[LSJ] Aura of Invincibility

Hey LSJ, If a vampire uses Aura of Invincibility and then that initial vote fails, does the vampire still go to torpor? I'm unclear about the answer because the card is only put on the vampire if the initial referendum passes. The whole rest of the text may only apply if the initial if-clause is satisfied. Also, the phrase "burn this card and send this vampire to torpor," confuses me a little if it applies before the card is put on the vampire. Is the card in play, or in limbo? If I had to answer to my own question, I'd guess that the card simply remains "in limbo" during the whole referendum (in the same way an action card remains in limbo before the action is resolved), and if the initial vote fails, the vampire does go to torpor. Thanks, Ira Here's the text: Name: Aura of Invincibility Rarity: Gehenna:C Cardtype: Action Modifier Cost: 1 blood Only usable during a referendum, before any votes are cast. If this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire and put a counter on this card. This vampire gets an additional vote for each counter on this card in referendums he or she calls. Add a counter to this card when a referendum called by this vampire passes. If a referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card and send this vampire to torpor. A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility.

[ quoted text not captured ] The card isn't "on" the vampire until the referendum passes. If the inital referendum fails, there's no "this card" to burn and the vampire is not sent to torpor.

Izaak wrote: >> If a vampire uses Aura of Invincibility and then that initial vote >>fails, does the vampire still go to torpor? I'm unclear about the >>answer because the card is only put on the vampire if the initial >>referendum passes. The whole rest of the text may only apply if the >>initial if-clause is satisfied. >>Thanks, >>Ira >> >>Name: Aura of Invincibility > The card isn't "on" the vampire until the referendum passes. If the > inital referendum fails, there's no "this card" to burn and the vampire > is not sent to torpor. Correct. -- 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/

Another followup question: If a vampire already has an Aura of Invincibility, can he play another one in order to cycle it? (Since the card isn't put on until the referendum is successful?) What happens if the referendum is successful? My guess was yes, it could be played, and that the incoming copy (i.e. the new one) was burned. Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu... > Another followup question: > > If a vampire already has an Aura of Invincibility, can he play another one > in order to cycle it? (Since the card isn't put on until the referendum is > successful?) No. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> If a vampire already has an Aura of Invincibility, can he play another one >> in order to cycle it? (Since the card isn't put on until the referendum is >> successful?) > > No. Ok. What reason makes this the case? (I need to explain this to others.) To me, the text "A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility." doesn't preclude playing one, since the card is only put on the acting vampire if the referendum is successful. Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] The same reason you cannot attempt to equip with a Hawg (to cycle) when you already have a Sport Bike. (A minion can have only one Vehicle). http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8iikht%24v3j%241%40nnrp1.deja.com Or attempt to recruit Muddles when you already have him. (Can't self-contest). Just because it doesn't technically come into play until the action resolves doesn't mean you can do something you're not allowed to. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The card isn't "on" the vampire until the referendum passes. Agreed. > If the inital referendum fails, there's no "this card" to > burn and the vampire is not sent to torpor. Does the Aura of Invincibility exist in limbo while the referendum is being resolved, in the same way that an action card exists in limbo while the action is being resolved? I assume it does, per this ruling by LSJ: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2PcCc.19430%24OB3.3727%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net Therefore, the card still exists, and it seems to me that it can be burned. So, the logic that "there's no 'this card' to burn" is fallacious IMO. LSJ, could you elaborate on the reasons behind the ruling? I'd like to understand the reasoning behind the ruling so I can apply it in similar cases. If I had to guess, I'd say that the reason the vamp isn't sent to torpor is either: a) The initial "if" clause must be satisfied for the rest of the text to apply at all. b) If the card isn't put on the vamp, then "this vampire" doesn't refer to anything (and therefore nothing goes to torpor.) Choice (b) seems weak to me, because the vamp still played the action mod, and normally "this vampire" on an action mod clearly refers to the vampire playing the action mod, regardless of whether or not the card is actually on the vampire. Thanks, Ira

Ira wrote: > LSJ, could you elaborate on the reasons behind the ruling? Not really. It's clear as is. The ruling is just a clarification, a restatement of card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

> It's clear as is. It is not clear to me. Here is my question: why does the sentence "If a referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card and send this vampire to torpor." not apply on the initial referendum? "This vampire" clearly refers to the vampire playing the action modifier, and "burn this card" can certainly apply, even if the card is in limbo and not on the vampire yet. So, to me, card text implies that "if a referendum fails" you "burn the card" (doesn't matter if it's on the vampire or not, you still burn it) and then the vampire goes to torpor. Clearly I'm interpretting the card text incorrectly, I just don't understand what's wrong with my logic. If you (or someone else with more insight than I) could answer the only question posed in this post, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, have a good weekend, Ira

Ira wrote: > It is not clear to me. > "This vampire" clearly refers to the vampire playing the action > modifier, Incorrect. By the first sentence, it is referring to the vampire with the card, clearly, just as "this vampire" does in the intervening two sentences. [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04073...@posting.google.com>... > Here is my question: why does the sentence "If a referendum called by > this vampire fails, burn this card and send this vampire to torpor." > not apply on the initial referendum? > > "This vampire" clearly refers to the vampire playing the action > modifier, and "burn this card" can certainly apply, even if the card > is in limbo and not on the vampire yet. If you take "this vampire" in the sentence you quote to mean "the vampire with this card" rather than "the vampire playing this action modifier", then it's clear why the clause doesn't apply in the initial referendum. The card could be phrased more clearly, I agree.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > If you take "this vampire" in the sentence you quote to mean "the > vampire with this card" rather than "the vampire playing this action > modifier", then it's clear why the clause doesn't apply in the initial > referendum. Or if you just take "this vampire" to mean what it meant in the other times it appears on the card's text. Context, as it frequently does, helps clear this up nicely. > The card could be phrased more clearly, I agree. By all means, suggest a clearer reading that still reads as nicely to the non-lawyers and with the same character count (or smaller). [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey LSJ, > Incorrect. By the first sentence, it is referring to the vampire > with the card, clearly, just as "this vampire" does in the > intervening two sentences. Thank you for your usual patience and clarity. I understand now, and when I looked at other cards like Repulsion [OBE] or Sleep Unseen [OBF], it must be as you ruled it. I think I was a little confused because cards like Sleep Unseen [obf] or Draught of the Soul [qui][aus] sometimes clarify "this vampire" as "the vampire with this card." Nonetheless, if the text says, "put this card on this vampire," then all later references of "this vampire" refer to "the vampire with this card." That seems obvious now, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me for Aura of Invincibility; I was (incorrectly) interpreting "this vampire" as "the vampire playing the action modifier," and all the rest of the effects (except the initial torpor effect) were consistent. Regardless, I think I have a full understanding now, and hopefully this discussion helped someone else as well. Thanks, Ira, who might make life easier if he simply understood the rulings, and ignored the reasons behind them.

LSJ wrote: > By all means, suggest a clearer reading that still reads as nicely to > the non-lawyers and with the same character count (or smaller). Original: Only usable during a referendum, before any votes are cast. If this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire and put a counter on this card. This vampire gets an additional vote for each counter on this card in referendums he or she calls. Add a counter to this card when a referendum called by this vampire passes. If a referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card and send this vampire to torpor. A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility. 389 non-whitespace characters. Proposal: Only usable during a referendum, before any votes are cast. Put this card on the acting vampire. When a referendum this vampire called passes, put a counter on this card. This vampire gets an additional vote for each counter on this card in referendums he or she calls. If a referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card; if the card had any counters on it, send this vampire to torpor. A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility. 367 non-whitespace characters. --Colin McGuigan

[ quoted text not captured ] Nice one. Alters the functionality, though, in that the vampire can now "save" the Aura if the initial referendum is about to fail with, for example, Telepathic Vote Counting. And it would also be saved for future use if the initial referendum were canceled by Delaying Tactics. Not worth losing any design sleep over (if the alternate wording had come to light before printing), of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Nice one. > > Alters the functionality, though, in that the vampire can now "save" > the Aura if the initial referendum is about to fail with, for example, > Telepathic Vote Counting. And it would also be saved for future use > if the initial referendum were canceled by Delaying Tactics. Mmm. True. This is why you're the professional and I'm the amatuer. =P No way around that one, though, without having the card in some sort of limbo state to begin with between "played" and "end of the referendum". --Colin McGuigan

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<xtROc.159262$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > By all means, suggest a clearer reading that still reads as nicely to > the non-lawyers and with the same character count (or smaller). Only usable during a referendum before votes are cast. If this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire and put a counter on this card. When the vampire with this card calls a referendum, he or she gains a vote for each counter on this card. If a referendum called by the vampire with this card passes, add a counter to this card; if it fails, burn this card and send the vampire to [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] "the vampire" doesn't seem to be any clearer than the "this vampire" that some are claiming causes confusion (that is, it's clear and obvious, but not any moreso than the current text). The "if it fails" seems like to confuse people who are confused by the current wording. [ quoted text not captured ]

Is this 1999 ruling on Blessing of Chaos still correct? http://tinyurl.com/5efrb Specifically, all combats are affected, not just ones where "this vampire" attempts to block? I mention it in this thread because it seemed relevant. In these cases, I understand that "this vampire" means "the vampire with this card." I also thought that an initial "if clause" means that the rest of the paragraph only applies when the "if clause" is satisfied. Is the key difference between Aura of Invincibility and Blessing of Chaos the fact that AoI starts with "If ..." and BoC starts with "Put this card on this vampire." ? Ira Blessing of Chaos [Sabbat:R, CE:PM] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Dementation +1 stealth action. [dem] Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire attempts to block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation, Chimerstry, Dominate or Presence. Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines. [DEM] As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be directed at this vampire.

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.04081...@posting.google.com... > Is this 1999 ruling on Blessing of Chaos still correct? > > http://tinyurl.com/5efrb > > Specifically, all combats are affected, not just ones where "this > vampire" attempts to block? Yes. Card text: "Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines." > I mention it in this thread because it seemed relevant. > > In these cases, I understand that "this vampire" means "the vampire > with this card." I also thought that an initial "if clause" means > that the rest of the paragraph only applies when the "if clause" is > satisfied. No. > Is the key difference between Aura of Invincibility and Blessing of > Chaos the fact that AoI starts with "If ..." and BoC starts with "Put > this card on this vampire." ? No. The difference is that "this vampire" refers to the vampire with this card for a card in play. Or rather, that's the similarity, not the difference. > Ira > > > Blessing of Chaos [Sabbat:R, CE:PM] > Cardtype: Action > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Dementation > > +1 stealth action. > [dem] Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire attempts to > block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring > Dementation, Chimerstry, Dominate or Presence. Vampires opposing this > vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines. > [DEM] As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be > directed at this vampire. -- [ quoted text not captured ]