Groundfighting
Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
Maneuver or press or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by
the opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of
strikes this round as it is played.
Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata
Ruling: Can cancel Drawing Out the Beast (or other "target cannot use
equipment" card) if the target has a weapon. [LSJ 20050221]
Ruling: Can cancel superior Thoughts Betrayed and Shape Mastery (when
the latter is used to cancel a strike) [LSJ 20050222][LSJ 20050223]
Ruling: Cannot cancel maneuvering, setting range, burning blood,
Scorpion Sting (or other "cannot be dodged" strikes, since the
opposing minion is still free to attempt to dodge), Weakness, destroy/
steal equipment/weapon effects, Withering, Fata Amria, [LSJ 20050221]
[LSJ 20050221][LSJ 20050223][LSJ 20050223]
Clarification: Cannot cancel restricting the ability to strike and/or
gain additional strikes (e.g., Rigor Mortis, Lapse) [LSJ 20050221][LSJ
20050222][LSJ 20050223]
I do not understand why you can cancel an inmortal grapple with this
card and to cancel a drawing of the beast, terror frenzy inferior you
have to have a weapon.
It has no logic for me.
A restriction is linked either to an actual restriction ( grapple to a
minion with a weapon or to The Unamed ), a future possible restriction
( you play a grapple, but I have a Majesty on my hand; or you play a
drawing out the beast and I have a concealed + a weapon in my hand) or
a hipotetical future situation or scenary ( you play a grapple and it
would restrict me, if I would like to play a Majesty or you play a
drawing out the beast, and if I had a weapon I could not strike).
To let groundfighting cancel inmortal grapple without any request and
not let to cancel drawing without having a weapon is to treat the same
situation in two different ways. One is linked to a future hypotetical
restriction and the other to an actual restriction.
You cannot say an inmortal grapple is an actual restriction, because
the default strike of a vampire is hand strike, and he obligatory has
to strike. No choice, no restriction.
Its the same as if you cannot strike, because opposing vampire played
lapse, you also have no choice, therefore you cannot cancel lapse with
a groundfighting.
On 11 fév, 15:12, "Dr.Mafrune" <tristan.endr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not understand why you can cancel an inmortal grapple with this
> card
Because it restricts your strike to hand strike.
>and to cancel a drawing of the beast, terror frenzy inferior you
> have to have a weapon.
Because if you don't have a weapon, it doesn't restrict your choice of
strikes.
> situation in two different ways. One is linked to a future hypotetical
> restriction and the other to an actual restriction.
Yep, that is the difference.
> You cannot say an inmortal grapple is an actual restriction, because
> the default strike of a vampire is hand strike, and he obligatory has
> to strike. No choice, no restriction.
It does restrict your choice of strikes. If you have no weapon, when
playing Frenzy your choice of strikes is the same, right? So it
doesn't restrict your choice of strikes :
On 12 feb, 11:38, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 fév, 15:12, "Dr.Mafrune" <tristan.endr...@gmail.com> wrote:> I do not understand why you can cancel an inmortal grapple with this
> > card
>
> Because it restricts your strike to hand strike.
>
> >and to cancel a drawing of the beast, terror frenzy inferior you
> > have to have a weapon.
>
> Because if you don't have a weapon, it doesn't restrict your choice of
> strikes.
Please, read the text: .....would restrict this anarch's choice of
strikes this round AS IT IS PLAYED. "
At the moment when the inmortal grapple is played if you are not The
Unamed or have a weapon, which choices do you have at THIS MOMENT.
Only hand strike.
No choices equal to no restriction.
> > situation in two different ways. One is linked to a future hypotetical
> > restriction and the other to an actual restriction.
>
> Yep, that is the difference.
You cannot treat simmilar things in a different way, if they have not
an idiosincrasic element that makes them different. If its the same
why treat if different ?
> > You cannot say an inmortal grapple is an actual restriction, because
> > the default strike of a vampire is hand strike, and he obligatory has
> > to strike. No choice, no restriction.
>
> It does restrict your choice of strikes. If you have no weapon, when
> playing Frenzy your choice of strikes is the same, right? So it
> doesn't restrict your choice of strikes :
The restriction activates ONLY when you have different choices. If
groundfighting is linked to actual choices, which is the thing you
mean, you have first to show strike election capability to be able to
play groundfighting.
" I have a weapon --- you have choosing strike capabillity NOW "
" My vampire is The Unamed --- you can burn a blood to strike 2R
agravated, you have choosing capability NOW "
" I have an anarchized Violette Prentiss, and a Majesty on my hand
---- after maneuver step, as the inmortal grapple is played you have
no choosing capability, only to strike hand, IN THE FUTURE when the
strike phase come then you will see your real choosing capability
restricted, because you have a Majesty in your hand. If you wouldn´t
have a Majesty nor any other combat strike different than hand, there
will be only a HYPOTETICAL RESTRICTION... IF you would have Majesty,
you could not play it. "
" I have an anarchized Morel with a disguised weapon and an Ivory bow
in my hand against an acting vampire who plays drawing of the
beast.....AT THE MOMENT drawing of the beast is played Morel has no
choosing capability , therefore he is not restricted, only AFTER he
plays disguised and gets armed with the bow he will have it.
HIPOTECALLY any vampire could have played a concealed + weapon an seen
his strike capabilities restricted"
On Feb 12, 9:43 am, "Dr.Mafrune" <tristan.endr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 feb, 11:38, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Because if you don't have a weapon, it doesn't restrict your choice of
> > strikes.
>
> Please, read the text: .....would restrict this anarch's choice of
> strikes this round AS IT IS PLAYED. "
> At the moment when the inmortal grapple is played if you are not The
> Unamed or have a weapon, which choices do you have at THIS MOMENT.
> Only hand strike.
> No choices equal to no restriction.
You're reading that clause in the wrong place; the phrasing is
intended as "cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion [that
would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round] as it is
played." In other words, the "as it is played" goes with "cancel a
combat card played by the opposing minion." It's standard phrasing
for cards that cancel; it just tells you that you need to play it as
the other card is played, or not at all.
- D.J.
On Feb 12, 6:54 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:43 am, "Dr.Mafrune" <tristan.endr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12 feb, 11:38, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Because if you don't have a weapon, it doesn't restrict your choice of
> > > strikes.
But you COULD have a weapon when strikes are chosen!
> > Please, read the text: .....would restrict this anarch's choice of
> > strikes this round AS IT IS PLAYED. "
> > At the moment when the inmortal grapple is played if you are not The
> > Unamed or have a weapon, which choices do you have at THIS MOMENT.
> > Only hand strike.
> > No choices equal to no restriction.
>
> You're reading that clause in the wrong place; the phrasing is
> intended as "cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion [that
> would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round] as it is
> played." In other words, the "as it is played" goes with "cancel a
> combat card played by the opposing minion." It's standard phrasing
> for cards that cancel; it just tells you that you need to play it as
> the other card is played, or not at all.
>
> - D.J.
Wouldn't this very clause restrict you from playing a weapon strike
via superior obfuscate disguised weapon? Or Fatima playing a weapon
card then striking with it after DotB is played? This card(s) are in
your hand the same way Majesty is right? What's the difference? Both
DotB and IG both are restricting you from a strike that is in your
hand right?
Similarly, if you DIDN'T have any strikes in your hand then IG
wouldn't restrict your choice of strikes because you don't have a
choice. Yet you can still play Ground Fighting to cancel an IG in this
circumstance correct? This canceling is based on what COULD happen
(you MAY still be able to choose a different non-hands strike
presumably) So why is this case any different from the restriction
DotB places on you. It places a restriction on your strike, stating
that you can no longer equip a weapon and then strike with it.
Both cases are hypothetical future occurrences. You MAY have a choice
to make a strike in a way that DotB or IG would restrict as they are
played, therefore Ground Fighting should be able to cancel the
offending card in either circumstance.
Jeff Poole
Card text on Immortal Grapple explcitly restricts the minion's
strikes.
Card text on Drawing Out the Beast doesn't. (But it does prohibit
equipment use. If you have a weapon, then this prohibtion is, at the
time of play, a restriction of your strike options.)
For more, see the posts (and surrounding threads) of the links from
the rulings page on this topic.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have read the ruling and surrounding threads. I just thoroughly
disagree with the line of logic that brought you to your conclusion.
If X(Card to be canceled) is enough to restrict Y(your choice of
strike), then it should be so for all cases regardless of what X
equals.
IG (X=Choose from any hand strike) restricts your strike (Y) = X -> Y
DotB (X=Choose from any non-weapon strike) restricts your strike (Y) =
X -> Y
Thus
X -> Y
X -> Y
If you look at current in play cards and ignore possible cards in
hand, as you do in your DotB ruling, then you should do so in your IG
ruling. Since there is no in play cards allowing a non hand strike
for an IG'd minion, and ignoring cards in hand per your DotB ruling,
then their choice is not restricted.
I don't care either way about which way you rule it and I understand
your rulings are law for tournament play, but I don't think the logic
about equipment having to be in play matches the logic of IG.
Jeff Poole
On Feb 12, 8:56 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the logic
> about equipment having to be in play matches the logic of IG.
It matches.
IG restricts the minion's strike by explicit card text.
DotB does not. It only restricts the use of equipment. If the minion
possesses a weapon, that restriction will restrict his strike.
On Feb 12, 7:56 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you look at current in play cards and ignore possible cards in
> hand, as you do in your DotB ruling, then you should do so in your IG
> ruling. Since there is no in play cards allowing a non hand strike
> for an IG'd minion, and ignoring cards in hand per your DotB ruling,
> then their choice is not restricted.
>
> I don't care either way about which way you rule it and I understand
> your rulings are law for tournament play, but I don't think the logic
> about equipment having to be in play matches the logic of IG.
>
> Jeff Poole
I think the idea here is that playing a combat card for a strike is
part of the rules.
an equipment card that just happens to provide a strike as its ability
(let's call it a "weapon" as a keyword) suddenly popping into a
minion's hands in the middle of combat is the exception, not the rule.
it only happens because of other cards played.
[ quoted text not captured ]
(Grapple)
..................Strikes that are not hand strikes may not be used
this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal
Grapple each round.
(Drawing)
..............cannot use presses to end combat and cannot use
equipment...
Drawing says you cannot use equipment. Equipment is part of the game,
and weapons are part of the combat. This is not an exception to the
rules nor the game. Not to use equipment includes not strike with a
weapon, although it does not specificified, as there are some generals
rule bases that applies to the entire game and there are not
specified.
The card drawing only says you cannot use equipment and does not say
you cannot strike with a weapon, and neither will say that either you
have a weapon or not.
There are only 3 ways to apply the restriction rule homogeneusly are:
- Actual ( at this moment you have different possible choices to
strikel, you have a weapon, you are The Unamed)
- Potential ( you have a strike card, different to hand strike you can
use,in your hand, you have a weapon + concealed weapon in you hand)
- Hypotetical ( you could have a strike, different to hand strike, you
could have a weapon + concealed weapon).
I personally think hypotetical restriction makes a open door for to
many hypotetical situations, and makes the card too powerful... and it
is what is applied.
To restrict the hypotetical scenary the rules which is rule basis, it
´s intrudeced a "more likely to occur" hypothesis, applying to some
cards hypotetical restriction ( case of grapple), because to strike
with another cards occurs more often, and to others actual
restriction ( case of drawing), because to get a weapon in combat via
concealed weapon occurs not so often. This is not homogeneous, and
lead to confusing interpretations of this card.....
Currently the rules are saying:
If the card which would restrict SPECIFIC restricts strike option,
hypothetic restriction applies and you can cancel the card.
If the card which would restrict DOES NOT SPECIFIC restrict strike
option, although it could do it, then the actual restriction applies
and you can cancel the card only, if at the moment the restriction you
have strike choosing options.
I think it would be much better to choose one of the other restrict
options, either actual or potential to apply to all the cases.
Make an example to show which ruling would have more sense.
Current ruling
Anarch Fatima enters combat as acting minion, you have an assault
rifle on hand, before range you equip with the weapon, oppossing
minion plays drawing, you cancel drawing by playing groundfighting.
Acting minion with animalism enters combat with anarch Fatima, you
have an assault on hand, and groundfighting. Acting minion plays
drawing. Fatima players can equip with the weapon, but cannot cancel
drawing with groundfighting.
Anarch Fatima can play groundfighting to cancel immortal grapple in
any cases, wheter the player has not hand striking card or a weapon on
hand.
Potential restriction ruling
Anarch Fatima can cancel grapple in both cases.
Anarch Fatima can cancel grapple only if she has another strike card
or has a weapon or player has a weapon + disguised weapon in hand.
Actual restriction ruling
In the case of the weapon, same than current ruling.
In the case of the grapple, she could only use groundfighting, if at
the moment the grapple is played, she has a weapon.
This restriction could better be applied without the text in the card,
which limits the use of groundfighting at the moment the restriction
card is played.