(LSJ) Kaymakli Fragment vs Drawing out the Beast

Hello, Here's the situation : Vampire A and B are in combat. Vampire A has a Kaymakli Fragment. Vampire A plays Drawing out the Beast. Can Vampire B's strike be "steal the fragment" ?

floppyzedolfin wrote: > Vampire A and B are in combat. Vampire A has a Kaymakli Fragment. > Vampire A plays Drawing out the Beast. > Can Vampire B's strike be "steal the fragment" ? Not via the Fragment's strike option, no, since Vampire B cannot use equipment. He could steal it with a (non-equipment-based) "steal equipment" effect, though, like Mesmerize or something.

[ quoted text not captured ] Eh? But Drawing only states he cannot use the eq, not anything about carrying it.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I noted that he could use a non-equipment-based strike to steal the equipment. However, using the strike option provided by the equipment card Kaymakli Fragment is using the equipment. So that strike option is denied by Drawing Out the Beast. See also Assault Rifle.

[ quoted text not captured ] But it is not vamp B that A that is affected by Drawing right? So why can´t he use the steal-clause on the eq?

[ quoted text not captured ] A played Drawing Out the Beast on B. B cannot use equipment. So B cannot use A's Kaymakli Fragment (equipment) to steal the Kaymakli Fragment.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Kaymakli Fragment (equipment) to steal the Kaymakli Fragment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - LSJ, when Kaymakli Fragment + Imperator promo cards will be delivered to tournament organizers (if this cards will be delivered sameday)? And you have any news about Rise of Imperator storyline event???

[ quoted text not captured ] So because B is frenzy, A also become unable to use eq? Do you think this sounds logical?

On Feb 21, 11:22 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So because B is frenzy, A also become unable to use eq? Do you think > this sounds logical? It looks like you're mixing it up here. A can use equipment. B can not use A's equipment (which he would've been able to steal as a strike via card text).

[ quoted text not captured ] I fear you haven't understood what's going on. A has Kaymakli Fragment. Kaymakli Fragment has a clause that allows the opponent to steal it (as a strike). When that clause is used, it is used by the opponent, not the bearer. ("Any minion may steal this equipment as a strike.") A plays Drawing out the Beast on B. B wants to use the Kaymakli Fragment built-in steal clause to steal the Kaymakli Fragment. B has been affected by DotB. B is unable to use equipment. B cannot use the Kaymakli Fragment's own text to steal it from A. A quite happily carries on using the Kaymakli Fragment as normal (although none of its effects are combat relevant to A right now). A is not affected by DotB's equipment restriction clause at all. B is - and that includes using any equipment B is carrying, but also the Kaymakli Fragment on A (which would otherwise grant an ability to B). If B was Lucian, for example, he could use his own card text to steal the Kaymakli Fragment. Or a Chimerstry vampire could use Blessing of Durga Syn. Neither of those involve using equipment to get the steal strike. The reason that your version is not logical is because it's not what's going on. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, it doesn't sound logical. It is also not what I said; nor is it true. So that works out well. A can use equipment. If he had a .44, he could shoot it; if he had Flak Jacket, he could prevent a damage with it. A could use the Kaymakli Fragment if it provided any effect for A to use in combat. But it doesn't. It only provide A two action options (draw 5 cards or add 3 blood to an uncontrolled vampire). It does provide B an effect usable in combat: a strike option. But B, being unable to use equipment, cannot use the strike option provided by that equipment.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, I misread. As always. Sorry.