Path of death and soul again

Janne Hägglund wrote: > vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) writes: >>Path of Death and the Soul >>Unique Master >>Put this card in play. When a minion controlled by another Methusaleh >>is burned, you may tap this card to search your library (shuffle >>afterward), ash heap or hand for a Master: Discipline card. Move 1 >>blood from the blood bank and that card to a ready vampire you >>control. > > What happens if you have no legal targets for the discipline cards you > have? (All your available vamps have superior whatever.) > > Do you just get the blood without the card, or will the blood fizzle also? > The wording seems to imply the latter. The wording effects the former. The latter would require something like "Move that card to a ready vampire to move a blood from the blood bank to that vampire". >> What happens with the skillcard if you find a presence skillcard and all your vampires have superiour? Discarded, or are you not allowed to choose that card? Also, are you allowed to "not find" a skill card and still get the blood if you have a legal skillcard avaliable? In my anarch aabt-kindred deck I need to have a few vampires stay at capacity 4 for the firebrands to work... =) /henrik isaksson

Henrik Isaksson wrote: > Janne Hägglund wrote: >>vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) writes: >>>Path of Death and the Soul >>>Unique Master >>>Put this card in play. When a minion controlled by another Methusaleh >>>is burned, you may tap this card to search your library (shuffle >>>afterward), ash heap or hand for a Master: Discipline card. Move 1 >>>blood from the blood bank and that card to a ready vampire you >>>control. >> >> What happens if you have no legal targets for the discipline cards you >>have? (All your available vamps have superior whatever.) >> >> Do you just get the blood without the card, or will the blood fizzle also? >>The wording seems to imply the latter. > > The wording effects the former. The latter would require something like > "Move that card to a ready vampire to move a blood from the blood bank to > that vampire". That looks like a quote from me, actually. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3FB822A2.2090509%40white-wolf.com Try adding an attribution and then using "Paste as quotation" or manually inserting leading quote indicators if you're quoting from an article from a newsreader that won't allow you to follow-up directly. That way you won't lose attributions, which can be important. At any rate, it doesn't look like you're using any of the quoted context, except for the card itself, so: Henrik Isaksson wrote: > [Re: Path of Death and the Soul] > What happens with the skillcard if you find a presence skillcard and all your vampires have > superiour? Discarded, or are you not allowed to choose that card? Not choosable. > Also, are you allowed to "not find" a skill card and still get the blood if you have a legal > skillcard avaliable? Yes. -- 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/

Path of D&S in play, Minion controlled by another meth is burned. I then tap D&S, search my library for Presence, BUT all of my vampires have superior presence, do I A) Discard it B) Shuffle it back into my deck? C) Not allowed to seach for a presence card thanks

[ quoted text not captured ] ? That question was answered explicitly in the article you just followed-up to. [ quoted text not captured ]

> ? > That question was answered explicitly in the article you just followed-up to. 404 Brain Error Sorry

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:53:05 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Henrik Isaksson wrote: >> Also, are you allowed to "not find" a skill card and still get the blood if you have a legal >> skillcard avaliable? > >Yes. In general, you are always allowed to choose to fail to find something you search for in your library, even if it actually is in there. :) **** From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) Subject: Re: related q Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Date: 2001-06-04 18:46:02 PST Roger Carhult wrote: > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > However, if the card states you must obtain equipment from the deck, > > > > then this would mean that you couldn't. > > > You would be able to "search" for equipment and fail to find it, sure. > > > > One more related question. Are you allowed to "not search very hard" > > and fail to find equipment that is actually in your library? This is > > important for a diminished library where you just want to shuffle. > > Or are you allowed to skip the searching at all? If you know that there's no > equipment and everyone takes your word for it (to save time). Yes to both. Enforcing other options is not really tenable. You'd still have to shuffle, however, since you've still ostensibly "searched" your library. -- 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/ **** salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

"David Wilson" <do...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:<XasBb.192$o32....@news.itd.umich.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ] Note also that you do not have to declare "I am searching my Library for a Presence master" - you're simply searching for any Master: Discipline card. Whether or not you find the one you want, unless it comes into play, you don't have to declare the specific Discipline you're looking for. -John Flournoy

"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:qesctv84smasau3ar...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:53:05 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: > > >Henrik Isaksson wrote: > > >> Also, are you allowed to "not find" a skill card and still get the blood if you have a legal > >> skillcard avaliable? > > > >Yes. > > In general, you are always allowed to choose to fail to find something > you search for in your library, even if it actually is in there. :) > ?? In the specific case (path of death and the soul) Isn't mandatory the part that reads "*Move* 1 blood from the blood bank and that card to a ready vampire you control" ? It does not say "you MAY move 1 blood ...etcetera", so what makes, in this case, the move "1 blood & discipline card" an option and not a must do ? thanks Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > In the specific case (path of death and the soul) > Isn't mandatory the part that reads > "*Move* 1 blood from the blood bank and that card to a ready vampire you > control" ? > It does not say "you MAY move 1 blood ...etcetera", so > what makes, in this case, the move "1 blood & discipline card" > an option and not a must do ? [big snip of unused quoted material - please quote responsibly] Moving a blood is mandatory. Moving the Discipline card found is mandatory. If you don't find one (and you can choose not to, as with any search, as noted), then there's nothing to move. Parallel to moving a blood from an empty vampire. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3FD8C7D...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > In the specific case (path of death and the soul) > > Isn't mandatory the part that reads > > "*Move* 1 blood from the blood bank and that card to a ready vampire you > > control" ? > > It does not say "you MAY move 1 blood ...etcetera", so > > what makes, in this case, the move "1 blood & discipline card" > > an option and not a must do ? > > [big snip of unused quoted material - please quote responsibly] > > Moving a blood is mandatory. > > Moving the Discipline card found is mandatory. > > If you don't find one (and you can choose not to, as with any search, as noted), Sorry but... how i can choose to *not* find it, if there's the actual card in there ?.... I *may* not since , as stated, the "move" part seems not optional at all. Actually, the option, *you may tap* seems to stop just here (you *may* --> tap this card.. <-- option ends here ), the rest (to search....move....etc) reads quite mandatory to me. just my two cents Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome <snip> > --

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Sorry but... how i can choose to *not* find it, if there's the actual card > in there ?.... Simple. You don't find it. See previously cited article for more. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3FD9BC45...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > Sorry but... how i can choose to *not* find it, if there's the actual card > > in there ?.... > > Simple. You don't find it. Sorry to bother, but i can't see how this is supported by the path of dead and soul text > See previously cited article for more. > Don't understand well which article: all that i can find in this 3D is a link to the same 3D http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3FB822A2.2090509%40white-wolf.com and not about my question, that is: which part of dead and the soul text make the "finding" an option ? "...you may tap (<--option) this card *to search* your library (shuffle afterward), ash heap or hand *for* ...." Still, i read that part as a must do (to search.....for) so i can't see what makes optional the *search...for* the actual card, if it's really in the deck i'm searching for. Am i allowed to not find if there's the actual card in there vith coroner contacts, summon the serpent, the summoning, and so on ? Anyway, path of dead and soul reads still reads "...tap this card *to*... "--->(must do stuff here), so it seems that the finding is a must if the card is in the deck. Similar wording on other cards (do X *to* do Y) make the Y part after the *to* a must, not an option. Am i allowed *to not* untap after i burn a blood, or to not block after the untap, under Second Tradition ? thanks Emiliano > --

Tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3FD9BC45...@white-wolf.com... >>Simple. You don't find it. > > Sorry to bother, but i can't see how this is supported by the path > of dead and soul text You go looking (you search). You miss it. You overlook it. You don't find it. > Still, i read that part as a must do (to search.....for) so i can't see > what makes optional the *search...for* the actual card, if it's > really in the deck i'm searching for. Searching is not the same as finding. You must search. If you fail to find (even if the card was in there), you fail to find. > Am i allowed to not find if there's the actual card in there > vith coroner contacts, summon the serpent, the summoning, and so on ? Yes. > Anyway, path of dead and soul reads > still reads "...tap this card *to*... "--->(must do stuff here), > so it seems that the finding is a must > if the card is in the deck. It is not. Searching is a must. > Similar wording on other cards (do X *to* do Y) > make the Y part after the *to* a must, not an option. > Am i allowed *to not* untap after i burn a blood, > or to not block after the untap, under Second Tradition ? Of course not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3FDB2595...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3FD9BC45...@white-wolf.com... > >>Simple. You don't find it. > > > > Sorry to bother, but i can't see how this is supported by the path > > of dead and soul text > > You go looking (you search). You miss it. You overlook it. You don't find > it. > > > Still, i read that part as a must do (to search.....for) so i can't see > > what makes optional the *search...for* the actual card, if it's > > really in the deck i'm searching for. > > Searching is not the same as finding. > You must search. If you fail to find (even if the card was in there), you > fail to find. > > > Am i allowed to not find if there's the actual card in there > > vith coroner contacts, summon the serpent, the summoning, and so on ? > > Yes. > > > Anyway, path of dead and soul reads > > still reads "...tap this card *to*... "--->(must do stuff here), > > so it seems that the finding is a must > > if the card is in the deck. > > It is not. Searching is a must. > OK But that would be true even if there's just a card left in my library, and it's the actual card "have to" search for ? I would be still free to not "find" it ? thanks again Emiliano > --

Tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>so it seems that the finding is a must >>>if the card is in the deck. >> >>It is not. Searching is a must. >> > But that would be true even if there's just a card > left in my library, and it's the actual card "have to" search > for ? > I would be still free to not "find" it ? Of course. Otherwise, the rules/rulings would have to state the cutoff point. [ quoted text not captured ]