LSJ: Form of Mist/Repulsion Q

Form of Mist (at PRO) is only playable if the acting vampire needs the stealth. [LSJ 30-Jun-1997] Repulsion (at OBE) is playable even if the acting vampire does not currently need the stealth. [LSJ 14-Dec-2001] This seems inconsistent. The 30Jun1997 ruling appears broad enough that it should include OBE Repulsion in its scope: "You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if any minions have attempted to block the current action, but not if the acting minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions' intercept. You may play cards and abilities that provide intercept only if the minion you want to play them on has attempted to block the current action, but not if your minion's intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth." Despite the initial sentence of OBE Repulsion being "Put this card on this vampire", it is clearly a card that provides stealth just as much as PRO Form of Mist ("={When played by an acting vampire, this card counts as an action modifier and the action continues}= at +1 stealth as if unblocked") is. Neither of them say simply "+1 stealth" like obf Lost in Crowds does, but if we can tell by reading FoM that it "provides stealth" and is therefore not playable unless you need stealth, we can do the same for Repulsion. The parallel to Sport Bike given in the 14Dec2001 ruling on Repulsion seems sensible, but the 1997 ruling, read literally, looks to me like it's actually so broad that it would prohibit playing a Sport Bike on a minion that didn't (currently) need intercept: Sport Bike, being a "card that provides intercept", should only be playable "if the minion you attempted to play [it] on has attempted to block the current action [...]". Am I wrong about how parallel Repulsion and Form of Mist seem to be? I don't see (now that it was pointed out to me last night) how a ruling governing one can avoid governing the other. thanks, Josh stupid allies anyway

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Form of Mist (at PRO) is only playable if the acting vampire > needs the stealth. [LSJ 30-Jun-1997] > > Repulsion (at OBE) is playable even if the acting vampire does > not currently need the stealth. [LSJ 14-Dec-2001] > > This seems inconsistent. The 30Jun1997 ruling appears broad > enough that it should include OBE Repulsion in its scope: Form of Mist PRO adds stealth. Repulsion OBE puts a card into play. The card, being in play, grants additional stealth. See also equipping with a Sport Bike or a Mask of Erebus. > "You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if > any minions have attempted to block the current action, but not > if the acting minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions' > intercept. You may play cards and abilities that provide > intercept only if the minion you want to play them on has > attempted to block the current action, but not if your minion's > intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth." > > Despite the initial sentence of OBE Repulsion being "Put this > card on this vampire", it is clearly a card that provides > stealth just as much as PRO Form of Mist ("={When played by an > acting vampire, this card counts as an action modifier and the > action continues}= at +1 stealth as if unblocked") is. Neither It is the card in play that provides stealth. Not playing the card (contrast with Form of Mist). > of them say simply "+1 stealth" like obf Lost in Crowds does, > but if we can tell by reading FoM that it "provides stealth" > and is therefore not playable unless you need stealth, we can > do the same for Repulsion. The stealth from Form of Mist comes from playing the card. The stealth from Repulsion comes from the card in play. > The parallel to Sport Bike given in the 14Dec2001 ruling on > Repulsion seems sensible, but the 1997 ruling, read literally, > looks to me like it's actually so broad that it would prohibit > playing a Sport Bike on a minion that didn't (currently) need > intercept: Sport Bike, being a "card that provides intercept", > should only be playable "if the minion you attempted to play > [it] on has attempted to block the current action [...]". Playing the Sport Bike doesn't add intercept. The Sport Bike in play gives intercept. > Am I wrong about how parallel Repulsion and Form of Mist seem > to be? I don't see (now that it was pointed out to me last > night) how a ruling governing one can avoid governing the other. By distinguishing between effects of playing cards and effects of cards in play. > stupid allies anyway Sticky sigs? -- 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:3CD1578C...@white-wolf.com... > The stealth from Form of Mist comes from playing the card. > The stealth from Repulsion comes from the card in play. It seems like the latter is only true if you apply the effects one sentence at a time while reading the card one sentence at a time (ie without looking ahead). If you read the whole card before doing anything, you see "Put this card on this vampire. This vampire gets +1 stealth." You are playing a card that, by its text, provides stealth that comes from playing the card. Reading the card as a whole, "This vampire gets +1 stealth" refers to this *playing* vampire at the same time that it refers to "the vampire with this card". Are current templates such that effects should always be applied one sentence at a time with "then, afterwards" implied at each period, or is this a case-by-case thing? > > stupid allies anyway > > Sticky sigs? I decided to use that as my sig all day today. Because allies are stupid. :-) Josh stupid allies anyway

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CD1578C...@white-wolf.com... > > > The stealth from Form of Mist comes from playing the card. > > The stealth from Repulsion comes from the card in play. > > It seems like the latter is only true if you apply the effects > one sentence at a time while reading the card one sentence at > a time (ie without looking ahead). If you read the whole card > before doing anything, you see "Put this card on this vampire. > This vampire gets +1 stealth." You are playing a card that, > by its text, provides stealth that comes from playing the > card. Reading the card as a whole, "This vampire gets +1 > stealth" refers to this *playing* vampire at the same time > that it refers to "the vampire with this card". I see. And what effect do you think the card in play has? That is, why is it put into play and why does it have a burn option? After being put on a vampire, any reference on the card to "this vampire" is usually taken to mean "the vampire with this card". cf. "This vampire cannot have or play another Repulsion" (meaning the vampire with this card, not the vampire who plays this card - once the card is burned, he can play another). > Are current templates such that effects should always be > applied one sentence at a time with "then, afterwards" implied > at each period, or is this a case-by-case thing? You don't need a sequencing ruling, just a ruling on what "this vampire" means. For cards played on vampires, it means the vampire with the card. See Blood Hunt, Clan Impersonation, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD15EA4...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: [Repulsion] > > Reading the card as a whole, "This vampire gets +1 > > stealth" refers to this *playing* vampire at the same time > > that it refers to "the vampire with this card". > > I see. And what effect do you think the card in play has? That > is, why is it put into play and why does it have a burn option? I know what effect it has in play - I'm just saying it also appears to have that effect "while being played". > After being put on a vampire, any reference on the card to "this > vampire" is usually taken to mean "the vampire with this card". > > cf. "This vampire cannot have or play another Repulsion" (meaning > the vampire with this card, not the vampire who plays this card - > once the card is burned, he can play another). Right. That reminds me, actually: AUS Melange: "As above, and if you successfully block the acting minion, put this card on the acting minion; you still control this card. You may burn this card to get +1 bleed when this vampire bleeds the controller of the vampire with this card." In the last sentence, "this vampire" seems like it must mean "this reacting vampire". But you've already put the card on the acting minion. Came up in a tournament a while ago and confused us all. Were we (eventually) right, that "this vampire" here means "this reacting vampire"? These kinds of cards might all be clearer if they used "the vampire with this card" when that's what they meant, instead of just "this vampire". (And, of course, "this reacting" or "this acting (or modifying)" vampire instead of just "this vampire".) > > Are current templates such that effects should always be > > applied one sentence at a time with "then, afterwards" implied > > at each period, or is this a case-by-case thing? > > You don't need a sequencing ruling, just a ruling on what "this > vampire" means. For cards played on vampires, it means the > vampire with the card. See Blood Hunt, Clan Impersonation, etc. The "sequencing" question seems relevant to the May 1, 2002 Rotschreck ruling, though. If there's no sequencing - if all a card's effects happen indivisibly - it shouldn't be possible to "interrupt" Rotschreck with Psyche!. Josh stupid, stupid allies

Joshua Duffin wrote: > AUS Melange: "As above, and if you successfully block the acting > minion, put this card on the acting minion; you still control this > card. You may burn this card to get +1 bleed when this vampire > bleeds the controller of the vampire with this card." > > In the last sentence, "this vampire" seems like it must mean > "this reacting vampire". But you've already put the card on > the acting minion. Came up in a tournament a while ago and > confused us all. Were we (eventually) right, that "this > vampire" here means "this reacting vampire"? Yes. See how card text (realizing the abiguity) goes on to refer to "the vampire with this card" for clarity. > These kinds of cards might all be clearer if they used "the > vampire with this card" when that's what they meant, instead > of just "this vampire". (And, of course, "this reacting" > or "this acting (or modifying)" vampire instead of just "this > vampire".) True. But sometimes real estate conservation (of merely brevity) is prefered. [ quoted text not captured ]