Single Action question

I'm here with a question about the single action per turn. I think that is allright, but i need some clarifications about it. I was reading that a minion can take an "Enter in Combat with another minion" action (via Haven Uncovered, for example) and eventually repeat the same action (if he can untap in the same turn) as long as it is provided by a different card or another copy of Haven Uncovered in play. If this is true, i feel a little inconsistency in the general "single action x turn" rule logic. "Entering in combat with another minion" should be considered a type action of its own, even if it's not listed in the original Vtes rule booklet. A consistent number of vampires and minions can take it as a special ability, and lots of cards allow our minions/vampires to attempt it. For example, i don't see the reason why Wynn can take the action to enter in combat with a Vampire by its own unique ability, untap via Freak or sup EarthMeld, and then enter in combat again with a Bum's rush or similar card. The action(s) type is (almost)the same. While Donatien cannot attempt to bleed in the same turn (if he is untapped) after he bled a Methuselah via its own unique ability. I think that if a minion can't attempt to equip, recruit allies/retainers etc., more than one time in the same turn, then i think that he should not be able to repeat "Enter in combat with another..." actions too. Otherwise i feel here a little unbalancing in favor of rush-untapping decks Maybe this question was already debated, still i'm unsure if the stuff above is right, so clarifications are very welcome. Thanks in advice. TetratheM P.S.: can someone tell me why the ammo cards cannot be used with the ZipGun? Is the combo with Dragonsbreaths too cheap to play with? Thanks again. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <888fms$5g0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] It is my understanding that you can not do as you mentioned. If a vampire bleeds with social charms he can not come back and bleed with media influence. Therefore why would you be able to enter combat thru a haven uncovered and then use a bum's rush? In my play group this is not allowed. And, I believe the ruling on single action would also prohibit this. [ quoted text not captured ]

In respond to your question about Repeat Rushing. Rushing is not an action. Bleeds are actions. Calling a referendum is a action. Equipping is and action. Employing is an action. Rushing doesn't fall under this catagorization and therefore may be repeated as long as you don't use the same card to enter combat. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <88961b$kbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I believe that the use of a directed action (D) to enter combat with another minion is considered to be an action. This is whether you do so via Haven Uncovered, Bum's Rush, or a special ability of a minion. Paul Cecil [ quoted text not captured ]

> It is my understanding that you can not do as you mentioned. If a > vampire bleeds with social charms he can not come back and bleed with > media influence. Therefore why would you be able to enter combat thru > a haven uncovered and then use a bum's rush? In my play group this is > not allowed. And, I believe the ruling on single action would also > prohibit this. But it is allowed for the very reason the original poster mentioned early in his post: "Entering Combat" is not an action type like, say, bleeding is. "Social Charm" and "Media Influence" are the same action type and as such are illegal to play by the same minion on the same turn. However, "Bum's Rush" and "Haven Uncovered" (and vamp's special abilities) are not of a particular action type. As such, are each either own actions as defined by their card name and instance. So you could not Bum's Rush, untap, Bum's Rush again because it would violate NRA. But you could Bum's Rush, untap, Ambush. Also bear in mind that card instance is very important in cards with undefined action types. This makes it so that each instance of Haven Uncovered is a different action because each is a seperate instance. So this is legal: attack vamp A via Haven on it, untap, attack vamp C via Haven on it, untap, attack vamp H via Haven on it, etc. This leads me to a question for LSJ: IIRC, you said in a previous thread that each vote to burn an Anarch Revolt is a seperate type of vote as defined by each instance, I guess much in the same way that each Haven is it's own instance so that you can perform the example I gave above. But since burning an AR is a political action (whereas Haven is not a defined action), I don't see how it can be that if a Delaying Tactics is played during a vote to burn an AR, another minion during that same turn can call a vote to burn a totally different AR. Yes, it's a different instance in play, but it is still the same political action and card name. By that logic, one could take it a bit further and say "Well, yes, you Delaying Tactics that minion's attempt to call a ConAg, but now this minion is trying to call it and since it is not being called using the same card (instance) as the minion before, this is a different instance and as such, this new minion can attempt to call it no matter what Delaying Tactics says". Since AR is part of a larger defined type of actions, I don't see how it can have the same 'instance exemption' that Haven can have with regards to multiple actions, especially with regards to Delaying Tactics. Sorrow

Once again a little research back through the past threads on this group gave me the answer to this question I have repeated below the answer. Subject: Re: LSJ Queston Date: 04/12/1999 Author: The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> Save this thread In article <371252AA...@alpinetaxi.com>, Patrick Harris <alp...@alpinetaxi.com> wrote: > > There is no action type defined called "Move blood to an uncontrolled > > vampire." Because there is not, you may take multiple different actions to > > do so as long as you have the appropriate skills/titles. > > Is there a list somewhere of the "defined action types"? Or can you list > them out if there aren't many? It would be handy to know which are allowed > and which aren't. From the Standard DCI Floor Rules: 2.5.1 No Repeat Actions A given minion may not repeat an action, by action type, in a single turn. The defined "action types" are: bleed, hunt, equip, employ retainer, recruit ally, political action, leave torpor, rescue a vampire from torpor, and diablerize a vampire in torpor. If an action card is used to perform one of these actions, that action is considered to be of that type. If it is not one of these actions (i.e., Bum's Rush), then it is a type of its own, by card name. If a card in play is used to perform one of these actions, that action is considered to be of that type. If it is not one of these actions (i.e., enter combat via Haven Uncovered), then it is a type of its own, by specific instance of the card in play. Example: A vampire that successfully bleeds its controller's prey via Computer Hacking, then untaps via Freak Drive, cannot perform any bleeding action again, of any kind whatsoever, in that same turn. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Subject: Re: Aw geez Date: 04/13/1999 Author: Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> Save this thread In article <37127379...@alpinetaxi.com>, Patrick Harris <alp...@alpinetaxi.com> wrote: > Duh. I guess I could have checked the DCI rules before I posted. Thanks though. > I can't believe that "rush"/"attack" isn't a defined action type. I think the reason for that is that all the 'defined action types' are the ones that were described in the original rulebook. No action that is created only by an action card (eg Bum's Rush, superior Govern the Unaligned, Ritual Challenge) is considered to be part of a 'defined action type'. (the only non-cardless actions that were described in the rulebook were presumably defined because the cards required to perform them are not self-explanatory action cards - recruit ally, employ retainer, equip, political action.) Josh 'in yer face, Jasper Johns!' -h. simpson [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > It is my understanding that you can not do as you mentioned. If a > vampire bleeds with social charms he can not come back and bleed with > media influence. Therefore why would you be able to enter combat thru > a haven uncovered and then use a bum's rush? In my play group this is > not allowed. And, I believe the ruling on single action would also > prohibit this. No, it doesn't. The NRA rule prohibits taking any basic defined action e.g. bleed, as per the rule book. It also prohibits taking the same named card action twice, even if it provides two separate abilities (e.g. You cannot play Scouting Mission at inferior and superior). However, if there are several copies of a card in play (e.g. multiple copies of Aggressive Tactics) a separate action may be taken by the text of each one. The basic actions defined in the rule book are: Bleed, Hunt, Recruit Ally, Employ Retainer, Call a Political Action, Encounter in Torpor (Rescue), Encounter in Torpor (Diablerie) and that's it, I think. Enter combat with a minion is *not* a defined action type, therefore you can happily, if you wanted, enter combat with a minion via: Bum's Rush Ambush Wynn's special rush action (or Beast, Ebanezer, Roxanne) Bloodhunt (the action card) Imperial Decree Covenant of Blood Huang, Blood Cultist being attackable Rushing an Unacceptable !Nos Cardinal Sin: Insubordination Archon's rush ability Judgement: Death to the Brujah! Haven Uncovered Political Struggle Purity of the Beast Monomancy all on the same turn, assuming untaps. I wonder how many of those it would be possible to get, in one go, assuming everything had been set up perfectly. (Not counting, say, multiple different Havens). Combat is, generally, such a difficult strategy to pull off that the situation being as it is is not generally a problem, as far as I can see. Also, if you start defining new action types, you have problems. Can I play superior Scounting Mission and superior Govern the Unaligned, which are similar actions? Would you want to define a new action type for that? -- James Coupe

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > P.S.: can someone tell me why the ammo cards cannot be used with the > ZipGun? Is the combo with Dragonsbreaths too cheap to play with? > Thanks again. Essentially, that was the reasoning behind it. Being able to pull a Zip Gun and fire and torporise a vampire was the standard tactic of a weenie deck. It was going to torpor anyway, most likely, so it didn't give a monkey's about the 1 damage it did to itself, and the cost of that weighed against torporising another vampire is generally small. Too small, in some opinions. Whether one agrees with that, or not, of course, is a different matter. That was, however, the reasoning, as far as I can tell. (This was not an instance where, in the official document, LSJ provide a hashed-out (i.e. not part of the official ruling) commentary.) -- James Coupe

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, James Coupe wrote: > The basic actions defined in the rule book are: > > Bleed, Hunt, Recruit Ally, Employ Retainer, Call a Political Action, > Encounter in Torpor (Rescue), Encounter in Torpor (Diablerie) and that's > it, I think. My apologies. I forgot "Equip". -- James Coupe

Sorrow wrote: > > > It is my understanding that you can not do as you mentioned. If a > > vampire bleeds with social charms he can not come back and bleed with > > media influence. Therefore why would you be able to enter combat thru > > a haven uncovered and then use a bum's rush? In my play group this is > > not allowed. And, I believe the ruling on single action would also > > prohibit this. > > But it is allowed for the very reason the original poster mentioned > early in his post: "Entering Combat" is not an action type like, say, > bleeding is. "Social Charm" and "Media Influence" are the same > action type and as such are illegal to play by the same minion on > the same turn. However, "Bum's Rush" and "Haven Uncovered" > (and vamp's special abilities) are not of a particular action type. As > such, are each either own actions as defined by their card name > and instance. So you could not Bum's Rush, untap, Bum's Rush > again because it would violate NRA. But you could Bum's Rush, Correct. Similarly, one could superior Govern, untap, and then superior Scouting Mission, untap, and then superior Enchant Kindred. Or follow Rampage with Arson (followed by Al-Ashrad's ability, too). Or steal The Rack followed by superior Dominate Kine. To rule otherwise would require listing *all* the possible action types - and in the process trying to distinguish between hunting and Restoration (or Restoration and Regeneration), and between Ambush (grants a manuever, only targets tapped) and Monomancy (no maneuver, only targets Sabbat, includes 'end combat' option), and between Bauble and Magic of the Smith, and between Blood Feast and superior Media Influence, etc. > untap, Ambush. Also bear in mind that card instance is very > important in cards with undefined action types. This makes it > so that each instance of Haven Uncovered is a different action > because each is a seperate instance. So this is legal: attack > vamp A via Haven on it, untap, attack vamp C via Haven on > it, untap, attack vamp H via Haven on it, etc. Right. > This leads me to a question for LSJ: IIRC, you said in a previous > thread that each vote to burn an Anarch Revolt is a seperate type > of vote as defined by each instance, I guess much in the same way Is a separate vote, defined by each instance. Each is a type of "political action", so they are all of the same type. Similarly, Computer Hacking and Legal Manipulations are two different actions but are the same type of action: namely "bleed". > that each Haven is it's own instance so that you can perform the Each Haven provides its own type of action (in addition to its own action), since the action isn't one of the defined types of actions. > example I gave above. But since burning an AR is a political > action (whereas Haven is not a defined action), I don't see how it > can be that if a Delaying Tactics is played during a vote to burn > an AR, another minion during that same turn can call a vote to > burn a totally different AR. Yes, it's a different instance in play, > but it is still the same political action and card name. By that It is a different Political Action. Just as calling a referndum to burn Elysium would be. But they are all political actions, so the same minion cannot attempt another one. > logic, one could take it a bit further and say "Well, yes, you > Delaying Tactics that minion's attempt to call a ConAg, but now > this minion is trying to call it and since it is not being called using > the same card (instance) as the minion before, this is a different > instance and as such, this new minion can attempt to call it no > matter what Delaying Tactics says". Ah, but it is the same action - since the card is not in play, the action is simply "ConAg". > Since AR is part of a larger defined type of actions, I don't see > how it can have the same 'instance exemption' that Haven can > have with regards to multiple actions, especially with regards to > Delaying Tactics. The instances provide different actions. In the case of non-defined action types (like Haven), these instances are also their own types of actions. In the case of defined action types (like burning Anarch Revolt), the instances are all of the defined type (although they are still different actions). -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Sorrow wrote: > This leads me to a question for LSJ: IIRC, you said in a previous > thread that each vote to burn an Anarch Revolt is a seperate type > of vote as defined by each instance, I guess much in the same way > that each Haven is it's own instance so that you can perform the > example I gave above. I believe this was for the purposes of Delaying Tactics only, not NRA, and the confusion arises because Delaying Tactics affects not just the calling vampire (who is affected by NRA) but also others (who are not). Delaying Tactics prevents any other vampire you control from calling the "same" political action. If I have two Anarchs in play, and you have two vampires, you use the first vampire (say, Carlotta Giovanni) to call a vote to burn the the first Anarch Revolt. I play Delaying Tactics. "Any vampire. Only usable during a political action. The political action is cancelled. Untap the acting vampire. The controller of the acting minion takes the political card if any back into his or her hand, and his or her minions cannot take the same political action this turn." The "same political action", for the purposes of Delaying Tactics, refers only to that specific Anarch Revolt. Rudolpho Giovanni, say, could call a vote to burn the second Anarch Revolt. But if you had a third vampire, they could not call a vote to burn Anarch Revolt, as per Delaying Tactics. -- James Coupe

> > This leads me to a question for LSJ: IIRC, you said in a previous > > thread that each vote to burn an Anarch Revolt is a seperate type > > of vote as defined by each instance, I guess much in the same way > Is a separate vote, defined by each instance. Each is a type of > "political action", so they are all of the same type. Ok > Similarly, Computer Hacking and Legal Manipulations are two different > actions but are the same type of action: namely "bleed". Right. > > example I gave above. But since burning an AR is a political > > action (whereas Haven is not a defined action), I don't see how it > > can be that if a Delaying Tactics is played during a vote to burn > > an AR, another minion during that same turn can call a vote to > > burn a totally different AR. Yes, it's a different instance in play, > > but it is still the same political action and card name. By that > It is a different Political Action. > Just as calling a referndum to burn Elysium would be. But it is still the same vote ("Vote to burn AR") with regards to Delaying Tactics. > But they are all political actions, so the same minion cannot > attempt another one. The same minion, right. But, IIRC, you said in a previous post that a different minion can call a vote to burn a seperate AR even if a Delaying Tactics was played on a prior "Vote to burn an AR" that same turn. So that, basically, with regards to muliple ARs in play, the only thing that the Delaying Tactics would do was stop that one AR vote while not stopping other AR votes on the same turn whereas Delaying Tactics would prevent multiple minions calling mulitple ConAgs on the same turn... > > logic, one could take it a bit further and say "Well, yes, you > > Delaying Tactics that minion's attempt to call a ConAg, but now > > this minion is trying to call it and since it is not being called using > > the same card (instance) as the minion before, this is a different > > instance and as such, this new minion can attempt to call it no > > matter what Delaying Tactics says". > Ah, but it is the same action - since the card is not in play, the > action is simply "ConAg". Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter that it is the same action if 2 different minions take it. And what Delaying Tactics does is prevent that vote, ConAg, from being called again during that turn. Delaying Tactics should be able to do this for the "Vote to burn AR" for that turn regardless of how many ARs are in play. > > Since AR is part of a larger defined type of actions, I don't see > > how it can have the same 'instance exemption' that Haven can > > have with regards to multiple actions, especially with regards to > > Delaying Tactics. > The instances provide different actions. Different actions, yes, but with regards to AR, it's still the same vote. I can take different actions to call ConAg. But when it comes to DT, it is still the same vote and as such cannot be called again that turn. > In the case of non-defined action types (like Haven), these instances > are also their own types of actions. > In the case of defined action types (like burning Anarch Revolt), the > instances are all of the defined type (although they are still different > actions). But again, you can say the exact same thing with cards like ConAg. It's a different card and a different instance and so wouldn't be under the influence of DT, ever. Sorrow

> "Any vampire. Only usable during a political action. The political action > is cancelled. Untap the acting vampire. The controller of the acting > minion takes the political card if any back into his or her hand, and his > or her minions cannot take the same political action this turn." > The "same political action", for the purposes of Delaying Tactics, refers > only to that specific Anarch Revolt. Rudolpho Giovanni, say, could call a > vote to burn the second Anarch Revolt. But if you had a third vampire, > they could not call a vote to burn Anarch Revolt, as per Delaying Tactics. Right. I understand that is the way that it currently works. What I do not understand is *why* it works that way. Regardless of instance, it is still the same vote, the same political action. One could argue that if each AR is an instance of the card, then each political action card is it's own instance. As such, my minion can call ConAg, your minion play DT, then a second minion controlled by me could call ConAg again because it is it's one instance, seperate from the one before by the nature that it is a different card than the one before... Sorrow

Sorrow wrote: > > > This leads me to a question for LSJ: IIRC, you said in a previous > > > thread that each vote to burn an Anarch Revolt is a seperate type > > > of vote as defined by each instance, I guess much in the same way > > Is a separate vote, defined by each instance. Each is a type of > > "political action", so they are all of the same type. > > Ok > > > > example I gave above. But since burning an AR is a political > > > action (whereas Haven is not a defined action), I don't see how it > > > can be that if a Delaying Tactics is played during a vote to burn > > > an AR, another minion during that same turn can call a vote to > > > burn a totally different AR. Yes, it's a different instance in play, > > > but it is still the same political action and card name. By that > > It is a different Political Action. > > Just as calling a referndum to burn Elysium would be. > > But it is still the same vote ("Vote to burn AR") with regards to > Delaying Tactics. No: it's a different vote: "Burn AR #2" instead of "Burn AR #1", since it is an action defined by the instance. > > But they are all political actions, so the same minion cannot > > attempt another one. > > The same minion, right. But, IIRC, you said in a previous post that > a different minion can call a vote to burn a seperate AR even if a > Delaying Tactics was played on a prior "Vote to burn an AR" that > same turn. So that, basically, with regards to muliple ARs in play, > the only thing that the Delaying Tactics would do was stop that one > AR vote while not stopping other AR votes on the same turn whereas > Delaying Tactics would prevent multiple minions calling mulitple > ConAgs on the same turn... Right. DT doesn't prohibit other minions from calling other PAs - just from calling the same PA. > > > logic, one could take it a bit further and say "Well, yes, you > > > Delaying Tactics that minion's attempt to call a ConAg, but now > > > this minion is trying to call it and since it is not being called using > > > the same card (instance) as the minion before, this is a different > > > instance and as such, this new minion can attempt to call it no > > > matter what Delaying Tactics says". > > Ah, but it is the same action - since the card is not in play, the > > action is simply "ConAg". > > Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter that it is the same > action if 2 different minions take it. And what Delaying Tactics does > is prevent that vote, ConAg, from being called again during that turn. > Delaying Tactics should be able to do this for the "Vote to burn AR" > for that turn regardless of how many ARs are in play. Well, you can't call "Vote to burn AR #1" again, no. But you could call a different vote: say "ConAg" or "Vote to burn AR #2". > > > Since AR is part of a larger defined type of actions, I don't see > > > how it can have the same 'instance exemption' that Haven can > > > have with regards to multiple actions, especially with regards to > > > Delaying Tactics. > > The instances provide different actions. > > Different actions, yes, but with regards to AR, it's still the same vote. It's a diferent vote if taken against a different AR in play. > I can take different actions to call ConAg. But when it comes to DT, > it is still the same vote and as such cannot be called again that turn. Right, because the vote is just "ConAg". > > In the case of non-defined action types (like Haven), these instances > > are also their own types of actions. > > In the case of defined action types (like burning Anarch Revolt), the > > instances are all of the defined type (although they are still different > > actions). > > But again, you can say the exact same thing with cards like ConAg. > It's a different card and a different instance and so wouldn't be under > the influence of DT, ever. But it's not a card in play, so doesn't fall under the "instance" rule. If it's not in play, it's just an action by card name. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > "Any vampire. Only usable during a political action. The political action > > is cancelled. Untap the acting vampire. The controller of the acting > > minion takes the political card if any back into his or her hand, and his > > or her minions cannot take the same political action this turn." > > The "same political action", for the purposes of Delaying Tactics, refers > > only to that specific Anarch Revolt. Rudolpho Giovanni, say, could call a > > vote to burn the second Anarch Revolt. But if you had a third vampire, > > they could not call a vote to burn Anarch Revolt, as per Delaying Tactics. > > Right. I understand that is the way that it currently works. What I do not > understand is *why* it works that way. Regardless of instance, it is still > the same vote, the same political action. One could argue that if each AR > is an instance of the card, then each political action card is it's own > instance. While the argument could be made, the ruling has already been made: Terminology * "Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken against the same target. 2) The action taken with the same card played from hand, regardless of target. 3) The same action provided by the same copy of a card in play. (Each action provided by a card in play is a distinct action (and doesn't count as the "same action"). [RTR 05-SEP-1995] [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I am a little confused now, acording to your definition of "same action" I could Night Moves my pred and the legal manip my prey. Doing this does not break any of the three rules. Is this correct?? Little Tommy

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Sorrow wrote: > Right. I understand that is the way that it currently works. What I do not > understand is *why* it works that way. Regardless of instance, it is still > the same vote, the same political action. One could argue that if each AR No. It's "Political Action: Burn Card A" and "Political Action: Burn Card B". That Card A and Card B happen to be the same card, by name, is irrelevant. Kine Resources Contested is "Political Action: KRC". -- James Coupe

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 ceci...@my-deja.com wrote: > I believe that the use of a directed action (D) to enter combat with > another minion is considered to be an action. It is an action. It is not, however, a defined *type* of action in the rule book. Hence, because of the wording of NRA, rushing with an ambush, rushing with a Haven and rushing with an Archon are all distinct action types, regardless of the similarness of their effects. As LSJ has already stated, if you go down this road, you start introducing more problems - is burning a location an action type? Is moving blood to a younger uncontrolled vampire an action type? There are, of course, other instances of this. -- James Coupe

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 tmpi...@unity.ncsu.edu wrote: > I am a little confused now, acording to your definition of "same > action" I could Night Moves my pred and the legal manip my prey. > Doing this does not break any of the three rules. Is this correct?? It breaks the first rule. Both of them are the same inherent action - bleeding. -- James Coupe

James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Enter combat with a minion is *not* a defined action type, therefore > you can happily, if you wanted, enter combat with a minion via: > > Bum's Rush > Ambush > Wynn's special rush action (or Beast, Ebanezer, Roxanne) > Bloodhunt (the action card) > Imperial Decree > Covenant of Blood > Huang, Blood Cultist being attackable > Rushing an Unacceptable !Nos > Cardinal Sin: Insubordination > Archon's rush ability > Judgement: Death to the Brujah! > Haven Uncovered > Political Struggle > Purity of the Beast > Monomancy > > all on the same turn, assuming untaps. I wonder how many of those it > would be possible to get, in one go, assuming everything had been set > up perfectly. (Not counting, say, multiple different Havens). With Precognizant Mobility and Clan Impersonation, you should be able to get all of them. If you have a Contract on a given minion, and the Assamite chosen ceases to be an Assamite, can the now non-Assamite still perform a Contract action? If so, then you can add Contract to the list of actions. If not, then I don't think you can pull off Contract, attacking Huang, and Imperial Decree all in the same turn. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <889l4p$vv8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ceci...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <88961b$kbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > In respond to your question about Repeat Rushing. Rushing is not an > > action. Bleeds are actions. Calling a referendum is a action. > Equipping > > is and action. Employing is an action. Rushing doesn't fall under > this > > catagorization and therefore may be repeated as long as you don't use > > the same card to enter combat. \ > > > I believe that the use of a directed action (D) to enter combat with > another minion is considered to be an action. This is whether you do so > via Haven Uncovered, Bum's Rush, or a special ability of a minion. > > Paul Cecil Yes, "the use of a directed action (D) to enter combat with another minion is considered to be an action" is right. But it is not considered to be a category of actions that fall under the NRA ruling. Therefore, you can Bum's Rush, untap(via whatever means), Ambush, untap again, enter combat using Haven Uncovered and so on... That's the way it stands now. Carpe Noctum Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.10002141331370.15993- 100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > It is my understanding that you can not do as you mentioned. If a > > vampire bleeds with social charms he can not come back and bleed with > > media influence. Therefore why would you be able to enter combat thru > > a haven uncovered and then use a bum's rush? In my play group this is > > not allowed. And, I believe the ruling on single action would also > > prohibit this. > > No, it doesn't. > > The NRA rule prohibits taking any basic defined action e.g. bleed, as per > the rule book. It also prohibits taking the same named card action twice, > even if it provides two separate abilities (e.g. You cannot play Scouting > Mission at inferior and superior). However, if there are several copies > of a card in play (e.g. multiple copies of Aggressive Tactics) a separate > action may be taken by the text of each one. > > The basic actions defined in the rule book are: > > Bleed, Hunt, Recruit Ally, Employ Retainer, Call a Political Action, > Encounter in Torpor (Rescue), Encounter in Torpor (Diablerie) and that's > it, I think. > > Enter combat with a minion is *not* a defined action type, therefore you > can happily, if you wanted, enter combat with a minion via: > > Bum's Rush > Ambush > Wynn's special rush action (or Beast, Ebanezer, Roxanne) > Bloodhunt (the action card) > Imperial Decree > Covenant of Blood > Huang, Blood Cultist being attackable > Rushing an Unacceptable !Nos > Cardinal Sin: Insubordination > Archon's rush ability > Judgement: Death to the Brujah! > Haven Uncovered > Political Struggle > Purity of the Beast > Monomancy > > all on the same turn, assuming untaps. I wonder how many of those it > would be possible to get, in one go, assuming everything had been set up > perfectly. (Not counting, say, multiple different Havens). > > Combat is, generally, such a difficult strategy to pull off that the > situation being as it is is not generally a problem, as far as I can see. > > Also, if you start defining new action types, you have problems. Can I > play superior Scounting Mission and superior Govern the Unaligned, which > are similar actions? Would you want to define a new action type for that? > > Basically you're right, but it's obvious that even now the NRA, as it is, is complicated anyway to deal with. Still, it ensures balance in the game. I think we could effectively start thinking to define the most common "undefined" actions type, including: (D) Enter in combat with XXX (D) Burn a Location (D) Take control of XXX Comments/discussion welcome. TetratheM. > > James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

tmpi...@unity.ncsu.edu wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > >Terminology > > * "Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken > > against the same target. 2) The action taken with the same card played > > from hand, regardless of target. 3) The same action provided by the > > same copy of a card in play. (Each action provided by a card in play is > > a distinct action (and doesn't count as the "same action"). > > [RTR 05-SEP-1995] > > I am a little confused now, acording to your definition of "same > action" I could Night Moves my pred and then legal manip my prey. > Doing this does not break any of the three rules. Is this correct?? That is correct. But if you're playing with the "No Repeat Action" rule (like in a DCI tournament, for instance), you'll have to do more than take a "different action" - you'll have to take a "different type of action". See [DCI 719] for more information on action types. [ quoted text not captured ]

fu...@mindstorm.com wrote: > > James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > Enter combat with a minion is *not* a defined action type, therefore > > you can happily, if you wanted, enter combat with a minion via: > > > > Bum's Rush > > Ambush > > Wynn's special rush action (or Beast, Ebanezer, Roxanne) > > Bloodhunt (the action card) > > Imperial Decree > > Covenant of Blood > > Huang, Blood Cultist being attackable > > Rushing an Unacceptable !Nos > > Cardinal Sin: Insubordination Note: Insubordination doesn't give any rush option. Failure of Mission does, though. > > Archon's rush ability > > Judgement: Death to the Brujah! > > Haven Uncovered > > Political Struggle > > Purity of the Beast > > Monomancy Also add: attack Kemintiri War Party Talbot's Chainsaw > > all on the same turn, assuming untaps. I wonder how many of those it > > would be possible to get, in one go, assuming everything had been set > > up perfectly. (Not counting, say, multiple different Havens). > > With Precognizant Mobility and Clan Impersonation, you should be > able to get all of them. > > If you have a Contract on a given minion, and the Assamite chosen > ceases to be an Assamite, can the now non-Assamite still perform > a Contract action? No. [LSJ 26-JAN-1999] > If so, then you can add Contract to the list > of actions. If not, then I don't think you can pull off Contract, > attacking Huang, and Imperial Decree all in the same turn. Sure you can: just layer as many Clan Impersonations as you like (one per turn) on previous turns. Then burn them as needed to "unwind" through the clans you've impersonated. (Clan Impersonation eliminates Beast from the contest, so you'd have to start with one of the other built-in-rush guys). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > tmpi...@unity.ncsu.edu wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > >Terminology > > > * "Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken > > > against the same target. 2) The action taken with the same card played > > > from hand, regardless of target. 3) The same action provided by the > > > same copy of a card in play. (Each action provided by a card in play is > > > a distinct action (and doesn't count as the "same action"). > > > [RTR 05-SEP-1995] > > > > I am a little confused now, acording to your definition of "same > > action" I could Night Moves my pred and then legal manip my prey. > > Doing this does not break any of the three rules. Is this correct?? > > That is correct. > > But if you're playing with the "No Repeat Action" rule (like in a DCI > tournament, for instance), you'll have to do more than take a > "different action" - you'll have to take a "different type of action". > See [DCI 719] for more information on action types. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp The part I was unclear about was your rule 1 for being a repeat action. It was the same inherent action against the SAME target, impling that you could do the same inherent action against diffrent targets.

Thomas Piscitello wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > tmpi...@unity.ncsu.edu wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > > >Terminology > > > > * "Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken > > > > against the same target. 2) The action taken with the same card played > > > > from hand, regardless of target. 3) The same action provided by the > > > > same copy of a card in play. (Each action provided by a card in play is > > > > a distinct action (and doesn't count as the "same action"). > > > > [RTR 05-SEP-1995] > > > > > > I am a little confused now, acording to your definition of "same > > > action" I could Night Moves my pred and then legal manip my prey. > > > Doing this does not break any of the three rules. Is this correct?? > > > > That is correct. > > > > But if you're playing with the "No Repeat Action" rule (like in a DCI > > tournament, for instance), you'll have to do more than take a > > "different action" - you'll have to take a "different type of action". > > See [DCI 719] for more information on action types. > > The part I was unclear about was your rule 1 for being a repeat action. It was the > same inherent action against the SAME target, impling that you could do the same > inherent action against diffrent targets. "Repeat Action" is associated with the DCI "No Repeat Action" rule, which cares only about same "action type", not just "same action". See [DCI 719] for rules on "same action type". The "same action" definition above has no interaction with the "No Repeat Action" rule - it is only applicable to cards and effects that care about the "same action": Obedience, Change of Target (both of which specify weaker versions of the No Repeat Action rule), Delaying Tactics, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > (D) Enter in combat with XXX > (D) Burn a Location > (D) Take control of XXX I would ask why you think any of these necessary? Are you finding rush combat overly powerful? If you are, you are possibly not placing the right combat defence in your decks. Rush combat is actually quite easy to throw up defences against - Protean (Flesh of Marble) and Fortitude (repeatedly prevent) working well against guns, Potence IG, Claws, lids etc., and only having real problems with a few of the unpreventable damage/not damage strikes. Similarly, I cannot see that Arson, Rampage, Al-Ashrad (or any others) provide such a powerful swing in the game as to require them to be clipped down in such a manner, nor (D) Take Control. Most of the take control cards aren't going to get you vampires very easily for very long, without a lot of work (e.g. rush combat, claw, Graverobbbing) - which I don't see as needing neutering by NRA, it already has a hard time pulling itself off anyway. -- James Coupe

>I think we could effectively start thinking to define the most common >"undefined" actions type, including: >(D) Enter in combat with XXX >(D) Burn a Location >(D) Take control of XXX >Comments/discussion welcome. >TetratheM. >> I think your idea will needlessly complicate matters, and make it even harder to encourage new players, by raising the size of the body of rules on a matter that is in no way unbalanced to begin with. Keep this as a house rule of your own choosing, if it really bothers you that much. Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

> >I think we could effectively start thinking to define the most common > >"undefined" actions type, including: > >(D) Enter in combat with XXX > >(D) Burn a Location > >(D) Take control of XXX > I think your idea will needlessly complicate matters, and make it even > harder to encourage new players, by raising the size of the body of rules on > a matter that is in no way unbalanced to begin with. Keep this as a house > rule of your own choosing, if it really bothers you that much. Complicated or not, I think he raises a valid point. But before I go much further, I'd like to say that my position on this undecided. Why should it be that, with regards to NRA, only a small number of actions are limited (because they just happen to be "defined") whereas others are not so limited. "Entering Combat" = "Entering Combat" regardless of the action took to initate it. Using Bums Rush, Ambush, Haven, etc. is still 'Entering Combat' no matter how you look at it. You say tomatoe I say tomatoe. Similarly, "Burning a Location" = "Burning a Location", regardless of the action took. Ambush, Bums Rush, Beast, Wynn, Arson, Bomb, etc, etc. all use the same term: "Enter combat with.." or "Burn a Location", etc, etc. The only difference is that in some cases there are qualifications (ie, with a tapped minion, etc). These qualifications do not change the fact that it is still an "Entering Combat" action. So since it must be that things like bleeding, equipping, hunting, policitcal actions, etc. should be limited, why not too those actions that are pretty similar not only in type but in wording. "Enter Combat" is no more difficult to remember as an action type than, say, bleed is. While I agree that action types such as those that allow you to take control of X are not as universally similar with regards to wording and as such cannot be as easily classified, but the likes as "Enter Combat" and "Burn a Location" (and I think there may be one or two more that are slipping my mind at the moment) could easily be "defined" and as such fall under the constraints of NRA. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.10002161405230.26878- 100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > (D) Enter in combat with XXX > > (D) Burn a Location > > (D) Take control of XXX > > I would ask why you think any of these necessary? Are you finding rush > combat overly powerful? If you are, you are possibly not placing the > right combat defence in your decks. Rush combat is actually quite easy to > throw up defences against - Protean (Flesh of Marble) and Fortitude > (repeatedly prevent) working well against guns, Potence IG, Claws, lids > etc., and only having real problems with a few of the unpreventable > damage/not damage strikes. > > Similarly, I cannot see that Arson, Rampage, Al-Ashrad (or any others) > provide such a powerful swing in the game as to require them to be clipped > down in such a manner, nor (D) Take Control. Most of the take control > cards aren't going to get you vampires very easily for very long, without > a lot of work (e.g. rush combat, claw, Graverobbbing) - which I don't see > as needing neutering by NRA, it already has a hard time pulling itself off > anyway. > > -- > > James Coupe > Well, the core question, to me, it's not about "rushing deck are too powerful", but instead about a general rule mechanics. I think that for the average new player(s) (always welcome) Vtes it's not simple to learn (we love it for that), with the (necessary) NRA rule things get more complicated to explain, to learn and to deal with. My way of thinking is: we must try to get things simpler, and i was thinking about a simpler NRA rule. A one where players don't have to remember "defined" "undefined" action types and so on. Maybe it will prove futile, as the NRA as it is now is the simpler rule possible, still i would like to get some discussion about this: there's a chanche to get a simpler NRA rule? A very simple one can be: "A minion can take only one action per turn". Untapping effect would be reduced to a defense purpose only. (i untap and get a minion untapped ready for defense). Discussion welcome. TetratheM. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:01:53 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >Well, the core question, to me, it's not about "rushing deck are too >powerful", but instead about a general rule mechanics. >I think that for the average new player(s) (always welcome) Vtes it's >not simple to learn (we love it for that), with the (necessary) NRA >rule things get more complicated to explain, to learn and to deal with. >My way of thinking is: we must try to get things simpler, and i was >thinking about a simpler NRA rule. Well, it's slightly complicated, but it's fairly easy to recognize when something is a "basic" action type. Bleeding, for example. It's also fairly easy for new players to recognize why bleed, majesty, bleed, majesty, bleed, majesty, bleed is such a bad thing, so they are a lot more disposed towards learning the complications. >A one where players don't have to remember "defined" "undefined" action >types and so on. Maybe it will prove futile, as the NRA as it is now is >the simpler rule possible, still i would like to get >some discussion about this: >there's a chanche to get a simpler NRA rule? >A very simple one can be: "A minion can take only one action per turn". Reduces Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, Precognizant Mobility, and Alexandra to wallpaper, as there is no longer a point to untapping with these cards (replace each with a Wake, since the surprise value is almost always worth more than the deterrent value). Removes several other Fortitude cards from play, as nobody is going to try to Rapid Healing themselves out of torpor on the NEXT turn - someone will diablerize. Makes big vampires even more useless (Freak Drive and Rutor's Hand are excellent methods of getting multiple actions out of one vamp, which is necessary for big vamps to compete against a smaller-cap deck). >Untapping effect would be reduced to a defense purpose only. >(i untap and get a minion untapped ready for defense). except, again, it's better to have a Wake in hand, since your predator will then exercise your defenses, cycling your deck to its offensive cards. Even if you're only going to hurl a body in front of the steamroller, Wake is better since you get to select which body, instead of "which vampire can untap." -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

> Why should it be that, with regards to NRA, only a small number of actions > are limited (because they just happen to be "defined") whereas others are > not > so limited. "Entering Combat" = "Entering Combat" regardless of the action > took > to initate it. Using Bums Rush, Ambush, Haven, etc. is still 'Entering > Combat' > no matter how you look at it. You say tomatoe I say tomatoe. Actually, the reason there is no classification for enter combat is because in the rulebook they define the types of actions. They did not define entering combat as one. All of the others are defined in the rulebook. Long time no bleed, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]