Maybe it's quite obvious (some of us think it is), but can you play a
second Disarm on a minion that already has one in combat, making it
'fizzle' because the poor schmuck can have only one (and thus cycle a
card from your hand), or is it simply not allowed at all to play one
on a minion who already has one?
Disarm [Sabbat:R, SW:R, CE:PB, BH:PN, KMW:PAl, Third:R]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Potence
[pot] Only usable at the end of a round of combat in which this
vampire successfully inflicted more damage at close range than the
opposing vampire. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going into
torpor. Put this card on the opposing vampire and send that vampire
into torpor. The vampire with this card has -1 strength. He or she may
burn this card by burning 3 blood. A vampire can have only one Disarm.
[POT] As above, but the vampire with this card has -2 strength
And since there is the word 'and' after 'Put this card on the opposing
minion', my guess is the minion will also not go to torpor after
playing a second Disarm? (Totally obsolete question if indeed you are
not allowed to play a second one, I know...but just to make sure).
Mark <markan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's quite obvious (some of us think it is), but can you play a
> second Disarm on a minion that already has one in combat, making it
> 'fizzle' because the poor schmuck can have only one (and thus cycle a
> card from your hand), or is it simply not allowed at all to play one
> on a minion who already has one?
No, you can't do that.
You can never voluntarily attempt something that would result in an
illegal result.
See also: can't bring a second copy of Warzone Hunting Ground into play
when you already have one.
On 25 jun, 13:54, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Hunting Ground comparison was not what I expected, but that
explains it completely. Makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks a lot!
"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> schreef in bericht
news:i025db$gjg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Meh. I disagree. Not nessecarily that you can't play a disarm on an already
disarmed minion, but about the reason.
You can't play a second Warzone Hunting ground when you control one because
it's unique. The rules explicitely say you are not allowed to contest
yourself. This is a totally different scenario.
You ARE allowed to transfer an uncontrolled minion that you already control
a copy of to full capacity and let it come into play. As a result the
incoming copy burns. You voluntarily do something that leads to an illegal
situation, so by your definition you shouldn't be allowed to make the
transfers.
Now, regarding disarm. I know you can't play more than 1 Pulled Fangs (there
is an explicit ruling out there somewhere) and the wording on Disarm is
identical, so that should clear it up - BUT: Disarm doesn't says "you cannot
play a disarm on an already disarmed minion". Furthermore the card says "Put
this card on the opposing vampire AND send that vampire into torpor" as
opposed to "Put this card on the opposing vampire TO send that vampire into
torpor". It would make sense to me, that the first effect just fizzles and
the opposing vampire is sent to torpor with the original disarm on it. There
are plenty other effects that say something like "do X and do Y" where the
one of the effects can't be done and fizzles while the second takes place
just fine. Villein being the most recent example that I can think up.
Besides, a vampire has two arms, no?
On 25 jun, 14:31, "Izaak" <nom...@usenet.plz> wrote:
> "Jozxyqk" <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> schreef in berichtnews:i025db$gjg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, but not three. And allowing a second Disarm, would also allow a
third. And a fourth. So that argument is silly, yes?
Izaak <nom...@usenet.plz> wrote:
> "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> schreef in bericht
> news:i025db$gjg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Mark <markan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Maybe it's quite obvious (some of us think it is), but can you play a
> >> second Disarm on a minion that already has one in combat, making it
> >> 'fizzle' because the poor schmuck can have only one (and thus cycle a
> >> card from your hand), or is it simply not allowed at all to play one
> >> on a minion who already has one?
> >
> > No, you can't do that.
> > You can never voluntarily attempt something that would result in an
> > illegal result.
> >
> > See also: can't bring a second copy of Warzone Hunting Ground into play
> > when you already have one.> You ARE allowed to transfer an uncontrolled minion that you already control> a copy of to full capacity and let it come into play. As a result the
> incoming copy burns. You voluntarily do something that leads to an illegal
> situation, so by your definition you shouldn't be allowed to make the
> transfers.
You are allowed to perform the Bakija Gambit because "making transfers" and
"vampire comes out" are distinctly different events. You could hypothetically
transfer enough blood onto a second copy of Frederick the Weak and then suck
it off with a card effect (or spend a third transfer to Wider View him away,
for instance) before the "Frederick comes into play" step.
So it doesn't apply to the general rule of "you can't do something illegal
voluntarily".
On Jun 25, 5:31 am, "Izaak" <nom...@usenet.plz> wrote:
> You ARE allowed to transfer an uncontrolled minion that you already control
> a copy of to full capacity and let it come into play. As a result the
> incoming copy burns.
It's quite likely that someone at the table (perhaps even you) can
claim that it's not play-to-win, and therefore illegal.
LSJ, if I accidentally transfer onto a second copy of a minion that is
clearly not PTW, is it reasonable to rewind based on the PTW rules?
Obviously it's a slippery slope with mistakes vs. non-PTW.
Thanks,
Ira
[ quoted text not captured ]
Unreasonable.
PTW is to keep players playing the game properly, it's not there to
provide a safety net for playing badly.
"Oh shit, I shouldn't have bled, he played with an open hand from an
aura reading 2 turns ago and I saw the 2nd tradition! Now he's played it
and burned my Arika. Obviously this bleed was not a PTW move, let's
rewind and pretend I never bled..."
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
[ quoted text not captured ]
You give a good example of the slippery slope. That said,
unintentionally bringing out a unique vamp that will contest a copy
you already have in play is, in most cases, immediately very bad and
easy to rewind. I could see why someone crosstable would complain to
a judge about the PTW rule.
I can imagine these examples:
Case 1: Meth A doens't want to violate the PTW rule, but accidentally
brings out a vamp that contests a copy he already has in play,
wrecking his position.
Case 2: Meth A is willing to violate the PTW rule, and intentionally
brings out a vamp that contests a copy he already has in play,
wrecking his position.
Case 2 should clearly be rewound, since it's a violation of PTW. If
Case 1 should not be rewound (because it's simply a mistake, and
mistakes are part of gameplay), how does a judge tell the difference?
If the player in Case 2 is willing to violate PTW, would he also be
willing to lie to a judge to make Case 2 seem like Case 1, and
therefore be able to get away with violating PTW? Perhaps the judge
must use his judgment to determine if it's Case 1 or Case 2?
All that said, I think rules should be designed to maximize fun. Case
1 is clearly not fun, and therefore my inclination is to avoid it.
I'm curious to hear LSJ's thoughts.
Thanks,
Ira