NRA question

Based on the old VEKN rules, I had assumed (probably incorrectly) that the same action card could be played by the same minion twice if once was at inferior and once at superior, assuming they were different actions, which I had not considered to be the same "action type". Since there really isn't anything in there regarding action "types" other than those listed, this seemed OK. The new NRA rule specifically states "a minion cannot use the same action card twice in a turn". This seems pretty cut and dry, so I'm just checking here... Gael Pilet CANNOT 1) Choir at inferior, 2) Freak drive, 3) Choir at superior. Correct?

Geemarcus wrote: > > Based on the old VEKN rules, I had assumed (probably incorrectly) that > the same action card could be played by the same minion twice if once > was at inferior and once at superior, assuming they were different > actions, which I had not considered to be the same "action type". You had assumed incorrectly, yes. > Since there really isn't anything in there regarding action "types" > other than those listed, this seemed OK. > > The new NRA rule specifically states "a minion cannot use the same > action card twice in a turn". This seems pretty cut and dry, so I'm > just checking here... Gael Pilet CANNOT 1) Choir at inferior, 2) > Freak drive, 3) Choir at superior. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

I had posted this as a new thread, but I guess because the title I used already existed, it put my post at the end of this one. Reading it, I see that using the same card at different skill levels has always been considered the same action type, so I was wrong all along...

[ quoted text not captured ] Note: you successfully started a new thread. The USENET at large saw your post as the first in its thread. Google, however, doesn't understand threads (although, thankfully, it does preserve them when composing). It ignores all the thread information in the message headers and instead just lumps things together based on subject (and then chronologically withing subject). But you shouldn't equate Google with the USENET in general. The USENET exists independently of Google. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok, I can see from this thread that my "new" thread got put into, actions using the same card have always been considered the same type of action, regardless of inferior/superior. Sorry...

LSJ wrote: > >>Since there really isn't anything in there regarding action "types" >>other than those listed, this seemed OK. >> >>The new NRA rule specifically states "a minion cannot use the same >>action card twice in a turn". This seems pretty cut and dry, so I'm >>just checking here... Gael Pilet CANNOT 1) Choir at inferior, 2) >>Freak drive, 3) Choir at superior. >> > > Correct. > > Followup-question: Tariq has a master contract on another vamp. With the new NRA, can he rush that vampire multiple times during one round? If ok, would it be illegal to do so by means of a previously succesfully played Clandestine Contract? Sten During

Sten During wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > >>Since there really isn't anything in there regarding action "types" > >>other than those listed, this seemed OK. > >> > >>The new NRA rule specifically states "a minion cannot use the same > >>action card twice in a turn". This seems pretty cut and dry, so I'm > >>just checking here... Gael Pilet CANNOT 1) Choir at inferior, 2) > >>Freak drive, 3) Choir at superior. > >> > > > > Correct. > > > > > > Followup-question: > > Tariq has a master contract on another vamp. With the new NRA, > can he rush that vampire multiple times during one round? He can use his special, the Contract, a Bum's Rush, an Ambush, etc. sure. But he can't use his special twice, the Contract twice, etc. > If ok, would it be illegal to do so by means of a previously > succesfully played Clandestine Contract? No. But he can't use the CC twice in one turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3D3D0FA9...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >Tariq has a master contract on another vamp. With the new NRA, >can he rush that vampire multiple times during one round? No. The new NRA prohibits: "* take the action allowed by a card in play twice in a turn" One Master: Contract is still the same card in play. >If ok, would it be illegal to do so by means of a previously >succesfully played Clandestine Contract? You couldn't use the Clandestine Contract repeatedly either. However, what you could do would be, say: Play Contract Rush with the Contract Untap (say, Rutor's Hand) Clandestine Contract This might be useful if you have a vampire on rescue duty after the first rush, and are playing a Fame deck. What you could also do would be to use multiple different Contract master cards. No trouble there, since each one will provide a distinct action, by the new NRA. What I'm not sure if you could do - even currently - is: Play Clandestine Contract. Rush. Untap. Now use the action from Clandestine Contract *in play* to rush again. I'm fairly sure the answer is "yes". -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D You don't need to hear it but I'm dried up EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 and sick to death of love. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

James Coupe wrote: > What I'm not sure if you could do - even currently - is: > > Play Clandestine Contract. > Rush. > Untap. > Now use the action from Clandestine Contract *in play* to rush > again. > > I'm fairly sure the answer is "yes". Yes. You may not play the same action card more than once and you may not take the same action allowed by a card in play more than once. But that doesn't restrict you from playing the CC action card and then later untapping and then using the action allowed by the CC in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Followup-question: > > Tariq has a master contract on another vamp. With the new NRA, > can he rush that vampire multiple times during one round? > > If ok, would it be illegal to do so by means of a previously > succesfully played Clandestine Contract? poor tariq is only a 3-cap and cannot play clandestine contract at all... =) /Henrik Isaksson

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D3C470B...@white-wolf.com>... > Google, however, doesn't understand threads (although, thankfully, > it does preserve them when composing). It ignores all the thread > information in the message headers and instead just lumps things > together based on subject (and then chronologically withing > subject). I think you are incorrect. I use Google, and all messages are displayed by thread, with replies organized under the post they are replying to, in the order in which they were posted. It is 100% threaded, unless the two of us are refering to very different things when we use the word "thread." You are correct, however, that Google does weird things when a new message has the same subject line as an old thread. But within a subject line, everything is threaded. JSpektr

James Coupe wrote: > In message <3D3D0FA9...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> > writes: > >>Tariq has a master contract on another vamp. With the new NRA, >>can he rush that vampire multiple times during one round? >> > > No. The new NRA prohibits: > > "* take the action allowed by a card in play twice in a turn" > > One Master: Contract is still the same card in play. > Ok, clear on that. Then I guess that a vampire voted to become Archon could rush multiple times (provided untapcapabilities of course) as the political actioncard no longer is in play. Correct or not? Sten During

jspektr wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D3C470B...@white-wolf.com>... > > > Google, however, doesn't understand threads (although, thankfully, > > it does preserve them when composing). It ignores all the thread > > information in the message headers and instead just lumps things > > together based on subject (and then chronologically withing > > subject). > > I think you are incorrect. I use Google, and all messages are > displayed by thread, with replies organized under the post they are > replying to, in the order in which they were posted. It is 100% > threaded, unless the two of us are refering to very different things > when we use the word "thread." This message is a follow-up to yours. It is part of the same thread. (See the "References:" header of this message to verify). It has a different subject than your message did. A threaded newsreader will display it under your message. Google, if I am correct, will not, because it is not threaded. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:<3D3E8804...@netg.se>... > Ok, clear on that. Then I guess that a vampire voted to become Archon > could rush multiple times (provided untapcapabilities of course) as the > political actioncard no longer is in play. Correct or not? Not correct. The PA adds that ability to the vampire card that remains in play. So, just like Beast, you can't repeat the same action with the same card in play (the vampire card in this case). .- Luis Duarte

In message <3D3E8804...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >Then I guess that a vampire voted to become Archon >could rush multiple times (provided untapcapabilities of course) as the >political actioncard no longer is in play. Correct or not? As it currently stands, yes. (This has been covered recently.) It's possible that Archon may be re-written in The Camarilla Edition. If it hasn't, it's possible that LSJ, The Rules Team and/or The Design Team may decide (or not) to act on it. However, cards like Archon being put in play is always a good thing for reminder purposes, so I'd be tempted to make it like that *anyway*, NRA or no NRA. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:<3D3E8804...@netg.se>... > Ok, clear on that. Then I guess that a vampire voted to become Archon > could rush multiple times (provided untapcapabilities of course) as the > political actioncard no longer is in play. Correct or not? Not correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:<3D3E8804...@netg.se>... > Ok, clear on that. Then I guess that a vampire voted to become Archon > could rush multiple times (provided untapcapabilities of course) as the > political actioncard no longer is in play. Correct or not? Not correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <62db1f0c.02072...@posting.google.com>, Luis Duarte <luis....@clix.pt> writes: >Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:<3D3E8804...@netg.se>... >> Ok, clear on that. Then I guess that a vampire voted to become Archon >> could rush multiple times (provided untapcapabilities of course) as the >> political actioncard no longer is in play. Correct or not? > >Not correct. > >The PA adds that ability to the vampire card that remains in play. Incorrect. The action is not provided by a card in play. The vampire can just do something. [LSJ 20020713] Message-ID: <3D30D0AC...@white-wolf.com> > Does this mean that an archon could (with the new NRA rule) freakdrive > and rush an unlimited number of times? Yes. The New NRA rule limits bleeds, PAs, action cards, and card-in-play actions. See the preview for confirmation. [LSJ 20020712] Message-ID: <3D2EE9C1...@white-wolf.com> "Archon is not a card in play, so the Archon action is not restricted like a card in play action." [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > jspektr wrote: > > I think you are incorrect. I use Google, and all messages are > > displayed by thread, with replies organized under the post they are > > replying to, in the order in which they were posted. It is 100% > > threaded, unless the two of us are refering to very different things > > when we use the word "thread." > > This message is a follow-up to yours. > > It is part of the same thread. (See the "References:" header of this > message to verify). > > It has a different subject than your message did. > > A threaded newsreader will display it under your message. > > Google, if I am correct, will not, because it is not threaded. And now (in just 5 hours), Google confirms it by putting the above message in a new thread by itself, despite the headers. (I've switched the subject back so that Google will display this response back in the thread in which it belongs, since Google dropped the message quoted above from the thread). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:48:32 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >jspektr wrote: >> >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D3C470B...@white-wolf.com>... >> >> > Google, however, doesn't understand threads (although, thankfully, >> > it does preserve them when composing). It ignores all the thread >> > information in the message headers and instead just lumps things >> > together based on subject (and then chronologically withing >> > subject). >> >> I think you are incorrect. I use Google, and all messages are >> displayed by thread, with replies organized under the post they are >> replying to, in the order in which they were posted. It is 100% >> threaded, unless the two of us are refering to very different things >> when we use the word "thread." > >This message is a follow-up to yours. > >It is part of the same thread. (See the "References:" header of this >message to verify). > >It has a different subject than your message did. > >A threaded newsreader will display it under your message. > >Google, if I am correct, will not, because it is not threaded. Im using a threaded newsreader, and it started a new thread for me....

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > >The PA adds that ability to the vampire card that remains in play. > > Incorrect. The action is not provided by a card in play. The vampire > can just do something. > > > [LSJ 20020713] Message-ID: <3D30D0AC...@white-wolf.com> > > Does this mean that an archon could (with the new NRA rule) freakdrive > > and rush an unlimited number of times? > > Yes. The New NRA rule limits bleeds, PAs, action cards, and card-in-play > actions. See the preview for confirmation. > > > [LSJ 20020712] Message-ID: <3D2EE9C1...@white-wolf.com> > "Archon is not a card in play, so the Archon action is not restricted > like a card in play action." Ok. I was wrong. That's a funny thing because i always played convinced that the Archon added that effect to the vampire card, although the Archon card was not present. Another thing, since the Archon is not in any card in play, the (D) action to remove the archon abilities, targets who? A Praxis Seizure adds a Prince title to a vampire card. If i play a (D) action to remove that title, am i targeting the vampire (card)? This is really confusing after so many years playing... Thanks, .- Luis Duarte

>Ok. I was wrong. That's a funny thing because i always played >convinced >that the Archon added that effect to the vampire card, although the >Archon >card was not present. In this case, you'd have interesting interactions when an Archon has a Seeds of Corruption placed on him. >Another thing, since the Archon is not in any card in play, the (D) >action to remove the archon abilities, targets who? > The action to remove the Archon is not a (D) action and is not directed at anyone. This is because the action to remove the Archon abilities is a political action and political actions are always considered undirected. (Regardless who they may "target"). >A Praxis Seizure adds a Prince title to a vampire card. If i play a >(D) >action to remove that title, am i targeting the vampire (card)? Assuming a (D) action existed that removed a Prince title, then that (D) action would target the Prince and the controlling Methusaleh. Once again, note that political actions that may remove the title (Command of the Harpies, Blood Siege) do *not* target the Prince and are undirected actions (since they are political actions). A better analogy is with the title of Archbishop. Excommunication (which removes the title) is undirected since it is a political action. But Gustav Mallenhous' ability is directed at the Archbishop and the Methusaleh who controls the Archbishop. Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20020724223621...@mb-mw.aol.com>... > In this case, you'd have interesting interactions when an Archon has a Seeds >of Corruption placed on him. :o > The action to remove the Archon is not a (D) action and is not directed at > anyone. This is because the action to remove the Archon abilities is a > political action and political actions are always considered undirected. > (Regardless who they may "target"). Yes of course. I got confused with the (D) action to enter combat. Damn it! This was not a good day... :( Thanks. .- Luis Duarte

Jay Bond wrote: > Im using a threaded newsreader, and it started a new thread for me.... Then your "threaded" newsreader is not 100% threaded (or your settings are set so that it is not). The message was in the same thread (see the headers). Therefore a 100% threaded newsreader should show it in the thread. [ quoted text not captured ]