Card text indicates "yes". But I just want to confirm this:
Iniko, The Black Lion (PRE OBT) plays The Summoning, to recruit
a Nocturn, and untaps. He meets the requirements to play the
card at superior.
"...this vampire may perform this action again this turn, with the
cost increased by 1 blood."
Since in this case, "this action" was The Summoning, can Iniko then
play The Summoning again, to recruit a different ally?
Thanks.
> > "...this vampire may perform this action again this turn, with the
> > cost increased by 1 blood."
>
> > Since in this case, "this action" was The Summoning, can Iniko then
> > play The Summoning again, to recruit a different ally?
I think the previous posters are wrong, but I'm not quite sure. Since
Nocturne is an action card, I think "this action" refers to Nocturne,
not to some other action that can put one in play. It'll be
interesting to see what Scott says about this.
Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in
news:L76dnXCeILxWfY7b...@comcast.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Bumped. I'm curious too, and Josh forgot the proper summoning runes in his
original subject header. ;-)
DZ
AW
[ quoted text not captured ]
They're right. "This action" is the current action. In this case, Summoning. See
also using Charming Lobby to call Eldest Command Undead (the acting vampire
still cannot gain blood this action).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ is also summoned on question threads in which incorrect answers are given,
no worries there. My absence on this thread (together with evidence that I have
read it -- like my replies in concurrent threads) is an indication that the
answers given are all correct.
[LSJ] is only needed if you won't trust a unanimous consensus of repliers (or
when you won't trust a well-documented correction from Jeff or James) -- either
of those cases: only correct answers or any incorrect responses handled with
links to official answers would mean that I would not reply (unless [LSJ] was
invoked).
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:DyaRh.1674$Q23....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> CthuluKitty wrote:>>>> "...this vampire may perform this action again this turn, with the
>>>> cost increased by 1 blood."
>>>> Since in this case, "this action" was The Summoning, can Iniko then
>>>> play The Summoning again, to recruit a different ally?
Ok, but could iniko play another nocturn via the second (or third..or
fourth) summoning ?
thanks
Emiliano
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yes, if he or she finds another way to untap between each.
And the cost of the second Summoning is 1 blood (plus the cost of the Nocturn).
The cost of the third Summoning is 2 blood. And the cost of the fourth Summoning
is 3 blood.
On Apr 5, 2:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> atomweaver wrote:
> > Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in> >news:L76dnXCeILxWfY7b...@comcast.com:
>
> >> Card text indicates "yes". But I just want to confirm this:
>
> >> Iniko, The Black Lion (PRE OBT) plays The Summoning, to recruit
> >> a Nocturn, and untaps. He meets the requirements to play the
> >> card at superior.
>
> >> "...this vampire may perform this action again this turn, with the
> >> cost increased by 1 blood."
>
> >> Since in this case, "this action" was The Summoning, can Iniko then
> >> play The Summoning again, to recruit a different ally?
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> > Bumped. I'm curious too, and Josh forgot the proper summoning runes in his
> > original subject header. ;-)
>
> LSJ is also summoned on question threads in which incorrect answers are given,
> no worries there. My absence on this thread (together with evidence that I have
> read it -- like my replies in concurrent threads) is an indication that the
> answers given are all correct.
>
Hrugh? All correct? Floppysedolfin said it worked, Dasein disagreed,
and adam.hulse left an ambiguous comment that liked where Joz was
going with the combo... Where is the consensus here?
> [LSJ] is only needed if you won't trust a unanimous consensus of repliers
Understood, and that is, in fact, the reason I invoked the ritual of
the Gr8 R00lz B3ast... Thanks!
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Atom Weaver wrote:
> Hrugh? All correct? Floppysedolfin said it worked, Dasein disagreed,
> and adam.hulse left an ambiguous comment that liked where Joz was
> going with the combo... Where is the consensus here?
Josh asked (citing "card text indicates yes", but asked nonetheless, as is
Josh's want).
Floppy confirmed.
Dasein and adam marveled at the answer, but did not disagree.
Finally CK disagreed, which was immediately followed by my response.
> Josh asked (citing "card text indicates yes", but asked nonetheless, as is
> Josh's want).
> Floppy confirmed.
> Dasein and adam marveled at the answer, but did not disagree.
>
> Finally CK disagreed, which was immediately followed by my response.
Apparently my VTES-fu is not always perfectly honed. It still seems
reasonable in this case that "this action" could refer to the action
card it's printed on.
The only worry I have about the ruling as it stands is that it may tie
the hands of developers regarding any future action cards that, like
The Summoning, assist in recuiting allies. For example:
The Blummoning
+1 stealth action. Requires a vampire.
This vampire recruits and ally from your hand (he or she must meet the
usual requirements, and pays cost as normal). Untap this vampire.
Or whatever. Now, I can hardly say for sure that the above named
imaginary card would be in any way abusive, combined with Nocturn or
not. It's just an example of an action that would interact with
Nocturn given the current ruling. It seems possible that some card
could be created by the DT that would be totally balanced, but broken
when combined with Nocturn to dodge NRA.
As LSJ has suggested elsewhere (re: Voter Captivation), verbal
gymnastics to avoid individual cards is not to be desired. I agree
with that sentiment. It would be rather annoying if some recruit ally
action were developed in the future that needed the text: "This action
may not be repeated by the acting minion, even if another effect would
allow it."
Again, this might not matter at all. It's just a thought that could be
considered. As far as I'm aware, Nocturn is the first card to be
printed that allows minions to violate the NRA rules. This is
certainly an interesting path to go down for developing new effects,
but it seems that it creates sticky rules/card interactions that
should be addressed in a more thorough manner than I'm seeing here.
CthuluKitty wrote:
>> Josh asked (citing "card text indicates yes", but asked nonetheless, as is
>> Josh's want).
>> Floppy confirmed.
>> Dasein and adam marveled at the answer, but did not disagree.
>>
>> Finally CK disagreed, which was immediately followed by my response.>
> Apparently my VTES-fu is not always perfectly honed. It still seems
> reasonable in this case that "this action" could refer to the action
> card it's printed on.
Reasonable, yes. That's what the Command Undeath example was supplied to address
-- to show more of the ramifications.
> The only worry I have about the ruling as it stands is that it may tie
> the hands of developers regarding any future action cards that, like
> The Summoning, assist in recuiting allies. For example:
>
> The Blummoning
> +1 stealth action. Requires a vampire.
> This vampire recruits and ally from your hand (he or she must meet the
> usual requirements, and pays cost as normal). Untap this vampire.
>
> Or whatever. Now, I can hardly say for sure that the above named
> imaginary card would be in any way abusive, combined with Nocturn or
> not. It's just an example of an action that would interact with
> Nocturn given the current ruling. It seems possible that some card
> could be created by the DT that would be totally balanced, but broken
> when combined with Nocturn to dodge NRA.
Certainly seems to be unlikely to hamstring development in any meaningful way.
The Blummoning is a far cry from Freak Drive, for example, which can already be
used with Nocturn.
> As LSJ has suggested elsewhere (re: Voter Captivation), verbal
> gymnastics to avoid individual cards is not to be desired. I agree
> with that sentiment. It would be rather annoying if some recruit ally
> action were developed in the future that needed the text: "This action
> may not be repeated by the acting minion, even if another effect would
> allow it."
>
> Again, this might not matter at all. It's just a thought that could be
> considered. As far as I'm aware, Nocturn is the first card to be
> printed that allows minions to violate the NRA rules. This is
> certainly an interesting path to go down for developing new effects,
> but it seems that it creates sticky rules/card interactions that
> should be addressed in a more thorough manner than I'm seeing here.
More than you are seeing, perhaps, but certainly you're not seeing any
indication that they're not being thoroughly addressed, either.