Can the action be taken

It hasn't been completely clear. Can a minion use a rush action to get in combat with a Secure Havened vampire and just not 'affect' them, leaving them tapped with a failed action?

[ quoted text not captured ] No. The rush action must have a valid target. A vamp with a Secure Haven is not a valid target. Cheers James

Bum's Rush Type: Action Do not replace until the end of this action. (D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. The acting minion gets an optional maneuver during this combat. Secure Haven Type: Master Cost: 1 pool Master: unique location. Haven. Put this card on a minion you control. This minion cannot be affected by (D) actions. Any Methuselah burns an additional pool when playing master cards on (or that target) this minion. Burn this card if this minion enters torpor. A minion can have only one haven. As I read it... Yes, you can take the action. But it'll have no affect. Secure haven doesn't state (D) actions can't target this minion, but rather it has no effect.

In message <1141229084.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, kula...@gmail.com writes: >As I read it... Yes, you can take the action. But it'll have no >affect. Secure haven doesn't state (D) actions can't target this >minion, but rather it has no effect. Incorrect. <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b86469 48572dff30> LSJ responding to Piers: *** > If you play Secure Haven on a vampire & then the vampire has Haven Uncovered > played on it - What effect does this have ? The (D) action option given by the Haven Uncovered is still not usable, since no (D) actions may be made against the Secured vampire. *** -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1141229084.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > kula...@gmail.com writes: > >As I read it... Yes, you can take the action. But it'll have no > >affect. Secure haven doesn't state (D) actions can't target this > >minion, but rather it has no effect. > > Incorrect. > > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b86469 > 48572dff30> > > LSJ responding to Piers: > *** > > If you play Secure Haven on a vampire & then the vampire has Haven > Uncovered > > played on it - What effect does this have ? > > The (D) action option given by the Haven Uncovered is still not > usable, since no (D) actions may be made against the Secured vampire. Well, LSJ seems to have a slight contradiction as he quotes what Secure Haven "should've said" in this ruling: >>>>>>Can my predator play Summon the Abyss? >>>>>Yes -again it's not directed. >>It is directed. It's not directed against the Secure Vampire >>specifically, but it is still directed. Sorry, "at the vampire" seemed implied in the statement to me. >>However, latest card text for secure haven is merely "This minion >>cannot be affected by (D) actions". So I guess the predator CAN play >>Summon the Abyss, but the secure vampire won't burn a blood? >>What if the Secure vampire is the only one I control? > I hadn't noticed that and it looks like you ought to be right :-) > I'm sure LSJ will be along shortly. Hmm. Stealth migration. Interesting. It should've said "cannot be the target of (D) actions", but there you go. The Predator can play Summon the Abyss, but it won't affect the Secured vampire. _______________________________________________________ So, since it is worded the way it is it would seem that you can target the Secured vamp with a (D) action, it just won't be affected. Though re-wording the card would make more sense.

Churchy La Femme escreveu: > So, since it is worded the way it is it would seem that you can target > the Secured vamp with a (D) action, it just won't be affected. Though > re-wording the card would make more sense. I don't know if the two examples are alike. Bum's Rush needs a *single* target. As LSJ stated, Secure Haven's card text should've been "cannot be the target of (D) actions". So it isn't a valid target. An action cannot be attempted without a valid target, so the Bum's Rush action cannot be taken against the vampire with Secure Haven. Summon the Abyss affect *multiple* targets. The fact that one of these targets has some sort of protection (in this case, Secure Haven) doesn't make all the targets invalid. So the action has a bunch of valid targets, so it can be taken. The wording of Secure Haven implies that this vampire won't be affected by Summon the Abyss, but that's all. (I suppose it means that if my prey has only one controlled vampire with a Secure Haven, I can't play Summon the Abyss unless my prey influences out/create a new vampire, but I digress) By this approach, this ruling by LSJ on Summon the Abyss actually reinforces the idea that you can't play a Bum's Rush (or any other action that requires a single target) against a vampire with Secure Haven. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

In message <1141244782.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes: >Churchy La Femme escreveu: > >> So, since it is worded the way it is it would seem that you can target >> the Secured vamp with a (D) action, it just won't be affected. Though >> re-wording the card would make more sense. > >I don't know if the two examples are alike. > >Bum's Rush needs a *single* target. As LSJ stated, Secure Haven's card >text should've been "cannot be the target of (D) actions". The text could have been clearer. However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do. Since you cannot rush the vampire, you cannot attempt the action. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > The text could have been clearer. > > However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do. Since you cannot rush > the vampire, you cannot attempt the action. Good, I hope that's correct. I don't know how many times I've seen someone announce an action at a Secure Havened vampire and had their action fizzle (in L.A.). By the way, I believe that Summon The Abyss targets the Methuselah and that you can play it with only the SH vamp in play. Seems to be what LSJ was stating.

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:1141248012.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > James Coupe wrote: >> The text could have been clearer. >> >> However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do. Since you cannot rush >> the vampire, you cannot attempt the action. > > Good, I hope that's correct. I don't know how many times I've seen > someone announce an action at a Secure Havened vampire and had their > action fizzle (in L.A.). The reasoning I was given was that Secure Haven does not prevent D actions. It does not say that a vampire "cannot do" a D action against the vampire with Secure Haven. It just says that the target vampire "is not affected" by them. Fred

In message <1141248012.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> The text could have been clearer. >> >> However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do. Since you cannot rush >> the vampire, you cannot attempt the action. > >Good, I hope that's correct. I don't know how many times I've seen >someone announce an action at a Secure Havened vampire and had their >action fizzle (in L.A.). http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3ee9feb c34ed0bfd *** The rule given and quoted above: cannot attempt what you cannot do. *** http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a6b6b11 0831f4a5f *** > [can a minion who "cannot use equipment" choose a weapon strike?] No. Cannot attempt what you cannot do. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C6F0D50.52ADB5BB%40white-wolf.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C7120EA.7756F1CD%40white-wolf.com etc. See also requirements for playing cards, costs, targets, etc. *** If you're unable to do something, you can't attempt it and have it fizzle. Fizzling is what happens when you could do something and then later find you can't because Things Have Changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:loxdzuEp...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1141248012.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, > Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> writes: >>James Coupe wrote: >>> The text could have been clearer. >>> >>> However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do. Since you cannot rush >>> the vampire, you cannot attempt the action. >> >>Good, I hope that's correct. I don't know how many times I've seen >>someone announce an action at a Secure Havened vampire and had their >>action fizzle (in L.A.). > > *** > The rule given and quoted above: cannot attempt what you cannot do. > *** (link to LSJ reply about Howler using weapons ellided) Wouldn't seem to apply, necessarily, given Secure Haven's card text. Not that I would mind such that interpretation any more than Robert would. But the proof you give for it doesn't seem convincing since Secure Haven and Howler clearly read differently WRT D-actions and weapons, respectively. > Fizzling is what happens when you could do something and then later find > you can't because Things Have Changed. I'm not sure that Robert described the ruling in LA exactly as it was given. I don't recall anyone saying the Bum's Rush 'fizzled'. Just that the combat couldn't happen because the Bum's Rush can't affect the target vampire. Fred

In message <a3pNf.7657$z82.3091@fed1read07>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Just >that the combat couldn't happen because the Bum's Rush can't affect >the target vampire. And since it can't, you can't attempt it. This is clarified by the general point that LSJ makes in the posts I cited - applied to specific cases, but general nonetheless. Cannot attempt what you cannot do. Can't go into combat with that vampire? Can't attempt it then. Can't block that vampire? Can't attempt to block them then. Can't have equipment? Can't attempt to equip it then. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:vLQvr6Fv...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a3pNf.7657$z82.3091@fed1read07>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Just >>that the combat couldn't happen because the Bum's Rush can't affect >>the target vampire. > > And since it can't, you can't attempt it. I'm just saying, you haven't shown where it's been ruled that way from the links you've given. As near as I can determine, they all hinge on Howler's card text which states that Howler cannot use weapons. Howler's card text does _not_ say, "Howler cannot AFFECT ANOTHER MINION with a weapon" - which would be the approximate corollary. I'm not saying you're wrong about the ruling. I'm just pointing out that you're making a questionable semantic jump in expecting to prove it the way you are. > Can't go into combat with that vampire? Secure Haven doesn't actually say that, however. It just says the minion isn't affected by such a combat. Find us a ruling that states you can't take an action which won't have its intended affect, not one that states that you can't attempt what you can't do. It isn't clear that Secure Haven prohibits the Bum's Rush. The following post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/72589f4fdf3f66b9/dc4f67e21a1c0e69?lnk=st&q='secure+haven'+affected+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3ALSJ&rnum=2&hl=en#dc4f67e21a1c0e69 seems to be saying the opposite - that you can take the action, it just won't have any affect on the Secure Havened vampire. Of course, this really isn't the same thing as Summon the Abyss is a group affect and the difference only has implications for a single vampire. Still, by your logic, one would assume that a Summon the Abyss cannot even be attempted since its full effect "cannot be done". "You can't attempt what you can't do" so since you can't make each ready vampire burn 1 blood", by your pat reasoning one would assume you couldn't even attempt it. But that contradicts LSJ's ruling. Unfortunately, I can't find a straight-out ruling that says you can or you can't. Even one place where LSJ is discussing Mind Raping a SH'd vampire, he doesn't quite actually _say_ that the Mind Rape can be played but does nothing or simply can't be played. Can anyone else find one? Fred

In message <c2qNf.7660$z82.3595@fed1read07>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >The following post: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/72589f4fdf3f66b9/dc4f67e21a1c0e69?lnk=st&q='secure+haven'+aff >ected+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3ALSJ&rnum=2&hl=en#dc4f67e21a1c0e69 > >seems to be saying the opposite - that you can take the action, it >just won't have any affect on the Secure Havened vampire. Of course, this >really isn't the same thing as Summon the Abyss is a group affect and >the difference only has implications for a single vampire. Still, >by your logic, one would assume that a Summon the Abyss cannot even >be attempted since its full effect "cannot be done". No, because you can take the action and have it affect all the other minions of that Methuselah - it targets the Methuselah, not the minion. So you can attempt the action, and then the Secured minion is not affected by it. The parallel is, therefore, entirely non-existent. For a parallel "vampire is not affected, so you cannot try and have it fizzle", see Deflection and Perfect Clarity. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3032610 6bc28f3f9 **** > I've been told also that Perfect Clarity has been errated but can't find it > anywhere ; why would it not counter deflections ? And if so, what is its use > outside of anti-CE (which Thoughts Betrayed already does for the same > cost...) ? It prevents (not "counters") deflections. **** Text of Perfect Clarity: "[tha] Reaction cards that require Dominate [dom] or Presence [pre] do not affect this vampire for the <duration> of this action." Not that you cannot play them, it's "do not affect" which is rather similar to "cannot be affected by"! However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do, so you cannot play cards that can't affect a vampire when they target that vampire (as bounce cards do). [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:aQBS9WIq...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <c2qNf.7660$z82.3595@fed1read07>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>The following post: >>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/72589f4fdf3f66b9/dc4f67e21a1c0e69?lnk=st&q='secure+haven'+aff >>ected+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3ALSJ&rnum=2&hl=en#dc4f67e21a1c0e69 >> >>seems to be saying the opposite - that you can take the action, it >>just won't have any affect on the Secure Havened vampire. Of course, this >>really isn't the same thing as Summon the Abyss is a group affect and >>the difference only has implications for a single vampire. Still, >>by your logic, one would assume that a Summon the Abyss cannot even >>be attempted since its full effect "cannot be done". > > No, because you can take the action and have it affect all the other > minions of that Methuselah - it targets the Methuselah, not the minion. > So you can attempt the action, and then the Secured minion is not > affected by it. > > The parallel is, therefore, entirely non-existent. There's a difference, I agree. But there's also a similiarity. Terming it "non-existent" is overstating the matter. > For a parallel "vampire is not affected, so you cannot try and have it > fizzle", see Deflection and Perfect Clarity. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/30326106bc28f3f9 ... LSJ writes of Perfect Clarity: > It prevents (not "counters") deflections. ... > Text of Perfect Clarity: > "[tha] Reaction cards that require Dominate [dom] or Presence [pre] do > not affect this vampire for the <duration> of this action." > > Not that you cannot play them, it's "do not affect" which is rather > similar to "cannot be affected by"! Bleh. Such wording is horrible if that was the intended meaning. But I agree, that does seem to be a much more direct parallel and the intended outcome is clear and supports your contention. > However, you cannot attempt what you cannot do, so you cannot play cards > that can't affect a vampire when they target that vampire (as bounce > cards do). (The following is just me grousing...still I'd like to hear any insights) The thing I find disturbing about the situation is that it makes it a bit fuzzy when you can't take an action at all and when you can take one but it doesn't have the desired effect. For instance, presumably you could use the inferior Obeah effect of Spirit Marionette and do pool damage but could not tap a Secure Havened vampire - even were it the only vampire controlled by the targeted methuselah. I presume that because there's an effect that doesn't affect the vampire, so it's OK. Are we to assume that an action is OK to do if there's _any_ other effect, however slight, in the game but not if the _only_ possible effect is something that affects the Secure Havened vampire? This is what I'm getting from this distinction. So, "D action: tap a minion and make its controller burn the top card of his library" is OK to do against a Secure Havened vampire? And, if so, what if you know the latter effect doesn't do anything, as when the vampire's controller's library has been exhausted? Eh, it's not terribly important in the big picture. I just think wording cards this way (Perfect Clarity and Secure Haven) is a bad idea if you want to imply that particular meaning. Fred

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Bum's Rush needs a *single* target. As LSJ stated, Secure Haven's card > text should've been "cannot be the target of (D) actions". So it isn't > a valid target. An action cannot be attempted without a valid target, > so the Bum's Rush action cannot be taken against the vampire with > Secure Haven. > > Summon the Abyss affect *multiple* targets. The fact that one of these > targets has some sort of protection (in this case, Secure Haven) > doesn't make all the targets invalid. So the action has a bunch of > valid targets, so it can be taken. The wording of Secure Haven implies > that this vampire won't be affected by Summon the Abyss, but that's > all. > (I suppose it means that if my prey has only one controlled vampire > with a Secure Haven, I can't play Summon the Abyss unless my prey > influences out/create a new vampire, but I digress) Correct. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/