Hunts

Heys! How does Loki's Gift interacts with cards like Restricted Vitae, Sunset Strip, Hollywood, XTC-Laced Blood and all the cards referring to hunt actions? (I know for sure that Strained Vitae Supply does not reduce LG's stealth cuz it has been ruled in one of my previous posts) (Too many cards mentioned, I exluded copying texts) NC of Hungary ///

> Malachy wrote: > Heys! > > How does Loki's Gift interacts with cards like Restricted Vitae, Sunset Strip, Hollywood, XTC-Laced Blood and all the cards referring to hunt actions? (I know for sure that Strained Vitae Supply does not reduce LG's stealth cuz it has been ruled in one of my previous posts) > > (Too many cards mentioned, I exluded copying texts) > If Sunset Strip is in play, and is tapped, Loki's Gift gets an extra +1 stealth. XTC-Laced Blood is usable on the Loki's Gift action, and the mandatory hunt action of a vampire with XTC-Laced Blood can be a Loki's Gift. Other important ones: Aaron's Feeding Razor won't burn an extra blood from the target of suprior Loki's Gift. If Zöe / Igo the Hungry played Loki's Gift, it would be a +1 steatlh action (their ability only affects the normal stealth when hunting, which refers to the stealth when performing the regular hunt action - same for Strained Vitae Supply). If Le Dinh To played Loki's Gift, it would be a 0 stealth action (because he gets -1 stealth when hunting, whatever the action is). Kyoko can play Loki's Gift. checking Restricted Vitae

> Pascal wrote: > checking Restricted Vitae > Restricted Vitae restricts any hunt action from being taken, except when forced. When you are forced, you can take alternate hunt actions. [LSJ 20050729] > > LSJ wrote: > > Met A is playing with Ravnos. Week of Nightmares and Restricted Vitae > > are in play. > > > > 1. The Ravnos can't hunt until reaches zero blood (per Restricted > > Vitae). When that happens, which options do he have to hunt? I suppose > > he can either steal a blood from other Ravnos at +1 stelth OR steal a > > blood from a younger vampire with 0 stealth. Is that correct? > > Yes. > [LSJ 20090508] > > LSJ wrote: > > if i have a Restricted vitae in play and an empty Laibon, can i play > > earth feeder and declare a hunt on a younger vampire controlled by > > another methuselah ? > > (my guess : yes) > > No. Choose one action or the other. > Beware the "no" because the question is about something subtly different i.e. do the two stack. But it confirms you can use an Earth-feeder to hunt. The end result is that - under Restricted Vitae - you cannot play Loki's Gift until you are forced to hunt. (Typically by being empty.) When you are forced to hunt, you can take a Loki's Gift hunt action, or any other hunt action available to you.

> Pascal wrote: > If Zöe / Igo the Hungry played Loki's Gift, it would be a +1 steatlh action (their ability only affects the normal stealth when hunting, which refers to the stealth when performing the regular hunt action - same for Strained Vitae Supply). > If Le Dinh Tho played Loki's Gift, it would be a 0 stealth action (because he gets -1 stealth when hunting, whatever the action is). > To be honnest : When you look at the card text of le din tho, the only difference seems not in designer's intent (various hunt actions did not exist at that point) but more as a shorter wording to save space. So now it's transformed to another ability. You mad, consistency ? :troll: Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > To be honnest : When you look at the card text of le din tho, the only difference seems not in designer's intent (various hunt actions did not exist at that point) but more as a shorter wording to save space. > Possibly, but card text is what it is. And the issue has been ruled on, explicitly, in the past. [LSJ 20081203] Alternate hunt actions don't get the usual +1 stealth. For example, Restricted Vitae gives you a zero-stealth action. (Confirmed above, in the Week of Nightmares v RV ruling.) So it's not a usual stealth applied to all hunt actions, just the default one. Alternate hunt actions define their own stealth (or lack thereof). So at that point, we just follow the card text.

@Reyda: There were some alternative hunts when Le Dinh To was printed - for instance, Week of Nightmare's optional hunt and Legacy of Caine's.

> Pascal wrote: > @Reyda: There were some alternative hunts when Le Dinh Tho was printed - for instance, Week of Nightmare's optional hunt and Legacy of Caine's. > Except that 1- they are not really "alternate" in a sense "i can play this card to make a better hunt". They are rather penalized version of hunt for vampires who cannot take the default hunt action ("hunt as normal" by respective card text on those master cards) and would otherwise get stuck with no blood. Plus they would get no bonus from the Razor. I can say : At that time, there was no card providing "Bonus hunt". So please do not try to fool honnest questions and examples by providing fallacious answers, really, it slows down the conversation for no real effect... 2- in most situations week of nightmare and legacy of caine are nothing to do with le din tho. He's not ravnos, not old enough to have legacy on him. I highly doubt, even if no one can really grasp designer's intent, that his text has been worded this way precisely to match Week of nightmare or Legacy of caine. 3- In the past, it has been proven that the space available on cards has led to some shortening on already existing wordings to try to maintain the information visible and clear. I maintain that Le din tho's text, who fits his card space very tightly, is originally the same as Igo or Zoe but has been shortened as a simple way to gain space. What could I add ? I'm working for the printed press for 18 years now, and that's how we roll. So this text now leads to more complications. Presuming I want to play abactor with Zoe or Le din tho, the stealth outcome would be different because of spacing on a fricking text box which in turn led to different rulings. CONSISTENCY, PLEASE. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Except that > 1- they are not really "alternate" in a sense "i can play this card to make a better hunt". > You're assuming (wrongly) that all alternate hunts have to be better than the default hunt. They can just be a step sideways. Restricted Vitae, for example, is not a strictly better action. > Reyda wrote: > They are rather penalized version of hunt for vampires who cannot take the default hunt action > Not necessarily. Facing another Ravnos deck, you can nick their blood. > Reyda wrote: > Plus they would get no bonus from the Razor. > Alternate hunt actions (including Legacy of Caine) benefit from Aaron's Feeding Razor, under RTR 2003-05-19. An extra blood is taken from the appropriate blood source, if possible. > Reyda wrote: > I can say : At that time, there was no card providing "Bonus hunt". > That you can say it doesn't make it true. > Reyda wrote: > 2- in most situations week of nightmare and legacy of caine are nothing to do with le din tho. He's not ravnos, not old enough to have legacy on him. I highly doubt, even if no one can really grasp designer's intent, that his text has been worded this way precisely to match Week of nightmare or Legacy of caine. > LSJ certainly knew that Legacy of Caine was a hunt action in 2000, a year before Le Dinh Tho was released. groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qc9G99WXv1g/UIXXAoK-VU0J He then later ruled on Le Dinh Tho working in exactly this way. Since LSJ knew about this, designed the card, and ruled it on the way he did, it seems that the designer had no problem with this. > Reyda wrote: > 3- In the past, it has been proven that the space available on cards has led to some shortening on already existing wordings to try to maintain the information visible and clear. > Sure, but we play by the card text as written, not the card text that might have been written if the box was bigger. > Reyda wrote: > I maintain that Le din tho's text, who fits his card space very tightly, is originally the same as Igo or Zoe but has been shortened as a simple way to gain space. > The designer explicitly ruled that Le Dinh Tho works in this fashion. > Reyda wrote: > CONSISTENCY, PLEASE. > The designer knew the rules. The designer designed the card. The designer ruled on how the card works, in a manner entirely consistent with the rules. The ruling still stands now. That is, how you say, consistency. Typing "CONSISTENCY, PLEASE" does not actual cause an inconsistency to exist. Further, the fact that you are - by your own admission - always on the trolling side? Yeah, not gonna help your case.

Also, as a pure lore consistency, Le Din Tho still must kill a living human to eat its flesh regardless of how he feed. While a not subtle caitiff like Zoe certainly don't have to kill human left and right if she hunt on a vampire.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Except that > > 1- they are not really "alternate" in a sense "i can play this card to make a better hunt". > > > You're assuming (wrongly) that all alternate hunts have to be better than the default hunt. They can just be a step sideways. Restricted Vitae, for example, is not a strictly better action. > Yes it is, since you have the choice of hunting as usual or stealing a blood. I use this event with Excellent Thirst for great satisfaction and maximum trolling. So I assume RIGHTEOUSLY that the alternate hunts provided by cards are better than the default hunt action. Or else, why play a card ? I am not very interested in your semantics. I am interested in a simple question : Why does Le din tho's hunt action differs from zoe' one in the first place ? Essentially, in your beautiful english language, it is the same ability ( YEAH, at the moment Bloodlines was printed, I KNOW.) But at some point, someone asked a question online and suddenly oh, it's different and does not work the same. Any intelligent being can clearly see that it's an editing problem. And said intelligent being does not even need to have worked at a print company. That's why I ask for consistency while you are just trying to win petty arguments. I am talking here so we can have a game with less ruling and less bizarre cases. I do not want to argue with you, I already have plenty of satisfaction in my life. Thank you. But still, because it's funny & trolly : > > Reyda wrote: > > Plus they would get no bonus from the Razor. > > > Alternate hunt actions (including Legacy of Caine) benefit from Aaron's Feeding Razor, under RTR 2003-05-19. An extra blood is taken from the appropriate blood source, if possible. > You know this ruling have changed over time, don't you ? That's what "under RTR" is for. => We'll come back later to this, let's mark it with an asterisk (*) > > Reyda wrote: > > I can say : At that time, there was no card providing "Bonus hunt". > > > That you can say it doesn't make it true. > My statement is there was no card. My statement is true. Go find a delorean and bring a box of abactor to 1995 and then we can talk again. > > Reyda wrote: > > 2- in most situations week of nightmare and legacy of caine are nothing to do with le din tho. He's not ravnos, not old enough to have legacy on him. I highly doubt, even if no one can really grasp designer's intent, that his text has been worded this way precisely to match Week of nightmare or Legacy of caine. > > > LSJ certainly knew that Legacy of Caine was a hunt action in 2000, a year before Le Dinh Tho was released. > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qc9G99WXv1g/UIXXAoK-VU0J > > He then later ruled on Le Dinh Tho working in exactly this way. > > Since LSJ knew about this, designed the card, and ruled it on the way he did, it seems that the designer had no problem with this. > That's your interpretation... And by the way, here is the (*) again ! Because what LSJ wrote here directly contradicts what you stated above : at that time, the Razor would not affect blood gained via Legacy of Caine. Nothing indicates that it has an influence whatsoever on Le din tho. Again, my statement is : Zoe and Igo where printed way before Le din tho. they had perfectly understandable flaws (card text). The only thing that happened is the interpretation of the word "Usual hunting". At that point, alternat hunts (loki's gift, abactor etc...) did not exist. A ruling has been made that is confusing to say the least. It introduces special cases. It introduces problems in playing correctly the game. Certainly because of spacing. text. on. small. textbox. So far you did not prove my point is invalid. But we can continue on and on. > Typing "CONSISTENCY, PLEASE" does not actual cause an inconsistency to exist. Further, the fact that you are - by your own admission - always on the trolling side? Yeah, not gonna help your case. > I admitted that "I'm a bit on the trolling side". That does not make my point invalid. I 'm happy to troll of it makes the game better and more understandable. I may add that you using fallacious arguments will not help the game either. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > I admitted that "I'm a bit on the trolling side". That does not make my point invalid. I 'm happy to troll of it makes the game better and more understandable. > It doesn't. It's easier to follow printed card text. Le Dihn To has different card text from Zoë: Le Dihn To behaves differently when hunting. I would be annoyed if this wasn't the case. Try to explain to a player that the official card text means something that is not written because Zoë is the new reference, even if they have official different card texts. Consistency in wording doesn't mean that all effects must be the same, otherwise why not errata Guard Dogs to force you to attempt to block since Sense the Savage Way (and nearly every other card that untaps a vampire as a reaction) forces you to attempt to block? Concerning Dinh To's cardspace, maybe the hunt ability wording was dictating by space. But it clearly didn't bother the designer since no ruling has been issued to indicate that the cardtext should be understood another way than printed. If it wasn't the designer's first intent, maybe there were even happy with it in the end because Dihn To feeds differently according to the canon material. Plus, I assume that Dinh To has been playtested that way. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Consistency in wording doesn't mean that all effects must be the same, otherwise why not errata Guard Dogs to force you to attempt to block since Sense the Savage Way (and nearly every other card that untaps a vampire as a reaction) forces you to attempt to block? > This is a perfect exemple of a fallacious argument. all cards that untaps a vampire and forces him to block have been printed AFTER guard dogs. The only exception being 2nd tradition. Does it have somthing to do with our case ? No. There has been ways to harmonize things. Best moves by LSJ can be seen in the way +1 strength replaced the old 2 hand damage on old vampires. That was very good ! There was an opportunity to reprint Igo and Zoe with the same -1 stealth when huting as Le din tho. It was not taken. Because one day, among lots of question, LSJ answered "seems not usual" on a question pertaining a hunt action. That's it. Most of the rulings are very good and helps us play this complicated game. Some of them are just plain silly : not because i play le din tho or zoe, just because it leads to confusion and requires you to have an internet connection at all time to search to a complex database. > Ankha wrote: > Concerning Dinh To's cardspace, maybe the hunt ability wording was dictating by space. > Thanks for taking this into consideration. > Ankha wrote: > But it clearly didn't bother the designer since no ruling has been issued to indicate that the cardtext should be understood another way than printed. > No, instead we have two statements one on Zoe, one Le din Tho that seem gemini-similar in plain english but translate differently in game rulings : That's the whole subject I am adressing here ! > Ankha wrote: > If it wasn't the designer's first intent, maybe there were even happy with it in the end because Dihn To feeds differently according to the canon material. > It has been proven numerous times that source material is just what it is : material. Mechanisms and gameplay are more important than source material. It's ok to have some for flavor, but seriously, who takes "Cold iron vulnerability" in account when creating a deck ? > Ankha wrote: > Plus, I assume that Dinh To has been playtested that way. > What you just said makes no sense since, allow me to repeat myslef, when Le Din Tho was playtested THERE WAS NO CARD WHO COULD PRACTICALLY INTERACT WITH HIS HUNT. I'm so tired of debunking the same old and petty argument all thread long. It's awful. I know there are rulings, I know they may suit some of old players, but if they seem arbitrary or INCONSISTENT, let's review that and make the game MORE EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE. And that's from an old player. I'd really like put it this way : When I was younger I was happy when someone did not know a ruling and made misplay during his turns because of this lack of lore. I thought "yeah, i've got an edge over them". But now I think I was stupid. The aim of the game is playing a methuselah who manipulates younger vampire for setting up revenge. The aim of the game is not playing the best nerd out there who can tell every ruling, be smart ass, and avoid his deck being beaten because some old stuf written in 1998 on some part of the internet. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > just because it leads to confusion and requires you to have an internet connection at all time to search to a complex database. > You don't have to search if you read correctly both cards. You're the only one confused because you know the game from a long time, know both cards and have developped a "what if" reflexion about card space on cards. New players won't be confused that way. > Reyda wrote: > No, instead we have two statements one on Zoe, one Le din Tho that seem gemini-similar in plain english but translate differently in game rulings : That's the whole subject I am adressing here ! > "Tho gets -1 stealth when hunting. Zöe does not get the usual +1 stealth when hunting." They look different. They are different. Apparently you think what they look the same, or should look the same, it's not my fault. I don't see any problem in explaining a new player reading Dinh Tho's text that he has -1 stealth on all his hunts actions. On the opposite, how would you explain that Zöe's text is in fact -1 stealth on all hunt actions and the "usual" doesn't mean anything in the latest print? Errata? More database? I would agree with you if they had the same cardtext but different effects. This is not the case. The rest is as uaual mob rant like your topic about Rego Motus. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director