Slimey Loophole

I got this combo off today and will burn in Hell for it: Kherebutu is in play. I get a second Kherebutu into my hand and discard it into my ash heap. The Kherebutu in play gets burned and dutifuly shuffled into my library. I play Compel the Spirit, moving the ally who 'has been burned since my last turn' from my 'ash heap' to the active region. Kherebutu then gets to lumber in for another attempt at bleeding.

In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.96060...@tubby.pacificcoast.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Eeewww. The spirit of the rules is bleeding from the violent sodomy you've committed upon it. gomi and they let you get away with this? -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

In article <4php8g$8...@shellx.best.com>, go...@shellx.best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.96060...@tubby.pacificcoast.net>, > Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net> wrote: > >I got this combo off today and will burn in Hell for it: > > > >Kherebutu is in play. > > > >I get a second Kherebutu into my hand and discard it into my ash heap. > > > >The Kherebutu in play gets burned and dutifuly shuffled into my library. > > > >I play Compel the Spirit, moving the ally who 'has been burned since my > >last turn' from my 'ash heap' to the active region. > > > >Kherebutu then gets to lumber in for another attempt at bleeding. > > Eeewww. The spirit of the rules is bleeding from the violent sodomy you've > committed upon it. If I am reading this right you are bringing the ally in the ash heap back into play. There are two things I see wrong with this, neither of which will be quoted from a rulebook :) 1 Technically the Kherebutu in the ash heap never saw play, and thus was never burnt. 2 "Since your last turn" seems to imply that the burning would have had to happen after your turn was over and before your next turn started. Discard is during your turn and thus not within the timeframe for this interpretation. but then I've been wrong before. And I'm sure someone will gleefully point it out if I am again. Something still smells wrong 'bout that combo. -- R. Brian Smith tam...@nurk.com "To date, your phone tips have led to the capture of 400 dangerous fugitives ã not one alien, not one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . . GET WITH IT PEOPLE!" -Gillian Anderson

Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net> wrote: >I got this combo off today and will burn in Hell for it: > >Kherebutu is in play. > >I get a second Kherebutu into my hand and discard it into my ash heap. > >The Kherebutu in play gets burned and dutifuly shuffled into my library. > >I play Compel the Spirit, moving the ally who 'has been burned since my >last turn' from my 'ash heap' to the active region. > >Kherebutu then gets to lumber in for another attempt at bleeding. > > This combo definately won't work for one reason, possibly two.... #1 Any ally cannot act the first turn it comes into play #2 "The ally who has been burned..." refers to the Kherebutu who got reshuffled into the deck, it defies any reasonable explanation why you can discard him to ressurect him....(Not to mention, in Vampire: The Masquerade, Mummies can never truly die, with only one exception, thus you're trying to ressurect something that never died...) Morninglord Calamar Kateri

Malcolm McCallum (mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net) wrote: : I got this combo off today and will burn in Hell for it: : Kherebutu is in play. : I get a second Kherebutu into my hand and discard it into my ash heap. : The Kherebutu in play gets burned and dutifuly shuffled into my library. : I play Compel the Spirit, moving the ally who 'has been burned since my : last turn' from my 'ash heap' to the active region. : Kherebutu then gets to lumber in for another attempt at bleeding. Except that allies can't act on the turn they are brought out. At least, that's what it says in Jyhad, perhaps V:tES is different. -- Modest, industrious, benevolent, temperate: is that how you would have men? Good men? But to me that seems only the ideal slave, the slave of the future. Modesty, industiousness, benevolence, temperance are just so many hinderances to a sovereign disposition, great inventiveness, heroic purposefullness, noble being-for-oneself. --Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power" /------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | You don't get what you deserve, | Good people are good because they | | You get what you take. | are not strong enought to be evil.| |-----------------------------------+------------------------------------| | Conflicts between right and wrong | 'Conscience' is nothing more than | | are a sickness of the mind. | the fear of being caught. | \------------------------------------------------------------------------/

On 11 Jun 1996, Robert Piechocki wrote: > Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net> wrote: > >I got this combo off today and will burn in Hell for it: > > > >Kherebutu is in play. > > > >I get a second Kherebutu into my hand and discard it into my ash heap. > > > >The Kherebutu in play gets burned and dutifuly shuffled into my library. > > > >I play Compel the Spirit, moving the ally who 'has been burned since my > >last turn' from my 'ash heap' to the active region. > > > >Kherebutu then gets to lumber in for another attempt at bleeding. > > > > > This combo definately won't work for one reason, possibly two.... > > #1 Any ally cannot act the first turn it comes into play > > #2 "The ally who has been burned..." refers to the Kherebutu who got > reshuffled into the deck, it defies any reasonable explanation why you > can discard him to ressurect him....(Not to mention, in Vampire: The > Masquerade, Mummies can never truly die, with only one exception, thus > you're trying to ressurect something that never died...) > > Morninglord Calamar Kateri > > > As for the first point, the rules (6.4) state that a recruited ally is placed in the inactive region. This is what stops him from acting. Compel the spirit, on the other hand, does not even say that you are putting the ally into play. It simply states 'Move the ally...to the active region without paying the cost to put him or her into play.'. Incidentally, I interperet Possession to work the same way, in that the resurrected vampire is in the active region and is now free to act. As for the second point, yes, things get a bit vague when referring to an ally or retainer. Does it refer to the card or the 'character'? No one would argue, I think, that all the 'Arcanum Investigators' represent different allies and so when one gets a shotgun, they all don't get one. By that logic though, if an Arcanum Investigator were to be burned, I would surely be unable to play 'Compel the Spirit' to resurrect a different Arcanum Investigator card. I would have to do the same one. Right? Each card represents a unique individual so that no two similar cards could be said to be 'the same ally'. On the other hand, UNIQUE allies are different. The whole point of their uniqueness is to clarify that in fact, every card represents the SAME ally. If Kherebutu is burned, there can be no other Bane Mummy cards hanging around the table. Surely though another player could then recruit Kherebutu from his own hand and thus bring him back into play. The fact that one Kherebutu card got shuffled back into my library does not affect the way any other Kherebutu card can be played, except with regards to the fact that another one could now be brought into play. ...and, because Kherebutu got burned, I can play Compel the Spirit and look into my Ash heap for a Kherebutu card (any Kherebutu card). We ain't playin' Vampire the Masquerade and nobody ever won a ame of Hearts because they said that, "In Alice and Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts couldn't die so I get my Queen back." Nope. Tis a game of rules rapes. Tie them down and violate 'em messily. ;) poke*poke

Malcolm McCallum (mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net) wrote: : > : As for the first point, the rules (6.4) state that a recruited ally is : placed in the inactive region. This is what stops him from acting. Compel : the spirit, on the other hand, does not even say that you are putting the : ally into play. It simply states 'Move the ally...to the active region : without paying the cost to put him or her into play.'. Incidentally, I : interperet Possession to work the same way, in that the resurrected : vampire is in the active region and is now free to act. Hrrm. A sticky issue indeed. My gut reaction was to NOT believe that this was the intent of the card, but after perusing my rule books and coming up with: Jyhad: Cards that refer to vampires do not apply to allies. Cards that refer to minions apply both to vampires and allies. Allies cannot take an action on the turn recruited. When brought into play, allies should be put in your inactive region to indicate that they cannot act. At the end of your turn, allies in the inactive region are moved to your active region. VTES: An ally cannot take an action on the turn he is recruited. When the ally is brought into play, he is placed in your inactive region to indicate that he cannot act. At the end of your turn, allies in your inactive region are moved to your active region. ..which leads me to believe, as you do, that the card text stating that the ally should be moved to the ACTIVE region would BREAK the rule stating that the ally is placed in your inactive region when recruited. The question is whether that line of reasoning should carry us to believe that it means that "if an ally is placed directly into your active region, it can take an action during that turn". I am hard pressed to argue either way, since I've always read the rule that "An ally cannot take an action on the turn he is recruited." as a hard and fast rule, and that the extra text afterwards is simply a method for one to remind oneself that it can't act, yet. In other words, we need a ruling. :( -spongy

An "ally who was burned since your last turn" is the ally *card* that was burned since your last turn. It does not mean any other ally card, even if the two cards share the same name, and even if they're unique allies. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

>..which leads me to believe, as you do, that the card text stating that the >ally should be moved to the ACTIVE region would BREAK the rule stating that >the ally is placed in your inactive region when recruited. The question is >whether that line of reasoning should carry us to believe that it means >that "if an ally is placed directly into your active region, it can take >an action during that turn". > >I am hard pressed to argue either way, since I've always read the rule >that "An ally cannot take an action on the turn he is recruited." as a >hard and fast rule, and that the extra text afterwards is simply a >method for one to remind oneself that it can't act, yet. > >In other words, we need a ruling. :( It seems quite clear from the rules in both Jyhad and V:TES that for a "Recruit Ally" action, the ally may take no actions on the turn it is put into play. HOWEVER, a "Compel the Spirit" action is NOT a "Recruit Ally" action, so why should the former action be bound by the rules of the latter? They may have related end results: both result in the introduction of an ally to the game (though from different sources, the ash heap vs. one's hand), but they ARE distinct from one another in much the same way that a bleed +1 action with Social Charms is distinct from a bleed +1 action by the Malkavian called Ozmo even though both actions have the same net effect. It would therefore seem reasonable to say that if "Compel the Spirit" puts the ally into the active region during a Methuselah's minion phase and that ally is not tapped, then that ally should be able to take an action. In any case, even IF there was a genuine conflict here and the card text violated the rulebook text, wouldn't that still be perfectly legal? Is it not the case that card text overrules rulebook text when a conflict arises between the two? ejl

eric liu (hect...@huey.csun.edu) wrote: : >I am hard pressed to argue either way, since I've always read the rule : >that "An ally cannot take an action on the turn he is recruited." as a : >hard and fast rule, and that the extra text afterwards is simply a : >method for one to remind oneself that it can't act, yet. : > : >In other words, we need a ruling. :( : : It seems quite clear from the rules in both Jyhad and V:TES that for a : "Recruit Ally" action, the ally may take no actions on the turn it is put : into play. Yes. : HOWEVER, a "Compel the Spirit" action is NOT a "Recruit Ally" action, so : why should the former action be bound by the rules of the latter? This is a point well taken. However, when looking for clarification on whether or not this ally may then act, the only relevant information in the rules is the information regarding ally recruitment. It is fine for card text to change rules, but this card, provided it truly should be regarded as NOT being a recruit ally action, provides a completely new TYPE of action, and needs to be adequately explained, IMHO. : They may have related end results: both result in the introduction : of an ally to the game (though from different sources, the ash heap : vs. one's hand), but they ARE distinct from one another in much the : same way that a bleed +1 action with Social Charms is distinct from : a bleed +1 action by the Malkavian called Ozmo even though both : actions have the same net effect. The difference is that the Social Charms action and the bleed by Ozmo are BOTH "bleed" actions and are identifiable as such, and are goverened by the rules _except_ in the parts that are possibly modified by card text. The rules lay down very specific guidelines on what happens when one bleeds, regardless of card text. The card text modifies this type of action. I argue that "Compel the Spirit" is a different situation entirely. If I am to disregard the rules on "recruiting" through the use of "Compel the Spirit", I need to have the complete rules for the use of the card spelled out in the card text, because there are no _underlying_ rules to modify. If am to regard "Compel the Spirit" as a "modification" of the rules for "recruiting", then I need a clarification on whether the card text of "CtS" may be interpreted as overriding the very specific rules text which states that "An ally may not an action on the turn he is recruited", because the card text does not address this specifically. In either case, I would be justified in asking for a clarification. : It would therefore seem reasonable to say that if "Compel the Spirit" puts : the ally into the active region during a Methuselah's minion phase and that : ally is not tapped, then that ally should be able to take an action. I don't think this is unreasonable... in fact, I feel that the card may VERY reasonably be interpreted this way. I just do not feel that this is the only interpretation, and that one who views the game in terms of "the rules are law, and may only be broken by very specific card text", it is also VERY reasonable to draw the conclusion that CtS brings the ally into the active region, but that the ally MUST wait until the next turn because the only relevant ruling in the rulebook states as much. : In any case, even IF there was a genuine conflict here and the card text : violated the rulebook text, wouldn't that still be perfectly legal? Is it : not the case that card text overrules rulebook text when a conflict arises : between the two? It would CERTAINLY be perfectly legal... IF (I repeat, IF) the card text can be read as _directly_ conflicting with the rulebook text. In the rulebook there is a sentence which reads "An ally may not take an action on the turn in which he is recruited" (roughly, I quoted it exactly in my prior post). The card text says that an ally may be moved to the active region. I do not see that the card text necessarily conflicts with the sentence from the rules WITHOUT a ruling on the card text. Once again: If I am to read "Compel the Spirit" as simply modifying the "recruiting" guidelines, I do NOT see that the card text "overrides" the very direct statement stating that recruited allies may not take an action on the turn in which they are recruited. If I am to read "Compel the Spirit" as providing a completely NEW way of bringing allies into the game (i.e. NOT by recruiting them), then I do not believe that ANY of the recruiting rules may be seen as applying, and we would STILL need clarification with regards to the card because the card text does not adequately define the behavior of this new action. And so I ask again... ruling please? -spongy

The only reason that allies cannot act the turn they are recruited is that they are recruited into your inactive region, rather than your ready region, and don't come out until the end of the influence phase. By that time, their chance to act that turn has passed. If an effect such as Compel the Spirit just dumps an ally into play, then it dumps it into the ready region, so the ally may act that turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : The only reason that allies cannot act the turn they are recruited is that : they are recruited into your inactive region, rather than your ready region, : and don't come out until the end of the influence phase. By that time, : their chance to act that turn has passed. : : If an effect such as Compel the Spirit just dumps an ally into play, then it : dumps it into the ready region, so the ally may act that turn. That's all I wanted to know. This clarification of the rules makes everything crystal clear. -spongy

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >An "ally who was burned since your last turn" is the ally *card* that was >burned since your last turn. It does not mean any other ally card, even >if the two cards share the same name, and even if they're unique allies. > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > In the case of the "Slimy Loophole" scenario, where a discarded Kherebutu is the object of a "Compel the Spirit" action, does the discarded Kherebutu count as an "ally who was burned since your last turn?" Or more directly: Is a card that is discarded considered burned? Is the "burned" status of the discarded Kherebutu equivalent to the "burned" status of the Kherebutu that was burned to kill a Tremere? And if so, how then does the card text (stating that if Kherebutu is burned he is to be reshuffled into the Methuselah's library) relate to "burning" Kherebutu via a simple discard? (I imagine a situation where you discard Kherebutu, he is considered "burned," and you then replace him in your library to be re-used: an eternal card). If a discarded ally is not the same as a "burned" ally, then it would seem that the "Slimy Loophole" combo could not be legal since the discarded Kherebutu in the ash heap is not a valid candidate for a "Compel the Spirit" action. Is this not the case? ejl

In article <4q4hki$e...@gw.dgii.com>, jam...@gw.digibd.com (James Puzzo) writes: > eric liu (hect...@huey.csun.edu) wrote: > : >I am hard pressed to argue either way, since I've always read the rule > : >that "An ally cannot take an action on the turn he is recruited." as a > : >hard and fast rule, and that the extra text afterwards is simply a > : >method for one to remind oneself that it can't act, yet. > : > > : >In other words, we need a ruling. :( > : > : It seems quite clear from the rules in both Jyhad and V:TES that for a > : "Recruit Ally" action, the ally may take no actions on the turn it is put > : into play. > > Yes. > > : HOWEVER, a "Compel the Spirit" action is NOT a "Recruit Ally" action, so > : why should the former action be bound by the rules of the latter? > > This is a point well taken. However, when looking for clarification on whether > or not this ally may then act, the only relevant information in the rules is > the information regarding ally recruitment. It is fine for card text to > change rules, but this card, provided it truly should be regarded as NOT > being a recruit ally action, provides a completely new TYPE of action, and > needs to be adequately explained, IMHO. > Yes, but the reason is also given. An ally, when recruited, is placed in your inactive region, and pops out during your influence phase. Compel the Spirit is rather specific about putting it into your controlled region. No conflict, no relation. No ruling needed. > I argue that "Compel the Spirit" is a different situation entirely. > > If I am to disregard the rules on "recruiting" through the use of "Compel > the Spirit", I need to have the complete rules for the use of the card > spelled out in the card text, because there are no _underlying_ rules to > modify. If am to regard "Compel the Spirit" as a "modification" of the > rules for "recruiting", then I need a clarification on whether the card > text of "CtS" may be interpreted as overriding the very specific rules > text which states that "An ally may not an action on the turn he is > recruited", because the card text does not address this specifically. > No you don't. Compel the Spirit says that it puts the ally into play, and doesn't say that it puts the ally into your inactive region. Hence, since it doesn't say that it is a recruit ally action, NONE of the recruit ally rules apply. It simply puts the ally into your controlled region, end of story. > I don't think this is unreasonable... in fact, I feel that the card may > VERY reasonably be interpreted this way. I just do not feel that this is > the only interpretation, and that one who views the game in terms of "the > rules are law, and may only be broken by very specific card text", it is > also VERY reasonable to draw the conclusion that CtS brings the ally into > the active region, but that the ally MUST wait until the next turn because > the only relevant ruling in the rulebook states as much. > No. The only relevant rule says that a newly recruited ally goes into your inactive region, and hangs around for awhile until going into play during your influence phase. This isn't a recruit ally action, if it was, it would say "Recruit an ally from your ash heap, if it left play since your last turn. You do not have to pay the cost of this ally" However, you will notice the distinct LACK of any such text on that card. > > And so I ask again... ruling please? > Fine: "You may use an ally the turn it is brought into play via Compel the Spirit." > -spongy > Ritaxis