Blood Fury vs Diversion

Name: Blood Fury [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:PTr4, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB3] Cardtype: Combat Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Thaumaturgy Only usable at close range. [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. [THA] As above, but for strength+2 damage. Artist: Daniel Gelon Name: Diversion [Anarchs:C2/PAG4] Cardtype: Combat Discipline: Celerity/Fortitude/Thaumaturgy Requires a ready anarch. [cel] Gain one additional strike. [for] Prevent up to 2 damage. [tha] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood with an optional maneuver. Artist: Andrew Bates I agree that the intent of Blood Fury is clear... fortitude damage prevention does not work against it. But I was reading the text of the card and notice that it is phrased "by cards that require fortitude." Technically, Diversion does not *require* fortitude. A vampire without fortitude can play the *card*. If Blood Fury said "by effects that require fortitude" it would be unambiguous. I'm just wondering if I have discovered a loophole, or if there is a ruling that says otherwise. Thoughts?

> dcherryholmes wrote: > Name: Blood Fury > [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:PTr4, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB3] > Cardtype: Combat > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Thaumaturgy > Only usable at close range. > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. > [THA] As above, but for strength+2 damage. > Artist: Daniel Gelon > > Name: Diversion > [Anarchs:C2/PAG4] > Cardtype: Combat > Discipline: Celerity/Fortitude/Thaumaturgy > Requires a ready anarch. > [cel] Gain one additional strike. > [for] Prevent up to 2 damage. > [tha] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood with an optional maneuver. > Artist: Andrew Bates > > I agree that the intent of Blood Fury is clear... fortitude damage prevention does not work against it. But I was reading the text of the card and notice that it is phrased "by cards that require fortitude." Technically, Diversion does not *require* fortitude. A vampire without fortitude can play the *card*. If Blood Fury said "by effects that require fortitude" it would be unambiguous. I'm just wondering if I have discovered a loophole, or if there is a ruling that says otherwise. Thoughts? > Dave - what discipline do you need to play: "[for] Prevent up to 2 damage."? Therefore it requires it for that effect.

Wow, just realized Daves never posted on here. I

That is one interpretation. And if it were official, I would be fine with it. But, it is not a strict reading of the text of Blood Fury. Blood Fury was not written with multidiscipline cards in mind, so at that time any Fortitude prevention would be strictly a Fortitude card. Do you see my point?

> dcherryholmes wrote: > That is one interpretation. And if it were official, I would be fine with it. But, it is not a strict reading of the text of Blood Fury. Blood Fury was not written with multidiscipline cards in mind, so at that time any Fortitude prevention would be strictly a Fortitude card. Do you see my point? > I think this answers your question: (from the General Rulings page) > > When played, a split Discipline card counts as requiring the Discipline being used (for effects that enhance or restrict cards that require certain Disciplines). In the hand (or library or ash heap), the card can be considered to require either Discipline (for effects that retrieve cards that require certain Disciplines). [LSJ 20020510] > www.facebook.com/groups/vtes.belgium/

> dcherryholmes wrote: > That is one interpretation. And if it were official, I would be fine with it. But, it is not a strict reading of the text of Blood Fury. > Reading "strictly" Blood Fury leads to the same conclusion: you can't prevent damage from Blood Fury using Diversion at [for] > dcherryholmes wrote: > Blood Fury was not written with multidiscipline cards in mind, so at that time any Fortitude prevention would be strictly a Fortitude card. Do you see my point? > Indeed, unless designers had some time machine. But I think you're overimaginating things. "They couldn't know there would be some three-disciplines cards, therefore a cardtext that was written years ago can't handle something that was written afterwards". It's just like saying that Stanislava's card text is unclear about whether Carlton Van Wyk can block her or not, because he was only printed years after. Which is cleary not. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> dcherryholmes wrote: > That is one interpretation. And if it were official, I would be fine with it. But, it is not a strict reading of the text of Blood Fury. Blood Fury was not written with multidiscipline cards in mind, so at that time any Fortitude prevention would be strictly a Fortitude card. Do you see my point? > I do but then diversion is a fortitude card a celerity card and a thaumatugy card all in one. I think D-dennis as answered with the rules snippet for you - note this allows a crappy Trujah to use the card at for or tha but not cel for instance.

Yes, I think D-dennis provided a clear answer. I do not like loopholes like I was suggesting anyway.

Similarly, Diversion can be retrieved with Spirit Summoning Chamber because it is a card that requires Thaumaturgy. (Even if you play it for the fortitude effect)