Restricted Vitae
Gehenna. Do not replace until a vampire successfully hunts.
Vampires cannot hunt unless forced to hunt. A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action instead of performing the usual hunt action.
My initial interpretation of this is that if empty a vampire can only hunt from a younger vampire — hence the would instead. Is this the case? or should the card read:
Vampires cannot hunt unless forced to hunt. A vampire who must hunt may also hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action instead of performing the usual hunt action.
Or similar?
Thanks
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Ke. wrote:
> Restricted Vitae
> Gehenna. Do not replace until a vampire successfully hunts.
> Vampires cannot hunt unless forced to hunt. A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action instead of performing the usual hunt action.
>
> My initial interpretation of this is that if empty a vampire can only hunt from a younger vampire — hence the would instead. Is this the case? or should the card read:
>
> Vampires cannot hunt unless forced to hunt. A vampire who must hunt may also hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action instead of performing the usual hunt action.
>
> Or similar?
>
> Thanks
>
An empty vampire must hunt. Therefore, an empty vampire is not affected by the "he can't hunt" text. Thus he can hunt regularly.
Now, Restricted Vitae allows that vampire to hunt via Restricted Vitae's cardext instead of performing the allowed-for-vampires-who-must-hunt regular hunt action.
You're reading it incorrectly, you're reading it as if it read
"Vampires cannot hunt. A vampire who must hunt may steal a blood as a action." (or something similar when performing a hunt action would be allowed and not allowed at the same time).
Thanks, it didn't affect me directly — was just for clarification for other players arguing...
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
I don't feel this answers the question- what needs clarification is whether a vampire who is forced to hunt has to hunt from a younger vampire.
If there is no younger vampire, where does the vampire hunt from?
The card text reads 'A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a D action instead of performing the usual hunt action.'
indicating the only hunt option is to hunt from a younger vampire. Similarly, Week of Nightmares card text says
'Ravnos get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. A Ravnos may steal a blood from another Ravnos as a +1 stealth hunt action.'
If there are no Ravnos with blood left, would they then be allowed to hunt as normal? No, they hunt and stay tapped on 0 blood.
Like Week of Nightmares, Restricted Vitae removes the 'normal hunt action', leaving Vampires who must hunt the only hunt option of 'stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action'. The emphasis of the card here is 'instead'- 'instead' indicates the normal hunt option is no longer available. If there are no younger vampires, they hunt but receive no blood.
This would reflect the actual Gehenna event of Vampires only being satisfied by blood from other vampires. Otherwise, if Vampires can hunt as normal, what is the point of Restricted Vitae if you can't force other vampires to hunt from each other and create more chances for int/combat?
@TheRagnarok:
There is a wording difference between Week of Nightmares and Restricted Vitae.
> Week of Nightmares
> Type: Master
> Requires: Ravnos
> Master.
> Put this card in play with 10 nightmare counters. Ravnos get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. A Ravnos may steal a blood from another Ravnos as a +1 stealth hunt action. During each Methuselah's untap phase, he or she may move a nightmare counter from this card to a Ravnos. If this card has no counters, each Ravnos burns a blood for each nightmare counter or is burned, then burn this card and the counters. Only one Week of Nightmares may be played in a game.
>
> Restricted Vitae
> Type: Event
> Gehenna. Do not replace until a vampire successfully hunts.
> Vampires cannot hunt unless forced to hunt. A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action instead of performing the usual hunt action.
>
> Abactor
> Type: Action
> +1 stealth hunt action.
> Gain 5 blood. After successful resolution, a referendum is called to call a blood hunt on this vampire (independent of the action, just as if he or she had committed diablerie).
>
Week of Nightmares prevents all Ravnos from taking the cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action. It gives them an option to hunt from another Ravnos. If they had some other card (e.g. Abactor) which provided a hunt action, they may take that action. If Week of Nightmares AND Restricted Vitae were in play, then Ravnos could hunt from non-Ravnos as a action using Restricted Vitae's hunt action.
Restricted Vitae prevents all vampires from taking the cardless +1 stealth action if they do not need to take a mandatory hunt action. If they have a mandatory hunt action, then the card doesn't not restrict the hunt action and the vampire can take any hunt action available (e.g. Restricted Vitae's hunt action, Week of Nightmare's hunt action, Kyoko Shinesegawa's hunt action, Abactor's hunt action, Vulture's Buffet's hunt action, etc).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Is there an LSJ ruling on this? Because the card text seems pretty clear, I.E.
A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a D action instead of the usual hunt action
The 'may' here does not indicate an alternative hunt option, 'instead' being the operative word, the only hunt option available being hunting from younger vampires, Just like the Week of Nightmares option, which also reads 'may'.
I'm just reading the card text as it implies. If it was clarified with 'may hunt by stealing a blood... in addition to the usual hunt action' this would be clear, but the card clearly doesn't read that way for a reason?
I'd say the may is the important word since instead is referencing the alternative action. if otherwise, it would say:
"Any vampire who is forced to hunt must hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a d action. if there are not younger vampires with blood, this minion attempts and taps, but does not recieve any blood. "
May gives the option and instead clarifies its an alternative.
definitely a card I have to re-read to understandthough.
> theragnarok wrote:
> Is there an LSJ ruling on this? Because the card text seems pretty clear, I.E.
>
> A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a D action instead of the usual hunt action
>
> The 'may' here does not indicate an alternative hunt option, 'instead' being the operative word, the only hunt option available being hunting from younger vampires, Just like the Week of Nightmares option, which also reads 'may'.
>
> I'm just reading the card text as it implies. If it was clarified with 'may hunt by stealing a blood... in addition to the usual hunt action' this would be clear, but the card clearly doesn't read that way for a reason?
>
"May" is what gives you the option. I dont' think a ruling on" may" is needed here, and I don't think it was ever given.
Examples of such uses :
- Blood Doll
- Zoo Hunting Ground
- Aeron
- Agaitas
...
> theragnarok wrote:
> Is there an LSJ ruling on this? Because the card text seems pretty clear, I.E.
>
> A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a D action instead of the usual hunt action
>
> The 'may' here does not indicate an alternative hunt option, 'instead' being the operative word, the only hunt option available being hunting from younger vampires, Just like the Week of Nightmares option, which also reads 'may'.
>
> I'm just reading the card text as it implies. If it was clarified with 'may hunt by stealing a blood... in addition to the usual hunt action' this would be clear, but the card clearly doesn't read that way for a reason?
>
Restricted Vitae doesn't prevent a normal cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action; it does stop a vampire hunting unless it has a mandatory hunt action.
A vampire that has a mandatory hunt while Restricted Vitae is in play can choose the following options:
a) The normal cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action
b) To use the hunt action provided by Restricted Vitae (as a action on a younger vampire)
c) Some other hunt action (Abactor, Loki's Gift, etc)
Week of Nightmares forbids the normal cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action; it gives ONE alternative to the cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action on its card text. Usually a vampire only hunts via the cardless action but as I listed above, there are 'alternative hunt actions' that a Ravnos could use when Week of Nightmares is in play. The easiest example is Abactor.
A Ravnos vampire that is going to choose a hunt action while Week of Nightmares is in play has the following options:
a) To use the hunt action provided by Week of Nightmares (as a action on a younger Ravnos vampire)
b) Some other hunt action (Abactor, Loki's Gift, etc)
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
>
> > theragnarok wrote:
> > Is there an LSJ ruling on this? Because the card text seems pretty clear, I.E.
> >
> > A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a D action instead of the usual hunt action
> >
> > The 'may' here does not indicate an alternative hunt option, 'instead' being the operative word, the only hunt option available being hunting from younger vampires, Just like the Week of Nightmares option, which also reads 'may'.
> >
> > I'm just reading the card text as it implies. If it was clarified with 'may hunt by stealing a blood... in addition to the usual hunt action' this would be clear, but the card clearly doesn't read that way for a reason?
> >
> Restricted Vitae doesn't prevent a normal cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action; it does stop a vampire hunting unless it has a mandatory hunt action.
> A vampire that has a mandatory hunt while Restricted Vitae is in play can choose the following options:
> a) The normal cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action
> b) To use the hunt action provided by Restricted Vitae (as a action on a younger vampire)
> c) Some other hunt action (Abactor, Loki's Gift, etc)
>
> Week of Nightmares forbids the normal cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action; it gives ONE alternative to the cardless +1 stealth undirected hunt action on its card text. Usually a vampire only hunts via the cardless action but as I listed above, there are 'alternative hunt actions' that a Ravnos could use when Week of Nightmares is in play. The easiest example is Abactor.
> A Ravnos vampire that is going to choose a hunt action while Week of Nightmares is in play has the following options:
> a) To use the hunt action provided by Week of Nightmares (as a action on a younger Ravnos vampire)
> b) Some other hunt action (Abactor, Loki's Gift, etc)
>
Using this logic doesn't Restricted Vitae only give you one hunt option as well?
The wording 'may' is the same as Week of Nightmares. No one claims that with 0 blood on Ravnos vampires, you can hunt as normal, since there is no alternative; why would you claim the same for Restricted Vitae?
Week of Nightmares
Type: Master
Requires: Ravnos
Master.
Put this card in play with 10 nightmare counters. Ravnos get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. A Ravnos may steal a blood from another Ravnos as a +1 stealth hunt action. During each Methuselah's untap phase, he or she may move a nightmare counter from this card to a Ravnos. If this card has no counters, each Ravnos burns a blood for each nightmare counter or is burned, then burn this card and the counters. Only one Week of Nightmares may be played in a game.
The italicised text shows where the cardless hunt is forbidden by Week of Nightmares for Ravnos vampires. The underlined text shows where a different hunt option is provided by Week of Nightmares.
Restricted Vitae
Type: Event
Gehenna. Do not replace until a vampire successfully hunts.
Vampires cannot hunt unless forced to hunt. A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action instead of performing the usual hunt action.
Restricted Vitae is not forbidding the normal hunt only when a vampire can hunt. The underlined text shows where a different hunt option is provided by Restricted Vitae.
So the difference is that Week of Nightmares says that a Ravnos cannot hunt as normal. Restricted Vitae says that vampires cannot take any hunt actions unless they must take a hunt action. Hopefully this will finally clear this up for you.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> theragnarok wrote:
> I don't feel this answers the question- what needs clarification is whether a vampire who is forced to hunt has to hunt from a younger vampire.
>
A vampire with no blood is not affected by the restriction on Restricted Vitae, as he must hunt, and as that restriction only affects vampire who do not have to hunt.
> theragnarok wrote:
> If there is no younger vampire, where does the vampire hunt from?
>
With Restricted Vitae in play, if you must hunt, you may perform any hunt action (as long as the requirements - target exists, for Restricted Vitae's hunt action - are met. If there are no younger vampire, you cannot take Restricted Vitae's hunt action.
> theragnarok wrote:
> The card text reads 'A vampire who must hunt may hunt by stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a D action instead of performing the usual hunt action.'
>
> indicating the only hunt option is to hunt from a younger vampire.
>
Incorrect. It indicates that there is another option for hunts. But it's not the only option - regular hunt, or Abactor, or other hunt actions could be taken.
> theragnarok wrote:
> Similarly, Week of Nightmares card text says
>
> 'Ravnos get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. A Ravnos may steal a blood from another Ravnos as a +1 stealth hunt action.'
>
"do not hunt as normal" isn't really similar to "can only hunt in a specific situation, and when they can hunt, they have a new option.
>
> theragnarok wrote:
> If there are no Ravnos with blood left, would they then be allowed to hunt as normal? No, they hunt and stay tapped on 0 blood.
>
You probably haven't been playing a Revnos Embrace deck very often. The usual trick is to steal a blood (that's an action which targets a vampire, not a blood counter) from an empty vampire, or a vampire with 2 or more blood. This allows all your vampires with 1 blood to continue to bleed under Week of Nightmares.
Week of Nightmares allows stealing a blood from a vampire with no blood (just like Theft of Vitae is usable against a vampire with 0 blood).
> theragnarok wrote:
> Like Week of Nightmares, Restricted Vitae removes the 'normal hunt action',
>
No. It restricts the possibilities to use it.
>
> theragnarok wrote:
> leaving Vampires who must hunt the only hunt option of 'stealing a blood from a younger vampire as a action'.
>
No. It grants them a new option to hunt.
>
> theragnarok wrote:
> The emphasis of the card here is 'instead'- 'instead' indicates the normal hunt option is no longer available. If there are no younger vampires, they hunt but receive no blood.
>
"May ... instead" provides the new hunt option.
> theragnarok wrote:
> This would reflect the actual Gehenna event of Vampires only being satisfied by blood from other vampires. Otherwise, if Vampires can hunt as normal, what is the point of Restricted Vitae if you can't force other vampires to hunt from each other and create more chances for int/combat?
>
The point of Restricted Vitae is that vampires can only hunt when they must, which usually means when they have no blood.
> theragnarok wrote:
> The wording 'may' is the same as Week of Nightmares. No one claims that with 0 blood on Ravnos vampires, you can hunt as normal, since there is no alternative; why would you claim the same for Restricted Vitae?
>
Probably because Week of Nightmares reads "Ravnos[...] do not hunt as normal".
This is slightly off topic, how does Loki's Gift interact with Restricted Vitae?
Loki's Gift
+1 stealth hunt action.
Gain 1 blood and this card. This vampire can burn this card and 1 blood to get +1 stealth. A vampire can have only one Loki's Gift.
As above, and burn a blood from any vampire. This vampire may burn this card as above, or may burn it during a referendum to gain 2 votes.
> Adyiss wrote:
> This is slightly off topic, how does Loki's Gift interact with Restricted Vitae?
>
the only interaction lies in the fact that you cannot play loki's gift if your vampire is not empty ( [except] if he is forced to hunt by, says, XTC laced blood)
That's all. It's a separate hunt action that has nothing to do with restricted vitae otherwise.
(edited for clarity; thanks Adyiss ! )
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
So mandatory hunt actions can use abactor/lokis gift instead of the default action anytime I take a mandatory hunt?
I thought that but was told otherwise once.
> Rulebook wrote:
> 6.1.2. Hunt (+1 stealth)
>
> Hunting is a vampire's means of satisfying his hunger for blood. Allies cannot take this action.
>
> To have a vampire hunt, announce the action and tap the acting vampire. If the action is successful, move a blood counter to the acting vampire from the blood bank. If this causes the vampire's blood to exceed his blood capacity, then (as always) the excess is immediately returned to the blood bank. This action has a default +1 stealth (see Stealth and Intercept, sec. 6.2.2.2). Note that a ready vampire with no blood must hunt (and cannot take any action except the hunt action).
>
All that 6.1.2 requires is that a vampire must hunt (and cannot take any action but a hunt action) when it has no blood.
As long as the card says "Hunt action" (e.g. Loki's Gift, Abactor) then it can be used as a Mandatory Hunt action.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418