[lsj] The Summoning and Tatiana Steppin' Over

I've been thinking about Tatiana Stepanova and the summoning and people's ideas about Garou and Arms Dealers and such, and I though "no". why? well, as far as i can tell, allies found with the Summoning aren't played in the normal manner (like concealed weapons, where you can't DI the weapon because it's not 'played' as normal), and Tatiana only allows you to _play_ cards that require those clans, not, 'recruit without playing' or some other convoluted text. So, the question for lsj is: Does the superior The Summoning count as 'playing' the ally that you find? Tatiana can't play The Summoning as if she were a Brujah or Gangrel, because The Summoning doesn't require either of those clans... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Well, my dear friend salem.... Summoning (sup) lets you search your library for an ally and recruit it. playing a card, always means playing from your hand. BUT, Tatiana's special imo is meant not to only mean "play from your hand", but also recruit, equip, e.t.c So, i would say you can play summoning sup. to recruit a garou, but i would also wait for LSJ to rule on this... George

On 19 Jan 2005 01:06:31 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled: >Well, my dear friend salem.... > >Summoning (sup) lets you search your library for an ally and >recruit it. playing a card, always means playing from your hand. ok. >BUT, Tatiana's special imo is meant not to only mean "play from >your hand", but also recruit, equip, e.t.c actually her text specifically says 'play cards'. and, just a few sentences ago, you said 'play' always means 'play from your hand'. >So, i would say you can play summoning sup. to recruit a garou, >but i would also wait for LSJ to rule on this... He already did, about some other stuff: ***** LSJ Nov 19 2004, 12:52 pm Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad From: "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:52:14 -0500 Local: Fri, Nov 19 2004 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [LSJ] Marthe Dizier again: concealed/disguised weapons burned during combat "James Coupe" <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:k85qhFtE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <306kvhF2tkqg...@uni-berlin.de>, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> > writes: > >"the_capuchin" <f...@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"). -- LSJ (vtes...@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 ***** [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > Does the superior The Summoning count as 'playing' the ally that you > find? No. Neither would she be able to Concealed Weapon a weapon that required Gangrel. -- 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 know what you are talking about. But, what i am trying to say is, that cards contain TEXT which is used to express the intentions of the person who made the card. So, if LSJ comes and says that Tatiana's text was developed with the intention to allow the play (by playing from one's hand, or other ways and effects e.g. summoning, Vast Wealth, e.t.c.) of cards that require Gangrel or Brujah, then this will be perfectly acceptable by me. If he say that Tatiana's text is meant to allow the play of such cards, only in the ordinary fashion (which means play from your hand) then it is ok again. Finaly think this: Summoning lets you search your library for an ally and reqruit the ally (without actualy playing the card from your hand) if you MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. And what does "meet the requirements" means, in my point of view meet the requirements means CAN BE PLAYED, so imo to check if a vampire meets the requirements to recruit an ally, equip with a weapon or employ a retainer, you CHECK if the vampire CAN PLAY the card. Correct ? So, in this case, i would rule that Tatiana can use Summoning to recruit a Garou, because she meets the requirements of playing the garou. But that's just my personal opinion and we should wait for LSJ's verdict on this. Anyway, can or not, imo there is no big problem, as garou is not as rare as a warghoul and thus the use of summoning is not imperative. George

LSJ wrote: > salem wrote: > >> Does the superior The Summoning count as 'playing' the ally that you >> find? > > > No. > > Neither would she be able to Concealed Weapon a weapon that required > Gangrel. > The rulebook states "In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be played by a vampire (who meets the requirements)." If equipping with Concealed Weapon/Disguised Weapon is not *playing* the card does this not mean that *anybody* with Obfuscate and equip a Sword of Troile with a Disguised Weapon card? The prohibition is that you can't *play* the Sword of Troile unless the minion is Brujah from the rulebook text. I am not trying to be annoying but your ruling above does seem to contradict the rulebook. Frede

I am not trying to be annoying but your ruling above does seem to contradict the rulebook i agree. LSJ also think that summoning superior says (...this vampire recruits the ally if he meets the requirements). You meet the requirements if you are able to PLAY the card The rulebook states "In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be played by a vampire (who meets the requirements)." So, i guess tatiana meets the requirements and i see no reason why she can't use summoning to recruit a garou. O course, you have the final word, but you can take my and FC's views into account and reconsider on your ruling. George

"FC" <f...@kemi.dtu.dk> wrote in message news:cslj4e$8jt$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk... > The rulebook states > > "In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan > symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be played > by a vampire (who meets the requirements)." > > If equipping with Concealed Weapon/Disguised Weapon is not *playing* > the card does this not mean that *anybody* with Obfuscate and equip a > Sword of Troile with a Disguised Weapon card? The prohibition is > that you can't *play* the Sword of Troile unless the minion is Brujah > from the rulebook text. > > I am not trying to be annoying but your ruling above does seem to > contradict the rulebook. You're confusing two separate restrictions for a contradiction. The card can only be *played* by a minion who meets the requirements, yes. The card can also only be equipped through Concealed Weapon by a minion who meets the requirements. That the latter is a restriction independent of "playing" and is not an example of "playing" in no way contradicts the restriction on playing. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

<geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:1106139375.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > I am not trying to be annoying but your ruling above does seem to > contradict the rulebook > > i agree. > > LSJ also think that summoning superior says (...this vampire recruits > the ally if he meets the requirements). You meet the requirements > if you are able to PLAY the card Yes. But since you aren't PLAYing the card, you (Tatiana) don't get your clan-morph ability to bear, so you don't meet the requirements. > The rulebook states > > "In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan > symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be played > > by a vampire (who meets the requirements)." > > So, i guess tatiana meets the requirements and i see no reason why > she can't use summoning to recruit a garou. Because she isn't playing the Garou, nor is she playing Summoning as a Gangrel (since Summoning doesn't require Gangrel). > O course, you have the final word, but you can take my and FC's views > into account and reconsider on your ruling. Done. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

You're confusing two separate restrictions for a contradiction. The card can only be *played* by a minion who meets the requirements, yes. The card can also only be equipped through Concealed Weapon by a minion who meets the requirements. That the latter is a restriction independent of "playing" and is not an example of "playing" in no way contradicts the restriction on playing. okay, got it. Thanks. George

LSJ, this is a most bizarre ruling. The only way to get a card into 'play' is to play it. The rules are explicit that Master cards are played by Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (1.6.1). The concealed weapon/summoning do not play the ally/retainer/weapon, the minion does. Therefore, Tatiana by her own cardtext could use those to play such gangrel/brujah only cards via other cards. Please explain, as the rules and cardtext seem quite clear to me. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1106155996....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > LSJ, this is a most bizarre ruling. The only way to get a card into > 'play' is to play it. The rules are explicit that Master cards are > played by Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (1.6.1). Moreover, the only way to get a card in play is to play it from your hand or to move it to the ready region from your uncontrolled region during your influence phase. The rules also say to follow card text. [1.4] Summoning allows you to put a card in play in a manner other than "playing" it. This "into play" card doesn't even come from your hand, in fact (although some other alternatives to "playing" a card to get it into play do allow you to get it from your hand -- like Concealed Weapon). > The concealed weapon/summoning do not play the ally/retainer/weapon, > the minion does. Therefore, Tatiana by her own cardtext could use > those to play such gangrel/brujah only cards via other cards. > Please explain, as the rules and cardtext seem quite clear to me. "Play" means to play per the normal rules. For more, see: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2f030ee1d0c57b2d http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR10-20.htm [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:07:04 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:1106155996....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> LSJ, this is a most bizarre ruling. The only way to get a card into >> 'play' is to play it. The rules are explicit that Master cards are >> played by Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (1.6.1). > > Moreover, the only way to get a card in play is to play it from > your hand or to move it to the ready region from your uncontrolled > region during your influence phase. > > The rules also say to follow card text. [1.4] > > Summoning allows you to put a card in play in a manner other than > "playing" it. This "into play" card doesn't even come from your > hand, in fact (although some other alternatives to "playing" > a card to get it into play do allow you to get it from your > hand -- like Concealed Weapon). > >> The concealed weapon/summoning do not play the ally/retainer/weapon, >> the minion does. Therefore, Tatiana by her own cardtext could use >> those to play such gangrel/brujah only cards via other cards. >> Please explain, as the rules and cardtext seem quite clear to me. > > "Play" means to play per the normal rules. > > For more, see: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2f030ee1d0c57b2d > http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR10-20.htm Okay, I think LSJ is pretty clear on this; still, the end result is rather unintuitive. Having seen some unofficial fansites host vampires with a similar ability I had hoped not to see it printed on an official card (because of the many questions it brings up). This effect shows that the rules are a bit rusty when it comes to harmonizing the intuitive with the legal. The requirements part of the game is something I long planned on bringing up for discussion here (from a completely different angle though). -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > Summoning allows you to put a card in play in a manner other than > "playing" it. This "into play" card doesn't even come from your > hand, in fact (although some other alternatives to "playing" > a card to get it into play do allow you to get it from your > hand -- like Concealed Weapon).> 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 Sorry but I miss the point. In which way are you playing the card without PLAYing it? Maybe it's a misunderstanding caused by my poor english... but treat me as a kid 5 years old and try to explain this rule again. Please. Best regards & deranges, RavATwoFaces !Malkavian Archbishop of Val di Susa

<RavATw...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote in message news:1106232392.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Sorry but I miss the point. In which way are you playing the card > without PLAYing it? When a card refers to "playing" a card, it refers to playing it in the normal fashion (pick it from your hand, meet the requirements, without being "pulled" by another effect, etc.) -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Sorry but I miss the point. In which way are you playing the card > without PLAYing it? > Your minion plays Concealed Weapon. Concealed Weapon puts .44 Magnum into play. Your minion never played the .44 Magnum.

In message <1106135893.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr writes: >i know what you are talking about. I don't, because you are too selfish to use newsgroups properly. Google lets you quote. Learn to do it. -- 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.