The other night this doubt came up during a game. This created me a doubt regarding the already posted rulings about Groundfighting:
> Groundfighting
> Type: Combat
> Requires: anarch
> Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
> Maneuver or press or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round as it is played.
>
> Rarity: KMW:C
>
Rulings state:
> Groundfighting:
> Can cancel Drawing Out the Beast (or other "target cannot use equipment" card) if the target has a weapon. [LSJ 20050221]
> Can cancel superior Thoughts Betrayed and Shape Mastery (when the latter is used to cancel a strike) [LSJ 20050222] [LSJ 20050223]
> Cannot cancel maneuvering, setting range, burning blood, Scorpion Sting (or other "cannot be dodged" strikes, since the opposing minion is still free to attempt to dodge), Weakness, destroy/steal equipment/weapon effects, Withering, Fata Amria, [LSJ 20050221] [LSJ 20050221] [LSJ 20050223] [LSJ 20050223]
> Cannot cancel restricting the ability to strike and/or gain additional strikes (e.g., Rigor Mortis, Lapse) [LSJ 20050221] [LSJ 20050222] [LSJ 20050223]
>
What worries me about this rulings is that Groundfighting "cannot cancel maneuvering, setting range..." but "can cancel DotB or other "target cannot use equipment" card) if the target has a weapon "
What happens in a combat where:
- Minion A (anarch) is equipped with Sniper Rifle/ Mark V
- Minion B sets the range to close using Shadow Step/ Selective Silence
Applying the current rulings, a Groundfighting cannot cancel the "set range" card, but i think if a similar criteria to DotB is applied, the "set range card" could be canceled because it "would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round" (since he is equipped with a "only usable at long range" weapon).
Comments plz!
Sniper Rifle
Weapon, gun.
2R damage each strike. Only usable at long range. If the bearer blocks an action, he or she may, before range is determined, set the range for the first round of the resulting combat to long; if he or she does so, skip the determine range step that round, and the bearer's initial strike that round must be with this weapon.
The sniper rifle itself restricts you to striking with it at long range.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
Only if the target has a weapon? Seriously? That is a terrible ruling, one worthy of a reversal. Either DotB counts as restricting strikes or it does not, but it should not depend on the current game state, especially when there are 1000 ways to equip during combat. It makes things needlessly complicated and creates a bad precedent.
EDIT:
@Brandon: in the given example, the Sniper rifle was not used to set the range. (only 1 Set Range can be played per round).
> miketheknife wrote:
> What happens in a combat where:
> - Minion A (anarch) is equipped with Sniper Rifle/ Mark V
> - Minion B sets the range to close using Shadow Step/ Selective Silence
>
Groundfighting can't be played.
This sort of scenario - removing the ability for the opponent to play 'X-range only' strikes - was discussed in [LSJ 20050212]
(LSJ at >>, then John Flournoy at >, then LSJ again.)
The initial point (where setting range is 'not as clear') was that maneuvering was obviously not restricting strikes, because the other guy could maneuver back.
>
> > > Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
> > > somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
> > > not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
>
> > Adding to what LSJ said:
>
> > Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
> > range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
> > like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
> > range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
> > usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
> > by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
> > would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
> > range as appropriate).
>
> An apt description/rationale.
>
> I was more thinking of already-in-play options, like Meat Hook's self
> destructive special or Seren Sukardi's special, and examining those
> in the light of the Drawing Out the Beast vs. Weapons angle.
>
> > Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> > Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> > Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
> > in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
>
> Looks good.
>
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Only if the target has a weapon? Seriously? That is a terrible ruling, one worth of a reversal. Either DotB counts as restricting strikes or it does not, but it should not depend on the current game state, especially when there are 1000 ways to equip during combat. It makes things needlessly complicated and creates a bad precedent.
>
The ruling about DotB and Groundfighting wasn't a terrible ruling. It's not really a ruling at all - it's just reiterating that Groundfighting does exactly what it says it does.
Thus:
This anarch has a .44 Magnum.
Opposing vampire plays DotB.
Would DotB restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round?
Yes - the anarch would not be able to strike with his .44 Magnum this round, which he would be able to if DotB were not played.
The third use of Groundfighting can therefore be played.
Completely logical. This is one case where LSJ said the card actually did what it says it does.
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > Non-existant user wrote:
> > Only if the target has a weapon? Seriously? That is a terrible ruling, one worth of a reversal. Either DotB counts as restricting strikes or it does not, but it should not depend on the current game state, especially when there are 1000 ways to equip during combat. It makes things needlessly complicated and creates a bad precedent.
> >
> The ruling about DotB and Groundfighting wasn't a terrible ruling. It's not really a ruling at all - it's just reiterating that Groundfighting does exactly what it says it does.
>
> Thus:
> This anarch has a .44 Magnum.
> Opposing vampire plays DotB.
> Would DotB restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round?
> Yes - the anarch would not be able to strike with his .44 Magnum this round, which he would be able to if DotB were not played.
> The third use of Groundfighting can therefore be played.
>
> Completely logical. This is one case where LSJ said the card actually did what it says it does.
>
This is exactly what i mean, just replace some text:
This anarch has a .44 Magnum. Mark V
Opposing vampire plays DotB Shadow Step (to set to close range).
Would DotB Shadow Step restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round?
Yes - the anarch would not be able to strike with his .44 Magnum Mark V this round, which he would be able to if DotB Shadow Step were not played (at least he would have the chance to maneuver).
It's not the set range card that restrain you. It's the weapon. You can try to cancel your own weapon with groundfighting ...
If you have the Eye of hazimel, and DotB is played, can you play Potence strike card ? If you can't, does groundfighting work to cancel DotB ?
Unique equipment.
The minion with this equipment gets +1 bleed and +1 strength. This minion may enter combat with any minion controlled by another Methuselah as a action. If this minion is a vampire, he or she has superior Potence [POT] and superior Chimerstry [CHI] , and combat cards cost this vampire 1 less blood. While the bearer is ready, this equipment cannot be transferred, moved or stolen. If this equipment is burned, this minion takes 5 unpreventable damage. During your untap phase, burn 1 pool or burn this equipment.
To MiketheKnife: As Ohlmann and Brandon have said, it's not the set range card that is preventing you from playing your strike. It's the weapon card itself.
This anarch has a Mark V.
Opposing vampire plays superior Shadow Step to set the range to close.
Would Shadow Step restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round?
No - this anarch's choice of strikes is restricted by the text of Mark V.
The third use of Groundfighting cannot be used (on Shadow Step).
> Ohlmann wrote:
> It's not the set range card that restrain you. It's the weapon. You can try to cancel your own weapon with groundfighting ...
>
> If you have the Eye of hazimel, and DotB is played, can you play Potence strike card ? If you can't, does groundfighting work to cancel DotB ?
>
> Unique equipment.
> The minion with this equipment gets +1 bleed and +1 strength. This minion may enter combat with any minion controlled by another Methuselah as a action. If this minion is a vampire, he or she has superior Potence [POT] and superior Chimerstry [CHI] , and combat cards cost this vampire 1 less blood. While the bearer is ready, this equipment cannot be transferred, moved or stolen. If this equipment is burned, this minion takes 5 unpreventable damage. During your untap phase, burn 1 pool or burn this equipment.
>
This is a fascinating question.
I would say that if the minion with the Eye of Hazimel does not also have both and from (a) non-equipment source(s), then Groundfighting could be used to cancel DotB.
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > Ohlmann wrote:
> > It's not the set range card that restrain you. It's the weapon. You can try to cancel your own weapon with groundfighting ...
> >
> > If you have the Eye of hazimel, and DotB is played, can you play Potence strike card ? If you can't, does groundfighting work to cancel DotB ?
> >
> > Unique equipment.
> > The minion with this equipment gets +1 bleed and +1 strength. This minion may enter combat with any minion controlled by another Methuselah as a action. If this minion is a vampire, he or she has superior Potence [POT] and superior Chimerstry [CHI] , and combat cards cost this vampire 1 less blood. While the bearer is ready, this equipment cannot be transferred, moved or stolen. If this equipment is burned, this minion takes 5 unpreventable damage. During your untap phase, burn 1 pool or burn this equipment.
> >
> This is a fascinating question.
>
> I would say that if the minion with the Eye of Hazimel does not also have both and from (a) non-equipment source(s), then Groundfighting could be used to cancel DotB.
>
DotB would not restrict such a minion's choice of strike. Their own lack of Potence restricts their choice.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> DotB would not restrict such a minion's choice of strike. Their own lack of Potence restricts their choice.
>
But the reason the vampire would lack Potence is because of DotB.
> Aaron wrote:
> Completely logical. This is one case where LSJ said the card actually did what it says it does.
>
What if the anarch has a Zip Gun in hand? DotB restricts his strike choice but he cannot play Groundfighting.
With the same logic, why should Groundfighting be allowed to cancel a Grapple on a minion without a weapon? Nothing on the table indicates that he can play anything but a hand strike either. The situations are exactly the same, but somehow Groundfighting is allowed in one case and not the other.
Even better: let the anarch have and a Desguised weapon in hand, that he wants to play at superior.
He is allowed to cancel an Immortal Grapple before playing his Desguised weapon and striking with the weapon.
He is not allowed to cancel a DotB before playing his Desguised weapon and striking with the weapon.
Why?
Here's a related question:
Minion A has Potence.
Minion B has a Meat Hook.
Minion B plays Drawing Out the Beast. Based on LSJ's ruling Dec 16 2010, this would render A unable to strike to destroy the Meat Hook. Can A cancel with Groundfighting?
> Meat Hook - Equipment
> Melee weapon.
> Strike: strength+1 damage, only usable once each round. Once each combat, if this weapon is used to strike at close range and the opponent doesn't dodge the strike, the bearer gets an optional press this round, only usable to continue combat. At close range, a vampire with Potence may destroy this weapon as a strike with first strike that costs 1 blood.
>
> Drawing Out the Beast - Combat
> Only usable before range is determined on the first round. Frenzy.
> ani: During this combat, opposing vampire gets +1 strength, but he or she cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to long range, cannot use presses to end combat and cannot use equipment. A vampire may play only one Drawing Out the Beast each combat.
> ANI: ...
>
> finbury wrote:
> Here's a related question:
>
> Minion A has Potence.
> Minion B has a Meat Hook.
>
> Minion B plays Drawing Out the Beast. Based on LSJ's ruling Dec 16 2010, this would render A unable to strike to destroy the Meat Hook. Can A cancel with Groundfighting?
>
> > Meat Hook - Equipment
> > Melee weapon.
> > Strike: strength+1 damage, only usable once each round. Once each combat, if this weapon is used to strike at close range and the opponent doesn't dodge the strike, the bearer gets an optional press this round, only usable to continue combat. At close range, a vampire with Potence may destroy this weapon as a strike with first strike that costs 1 blood.
> >
> > Drawing Out the Beast - Combat
> > Only usable before range is determined on the first round. Frenzy.
> > During this combat, opposing vampire gets +1 strength, but he or she cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to long range, cannot use presses to end combat and cannot use equipment. A vampire may play only one Drawing Out the Beast each combat.
> > ...
> >
Doesn't DotB affect the opposing minion? In this case, if B played it, then A would get the +1 strength, maneuver/press/equipment restrictions.
As it stands, no strikes are being restricted. So Groundfighting cannot be played, me thinks.
Advocate of Good-looking Deck Posts
pulledfangs.blogspot.com :vtes: Manila V:tES
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > DotB would not restrict such a minion's choice of strike. Their own lack of Potence restricts their choice.
> >
> But the reason the vampire would lack Potence is because of DotB.
>
Doesn't count as restricting strikes.
[LSJ 20050224]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Side DotB question number two: If the anarch has Potence thanks to Eye
> > of Hazimel, and wants to play a Potence-requiring strike, can DotB be
> > canceled by Groundfighting even though the Eye itself doesn't grant a
> > strike?
>
> No. See the already-discussed Weakness.
>
> CryWolf wrote:
> Doesn't DotB affect the opposing minion?
>
It does. The "destroy the Meat Hook" strike also affects the opposing minion, however, by giving them the option to destroy it.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Aaron wrote:
> >
> > > Molloy wrote:
> > > DotB would not restrict such a minion's choice of strike. Their own lack of Potence restricts their choice.
> > >
> > >
> > But the reason the vampire would lack Potence is because of DotB.
> >
> Doesn't count as restricting strikes.
>
> [LSJ 20050224]
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Side DotB question number two: If the anarch has Potence thanks to Eye
> > > of Hazimel, and wants to play a Potence-requiring strike, can DotB be
> > > canceled by Groundfighting even though the Eye itself doesn't grant a
> > > strike?
> >
> > No. See the already-discussed Weakness.
> >
I didn't see any discussion on Weakness.
Here I disagree with LSJ, because the analogy he draws is incorrect. Weakness destroys a skill card, but the vampire with the skill card can still choose a strike that requires the discipline card that round (assuming that we are not considering possible additional strikes). In other words, Weakness does not restrict an opposing vampire's choice of (at least initial) strike.
A card like DotB that, at the beginning of combat, prevents a vampire from using disciplines gained from equipment completely prevents the vampire from choosing a strike that requires the discipline gained from the equipment.
I have a practical argument, independantly of existing ruling, against allowing groundfight in the DotB / Eye of Hazimel case : the presence of potence strike card is unknown. So, you don't kniw whether the DotB is restraining your strike choice or not.
It doesn't say that the presence of a strike card in hand has to be known.
Under your logic, Groundfighting could not cancel superior Thoughts Betrayed, since sup. TB prevents the playing of strike cards from the hand, and it isn't known if that restricts the vampire's choice of strikes since it isn't known if the player has any strike cards in hand playable by that vampire.
If a vampire has a discipline, then potentially he could declare any strike that requires that discipline as long as he could pay the cost.
Groundfighting could cancel basic Skin Trap, for instance, even if the vampire did not have an inherent strike: dodge from text or equipment, because the vampire might have a dodge in hand.
Groundfighting could always cancel Immortal Grapple, regardless of what inherent strikes a vampire had showing, since it prevents the playing of non-hand strikes from cards in hand.
The only exception to this would be if the player's last card in his hand was Groundfighting and he had exhausted his library or couldn't replace cards in his hand because of Meddling of Semsith.
I think we must distinguish two cases:
A) cards that *actively* restricts your strike choice: Immortal Grapple, Drawing Out the Beast when you have a known weapon equiped. GF works.
B) cards that *indirectly*, *maybe* restricts (or not) your strike choice: buring/preventing the use of an Eye of Hazimel, destroying a skill card on you. GF don't work.
In case B, we could add Blood to Water: by burning blood on the vampire before the strikes are chosen, you *may* restrict his strike choice (for example the vampire can't pay the blood cost of a *possible* strike). It's not the way it's supposed to work from the designer's intent.
(Note that GF could *maybe* cancel Blood to Water if played against a minion that has a build-in strike that costs blood, such as The unnamed).
To make it simple: if it's 100% sure the card restricts your strike choice, you can play GF. Otherwise, you can't.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Aaron wrote:
> I didn't see any discussion on Weakness.
>
I'm not sure how. It's in the very same thread.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fd9ec8658efc5c1d
>
> LSJ wrote:
> Similarly, Weakness would remove some options, but
> wouldn't directly restrict strikes.
>
> Aaron wrote:
> Here I disagree with LSJ, because the analogy he draws is incorrect. Weakness destroys a skill card, but the vampire with the skill card can still choose a strike that requires the discipline card that round (assuming that we are not considering possible additional strikes).
>
Why are you artificially introducing this additional restriction?
It's easy to disagree with rulings if you're using your own private card text, sure.
It may be the same thread, but those are two different links you just posted, which do not go to the same web page.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Aaron wrote:
> > Here I disagree with LSJ, because the analogy he draws is incorrect. Weakness destroys a skill card, but the vampire with the skill card can still choose a strike that requires the discipline card that round (assuming that we are not considering possible additional strikes).
> >
> Why are you artificially introducing this additional restriction?
>
> It's easy to disagree with rulings if you're using your own private card text, sure.
>
Weakness
Combat
Quietus
1
Strike: burn one Master Discipline card on the opposing vampire (Remove excess blood).
As above, and the opposing vampire also takes one damage.
Clearly the analogy between Weakness and a card that deactivates the Eye of Hazimel at the beginning of combat is not exact. Weakness only restricts your options to strike that round if you are going to gain additional strikes. It is troubling that LSJ didn't specify that. If Weakness strikes to destroy a Potence skill card, the opposing minion can still declare a strike of Undead Strength at the same time, even if Weakness is declared with First Strike. If DotB is played and the vampire's only access to is from the Eye of Hazimel, that vampire cannot strike with Undead Strength at all.
> ankha wrote:
> To make it simple: if it's 100% sure the card restricts your strike choice, you can play GF. Otherwise, you can't.
>
However, Ankha has given the best explanation of a limited reading of Groundfighting that I have seen so far. Ankha, I nominate you to the rules team. Yes, I can buy that. I like how you have provided an easy test that can be used in any case.
Of course, I'm not crazy about explanations that take into account designer intent, but this is VTES, after all. At least your explanation is explicit about it, rather than other explanations that treat designer intent as self-evident.
> Aaron wrote:
> Clearly the analogy between Weakness and a card that deactivates the Eye of Hazimel at the beginning of combat is not exact.
>
Wow, really? Really really? You mean different cards are different, but LSJ tried to apply consistent principles to all of them? Really? I'm shocked.
> Aaron wrote:
> Weakness only restricts your options to strike that round if you are going to gain additional strikes. It is troubling that LSJ didn't specify that.
>
It's pretty obvious to anyone who even, you know, looks at the card text.
He also didn't specify that Weakness is on a piece of card, so long by so wide, with this copyright date on it. THE ANALOGY IS NOT EXACT BECAUSE OF THIS.
> Aaron wrote:
> If DotB is played and the vampire's only access to is from the Eye of Hazimel, that vampire cannot strike with Undead Strength at all.
>
If I have one blood and you play Weather Control, I can't play a strike that costs one blood at all. Therefore, I can cancel Weather Control with Groundfighting.
My, we're wound up a bit tight today, aren't we? Even Paddington Bear has his bad days, I guess.
I reread what LSJ said about Weakness (in the second link you provided, where it was available), and it's true that the reasoning would cover DotB/Eye of Hazimel. My statement was based around the text from your original link, which only said "see previous discussion on Weakness".
My issue with his discussion of Weakness is that unless you assume that additional strikes can or will be played, the question of Weakness shouldn't even come up. Groundfighting only looks for cards that affect strikes made in the current round. Unless you get additional strikes, destroying a skill card with Weakness won't change the strike that the vampire can declared. I admit, it's not a strong point, but LSJ's discussion implied that Weakness could prevent a vampire from using a skill card to qualify to play strike at the same time Weakness is declared.
Without a specific ruling, yes, I think that Weather Control could be cancelled by Groundfighting. Ankha gave a satisfactory explanation to me to the more limited reading of Groundfighting, so I agree with both of you there.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Aaron wrote:
> > If DotB is played and the vampire's only access to is from the Eye of Hazimel, that vampire cannot strike with Undead Strength at all.
> >
> If I have one blood and you play Weather Control, I can't play a strike that costs one blood at all. Therefore, I can cancel Weather Control with Groundfighting.
>
I hope you are just being sarcastic here.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> Aaron wrote:
> Without a specific ruling, yes, I think that Weather Control could be cancelled by Groundfighting. Ankha gave a satisfactory explanation to me to the more limited reading of Groundfighting, so I agree with both of you there.
>
Okay, it's now 100% clear that you're not even bothering to do even the slightest reading of existing rulings before telling people how it is.
From a post that has already been linked to:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7468b82b3e1d461a
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes are
> > chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes all
> > the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1 blood,
> > can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
> > question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)
>
> No.
>
Ok, the link provided by Jamesatzephyr is quite clear.
> Ankha wrote:
> I think we must distinguish three cases:
> A) cards that *actively* restricts your strike choice: Immortal Grapple, Drawing Out the Beast when you have a known weapon equiped, Thoughts Betrayed (restricts to non-card strikes). They usually state "minion can't <do something related to a strike or a source of strike>". GF works.
> B) cards that *indirectly*, *maybe* restricts (or not) your strike choice: buring/preventing the use of an Eye of Hazimel, destroying a skill card on you, burning blood from you (Blood to Water, Weather Control) that would allow you to pay a strike cost (you can still regain blood and strike the way you want) GF doesn't work.
> C) Cards that remove the ability to strike at all (Lapse, Thoughts Betrayed). They're not restricting your strike choice. If you could strike, you could still strike like you want. (Against Lapse, you can for instance gain additionnal strike and strike the way you want.) GF doesn't work.
>
> In case B, we could add Blood to Water: by burning blood on the vampire before the strikes are chosen, you *may* restrict his strike choice (for example the vampire can't pay the blood cost of a *possible* strike). It's not the way it's supposed to work from the designer's intent.
>
> (Note that GF could *maybe* cancel Blood to Water if played against a minion that has a build-in strike that costs blood, such as The unnamed). => No, see case B above.
>
> To make it simple: if it's 100% sure the card restricts your strike choice, you can play GF. Otherwise, you can't.
>
So GF can't be used to cancel Blood to Water, even with The unnamed because it doesn't stop you *actively* ("you can't blabla") from using a strike. You could even regain blood with a Coven and still strike, proving that your choice hasn't been restricted.
I completed my definitions above
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I'm keeping an eye on this one. James' answers are correct, but maybe some "clarification" is needed (DotB w/o weapon can't be GF'd might be too weird)
Thx Pascal, i'm really satisfied with the result of the discussion.
When i started this thread, the whole point was to state that current ruling were "crystal clear", but there was a big corner case in the definition of "restrict... choice of strikes".
IMO, if you can come out with a generic, applicable definition of that line, the whole mess is clear.
> Ankha wrote:
> C) Cards that remove the ability to strike at all (Lapse, Thoughts Betrayed). They're not restricting your strike choice. If you could strike, you could still strike like you want. (Against Lapse, you can for instance gain additionnal strike and strike the way you want.) GF doesn't work.
>
A small quibble here. Thoughts Betrayed isn't restricting the ability to strike - it's "cannot play strike cards", which looks a lot like a restriction on choice of strikes to me. And, as seen on the rulings page:
> Card wrote:
> Groundfighting: Can cancel superior Thoughts Betrayed and Shape Mastery (when the latter is used to cancel a strike) [LSJ 20050222] [LSJ 20050223] Cannot cancel restricting the ability to strike and/or gain additional strikes (e.g., Rigor Mortis, Lapse) [LSJ 20050221] [LSJ 20050222] [LSJ 20050223]
>
> Thoughts wrote:
> Only usable before range is determined on the first round.
> Opposing minion takes 1 additional damage in the first round of combat during normal strike resolution.
> Opposing minion cannot play any strike cards for the duration of this combat.
>
--
National Coordinator
South Africa