Might have been covered before already but...
The rules say:
"IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion instead."
So... My tremere dude bleeds, gets blocked, I'm in combat, I (hte
acting minion) try to throw a theft of vitae, the oposing minion (and
still technicaly the blocking minion) throws a S:CE. My Tremere Slave
Gargoyle taps, cancels the combat and untaps my tremere dude. The
combat cards of the previous round are discarded. Gargoyle now
pulverizes pansy S:CE dude, cause he didn't draw a replacement. :)
Legal?
~SV
Who just got a box of bloodlines for corporate xmas and is trying to
slap a deck together...
In message <f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com>, vermillian
<vermil...@yahoo.com> writes:
>"IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
>cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
>gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion instead."
>
>So... My tremere dude bleeds, gets blocked, I'm in combat, I (hte
>acting minion) try to throw a theft of vitae, the oposing minion (and
>still technicaly the blocking minion) throws a S:CE. My Tremere Slave
>Gargoyle taps, cancels the combat and untaps my tremere dude.
No. He cannot do it "instead" because you have already done it.
--
James Coupe "I think Christmas has lost it's meaning...
PGP 0x5D623D5D we're all too busy wrapped up in the commercial aspects
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 of the season that we forget the true meaning...
13D7E668C3695D623D5D it's as if Santa died on the cross in vane for us all!"
"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com...
> Might have been covered before already but...
>
> The rules say:
>
> "IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
> cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
> gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion instead."
>
> So... My tremere dude bleeds, gets blocked, I'm in combat, I (hte
> acting minion) try to throw a theft of vitae, the oposing minion (and
> still technicaly the blocking minion) throws a S:CE. My Tremere Slave
> Gargoyle taps, cancels the combat and untaps my tremere dude. The
> combat cards of the previous round are discarded. Gargoyle now
> pulverizes pansy S:CE dude, cause he didn't draw a replacement. :)
>
> Legal?
The Gargoyle must enter combat instead of the acting Tremere, once you enter
combat with the Tremere you cannot use the Gargoyle's slave ability.
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<pxyunmYc...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com>, vermillian
> <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >"IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
> >cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
> >gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion instead."
> >
> >So... My tremere dude bleeds, gets blocked, I'm in combat, I (hte
> >acting minion) try to throw a theft of vitae, the oposing minion (and
> >still technicaly the blocking minion) throws a S:CE. My Tremere Slave
> >Gargoyle taps, cancels the combat and untaps my tremere dude.
>
> No. He cannot do it "instead" because you have already done it.
You most certainly can start to do something and then have someone
else do it instead for you!
~SV
"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<u2iggij...@news.supernews.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
And he'll do that when I want him to.
> once you enter
> combat with the Tremere you cannot use the Gargoyle's slave ability.
No where have I been given a time contraint. If it told me to use the
ability as tremere dude was 'just' blocked, sure, but 'instead'? What
does 'instead' care about time? I'll have my gargoyle fight combat
instead of my tremere buddy at the press stage if I want. :)
~SV
Gargoyle slaves can enter combat instead of their masters.
They cannot cancel the block-combat once it begins.
cf. Change of Target.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
In message <f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com>, vermillian
<vermil...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >So... My tremere dude bleeds, gets blocked, I'm in combat, I (hte
>> >acting minion) try to throw a theft of vitae, the oposing minion (and
>> >still technicaly the blocking minion) throws a S:CE. My Tremere Slave
>> >Gargoyle taps, cancels the combat and untaps my tremere dude.
>>
>> No. He cannot do it "instead" because you have already done it.>
>You most certainly can start to do something and then have someone
>else do it instead for you!
This is not "start to do it". The key term is that you have the slave
Gargoyle "enter combat.... instead".
You have already "entered combat" - that's completely done and dusted.
It's not the whole fight that's being referred to, just the entering of
combat - which you have already done in its entirety.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Bq$UxtFpn...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com>, vermillian
> <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes:> >> No. He cannot do it "instead" because you have already done it.
> >
> >You most certainly can start to do something and then have someone
> >else do it instead for you!
>
> This is not "start to do it". The key term is that you have the slave
> Gargoyle "enter combat.... instead".
>
> You have already "entered combat" - that's completely done and dusted.
> It's not the whole fight that's being referred to, just the entering of
> combat - which you have already done in its entirety.
"IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion instead."
Isn't it GREAT to argue somantics? :)
How are we sure (other than LSJ's response later, which is about as
official as we can get on this newsgroup) that the entered combat
refers only to the Tremere master entering combat? It could
technically be referring to the enter combat part of the gargoyle
tapping. The gargoyle has to enter combat with the blocking minion
too.
Really, if they'd meant what I'm implying they'd probably have just
written
//
IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
gargoyle <fight> combat with the blocking minion instead.
\\
But that doesn't make sense game rules wise does it. What does FIGHT
combat mean?
How WOULD WW word what I'm arguing (even though i know what they're
trying to mean, but humour me here, I'm playing devil's advocate),
that is, allowing me to tap the gargoyle to enter combat with the
blocking tremere? Would they just eliminate the word, "instead" as I
did in the previous sentence? I suppose this is a similar problem as
with Mask of Lots of Faces (which also has a troublesome (to me) word
"instead")...
Thoughts, or should I just give up trying to argue these somantics
(ie. have we tired of this topic so soon?!?)?
~SV
Yep... I've no life. :)
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C29D8F1...@white-wolf.com>...
> Gargoyle slaves can enter combat instead of their masters.
> They cannot cancel the block-combat once it begins.
> cf. Change of Target.
Thanks, but its that darn word "instead" that's bugging me. I'll just
follow the rulings for Mask of Lots of Faces which also has the word
"instead" in it, that is, limit myself from doing anything cool and
'unique' with it. :)
~SV
In message <f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com>, vermillian
<vermil...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> This is not "start to do it". The key term is that you have the slave
>> Gargoyle "enter combat.... instead".
>>
>> You have already "entered combat" - that's completely done and dusted.
>> It's not the whole fight that's being referred to, just the entering of
>> combat - which you have already done in its entirety.>
>"IF ... is blocked, the controller can tap the slave gargoyle to
>cancel the combat and untap the acting vampire and have the slave
>gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion instead."
>
>Isn't it GREAT to argue somantics? :)
It's fine - it's necessary to be able to apply it properly, however.
The term is "have the gargoyle enter combat with the blocking minion
instead". (Logically equivalent in this instance to the shorter version
I used.) You "enter combat" "instead".
If the acting vampire enters combat, ending the combat will not stop
that from having happened. Thus, you will not be able to do it
"instead" of them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <f987c6cd.01122...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>How WOULD WW word what I'm arguing (even though i know what they're
Beats me -- ask them. But I know how I'd word it:
"...The controller may tap a slave Gargoyle to cancel the resulting
combat and untap the acting vampire. That slave Gargoyle enters combat
with the blocking minion."
However, this is really messy wording and will lead to arguments,
because there is no "time" identifier for when the combat itself is
cancelled. Many people would read it as identical to the existing slave
rule, although it's not.
The "instead" on the existing slave rule clarifies the time during which
the combat may be cancelled, and means that the actual intent of the
rule matches the intuitive reading of that rule -- a good thing.
--
"Grod come smash THAT vampire now."
Thanks all for responding. I've decided that I've got a head ache
trying to be the devil's advocate and thatusually means one thing: the
ruling is totally the way you say, and no amount of tweaking with
somantics can make it mean something else. :)
Until my next rules dispute!
~SV