[LSJ] Powerbase: Tshwane and Non-Played Cards

Can I tap PB: Tshwane to reduce the cost of cards which are put into play by means other than being played? For instace: -weapons brought into play via Concealed Weapon -mages brought into play via Antonio d'Erlette's ability -equipment brought into play via Alastor, Magic of the Smith and Kiss of Lachesis When looking for rulings about this, I found this post, in which you seem to be indicating that Tshwane can't be used in this manner. http://preview.tinyurl.com/4r9ce3 However, in this post, you say that you can use Tshwane in this manner, but later in the thread there's a post from The Lasombra that contains another instance of you saying that it's not possible to do so. (You never replied to his post.) http://preview.tinyurl.com/539kp7 So...how does this work? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Tshwane works, per the ruling cited and quoted in http://preview.tinyurl.com/539kp7

On Oct 13, 8:48 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Tshwane works, per the ruling cited and quoted inhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/539kp7- Hide quoted text - Then why can't a Concealed weapon or d'Erletted mage be the target of Direct Intervention? Eccentric Billionaire, Tshwane and DI all seem to have the same wording with regards to cards being played, yet the former two seem to work differently than the latter. Why is that? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Because the 7/7/7 rulings only cover cost of cards, not other aspects of being "played".

On Oct 13, 10:43 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 8:48 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Tshwane works, per the ruling cited and quoted inhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/539kp7-Hide quoted text - > > Then why can't a Concealed weapon or d'Erletted mage be the target of > Direct Intervention? Eccentric Billionaire, Tshwane and DI all seem to > have the same wording with regards to cards being played, yet the > former two seem to work differently than the latter. Why is that? > > John Eno Because there's rules about how cards that do not count as 'played' yet enter play via a variety of means (concealed, pier 13, d'Erlette, etc) still have to have their cost paid - even though normally 'cost paid' is a part of 'playing the card'. This distinguishes these effects from other ways that cards enter play that -don't- require a cost (like returning from contestation). And there's rulings effectively saying 'cards that affect the cost apply when a card enters play with the cost paid.' I mean, it basically boils down to 'because there's a rule that says 'cost-modifiers also work via this exception' and there isn't a corresponding ruling saying DI works that way; which implies that neither type of card-wording inherently lets you use them (else there wouldn't need to be a ruling saying 'cost-modifiers work in this other circumstance too'). Alternately, you can look at it as 'because the Rules Team felt it was appropriate to let cost-modifiers work on those cards and did not feel it was appropriate to let DI work on them.' -John Flournoy

On Oct 13, 11:51 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Because the 7/7/7 rulings only cover cost of cards, not other aspects > of being "played". On Oct 13, 11:56 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > I mean, it basically boils down to 'because there's a rule that says > 'cost-modifiers also work via this exception' and there isn't a > corresponding ruling saying DI works that way; which implies that > neither type of card-wording inherently lets you use them (else there > wouldn't need to be a ruling saying 'cost-modifiers work in this other > circumstance too'). > > Alternately, you can look at it as 'because the Rules Team felt it was > appropriate to let cost-modifiers work on those cards and did not feel > it was appropriate to let DI work on them.' Ah, okay. I had thought that the 7/7/07 ruling was a clarification, rather than a ruling overriding card text. "It's because LSJ waved the fiat stick" is a legit reason for the cards working this way; I'd been assuming that there was a line of reasoning here that I wasn't understanding. Thanks. John Eno

Kushiel wrote: > On Oct 13, 8:48 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Tshwane works, per the ruling cited and quoted inhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/539kp7- Hide quoted text - > > Then why can't a Concealed weapon or d'Erletted mage be the target of > Direct Intervention? Because DI only works on cards played as normal. > Eccentric Billionaire, Tshwane and DI all seem to > have the same wording with regards to cards being played, yet the > former two seem to work differently than the latter. Why is that? RTR 7/7/7

On Oct 13, 6:27 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > "It's because LSJ waved the > fiat stick" > > John Eno I am having visions of LSJ waving a tiny Italian car around a stick..... ;)