Concealed Weapon and cycling

I'm aware of the restriction on Concealed Weapon (that the weapon you name must be in hand at the point of naming). I also know that some combat cards can be played to no effect. I found an old ruling form 1995 that seemed to indicate that you *had* to name a valid target for CW for the card to be played, but it was talking about Obfuscate, so I don't know if it was referring to Disguised Weapon, or an earlier version of the card that required Obf. So, for the sake of a modern ruling / my understanding: can you deliberately name a weapon you don't have in hand to make CW fizzle, and cycle a card? Can you name a weapon you don't have in hand even if you have an alternate valid choice in hand? E.g. Methuselah A is on a small amount of pool. Xe has a minion in combat. Xe's been really unlucky with card draw, and somehow has ended up with a hand of 6 x Concealed weapon, and 1 x .44 magnum. Obviously they could play a single CW and the .44, which would all be valid and legal. Methuselah A decides that they don't want to spend the 2 pool on the .44, but would like to cycle some cards to get something that might save them from being ousted. Can Methuselah A play 1 x concealed naming (for example) a poker? If so, could they then deliberately fizzle (in principle) all 6 CW to cycle those cards out of their hand (despite having an available valid target for CW)? --------- Card Text: Concealed Weapon Combat Card (disciplineless) Only usable before range is determined. This minion equips with a non-unique weapon card from your hand (requirements and cost apply as normal). The weapon cannot cost 3 or more pool or inflict (with a regular strike) aggravated damage or 4 or more damage. Thanks, B

On Jan 29, 7:54 am, BeAst <tbz_be...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm aware of the restriction on Concealed Weapon (that the weapon you > name must be in hand at the point of naming). > I also know that some combat cards can be played to no effect. > I think you just answered your own question. > > So, for the sake of a modern ruling / my understanding: can you > deliberately name a weapon you don't have in hand to make CW fizzle, > and cycle a card? Can you name a weapon you don't have in hand even if > you have an alternate valid choice in hand? > As a general rule, when a card requires you to choose a target, you must choose a legal target. If there is none, then you cannot play the card. For example, you cannot attempt to call a Parity Shift if no one has more pool than you (even if you somehow intend to reduce someone's pool between attempting the action and starting the referendum). The same holds for Concealed/Disguised Weapon.

BeAst <tbz_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > So, for the sake of a modern ruling / my understanding: can you > deliberately name a weapon you don't have in hand to make CW fizzle, > and cycle a card? Can you name a weapon you don't have in hand even if > you have an alternate valid choice in hand? No. You can never attempt something that couldn't succeed at the time you announce it.

On Jan 29, 2:12 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Cheers gents, that was my assumption, but I knew the card had been errata'd since 1995. This combined with the playing combat cards to no effect made me want to clarify. Thanks for your time, B

> As a general rule, when a card requires you to choose a target, you > must choose a legal target. If there is none, then you cannot play > the card. For example, you cannot attempt to call a Parity Shift if > no one has more pool than you (even if you somehow intend to reduce > someone's pool between attempting the action and starting the > referendum). The same holds for Concealed/Disguised Weapon. Are you sure about that? I thought you can play the parity shift and if it isn't blocked the action will fizzle once you reach the referendum.

On Jan 29, 11:06 am, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] He's right. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fb2e912959e8995c

On Jan 29, 10:06 am, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a general rule, when a card requires you to choose a target, you > > must choose a legal target. If there is none, then you cannot play > > the card. For example, you cannot attempt to call a Parity Shift if > > no one has more pool than you (even if you somehow intend to reduce (edit: should have said increase someone's or decrease your own) > > someone's pool between attempting the action and starting the > > referendum). The same holds for Concealed/Disguised Weapon. > > Are you sure about that? I thought you can play the parity shift and > if it isn't blocked the action will fizzle once you reach the > referendum. You may be thinking of the situation where you call Parity Shift with a legal target, but that person loses pool during the action and when it comes time to set the referendum there is no longer a legal target. In that case, Parity Shift was legal when played, but fizzles at resolution because there is no legal target to name. But you can't play it in the first place unless there is a legal target at that point. All actions work this way, BTW. An action must be legal when attempted, and you must have the blood to pay for it, etc... Then, if and when the action is successful, it fizzles if it is no longer legal (e.g. if your vampire no longer has the blood to pay for it).

A still don't agree. When playing an action card like let's say mind numb for example, you have to choose a legal target by the time the action is anounced. Political actions are different: you choose the target once you reach the referendum. You don't announce the damage allocation of KRC when anouncing the action either. That's how I see it.

On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > A still don't agree. With what? > When playing an action card like let's say mind > numb for example, you have to choose a legal target by the time the > action is anounced. Correct. > Political actions are different: you choose the > target once you reach the referendum. Correct. > You don't announce the damage > allocation of KRC when anouncing the action either. Correct. Although there has to exist a legal allocation when you play the card. Not a big hurdle for KRC, since there's always a legal allocation with 2 or more players in the game. Contrast Reckless Agitation when only 2 players remain. It cannot be played at all, since there is no legal allocation for its 6 points. > That's how I see > it. (Presumably) correct.

On Jan 29, 8:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > A still don't agree. > > With what? With this (post before me): [ quoted text not captured ]

Martin Tibor Major <major.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 29, 8:41�pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> On Jan 29, 2:32�pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > A still don't agree. >> >> With what? > >With this (post before me): If you want to agree with something in the post before you, quote it in your reply in the first place. This is how Usenet works. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jan 29, 9:04 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Jan 29, 8:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> > A still don't agree. > > >> With what? > > >With this (post before me): > > If you want to agree with something in the post before you, quote it in > your reply in the first place. > > This is how Usenet works. Noted. The A should be an I. So I wanted to disagree.

On Jan 29, 1:44 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 8:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > A still don't agree. > > > With what? > > With this (post before me): > > "You may be thinking of the situation where you call Parity Shift with > a legal target, but that person loses pool during the action and when > it comes time to set the referendum there is no longer a legal > target. In that case, Parity Shift was legal when played, but fizzles > at resolution because there is no legal target to name. But you can't > play it in the first place unless there is a legal target at that > point." If you disagree with "that's how it works", then unfortunately, you're wrong. It's been ruled on many times and is absolutely how it works. You cannot call a vote which does not have a valid target, even though you aren't going to choose the target until later. If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well... that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it tends to not change things.

[ quoted text not captured ] You're right, I didn't specify enough what I disagree with. It's your second guess. The ruleing does not seem logical to me, because of what I wrote earlier. Of course I accept the ruleing.

On Jan 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well... > that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having > disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the > past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it > tends to not change things. True, simply disagreeing with something won't tend to change it. Providing reasons to change, assuming such reasons exist, has a better chance of effecting a change.

[ quoted text not captured ] It is my understanding that you replace a card before resolving its effect, So you could play concealed weapon w/ lets say a poker in hand and play the .44 magnum that you draw to replace CW. Likewise, with Infernal Pursuit in play, you could choose to discard the weapon in hand and fizzle CW. But, if you have Tusk in play and no weapon in hand, even though you know the next card is a weapon you can not play CW. Matt

On Jan 30, 11:14 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 3:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > > If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well... > > > that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having > > > disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the > > > past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it > > > tends to not change things. > > > True, simply disagreeing with something won't tend to change it. > > Providing reasons to change, assuming such reasons exist, has a better > > chance of effecting a change. > > It is my understanding that you replace a card before resolving its > effect, More importantly, you fully declare the card as it is played (before replacing it). > So you could play concealed weapon w/ lets say a poker in hand > and play the .44 magnum that you draw to replace CW. So you would have to declare the CW: "I CW to equip a Poker from my hand" before drawing the .44, and thus end up equipping the Poker. > Likewise, with > Infernal Pursuit in play, you could choose to discard the weapon in > hand and fizzle CW. That bit's true. > But, if you have Tusk in play and no weapon in hand, even though you > know the next card is a weapon you can not play CW. Also true.

On Jan 30, 9:22 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 11:14 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 30, 3:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > > > If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well... > > > > that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having > > > > disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the > > > > past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it > > > > tends to not change things. > More importantly, you fully declare the card as it is played (before > replacing it). > > > So you could play concealed weapon w/ lets say a poker in hand > > and play the .44 magnum that you draw to replace CW. > > So you would have to declare the CW: "I CW to equip a Poker from my > hand" before drawing the .44, and thus end up equipping the Poker. I was unaware that you had too name the weapon as part of declairation of CW. Thanks, Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] I often find that making parallels to other cards is a good way to remind people that they need to declare (all) their cards properly when played. For example, do you just say "I'm playing a Bum's Rush. Anyone blocking?". Or do you actually say which minion you're attempting to Bum's Rush? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah you have to Conceal/Disguise a weapon as you play the Conceal/ Disguise. Just like those "as this action is declared" action modifiers (e.g. Weigh the Heart). So you Concealed Weapon a [insert weapon here] then draw to replace both cards after declaration.

> Yeah you have to Conceal/Disguise a weapon as you play the Conceal/ > Disguise. Just like those "as this action is declared" action > modifiers (e.g. Weigh the Heart). So you Concealed Weapon a [insert > weapon here] then draw to replace both cards after declaration. But (as it came up in my weekly game including BeAst last week) you can however, play an Action then also play the Seduction you drew to replace it to prevent a minion being able to block, presumably (LSJ?) because the Seduction isn't a requirement of being able to play the Action. Of course, I'm relying on Hugh A here, and would delight in finding him wrong, but I suspect he isn't. *Grin* - dk

On Jan 31, 6:42 pm, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote: > But (as it came up in my weekly game including BeAst last week) you > can however, play an Action then also play the Seduction you drew to > replace it to prevent a minion being able to block, presumably (LSJ?) > because the Seduction isn't a requirement of being able to play the > Action. > Of course, I'm relying on Hugh A here, and would delight in finding > him wrong, but I suspect he isn't. *Grin* Hugh is correct. "As the action is announced" is a longer window than announcing the card.