Questions about plays cards as something you're not

To avoid cluttering the request for comments thread with rules questions... In another thread, Sten Düring wrote: > Let me see if I understand correctly. > If Sonja Blue blocks a vampire as an ally she won't benefit from The > Unmasking? Right. Unmasking sees her as a vampire. > She'll also be disallowed to play any intercept-modifiers > only playable by allies (don't know if any such cards exist)? Sure. > If Bima plays Black Sunrise and attempts to block a diablerizing > vampire then Bima will benefit from The Unmasking? Yes. > Bima is also > disallowed to playing The Deadliest Sin when the acting vampire > produces a lot of stealth? Bima is not a vampire, correct. > When Bima calls a PA by means of Charming Lobby and the referendum > fails reacting players are not allowed to play Political Backlash? Correct. > When Bima calls a Kindred Segregation and it passes then Bima is > excempt from effects both from the result of the referendum as > well as a reacting minion playing Treachery? Yes. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6940ffec2064f7c2 > When Superior Madrigal is played and Herald of Topeth plays a card > giving him votes Herald will not lose/gain blood (paid or given as > life instead according to Herald's cardtext)? Correct. > Bima is not allowed to play Healing Touch on itself? Correct. > If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring > the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be > allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still > not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? This one would > be wonderful to explain to new players... Correct. > And just for the fun of it: If an ally would ever be allowed to > play cards requiring Obeah at superior as a vampire then Unburdening > the Bestial Soul might just be one of the most powerful cards in > the game :) I don't see how. The card would burn in the first appropriate untap.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146687045.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > In another thread, Sten Düring wrote: > > Let me see if I understand correctly. > > If Sonja Blue blocks a vampire as an ally she won't benefit from The > > Unmasking? > > Right. Unmasking sees her as a vampire. > > > She'll also be disallowed to play any intercept-modifiers > > only playable by allies (don't know if any such cards exist)? > > Sure. ... > > If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring > > the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be > > allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still > > not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? This one would > > be wonderful to explain to new players... > > Correct. Odd. What is the difference between Daring the Dawn and The Unmasking in this situation? I realize one effect comes from a permanent and the other from a card played to create an effect for the duration of the action, but I don't see how you derive the conclusion that the former ignores Sonja's effect but the latter doesn't. Is there a rule in the rulebook or a well-known principle I'm not aware of? This doesn't seem to fall under the principle of playing-cards-as-something-you're- not. Rather, it's blocking-as-something-you're-not, which strikes me as being a different animal. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] So far it's been ruled that she simply blocks as an ally could block. Meaning she gets past the DtD restriction. That is, only the "who is an eligible blocker?" is overridden (if she chooses to block as an ally). She can still gain intercept as the vampire she is (playing her own Discipline-requiring reaction cards to gain intercept, for example, while not being able to benefit from ally-only effects that would add intercept to her vampire self). I think the rulings have been consistent with that idea, but it's pretty cloudy.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146742865....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: > > > Odd. What is the difference between Daring the Dawn and The > > Unmasking in this situation? I realize one effect comes from > > a permanent and the other from a card played to create an > > effect for the duration of the action, but I don't see how > > you derive the conclusion that the former ignores Sonja's > > effect but the latter doesn't. Is there a rule in the rulebook > > or a well-known principle I'm not aware of? This doesn't seem > > to fall under the principle of playing-cards-as-something-you're- > > not. Rather, it's blocking-as-something-you're-not, which strikes > > me as being a different animal. > > So far it's been ruled that she simply blocks as an ally could block. > Meaning she gets past the DtD restriction. That is, only the "who is an > eligible blocker?" is overridden (if she chooses to block as an ally). > She can still gain intercept as the vampire she is (playing her own > Discipline-requiring reaction cards to gain intercept, for example, > while not being able to benefit from ally-only effects that would add > intercept to her vampire self). > > I think the rulings have been consistent with that idea, but it's > pretty cloudy. It is, you're right. It might be that Sonja would be better handled with card-text making the workings of her ability clearer? For example, if the intent is that all she's supposed to do is escape 'eligibility' restrictions on vampires blocking, her text could say "She may block actions that a (mortal?) ally could block, even if vampires could not normally block." Or, if the intent is that everything ought to treat her as an ally while blocking: "While blocking, she may choose to be considered a (mortal?) ally by all cards and effects until the block succeeds or fails." (This wouldn't let her play discipline-requiring cards after declaring the choice, but she could have played them before that point...) Josh "as if!"

LSJ wrote: > > So far it's been ruled that she simply blocks as an ally could block. > Meaning she gets past the DtD restriction. That is, only the "who is an > eligible blocker?" is overridden (if she chooses to block as an ally). > She can still gain intercept as the vampire she is (playing her own > Discipline-requiring reaction cards to gain intercept, for example, > while not being able to benefit from ally-only effects that would add > intercept to her vampire self). > > I think the rulings have been consistent with that idea, but it's > pretty cloudy. SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC---SORRY I believe that the card text is not that cloudy. "She may block as an ally (but remains a vampire in combat)" this portion of the card text, imo, which explains that Sonja remains a vampire in combat, implies that she also remains a vampire for the duration of the action (which Sonja blocked). So, it is quite clear (though not perfectly clear) that she is just able to block actions that only allies are eligible to block... (as there is no other difference between blocking as an ally and as a vampire). I believe that "Do X as a Y" has become clear (by your infinitive rulings) that it does not make the minion a Y. The X effect recognizes the minion or a minion's attribute/characteristic/e.t.c. as a Y for the purposes of playing the card. If that wasn't the case, then the minion would be unable to do the X. So, sonja can block as an ally, but she is still a vampire... It is just the "checking mechanism for eligible blockers" that recognizes her as an ally... What i am trying to say is that given enough time and thought, most people can interpret the rules correctly, but it's the HEAT of the battle and the lots of rules, that can sometimes slip one's mind and thus lead him/her to a wrong impression/interpretation of the rules. It's perfectly natural if you ask me, so we are damned to need to memorize the possibilities and restrictions of each and single card/effect/e.t.c. when combined with other cards/effects/e.t.c. It's very common in play, for a player to do Z and for another player to say "you can't do this"... and for another to say "yes, he can.... or.... you are right, he cannot... I'VE READ ON GOOGLE GROUP THAT LSJ RULED THAT......" most people don't even need to hear the official explanation... take my playgroup, it's me and another player that we browse through this group often and learn about new rulings, e.t.c. Of course, doing so, we also acquire a better understanding of how the rules work and thus we are able to rule "unusual cases" that occur better. But of course, in most cases, we just know by memory that this or that can or cannot be done, because we've read it in this group... It's common truth that there must be a couple of players, in every playgroup, to do the ruling-digging... It's the prize we have to pay for this wonderful card game... So, imo, we and LSJ should not feel bad if we have to explain to a new or old player, why he can't do a certain thing... even if he finds the explanation involved confusing or disturbing, we just have to make him understand that some features that make this game so great, beautiful and entertaining come with the prize of complexity and with the need for rule/ruling studying... I don't think that is realistic to expect each and every card released to have perfectly clear possibilities and restrictions, when this card is going to interact with thousands of other cards in a lot of different situations... So, we are going to keep asking questions and you (LSJ) are going to keep ruling... imo we just have to accept this and focus on gaming... Rule optimizations (like the one about minions doing X as Y you are curently considering) are always welcome when they are aiming at improving gaming experience/smoothness/consistency/e.t.c. apart from this and careful card designing (which, imo, is at a good level right now), i don't think there are many things that can be done to improve the "many ruilings about specific cards" problem of the game. Finaly, a suggestion... I don't know if there is just one/two or more people that "make" the text of new cards, but maybe having a number of people like 4-6 to thouroughly read card text of each card and then contemplate on what problems/ inconsistencies/ questions may be aroused by them before actualy releasing the cards, might help in fixing or adding card text to clear some clouds... I suspect that when one is making a new card, has something specific in his/her mind and thus it's not easy to predict what the wicked mind of players (these are us) is going to think/try/wonder/e.t.c. So, i believe that having 4-6 people, who don't know or have heard anything about the new card, read it and then contemplate on how it can be used, can help locate questions/incosistencies/e.t.c. before releasing a card... e.g. Anna "DictatrixII" Suljic's card text... many people, including me, were unaware/forgot/slipped their minds that there is a rule stating that there must be specific card text allowing an effect to be aplied to an "uncontrolled" vampire. Meaning that when you can do X to a vampire, you can't do X to an uncontrolled vampire, you need specific card text to allow this. I am not saying that this is an error of the developers, but you could say "controlled vampires", instead of just "vampires" and you would have been spared about questions about Anna's special. another example... Vigilance "[reaction] untap this imbued" it's quite obvious that the "usable by a tapped minion" is missing... It's a minor error that fails to confuse anyone, because of the fact that if it was meant to be played by an untapped minion it will have no effect and would be completely useless. Additionaly, there is no effect that can allow a tapped imbued to play/use reactions as untapped... So, obviously, the "usuable by a tapped minion" was somehow didn't make it into the card text... In this particular case, after 1 min of thinking, one can come to the conclusion that he can use it to untap a tapped imbued. In another theoretical case, mistakenly leaving out a portion of text, could lead to illegal use of a card (with illegal use meaning a use that was not intended by the developers and is bad for gameplay/balance/consistency/etc). Anyway, just my thoughts, sorry for the big posting...

LSJ wrote: > > So far it's been ruled that she simply blocks as an ally could block. > Meaning she gets past the DtD restriction. That is, only the "who is an > eligible blocker?" is overridden (if she chooses to block as an ally). > She can still gain intercept as the vampire she is (playing her own > Discipline-requiring reaction cards to gain intercept, for example, > while not being able to benefit from ally-only effects that would add > intercept to her vampire self). > > I think the rulings have been consistent with that idea, but it's > pretty cloudy. [ quoted text not captured ]

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > most people don't even need to hear the official explanation... take my > playgroup, it's me and another player that we browse through this group > often and learn about new rulings, e.t.c. Of course, doing so, we also > acquire a better understanding of how the rules work and thus we are > able to rule "unusual cases" that occur better. But of course, in most > cases, we just know by memory that this or that can or cannot be done, > because we've read it in this group... > Frankly, it takes a little responsibility. When I created my block fails bleed deck, I looked up the rules on all the wacky cards in the deck: Faceless Night, Leandro, Rachel Brandywine, Spying Mission... If I hadn't, I might have included Mask of 1000 Faces and gotten boned by misplaying it. > Finaly, a suggestion... I don't know if there is just one/two or more > people that "make" the text of new cards, but maybe having a number of > people like 4-6 to thouroughly read card text of each card and then > contemplate on what problems/ inconsistencies/ questions may be aroused > by them before actualy releasing the cards, might help in fixing or > adding card text to clear some clouds... I suspect that when one is > making a new card, has something specific in his/her mind and thus it's > not easy to predict what the wicked mind of players (these are us) is > going to think/try/wonder/e.t.c. > > So, i believe that having 4-6 people, who don't know or have heard > anything about the new card, read it and then contemplate on how it can > be used, can help locate questions/incosistencies/e.t.c. before > releasing a card... > I can personally attest to there being more than 4-6 people who do this. Not all wordings can be improved to the degree we eventually need, particularly those as long as Sonja's. > e.g. Anna "DictatrixII" Suljic's card text... many people, including > me, were unaware/forgot/slipped their minds that there is a rule > stating that there must be specific card text allowing an effect to be > aplied to an "uncontrolled" vampire. Meaning that when you can do X to > a vampire, you can't do X to an uncontrolled vampire, you need specific > card text to allow this. I am not saying that this is an error of the > developers, but you could say "controlled vampires", instead of just > "vampires" and you would have been spared about questions about Anna's > special. > S'ok. Everyone at my table at the Prerelease got that one wrong, even when we knew for a fact she was moving blood to Uncontrolled Imbued. The flipside of this, by the way, is that by specifying "controlled vampire" on her card, you create confusion with *every single card* that says "vampire" instead of "controlled vampire". -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Greg wrote: > > S'ok. Everyone at my table at the Prerelease got that one wrong, even > when we knew for a fact she was moving blood to Uncontrolled Imbued. > The flipside of this, by the way, is that by specifying "controlled > vampire" on her card, you create confusion with *every single card* > that says "vampire" instead of "controlled vampire". > well, maybe and maybe not... it depends on the circumstance. What i mean, well, take for example Master: Auspex... it says "put on a vampire". BUT we all know that you cannot play it on an uncontrolled vampire, right ? if Anna's text said "controlled vampire", then i don't think that people would start wondering if master Auspex can be played on an uncontrolled vampire... Anyway, i know what you are talking about, but if Anna's text said "controlled..." it would cause less confusion, in my opinion, than what it has and will cause in the future... The good thing is that it will make the "specific card text must exist for an effect to apply to an uncontrolled vampire" rule famous.... new player: i use anna's special to move 2 blood to a vampire in my uncontrolled region.... another player: no you can't i am sorry, there is A rule THAT says "......" and that's why you can't put master Auspex on an uncontrolled player :) new player thinks: "wow, this guy knows a lot of rulings, he even knows one associated with master discipline cards..." :P Now that i think it, maybe we should get all of the master Discipline cards reprinted in the following Sabbat Expansion with added card text stating "put on a controlled vampire" :P of course i am just kidding, i hope i don't give the developers any ideas... i am just using Anna as an example, she has a special that is able to misguide players to use it for adding blood to uncontrolled vampires, as this is a very nice and play to win thing to do :), so something like "Anna may move 2 blood from the blood bank to any vampire (still a controlled one)..." would do the trick and people wouldn't confused "vampire (still a controlled one)" with "vampire" as a different target. I know that it's difficult to predict all such "misunderstandings/misinterpretations", but it's possible to avoid a big portion of them with just a little bit better card text planning.

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > Greg wrote: > > > > S'ok. Everyone at my table at the Prerelease got that one wrong, even > > when we knew for a fact she was moving blood to Uncontrolled Imbued. > > The flipside of this, by the way, is that by specifying "controlled > > vampire" on her card, you create confusion with *every single card* > > that says "vampire" instead of "controlled vampire". > > > > well, maybe and maybe not... it depends on the circumstance. > > What i mean, well, take for example Master: Auspex... it says "put on a > vampire". > BUT we all know that you cannot play it on an uncontrolled vampire, > right ? Someone asked that very question in a thread on this newsgroup last month. [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg wrote: > > Someone asked that very question in a thread on this newsgroup last > month. > > -- so i guess that we won't be spared from the new reprinted Master Discipline Cards, with new improved text [put on a controlled vampire], after all... :) I would answer his question with a question... "if it is possible to play e.g. Master Auspex on an uncontrolled vampire, is the Master Auspex in play or out of play ? is the vamps capacity increased before he gets controlled and thus influencing him costs 1 more transfer and 1 more pool, or is it increased after he gets controlled ?"

"tzimisce_dragon" <clan_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146761703.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC---SORRY > > I believe that the card text is not that cloudy. > > "She may block as an ally (but remains a vampire in combat)" > > this portion of the card text, imo, which explains that Sonja remains a > vampire in combat, implies that she also remains a vampire for the > duration of the action (which Sonja blocked). I don't see why you say that. Blocking as an X seems clearly to mean blocking as an X - which would include the same bonuses and penalties as an X, whatever they are. Hell, just the ability to block is a bonus (and the loss of an ability to block as one would normally be allowed to is a penalty) just like anything else. What if a action modifier gave an acting minion the following ability: "The acting minion may be blocked but only by an ally and that ally is burned if it successfully blocks rather than going into combat with the acting minion." Would Sonja be able to block and, if so, would she be burned? It seems that by existing rulings about her ability, she could block and she would not be burned - which strikes me as a huge advantage over both vampires and allies and not at all what was intended by the action modifier card's text. > I believe that "Do X as a Y" has become clear (by your infinitive > rulings) that it does not make the minion a Y. Perhaps. But then, does "Do X as a Y" have any meaning at all? Per LSJ, it seems that it has only the meaning of affecting whether the the thing being done as a Y was allowed or not allowed. (In Sonja's case, "block as an ally" is a voluntary effect but other clauses could be written to be mandatory - and they might thus be penalities at times.) That's fine by way of allowing us to understand what the effect on Sonja's card means exactly, which is the most important thing. But it's still a very arbitrary ruling. > What i am trying to say is that given enough time and thought, most > people can interpret the rules correctly, but it's the HEAT of the > battle and the lots of rules, that can sometimes slip one's mind and > thus lead him/her to a wrong impression/interpretation of the rules. That's often true, I agree. In this case, however, I wouldn't agree with that. As written, without knowing any newsgroup rulings, I would intpret Sonja's card text to mean that she can choose to block as an ally or as a vampire. But if she chooses to block as an ally, she would gain all bonuses (e.g. +1 for The Unmasking) and penalities (e.g. inability to block Stanislava) that go along with being an ally. I wouldn't even have any doubt about it or have bothered to check the newsgroup unless someone else told me to. It's actually kind of fortunate for me that I stumbled onto this discussion. Concerning your other points about memorizing stuff like this, I agree with them for the most part or have no strong opinion. It would be nice if we could get an aggragated encyclopedia of all the significant rulings that get made in this newsgroup and elsewhere rather than ever having to do a newsgroup search. But I realize that takes considerable resources (especially when rulings get changed) which may not be available. So it is what it is. > I don't think that is realistic to expect each and every card released > to have perfectly clear possibilities and restrictions, when this card > is going to interact with thousands of other cards in a lot of > different situations... No. But it would be nice to have a single, finite document that listed all of the known rulings about the individual cards and their interactions with rulebook rules and with other cards. So at least when you're wondering about some interaction, it wouldn't be hard to find past rulings that have been made about it. Fred

In message <1146761722.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, tzimisce_dragon <clan_a...@yahoo.com> writes: >So, it is quite clear >(though not perfectly clear) that she is just able to block actions >that only allies are eligible to block... (as there is no other >difference between blocking as an ally and as a vampire). That's not true. Vampires attempting to block a Camarilla Exemplary burn a blood; allies do not. Ditto Archon. Similarly Donal O' Connor (though that's successful blocking). I am not entirely certain how this affects Sonja, or doesn't, as I haven't followed the issue in detail. However, such cards make allies blocking different from vampires blocking in ways that are not just eligibility. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> S'ok. Everyone at my table at the Prerelease got that one wrong, even > when we knew for a fact she was moving blood to Uncontrolled Imbued. > The flipside of this, by the way, is that by specifying "controlled > vampire" on her card, you create confusion with *every single card* > that says "vampire" instead of "controlled vampire". Ummm. If she was doing that then she was violating 2 rules instead of just one. Even if she could move blood to an uncrontrolled vampire she would still be unable to move it to an uncontrolled Imbued (or at least one in your own uncontrolled region, though she could do it to someone else for whatever reason). Anyhow, I don't see how this ever came up. Maybe it's just something I learned back in the day when skill masters really were necessary for a variety of discipline spreads, but it seems like any experienced player (especially someone judging an event) should know that cards can only effect controlled minions by default.

CthuluKitty wrote: > > Anyhow, I don't see how this ever came up. Maybe it's just something I > learned back in the day when skill masters really were necessary for a > variety of discipline spreads, but it seems like any experienced player > (especially someone judging an event) should know that cards can only > effect controlled minions by default. i agree, but in the heat of battle..... :) it's that we learn what cards can do and cannot do by memory... so, if someone asks if he can place Master Auspex on an uncontrolled vampire, then all the table will tell him "You Can't"... Most people don't ever know why.... they just know that you can't...

James Coupe wrote: > > Vampires attempting to block a Camarilla Exemplary burn a blood; allies > do not. Ditto Archon. Similarly Donal O' Connor (though that's > successful blocking). > maybe i am not entirely correct, or maybe i have my own unique way of seeing things... What i am saying is that i understood what Sonja's text was about from the first time i saw it.. maybe it was just chance.. Anyway, block as an ally means to me that she can attempt a block as an ally, but still remain a vampire at all times, so she should burn blood from Donal's special, Camarilla Exemplary, e.t.c. Blocking as an ally means to me that only the "mechanism checking eligibility for blocking" is considering her an ally... Though i do not claim that her special is completely clear... it sure leaves some clouds, but nothing too important if you ask me...

"tzimisce_dragon" <clan_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146818864....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It's in the rulebook: section 1.6.1.4 "Targets". I am aware that not everyone reads (or remembers) the rules in the rulebook, but it's hard to argue that they (we) shouldn't at least give it a try. :-) Josh has memorized too many card interactions, not enough rules

[ quoted text not captured ] all these and more used to be a part of the actual situation many years back. I think back when LSJ was just some super rules-lawyer fan-boy research monster, and not even the official net.rep. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)