[LSJ] Marthe Dizier again: concealed/disguised weapons burned during combat

> Marthe Dizier > !Toreador - 10 cap > pro AUS CEL OBF PRE > Sabbat. Black Hand. > When a combat involving Marthe ends, she can burn a blood to move a card > she played during that combat to your hand. +1 bleed. > > Does it have to be from the ash heap? Yes, sorry. It should say "from your ash heap". [snip] 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/ -> Relating to that question. Marthe's text says "cards she played during that combat", and now there's a ruling adding "from your ash heap to your hand". What happens if she plays Concealed Weapon with any equipment that's burned as a strike within combat, like Grenade? Can she retrieve the Grenade after the combat? And if she uses Disguised Weapon to equip during strike choosing? Any difference from the above situation due to playing timing window? best, Fabio Sooner NC for Brazil

"the_capuchin" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote in message news:ef0cefb2.04111...@posting.google.com... > > Marthe Dizier > > !Toreador - 10 cap > > pro AUS CEL OBF PRE > > Sabbat. Black Hand. > > When a combat involving Marthe ends, she can burn a blood to move a card > > she played during that combat to your hand. +1 bleed. > > > > Does it have to be from the ash heap? > > Yes, sorry. It should say "from your ash heap". > [snip] > 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/ > > -> Relating to that question. Marthe's text says "cards she played > during that combat", and now there's a ruling adding "from your ash > heap to your hand". It only adds "from your ash heap", but OK. > What happens if she plays Concealed Weapon with any equipment that's > burned as a strike within combat, like Grenade? Can she retrieve the > Grenade after the combat? No. She didn't play it. It wasn't played. > And if she uses Disguised Weapon to equip during strike choosing? Any > difference from the above situation due to playing timing window? No. The card has to be one she played (i.e., one that was DI'able when it was played). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

In message <306kvhF...@uni-berlin.de>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >"the_capuchin" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote in message >news:ef0cefb2.04111...@posting.google.com... >> What happens if she plays Concealed Weapon with any equipment that's >> burned as a strike within combat, like Grenade? Can she retrieve the >> Grenade after the combat? > >No. She didn't play it. It wasn't played. I can't see any significant difference between the wording of Concealed Weapon, and the online rulings state: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html "# Can only burn minion cards played from the hand in the normal fashion (not weapons played via Disguised Weapon or equipment played via Pier 13, for example). [RTR 20001020] " Which appears to say that weapons brought into play via Disguised Weapon and Pier 13 are "played" - just not in "the normal fashion". This doesn't seem to follow on directly from the text of RTR20001020. However, RTR20001020 seems to be quite clear on the fact that there can be a "normal" way of playing cards and therefore, by implication, that cards can be played in abnormal ways. Reading the text of the ruling in detail, however, I also find: "Other things that cannot be canceled by Sudden Reversal [...] Discipline cards played when an Embrace or Third Tradition or Creation Rites is played (or when a vampire diablerizes an older vampire), etc." Which seems to be reasonably clear that those Discipline cards are to be considered "played" if you read it literally. However, this could merely be mildly careless wording. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:k85qhFtE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <306kvhF...@uni-berlin.de>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > writes: > >"the_capuchin" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote in message > >news:ef0cefb2.04111...@posting.google.com... > >> What happens if she plays Concealed Weapon with any equipment that's > >> burned as a strike within combat, like Grenade? Can she retrieve the > >> Grenade after the combat? > > > >No. She didn't play it. It wasn't played. > > I can't see any significant difference between the wording of Concealed > Weapon, and the online rulings state: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html > "# Can only burn minion cards played from the hand in the normal fashion > (not weapons played via Disguised Weapon or equipment played via Pier > 13, for example). [RTR 20001020] " > > Which appears to say that weapons brought into play via Disguised Weapon > and Pier 13 are "played" - just not in "the normal fashion". Um, right. A card that refers to other cards being played is refering to the "in the normal fashion" playing of the card. > This doesn't seem to follow on directly from the text of RTR20001020. > However, RTR20001020 seems to be quite clear on the fact that there can > be a "normal" way of playing cards and therefore, by implication, that > cards can be played in abnormal ways. Yes, thanks to the wonders of English as a tool for communication. > Reading the text of the ruling in detail, however, I also find: > > "Other things that cannot be canceled by Sudden Reversal [...] > Discipline cards played when an Embrace or Third Tradition or Creation > Rites is played (or when a vampire diablerizes an older vampire), etc." > > Which seems to be reasonably clear that those Discipline cards are to be > considered "played" if you read it literally. However, this could > merely be mildly careless wording. It's actually intending to drive home the difference between "played" as cards mean it (that is, "played in the normal fashion") vs. the looser usage of play ("put into play somehow"). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3074n0F...@uni-berlin.de>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Um, right. > >A card that refers to other cards being played is refering to the >"in the normal fashion" playing of the card. Okay. It just seemed unhelpful to have a ruling saying "You can't do that because this card wasn't played" when another ruling said "This card was played." [ quoted text not captured ]