Partial Card Usage: A Possible Explination

I have been reading several posts about Anarch Troublemaker, Domain, Acrobatics, and the usage of part of these cards. If you notice, Anarch Troublemake can have a partial effect, tap 1 or 2 vamps, while Domain and Acrobatics require the entire condition to be satisfied. I think I have a possible explination: Anarch Troublemaker is a Master Card, which represents the influence and power of the Methesula. The other two are normal cards, played by vampires who are puppets of the Methusela. Looking at it this way, a Methusela's power versusa vampire's power. The Methusela can dictate term (the Blood Rule - He who has the blood makes the rules) whereas a vampire, who was influence by the Methusela, is bound by his physical limitations (normal vs superior) and the only influence he has is which skills he has and how much of his skill he wants to use (normal or superior where applicable), but can't dictate terms once determined (must use card in it's entirty, i.e. superior Acrobatics: Dodge AND Additional Strike). This privelege is reserved for Methusela. That's one possibility.

The way I see it is as follows (no nice rationalizations about the game world, though, sorry, just boring rules/logic gunk): Say a card does A and B. If, for some reason, using the card would cause A but not B, this is fine. If, however, B happens to be illegal at a particular time, then the card can't be used. That is, just because one of the effects of the card will be nullified or without a target doesn't stop you from playing the cardn (Anarch Troublemaker). If one of the effects isn't allowed, that's a different story (the intercept on Tradition : Domain to block a steath-less action). -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >Incidentally, after some discussion with the rest of the rules team, my >initial ruling on superior Acrobatics is incorrect. You can play it if >you've already played an additional strike card has been played that round; >you simply won't get the benefit of the additional strike. For that matter, >you can keep burning Acrobatics if you've already played an additional strike >card that round, but won't get more additional strikes. Peace Tom, WHAT!!!! This ruling is just another prime example of how little grey matter the DT has. Can they provide any sort of good reason why this sillyness (which is against the letter and spirit of the rules) is now allowed? Is the DT trying to get me to quit playing? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Incidentally, after some discussion with the rest of the rules team, my initial ruling on superior Acrobatics is incorrect. You can play it if you've already played an additional strike card has been played that round; you simply won't get the benefit of the additional strike. For that matter, you can keep burning Acrobatics if you've already played an additional strike card that round, but won't get more additional strikes. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Incidentally, after some discussion with the rest of the rules team, my : initial ruling on superior Acrobatics is incorrect. You can play it if : you've already played an additional strike card has been played that round; : you simply won't get the benefit of the additional strike. For that matter, : you can keep burning Acrobatics if you've already played an additional strike : card that round, but won't get more additional strikes. Does this have an impact on the similar ruling on Tradition : Domain? Could you use it to untap and block a zero stealth action, and just not use the intercept part? If not, what's the difference between the two? -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Incidentally, after some discussion with the rest of the rules team, my : initial ruling on superior Acrobatics is incorrect. You can play it if : you've already played an additional strike card has been played that round; : you simply won't get the benefit of the additional strike. For that matter, : you can keep burning Acrobatics if you've already played an additional strike : card that round, but won't get more additional strikes. This not only is a ridiculous reversal of a perfectly good original ruling, but it also goes against something you yourself have repeated on several occasions; In Jyhad, one should not simply be able to burn cards at will for no effect. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that were I to hold 5 Acrobatics cards in my hand, I could play the first one for an additional strike, play the second for the dodge, and then just 'keep burning Acrobatics' because I've already played an additional strike this round? Please tell me I'm wrong, and that I have misunderstood you somewhere. And while youa are at it, it would be appreciated if you could explain _why_ this reversal came about; I never had a problem with your original ruling (I thought it made perfect sense, in fact) but this one makes no sense. To me, this new Acrobatics ruling and the 2nd Domain ruling are now in direct conflict, whereas before I could at least _somewhat_ harmonize and justify them to myself. Nothing personal here Tom - I think you made an intelligent and reasonable ruling in the first place; this just gives me one additional reason for ignoring whatever the DT says... Shane H.W. Travis | Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for tra...@duke.usask.ca | thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Hebrews 13:2

The rulebook says "Only one card may give an additional strike to a minion for each round of combat", not "A minion can only play one additional strike card each round". Since you can play any card even if you expect not to get some or all of the effect, you can therefore keep burning additional strike cards once you've used one in a round. If you want to argue that one *shouldn't* be able to burn additional strike cards, that's fine, but to actually rule that way would directly contradict the rulebook, and the general rule about playing effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3t1f7e$k...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >The rulebook says "Only one card may give an additional strike to a minion for >each round of combat", not "A minion can only play one additional strike >card each round". Since you can play any card even if you expect not to get >some or all of the effect, you can therefore keep burning additional strike >cards once you've used one in a round. If you want to argue that one >*shouldn't* be able to burn additional strike cards, that's fine, but to >actually rule that way would directly contradict the rulebook, and the >general rule about playing effects. > This logic is counter to the logic you use to deny the playing of second tradition unless Prince is both tapped and in need of intercept. Superior Acrobatics: Strike: Dodge with an Additional Strike. 2nd Tradition: Untap with +2 intercept. (Or, literal reading: +2 intercept with optional untap). You say: can use Strike dodge without invoking additional strike. but You say: cannot use untap without invoking (needing) intercept. and You say: cannot use intercept without invoking (needing) untap. The rules state "Only one card may give an additional strike to a minion for each round of combat", but they also state: "Players cannot increase ... intercept beyond that needed to counter directly another player's increase of stealth..." ----- Burning cards with no effects is fine, but should be a general case for all cards - without making unfounded exceptions for 2nd Tradition. Burning cards for partial effect is certainly more easy to swallow than burning cards for no effect. ----- What's the reason for this inconsistency? -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) writes: > card each round". Since you can play any card even if you expect not to get > some or all of the effect, you can therefore keep burning additional strike > > Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. May I now play Thrown Sewer Lid at close range to cycle to my hand? I am, after all, in combat. I just do no damage during Resolve Strike. Behind the Beauty, Jere Cracks Appear... Culleton

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > The rulebook says "Only one card may give an additional strike to a > minion for each round of combat", not "A minion can only play one > additional strike card each round". Since you can play any card even > if you expect not to get some or all of the effect, you can therefore > keep burning additional strike cards once you've used one in a round. > If you want to argue that one *shouldn't* be able to burn additional > strike cards, that's fine, but to actually rule that way would directly > contradict the rulebook, and the general rule about playing effects. What we really want is consistency. The above ruling implies that you are not compelled to use all the effects of a card. But the last ruling on 2nd Tradition: Domain seems to imply that in fact you _are_ compelled to use all the effects of a card. Which is it? In particular: Can I waive the +2 intercept conferred by Domain in order to untap and intercept a 0 stealth action? If the answer to the above is no, then could you PLEASE explain what differs between the two situations so that when similar questions arise they can be resolved during play without resorting to asking the DT for case-by-case decisions? That would be very helpful. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

If a card says it is only usable by a certain type of minion, then it really is only usable by that type of minion. For example, a card that says "Only usable by a Justicar" can only be played by a Justicar; non-Justicars cannot play it just to burn it. However, if it is legal for a minion to play a card in the first place, it can play that card even if it will result in no or partial effect. Additionally, there are a few rules that place blanket restrictions on using effects, and are exceptions to the "laissez faire" rule of thumb. For example, you simply cannot increase a minion's stealth unless it is trying to overcome another minion's intercept. For better or worse, the description of additional strikes in the Jyhad rulebook does not prohibit you from playing more than one addstrike card during a round. It just says that the minion won't get any effect from the later ones. Domain has several potential restrictions on its use. First, it's only usable by a prince or justicar (first line), so primogen, kine, and untitled kindred cannot even think about playing it. Second, it gives +2 intercept, so it may not be used unless the vampire is attempting to override another vampire's stealth. Third, it says that it's (only) usable by a tapped vampire, so an untapped prince or justicar may attempt to play it. If the card had been written "This vampire untaps and attempts to block", then this last restriction would not have applied. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Third, it says that it's (only) usable : by a tapped vampire, so an untapped prince or justicar may attempt to play it. ^^^ : If the card had been written "This vampire untaps and attempts to block", : then this last restriction would not have applied. This doesn't parse the way I think you meant it to... While many of the people on the Net are in total agreement (against the DT ruling) that this card should be usable by an untapped Vamp, your last sentence contradicts the previous one. I assume you meant to say, "may not," and just forgot. Or have we convinced you to throw off the shackled of your oppressive masters and join our side? :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>Domain has several potential restrictions on its use. >Third, it says that it's (only) usable >by a tapped vampire, so an untapped prince or justicar may attempt to play it. The "(only)" is the telling point. Compare to Movement of the Slow Body, which specifically says _only_ usable by a vampire in torpor. 2nd Tradition could just as easily have had this only in it, as well, from a gramatical point of view. Another question that actually came up, can you play an Illegal S&S on no weapons just to get it out of your hand? Is destroying a weapon merely an effect which can be ignored?

In article <3thl3i$m...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Domain has several potential restrictions on its use. First, it's only >usable by a prince or justicar (first line), so primogen, kine, and >untitled kindred cannot even think about playing it. Second, it gives +2 Nobody's disputing this one. >intercept, so it may not be used unless the vampire is attempting to >override another vampire's stealth. Third, it says that it's (only) usable >by a tapped vampire, so an untapped prince or justicar may attempt to play it. >If the card had been written "This vampire untaps and attempts to block", >then this last restriction would not have applied. Well, you have added the 'only'. Working straight off of the card as printed (which is what everyone else in the known world has to do), there's no 'only' there, nor is one implied to me (nor to many others). | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >: Third, it says that it's (only) usable >: by a tapped vampire, so an untapped prince or justicar may attempt... > ^^^ >: If the card had been written "This vampire untaps and attempts to block", >: then this last restriction would not have applied. >While many of the people on the Net are in total agreement (against the >DT ruling) that this card should be usable by an untapped Vamp, your last >sentence contradicts the previous one. I assume you meant to say, "may >not," and just forgot. I meant "may not", yes. Sorry. [ quoted text not captured ]