rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

[LSJ] True Faith vs Oubliete's burn blood/life effect (was [Q] True Faith vs Infernal Strikes)

3 messages from 2 participants · 16 October 2004 – 17 October 2004
original thread on Google Groups

Jyhad_addict

> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2ta5d2F...@uni-berlin.de>... First of all, i'd like to point out that i always respect your rulings, i just wanted to discuss this one, so i could understand why you insist on naming oubliete's sup (strike: CE and burn blood/life), as a strike that is directed to the opposing minion and thus is "striking the minion". > Incorrect. The resolution of Oubliette is: "combat ends and the > opposing minion burns a blood. > Yes, you are right on this, i didn't use the right words, as English is not my native language. What i meant to say is that the burn blood/life effect is applied at a different timing than the CE effect takes place. Because the strike resolves, combat ends and the effect is applied afterwards. And i know it is applied afterwards, because Psyche! allows the combat to end (something that TT does not allow), but restarts a new one without letting the burn blood/life effect to happen. So, my final argument is the following: I believe (correct me if i am wrong) that when you declare ONE strike that has 2 effects, both effects resolve in ONE single resolution phase (in oubliete's example, the effects are applied at a different timing, but this is irevelant i think, because they both resolve in the same single strike resolution phase). So, when you have 2 effects caused by 1 strike, how can you rule that the CE effect is not due to "striking the minion", but the 2nd effect is due to "striking the minion" ? Either the strike as a whole, is considered "striking the minion" or not. Did you mean to say that oubliete's sup version cannot be played at all when in combat with a true faith minion ? if this is the case, then you are saying that oubliete's sup (CE and burn blood/life) is considered a strike that "strikes the opposing minion", so a strike DIRECTED to the opposing minion. But that cannot be correct, because it cannot be dodged. According to 6.4.5 Combat Ends: "Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.", so i guess oubliete's sup cannot be dodged as it is not directed to the opposing minion, thus it cannot be considered striking the minion. The only thing that can support this ruling of yours (that oubliete's burn blood/life effect is considered to be caused by "striking the minion") is to be possible to have 1 strike with 2 effects and CAN say that the 1st effect is caused by not striking the minion, but the 2nd effect is caused by striking the minion. Is this possible when you just have ONE strike ? So, what exactly did you mean ? A. that oubliete's sup cannot even be played when in combat with a true faith minion. or B. that oubliete's sup can be played, but the burn blood/life effect fizzles ? > Note that under your spurious definitions, there is no "opposing > minion", either. > yes there is no opposing minion either, though i don't accept the term "spurious" to characterize my point of view. No need to get angry, we are just making a rule discussion, it is nothing personal. I hope you feel the same about that. Finaly, i'd like to say that i don't want to fight with anyone in here, especially with the rulemaker. I just wanted to discuss it further with you, so no need to get angry about anything. If you feel i have offended you in some way, then i am realy sorry, if you are not angry and i got the wrong impression, then it is ok. Please don't be easy to judge my definitions as spurious, because English is not my native language and i cannot always express correctly what i want to say.

LSJ

Jyhad_addict wrote: >>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2ta5d2F...@uni-berlin.de>... > First of all, i'd like to point out that i always respect your > rulings, i just wanted to discuss this one, so i could understand why > you insist on naming oubliete's sup (strike: CE and burn blood/life), > as a strike that is directed to the opposing minion and thus is > "striking the minion". OK: Because it is a strike against the opposing minion. 1) It is a strike. 2) The effect of the strike targets the opposing minion. The combination of 1) and 2) lead to the conclusion. >>Incorrect. The resolution of Oubliette is: "combat ends and the >>opposing minion burns a blood. > > Yes, you are right on this, i didn't use the right words, as > English is not my native language. What i meant to say is that the > burn blood/life effect is applied at a different timing than the CE > effect takes place. Because the strike resolves, combat ends and the > effect is applied afterwards. It is applied during the resolution of the strike. The fact that strike resolution involves two sequential things (like damage involves two sequential things -- the application of damage and the handling of the applied damage) doesn't change the fact that it is the strike's effect. > And i know it is applied afterwards, because Psyche! allows the > combat to end (something that TT does not allow), but restarts a new > one without letting the burn blood/life effect to happen. It interrupts the strike's effect after the end combat portion and before the "and something else" portion. The fact that the "and something else" is part of the strike resolution (part of the same effect that ended combat) is exactly why Psyche! thwarts the "and something else". > So, my final argument is the following: > > I believe (correct me if i am wrong) that when you declare ONE > strike that has 2 effects, both effects resolve in ONE single > resolution phase (in oubliete's example, the effects are applied at a > different timing, but this is irevelant i think, because they both > resolve in the same single strike resolution phase). Correct. > So, when you have 2 effects caused by 1 strike, how can you rule > that the CE effect is not due to "striking the minion", but the 2nd > effect is due to "striking the minion" ? Ending combat is not striking the opposing minion. It has no effect on the opposing minion. Dodging is not striking the opposing minion. It has no effect on the opposing minion. Stealing blood from a retainer employed by the opposing minion is not striking the opposing minion. It has no effect on the opposing minion. > Either the strike as a whole, is considered "striking the minion" > or not. Yes. The strike as a whole is "striking the minion" since it has an effect (burn a blood) on the opposing minion. > Did you mean to say that oubliete's sup version cannot be played at > all when in combat with a true faith minion ? if this is the case, I said that, yes. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=416FA718.7050802%40white-wolf.com > then you are saying that oubliete's sup (CE and burn blood/life) is > considered a strike that "strikes the opposing minion", so a strike > DIRECTED to the opposing minion. Correct. > But that cannot be correct, because > it cannot be dodged. Incorrect. > According to 6.4.5 Combat Ends: "Combat ends is not affected by a > dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the > dodging minion.", so i guess oubliete's sup cannot be dodged as it is > not directed to the opposing minion, thus it cannot be considered > striking the minion. 6.4.5 indicates that dodge will not thwart an end combat effect. > The only thing that can support this ruling of yours (that > oubliete's burn blood/life effect is considered to be caused by > "striking the minion") is to be possible to have 1 strike with 2 > effects and CAN say that the 1st effect is caused by not striking the > minion, but the 2nd effect is caused by striking the minion. Is this > possible when you just have ONE strike ? Yes. See Burst of Sunlight. One effect: strike the opposing minion. Another effect: deal damage to yourself. See even Body of Sun, which has three effects: damage the opposing minion, damage yourself, and damage all retainers. > So, what exactly did you mean ? What I said: the Oubliette (superior) is a strike against the opposing minion (card text) and so is prohibited under True Faith if the striker is Infernal (card text). > A. that oubliete's sup cannot even be played when in combat with a > true faith minion. Correct. or > > B. that oubliete's sup can be played, but the burn blood/life effect > fizzles ? Not this. >>Note that under your spurious definitions, there is no "opposing >>minion", either. > > yes there is no opposing minion either, though i don't accept the > term "spurious" to characterize my point of view. No need to get > angry, we are just making a rule discussion, it is nothing personal. I > hope you feel the same about that. "Spurious" isn't angry. It is a suitable adjective for the "no combat, so no striking minion, no opposing minion" scenario, namely: false. Nothing personal. > Finaly, i'd like to say that i don't want to fight with anyone in > here, especially with the rulemaker. I just wanted to discuss it > further with you, so no need to get angry about anything. If you feel > i have offended you in some way, then i am realy sorry, if you are not > angry and i got the wrong impression, then it is ok. OK it is, then. > Please don't be easy to judge my definitions as spurious, because > English is not my native language and i cannot always express > correctly what i want to say. -- 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/

Jyhad_addict

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<hcbcd.704780$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > Finaly, i'd like to say that i don't want to fight with anyone in > > here, especially with the rulemaker. I just wanted to discuss it > > further with you, so no need to get angry about anything. If you feel > > i have offended you in some way, then i am realy sorry, if you are not > > angry and i got the wrong impression, then it is ok. > > OK it is, then. > Yeah, everything is fine. Thanks for the time you spent for my questions, I appreciate it.