Frederick Scott#
Scott,
Are you considering the answer to these questions/comments?
At least the one for Festivo dello Estinto? I'm still
confused about the difference between cards that change
how existing innate actions are performed vs. cards that
eliminate an existing innate action and substitutes another,
card-based action in its place. Perhaps your ruling is
simply that the former does not exist?
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Frederick Scott wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > lehrbuch wrote:
> > > > > LSJ: Legacy of Caine, states that when the affected vampire hunts they
> > > > > instead steal a blood as a (D) action. Does the new NRA (without
> > > > > restriction on hunting) mean:
> > > > > a) this vampire can only hunt once, because of the restriction on
> > > > > repeating an action allowed by a card in play; or
> > > >
> > > > a) action by card in play
> > > >
> > > > The rule isn't that hunting is unrestricted. It is that actions
> > > > granted by cards in play are (as well as the other 3 things that
> > > > are). The comment on hunting is just a comment.
> > >
> > > If it's just a comment, can my vampire with LoC on it hunt the normal
> > > way (once or multiple times) if it chooses?
> >
> > No, since he cannot hunt the normal way at all, by card text on LoC.
> >
> > > The way the card is worded, it appears to change the effect that occurs
> > > when a vampire hunts. You seem to be saying that the actual effect is
> > > to permit this card action (apparently limited to once per turn) and
> > > (assuming the answer to my first question was 'no') eliminate its ability
> > > to do a normal hunt action. To me, this is a surprising interpretation.
> >
> > "instead of performing the usual hunting action"
> >
> > The text seems clear that it denies the vampire the ability to do a
> > normal hunt action. That's the effect of the "instead" wording.
>
> I guess I assumed that "instead of performing the usual hunting
> action" referred to the *effect* of hunting. The part of your interpretation
> that disturbs me is the text of the first part of that sentence: "When
> the vampire with this card hunts...". This seems to imply that new the
> specified effect should be thought of as what happens when this vampire
> hunts, as opposed to what usually happens. It seems strange to rule that
> the card "denies" something that seems to be the trigger for using ability
> it is permitting.
>
> > It also clearly enables an action (and, being a card in play that
> > enables an action, the enabled action is restricted by the rule
> > that restricts actions "allowed by card in play"). That the action
> > is a hunt action isn't pertinent. Just as Vast Wealth's allowed
> > action cannot be repeated, even though normal (non-card-in-play
> > action) equipping is not restricted.
>
> It really depends on which way you want to look at it. If you look
> at it as changing the rules BY WHICH a vampire hunts, then it wouldn't
> seem to me like it would fall under the new NRA rule. If it's creating
> an entirely new action, then I can your point. But let me ask you this,
> then: Does Festive dello Estinto's modification of how Sabbat Vampires
> hunt prevent them from doing so more than once by the NRA rule? (Never
> mind the implication of hunting with a full vampire. I suppose you
> could assume he got hit with Tainted Vitae the first time if that's a
> problem.)
>
> Fred