I was shocked and apalled by the ruling made by LSJ in the earlier
post on Gaurd Duty
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3C889EB3.1E6F254F%40white-wolf.com&prev=/groups%3Foi%3Ddjq%26as_ugroup%3Drec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
This basically makes Guard Duty useless (as if there aren't enough
useless cards already!!)
However, I also think the reasoning behind the ruling is faulty.
6.2.2.2 says:
"Stealth can be added to an action only when needed (that is, only if
the action is currently being blocked and the blocking minion has
enough intercept to block the acting minion). Likewise, intercept can
be added during an action only when needed (that is, only by a
blocking minion when the acting minion's stealth exceeds his
intercept)."
So you can only ADD intercept is you need it. However, does Guard Duty
really add intercept? If GD is used you automatically HAVE the
intercept no choise there. IMO this is similar in effect to say
inherent intercept on vampires such as Anton or a Salubri with SBS.
These are not prevented from blocking actions eventhough they don't
need the intercept to do so, are they?
The vampire with GD HAS the +1 intercept only when using the ability
granted by the GD. He doen't GAIN it per se.
The closest equivalent to GD is the Second Tradition which also allows
a vampire to untap and block at increased intercept. Second Tradition
hsa been erratad so you can use it eventhough the intercept is not yet
needed. Why can't you do the same for GD?
Please change your earlies ruling. If not for the arguments presented
here, then to prevent yet another card from sinking into obscurity or
ending up used as coasters or bookmarks...
yours,
MW
martijn wrote:
> I was shocked and apalled by the ruling made by LSJ in the earlier
> post on Gaurd Duty> However, I also think the reasoning behind the ruling is faulty.
>
> 6.2.2.2 says:
> "intercept can be added during an action only when needed"
>> So you can only ADD intercept is you need it. However, does Guard Duty
... during an action ...
> really add intercept? If GD is used you automatically HAVE the
Yes. (card text).
> intercept no choise there. IMO this is similar in effect to say
You didn't have it and now you have it. Ergo, it was added.
> inherent intercept on vampires such as Anton or a Salubri with SBS.
> These are not prevented from blocking actions eventhough they don't
> need the intercept to do so, are they?
They had it and they still have it. It was not added during the action.
> The vampire with GD HAS the +1 intercept only when using the ability
> granted by the GD. He doen't GAIN it per se.
He does. per se, even.
> The closest equivalent to GD is the Second Tradition which also allows
> a vampire to untap and block at increased intercept. Second Tradition
> hsa been erratad so you can use it eventhough the intercept is not yet
> needed. Why can't you do the same for GD?
"Can't"? No reason.
Errata "can" be issued to do anything. That's its nature.
Errata hasn't been issued for GD, as yet at any rate, so GD functions
per card text and the rules.
> Please change your earlies ruling.
Sorry. There's nothing to change, barring errata from the RT.
The card and rules are not ambiguous on this point.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:43:50 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
>>> The closest equivalent to GD is the Second Tradition which also allows
>> a vampire to untap and block at increased intercept. Second Tradition
>> hsa been erratad so you can use it eventhough the intercept is not yet
>> needed. Why can't you do the same for GD?>
>"Can't"? No reason.
>Errata "can" be issued to do anything. That's its nature.
>
>Errata hasn't been issued for GD, as yet at any rate, so GD functions
>per card text and the rules.
Its Second tradition and GD same Game mechanic?
If not, how so?
J Bond wrote:
> Its Second tradition and GD same Game mechanic?
Would be, except for the errata (and the inherent differences
between reaction cards and cards in play, of course).
> If not, how so?
Errata to Second Tradition allows it to be played "even if the intercept
is not yet needed" by a tapped prince.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > If not, how so?
> Errata to Second Tradition allows it to be played "even if the intercept
> is not yet needed" by a tapped prince.
Guard Duty only works against 1 kind of action whereas Read the Winds
and 2ndTrad work against all actions.
How is this card any more powerful than RtW and 2ndTrad where the
possiblity of errata shouldn't be considered?
Sorrow
---
"I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection."
- Narrator
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > > If not, how so?
> > Errata to Second Tradition allows it to be played "even if the intercept
> > is not yet needed" by a tapped prince.
>
> Guard Duty only works against 1 kind of action whereas Read the Winds
> and 2ndTrad work against all actions.
> How is this card any more powerful than RtW and 2ndTrad where the
> possiblity of errata shouldn't be considered?
???
Where do you get "shouldn't be considered"?
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> J Bond wrote:
>>>Its Second tradition and GD same Game mechanic?
>>>
> Would be, except for the errata (and the inherent differences
> between reaction cards and cards in play, of course).
>
Within the scope of the current ruling, let's assume Matthias
succesfully did play Guard Duty. Am I correct in my assumption
that in order to be allowed to use the ability given by
Guard Duty the (D) -action against the location must now be
at 2 stealth higher than Matthias current intercept?
If so, Matthias with a Sports Bike would require the action
to be at 3 stealth higher than his intercept?
Sten During
Sten During wrote:
> Within the scope of the current ruling, let's assume Matthias
> succesfully did play Guard Duty. Am I correct in my assumption
> that in order to be allowed to use the ability given by
> Guard Duty the (D) -action against the location must now be
> at 2 stealth higher than Matthias current intercept?
Matthias' ability is part of his "current intercept", so the
action need be only 1 higher stealth than his current intercept,
as for anyone else.
> If so, Matthias with a Sports Bike would require the action
> to be at 3 stealth higher than his intercept?
The sport bike is part of his "current intercept", so the action
still need be only 1 higher.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > Guard Duty only works against 1 kind of action whereas Read the Winds
> > and 2ndTrad work against all actions.
> > How is this card any more powerful than RtW and 2ndTrad where the
> > possiblity of errata shouldn't be considered?
> ???
> Where do you get "shouldn't be considered"?
The tone of your responses seem to indicate that the possiblity of errata
(to bring it in line with 2ndTrad/RtW) won't even be considered. If I
misinterpreted that tone, then my apologies. That's just what it seemd like
to me.
Sorrow
---
I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me.
They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, "Why of course!
There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!"
So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > > Guard Duty only works against 1 kind of action whereas Read the Winds
> > > and 2ndTrad work against all actions.
> > > How is this card any more powerful than RtW and 2ndTrad where the
> > > possiblity of errata shouldn't be considered?
> > ???
> > Where do you get "shouldn't be considered"?
>
> The tone of your responses seem to indicate that the possiblity of errata
> (to bring it in line with 2ndTrad/RtW) won't even be considered. If I
> misinterpreted that tone, then my apologies. That's just what it seemd like
> to me.
It should have indicated that the RT hasn't issued any errata for it
and therefore it plays as printed.
Second message in this thread:
LSJ wrote:
> Errata hasn't been issued for GD, as yet at any rate, so GD functions
> per card text and the rules.
Note the "as yet at any rate".
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Second message in this thread:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Errata hasn't been issued for GD, as yet at any rate, so GD functions
> > per card text and the rules.
> Note the "as yet at any rate".
My newsserver didn't get that post.
My apologies, then.
Sorrow
---
"...but you know, evil is an exact science..."
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C88F236...@white-wolf.com...
> Sten During wrote:
> > Within the scope of the current ruling, let's assume Matthias
> > succesfully did play Guard Duty. Am I correct in my assumption
> > that in order to be allowed to use the ability given by
> > Guard Duty the (D) -action against the location must now be
> > at 2 stealth higher than Matthias current intercept?
>
> Matthias' ability is part of his "current intercept", so the
> action need be only 1 higher stealth than his current intercept,
> as for anyone else.
>
> > If so, Matthias with a Sports Bike would require the action
> > to be at 3 stealth higher than his intercept?
>
> The sport bike is part of his "current intercept", so the action
> still need be only 1 higher.
Isn't his Intercept a bit of a moot point in regards to Guard Duty as his +1
intercept isn't useful until he attempts to block? In other words, do you
need to consider a minion with a sport bike or other permanent intercept as
counting toward the intercept needed to block even though they cannot
attempt to block the (D) action until untapped? I know this isn't the
clearest way of explaining, so here's more a more detailed question.
Let's assume Matthias has guard duty on the Rack. A minion is somehow
attempting to steal the Rack for his controller at +1 stealth. Matthias is
tapped and currently cannot block the action.
The question I have is whether or not he can burn the blood for Guard Duty.
Technically, he cannot block any other way at this point, so he needs:
1. To be untapped or able to play a card which allows him to untap or play
reaction cards/block as if untapped and
2. Intercept to block the action which is currently at +1 stealth.
Granted, his special gives him intercept, but that won't come into play
until he is untapped and able to block. So, as currently defined, the
conditions under which Guard Duty works have been met (sort of as his
permanent intercept can't count against the stealth until he untaps and
attempts to block), but once he is untapped and able to block, they no
longer are. How does this resolve? I'm guessing that the action would need
to be at a total of 2 stealth before he can untap and block by current card
text, but just want to be sure.
On 8 Mar 2002 07:37:35 -0800, martijn wrote:
>6.2.2.2 says:
>
>"Stealth can be added to an action only when needed (that is, only if
>the action is currently being blocked and the blocking minion has
>enough intercept to block the acting minion). Likewise, intercept can
>be added during an action only when needed (that is, only by a
>blocking minion when the acting minion's stealth exceeds his
>intercept)."
So the addition of stealth only becomes an issue once a minion is
attempting to block. Until the Guard Duty has been triggered, the
minion isn't in this state and so the restriction above doesn't yet
apply.
The converse situation is the intrinsic stealth provided by an action
such as hunting. This is adding more stealth than may be needed but
that's ok as the minion hasn't started acting yet. You're only
considered to be adding stealth/intercept once you have commenced
acting or blocking.
No errata is needed.
Andrew
Jon Stahler wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Sten During wrote:
> > > Within the scope of the current ruling, let's assume Matthias
> > > succesfully did play Guard Duty. Am I correct in my assumption
> > > that in order to be allowed to use the ability given by
> > > Guard Duty the (D) -action against the location must now be
> > > at 2 stealth higher than Matthias current intercept?
> >
> > Matthias' ability is part of his "current intercept", so the
> > action need be only 1 higher stealth than his current intercept,
> > as for anyone else.
> >
> > > If so, Matthias with a Sports Bike would require the action
> > > to be at 3 stealth higher than his intercept?
> >
> > The sport bike is part of his "current intercept", so the action
> > still need be only 1 higher.
>
> Isn't his Intercept a bit of a moot point in regards to Guard Duty as his +1
> intercept isn't useful until he attempts to block?
Sure, if you like.
> In other words, do you
> need to consider a minion with a sport bike or other permanent intercept as
> counting toward the intercept needed to block even though they cannot
> attempt to block the (D) action until untapped?
Intercept is only interesting when considering a block.
> I know this isn't the
> clearest way of explaining, so here's more a more detailed question.
>
> Let's assume Matthias has guard duty on the Rack. A minion is somehow
> attempting to steal the Rack for his controller at +1 stealth. Matthias is
> tapped and currently cannot block the action.
>
> The question I have is whether or not he can burn the blood for Guard Duty.
> Technically, he cannot block any other way at this point, so he needs:
>
> 1. To be untapped or able to play a card which allows him to untap or play
> reaction cards/block as if untapped and
> 2. Intercept to block the action which is currently at +1 stealth.
>
> Granted, his special gives him intercept, but that won't come into play
> until he is untapped and able to block. So, as currently defined, the
No. It's "in play".
> conditions under which Guard Duty works have been met (sort of as his
> permanent intercept can't count against the stealth until he untaps and
> attempts to block), but once he is untapped and able to block, they no
> longer are. How does this resolve? I'm guessing that the action would need
> to be at a total of 2 stealth before he can untap and block by current card
> text, but just want to be sure.[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C891BAF...@white-wolf.com...
>
> Intercept is only interesting when considering a block.
>
This thread is starting to look a lot like the Great 2nd Tradition Debate of old. It
goes something like this:
1) A minion cannot add intercept unless it is needed.
2) A minion cannot need intercept unless it is attempting to block.
3 a) A minion uses the Guard Duty at a time when it is impossible to need intercept.
Either it cannot be used ever, at all, or it must be usable even if intercept is not
needed.
3 b) A minion who uses Guard Duty will, after using it, be attempting to block. If
it won't be needing the intercept by the time it needs to block, then it can't use
the Guard Duty.
To me, 3 b) seems like a mistake, as you are worrying about future events when you
play the effect. It's almost like a time travel paradox. If you can use the Guard
Duty to untap, then you have to flash forward and check if you will need its
intercept. If you won't be needing the intercept, you can't untap or block. But if
you can't block, you don't have to check intercept (you can only need intercept if
you are attempting to block, which you are not), so you should be able to use it, but
then you won't need the intercept, so you can't use it... and so forth.
LSJ has rejected such arguments in the past, and likely will continue to do so. The
2nd Tradition debate was only ended because errata was issued.
In message <63A199DAA767995A.15A5AAB9...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>The converse situation is the intrinsic stealth provided by an action
>such as hunting. This is adding more stealth than may be needed but
>that's ok as the minion hasn't started acting yet. You're only
>considered to be adding stealth/intercept once you have commenced
>acting or blocking.
>
>No errata is needed.
Incorrect.
See previous mirror rulings on Second Tradition, V:TES printed text.
--
James Coupe Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
PGP 0x5D623D5D And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 All of my folks hate all of your folks,
13D7E668C3695D623D5D It's American as apple pie.
LSJ wrote:
> Sten During wrote:
>>>Within the scope of the current ruling, let's assume Matthias
>>succesfully did play Guard Duty. Am I correct in my assumption
>>that in order to be allowed to use the ability given by
>>Guard Duty the (D) -action against the location must now be
>>at 2 stealth higher than Matthias current intercept?
>>>
> Matthias' ability is part of his "current intercept", so the
> action need be only 1 higher stealth than his current intercept,
> as for anyone else.
>
>>>If so, Matthias with a Sports Bike would require the action
>>to be at 3 stealth higher than his intercept?
>>>
> The sport bike is part of his "current intercept", so the action
> still need be only 1 higher.
>
>
*groan* I seem to be needing a course in english :)
Ok, let's assume noone plays an effect that lowers Matthias intercept.
In case one above the action against a location needs to be at 2
stealth, and in case two needs to be at 3 stealth in order for
Matthias to be allowed to use the effect granted by Guard Duty.
Is this a correct assumption?
Sten During