Kiss of Lachesis and Ankara Citadel

I just stumbled on this, and a search here didn't show up anything. Can I use Kiss of Lachesis at TEM to equip with Ankara Citadel from an ash heap? (or any of the other unique loquipments for that matter). It doesnt look like Ankara citadel is a Unique equipment when being played (or when in play for that matter) or is there something I am missing? Kiss of Lachesis, Action, 1 blood, Temporis/Serpentis, C1 , [Bloodlines:C1] +1 stealth action. [ser] (D) Burn a retainer or a non-unique equipment card. [tem] (D) Burn a retainer, ally or non-unique equipment card. [TEM] Move a non-unique equipment card from any Methuselah`s ash heap to this vampire. If the equipment card comes from your ash heap, pay half the cost (round down), otherwise no cost is paid. Ankara Citadel, Turkey, The, Equipment, 2 blood, Tremere, U5 , [AH:U5, CE:U] This equipment card represents a unique location and does not count as equipment while in play. The vampire with this location pays only half of the blood cost for any cards he or she plays (round down).

On Jun 9, 3:17 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just stumbled on this, and a search here didn't show up anything. > > Can I use Kiss of Lachesis at TEM to equip with Ankara Citadel from an > ash heap? (or any of the other unique loquipments for that matter). > It doesnt look like Ankara citadel is a Unique equipment when being > played (or when in play for that matter) or is there something I am > missing? Can't use it. It's a unique equipment in your ash heap. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7ea64a36189f49bc [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 9, 3:39 pm, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 3:17 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" > > <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just stumbled on this, and a search here didn't show up anything. > > > Can I use Kiss of Lachesis at TEM to equip with Ankara Citadel from an > > ash heap? (or any of the other unique loquipments for that matter). > > It doesnt look like Ankara citadel is a Unique equipment when being > > played (or when in play for that matter) or is there something I am > > missing? > > Can't use it. It's a unique equipment in your ash heap.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7ea6... > > > > > Kiss of Lachesis, Action, 1 blood, Temporis/Serpentis, C1 , > > [Bloodlines:C1] > > +1 stealth action. > > [ser] (D) Burn a retainer or a non-unique equipment card. > > [tem] (D) Burn a retainer, ally or non-unique equipment card. > > [TEM] Move a non-unique equipment card from any Methuselah`s ash heap > > to this vampire. If the equipment card comes from your ash heap, pay > > half the cost (round down), otherwise no cost is paid. > > > Ankara Citadel, Turkey, The, Equipment, 2 blood, Tremere, U5 , [AH:U5, > > CE:U] > > This equipment card represents a unique location and does not count as > > equipment while in play. The vampire with this location pays only half > > of the blood cost for any cards he or she plays (round down). Ahh, there was a post, thanks. :) It might be a linguistic thing that I am not understanding. "This equipment card represents a unique location and does not count as equipment while in play." Looking only at that, there are no mentioning of additional clauses for when "not in play". The equipment symbol is on the card, which must be why it is seen as an equipment in the ash heap. Since there is no symbol for "uniqueness" it must be because of card text. The only reference to uniqueness is in relation to the location part, when the card is in play. When not in play, it says it is just an "equipment card". Not a "unique equipment card". Why is it seen as a "unique equipment" in the ash heap?

On 9 Juni, 16:08, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why is it seen as a "unique equipment" in the ash heap? Even in the ash heap its an equipment card, which is unique. When its in play its no longer equipment but still unique :) I agree the wording template is really wierd.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I also checked all the other locequipment cards to see if this was because of a "all unique loquipments are also considered unique equipments" rule or something like that, but found that there is actually one that isnt unique in any way. Living Manse Equipment 1 blood Tzimisce This equipment card represents a location and does not count as an equipment card while it is in play. The vampire with this location gets +1 bleed. He or she can burn this card before range is determined to end combat. A vampire may have only one Living Manse.

On Jun 9, 9:17 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can I use Kiss of Lachesis at TEM to equip with Ankara Citadel from an > ash heap? No, but for the low low price of $20US you can get it out of your ash heap at no stealth! John Eno what will it take for me to get you behind the wheel of a Summon History deck today?

[ quoted text not captured ] Not much :) Since I had already been thinking about a Truuujah/Summon History wall deck. Just because Quicksilver contemplation and Internal Recursion are so cool, but it always annoyed me that they cost 1 blood. Now with Summon history/Ankara they are free!! Deck Name: Trujah wall deck Created By: Nikolaj Wendt Description: True Brujah wall deck. Yeah. Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 10, Max: 35, Avg: 5,41) ---------------------------------------------- 2 Al-Muntathir AUS FOR PRE TEM obf qui8 True Brujah 1 Andre LeRoux aus 3 Toreador 1 Donald Cargill aus 1 Caitiff 1 Gwen Brand auschi 3 Ravnos 1 Kalila aus obf 3 Malkavian 1 Lindsay Yates aus for pre CEL5 Toreador 3 Lydia AUS FOR POT TEM dom pre9 True Brujah 1 Tyler McGill AUS pre 4 Toreador 1 Veejay Vinod AUS 3 Nagaraja Library: (80 cards) ------------------- Master (11 cards) 2 Giant`s Blood 1 Pentex Subversion 3 Smiling Jack, The Anarch 1 Tabriz Assembly 4 Vessel Action (10 cards) 1 Frozen Object 1 Path of the Scorched Heart, The 7 Summon History 1 Vaticination Action Modifier (10 cards) 4 Domain of Evernight 4 Recurring Contemplation 2 Tangle Atropos` Hand Reaction (21 cards) 2 Eagle`s Sight 8 Eyes of Argus 7 Internal Recursion 2 My Enemy`s Enemy 2 Telepathic Misdirection Combat (13 cards) 3 Aura Reading 4 Outside the Hourglass 3 Rolling with the Punches 3 Soak Ally (3 cards) 1 Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter) 1 Mylan Horseed (Goblin) 1 Renegade Garou Equipment (5 cards) 1 Ankara Citadel, Turkey, The 1 Blood Shield 1 Flak Jacket 1 Ivory Bow 1 Sniper Rifle Combo (7 cards) 7 Quicksilver Contemplation This deck was last saved at 22:27:09 on 10-06-2010

On Jun 9, 11:17 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just stumbled on this, and a search here didn't show up anything. > Ankara Citadel, Turkey, The, Equipment, 2 blood, Tremere, U5 , [AH:U5, > CE:U] > This equipment card represents a unique location and does not count as > equipment while in play. The vampire with this location pays only half > of the blood cost for any cards he or she plays (round down). All the Ankara Citadel is saying by the first sentence is: When in play this is a location and not a 'normal equipment' like a shotgun, laptop, etc so you can't target it with "Choose a non- Location piece of equipment..." clauses. "This equipment card represents a unique location" is where it gets it "Unique" trait (and if new versions of Loquipments are printed could we get "Location" and "Unique" added in the bold text-line at the top of the cardtext?

On 10 Juni, 00:03, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > "This equipment card represents a unique location" is where it gets it > "Unique" trait (and if new versions of Loquipments are printed could > we get "Location" and "Unique" added in the bold text-line at the top > of the cardtext? Or heck, a consistent card template for all cards? =]

[ quoted text not captured ] Or easily understood card text for that matter. For example, even though Anarch Troublemaker's card text implies that it has to be put into play to be used, it does not explicitly state so. Given that it is not a location -and that [1.6.2.6] states that: "Other master cards: Any master cards not explained here have their effects described on them. These master cards are discarded when they are played unless the card says to put it into play or to play it on some other card."- a simple line of text like: "Put this card into play." would really help. During a game last night, my girlfriend (who's fairly new to the game) got very confused over the contradiction between the rules and the card text, since going by the rules, Anarch Troublemaker should be discarded when played, making it completely useless. -YY

On Jun 10, 9:21 pm, YY <the1andonl...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote: > On Jun 10, 9:05 pm, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 10 Juni, 00:03, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "This equipment card represents a unique location" is where it gets it > > > "Unique" trait (and if new versions of Loquipments are printed could > > > we get "Location" and "Unique" added in the bold text-line at the top > > > of the cardtext? > > > Or heck, a consistent card template for all cards? =] > > Or easily understood card text for that matter. > For example, even though Anarch Troublemaker's card text implies that > it has to be put into play to be used, it does not explicitly state > so. I guess it depends on the degree of explicitness you require. But really, there is only one way to make sense of the card. > Given that it is not a location -and that [1.6.2.6] states that: > "Other master cards: Any master cards not explained here have their > effects described on them. These master cards are discarded when they > are played unless the card says to put it into play or to play it on > some other card." Perhaps that should be changed to read. "unless the card clearly indicates it is to be put it into play or played on some other card." > - a simple line of text like: "Put this card into > play." would really help. All "Unique Masters" are cards to be placed in play in one way or another. The vast majority have text explicitly saying so. Those that seem to lack it are: Anarch Troublemaker Flames of Insurrection * Fragment of the Book of Nod The Marrakesh Codex Mob Connections Playing for Keeps ** Seattle Committee * * = "Put this card into play" added as errata on WW site. ** = banned ante card. > During a game last night, my girlfriend (who's fairly new to the game) > got very confused over the contradiction between the rules and the > card text, since going by the rules, Anarch Troublemaker should be > discarded when played, making it completely useless. Going by the rules, I would argue that the fact that the card is "unique", together with the fact that it must be tapped in order to be used, combined with the fact that cards are clearly not intended to be "completely useless", clearly "say" that the card is to be placed in play.

On Jun 11, 10:12 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: * * * * > Going by the rules, I would argue that the fact that the card is > "unique", together with the fact that it must be tapped in order to be > used, combined with the fact that cards are clearly not intended to be > "completely useless", clearly "say" that the card is to be placed in > play. It may be said to clearly imply that it should be placed in play. It may even be said to state that it is to be placed in play, insofar as one takes it that things can be stated by implication (a sensible position). But to say that the card "clearly states" (which is what I take it you were trying to get at with the scare quotes) that it is to be put in play is to work great violence on the English language. I think that we can all accept that there is a complex system of implicature at work in properly understanding this game and allow for that without having to invent the fiction that the rules are somehow a perfectly coherent system.

Legendre wrote: > It may be said to clearly imply that it should be placed in play. > It may even be said to state that it is to be placed in play, insofar > as one takes it that things can be stated by implication (a sensible > position). The word used in 1.6.2.6 is "says" and that is what I was referencing. > But to say that the card "clearly states" (which is what I take it you > were trying to get at with the scare quotes) that it is to be put in > play is to work great violence on the English language. Well, I need not have used the word "clearly", which forms no part of 1.6.2.6. Still, I would say clarity is a matter of degree. In all my years playing V:tES, I have never known anyone till now to be confused by the text of Anarch Troublemaker. I'm not even sure anyone was truly confused this time. But even if we construe "says" narrowly, and conclude that Anarch Troublemaker does not literally "say" that it is to be placed in play, then the rule on 1.8.2.6 would merely conflict with the card itself, reasonably interpreted in a broader sense. At this point, we would simply apply the golden rule for cards, and ignore the narrowly- construed unless-clause 1.6.2.6.

On 12 Juni, 03:27, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Still, I would say clarity is a matter of degree. In all my years > playing V:tES, I have never known anyone till now to be confused by > the text of Anarch Troublemaker. I'm not even sure anyone was truly > confused this time. It was just one example of many where rules and card text dont go hand in hand.

On Jun 10, 8:21 pm, YY <the1andonl...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote: > On Jun 10, 9:05 pm, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 10 Juni, 00:03, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "This equipment card represents a unique location" is where it gets it > > > "Unique" trait (and if new versions of Loquipments are printed could > > > we get "Location" and "Unique" added in the bold text-line at the top > > > of the cardtext? > > > Or heck, a consistent card template for all cards? =] > > Or easily understood card text for that matter. > For example, even though Anarch Troublemaker's card text implies that > it has to be put into play to be used, it does not explicitly state > so. Given that it is not a location -and that [1.6.2.6] states that: > "Other master cards: Any master cards not explained here have their > effects described on them. These master cards are discarded when they > are played unless the card says to put it into play or to play it on > some other card."- a simple line of text like: "Put this card into > play." would really help. Perhaps the next time the card is reprinted (which it hasn't been for 7 years), that change can get implemented. Suggestions on how to improve card text for clarity (like you've just done) are always better than simply saying "we need more consistency in card text." (If nothing else, bringing these specific points up helps playtesters look for similar issues in future expansions and suggest similar changes before new cards get printed.) > -YY -John Flournoy

On Jun 12, 9:10 pm, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote: > It was just one example of many where rules and card text dont go hand > in hand. Maybe. But I thought that was why we have a "Golden Rule for Cards".

[ quoted text not captured ] If you tell me where it states that you put Anarch troublemaker into play I'll play along that this particular card obey that rule :P

On Jun 12, 10:04 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps the next time the card is reprinted (which it hasn't been for > 7 years), that change can get implemented. Suggestions on how to > improve card text for clarity (like you've just done) are always > better than simply saying "we need more consistency in card text." > Correct. This is the first time anyone has pointed out that Anarch Troublemaker lacks the "put into play" text. I've update the card text source, so that oversight will be corrected on the next web update.

[ quoted text not captured ] And what about the OP question about Ankara Citadel being still unique in the ashheap or not? The card doesn't say so. What is the official ruling?

On Jun 14, 9:59 am, Amenophobis <preache...@gmx.at> wrote: > And what about the OP question about Ankara Citadel being still unique > in the ashheap or not? The card doesn't say so. What is the official > ruling? ? Floppy linked the official ruling already: in the first response to the OP.

alex fnurp wrote: > If you tell me where it states that you put Anarch troublemaker into > play I'll play along that this particular card obey that rule :P Already covered. The phrase "Unique Master" together with the fact that the card must be tapped to function, indicates it must be placed in play. There is only one way to interpret the card. If your quibble depends on a narrow construction of the word "states," then that word appears nowhere in the Golden Rule For Cards. The Golden Rule For Cards merely asks that you interpret the card, and apply any contradictions with the Rulebook accordingly.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, must have missed it. However, what's the difference to, say, The Embrace, where the card is just a card in the ashheap, not a minion, though it is a minion in play. Ankara Citadel doesn't say that it is unique equipment, like Ivory Bow does, e.g. It is only unique by card text when in play. I'm a bit confused by the ruling, that's all.

On 15 kesä, 00:20, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > alex fnurp wrote: > > If you tell me where it states that you put Anarch troublemaker into > > play I'll play along that this particular card obey that rule :P > > Already covered. The phrase "Unique Master" together with the fact > that the card must be tapped to function, indicates it must be placed > in play. There is only one way to interpret the card. Or does the fact that the card doesn't get put into play indicate that it isn't unique and doesn't have to be tapped to function? Or is it tapped and unique in the ash heap because of the Golden Rule For Cards?

[ quoted text not captured ] Pretty much sums up the only way to interpret the card ;) - teh fnurpaderpa

suoli wrote: > Or does the fact that the card doesn't get put into play indicate that > it isn't unique and doesn't have to be tapped to function? ??? The former fact -- that it does't get put into play -- comes from the Rulebook 1.6.2.6. The latter facts -- that it is unique and must be tapped for use -- comes from the card itself. Simply apply the Golden Rule for Cards. > Or is it > tapped and unique in the ash heap because of the Golden Rule For Cards? Sure, if you think that is a reasonable interpretation of the card. If so, you will be happy to know that LSJ has just fixed the card text for the benefit of persons like yourself.

On 15 Juni, 05:38, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > ??? > The former fact -- that it does't get put into play -- comes from the > Rulebook 1.6.2.6. The latter facts -- that it is unique and must be > tapped for use -- comes from the card itself. Simply apply the Golden > Rule for Cards. The card could contradict the rule that you cant play cards or use their effect in your ash heap. Five guys in a wodden cabin in a far far away kingdom without internet connection and lacking professor degree in nerdology couldnt make heads or tail on this card. We all know how to play the card, are we allowed to have clearer text on our cards for the benefit of everyone? Please? > Sure, if you think that is a reasonable interpretation of the card. > If so, you will be happy to know that LSJ has just fixed the card text > for the benefit of persons like yourself. Finnish persons? I can has godwin the thread soon? - fnurp can has nothing

On Jun 15, 12:41 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote: > The card could contradict the rule that you cant play cards or use > their effect in your ash heap. Does it also contradict the rule that one cannot contest cards that are in one's ash heap? How does one yield such a contest? Or, under this interpretation, are we simply supposed to ignore the word "Unique" as non-functional text? > Five guys in a wodden cabin in a far > far away kingdom without internet connection and lacking professor > degree in nerdology couldnt make heads or tail on this card. For the past 16 years, we have all been in the same boat as those 5 guys. This is the first time anyone on the internet has raised or addressed the issue. Yet, somehow, we all knew how to play the card. > We all know how to play the card [...] We sure do. > [...] are we allowed to have clearer text > on our cards for the benefit of everyone? Please? In this case, LSJ has already granted your wish. But be careful what you wish for. By the time EVERYONE has been benefited, and every conceivable misunderstanding clarified, we are likely to have card text two paragraphs long for the simplest of cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] Making the card text of Anarch Troublemaker clearer already benefited everyone. Clarity is a matter of degree so not every conceivable misunderstanding needs to or should be clarified, just the ones that fall under the threshold.

On Jun 15, 1:01 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Making the card text of Anarch Troublemaker clearer already benefited > everyone. No. It only benefits those who might be confused. The rest of us are merely given more text to read (or we will be if the card gets reprinted), which slows down play, and hurts everyone. > Clarity is a matter of degree so not every conceivable > misunderstanding needs to or should be clarified, just the ones that > fall under the threshold. I leave that to LSJ's sound judgment. I merely assert that we, as players, have some responsibility to use our brains in interpreting intent of cards, and not demand to be spoon- fed overmuch.

[ quoted text not captured ] That goes without saying. You are also asserting that Anarch Troublemaker's card text is clear enough. I'm not sold on that.

On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > You are also asserting that Anarch > Troublemaker's card text is clear enough. I'm not sold on that. Fair enough. However, nobody has actually confessed to being confused by the card, or reported that anyone else was confused by it. Even YY's girlfriend, discussed at the start of the thread, was not confused by the card. Her problem, as YY reported it, was that she "confused over the contradiction between the rules and the card text". In short, she understood the card fine. She just thought that the rulebook (1.6.2.6) said otherwise, and forgot to apply the Golden Rule for Cards.

On 15 Juni, 17:02, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does it also contradict the rule that one cannot contest cards that > are in one's ash heap? How does one yield such a contest? Or, under > this interpretation, are we simply supposed to ignore the word > "Unique" as non-functional text? Or, you know, the card could have "Put this into play" text on it and it would all be good. > For the past 16 years, we have all been in the same boat as those 5 > guys. This is the first time anyone on the internet has raised or > addressed the issue. Yet, somehow, we all knew how to play the card. Haha, are you serious? About this particular card, sure its the first time ive seen it but it surely isnt the only confusing card in the game, ya know. You never missunderstood a card and played everything as it was ment to be played? Congrats, you are the second person playing this game that has ever done that. You and LSJ. I have to recheck erratas on cards *all* the time, Zip Gun is a classic example. > In this case, LSJ has already granted your wish. But be careful what > you wish for. By the time EVERYONE has been benefited, and every > conceivable misunderstanding clarified, we are likely to have card > text two paragraphs long for the simplest of cards. No, it wont. But if it is then its a case of bad card templating.

On Jun 15, 6:21 pm, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or, you know, the card could have "Put this into play" text on it and > it would all be good. Or we could leave it off and it would still be good. Perhaps even better, if brevity has value. > > For the past 16 years, we have all been in the same boat as those 5 > > guys. This is the first time anyone on the internet has raised or > > addressed the issue. Yet, somehow, we all knew how to play the card. > > Haha, are you serious? Yes. > About this particular card, sure its the first > time ive seen it This particular card is what I was talking about.

On Jun 11, 1:12 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > All "Unique Masters" are cards to be placed in play in one way or > another. The vast majority have text explicitly saying so. Those > that seem to lack it are: > > Anarch Troublemaker > Flames of Insurrection * > Fragment of the Book of Nod > The Marrakesh Codex > Mob Connections > Playing for Keeps ** > Seattle Committee * > > * = "Put this card into play" added as errata on WW site. > ** = banned ante card. Blood Puppy should also be on this list.