If the allies who can use cards requiring a discipline "as a vampire"
are treated as a vampire only by the card, then should a vampire who
can block "as if untapped" be treated as untapped only for purposes of
blocking?
Basically, just because Wake with Evening's Freshness and Forced
Awakening allow you to "block" as though untapped, that wouldn't mean
they let you "avoid Sleeping Mind" as though untapped. Sleeping Mind
wouldn't register Spiridonas using WWEF as untapped, any more than it
would see Ghouled Street Thug using IG as a vampire.
I don't think Dominate needs yet another awesome card, I just think
that this follows from the same reasoning as the Ally thing.
--Brian
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.0205...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorry, doesn't follow at all. Wake lets you "block and play reactions" as
though untapped. Sleeping Mind says you can't block if you are tapped. But
you *block* as though untapped. Personally, I think that Sleeping Mind should
be considered to select all tapped vampires as it is played, and cause those
vampires to be unable to be blocked. However, it was ruled differently.
*shrug* As you said, Dominate doesn't need yet another awesome card.
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:3xEB8.240350$CH1.176138@sccrnsc02...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sleeping Mind was actually most-recent-printinged to avoid
this issue altogether.
"Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced.
[dom] Choose a tapped vampire. The chosen vampire cannot attempt
to block this action.
[DOM] Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced.
Minions cannot untap during this action."
Nothing relevant to Wake anymore, as you can see. Because the
old wording was confusing. :-)
Josh
never liked that ruling either
>
> Nothing relevant to Wake anymore, as you can see. Because the
> old wording was confusing. :-)
>
>
> Josh
>
> never liked that ruling either
I never liked the ruling either, but realise the importance of not
giving Dominate the abillity to do almost unblockable (actions)
bleeds.
"Sacha" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:818c06e0.0205...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oh yeah, absolutely. To clarify, what I didn't like about the
ruling was the claim that it derived from Sleeping Mind's (then)
cardtext. I thought Sleeping Mind should've had errata to not
work against Wake since it was obviously written to keep people
from being able to block with Wake. Basically, it didn't look
to me like a situation where you could avoid errata in favor of
a ruling, because intent was obvious. :-)
I entirely approve of Sleeping Mind not being ridiculously
good. :-)
Josh
sleeping... in my mind
> Sorry, doesn't follow at all. Wake lets you "block and play reactions" as
> though untapped. Sleeping Mind says you can't block if you are tapped.
There is, to my knowledge, no rule prohibiting a vampire from being
tapped and being regarded as untapped simultaneously.
If Sleeping Mind prohibited all vampires <except untapped ones> from
blocking, then a vampire considered untapped could block (even if
tapped).
However, it prohibits all vampires <which are tapped> from blocking,
so I think a tapped vampire cannot block (even if also considered
untapped).
It makes _no sense_ that a vampire can be both untapped and tapped,
but hey, it also makes no sense that an ally can go to torpor. Once
again, there is no rule prohibiting simultaneous tapped and untapped
status.
Or is there? LSJ?
--Brian
In message <80bafd85.02050...@posting.google.com>,
firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about:
>There is, to my knowledge, no rule prohibiting a vampire from being
>tapped and being regarded as untapped simultaneously.
>
>If Sleeping Mind prohibited all vampires <except untapped ones> from
>blocking, then a vampire considered untapped could block (even if
>tapped).
>
>However, it prohibits all vampires <which are tapped> from blocking,
>so I think a tapped vampire cannot block (even if also considered
>untapped).
But it's not a tapped vampire doing the blocking; it's an untapped
vampire. Or, specifically, it's a vampire who is considered untapped
for purposes of blocking and playing reaction cards, per card text.
No tapped vampire can ever block, is the problem. Only untapped
vampires can block. Sleeping Mind's original card text was FUBAR.
>It makes _no sense_ that a vampire can be both untapped and tapped,
>but hey, it also makes no sense that an ally can go to torpor. Once
>again, there is no rule prohibiting simultaneous tapped and untapped
>status.
>
>Or is there? LSJ?
There's no rule prohibiting it, but there's a physical problem; the card
is either upwise or sideways. You can't be both tapped and untapped at
the same time.
You can, however, be tapped and be able to play some cards AS IF you
were untapped, much like allies are able to play some cards AS IF they
were a vampire.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
[ quoted text not captured ]
There is a standing, no-card-needed, rule that says only untapped
minions can block. This is equivalent in every respect to saying
that tapped minions cannot block.
Wake overcomes that restriction. It doesn't make the vampire be both
untapped and tapped.
Sleeping Mind, in it's original printing, restated that basic
restriction from the basic rules.
Wake overcomes that restriction. It doesn't make the vampire be both
untapped and tapped.
To rule that wkae didn't overcome the restriction would be to rule
that Wake has no effect.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> >
> > It makes _no sense_ that a vampire can be both untapped and tapped,
> > but hey, it also makes no sense that an ally can go to torpor. Once
> > again, there is no rule prohibiting simultaneous tapped and untapped
> > status.
> >
> > Or is there? LSJ?
>
> There is a standing, no-card-needed, rule that says only untapped
> minions can block. This is equivalent in every respect to saying
> that tapped minions cannot block.
>
> Wake overcomes that restriction. It doesn't make the vampire be both
> untapped and tapped.
>
> Sleeping Mind, in it's original printing, restated that basic
> restriction from the basic rules.
>
> Wake overcomes that restriction. It doesn't make the vampire be both
> untapped and tapped.
>
> To rule that wkae didn't overcome the restriction would be to rule
> that Wake has no effect.
How do you think that the designers would have worded the original sleeping
mind if they had the intent that it would in fact counter wake? (i.e. that a
minion playing wake couldn't block)
--
Henrik Isaksson
Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> How do you think that the designers would have worded the original sleeping
> mind if they had the intent that it would in fact counter wake? (i.e. that a
> minion playing wake couldn't block)
They obviously had that intent in mind, of course.
And they ended up writing the card in a way that failed to achieve that effect.
The courses of action at that time were to let card text stand or to issue
errata for the sake of "designer intent". Issuing errata to match designer
intent would also have increaed the power of the card. So while designer
intent is one of the criteria for issuing errata, balance is weighed
even more heavily. Result: no errata issued (and thus the card plays by
it's weaker actual text instead of the stronger designer intent).
To achieve the effect they wanted, they could've used something like:
"Choose all tapped minions. The chosen minions cannot block." (together
with the rest of the card's effect - which they probably would've
dropped if they had used that wording - that is they would've likely
gone with "As above, but choose all tapped minions." and allowed the
tapped minions to untap via Rat's Warning or whatnot).
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > It makes _no sense_ that a vampire can be both untapped and tapped,
> > but hey, it also makes no sense that an ally can go to torpor. Once
> > again, there is no rule prohibiting simultaneous tapped and untapped
> > status.
> >
> > Or is there? LSJ?
>
> There is a standing, no-card-needed, rule that says only untapped
> minions can block. This is equivalent in every respect to saying
> that tapped minions cannot block.
Only if being considered untapped means you are not considered tapped.
Most players assume this is the case, but I have found nowhere in the
rules stating a minion cannot be simultaneously considered tapped and
untapped.
If, on the other hand, "untapped" and "tapped" are only /USUALLY/
mutally exclusive by game state, but can be acheived simultaneously by
card play, then the two statements do not amount to the same thing.
> Wake overcomes that restriction. It doesn't make the vampire be both
> untapped and tapped.
The vampire is tapped (game state). The vampire is untapped (card
text). As there is no mention that it ceases to be either, it remains
both.
> Sleeping Mind, in it's original printing, restated that basic
> restriction from the basic rules.
Sleeping Mind said tapped vampires could not block, as opposed to only
untapped vampires could.
> Wake overcomes that restriction. It doesn't make the vampire be both
> untapped and tapped.
If that's a ruling, of course, you win. In fact, I WANT "untapped" to
preclude "tapped", for common sense reasons. Still, listen to the
rest, below.
> To rule that wkae didn't overcome the restriction would be to rule
> that Wake has no effect.
Only untapped vampires may block.
If this vampire is both tapped and untapped, then this vampire may
block.
Tapped vampires may not block.
If this vampire is both tapped and untapped, then this vampire may not
block.
Do you see the difference between these two?
This is why "tapped vampires may not block" is different from "only
untapped vampires may block". If I'm correct, this means the old text
for sleeping mind has meaning (without disturbing any other card's
functionality).
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3CD96757...@white-wolf.com...
> Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> > How do you think that the designers would have worded the original
sleeping
> > mind if they had the intent that it would in fact counter wake? (i.e.
that a
> > minion playing wake couldn't block)
>
> They obviously had that intent in mind, of course.
> And they ended up writing the card in a way that failed to achieve that
effect.
>
> The courses of action at that time were to let card text stand or to issue
> errata for the sake of "designer intent". Issuing errata to match designer
> intent would also have increaed the power of the card. So while designer
> intent is one of the criteria for issuing errata, balance is weighed
> even more heavily. Result: no errata issued (and thus the card plays by
> it's weaker actual text instead of the stronger designer intent).
>
> To achieve the effect they wanted, they could've used something like:
> "Choose all tapped minions. The chosen minions cannot block." (together
> with the rest of the card's effect - which they probably would've
> dropped if they had used that wording - that is they would've likely
> gone with "As above, but choose all tapped minions." and allowed the
> tapped minions to untap via Rat's Warning or whatnot).
>
> --
Ok.... I can buy that!
--
Henrik Isaksson
Brian wrote:
>
> > > It makes _no sense_ that a vampire can be both untapped and tapped,
> > > but hey, it also makes no sense that an ally can go to torpor. Once
> > > again, there is no rule prohibiting simultaneous tapped and untapped
> > > status.
> > >
> > > Or is there? LSJ?
> >
> > There is a standing, no-card-needed, rule that says only untapped
> > minions can block. This is equivalent in every respect to saying
> > that tapped minions cannot block.
>
> Only if being considered untapped means you are not considered tapped.
And it does.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Can't be tapped and not tapped.
Can't be in torpor and not in torpor.
Can't be Camarilla and not Camarilla.
etc.
> Most players assume this is the case, but I have found nowhere in the
> rules stating a minion cannot be simultaneously considered tapped and
> untapped.
The words themselves are sufficient.
[snip moot argument based on the faulty premise]
[ quoted text not captured ]