Pascal,
If you could give a Shadow Court Satyr a combat card such as Devil-Channel: Feet or Taming the Beast or Fae Contortion which also has a REFLEX ability, can the Shadow Court Satyr use the REFLEX ability of the combat card during combat?
Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling)
Type: Ally
Requires: Gangrel antitribu
Cost: 3 pool
Changeling with 3 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed.
When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any).
Devil-Channel: Back
Type: Combat
Requires: Abombwe
[abo] [REFLEX] Cancel a frenzy card played on this vampire as it is played.
[abo] Frenzy. This vampire burns 1 blood to get an additional strike this round, only usable to make a hand strike.
[ABO] Frenzy. This vampire gets an additional strike this round, only usable to make a hand strike.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
A strict reading of SCS, the Reflex cards, and the Reflex rule in the rulebook, yes, SCS could use the Reflex ability.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Then again, it's worthwhile to note that Satyt might not be able to benefit from the ability. Say, the DC: Back there says that you can cancel a Frenzy card played against this Vampire. Satry ain't no vampire though. Also, I think all frenzy cards affect only vampires.
He COULD play a reflex ability, though, if he got any gain out of it.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> Kraus wrote:
> Say, the DC: Back there says that you can cancel a Frenzy card played against this Vampire. Satry ain't no vampire though.
>
No, whenever you play something "as a Blah", that specific card treats you as a Blah for play, resolution and lingering effects.
> General wrote:
> An ally that plays a card "as a vampire" is treated "as a vampire" for all puposes of the resolution of the play of that card including any continuing effects, but not for effects the card generates for being in play. [RTR 20070707]
>
Similarly, Mata Hari can play Raking Talons 'as a Gargoyle' and get agg hand damage for the combat.
> Kraus wrote:
> Also, I think all frenzy cards affect only vampires.
>
Terror Frenzy.
Then again, all thoses card are not earth meld, thus are illegal to play on a shadow court satyr.
More seriously, it make me want to do a SCS + Taking the Skin: Minion deck. With Sebastian Goulet and Song of Pan. Because, even if it's hard as hell to actually burn minion, especially with a disciplineless ally, it may be worth it for the look on your opponent.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Then again, all thoses card are not earth meld, thus are illegal to play on a shadow court satyr.
>
> More seriously, it make me want to do a SCS + Taking the Skin: Minion deck. With Sebastian Goulet and Song of Pan. Because, even if it's hard as hell to actually burn minion, especially with a disciplineless ally, it may be worth it for the look on your opponent.
>
Concealed Weapon/ Saturday Night Special / Dragonbreath Rounds / Target Vitals!
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I don't think Target Vitals helps with burning since its damage is not aggravated and inflicted after the normal damage of the strike.
On topic: is there anything special about Reflex cards, or can I put a Swallowed by the Night on the satyr and use the +1 stealth?
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Then again, all thoses card are not earth meld, thus are illegal to play on a shadow court satyr.
>
He'd get the card, then untap, then I think the rest of the benefits are derived from the card being in play - "this vampire" being "the vampire with this card".
If they're derived from the card being in play, the card no longer sees SCS as a vampire.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> I don't think Target Vitals helps with burning since its damage is not aggravated and inflicted after the normal damage of the strike.
>
> On topic: is there anything special about Reflex cards, or can I put a Swallowed by the Night on the satyr and use the +1 stealth?
>
TV damage is same as source damage, IIRC
> Non-existant user wrote:
> I don't think Target Vitals helps with burning since its damage is not aggravated and inflicted after the normal damage of the strike.
>
It wouldn't inherit the aggravated status from DBR, but it's done at the same time as the rest of the damage. Successfully inflicted means the damage from the strike wasn't prevented. Then all the damage is handled, with TV bundled in.
[LSJ 20091123]
> LSJ wrote:
> floppyzedolfin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > A Nephandus with 3 life is in combat with a vampire with a .44 Magnum.
> > The vampire's strike is to use the Magnum, and he modifies it with an
> > uncancelled Target Vitals. Nephandus strikes for 1R.
> > There is no prevention card played, does the Nephandus burn?
>
> .44: 2R.
> After Nephandus: 1R.
> After T:V: 3R.
>
> Non-existant user wrote:
> On topic: is there anything special about Reflex cards, or can I put a Swallowed by the Night on the satyr and use the +1 stealth?
>
SCS's card text restricts him to using the effect "Once each combat", and you can't use an action modifier in combat. Nor can you play stealth in combat. So it would be a bit useless.
> Pendargon wrote:
> TV damage is same as source damage, IIRC
>
And in that case, the base damage is the non aggravated damage from the gun, not the aggravated damage from the DBR.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> It wouldn't inherit the aggravated status from DBR, but it's done at the same time as the rest of the damage. Successfully inflicted means the damage from the strike wasn't prevented. Then all the damage is handled, with TV bundled in.
>
I don't think you can deduce that from the Nephandus ruling. Later in the same thread, LSJ explained:
>
> LSJ wrote:
> I imagine the question was whether the T:V was a separate source of damage to be
> separately reduced by Nephandus's special.
>
He only answered on the fact that the Target Vitals damage comes from the strike (card text), so it counts as a single damaging effect for the Nephandus. That doesn't say anything about the timing.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Non-existant user wrote:
> > I don't think Target Vitals helps with burning since its damage is not aggravated and inflicted after the normal damage of the strike.
> >
> It wouldn't inherit the aggravated status from DBR, but it's done at the same time as the rest of the damage. Successfully inflicted means the damage from the strike wasn't prevented. Then all the damage is handled, with TV bundled in.
>
I read that. But what if the damage from the gun is prevented (by, say, a superior Resilience) but not the agg damage from the dragon breath rounds ? Does the target vitals then should inherit the damage from dragon breath ? or is it completely ineffective since the original strike (2R damage from the gun) has been prevented ?
Sorry if I sound silly, I just want to be sure !
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
Starting with this bit:
> Reyda wrote:
> or is it completely ineffective since the original strike (2R damage from the gun) has been prevented ?
>
TV cares about damage from "this strike". It doesn't matter whether the strike was just hands for 1, or whether it was made up of several elaborate card plays e.g. Reverend Blackwood (+1 on thaumaturgy strikes) plays Torn Signpost (somehow) and Blood Fury (strength-based Thaumaturgy strikes), or thirty copies of Increased Strength and a Thrown Gate. It's still just one strike. Any of the damage is damage from that strike.
(If the answer to "Would a Dodge protect me from it?" is yes, it's probably damage from the strike.)
> Reyda wrote:
> I read that. But what if the damage from the gun is prevented (by, say, a superior Resilience) but not the agg damage from the dragon breath rounds ? Does the target vitals then should inherit the damage from dragon breath ?
>
It still only inherits the properties of the base damage, even though that base damage has been prevented.
[LSJ 20090708]
> LSJ, wrote:
> > Today's question is about the Aim cards (well, mainly Target Head and
> > Target Vitals).
> > We know they inflict the same kind of damage as the modified strike
> > inflicts (aggravated, ranged, not preventable [by ...], ...).
> > But what if the strike inflicts multiple kinds of damage?
>
> Additional damage inherits all of the properties of the base damage.
>
> ...
>
> > 3/ A modifies the strike playing a Target Vitals (which is not
> > cancelled) and a Dragon's Breath Rounds (I think the order doesn't
> > change anything here).
> > This time, B has to deal with 1 regular and 2 agg damage.
> > a - If the regular damage is not prevented, B will suffer an extra 2
> > regular damage. Is this correct ?
>
> Yes.
> > b - if the regular damage is prevented, but at least 1 agg isn't, B
> > will suffer an extra 2 agg damage. Is this correct ?
>
> No. The extra damage only inherits the properties of the base damage.
>
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > I imagine the question was whether the T:V was a separate source of damage to be
> > separately reduced by Nephandus's special.
> >
> He only answered on the fact that the Target Vitals damage comes from the strike (card text), so it counts as a single damaging effect for the Nephandus. That doesn't say anything about the timing.
>
Since it's the same source and it's still from "this strike" (card text), it's handled at the same time. There's nothing that makes damage from a strike resolve later or in bundles. After damage prevention finishing with some damage left, you add two additional damage to the strike, then handle (heal/burn to prevent destruction) the damage you've got.
Even if it was a separate source, you'd often handle it all at the same time anyway. e.g. Wolf Companion for 1 normal, plus Carrion Crows for 2 normal, plus my 1 agg hand damage. All handled in the same damage resolution phase.
And anyway, the damage from TV doesn't need to be aggravated to help burning the opposing minion.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
on topic:
Reflex is a different card type than Combat. I don't think SCS can use a Reflex.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
However, if it was a genuine different card-type (i.e. like the multi-type cards of action mod/combat cards) then it would have two symbols on the left-hand side.
While it has a symbol, in the text, is it a non-combat effect and therefore a non-combat ability?
Also, on that score, shouldn't Charismatic Aura effectively be a reflex as well at it's "Cancel a grapple" text?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> However, if it was a genuine different card-type (i.e. like the multi-type cards of action mod/combat cards) then it would have two symbols on the left-hand side.
>
The rulebook specifically lists reflex as a distinct card type, which obviously has priority over edge-of-the-card iconic conventions. But still, I see your point. Cards where Reflex is only one of multiple types probably should have a Reflex icon on the edge.
> Also, on that score, shouldn't Charismatic Aura effectively be a reflex as well at it's "Cancel a grapple" text?
>
Not every card that cancels something is or should be a Reflex.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> on topic:
>
> Reflex is a different card type than Combat. I don't think SCS can use a Reflex.
>
Oh, that's right. I just blithely assumed that since it's a combat card, and the reflex level uses an inferior discipline, and can be played in combat, then...
But no.
[LSJ 20060317]
> LSJ wrote:
> > Can a Shadow Court Satyr with an Abombwe combat
> > card (such as Invoking the Beast) put on him use the
> > Reflex effect of the card?
> ...
> Shadow Court Satyr can only use the combat-card effect.
>
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Also, on that score, shouldn't Charismatic Aura effectively be a reflex as well at it's "Cancel a grapple" text?
>
Strictly speaking, that would change the effect of the card.
Reflex cards can only cancel cards that are played against you/on you. For example, two vampires (A and B) in combat. A plays Devil Channel: Hands: "[abo] Frenzy. Play before range is determined. For the remainder of the combat, this vampire's hand damage is aggravated." B cannot use a Reflex card to cancel that play, since it wasn't played on him. [LSJ 20051113]
There is in theory nothing stopping a Grapple card from being self-empowering only. (Thematically, it might be quite hard.)
> Ankha wrote:
> And anyway, the damage from TV doesn't need to be aggravated to help burning the opposing minion.
>
It might. If a minion was immune to normal damage (say, Ex Nihilo), it would be important to know whether the damage was aggravated. (Most likely, this would lead to you not using the TV unnecessarily.)
Ditto if you were against a Samedi playing Regenerative Blood. (Let me know if that ever happens.)
@James:
Where is the difference between the Fae Contortion ability and the Charismatic Aura ability? Other than maybe its scope on strikes but those will be 'aimed' at the minion playing the Charismatic Aura so the argument of 'empowering me means it shouldn't be a Reflex' has been neutralised by cardtexts.
Fae Contortion
Type: Action Modifier/Combat
Requires: Mytherceria/Obtenebration
[myt] [REFLEX] Cancel a grapple card played on this vampire as it is played (no cost is paid).
...
Charismatic Aura
Type: Combat
Requires: Auspex & Presence
[aus] Burn 1 blood to cancel the opposing minion's strike card or grapple card as it is played (no cost is paid). A vampire may play only one Charismatic Aura at inferior each round.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
There are Retainer cards that give +1 intercept. That doesn't mean that every card that gives +1 intercept should be a Retainer.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @James:
> Where is the difference between the Fae Contortion ability and the Charismatic Aura ability? Other than maybe its scope on strikes but those will be 'aimed' at the minion playing the Charismatic Aura so the argument of 'empowering me means it shouldn't be a Reflex' has been neutralised by cardtexts.
>
IANJ, but I believe you misunderstand him. Currently, every Grapple is played in combat on the opposing minion. In the current context, FC and CA are each playable, to the same effect. However, there could come to be Grapples that one plays in combat on oneself, in which case FC and CA would diverge, as CA would be useable and FC not. There could also come to be Grapples that are played on another minion outside of combat (as actions or reactions, for example); in that case, FC would be useable and CA not.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @James:
> Where is the difference between the Fae Contortion ability and the Charismatic Aura ability?
>
Card text. One says one thing, one says another.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Other than maybe its scope on strikes but those will be 'aimed' at the minion playing the Charismatic Aura so the argument of 'empowering me means it shouldn't be a Reflex' has been neutralised by cardtexts.
>
As far as I can tell, your argument is "Another card says something different, so this card should say something different too" which is weird. Different cards are allowed to function differently!
Does the presence of Bliss (combat/reaction "Cancel a frenzy card as it is played. Usable by a vampire not involved in the current combat, if any.") mean that all Reflex cards should be re-written to work like Bliss? I demand that it does. Let us march on the V:EKN Inner Circle demanding our right to change cards because they have different card text! By the time we are finished, all cards will say the same thing! Call your local politicians! Make a petition! End discriminatory card text now!
Actually my argument is:
Is the additional "cancel a strike" text of Charismatic enough to ensure that it should NOT be a reflex card? If that is enough, why is it enough?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Actually my argument is:
>
> Is the additional "cancel a strike" text of Charismatic enough to ensure that it should NOT be a reflex card? If that is enough, why is it enough?
>
Who on earth needs to ensure that a card should not be a reflex card? What is that even about? Is there some secretive government agency who'll come and lock cards up if they're in danger of accidentally becoming something else? Will the world end if a card that might or might not be implementable as a reflex card is implemented in a different way? The card works just fine as it is.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > Actually my argument is:
> >
> > Is the additional "cancel a strike" text of Charismatic enough to ensure that it should NOT be a reflex card? If that is enough, why is it enough?
> >
> Who on earth needs to ensure that a card should not be a reflex card? What is that even about? Is there some secretive government agency who'll come and lock cards up if they're in danger of accidentally becoming something else? Will the world end if a card that might or might not be implementable as a reflex card is implemented in a different way? The card works just fine as it is.
>
Reflex cards cancel frenzy as is, so CA canceling a strike or frapple or whatever is it only canceling a combat card, regardless. There are no strikes that are reaxtions or grapplez that are masters, for blatantly obvious reasons.
Without checking secret library, there are actions, masters, combat cards and i think modifiers(cant remember if dc:throat is played on blocker or acting) that are frenzy cads, and can therefore be ztopped with reflexive abombwe regarless of if in combat or if an attempt at frenzy is made with master or action or odifier cards. CA will only cancel stuff in combat, it has the combat symbol, there is no reason to change the logo(the secret agency can ignore it)
So my point is...
Why is Fae Contortion's Mytheceria Reflex "Cancel a grapple"?
I understand if Reflexes in general cancel cards when do not "belong" in the phase of play (i.e. Playing a combat card during Action-Declaration or Attempting Blocks) and the reverse where they cancel cards that are generally not-playable in the phase (i.e. Rotschreck is a Master played during combat).
However, Fae Contortion has a combat effect, usable during combat on a combat card. Seems that either other "cancel XYZ as played" should become Reflexes (either in future designs OR retroactively on older cards) OR Fae Contortion's Reflex ability should really just be a Combat ability.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Perhaps to make it immune to some combat card effect canceling mechanism? Reflex is not a combat card effect...
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Seems that either other "cancel XYZ as played" should become Reflexes (either in future designs OR retroactively on older cards)
>
Because yeah, changing swathes of card text for no benefit is just super. The cards work fine as they are, either way. Why the soul-consuming need to rewrite their card text? Why do players need to remember totally unnecessary errata?
The fact that POD is (hopefully) coming is not a reason to rewrite every card in the game to satisfy your obsessive-compulsive disorder.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > on topic:
> >
> > Reflex is a different card type than Combat. I don't think SCS can use a Reflex.
> >
> Oh, that's right. I just blithely assumed that since it's a combat card, and the reflex level uses an inferior discipline, and can be played in combat, then...
>
> But no.
>
> [LSJ 20060317]
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Can a Shadow Court Satyr with an Abombwe combat
> > > card (such as Invoking the Beast) put on him use the
> > > Reflex effect of the card?
> > ...
> > Shadow Court Satyr can only use the combat-card effect.
> >
Correct. Shadow-Court Satyr can't use a Reflex effect.
Vaguely related,
Ken Meyer jr may be offering signed proofs of ScS and some Abomwe cards in the box of stuff hes getting rid of. Just though id mention it on this thread since he did satyr and some abombwe cards ( other than the master, i dont recall which abo cards though...)