When a Salubri antitribu burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat with Loviing Agony does he or she untaps after the end of the minion phase via Code of Samiel?
Loving Agony
Type: Combat
Requires: Valeren/Animalism
Cost: 1 blood
Only usable at close range.
[ani] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage.
[val] Strike: combat ends and the opposing minion takes 1 damage.
[VAL] As [val] above, and this vampire may burn 1 blood to untap before combat ends.
Code of Samiel
Type: Master
Requires: Salubri antitribu
Cost: 2 pool
Unique master.
Put this card in play. During your untap phase, a Salubri antitribu you control gains 1 blood. When a Salubri antitribu burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action, he or she untaps after the end of the minion phase. Burn option
> XZealot wrote:
> When a Salubri antitribu burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat with Loviing Agony does he or she untaps after the end of the minion phase via Code of Samiel?
>
> Loving Agony
> Type: Combat
> Requires: Valeren/Animalism
> Cost: 1 blood
> Only usable at close range.
> [ani] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage.
> [val] Strike: combat ends and the opposing minion takes 1 damage.
> [VAL] As [val] above, and this vampire may burn 1 blood to untap before combat ends.
>
The damage of Loving Agony is dealt outside the combat, so it doesn't work.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > XZealot wrote:
> > When a Salubri antitribu burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat with Loviing Agony does he or she untaps after the end of the minion phase via Code of Samiel?
> >
> > Loving Agony
> > Type: Combat
> > Requires: Valeren/Animalism
> > Cost: 1 blood
> > Only usable at close range.
> > [ani] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage.
> > [val] Strike: combat ends and the opposing minion takes 1 damage.
> > [VAL] As [val] above, and this vampire may burn 1 blood to untap before combat ends.
> >
> The damage of Loving Agony is dealt outside the combat, so it doesn't work.
>
Wouldn't this work as an unblocked rush action? Unless its out of combat wording is exclusive to something like Sleep Unseen which specifically sends a vampire to torpor as a directed action, I would imagine that actions such as The Shattering at protean or Shadow Twin, et al, that conclude in the vampire going to torpor, the end of the minion phase untap effect should kick in since it occurred at the end of a directed action.
> Robert wrote:
> Wouldn't this work as an unblocked rush action? Unless its out of combat wording is exclusive to something like Sleep Unseen which specifically sends a vampire to torpor as a directed action, I would imagine that actions such as The Shattering at protean or Shadow Twin, et al, that conclude in the vampire going to torpor, the end of the minion phase untap effect should kick in since it occurred at the end of a directed action.
>
The precedent with Red List (which also kicks in if someone is burned "as a action") suggests no.
[LSJ 20050328]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Would for example a Red List vampire who attempts a action, empties
> > himself and plays Daring the Dawn at inferior qualify? He or she burns
> > as the result of a action he attempted... This doesn't really help
>
> No. He or she burns during a action, but it is not the action that
> burned him.
>
So for the action bit, it appears to need to be the resolution of the action itself that triggers the issue.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Robert wrote:
> > Wouldn't this work as an unblocked rush action? Unless its out of combat wording is exclusive to something like Sleep Unseen which specifically sends a vampire to torpor as a directed action, I would imagine that actions such as The Shattering at protean or Shadow Twin, et al, that conclude in the vampire going to torpor, the end of the minion phase untap effect should kick in since it occurred at the end of a directed action.
> >
> The precedent with Red List (which also kicks in if someone is burned "as a action") suggests no.
>
> [LSJ 20050328]
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Would for example a Red List vampire who attempts a action, empties
> > > himself and plays Daring the Dawn at inferior qualify? He or she burns
> > > as the result of a action he attempted... This doesn't really help
> >
> > No. He or she burns during a action, but it is not the action that
> > burned him.
> >
> So for the action bit, it appears to need to be the resolution of the action itself that triggers the issue.
>
My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > Robert wrote:
> > > Wouldn't this work as an unblocked rush action? Unless its out of combat wording is exclusive to something like Sleep Unseen which specifically sends a vampire to torpor as a directed action, I would imagine that actions such as The Shattering at protean or Shadow Twin, et al, that conclude in the vampire going to torpor, the end of the minion phase untap effect should kick in since it occurred at the end of a directed action.
> > >
> > >
> > The precedent with Red List (which also kicks in if someone is burned "as a action") suggests no.
> >
> > [LSJ 20050328]
> > >
> > >
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > Would for example a Red List vampire who attempts a action, empties
> > > > himself and plays Daring the Dawn at inferior qualify? He or she burns
> > > > as the result of a action he attempted... This doesn't really help
> > >
> > > No. He or she burns during a action, but it is not the action that
> > > burned him.
> > >
> > >
> > So for the action bit, it appears to need to be the resolution of the action itself that triggers the issue.
> >
> My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.
>
The fact that the minion is burned is not the result of the action, merely something happening during the action and that is unrelated to the resolution of the action.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Robert wrote:
> My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.
>
How would you propose to enforce the difference between a rush action intended to burn or torporize the vampire, and a rush action that was intended to cycle cards but things went in a direction you didn't expect?
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Robert wrote:
> > My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.
> >
> How would you propose to enforce the difference between a rush action intended to burn or torporize the vampire, and a rush action that was intended to cycle cards but things went in a direction you didn't expect?
>
No distinction should be necessary. Using a Red List analogy, if I were to enter combat with one, having the purest intention of just moving some cards, and were to accidentally (fortuitously?) burn that minion then I am eligible to reap the benefits no matter what my reasons for entering combat were.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > Robert wrote:
> > > My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.
> > >
> > >
> > How would you propose to enforce the difference between a rush action intended to burn or torporize the vampire, and a rush action that was intended to cycle cards but things went in a direction you didn't expect?
> >
> No distinction should be necessary. Using a Red List analogy, if I were to enter combat with one, having the purest intention of just moving some cards, and were to accidentally (fortuitously?) burn that minion then I am eligible to reap the benefits no matter what my reasons for entering combat were.
>
Concerning combat, the whole argument is moot since both Trophy rule and Code of Samuel work if A) the opposing minion is burned in combat, whatever lead to the combat.
B) The second way to trigger the Code of Samuel is to burn the minion as (the result of a) action, not *during* a action.
Of course, if you burn the minion in combat during that action, it works per point A)
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> The second way to trigger the Code of Samuel is to burn the minion as (the result of a) action, not *during* a action.
>
The second way to trigger Code of Samiel is also to torporize a minion as (the result of a) action which seems to have happened through a card played during the resolution of the successful action that resulted in the torporization of the target in the scenario proposed.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > The second way to trigger the Code of Samuel is to burn the minion as (the result of a) action, not *during* a action.
> >
> The second way to trigger Code of Samiel is also to torporize a minion as (the result of a) action which seems to have happened through a card played during the resolution of the successful action that resulted in the torporization of the target in the scenario proposed.
>
The damage from Loving Agony is not part of the resolution of the action. In your scenario, the action was a rush that was unblocked. The resolution is a combat between the acting minion and the target, nothing more.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I understand how you both are trying to incorporate and hold up LSJ's logic in ruling a deterrent for the abuse of Trophy: Progeny in the self destruction of an acting Red List vampire, but I do not believe that it should apply here.
> The damage from Loving Agony is not part of the resolution of the action. In your scenario, the action was a rush that was unblocked. The resolution is a combat between the acting minion and the target, nothing more.
>
This is still a direct result of a directed action.
> Robert wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > Robert wrote:
> > > My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.
> > >
> > >
> > How would you propose to enforce the difference between a rush action intended to burn or torporize the vampire, and a rush action that was intended to cycle cards but things went in a direction you didn't expect?
> >
> No distinction should be necessary.
>
Erm, but it was you who said that your only issue is that you intended to burn or torporize the vampire. If that intent isn't relevant even to you, why on earth was it your only objection?
> Robert wrote:
>
> > The damage from Loving Agony is not part of the resolution of the action. In your scenario, the action was a rush that was unblocked. The resolution is a combat between the acting minion and the target, nothing more.
> >
> This is still a direct result of a directed action.
>
It's not. The direct result of the directed action (say, Bum's Rush) was entering combat. That was what happened as a result of the action resolving successfully. Some cards were then played and some effects used, but you choosing to play Loving Agony isn't the same as you resolving Bum's Rush.
> No distinction should be necessary.
>
> Erm, but it was you who said that your only issue is that you intended to burn or torporize the vampire. If that intent isn't relevant even to you, why on earth was it your only objection?
>
If my only intention is to use The Shattering on a target with 3 blood to flow a card and maybe do some damage and that target attempts to block and I answer with a Croc's Tongue I just drew and it's Methuselah decides to attempt the block with another minion by burning 2 blood off the target and fails, then it did not matter what my intention was since I have now sent it to torpor and am entitled to the benefits. Distinction was not necessary.
> This is still a direct result of a directed action.
>
> It's not. The direct result of the directed action (say, Bum's Rush) was entering combat. That was what happened as a result of the action resolving successfully. Some cards were then played and some effects used, but you choosing to play Loving Agony isn't the same as you resolving Bum's Rush.
>
I can head into combat with a Loving Agony against a target with no blood on it knowing that I can send it to torpor as a direct result of that action that I am about to take.
This, again, feels like a hold out for logic that has been cited as a precedent, yet is not necessarily as sound or intuitive when questioned. Like Groundfighting being able to cancel an IG but not DotB without a weapon equipped. Burning a 2 life Ossian during a bleed with a Croc's Tongue would be an indirect way of burning a Red List during a and therefore not a Trophy gainer, but a Catatonic Fear played during a successful rush action with the end result being the torporization of the target minion has done the job just as efficiently as The Shattering scenario previously mentioned.
> Code of Samiel
> Type: Master
> Requires: Salubri antitribu
> Cost: 2 pool
> Unique master.
> Put this card in play. During your untap phase, a Salubri antitribu you control gains 1 blood. When a Salubri antitribu burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action, he or she untaps after the end of the minion phase. Burn option
>
Hmm, interesting.
> burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action
>
Grammatically, the following meanings can be derived:
- Burns a ready vampire in combat.
- Sends a vampire to torpor in combat.
- Burns a ready vampire as a action.
- Sends a vampire to torpor as a action.
It looks like it requires an explicit action to burn a ready vampire or send a vampire to torpor. Anything else would not trigger this part of the text.
The following cards would trigger it (provided !salubri can play it, might take some setting up)
- Barreness (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=2027)
- Community Justice (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1778)
- Rubicon (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1979)
- Set's Curse (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1837)
- Sixth Tradition: Destruction (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=264)
- Sleep of Reason (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1363)
The following would not (examples, not complete):
- Diablerie: The target is not a ready vampire.
- Dismemberment of Osiris: It burns a vampire, but not a ready one.
- Horseshoes: Though it can torporise a vamp, it does not explicitly send one to torpor.
- Nosferatu Performance Art: If you turn your !salubri into a nosferatu to play this card, it's no longer a !salubri doing it
The Horseshoes case is very interesting, for that to work the wording of Code of Samiel had to be: "As a result of a action" in which case it would also work for rushes, but still not for Loving Agony, since the torpor moment (if any) happens after the combat was resolved (which is also the absolute end of any action unless continued by card text ie. form of mist) and is thus not a result of an action or combat.
Soooo, I would say it's a wording mistake, but unless errata-ed, this seems to be how it works wording wise.
-1 Strength
If Horseshoe deals enough damage upon resolution to send the vampire to torpor, it triggers the Code of Samiel, the same way as dealing enough damage in combat: you don't need a strike card that would say explicitely "send the opposing vampire to torpor".
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> If Horseshoe deals enough damage upon resolution to send the vampire to torpor, it triggers the Code of Samiel, the same way as dealing enough damage in combat: you don't need a strike card that would say explicitely "send the opposing vampire to torpor".
>
A ruling would be in order
> > burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action
> >
> Grammatically, the following meanings can be derived:
> - Burns a ready vampire in combat.
> - Sends a vampire to torpor in combat.
> - Burns a ready vampire as a action.
> - Sends a vampire to torpor as a action.
>
If the derived meanings are correct:
- Card triggers in combat when opposing vamp is burned or sent to torpor by whatever means.
- Card triggers only on an explicit "burn ready vampire" or "send vampire to torpor" action.
Is the derived meaning incorrect?
Afaik. the "As a action" part makes the explicit burn/torporise action required.
I do agree with you Ankha, it SHOULD be that way, but afaik. thats not the wording... I still say it's a wording mistake. This is a potential judge discussion nightmare. It really should read "As a result of a action".
-1 Strength
Predator's Transformation is the only comparable card that has a "or as a action" text (the "or" being the important component here).
Relevant text (Predator's Transformation):
>
> Only usable when this vampire burns a minion controlled by your prey, either in combat or as a action.
>
]
There are many other cards with "as a action" where the explicit action precursors the action type, which makes the template: {action description} as a {action type}.
Another point, if Horseshoes can trigger Code of Samiel, then any rush action can as well, but I let me avoid that discussion.
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> The Horseshoes case is very interesting, for that to work the wording of Code of Samiel had to be: "As a result of a action" in which case it would also work for rushes, but still not for Loving Agony, since the torpor moment (if any) happens after the combat was resolved (which is also the absolute end of any action unless continued by card text ie. form of mist) and is thus not a result of an action or combat.
>
I'd just like to point out that the action isn't necessarily over once combat is complete. After the opposing vampire is sent to torpor via Loving Agony, you can still play Action Modifiers like Freak Drive. If the action isn't over, and the opposing minion was sent to torpor, that would seem to meet the criterion on Code of Samiel. The fact that it's unclear and that so many of these unclear situations exist is yet another great argument for a VTES reboot.
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> The fact that it's unclear and that so many of these unclear situations exist is yet another great argument for a VTES reboot.
>
Or a great argument for keeping the game as is but rebooting the rulebook/detailed play summary/card rulings.
> brettscho wrote:
>
> > GreyB wrote:
> > The Horseshoes case is very interesting, for that to work the wording of Code of Samiel had to be: "As a result of a action" in which case it would also work for rushes, but still not for Loving Agony, since the torpor moment (if any) happens after the combat was resolved (which is also the absolute end of any action unless continued by card text ie. form of mist) and is thus not a result of an action or combat.
> >
> I'd just like to point out that the action isn't necessarily over once combat is complete. After the opposing vampire is sent to torpor via Loving Agony, you can still play Action Modifiers like Freak Drive. If the action isn't over, and the opposing minion was sent to torpor, that would seem to meet the criterion on Code of Samiel.
>
No, it doesn't meet the criterion. Noone contest the fact that the action is not over, but it has nothing to do with our case. The only relevant point is "what happened during the resolution of the action?" (or in combat, but that scenario seems to be quite clear for everyone).
Your point would be valid if it was stated "if the vampire is burned... during a action."
So:
the action results in burning the opposing minion (or sending it to torpor) during the resolution of the action, the opposing minion burns (or is sent to torpor) the opposing minion is burned (or sent to torpor) as a action are the same
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > The fact that it's unclear and that so many of these unclear situations exist is yet another great argument for a VTES reboot.
> >
> Or a great argument for keeping the game as is but rebooting the rulebook/detailed play summary/card rulings.
>
That's reasonable, but I honestly don't think that only making changes (clarifications) in the rulebook is going to fix the problem. Consider ammo cards that get played in a ton of unique timing windows during combat. The rulebook can't fix those. Only errata can. So the only way I see your proposed solution actually fixing the problem is to include some sweeping errata. I think that current players would be just as upset (or more so) than if VTES 2.0 was released. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but I do stand by it.
Either way, I'll keep supporting the game - blog, demo decks, getting cards into the hands of new players, new player guides, etc.
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here: