This came up in a tournament yesterday -
Can Shattering Crescendo be played if a second one does not exist in
your hand.
I ruled no because of the Concealed Weapon/Disguised Weapon example
but looking at the two different card texts I'm actually leaning
towards yes, the significant card text in Shattering Crescendo being
"discard blah TO blah"
So the situation, as I read it, would be a Shattering Crescendo is
played without a second one in their hand. If they replace with one,
then that one can be discarded to produce SC's effect. If not the
minion performs a D action that has no effect.
The alternative is that SC cannot even be attempted without a second
one existing in the hand.
Card Text
Shattering Crescendo
[1 Blood]
[pro] (D) Inflict 1 unpreventable damage on an ally or retainer.
[mel] (D) Discard a Shattering Crescendo from your hand to inflict 2
unpreventable damage on each of up to 2 minions controlled by a single
Methuselah.
[MEL] As [mel] above, but for 3 damage each.
Concealed Weapon
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.
LSJ Concealed Weapon ruling:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/6bf4495a3f35df7d/1b0e30de8ec464d1?lnk=gst&q=Concealed+Weapon+author%3ALSJ#1b0e30de8ec464d1
On Aug 23, 1:14 pm, E <eyjc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This came up in a tournament yesterday -
>
> Can Shattering Crescendo be played if a second one does not exist in
> your hand.
>
>> Shattering Crescendo
> [1 Blood]
> [pro] (D) Inflict 1 unpreventable damage on an ally or retainer.
> [mel] (D) Discard a Shattering Crescendo from your hand to inflict 2
> unpreventable damage on each of up to 2 minions controlled by a single
> Methuselah.
> [MEL] As [mel] above, but for 3 damage each.
>
It's a requirement of the card action @ [mel] or [MEL], not at [pro].
If you can't meet the requirement, you can't play the card. Just like
you can't Charming Lobby without PolAction, Conceal a weapon that
isn't in your hand or etc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
To be more accurate, it's a cost, not a requirement.
"Perform X to do Y" suggests cost to me rather than requirement.
However I don't think you can attempt an action if you cannot pay the
cost of the card.
Even though theoretically things can happen during the attempt of the
action could then enable you to pay the costs of the action (e.g. I
get into combat, hit someone for lots, taste for lots, press, Form of
Mist at super to continue action, now I can afford it). I'm pretty
sure you can't even attempt it though if you can't pay the cost. So I
think you're right Euge, can't attempt if you can't pay the cost.
On 23 août, 05:14, E <eyjc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This came up in a tournament yesterday -
>
> Can Shattering Crescendo be played if a second one does not exist in
> your hand.
>
> I ruled no because of the Concealed Weapon/Disguised Weapon example
> but looking at the two different card texts I'm actually leaning
> towards yes, the significant card text in Shattering Crescendo being
> "discard blah TO blah"
>
Correct.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/297f1d16a92b8230/60724e34d0638bf3?lnk=gst&q=shattering+crescendo+author%3Alsj#60724e34d0638bf3
Vincent wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
That is, when you ruled 'no', you were correct.
Quoted from that link:
*****
On Feb 8, 10:44 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 10:06 am, Whisker <moisander.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Shattering Crescendo
> > > type:action
> > > cost: 1 blood
> > > pro: D inflict 1 unpreventable damage on ally or retainer
> > > mel: D Discard a Shattering Crescendo from your hand to inflict 2> > > unpreventable
> > > damage on each of up to 2 minions controlled by a single Methuselah> > > MEL: as mel above, but for 3 damage each
> > > When using this card at mel/MEL at wich point do you discard the
> > > second copy?
> > > 1. After the D action is succesfull?
> > > 2. When you announce the action?
> > 1. When it is successful.
>
> Which of these is true? If you attempt a Shattering Crescendo when
> you do not have another one in hand,
> a) you are cheating.
> b) the action fizzles at resolution if you didn't draw another one.
a).
[posted by LSJ ]
*****
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Hmmmm, I don't agree with this. I don't see why you can't do this
action knowing it will very likely fail.
I looked at the quoted text and that seems to answer a different
question.
Some examples:
Play magic of the smith and fail to find equip.
Vamp with 1 blood does an action that costs 1 blood then uses that 1
blood for a stealth. Action fails because cost can not be paid.
I don't pay the cost until the action succeeds. If I can't pay the
cost action fails.
I think this is different than Concealed Weapon where it happens
immediately.
On Aug 23, 9:44 am, Sim <nex...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmmm, I don't agree with this. I don't see why you can't do this
> action knowing it will very likely fail.
Because you can't attempt something you cannot do.
> I looked at the quoted text and that seems to answer a different
> question.
?
"If you attempt a Shattering Crescendo when
you do not have another one in hand,
a) [you are cheating]. "
> Some examples:
> Play magic of the smith and fail to find equip.
You search.
> Vamp with 1 blood does an action that costs 1 blood then uses that 1
> blood for a stealth. Action fails because cost can not be paid.
Correct.
> I don't pay the cost until the action succeeds. If I can't pay the
> cost action fails.
Correct. And you cannot attempt the action if you do not have the
necessary blood.
> I think this is different than Concealed Weapon where it happens
> immediately.
That is a difference, but that difference is immaterial in this
matter: you cannot attempt what you cannot do.
Wow, nice.
Not trying to argue any further. This card seems very ripe for
cheating.
Seems to me you can almost consider this card has a built in Change of
Target.
No one else at the table can tell if I can pay the cost or not. I can
hope to top deck the second SC and if I do no one can tell that I did
something not allowed.
Also if I want to just try the action I have no extra stealth, I can
wait to see if I'm blocked, if I am then claim I don't have the second
in my hand, woops, sorry.
Maybe I have a hand full of stealth I can cycle through. All of that
I might be able to drop and hope to get the second SC.
I don't know other things you can pull off here if maybe you wanted to
be blocked and get in combat.
I realize this is all cheating. How do you tell if I'm cheating or
just not paying attention. (if I'm someone that can't remember what
disciplines my own vampires have)?
Sorry don't mean to start useless arguing just seems interesting to
me.
(I guess I'll never be able to play DoC ever again, aw well)
On Aug 23, 3:28 pm, Sim <nex...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, nice.
>
> Not trying to argue any further. This card seems very ripe for
> cheating.
>
> Seems to me you can almost consider this card has a built in Change of
> Target.
No. If the ruling were the other way, perhaps.
> No one else at the table can tell if I can pay the cost or not. I can
See also superior Govern the Unaligned.
> hope to top deck the second SC and if I do no one can tell that I did
> something not allowed.
Unless, of course, you fail to top deck and the action succeeds. Then
everyone finds out that your a cheater.
And, of course, as in the case of GtU, players don't spontaneously
cheat.
> Also if I want to just try the action I have no extra stealth, I can
> wait to see if I'm blocked, if I am then claim I don't have the second
> in my hand, woops, sorry.
That's "whoops, you caught me cheating. I guess you'll soon get tired
of playing with a dirty cheater and stop inviting me to your games."
> Maybe I have a hand full of stealth I can cycle through. All of that
> I might be able to drop and hope to get the second SC.
Here's hoping. And see also GtU and 16 years of history there.
> I realize this is all cheating. How do you tell if I'm cheating or
> just not paying attention. (if I'm someone that can't remember what
> disciplines my own vampires have)?
Easily, usually.
See also GtU and the current arrangement of the skypieces.
Sim wrote:
> Wow, nice.
>
> Not trying to argue any further. This card seems very ripe for
> cheating.
>> No one else at the table can tell if I can pay the cost or not.
Do I need to post a 'complete fucking assholes' message again? ;)
Seriously, why are you spending your valuable time gaming with people
that you don't fully trust? I'd really like to know.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
On Aug 24, 3:28 am, Sim <nex...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, nice.
>
> Not trying to argue any further. This card seems very ripe for
> cheating.
>
> Seems to me you can almost consider this card has a built in Change of
> Target.
>
> No one else at the table can tell if I can pay the cost or not. I can
> hope to top deck the second SC and if I do no one can tell that I did
> something not allowed.
>
> Also if I want to just try the action I have no extra stealth, I can
> wait to see if I'm blocked, if I am then claim I don't have the second
> in my hand, woops, sorry.
>
> Maybe I have a hand full of stealth I can cycle through. All of that
> I might be able to drop and hope to get the second SC.
>
> I don't know other things you can pull off here if maybe you wanted to
> be blocked and get in combat.
>
> I realize this is all cheating. How do you tell if I'm cheating or
> just not paying attention. (if I'm someone that can't remember what
> disciplines my own vampires have)?
Tsk.
How hard can it be?
If it's a casual game... WHAT THE HELL?!?!?! Why are you cheating in a
casual game?!?!?
If it's a tournament, and you really can't trust the player, call a
judge to verify.
See also Govern the Unaligned et al.
- YY
(Seriously?)
On Aug 23, 3:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 3:28 pm, Sim <nex...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, nice.
>
> > Not trying to argue any further. This card seems very ripe for
> > cheating.
>
> > Seems to me you can almost consider this card has a built in Change of
> > Target.
>
> No. If the ruling were the other way, perhaps.
>
If the ruling were the other way, then if you attempt one without
another one in hand, the vampire remains tapped to no effect if
unblocked. With the current ruling, if you attempt one without
another one in hand, the vampire untaps if unblocked. Granted, in the
second case, you are cheating, but he does have a point.
I don't see it as a huge problem, but I see where he's coming from.
In a tournament, when another player plays a Shattering Crescendo, I
would probably just make a point to say "you DO have another one in
hand, right?", if I had any questions of whether or not to trust
them. If they say yes, and then try to take it back after getting
blocked or cycling cards, then it's a lot less defensible to say
"oops, I didn't know".
On Aug 24, 1:09 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 3:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:> On Aug 23, 3:28 pm, Sim <nex...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wow, nice.
>
> > > Not trying to argue any further. This card seems very ripe for
> > > cheating.
>
> > > Seems to me you can almost consider this card has a built in Change of
> > > Target.
>
> > No. If the ruling were the other way, perhaps.
>
> If the ruling were the other way, then if you attempt one without
> another one in hand, the vampire remains tapped to no effect if
> unblocked. With the current ruling, if you attempt one without
> another one in hand, the vampire untaps if unblocked. Granted, in the
> second case, you are cheating, but he does have a point.
He never taps and so he doesn't untap.
You're talking about fixing the error (the cheating) by rewinding.
There's two cases there:
1) If he cheating, you fix it by applying the appropriate penalty.
This is usually DQ. [VEKN JG 163]. Then have a judge assign a proxy
player to finish out the cheater's position (as 2 below).
2) If it's an innocent mistake, rewind (here you get the mechanical
"untap" you refer to above, although for game purposes this is just
"doesn't tap" not "untaps"). Moreover, if any advantage is gained
(like exposing potential intercept), additional remedies are applied
to ensure that the violator doesn't wind up with any advantage for the
violation.