as a vampire the > > ally could thereupon in the future expect to be able to abilities on it as a vampire > > because its relationship to the card was established upon play - sort of like how > > How could it? > > A !Bruj playing Sword of Judgement as a !Bru doesn't get the benefit of the > implication you claim when he's no longer a !Bru. Actually, where does it say that, either? I guess I've seen it discussed in threads and just assumed it was in the rules or rulings someplace. But now that you mention it, I don't see how I'd glean that from the existing material either. (Though maybe my just-now completed search failed to turn up the right passage.) Be that as it may, this situation is even different and more obscure than the question of possessing equipment for which the minion currently doesn't fulfill the requirements. The kind of strange thing here is how nit picky it seems to differentiate play from use in terms of a minion that has the wording, "plays this cards as if...". At least something external _happens_ to the !Brujah to make him unable to use the sword. Its own text doesn't make it jump back and forth between being vampire and non-vampire depending on whether the card is being played or already on the table. Again, the point is not that you're using bad logic. It makes pretty good sense the way you explain it. The point is that the logic isn't so obviously true and correct that it's reasonable to expect players to get it and be completely confident about it from reading the material you've given us. Therefore, they have to come to you for the right answer. Which is a pain. (snipped all the remaining argumentation about how I could reason any other way...) > There's nothihng anywhere in the rules that directly or even remotely suggests > that having minion X "play a card as a Y" would somehow mystically turn the > minion into a Y for any purpose beyond that stated on the card - that of playing > the card. All right. You don't understand how the material could prevent me from finding the correct answer with certainty. Just accept the fact that it did and go on. Once again, if I'm a complete aberration, it's not important. (To you anyway. To me, my failure to avoid such conundrums and uncertainties in these rules has been somewhat of a frustration over time.) I just ask that you pay attention to what you get asked and see if it's true whether the average (reasonably intelligent) gamer can always follow and predict your logic. If not, I can't see how it matters whether you're ultimately right or wrong. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > http://www.m-w.com > > > > > > > > Play. transitive verb > > > > 4c : to put into action in a game; especially : to remove (a playing card) from > > > > one's hand and place usually faceup on a table... > > > > > > Well, you're kind of leaving out the part after the ellipses: "..and place usually > > > faceup on a table in one's turn either as part of a scoring combination or as one's > > > contribution to a trick". In short, this definition is hardly an apt one to use for > > > a game like Jyhad, which has neither scoring combinations (unless the play leads > > > directly to an oust :) ) nor tricks. I still think it's a thin distinction and I > > > > I don't undestand your objection to the ellipses. > > The definition applies. It is not taken out of context nor is its meaning perverted. > > > > The parallel to "scoring combinations" is obvious. Every card play in V:TES is > > hoped (by the player playing it) to be part of a scoring combination. > > Scott, scoring combinations and tricks don't allow for ongoing abilities. I don't If you say so, Fred. I don't see that restriction in the definition. > see what you don't see about the distinction. You cite a definition which refers to > games where people just set the cards down and that's it. And you expect us to infer I don't see the problem. The "and that's it" isn't inherent to the definition of "playing" a card. cf. Rummy or the poker variant "Follow the Queen". > something from that about the ongoing capabilities the played card grants? Non sequitar. > The two are nothing alike. If you say so. > > > think it isn't real clear whether "playing it as a vampire" might imply that the > > > ally could continue to use it as a vampire. Meaning that I can imagine another > > > netrep who might advance the logic that having played the thing as a vampire the > > > ally could thereupon in the future expect to be able to abilities on it as a vampire > > > because its relationship to the card was established upon play - sort of like how > > > > How could it? > > > > A !Bruj playing Sword of Judgement as a !Bru doesn't get the benefit of the > > implication you claim when he's no longer a !Bru. > > Actually, where does it say that, either? I guess I've seen it discussed in threads and > just assumed it was in the rules or rulings someplace. But now that you mention it, I > don't see how I'd glean that from the existing material either. (Though maybe my > just-now completed search failed to turn up the right passage.) Card text. Just like the allies. [1.4] > Be that as it may, this situation is even different and more obscure than the question of > possessing equipment for which the minion currently doesn't fulfill the requirements. > The kind of strange thing here is how nit picky it seems to differentiate play from use > in terms of a minion that has the wording, "plays this cards as if...". At least > something external _happens_ to the !Brujah to make him unable to use the sword. Its own > text doesn't make it jump back and forth between being vampire and non-vampire depending > on whether the card is being played or already on the table. OK. So if an ally were able to play as card that requires a !Bru as a vampire with a capacity of X and used that ability to equip with the Sword, then he wouldn't be able to strike with it, per card text, right? > Again, the point is not that you're using bad logic. It makes pretty good sense the way > you explain it. The point is that the logic isn't so obviously true and correct that it's > reasonable to expect players to get it and be completely confident about it from reading > the material you've given us. Therefore, they have to come to you for the right answer. > Which is a pain. > > (snipped all the remaining argumentation about how I could reason any other way...) > > > There's nothihng anywhere in the rules that directly or even remotely suggests > > that having minion X "play a card as a Y" would somehow mystically turn the > > minion into a Y for any purpose beyond that stated on the card - that of playing > > the card. > > All right. You don't understand how the material could prevent me from finding the correct > answer with certainty. Just accept the fact that it did and go on. Once again, if I'm a By all means explain to me how the fact that the rules don't say that you cannot do something implies that you can. Minion W can X cards that require Y as if he were a Z. Does this imply that another minion (minion A) can do this? no. (Minion A might be able to, depending on his card text, but minion W's card text doesn't imply that) Does this imply that he can play cards that do not require Y as a Z? no. Just because he can play Decapitate as a vampire doesn't mean he can play Amaranth, for example. Does this imply that he can play cards that require discipline B as a Z? no. So why would it imply that he can do something with the card other than X? I accept that you didn't come to this understanding fro the material. But that is not to say that I think the material is lacking on this point. > complete aberration, it's not important. (To you anyway. To me, my failure to avoid such > conundrums and uncertainties in these rules has been somewhat of a frustration over time.) > I just ask that you pay attention to what you get asked and see if it's true whether the If that's all you're asking, then this thread has been waaay too long. :-) I do that anyhow. > average (reasonably intelligent) gamer can always follow and predict your logic. If not, > I can't see how it matters whether you're ultimately right or wrong. OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:18:23 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >On that note, would a fully annotated rulesbook be of use to anyone? "Sign up, and receive one volume per month, for four easy payments of $29.99! Call now, and receive a player's guide, absolutely free!..." ;-)

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:ROs77.7238$AJ4.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > But if LSJ must scan all of our detritus to make sure > that there are no questions directed at him, well then > you definitely have a point. And he does. Plus the White Wolf forum, the Yahoo newsgroup, and the old listserv. I hardly have time for all of it most days...I sure as hell don't know how he does it. But obviously, I'm glad he can. Xian

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5ED68A...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:kFupcg5F...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > > In message <3B5E5931...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > > > <fre...@netcom.com> writes snip > > Yan forestal can "play" discipline cards "as he has the basic version of > > that discipline", > > Then, he cannot "use" these cards effect. > > Is that right ? > > Right. > > > He could actually "play" an inferior Crimson Fury as a reaction or combat, > > is right ? > > Right. > > > But, he could not "use" it. > > Following your official reasoning on play and use > > and by the CF's bold text: > > USABLE by a vampire in torpor. USABLE by a tapped vampire > > He can play it. > It doesn't stick around for later use, so the question of later use is moot. > "Playing a card" is "using" the card (not a card in play). > But "using" a card in play is not "playing" the card. > So, if Ian plays a succulent vitae, he cannot burn it later, is right? Again, this is counter-intuitive, for me. A minion is allowed to "play" a card that it can't "use". To me is still nonsense, i'm sorry. Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <VUI77.3117$0Z1.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >So, if Ian plays a succulent vitae, he cannot burn it later, is right? >Again, this is counter-intuitive, for me. Not at all. Ian has text to allow him to pretend to have a discipline, briefly. He is still a vampire when the card is in play. He still plays cards requiring Quietus. So he can use it. An ally is an ally when in play. It can pretend to be a vampire briefly to play the card. It then goes back to being an ally because no card text allows it to continue to pretend to be a vampire. So it can't use it. >A minion is allowed to "play" a card that it can't "use". Correct. It has text to allow it to play it. It does not have text to allow it to use it. >To me is still nonsense, i'm sorry. Then don't have it play the card? No-one will make you. Basics of the situation: - It has card text to allow it to play certain cards. This is fine. - It does not have card text to allow it to continue to pretend to be a vampire. Since we're playing a game with rules and cards, we don't make up card text that isn't there. What would you do under you situation with: - a Mummy with Ex Nihilo on them - I call Kindred Segregation ? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1b$NLYOB+...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <VUI77.3117$0Z1.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >So, if Ian plays a succulent vitae, he cannot burn it later, is right? > >Again, this is counter-intuitive, for me. > > Not at all. Ian has text to allow him to pretend to have a discipline, > briefly. I think you are wrong, Ian, by the official ruling and errata: While Talaq may play cards that require disciplines (Quietus or Thaumaturgy), he doesn't actually have those disciplines. He doesn't benefit from Tremere Convocation, for example. Similar to Ian Forestal's special ability. [LSJ 19980303] So Ian can't pretend to "have" a discipline, he can only "play as", and cannot later "use" it. And it seems me that Succulent Vitae abilty must be "used" later, and is not part of "playing" the card. Emiliano, prince of Rome snip > [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto: >> Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> >So, if Ian plays a succulent vitae, he cannot burn it later, is right? >> >Again, this is counter-intuitive, for me. >> >> Not at all. Ian has text to allow him to pretend to have a discipline, >> briefly. > >I think you are wrong, James is correct. >Ian, by the official ruling and errata: > >While Talaq may play cards that require disciplines (Quietus or >Thaumaturgy), he doesn't actually have those disciplines. He doesn't benefit >from Tremere Convocation, for example. Similar to Ian Forestal's special >ability. [LSJ 19980303] > >So Ian can't pretend to "have" a discipline, he can only "play as", and >cannot later "use" it. >And it seems me that Succulent Vitae abilty must be "used" later, and is not >part of "playing" the card. Card text doesn't support this. Card text on Succulent Vitae applies when the vampire "plays a card that requires Quietus". So if Ian does so (which he can), the card text applies. Contrast Tremere Convocation which gives a vampire with basic Thaumaturgy the ability to play a Thaumaturgy card at the superior level. Since Talaq is not a vampire with basic Thaumaturgy, he doesn't qualify. -- 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/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5EE95F...@white-wolf.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: <snip> > How could it? > > A !Bruj playing Sword of Judgement as a !Bru doesn't get the benefit of the > implication you claim when he's no longer a !Bru. > But that because something "must" happens actively into the game to the !Brujah for he not longer being able to "use" the Sword. Say, a derange or a clan impersonation. With the "play as" interpretation on allies, nothing happens, a "play" and "use" distinction simply makes the ally (or a Ian Forestal) play a card and after a moment not being able to "use" it. Again and again this makes no sense, to me. Sorry again Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > A minion is allowed to "play" a card that it can't "use". > To me is still nonsense, i'm sorry. A Muddled Vampire Hunter can play Aaron's Feeding Razor. Is it nonsense that he cannot use it? [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto: > > A !Bruj playing Sword of Judgement as a !Bru doesn't get the benefit of > the > > implication you claim when he's no longer a !Bru. > > > > But that because something "must" happens actively into the game > to the !Brujah for he not longer being able to "use" the Sword. > Say, a derange or a clan impersonation. > > With the "play as" interpretation on allies, nothing happens, a "play" and > "use" distinction simply makes the ally > (or a Ian Forestal) play a card and after a moment not being able to "use" > it. > Again and again this makes no sense, to me. You seem to have it. The distinction between play and use, as you've noted above, is utilized by the card text to have it perform as intended. They are not normally elligible to play certain cards. They are not normally elligible to use certain cards. Card text allows them to play certain cards that they are not normally elligible to play. But there's no card text to overcome their inability to use certain cards. Again and again, this explanation should suffice. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > With the "play as" interpretation on allies, nothing happens, a "play" and > "use" distinction simply makes the ally > (or a Ian Forestal) play a card and after a moment not being able to "use" > it. > Again and again this makes no sense, to me. > Sorry again Perhaps a fresh look at this: I can buy a car. That does not mean I can Drive (use) a car. Now read that in game terms. I can play a card, but I cannot use the card. Raille

In message <52Q77.3682$0Z1.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >So Ian can't pretend to "have" a discipline, he can only "play as", and >cannot >later "use" it. Emphasis on "pretend". Please fix your line length, it's still broken. Please don't quote sigs unnecessarily. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <L9T77.4533$0Z1.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >With the "play as" interpretation on allies, nothing happens, a "play" and >"use" distinction simply makes the ally >(or a Ian Forestal) play a card and after a moment not being able to "use" >it. The Ian Forestal bit makes no sense because it's not true. At no point do the rules require you to continuously have a discipline in order to be able to use the card. (Frex, a moved round Wolf Companion.) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > There's nothihng anywhere in the rules that directly or even remotely suggests > > > that having minion X "play a card as a Y" would somehow mystically turn the > > > minion into a Y for any purpose beyond that stated on the card - that of playing > > > the card. > > > > All right. You don't understand how the material could prevent me from finding the correct > > answer with certainty. Just accept the fact that it did and go on. Once again, if I'm a > > By all means explain to me how the fact that the rules don't say that you cannot > do something implies that you can. I think you're kind of getting caught up in the rationale that led you to the view you have of the whole issue in the first place. Once so reasoned, how is it possible to come to any other conclusion than the one you've come to? But, in my experience, there are multiple ways to look at issue like these. Certain people might, for instance, tend to focus not on a narrow definition of what it means to "play" a card and might be more put off by your ruling because it's strange that Akhenaten can Jar the Soul with no problem but can't use Ex Nihilo in any gainful way. Which it is. Thus, were they the designer, they might rule it differently and think it strange that anyone would ever get that obsessed with the difference between playing and using a card and wonder how anyone would see it your way. That's how people are. Different people tend to look at stuff like this with different priorities and sensibilities. I DON'T CARE! I really don't care what the final result is. If worrying about the definition of "play" is what spins your buttons, go to town. I'll just remember never to bother putting Ex Nihilo in my mummy deck. What I *do* care about is being able to figure it out without going to the newsgroup, or at least trying to figure out how to use Google to find out how you think about this. What I'm asking for is for you to drop a clue in then web page where clarifications go. The reason I'm making a bit of a fuss about it is because I've experienced this at other times. (Don't ask me to dredge up an example right now; anything that isn't hitting me in the face at any given time tends to get forgotten in about 2.7 seconds. But your example of what happens to a Deranged !Brujah holding a Sword of Judgment is possibly another example.) The rules and errata/rulings/clarifications pages from time to time don't contain clues to things that don't seem to have obvious answers to me. I wind up having to ask around what other players have heard about an issue or come here. That doesn't seem optimal to me. > I accept that you didn't come to this understanding fro the material. > But that is not to say that I think the material is lacking on this point. Perhaps not. I'm never sure what my problem is. Either you don't have enough of an imagination about on what other basis a ruling might get made or I have a far too active one. > If that's all you're asking, then this thread has been waaay too long. :-) I'll second that. (But not restrain myself from posting again, heh! :-) ) > I do that anyhow. Well, OK. I've been exchanging E-mail with at least one other regular poster who seems to understand my problem, and likewise told me he failed to automatically guess what the answer was until someone who knew posted it. I wonder how much that happens. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > By all means explain to me how the fact that the rules don't say that you cannot > > do something implies that you can. > > I think you're kind of getting caught up in the rationale that led you to the view you have > of the whole issue in the first place. Once so reasoned, how is it possible to come to any > other conclusion than the one you've come to? I'm saying that in order to come to another conclusion, one has to make a bad leap of logic. The rules and card text in this case suffice. But I understand that not everyone reads the rules and card text carefully when playing. > I DON'T CARE! I really don't care what the final result is. If worrying about the definition > of "play" is what spins your buttons, go to town. I'll just remember never to bother putting > Ex Nihilo in my mummy deck. What I *do* care about is being able to figure it out without > going to the newsgroup, or at least trying to figure out how to use Google to find out how you > think about this. What I'm asking for is for you to drop a clue in then web page where > clarifications go. I'm certainly not worried about the definition of "play" - it's in no trouble at all. The clues in the rulebook and the card text are sufficient. > The reason I'm making a bit of a fuss about it is because I've experienced this at other times. > (Don't ask me to dredge up an example right now; anything that isn't hitting me in the face > at any given time tends to get forgotten in about 2.7 seconds. But your example of what happens > to a Deranged !Brujah holding a Sword of Judgment is possibly another example.) The rules and > errata/rulings/clarifications pages from time to time don't contain clues to things that don't > seem to have obvious answers to me. I wind up having to ask around what other players have > heard about an issue or come here. That doesn't seem optimal to me. The optimal thing here and in the Sword of Judgment case would be to apply card text. A similar situation would occur if a Achingly Beautiful Toreador were Deranged, for example, although attempting to extend card text by "real-word" consideration may make some players reach a different conclusion. Since it's just a card game, however, such extensions aren't admitted. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B611859...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >But, in my experience, there are multiple ways to look at issue like these. Certain people >might, for instance, tend to focus not on a narrow definition of what it means to "play" <snip> Yep. And lots of people focus not on narrow definitions of many things, and make many other elementary or not-so-elementary mistakes with all sorts of games. How many people do you know who thought that Methuselahs themselves got a vote in the Bloodhunt? Or who didn't think Political Actions could be burned? Or who thought that vampires couldn't vote, since it was a tally among the Methuselahs alone? As a rulemonger at numerous tournaments in the UK, I can confidently say "Lots". As a newbie player, so many, many years ago, I was introduced to the game by friends, using their cards. The whole "ready/controlled/ uncontrolled" distinction was not one I was *properly* introduced to, and one which they'd mucked up. Same with the "Don't replace cards during a referendum" (though obviously it wasn't a referendum then). Whilst, obviously, the rules should attempt to be clear for everyone, the rules shouldn't be rewritten because some groups mis-understand them. Game balance, power, costing and so forth are far more important because, after all, this is DP:TES. From where I stand, the best resolution to your situation is an explicit clarification. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

> In message <3B611859...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> But, in my experience, there are multiple ways to look at issue like these. >> Certain people >> might, for instance, tend to focus not on a narrow definition of what it >> means to "play" > > <snip> <snippety-do-dah> > > From where I stand, the best resolution to your situation is an explicit > clarification. Which is pretty much what he asked for: "What I *do* care about is being able to figure it out without going to the newsgroup, or at least trying to figure out how to use Google to find out how you think about this. What I'm asking for is for you to drop a clue in then web page where clarifications go." and I'll "third" the motion. I follow the reasoning, but I could see having an extremely tough time convincing a stubborn player of the reasoning without text to back it up. I can also imagine a judge who makes the wrong call, since they maybe also don't read the noisegroup daily, but have the most recent printout of the MRP and "Errata, Rulings, and Clarifications." The logic is clear, but not trivial. Easy, honest mistake to make. Kind of a wonder it hasn't come up before[0], say with the Talaq/Rutor's Hand combo. While there is the ruling that says: "While Talaq may play cards that require disciplines (Quietus or Thaumaturgy), he doesn't actually have those disciplines. He doesn't benefit from Tremere Convocation, for example. Similar to Ian Forestal's special ability. [LSJ 19980303] " That still leave the "play" (mis)interpretation open. Question is, should it go under "Allies," or "Terminology?" [0] if it has, and I just can't find it in the rulings, than this thread has been waaaaaaay too long, and someone should have said "see X" a long time ago. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B611859...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >But, in my experience, there are multiple ways to look at issue like these. Certain people > >might, for instance, tend to focus not on a narrow definition of what it means to "play" > > <snip> > > Yep. And lots of people focus not on narrow definitions of many things, > and make many other elementary or not-so-elementary mistakes with all > sorts of games. One point I might make is that certain such people might be game designers. Even so, even if I know Scott is not one of them, I still think there's an element here of viewing a particular definition ("play a card") in terms more narrow than people would necessarily expect. Not _wrong_, mind you. Just narrow and strict, to the point of reading something into Webster's definition that I personally just don't see in it. Because the mentality isn't necessarily predictable to the average gamer, IMO it's necessary to drop a clue somewhere that the powers who run this game think this way. Otherwise, it's hard to be sure what the right answer is until someone who already knows confirms it for you. > From where I stand, the best resolution to your situation is an explicit > clarification. I'd settle for that. Clarifying how to read/interpret the languaging of the rules is a very common role for supporting materials. Fred

In message <3B61C7DB...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >Not _wrong_, mind you. Just >narrow and strict, to the point of reading something into Webster's definition >that I personally just don't see in it. How does the fact that MW talks about moving a card from your hand and placing it face-up on the table strike you as reading something into it? Consider a game like Cribbage. Who plays the spare card when aiming for one for his nob, or two for his heels? It never is, but you can use it to score. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B61C7DB...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >Not _wrong_, mind you. Just > >narrow and strict, to the point of reading something into Webster's definition > >that I personally just don't see in it. > > How does the fact that MW talks about moving a card from your hand and > placing it face-up on the table strike you as reading something into it? Because it says nothing whatsoever about whatsoever about whether using the card on the table afterward constitutes part of the play or not. It says nothing because that issue is completely outside the scope of the definition. It gives a couple examples of "playing" something in a very common card game that has no such issues to consider. It says nothing because it is a deliberately generalized definition and expects - rightly - that where it applies specifically in specific games that those games will determine for themselves with their own rules what precisely constitutes "playing a card", or "drawing a card", or "advancing a token" or any other common gaming term should mean in the context of those specific games. I am pretty sure that no one at Merriam Webster researched any CCGs with ability-granting permanents when they decided what the standard popular meaning of "play" was (and wasn't) in the context of card games. > Consider a game like Cribbage. Who plays the spare card when aiming for > one for his nob, or two for his heels? It never is, but you can use it > to score. Um, yea. So what is your point? No one said you _had_ to "play" a card to "use" it, either. The definition in M-W seems to imply that "playing" has to involve taking a card out of a player's hand and placing it on the table. As opposed to drawing it or pulling it out of the deck and putting it on the table. Beyond that, it doesn't say much. Nor should it. If you want to get _that_ technical about it, then since laying a permanent down doesn't involve playing a scoring combination or part of a trick, what we're doing with Ex Nihilo isn't really "playing" it (according to M-W) anyway. Unless you accept Scott's incredibly loose definition of "scoring combination". It would be very inconsistent to be tight as a drum on the definition of "play" and then turn around and claim Ex Nihilo is a "scoring combination". My conclusion is that "to play a card" is specifically defined in each game. And if that definition is at all controversial or if certain fine distinctions (such as in the card text of Akhenaten) are going to turn on it, then the definition should be made explicit. Fred

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B61C7DB...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >Not _wrong_, mind you. Just > >narrow and strict, to the point of reading something into Webster's definition > >that I personally just don't see in it. > > How does the fact that MW talks about moving a card from your hand and > placing it face-up on the table strike you as reading something into it? Because MW says nothing about what "playing the card" is limited to in the specific game of Jyhad. I believe MW is just distinguishing the physical action of playing the card. As opposed to drawing a card or holding a card or discarding a card. It's just a generalized definition - which is appropriate because the more technical aspects of such things tend to be defined in each specific game. And expecting people to understand what exactly Akhenaten can and can't do with Ex Nihilo appears to me to be a very technical thing. > Consider a game like Cribbage. Who plays the spare card when aiming for > one for his nob, or two for his heels? It never is, but you can use it > to score. I'm not sure what point you're making. I never claimed that using a card was equivalent to playing it. Just that in the case of CCG permanents, if you're going to make a distinction between playing the card onto the table and using its abilities in your game after you've played it, then it's good to spell that kind of thing out explicitly. Fred

In message <3B624B19...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> Consider a game like Cribbage. Who plays the spare card when aiming for >> one for his nob, or two for his heels? It never is, but you can use it >> to score. > >I'm not sure what point you're making. I never claimed that using a card was >equivalent to playing it. Think about this and wonder why the rest of us are looking at you scratching our heads. - A literal reading of the card text says playing. - Reading the rulesbook distinguishes between playing and using. - Dictionaries define a common usage of "playing", usable even for games with permanent equivalents - You acknowledge the difference between "playing" and "using" - You don't assume 1000 other cards mean things they don't say Since everything says "play", and you clearly acknowledge "play" is not "use", the literal reading of card text kicks in. Compare also the literal reading of Nefertiti, vs the "common sense" one. Card texts are often long enough without contributing further to Seven Line Syndrome. This is certainly the case with the discipline allies, in my experience. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B5FFED9...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > A minion is allowed to "play" a card that it can't "use". > > To me is still nonsense, i'm sorry. > > A Muddled Vampire Hunter can play Aaron's Feeding Razor. > Is it nonsense that he cannot use it? Come on, a Muddled vampire can play such card not via an ability he posses (like akhenathen a summon soul), but simply following the rule that he can "play" an equipment, as a default action. That's straight. I'm referring to the fact that your dicotomy between "play" and "use" for a discipline card an akhenathen-type could play, is less intuitive than what me and mr Frederick Scott interpreted before: to make any "vampire" effect/reference on such card elegible (and "usable") for the ally who "plays" it. That's all. Emiliano, prince of Rome > > -- > 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/

Frederick Scott wrote: > I'm not sure what point you're making. I never claimed that using a card was > equivalent to playing it. Just that in the case of CCG permanents, if you're going > to make a distinction between playing the card onto the table and using its > abilities in your game after you've played it, then it's good to spell that kind of > thing out explicitly. We also make a distinction between playing a card and buring it. And between playing a card and tapping it. And between burning a card and tapping it. And between playing a card and burning pool. And ... Things that are distinct already. Listing every pair of things that are distinct is not logistically feasible for the rulebook, nor even the online rulings. If you don't claim that they're equivalent, how can you say that card text is not sufficient on Akhenaten? His card text says he can "play". If this is not equivalent to "use" (which it isn't, as you agree), and since he's an ally, how does anything indicate that he can use the card as a vampire? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B62A4B0...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] How does anything indicate that Ian Forestal "playing" a discipline he doesn't "have" (therefore that cannot "use") can "use" it as if he "has" that discipline? The logic (your) should be the same for this question on akhenathen-type allies, but we got different result: Ian can "play as" and "use" something he "doesn't have" Akhenathen can "play as" but canNot "use" something "he's not". . Why? I know, yes, because nothing prohibits a vamp or even a minion from "using" a discipline permanent even if he doesn't have the required discipline for that perm. Why not the same logic for an akhenathen-type ally? He should be able to "use" vampire reference on a card he "plays as a vampire", much as can Ian do with discipline cards he doesn't have. I find this no more difficult or counter-intuitive to do than the actual interpretation. Just my thought Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

>How does anything indicate that Ian Forestal "playing" a discipline he >doesn't "have" >(therefore that cannot "use") can "use" it as if he "has" that discipline? >The logic (your) should be the same for this question on akhenathen-type >allies, >but we got different result: I think that there are two distinct issues here, and you're somehow confusing the two together. The first issue is the one dealing with disciplines. With discipline-requiring cards, you need the discipline to play it. But you don't necessarily need the discipline to use it (transferring Animalism retainers, etc.). Both Akhenaton and Ian Forestal have special abilities that let them play Necromancy cards. The second issue is the distinction between an ally and a vampire. An ally is not a vampire and thus can not *use* cards requiring a vampire. All your arguments concerning Ian fail because of the fact that Ian *is* a vampire. That is why Ian (with his special) can use Ex Nihilo (not just play it) and why Akhenaton can only play it (and not use it). These are two distinct issues but it feels like you're sort of blurring the two together. So which of the two (or both) do you have the problem with? And in addition, I still have not seen anything that refutes the excellent points that I think Mr. Coupe and LSJ have made. Namely that allies aren't suffering any of the penalties either (ignore burn blood effects, etc). And how about the point that since they actually have "capacity" when playing cards, then according to your argument, Akhenaten can't gain more than 3 life (since the excess would drain off)? Allies can't pick and choose which benefits they can use and which penalties they can ignore. Although I was also initially a bit annoyed Talaq couldn't use Rutor's Hand, not only do I now understand it, but I definitely agree with it. It is *not* counter-intuitive and, if anything, the proposals you have suggested are IMHO counter-intuitive or at the very least quite convoluted. Halcyan 2

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B624B19...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >> Consider a game like Cribbage. Who plays the spare card when aiming for > >> one for his nob, or two for his heels? It never is, but you can use it > >> to score. > > > >I'm not sure what point you're making. I never claimed that using a card was > >equivalent to playing it. > > Think about this and wonder why the rest of us are looking at you > scratching our heads. I don't know what anyone would scratch their head. Maybe if I said it in caps..., "I NEVER CLAIMED THAT USING..." (and so on). > - A literal reading of the card text says playing. > - Reading the rulesbook distinguishes between playing and using. > - Dictionaries define a common usage of "playing", usable even for games > with permanent equivalents > - You acknowledge the difference between "playing" and "using" > - You don't assume 1000 other cards mean things they don't say I don't know what to say if you just don't get it. It's obvious to me. If you're using a standard english word in a standard english way that would surprise no one, then you needn't define it your game. 99.99 % of all words used in the VtES rules and on VtES cards fall into this category. This is clearly not true of the word, "play" in Akhenaten because the implications are pretty surprising. A cursory look at the card would make one think that Akhenaten can play Ex Nihilo to good effect just as much as any other card. The only reason it can't is because the powers that be want to interpret the verb "to play" as the instant you take your hand off the card, which JUST ISN'T ALL THAT CLEAR from reading a dictionary. And my point isn't that anyone's wrong about it. Just that it's NOT ALL THAT CLEAR that it's the one and only right way to look at the situation. Part of the trouble here is a failure to agree on what we disagree about. Every time I state this as well as I know how to, I am responded to by people defending the rightness of the interpretation. I'm not questioning the rightness of it. Only that it's easy go down another path, rightly or wrongly. Which I suppose must sound suspiciously like I'm attacking the correctness of it but I assure you I'm not. > Since everything says "play", and you clearly acknowledge "play" is not > "use", the literal reading of card text kicks in. And this is what I'm talking about. This is only true if you insist on looking at the interpretation of play as a singular "most correct" answer. You suggest that as soon as someone has arrived at the correct answer, the discussion is over. Which it isn't. Which is why we go 'round in circles. Fred

Halcyan 2 wrote: And in addition, I still have not seen anything that refutes the excellent > points that I think Mr. Coupe and LSJ have made. Namely that allies aren't > suffering any of the penalties either (ignore burn blood effects, etc). (etc.) Because you're kind of stepping in here in the middle. And because of some of the confusion Mr. Coupe and LSJ already seem to be suffering from: that this is not an argument about the best interpretation of the existing language. I'm only making the point that the logic isn't so clear that LSJ should leave it to the players to read the text, "Akhenatun may play cards requiring basic Necromancy..." and automatically understand that it won't get stealth from Ex Nihilo because the dictionary definition of "play" doesn't say anything about a CCG card granting subsequent abilities is not part of "playing" the card. Completely reasonable way to see the situation, IMO. Just don't make me read your mind to figure out that that's how you see it. Fred

In message <3B6323B7...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >I'm >only making the point that the logic isn't so clear that LSJ should leave it to >the players to read the text, "Akhenatun may play cards requiring basic Necromancy..." >and automatically understand that it won't get stealth from Ex Nihilo because the >dictionary definition of "play" doesn't say anything about a CCG card granting >subsequent abilities is not part of "playing" the card. Many players miss the subtleties of many cards; this newsgroup's posting history can testify to that. We do not re-write every card to include dictionary definitions because a player might not understand the card, because we have a limited amount of space. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:20010728130013...@ng-fd1.aol.com... > >How does anything indicate that Ian Forestal "playing" a discipline he > >doesn't "have" > >(therefore that cannot "use") can "use" it as if he "has" that discipline? > >The logic (your) should be the same for this question on akhenathen-type > >allies, > >but we got different result: > > I think that there are two distinct issues here, and you're somehow confusing > the two together. > > The first issue is the one dealing with disciplines. With discipline-requiring > cards, you need the discipline to play it. But you don't necessarily need the > discipline to use it (transferring Animalism retainers, etc.). Both Akhenaton > and Ian Forestal have special abilities that let them play Necromancy cards. Indeed, both play them "as having discipline X " (Ian) "as being a vampire of cap X" (Akhenathen and the like) > The second issue is the distinction between an ally and a vampire. An ally is > not a vampire and thus can not *use* cards requiring a vampire. All your > arguments concerning Ian fail because of the fact that Ian *is* a vampire. That > is why Ian (with his special) can use Ex Nihilo (not just play it) and why > Akhenaton can only play it (and not use it). I'm aware of such distinctions. I'm arguing about the fact that the same logic behind an interpretation, in our case "X play Y as if being/having Z", got two different and opposite result. One (Ian) can later "use" discipline cards, by the rule that a minion can "use" a permanent discipline card even if he doesn't have that discipline (say, a raven spy moved on akhenathen). The other (akhenathen-type) not, even if he can play by his ability, he can't use, because he's only a vampire in the moment he plays the card. > These are two distinct issues but it feels like you're sort of blurring the two > together. So which of the two (or both) do you have the problem with? > No problem at all, the fact is that all of this stuff about "play" and "use" was presented as a simple matter of reading carefully the rulebook & cards' text, and extracting by that the actual conclusions. Imho, that isn't true, and i'm just pointing this, as Frederick Scott is doing . > And in addition, I still have not seen anything that refutes the excellent > points that I think Mr. Coupe and LSJ have made. Namely that allies aren't > suffering any of the penalties either (ignore burn blood effects, etc). I don't know what you're including in the etcetera. The ignore "burn blood", for example, is in the clarification/errata list, and was not a rule "per se", kinda of an "artificial" assumption that an ally coudn't suffer the same penalties as a vampire do. Which can bring further problems as now, for example, the Blood Brother Ambush and the Gargoyle are considered "vampire" allies. By a canon logic, they *do* suffer the same penalties as a vampires but... Can you find somewhere any rule about this? Can you find any clue about ambigous corner case card functiong for this new definition? Eg, blood brother ambush can play and "use" an amaranth or a torn signpost? What i'm trying to say, is that too many rules in our beloved game are defined or exctracted by the cards' effects, not the contrary. Like what the "special abilities" definition could mean, by the seeds of corruption's text. This lead to possible misunderstanding, as, in this case, there was not a clear definition of what "play" can include. At least for some players, like me. > And how > about the point that since they actually have "capacity" when playing cards, > then according to your argument, Akhenaten can't gain more than 3 life (since > the excess would drain off)? Indeed, you give another starting point of discussion, and i think you are right here. Since the effect of a discipline card applies to an ally only when he's "playing" it, and he "play as a vampire", i *do* think that, say, akhenathen playing a summon soul cannot go over than 3 life. But yes, i know that: There is no limit to an Ally's life (if some effect gives an Ally more life than it started with, the excess does not drain off). [TOM 19960604] Another kind of "artificial" assumption (not defined in the basic rules), but oh yes, that's the way it is. > Allies can't pick and choose which benefits they > can use and which penalties they can ignore. I never pointed that. > Although I was also initially a > bit annoyed Talaq couldn't use Rutor's Hand, not only do I now understand it, > but I definitely agree with it. It is *not* counter-intuitive and, if anything, > the proposals you have suggested are IMHO counter-intuitive or at the very > least quite convoluted. > > Halcyan 2 Sorry if you think so, but i'm simply suggesting that an ally that can "play" a card "as a vampire", by his ability he should "use" and "be" elegible for any reference to "vampire" on that card. Is this so counter-intuitive? Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > How does anything indicate that Ian Forestal "playing" a discipline he > doesn't "have" > (therefore that cannot "use") can "use" it as if he "has" that discipline? It doesn't. > The logic (your) should be the same for this question on akhenathen-type > allies, > but we got different result: > > Ian can "play as" and "use" something he "doesn't have" No, he cannot. > Akhenathen can "play as" but canNot "use" something "he's not". Correct. > . > Why? Card text. > I know, yes, because nothing prohibits a vamp or even a minion from "using" > a discipline > permanent even if he doesn't have the required discipline for that perm. If card text said "this protean-possessing vampire can pay 1 blood to untap during any Methuselah's untap phase", then Ian wouldn't be able to untap with it. He has to meet the requirements on card text. Please indicate the card you think isn't handled this way. > Why not the same logic for an akhenathen-type ally? It does. > He should be able to "use" vampire reference on > a card he "plays as a vampire", much as can Ian do with discipline cards he No, since he isn't a vampire. > doesn't have. Ian is a vampire. > I find this no more difficult or counter-intuitive to do than the actual > interpretation. Except that it's contrary to card text, I agree. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Indeed, you give another starting point of discussion, and i think you are > right here. > Since the effect of a discipline card applies to an ally only when he's > "playing" it, and he "play as a vampire", He could, if the card's use wasn't restricted to "vampires". For instance, if Akhenaten employed the Masquer (Wraith), he would get +1 intercept, since that use applies to the "minion" employer. > i *do* think that, say, akhenathen playing a summon soul cannot go over > than 3 life. Not true. Allies have no capacity. There is no limit on an ally's life. > But yes, i know that: > > There is no limit to an Ally's life (if some effect gives an Ally more life > than it started with, the excess does not drain off). [TOM 19960604] > > Another kind of "artificial" assumption (not defined in the basic rules), > but oh yes, that's the way it is. What? No restriction is specified, so one should be assumed? So is your pool total limited to thirty in the same way? (Answer: no). > Sorry if you think so, but i'm simply suggesting that an ally that can > "play" a card > "as a vampire", by his ability he should "use" and "be" elegible for any > reference to "vampire" on that card. > Is this so counter-intuitive? No, but it isn't supported by card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B6323B7...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > Many players miss the subtleties of many cards; this newsgroup's posting > history can testify to that. > > We do not re-write every card to include dictionary definitions because > a player might not understand the card, because we have a limited amount > of space. Agreed. It just depends on whether a new player can be reasonably expected to discover the correct use of the card given the materials (card text, rules, supporting materials) he has at hand. IMHO, with these materials, he can not. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3B63EE64...@white-wolf.com... snip > If card text said "this protean-possessing vampire can pay 1 blood to untap > during any Methuselah's untap phase", then Ian wouldn't be able to untap > with it. He has to meet the requirements on card text. Please indicate the > card you think isn't handled this way. Well, with the post-Sabbat layout, the symbols printed on the discipline cards' text (inferior and superior) actually seems to indicate just that (require "possession" of the discipline). On discipline master card's text: this vampire now "has" <discipline> <discipline's symbol>. > > Why not the same logic for an akhenathen-type ally? > > It does. > > > He should be able to "use" vampire reference on > > a card he "plays as a vampire", much as can Ian do with discipline cards he > > No, since he isn't a vampire. > > > doesn't have. > > Ian is a vampire. Yes, but by the same logic he doesn't "have" quietus for "using" a succulent vitae. He can play as if he has it, but he don't "have" quietus to "use" SV. However, yes, discipline permament can be used etc.... Above all, i understand the matter, and i don't find it counter-intuitive anymore (this has taken some effort for it....) Please only clarify some cards "using" here: Can Ghouled Street Thug "use" Torn Sign Post? Can Talaq the Immortal "use" Shot Gun Ritual ? Can Talaq the Immortal "use" (and tap by it) Foul Blood ? Can Talaq the Immortal "use" Veil of Silence ? Can Kherebutu "use" a Soul Stealing ? Does Akhenathen with the Sargon Fragment "plays" necromancy at superior *while* playing a nec card (he's playing "as a vampire"...) ? Can a non-existent ally that can play animalism and protean as a vamp "use" Song of serenity / Wolf Claws? As you can see, isn't still clear to me when an effect or reference comes with "playing" the card or not. Thanks Emiliano, Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto: > > If card text said "this protean-possessing vampire can pay 1 blood to > untap > > during any Methuselah's untap phase", then Ian wouldn't be able to untap > > with it. He has to meet the requirements on card text. Please indicate the > > card you think isn't handled this way. > > Well, with the post-Sabbat layout, the symbols printed on the discipline > cards' text (inferior and superior) > actually seems to indicate just that (require "possession" of the > discipline). I don't see it. The cards seem perfectly clear. Moreso with the post-Sabbat layout. > On discipline master card's text: > this vampire now "has" <discipline> <discipline's symbol>. That's exactly correct. > > > Why not the same logic for an akhenathen-type ally? > > > > It does. > > > > > He should be able to "use" vampire reference on > > > a card he "plays as a vampire", much as can Ian do with discipline cards > he > > > > No, since he isn't a vampire. > > > > > doesn't have. > > > > Ian is a vampire. > > Yes, but by the same logic he doesn't "have" quietus for "using" a succulent > vitae. But he "has" it for playing Succulent Vitae. > He can play as if he has it, but he don't "have" quietus to "use" SV. It doesn't require Quietus to "use". See card text. > However, yes, discipline permament can be used etc.... > Above all, i understand the matter, and i don't find it counter-intuitive > anymore > (this has taken some effort for it....) > > Please only clarify some cards "using" here: > > Can Ghouled Street Thug "use" Torn Sign Post? He can play it, yes. > Can Talaq the Immortal "use" Shot Gun Ritual ? He can play it, yes. > Can Talaq the Immortal "use" (and tap by it) Foul Blood ? He can play it, yes. > Can Talaq the Immortal "use" Veil of Silence ? He can play it, yes. > Can Kherebutu "use" a Soul Stealing ? He can play it, yes. > Does Akhenathen with the Sargon Fragment "plays" necromancy at superior > *while* playing > a nec card (he's playing "as a vampire"...) ? No. He's not a vampire. Sargon Fragment gives the vampire who holds it superior nec (plus a special ability). It does not enable a minion who plays necromancy cards the ability to play them at superior (except inasfar as a vampire who actually has superior nec can play such cards). See card text. > Can a non-existent ally that can play animalism and protean as a vamp "use" > Song of serenity / Wolf Claws? If card text allows them to play the cards, then they can play the cards, yes. > As you can see, isn't still clear to me when an effect or reference comes > with "playing" > the card or not. If the effect is a one-time thing that happens when the card is played (or resolved for the few cases where the resolution is delayed - strikes and actions), then it is an effect of the card play. If not, not. [ quoted text not captured ]