hi =)
something happened in our game tonight :
a baali played a condemnation : X was blocked. He played majesty, untapped,
and then attempted to play condemnation : Y.
He did so despite of my whining.... but i still think Condemnation : X and
Condemnation : Y is the same type of action for NRA purpose. The evidence ?
when you play a condemnation on a minion, card text says "burn all other
condemnation on this minion". So all condemnation are a single type of card.
The same way zahir can fetch in your library a contract / clandestine
contract / dirty contract. Contract is a contract, condemnation is a
condemnation. so NRA triggers.
what do you think LSJ ?
reyda
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:43:13 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I know I'm not LSJ, but my guess is that you can't play/attempt to
play a condemnation, freak drive and then play another condemnation.
Why? Because of this:
Condemnation: Betrayed
+1 stealth action. Condemnation.
Condemnation: Doomed
+1 stealth action. Condemnation.
Condemnation: Languid
+1 stealth action. Condemnation.
All these actions are Condemnation actions, because that's what
they're described as. I'm guessing the "Condemnation." on the cards
are there for two things:
1) To indentify which cards are Condemnation cards.
2) To show that the actions are of one type (Condemnation).
Am I right?
--
Tommy Engvik | to...@tragisk.com | www.tragisk.com
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
a6bihc$o2v$1...@neon.noos.net...
> hi =)
>
> something happened in our game tonight :
> a baali played a condemnation : X was blocked. He played majesty,
untapped,
> and then attempted to play condemnation : Y.
> He did so despite of my whining....
lol Reyda we're both browsing the newsgroup before going to sleep. you're
making things up since you didn't play in that game :)
but i still think Condemnation : X and
> Condemnation : Y is the same type of action for NRA purpose. The evidence
?
> when you play a condemnation on a minion, card text says "burn all other
> condemnation on this minion". So all condemnation are a single type of
card.
> The same way zahir can fetch in your library a contract / clandestine
> contract / dirty contract. Contract is a contract, condemnation is a
> condemnation. so NRA triggers.
well, from the online card list the zahir example wouldn't fit, since Zahir
can get a Contract, e.g. any card with the *keyword* contract, so
Clandestine Contract and the Master Contract fit the bill. But an Assamite
could IMO get in combat with vamp A via the Master Contract, Freak Drive and
then enter combat with the Clandestine without triggering NRA (well I hope
I'm not fumbling with rules here)
from the tournament rules:
"The defined "action types" are the ones defined in the rulebook: 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 those actions (such as
Bum's Rush), then it is a type of its own, by card name."
so IMO Condemnation X is a "Condemnation X" type, and Condemnation Y is a
"Condemnation Y" type, cuz the card names are different. Card names don't
include the "Condemnation" keyword in subsequent card text, do they? So NRA
wouldn't kick in.
while I'm at it, just to check : vamp A is in combat with vamp B. Both
strikes for 1, no prevent. Then A Blurs. It's too late for A to play Taste
of Vitae just after the Blur, right?
Stone
"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:a6bjko$hlm$1...@wanadoo.fr...
>
(snip)
> lol Reyda we're both browsing the newsgroup before going to sleep. you're
> making things up since you didn't play in that game :)
i'm a professional =)
(snip)
> well, from the online card list the zahir example wouldn't fit, since
Zahir
> can get a Contract, e.g. any card with the *keyword* contract, so
> Clandestine Contract and the Master Contract fit the bill. But an Assamite
> could IMO get in combat with vamp A via the Master Contract, Freak Drive
and
> then enter combat with the Clandestine without triggering NRA (well I hope
> I'm not fumbling with rules here)
yes but that was *not* the point. It's just about *type* of cards, not type
of actions. I wanted to point out the fact that different cards can be of
the same type.
(snip the shit from the tournament rules)
> If an action card is used to perform one of these actions, that action is
> considered to be of that type. If it is not one of those actions (such as
> Bum's Rush), then it is a type of its own, by card name."
this is it.
> so IMO Condemnation X is a "Condemnation X" type, and Condemnation Y is a
> "Condemnation Y" type, cuz the card names are different. Card names don't
> include the "Condemnation" keyword in subsequent card text, do they? So
NRA
> wouldn't kick in.
my position is exactly the opposite. Any Condemnation card and therefore
condemnation actions are the same type of action....
As tommy pointed out, the card says "+1 stealth action - condemnation"
If i'm wrong, you'll be drowning in beer at my expense next time we meet. If
you are wrong, i claim the right to sing irritating songs about the rules
each time we meet, like the irritating little prick i surely am. =)
> while I'm at it, just to check : vamp A is in combat with vamp B. Both
> strikes for 1, no prevent. Then A Blurs. It's too late for A to play Taste
> of Vitae just after the Blur, right?
already asked =) go to bed!
> Stone
c u
reyda
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6bihc$o2v$1...@neon.noos.net...
> hi =)
Hi. :>
> something happened in our game tonight :
> a baali played a condemnation : X was blocked. He played majesty,
> untapped, and then attempted to play condemnation : Y.
> He did so despite of my whining.... but i still think
> Condemnation : X and Condemnation : Y is the same type of action
> for NRA purpose. The evidence ?
None.
Actions are defined by type, and by name. There is no action type
called "Condemnation". There is no tournament rules based prohibition
on playing multiple different action cards that have Condemnation in
their name as long as the rest of the title is different.
> when you play a condemnation on a minion, card text says
> "burn all other condemnation on this minion". So all condemnation
> are a single type of card.
Right, they are all action cards. :>
> The same way zahir can fetch in your library a contract /
> clandestine contract / dirty contract. Contract is a contract,
> condemnation is a condemnation. so NRA triggers.
No, pursuing a Contract is not pursuing a Contract is not
pursuing a Contract. A minion may enter combat thru one
type of contract, untap, then enter combat thru another type
of contract. This does not violate NRA in any way.
> what do you think LSJ ?
IANALSJBIPONTV.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
a6bk7s$r3m$1...@neon.noos.net...
(snip Reyday's hopeless position)
> If i'm wrong, you'll be drowning in beer at my expense next time we meet.
Heh. I'll call you a deal-breaker if you don't :)
Stone
"J Bond" <an...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gimi8ug16b6nta44h...@4ax.com...
> Shouldnt this be
>
>
> IANALSJBIPOOTV
Yup. But I think we can forgive him for missing the second 'o'.
Xian
Reyda wrote:
> something happened in our game tonight :
> a baali played a condemnation : X was blocked. He played majesty, untapped,
> and then attempted to play condemnation : Y.
> He did so despite of my whining.... but i still think Condemnation : X and
> Condemnation : Y is the same type of action for NRA purpose. The evidence ?
> when you play a condemnation on a minion, card text says "burn all other
> condemnation on this minion". So all condemnation are a single type of card.
Sorry, no. The "types" of cards are limited to a specific listed in the
rulebook and relisted in the tournament rules. They are (cut and pasted
directly from tournament rules): bleed, hunt, equip, employ retainer, recruit ally,
political action, leave torpor, rescue a vampire from torpor, and diablerize a
vampire in torpor. Is "Condemnation" one of these? No. Case closed.
> The same way zahir can fetch in your library a contract / clandestine
> contract / dirty contract. Contract is a contract, condemnation is a
> condemnation. so NRA triggers.
Bzzzzzt! Sorrybadlogictryagain. Zahir can only fetch one contract with
his special "fetch contract" action. Were "Contract" and "Dirty Contract"
both actions, Zahir or any other Assamite could do them both. The fact
that Zahir can only fetch one of them per turn has nothing to do with whether
one can actually do a Condemnation: Doomed AND a Condemnation: Betrayed on
the same turn. They do not test the same way.
By the way, if Zahir could fetch a Condemenation with a special action
printed on his card, he could likewise fetch only one regardless of the
name of the card.
Fred
Tommy Engvik wrote:
> I know I'm not LSJ, but my guess is that you can't play/attempt to
> play a condemnation, freak drive and then play another condemnation.
> Why? Because of this:
>
> Condemnation: Betrayed
> +1 stealth action. Condemnation.
>
> Condemnation: Doomed
> +1 stealth action. Condemnation.
>
> Condemnation: Languid
> +1 stealth action. Condemnation.
>
> All these actions are Condemnation actions,
Doesn't matter. Unless they're both the same type of card on the
list (bleed, hunt, equip, employ retainer, recruit ally, political action,
leave torpor, rescue a vampire from torpor, and diablerize a vampire in
torpor) or else have the same *name*, they do not qualify.
> because that's what
> they're described as. I'm guessing the "Condemnation." on the cards
> are there for two things:
> 1) To indentify which cards are Condemnation cards.
Correct. This is significant due to the card text on all of the
Condemnation cards which state that placing one Condemnation on a
minion removes all other Condemnations on a minion.
> 2) To show that the actions are of one type (Condemnation).
May be true. But I know of no rule in Jyhad which cares about that
at the current time. Maybe someone else does. But it's not the
NRA rule.
Fred
"J Bond" <an...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gimi8ug16b6nta44h...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:28:55 +0000 (UTC), "The Lasombra"
> <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >IANALSJBIPONTV
??
mmm let me guess...
I Am Not Lawrence Scott Johnson But I Plan One Night To Visit ya ? or
something ?
>
> Shouldnt this be
>
>
> IANALSJBIPOOTV
"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
news:3C897612...@removethis.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> > something happened in our game tonight :
> > a baali played a condemnation : X was blocked. He played majesty,
untapped,
> > and then attempted to play condemnation : Y.
> > He did so despite of my whining.... but i still think Condemnation : X
and
> > Condemnation : Y is the same type of action for NRA purpose. The
evidence ?
> > when you play a condemnation on a minion, card text says "burn all other
> > condemnation on this minion". So all condemnation are a single type of
card.
> Sorry, no. The "types" of cards are limited to a specific listed in the
> rulebook and relisted in the tournament rules. They are (cut and pasted
> directly from tournament rules): bleed, hunt, equip, employ retainer,
recruit ally,
> political action, leave torpor, rescue a vampire from torpor, and
diablerize a
> vampire in torpor. Is "Condemnation" one of these? No. Case closed.
'Kay...
you can't play the same action card twice.
Okay? Now consider : Govern the unaligned sup, block, majest, Govern the
unaligned inf.
is that clear ? i thought everyone would understand.
> > The same way zahir can fetch in your library a contract / clandestine
> > contract / dirty contract. Contract is a contract, condemnation is a
> > condemnation. so NRA triggers.
>
> Bzzzzzt! Sorrybadlogictryagain. Zahir can only fetch one contract with
> his special "fetch contract" action. Were "Contract" and "Dirty Contract"
> both actions, Zahir or any other Assamite could do them both. The fact
> that Zahir can only fetch one of them per turn has nothing to do with
whether
But I know ! the Zahir thing is just to explain that different cards can be
of the same type !
> one can actually do a Condemnation: Doomed AND a Condemnation: Betrayed on
> the same turn. They do not test the same way.
Okay... what can i do....
> By the way, if Zahir could fetch a Condemenation with a special action
> printed on his card, he could likewise fetch only one regardless of the
> name of the card.
Yeah thank you...
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6cjlr$hj1$1...@neon.noos.net...
reading Fred'scott's post again and thinking the point was entirely missed.
difficult to write something in a second language... =/
i will rewrite my statement :
condemnation : betrayed and Condemnation : doomed are two cards who share
more than a common name (Condemnation). The card text also says "+1 Stealth
action - condemnation" and one refers to another further in card text.
I think (therefore i am) that both are the same type of action and fall
under the NRA clause.
Forget zahir or whatever.
I want to know what was the designer's intent on those cards. Are they
really a different type of action or are they the same.
LSJ please save my day !
Reyda
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3518a6c3e7464704046...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a6bihc$o2v$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> > hi =)
>
> Hi. :>
>
> > something happened in our game tonight :
> > a baali played a condemnation : X was blocked. He played majesty,
> > untapped, and then attempted to play condemnation : Y.
> > He did so despite of my whining.... but i still think
> > Condemnation : X and Condemnation : Y is the same type of action
> > for NRA purpose. The evidence ?
>
> None.
> Actions are defined by type, and by name. There is no action type
> called "Condemnation". There is no tournament rules based prohibition
> on playing multiple different action cards that have Condemnation in
> their name as long as the rest of the title is different.
Understood. This what thought at first glance.
> > when you play a condemnation on a minion, card text says
> > "burn all other condemnation on this minion". So all condemnation
> > are a single type of card.
>
> Right, they are all action cards. :>
This is where something tickles me ... I think they are Condemnation
actions.
(snip the contract thing which was obviously a bad idea from the beginning)
> > what do you think LSJ ?
>
> IANALSJBIPONTV.
thank you for answer =)
but i still want to hear LSJ on this one.
not that i'm stubborn, but it may be important for one of my decks =)
reyda
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
a6ckvh$jpu$1...@neon.noos.net...
>> reading Fred'scott's post again and thinking the point was entirely
missed.
> difficult to write something in a second language... =/
especially when such high stakes are at hand.
(snip)
> I want to know what was the designer's intent on those cards. Are they
> really a different type of action or are they the same.
>
> LSJ please save my day !
he won't. I can smell that beer already :)
Stone
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Tommy Engvik wrote:
> > I know I'm not LSJ, but my guess is that you can't play/attempt to
> > play a condemnation, freak drive and then play another condemnation.
> > Why? Because of this:
> >
> > Condemnation: Betrayed
> > +1 stealth action. Condemnation.
> >
> > Condemnation: Doomed
> > +1 stealth action. Condemnation.
> >
> > Condemnation: Languid
> > +1 stealth action. Condemnation.
> >
> > All these actions are Condemnation actions,
Not true. One is a "Condemnation: Betrayed" action, another is a "Condemnation:
Doomed" action. The last is yet another action.
> Doesn't matter. Unless they're both the same type of card on the
> list (bleed, hunt, equip, employ retainer, recruit ally, political action,
> leave torpor, rescue a vampire from torpor, and diablerize a vampire in
> torpor) or else have the same *name*, they do not qualify.
Correct.
> > because that's what
> > they're described as. I'm guessing the "Condemnation." on the cards
> > are there for two things:
> > 1) To indentify which cards are Condemnation cards.
>
> Correct. This is significant due to the card text on all of the
> Condemnation cards which state that placing one Condemnation on a
> minion removes all other Condemnations on a minion.
Correct.
See also: the action to equip a gun is an equip action, not a gun action.
> > 2) To show that the actions are of one type (Condemnation).
>
> May be true. But I know of no rule in Jyhad which cares about that
> at the current time. Maybe someone else does. But it's not the
> NRA rule.
There's no such rule. Types of actions (which only matter to NRA)
are decribed in (and only in) the NRA rules - and those rules don't
support the "Condemnation type" argument.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Stone wrote:
> [snip correctness on NRA stuff - see my other post in this thread]>
> while I'm at it, just to check : vamp A is in combat with vamp B. Both
> strikes for 1, no prevent. Then A Blurs. It's too late for A to play Taste
> of Vitae just after the Blur, right?
Right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Reyda wrote:
> > <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >IANALSJBIPONTV> I Am Not Lawrence Scott Johnson But I Plan One Night To Visit ya ? or
I'm not Lawrence Scott Johnson, either. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
"J Bond" <an...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gimi8ug16b6nta44h...@4ax.com...
> >IANALSJBIPONTV> Shouldnt this be> IANALSJBIPOOTV
Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6cj8r$guo$1...@neon.noos.net...
> > >IANALSJBIPONTV> ??
> mmm let me guess...> I Am Not Lawrence Scott Johnson But I Plan One Night To Visit ya ? or
> something ?
I am not an LSJ, but I play one 'n TV
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C8A12EE...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> > > <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >IANALSJBIPONTV
> > I Am Not Lawrence Scott Johnson But I Plan One Night To Visit ya ? or
>
> I'm not Lawrence Scott Johnson, either. :-)
>
sorry =)
so what's your real name ?? ;)
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C8A123A...@white-wolf.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
No problem. This is just what i wanted to hear.
Thank you
Now pierre/stone, you'll be drowning in cheap beer. Is Valstar your favorite
? ;)
reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C8A8090...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C8A12EE...@white-wolf.com...
> > > Reyda wrote:
> > > > > <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >IANALSJBIPONTV
> > > > I Am Not Lawrence Scott Johnson But I Plan One Night To Visit ya ?
or
> > >
> > > I'm not Lawrence Scott Johnson, either. :-)
> > >
> >
> > sorry =)
> > so what's your real name ?? ;)
>
> Just Larry Scott Johnson.
> The "Larry" isn't short for anything.
=)
by the way,
isn't Larry a diminutive for Lawrence like Sam is one for Samuel ?? ;)
reyda
In message <a6e0vl$8v9$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>> Just Larry Scott Johnson.
>> The "Larry" isn't short for anything.>
>=)
>by the way,
>isn't Larry a diminutive for Lawrence like Sam is one for Samuel ?? ;)
It can sometimes be, but in this case it isn't. [LSJ 20020309]
--
James Coupe Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
PGP 0x5D623D5D And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 All of my folks hate all of your folks,
13D7E668C3695D623D5D It's American as apple pie.