LSJ: Drawing out the Beast and Equipment.

I feel that this question may not be needed, but I still would like a clarification. 1. Drawing out the Beast prohibits the opposing vampire from using equipment. 2. Some "effects" of equipment can be described as an actual "event", "action" or "individual use" (such as using a flamethrower as a strike to deal aggravated damage). Other times, equipment might give a minion a certain "passive" or "aura" effect (borrowing terminology from WC3) that is considered always effective without an actual declaration of use (such as the Eye of Hazimel's granting of extra disciplines). 3. The text of Drawing Out the Beast relating to equipment states: "During this combat, the opposing vampire . . . cannot use equipment". 4. My question is this: Does the the text of Drawing Out the Beast only prohibit a vampire from using equipment as an actual "use" such as the "use" of specifically striking with a flame thrower. Or does it also prohibit a vampire from generally utilizing the aspects of a piece of equipment that would grant a "passive" or "continuous effect" such as the ability to use disciplines (note that such a "continous effect" pertains to situations outside of combat). This questions specifically relates to a combat situation where Drawing Out the Beast might prohibit an opposing vampire from utilizing the "passive" effect of the Eye of Hazimel granting a vampire Potence and Chimerstry during combat. I apologize if this question has been already answered. But I simply wanted a clarification based on the definitions of "use" and "passive" as defined above. Eldacar

On 3 Feb 2005 23:02:42 -0800, Eldacar351 <eldac...@aol.com> wrote: > 4. My question is this: Does the the text of Drawing Out the Beast > only prohibit a vampire from using equipment as an actual "use" such as > the "use" of specifically striking with a flame thrower. Or does it > also prohibit a vampire from generally utilizing the aspects of a piece > of equipment that would grant a "passive" or "continuous effect" such > as the ability to use disciplines (note that such a "continous effect" > pertains to situations outside of combat). Mostly everything that is written on an equipment will fall under "use". In fact, to borrow a phrase from someone, "use" covers everything the vampire would not be able to do (witness, experience) without the equipment. What it does not cover are its prohibitons. > This questions specifically relates to a combat situation where Drawing > Out the Beast might prohibit an opposing vampire from utilizing the > "passive" effect of the Eye of Hazimel granting a vampire Potence and > Chimerstry during combat. Eye gives you: +1 Bleed and +1 Strength Enter combat ability POT and CHI and a reduction on combat card cost Cannot be transfered, stolen or moved clause Do 5 damage to minion if burned Upkeep pool cost in untap Of these abilities all are suspended if the minion cannot use equipment, except the "cannot be transferred, stolen or moved" clause. The reason is that everything else allows you to do something (even if it sometimes also forces you to do them), but the prohibition on being transferred, stolen or moved prevents you from doing what you normally would be able to (instead of giving you an ability). It is a prohibition, not an ability, and therefor unaffected by DotB. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Of these abilities all are suspended if the minion cannot use equipment, > except the "cannot be transferred, stolen or moved" clause. The reason > is that everything else allows you to do something (even if it sometimes > also forces you to do them), but the prohibition on being transferred, > stolen or moved prevents you from doing what you normally would be able > to (instead of giving you an ability). It is a prohibition, not an > ability, and therefor unaffected by DotB. But it also protects the Eye from being stolen, which sounds like an ability to me. Would a piece of equipment that prevents blood from being moved or stolen still work under DotB then? Tricky issue... Rogar

"Rogar" <MYNICKN...@phreaker.net> wrote in message news:slrnd06bkg.oc....@toad.stack.nl... [ quoted text not captured ] If an equipment prevents blood from being moved or stollen, it will not work under DotB. However, Daneel imo is correct at what his saying. Meaning that the "cannot be moved, transfered or stolen" clause is not an ability granted by the Eye to the minion, it is a characteristic of the Eye. DotB is played on the opposing minion and prevents him from using equipment, DotB does not make the equipment inactive. So, while the minion cannot use the Eye, the Eye remains unaffected by the DotB, so it cannot be transfered, moved or stolen. Bottom line, imo, this clause is a characteristic of the Eye, it refers to the Eye and has nothing to do with the minion using the Eye... It just checks if the minion is ready...

> > > Of these abilities all are suspended if the minion cannot use > > > equipment, except the "cannot be transferred, stolen or moved" > > > clause. The reason is that everything else allows you to do > > > something (even if it sometimes also forces you to do them), but the > > > prohibition on being transferred, stolen or moved prevents you from > > > doing what you normally would be able to (instead of giving you an > > > ability). It is a prohibition, not an ability, and therefor > > > unaffected by DotB. > > > > But it also protects the Eye from being stolen, which sounds like an > > ability to me. Would a piece of equipment that prevents blood from being > > moved or stolen still work under DotB then? > > > That's why "use" is rigourously defined. It is something you COULD do only because you have the equipment. If the equipment weren't there, you couldn't move it, so since you still can't move it, it's not "use". Remember, you also can't Heidelberg or Nod or Rave or reEquip it, that's quite a disadvantage. > > If an equipment prevents blood from being moved or stollen, it will not work > under DotB. > I disagree. Without the equipment, blood can be moved or stolen. Therefore, such an effect would not be considered "using" the equipment, as defined above and by LSJ. Remember that such an effect also prevents you from using Blood Doll and Minion Tap. Sure, in Combat, it looks beneficial, but in your Master Phase, it looks pretty detrimental. It is NOT whether something is beneficial or detrimental that makes it "use".

Eldacar351 wrote: > I feel that this question may not be needed, but I still would like a > clarification. > > 1. Drawing out the Beast prohibits the opposing vampire from using > equipment. > > 2. Some "effects" of equipment can be described as an actual "event", > "action" or "individual use" (such as using a flamethrower as a strike > to deal aggravated damage). Other times, equipment might give a minion > a certain "passive" or "aura" effect (borrowing terminology from WC3) > that is considered always effective without an actual declaration of > use (such as the Eye of Hazimel's granting of extra disciplines). If it applies to the minion, and is not a restriction (cannot hunt), then it is "using" it. > 3. The text of Drawing Out the Beast relating to equipment states: > "During this combat, the opposing vampire . . . cannot use equipment". > > 4. My question is this: Does the the text of Drawing Out the Beast > only prohibit a vampire from using equipment as an actual "use" such as > the "use" of specifically striking with a flame thrower. Or does it > also prohibit a vampire from generally utilizing the aspects of a piece > of equipment that would grant a "passive" or "continuous effect" such > as the ability to use disciplines (note that such a "continous effect" > pertains to situations outside of combat). It restricts the Beastie from doing anything that he would not be able to do if the equipment were not in play. > This questions specifically relates to a combat situation where Drawing > Out the Beast might prohibit an opposing vampire from utilizing the > "passive" effect of the Eye of Hazimel granting a vampire Potence and > Chimerstry during combat. He cannot, true. > I apologize if this question has been already answered. But I simply > wanted a clarification based on the definitions of "use" and "passive" > as defined above. > > Eldacar > -- 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/

Rogar wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The Eye cannot be stolen. This is not something the bearer is doing. If his Beast is drawn, his opponent can still not steal the Eye. [ quoted text not captured ]

Just curious... How does Shackles of Enkidu versus Drawing out the Beast work? Since Shackles is done in pre-range. Which goes first? Does it matter?

<adam....@ngc.com> wrote in message news:1107783380.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Just curious... > > How does Shackles of Enkidu versus Drawing out the Beast work? Since > Shackles is done in pre-range. Which goes first? Does it matter? Both are before range (card text), so fall to 1.6.1.6 to determine which goes first. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

[ quoted text not captured ] LSJ: Thanks for taking your time to clarify my question. I'm also glad that the other posters found an interesting discussion in regards to my question. Eldacar