[LSJ] Ally question

I feel a little embarressed asking this, but one of my players last night would not accept what I was saying about this: Talaq the Immortal. Unique Mage with 3 life, 1R damage, 0 bleed. Talaq may play cards that require basic Quietus or basic Thaumaturgy 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 him life. Talaq gets an optional maneuver each combat. Can he play Foul Blood? Foul Blood, Qui, 1 Blood BAS:Only usable when a vampire controlled by another Methuselah successfully hunts. That vampire gains one less blood from the blood bank and takes 1 damage (damage not preventable). Tap this reacting vampire. SUP: As above, but this reacting vampire does not tap. The question comes because the player in question noticed the text on Foul Blood that says "tap this reacting vampire". He also noticed that Talaq was an ally, not a vampire. Answers? Regards DH

>I feel a little embarressed asking this, but one of my players last >night would not accept what I was saying about this: Esta bien. >Talaq the Immortal. Unique Mage with 3 life, 1R damage, 0 bleed. > >Talaq may play cards that require basic Quietus or basic Thaumaturgy >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 him life. Talaq gets an >optional maneuver each combat. > > >Can he play Foul Blood? > I'm pretty sure he can. An old reference: From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) Subject: Re: Some thoughts, Annotated Rulesbook [was: Ex Nihiled Mummies] View: Complete Thread (47 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Date: 2001-07-29 14:54:00 PST > 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. Also note that there has been a change to how allies play discipline cards (though I don't think it changes the answer to your question). "Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play of the card. The ally’s life represents his blood (to pay costs, for example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of 1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of a given capacity). The ally is treated as a vampire only when playing the card and, for cards such as actions and strikes that are not resolved immediately, for the resolution of the effect. In particular, the ally is not treated as a vampire for effects of the card once it's in play or for lingering effects generated by the card. If the ally gains life in excess of his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead." Foul Blood is not an action or combat card that resolves later on, nor does it have any special lingering effects. It is resolved immediately so Talaq is "treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play of the card." Thus explaining the interaction with "tap this reacting vampire." There! =) Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > >Talaq may play cards that require basic Quietus or basic Thaumaturgy > >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 him life. Talaq gets an > >optional maneuver each combat. > > > >Can he play Foul Blood? > > I'm pretty sure he can. Correct. It is a card that requires basic Quietus. QED. > An old reference: > > From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) > [...] > > Also note that there has been a change to how allies play discipline cards > (though I don't think it changes the answer to your question). Correct. > "Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these > cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play > of the card. The ally’s life represents his blood (to pay costs, for > example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss of > life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of 1 by > default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of a given > capacity). The ally is treated as a vampire only when playing the card and, for > cards such as actions and strikes that are not resolved immediately, for the > resolution of the effect. In particular, the ally is not treated as a vampire > for effects of the card once it's in play or for lingering effects generated by > the card. If the ally gains life in excess of his capacity, it doesn't drain > off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated damage on the ally, he burns life as > normal. However, if the effect would send the ally to torpor, then he is burned > instead." > > Foul Blood is not an action or combat card that resolves later on, nor does it > have any special lingering effects. It is resolved immediately so Talaq is > "treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play of the card." Thus > explaining the interaction with "tap this reacting vampire." There! =) 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/

> Correct. It is a card that requires basic Quietus. QED. Sorry LSJ I have to correct you here. The use of QED in this situation is not appropriate. QED is the final word on a formal proof but a formal proof has to start with an assumption and the conditions followed by a mathematical/logical proof. Just joking a little. :-) I was hoping that I could say that to somebody since I got my first math test at university back (years ago) with 0 points and more or less this sentence written on it in red ink :-). -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de johanne...@vekn.de

QED=quod errat demonstrandum latin for "what has been proofed"

Johannes Walch wrote: > > > Correct. It is a card that requires basic Quietus. QED. > > Sorry LSJ I have to correct you here. The use of QED in this situation is > not appropriate. QED is the final word on a formal proof but a formal proof > has to start with an assumption and the conditions followed by a > mathematical/logical proof. > > Just joking a little. :-) I was hoping that I could say that to somebody > since I got my first math test at university back (years ago) with 0 points > and more or less this sentence written on it in red ink :-). QED is appropriate. The question (that which is to be demonstrated) is "can it be played by the ally?". The ally can play cards that requires basic Quietus, by explicit card text. Therefore noting that the card requires basic Quiteus yields immediately the thing which was to be demonstrated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<aul4s0$av4$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > QED=quod errat demonstrandum > latin for "what has been proofed" QED= Quod erat demonstrandum latin for "which was to be proved" A neglectible difference for any but a mathematician :-) Graaf Tel