[LSJ] Car Bomb

Scott, Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play Car Bomb? Relavent text Car Bomb Requires a Ready Anarch Only usable before any block attempts are made. Tap this reacting minion. If the acting minion has a vehicle, the action ends (unsuccessfully), the vehicle is burned, and the acting minion takes 2 damage (not preventable). Otherwise the action gets -1 stealth. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Scott, > Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play Car Bomb? Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play superior Telepathic Misdirection? Yes. Any reason why a woken vampire could not play Car Bomb? -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EBFA157...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > > Scott, > > Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play Car Bomb? > > Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play superior Telepathic Misdirection? > > Yes. > > Any reason why a woken vampire could not play Car Bomb? It just says to tap the reacting vampire. How do you tap a tapped vampire even though they may play the card as untapped? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <vc035mr...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote: >It just says to tap the reacting vampire. > >How do you tap a tapped vampire even though they may play the card as >untapped? It's just like a Woken vampire playing inferior Deflection or superior Telepathic Misdirection -- they tap redundantly. Car Bomb doesn't phrase tapping as a cost, just an effect of playing the card. Fast Reaction Foul Blood (inf) Legacy of Power My Enemy's Enemy (sup) Redirection Shilmulo Deception Voice of Madness All tap the reacting vampire. All are usable under Wake. This is not a new issue with Car Bomb. gomi -- Your mama's gonna take it hard You always were your mama's boy You're lying in the graveyard Now you're not your mama's joy

> All tap the reacting vampire. All are usable under Wake. This is not a new > issue with Car Bomb. I was just explaining the source of my question. Scott did ask. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> All tap the reacting vampire. All are usable under Wake. This is not a new >> issue with Car Bomb. > >I was just explaining the source of my question. Scott did ask. In this case (as with most of those Reaction cards mentioned earlier), tapping is part of the effect. If the card wrote "tap this reacting vampire to ..." then you wouldn't be able to use Car Bomb, just like how you can't use Wake with Mariel or Marciana's specials. Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030512184749...@mb-m27.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, if you can tap/untap redundantly, you can use mariel/marciana's abilities with wakes. I don't see any erratta that says otherwise. Now if it said 'tap her when untapped' or some such text, then I could see your point. T

In message <76d1d5ef.03051...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >Actually, if you can tap/untap redundantly, If it's an effect, yes. This is analogous to Blood to Water telling someone to burn blood. If they're empty, they just ignore it. However, Chiropteran Marauder can't give an empty vampire aggravated hand damage. They have to burn a blood "to <do X>". This phrases the previous action as a cost. It cannot be done "redundantly" - it has to actually happen. >you can use >mariel/marciana's abilities with wakes. I don't see any erratta that >says otherwise. No need for errata, follow card text. >Now if it said 'tap her when untapped' or some such text, then I could >see your point. Marcianna: "Tap Marciana and choose a non-Sabbat vampire to allow..." If she is tapped, you never actually tap her to allow... This is a cost, due to the phrasing, not a redundant effect. Mariel: "Before range is chosen, tap Mariel to end..." If she is tapped, you never actually tap her to end... This is a cost, due to the phrasing, not a redundant effect. Actually: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B791A76.9C27B19D%40white-wolf.com [LSJ 20010814] Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Certain vampires may tap for a certain effect (Mariel for end combat, > the new giovanni 2ptr to add+1 intercpet, etc) > > It is my understanding that if they are tapped, they cannot use > wake/forced etc to tap and get their ability, as they do not return to > an untapped state, but merely are able to play reaction cards and > block as if untapped. > > Correct? Correct. Wake/Forced are very clear on which effects are permitted. *** In any instance where it's "burn blood to", "tap to" and so on, you actually have to do it. You cannot just redundantly ignore it. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) wrote in message > > Actually, if you can tap/untap redundantly, you can use > mariel/marciana's abilities with wakes. I don't see any erratta that > says otherwise. > no errata needed, as wwef states:"This reacting vampire can use reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped" read anything about using special abilities here? > Now if it said 'tap her when untapped' or some such text, then I could well, it kinda does..."tap to do x" is not possible, as she is tapped. you cannot tap her, you cannot do x. it's like a blood or pool cost. no blood to burn for wolf claws, no aggravated damage. if you have an empty vamp, you still cannot use the inferior, even though it has no "burn a blood if(or when) you have some" clause. > see your point. > > T

XZealot wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>XZealot wrote: >>>Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play Car Bomb? >>Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play superior Telepathic > Misdirection? > How do you tap a tapped vampire even though they may play the card as > untapped? The same way you do so when playing Telepathic Misdirection at superior. That's the whole point of drawing the parallel: for precedent. General Ruling: "you're free to tap something that's already tapped." [TOM 15-JAN-1996] Other precedents: [LSJ 31-MAY-2001] (Deflection) [LSJ 29-JAN-1998] (Propaganda) [TOM 06-SEP-1995] (Disarming Presence) to name a few. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3EBFA157...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > > Scott, > > Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play Car Bomb? > > Can a tapped vampire play WWEF and then play superior Telepathic Misdirection? > > Yes. > > Any reason why a woken vampire could not play Car Bomb? If a vampire A plays WWEF and uses the car bomb -1 stealth effect on the acting vampire B, then A can also attempt to block B within the effect of the same WWEF ? Right ? johannes walch v:ekn germany

Johannes Walch wrote: > If a vampire A plays WWEF and uses the car bomb -1 stealth effect on the > acting vampire B, then A can also attempt to block B within the effect of > the same WWEF ? Right ? Yes. Card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <b9r5u7$bt$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: >If a vampire A plays WWEF and uses the car bomb -1 stealth effect on the >acting vampire B, then A can also attempt to block B within the effect of >the same WWEF ? Right ? Sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<TcyRLHsv...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > > Marcianna: "Tap Marciana and choose a non-Sabbat vampire to allow..." > > If she is tapped, you never actually tap her to allow... This is a > cost, due to the phrasing, not a redundant effect. > > > Mariel: "Before range is chosen, tap Mariel to end..." > > If she is tapped, you never actually tap her to end... This is a cost, > due to the phrasing, not a redundant effect. > > See this is the problem with allowing 'redundant effects' and other more complicated terms that did not exist in the game until such a ruling. I brought this up again because this all seems out of sync with the riddle phantastique ruling that an untapped vampire could 'choose not to untap' and therefore get rid of a riddle counter. I realize that here the cost is being interpreted as the choice rather than actually untapping, but that's part of the problem; you shouldn't be able to remove a riddle counter unless you actually remain tapped and choose not to untap. Is that an error in the card text or an error in ruling? A bit of both I would say but if the game wasn't unnecesarily complicated by intricate wordplay than the cardtext wouldn't be in question in the first place. I have really got to keep my posts minimal on nightshifts...I think I subconsciouslly knew that you couldn't use mariel/marciana as above and was already thinking of riddle when I posted the orignal response. T

Talonz wrote: > See this is the problem with allowing 'redundant effects' and other > more complicated terms that did not exist in the game until such a > ruling. It has always existed in the game. Disarming Presence. It is also not a problem. > I brought this up again because this all seems out of sync > with the riddle phantastique ruling that an untapped vampire could > 'choose not to untap' and therefore get rid of a riddle counter. It is not. Google: "riddle author:LSJ" > I realize that here the cost is being interpreted as the choice rather > than actually untapping, but that's part of the problem; you shouldn't > be able to remove a riddle counter unless you actually remain tapped > and choose not to untap. Nice assertion. Any rationale? > Is that an error in the card text or an error in ruling? A bit of No. > both I would say but if the game wasn't unnecesarily complicated by > intricate wordplay than the cardtext wouldn't be in question in the > first place. No intricate wordplay involved. When you untap all of your cards, you untap each one. Instead of untapping the riddle bearer, you can choose to burn the counter instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3EC21585...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Talonz wrote: >> See this is the problem with allowing 'redundant effects' and other >> more complicated terms that did not exist in the game until such a >> ruling. > >It has always existed in the game. Disarming Presence. >It is also not a problem. Additionally: Kindred Society Games + Cultivated Blood Shortage Masquerade Endangered + Cultivated Blood Shortage Rotschreck + Cultivated Blood Shortage The Ventrue does not untap, and is then "tapped" by CBS. Letter from Vienna Any Tremere who are already tapped are still "tapped" Tragic Love Affair Can be placed on a tapped Toreador who is still "tapped" Wake with Evening's Freshness + inferior Deflection Wake with Evening's Freshness + superior Telepathic Misdirection Wake with Evening's Freshness + Fast Reaction The already tapped vampire will be "tapped" by Def or TM or FR Faceless Night + Wake with Evening's Freshness Will "tap" an already tapped vampire Consanguineous Condemnation Will "tap" an already tapped member of the clan Lextalionis Will "tap" an already tapped minion of the Methuselah [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EC21585...@white-wolf.com>... > > I realize that here the cost is being interpreted as the choice rather > > than actually untapping, but that's part of the problem; you shouldn't > > be able to remove a riddle counter unless you actually remain tapped > > and choose not to untap. > > Nice assertion. Any rationale? > Interesting, when I look for the past discussion on this very same matter I find that the rulebook has changed since then. You have altered the specefic rules on the untap phase of section 4 to match the summary of the turn as given in section 3. Nicely done, after a fashion. However 1.1(1) still tells us that a tapped card is turned sideways, and to untap is to restore that card to its original (upright) condition. Logically, you cannot untap a card that is not tapped, and therefore the choice to untap is not there. If an effect taps a tapped card, it fails as it is already done. If an effect were to untap an untapped card, it too would fail. These are not redundant effects but effects that will fail, or 'fizzles' if you will. That is why terms like 'redundant effects' are not necesary and misleading. And also why they lead to rulings on cards like the riddle that neuter its intended effect (keeping a minion 'locked down' once it taps until it figures out the riddle). T

Talonz wrote: > However 1.1(1) still tells us that a tapped card is turned sideways, > and to untap is to restore that card to its original (upright) > condition. Logically, you cannot untap a card that is not tapped, and > therefore the choice to untap is not there. Tap: Set a card sideways. Untap: Set a card in it's normal orientation. See the myriad of posts covering this topic already. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >Tap: Set a card sideways. By that definition "tap to x" would be allowed for an already tapped vampire. >Untap: Set a card in it's normal orientation. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

> Talonz wrote: >> However 1.1(1) still tells us that a tapped card is turned sideways, >> and to untap is to restore that card to its original (upright) >> condition. Logically, you cannot untap a card that is >> not tapped, and >> therefore the choice to untap is not there. > > Tap: Set a card sideways. > Untap: Set a card in it's normal orientation. You can tap a tap card, just tap it the other way... =D > See the myriad of posts covering this topic already. -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

CurtAdams wrote: > vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >>Tap: Set a card sideways. > > By that definition "tap to x" would be allowed for > an already tapped vampire. Except that it isn't. C'mon, this isn't rocket science. If you have to tap to do something, then you have to tap to do it. Just like burning blood vs. paying costs from an empty vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >CurtAdams wrote: >> vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >>>Tap: Set a card sideways. > >> By that definition "tap to x" would be allowed for >> an already tapped vampire. >Except that it isn't. C'mon, this isn't rocket science. >If you have to tap to do something, then you have to >tap to do it. Just like burning blood vs. paying costs >from an empty vampire. And by the definition you have above, an already tapped vampire can indeed tap. If you want to say a tapped vampire can't tap, you need a different definition. For consistency, an untapped vampire shouldn't be able to untap either, and currently they sometimes can, depending on which definition of "untap" applies. You of all people should know the importance of consistent *and* obvious definitions. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > vte...@white-wolf.com writes: > > >>CurtAdams wrote: >> >>>vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >>> >>>>Tap: Set a card sideways. >>> >>>By that definition "tap to x" would be allowed for >>>an already tapped vampire. >> > >>Except that it isn't. C'mon, this isn't rocket science. >>If you have to tap to do something, then you have to >>tap to do it. Just like burning blood vs. paying costs > >>from an empty vampire. > > And by the definition you have above, an already tapped > vampire can indeed tap. And an empty vampire can burn blood. > If you want to say a tapped > vampire can't tap, you need a different definition. You can't "tap" to power an effect when your already tapped just as you cannot burn blood to power an effect when you're already empty. > For consistency, an untapped vampire shouldn't be > able to untap either, and currently they sometimes > can, depending on which definition of "untap" applies. > > You of all people should know the importance of > consistent *and* obvious definitions. That's why I appreciate the consistency of the current rulings set. [ quoted text not captured ]