Drawing out the Beast vs Ally question

I've found conflicting answers to this question. What is the definitive answer? >From Nov 5 2002 > No: No valid target. you can't play Drawing out the beast against an ally > for parallel. Correct. LSJ >From Jan 8 2001 > Correct enough, but note that Drawing Out the Beast has no > effect on allies, Memories of Mortality or no. LSJ Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] Wouldn't the later ruling overrule the earlier one? Indicating that you cannot play it against allies. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] If they conflicted, you'd use the earlier one. The two quotes given however do not conflict. You can't play DotB against an ally. DotB has no effect on allies.

On May 18, 6:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > J wrote: > > On May 18, 2:22 pm, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > >> I've found conflicting answers to this question. What is the > >> definitive answer? > > >> >From Nov 5 2002 > >>> No: No valid target. you can't play Drawing out the beast against an ally > >>> for parallel. > >> Correct. > >> LSJ > > >> >From Jan 8 2001 > >>> Correct enough, but note that Drawing Out the Beast has no > >>> effect on allies, Memories of Mortality or no. > >> LSJ > > >> Chris. > > > Wouldn't the later ruling overrule the earlier one? Indicating that > > you cannot play it against allies. > > If they conflicted, you'd use the earlier one. Really..... Hmm....time to whip out my Return to Innocence using 1998 errata since that is earlier than the more recent banning. Eat hot Arika, Baby! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] But not conflicting. Changed as well as banned. Cheers, Bram

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:ekg3i.6412$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > You can't play DotB against an ally. DotB has no effect on allies. What about Whistling up the Beast (at the inferior or superior version)? ------------------- [abo] [REFLEX] Cancel a frenzy card played on this vampire as it is played. [abo] Frenzy. Only usable before range is determined on the first round. During this combat, the opposing vampire cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to close range and cannot use presses to continue combat. [ABO] As above, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver this round. -------------------- This came up in a recent on-line game and it was assumed that you could play it for the maneuver. But now I would think not, since it has similar text to Drawing Out the Beast. Neil

[ quoted text not captured ] No. There is no "the opposing vampire".

On May 18, 10:06 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Neil wrote: > > What about Whistling up the Beast (at the inferior or superior version)? > > > ------------------- > > > [abo] [REFLEX] Cancel a frenzy card played on this vampire as it is played. > > > [abo] Frenzy. Only usable before range is determined on the first round. > > During this combat, the opposing vampire cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to > > close range and cannot use presses to continue combat. > > > [ABO] As above, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver this round. > > > -------------------- > > > This came up in a recent on-line game and it was assumed that you could play > > it for the maneuver. But now I would think not, since it has similar text to > > Drawing Out the Beast. > > No. There is no "the opposing vampire". Not sure what you mean: [abo] Frenzy. Only usable before range is determined on the first round. During this combat, *the opposing vampire* cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to close range and cannot use presses to continue combat. [ABO] *As above*, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver this round. The term appears explicitly in the inferior and by reference in the superior.

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. And, when in combat with an ally, there is no "the opposing vampire", so the card cannot be played, by the rule prohibiting a card from being played when the target doesn't exist.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think a world of confusion would be avoided if you stuck to "Correct" and "Incorrect" instead of the far more ambiguous "No" and "Yes."

LSJ: > No. There is no "the opposing vampire". Crispyfloss: >>The term appears explicitly in the inferior and by reference in the superior. I was confused for second, too. I believe LSJ was referring to the game situation, not the card text, when stating "there is no".

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you're right. I know this isn't the first thread where someone phrases a question as: Can A do B? I think not, because C. Then LSJ says: No, because C. And confusion ensues. Which is literally correct but seems contradictory because of the tendency to think the question is: "I think A can't do B, is that right?" instead of "Can A do B?" And "No" answers both of them in different ways while "Correct" can clearly only answer the hypothesized result.

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps, but in this case, the confusion seemed to be over the phrase {no "the opposing vampire"}. Besides, the question was Does this hold for X? I used to think you could play X, but now I think you can't, since X. To which LSJ replied: [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 18, 7:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > crispyfloss wrote: > > On May 18, 3:33 pm, Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> LSJ: > > To which LSJ replied: > > No. There is no "the opposing vampire". Uh-oh. He's referring to himself in the third person. We're doomed. ;)

> > >> LSJ: > > > To which LSJ replied: > > > No. There is no "the opposing vampire". Wookie frets: > Uh-oh. He's referring to himself in the third person. We're doomed. > > ;) He's also using multiple unique determiners. There is no the way that this will end in anything but a the disaster.