No Secrets from Vlad Tepes

The wording for Vlad Tepes is rather interesting: Independent: Vlad can play and use cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect. +1 bleed. I’m particularly interested in “can...use”. This wording seems to imply that if he plays a card requiring a sect or title that goes on him, his use of that card, and whether or not a sect/title-specific effect triggers at a particular time, is OPTIONAL, per the verbiage “can”. Is this right? The case for abuse would be as follows: Vlad plays No Secrets From the Magaji, worded as follows: No Secrets From the Magaji [Action] Action +1 stealth action. Requires a ready magaji. Put this card on this magaji and untap him or her. The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires. If this magaji is tapped, he or she may attempt to block a vampire as if untapped. Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire but is not successful. A vampire may have only one No Secrets From the Magaji. I can imagine a scenario in which the clause “Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire but is not successful” would normally kick in, but the player argues, “oh, I just won’t use the card as a magaji with respect to my failing to block, so the card doesn’t burn. After all, Vlad is not a magaji.” Thanks! -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

> Killiam wrote: > The wording for Vlad Tepes is rather interesting: > > Independent: Vlad can play and use cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect. +1 bleed. > > I’m particularly interested in “can...use”. > This thread over here: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/69627-vlad-tepes-regent?start=6 has many interesting points about it. I've started on the second page, because that's where actual useful information starts because Pascal starts clarifying things, whereas page one is mostly speculation. Read the whole thing if you can, however. > Killiam wrote: > This wording seems to imply that if he plays a card requiring a sect or title that goes on him, his use of that card, and whether or not a sect/title-specific effect triggers at a particular time, is OPTIONAL, per the verbiage “can”. Is this right? > In most cases, it's also optional because Vlad doesn't have to do the thing that uses the card - say, a card in play that requires a Sabbat vampire to take an action to burn it, such as calling a referendum to burn Purchase Pact. (It requires a sect or title to play, so when he takes the action to burn it, he can mirror those requirement on that action.) > Killiam wrote: > No Secrets From the Magaji > [Action] Action > +1 stealth action. Requires a ready magaji. > Put this card on this magaji and untap him or her. The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires. If this magaji is tapped, he or she may attempt to block a vampire as if untapped. Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire but is not successful. A vampire may have only one No Secrets From the Magaji. > > I can imagine a scenario in which the clause “Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire but is not successful” would normally kick in, but the player argues, “oh, I just won’t use the card as a magaji with respect to my failing to block, so the card doesn’t burn. After all, Vlad is not a magaji.” > It's never been explicitly ruled on to my knowledge, but my off-the-cuff ruling in a tournament environment where I didn't know better would be: His card text says he can use the card as a Magaji. When he chooses to use it in that way, he gets the good bits and the bad bits, and that means he gets to attempt a block with consequences if he fails. That's one "use", to my mind - he can block as a Magaji, with the good bits and the bad bits. Somewhat analogously, if Mata Hari had sufficient capacity to bring the Great Beast into play immediately with the initial play of Call the Great Beast, she can't pretend to be a Baali for the purposes of playing the card but then turn it off for resolution so she doesn't burn.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > His card text says he can use the card as a Magaji. When he chooses to use it in that way, he gets the good bits and the bad bits, and that means he gets to attempt a block block with consequences if he fails. > Okay, then if Vlad were untapped or playing a Wake effect to block instead of using the No-Secrets block effect, then he could choose not to burn it, correct? -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

I played No secrets using Vlad before. I always played with the assumption that any failed block whether or not given by No secrets would burn it. Since the 'burn this card...' text is in the next sentence. Ill wait for James or Pascal for a more definitive answer.

Card text: Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire but is not successful. It doesn't matter how the attempts fails, only that the attempt fails.

> Killiam wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > His card text says he can use the card as a Magaji. When he chooses to use it in that way, he gets the good bits and the bad bits, and that means he gets to attempt a block block with consequences if he fails. > > > Okay, then if Vlad were untapped or playing a Wake effect to block instead of using the No-Secrets block effect, then he could choose not to burn it, correct? > A more simple scenario would be: a Magaji who has played NSftM loses their title. Does the NSftM burns when that vampire fails to block? The answer is no since "this Magaji" is inapplicable. For the record, "this Magaji" refers to the minion the card is attached to, and who is a Magaji. For instance, "This Sabbat vampire" on the Kaymakli Fragment refers to a bearer who is a Sabbat vampire. Back to Vlad Tepes: "This Magaji" refers to Vlad Tepes when he's using the card, that is when he either uses the intercept provided by the card or the "can block as if unlocked" ability*. In that case the card would burn if he fails to block. If he's not using the card and fails to block, the card doesn't burn. * note that in that case, he's forced to use the +1 intercept part too. As soon as he's using the card, he gains both abilities.** ** this leads to a limitation to Vlad Tepes using the No Secrets: if Vlad is locked and a vampire with no stealth is acting, Vlad can't use the No Secrets to block that vampire since he would gain intercept that is not needed, the same way he wouldn't be able to burn 1 blood with a Bowl of Convergence, or lock a WMRH Talk Radio to gain intercept. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Back to Vlad Tepes: "This Magaji" refers to Vlad Tepes when he's using the card, that is when he either uses the intercept provided by the card or the "can block as if unlocked" ability*. In that case the card would burn if he fails to block. > > If he's not using the card and fails to block, the card doesn't burn. > Great! This ruling is clear. > Ankha wrote: > * note that in that case, he's forced to use the +1 intercept part too. As soon as he's using the card, he gains both abilities.** > > ** this leads to a limitation to Vlad Tepes using the No Secrets: if Vlad is locked and a vampire with no stealth is acting, Vlad can't use the No Secrets to block that vampire since he would gain intercept that is not needed, the same way he wouldn't be able to burn 1 blood with a Bowl of Convergence, or lock a WMRH Talk Radio to gain intercept. > Oh, wow. So Vlad with NSftM is not so great after all. Thanks for the ruling! -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

> Ankha wrote: > If he's not using the card and fails to block, the card doesn't burn. > This seems clear, using a card requires an explicit activation. This leads to more questions, especially regarding some of Floppy's rulings in the thread James cited . > > Pascal wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Purchase Pact is in play. Can Vlad Tepes call the +1 stealth political action to burn it? "Requires a ready archbishop, priscus, cardinal or regent. ... Any titled Sabbat vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. > > > Yes. > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > What about Powerbase: New York? "Any Sabbat vampire controlled by another Methuselah can take a action to move all the blood on the 'base to his or her controller's blood pool. > > > No, the card (Powerbase: New York) doesn't require a vampire with a specific title / sect, so Vlad cannot use it. > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > The reason for the two eaxmples is that Purchase Pact requires a title to play, but also to use the action. Powerbase: NY does not require a title or sect to play, but does require a sect to use its move action. > > > Which is why Vlad's cardtext allows Vlad to use Purchase Pact, but not to use Powerbase: New York. > 1. Per previous rulings , you cannot use Vlad to play master cards. This is inline with the Kemintiri (Adv) ruling. He is missing the "You and" clause. 2. The quoted thread suggests Vlad is able to play Purchase Pact, and based upon that reasoning rules that the Purchase Pact political action is available to Vlad, but the Powerbase: New York steal option is not. We know that ruling is partially incorrect, but there is a clear intention from Pascal to indicate that Vlad can only use cards "as if" that he plays "as if." Does Vlad need to be able to play a card "as if" to use a card "as if"? 3. Can Vlad deactivate his usage of a card? In other words stop pretending to be Laibon when bounced while using a Kduva's Mask. I would assume that once he uses (activates) a card, that usage will continue until the effect is complete or the current actions ends, if the effect has no defined length.

> kschaefer wrote: > 1. Per previous rulings , you cannot use Vlad to play master cards. This is inline with the Kemintiri (Adv) ruling. He is missing the "You and" clause. > Correct. > kschaefer wrote: > 2. The quoted thread suggests Vlad is able to play Purchase Pact, and based upon that reasoning rules that the Purchase Pact political action is available to Vlad, but the Powerbase: New York steal option is not. We know that ruling is partially incorrect, but there is a clear intention from Pascal to indicate that Vlad can only use cards "as if" that he plays "as if." > > Does Vlad need to be able to play a card "as if" to use a card "as if"? > Yes, cardtext: "Vlad can play and use cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect." So if the card requires a Sabbat vampire, he uses it as a Sabbat vampire. > kschaefer wrote: > 3. Can Vlad deactivate his usage of a card? > No. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > kschaefer wrote: > > Does Vlad need to be able to play a card "as if" to use a card "as if"? > > > Yes, cardtext: "Vlad can play and use cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect." > So if the card requires a Sabbat vampire, he uses it as a Sabbat vampire. > So, in the case of the Purchase Pact, are you saying that Vlad cannot call the political action then? He cannot play the card "as if," therefore he cannot use it "as if." Furthermore, this implicit dependency is not how English works. The subject is Vlad and the sentence contains two independent predicates. This can be easily tested by removing "play and" and "and use" to see that the sentence is correct without the other predicate. That means that there is no ordering or dependency between the two predicates. You would need some kind of qualifier to gain the implicit dependency that you're looking for. Something like: "Vlad can play cards and use those played cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect."

> kschaefer wrote: > Furthermore, this implicit dependency is not how English works. The subject is Vlad and the sentence contains two independent predicates. This can be easily tested by removing "play and" and "and use" to see that the sentence is correct without the other predicate. That means that there is no ordering or dependency between the two predicates. You would need some kind of qualifier to gain the implicit dependency that you're looking for. Something like: "Vlad can play cards and use those played cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect." > What the is an "independent predicate?" I don't understand what you are saying, but I'm intrigued. There are three clauses in the quoted card text, each with a subject and predicate. The subject in the first clause is "Vlad," and the predicate is "can play and use cards requiring a title or a sect." This first clause is joined to the other two dependent clauses by "as if," which is grammatically acting as a subordinating conjunction. The first dependent clause has the subject "he" and the predicate "had that title." The second dependent clause, which is connected to the first dependent clause with a coordinating conjunction ("or"), has the subject "he," which is omitted because the subject was already stated in the first dependent clause (a common practice in English), and the predicate "were of that sect." Now that we have the card text grammatically diagrammed, to your point: it seems like you are saying that the card text should clarify that a minion can only use those cards that they played "as if"; a minion cannot use cards they did not play "as if." If this is correct, than you really mean that verbs "play" and "use" in the first clause should not share the same object ("cards"). I think you're saying that each verb should have separate objects for clarity (in bold here): "play cards and use "those cards." Did I understand you correctly?

Basically, yes. I won't get into the nerdy linguistics stuff. Without the qualifier on the object, there's no reason to believe that the set of cards that Vlad can play and the set of cards that Vlad can used need to be the same.

Also, I'm not trying to be daft, but I think my interpretation is a fair reading of the card. If I hadn't been on the forums, I would have made rulings based on that. I get that 'use' is not continuous and that makes sense, given the previous explanations, but 'play and use' being one set does not. Here's a game example of the problem: Two (or more players) in the game have Kduva's Mask in their decks, one of them is Vlad's controller. If Vlad has the Mask on him and the judge walks by how does the judge know whether Vlad diablerized someone for it or equipped it himself? The game state is not discernable without remembering what happened possibly quite some time earlier. And what if those Masks contest? When it comes back into play, it's washed clean of history. So, Vlad couldn't use it even if he equipped it before it was contested. These are complications and extra steps and machinations that are unnecessary to remember if the two sets can be different.

I agree that this can of worms would better not be opened. The big issue here is turning a mandatory effect into a voluntary one. That means the effect must now be declared, that declaration must be done at a given time, be valid for a given scope,... There is no basis in the rules to govern any of that, so all that can be done is throw random rulings around.

"Vlad can play and use cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect." "cards requiring a title or a sect" indicate the set of cards Vlad "can play and use" with his ability. "Requiring..." always refer to the requirement to play the card (not to use it). See also Heroic Might + Increased Strength (groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/e2PNDpg-l_c/wqEDxGHKJQgJ) How can he "play and use" them? => "as if he had that title or were of that clan" > kschaefer wrote: > So, in the case of the Purchase Pact, are you saying that Vlad cannot call the political action then? He cannot play the card "as if," therefore he cannot use it "as if." > No, quite the opposite: the card requires a "a ready archbishop, priscus, cardinal or regent" so Vlad can use it (to call a referendum to burn the card) as if he were one of them. That's why he fulfills the "Any titled Sabbat vampire" part of the effect. Name: Purchase Pact Cardtype: Master Unique master. Requires a ready archbishop, priscus, cardinal or regent. Put this card into play. When a Sabbat vampire you control is in combat with another Sabbat vampire, you may lock this card before range is determined to end combat. Any titled Sabbat vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Back to Vlad Tepes: "This Magaji" refers to Vlad Tepes when he's using the card, that is when he either uses the intercept provided by the card or the "can block as if unlocked" ability* > > * note that in that case, he's forced to use the +1 intercept part too. As soon as he's using the card, he gains both abilities.** > > ** this leads to a limitation to Vlad Tepes using the No Secrets: if Vlad is locked and a vampire with no stealth is acting, Vlad can't use the No Secrets to block that vampire since he would gain intercept that is not needed > Uh oh, what? I don't get it. Is this only relevant to Vlad? And if so why (aren't "other" Magaji with NSFTM affected by this limitation)? To me this feels like the situation where a vampire with Sport Bike (+1 intercept) wouldn't be allowed to block a no stealth action since intercept isn't yet needed. VERY counterintuitive! > Ankha wrote: > , the same way he wouldn't be able to burn 1 blood with a Bowl of Convergence, or lock a WMRH Talk Radio to gain intercept. > For Bowl he needs to burn a blood and form WMRH he needs to tap WMRH. For NSFTM he doesn't need to do anything as NSFTM grants him +1 intercept. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Is this only relevant to Vlad? > And if so why (aren't "other" Magaji with NSFTM affected by this limitation)? > It's only relevant to Vlad who doesn't use it continuously. A standard Magaji wouldn't be affected since NSftM is always effective. > Lönkka wrote: > To me this feels like the situation where a vampire with Sport Bike (+1 intercept) wouldn't be allowed to block a no stealth action since intercept isn't yet needed. > No, because Sport Bike's bonus is always effective. > Lönkka wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > , the same way he wouldn't be able to burn 1 blood with a Bowl of Convergence, or lock a WMRH Talk Radio to gain intercept. > > > For Bowl he needs to burn a blood and form WMRH he needs to tap WMRH. > > For NSFTM he doesn't need to do anything as NSFTM grants him +1 intercept. > Vlad has to "use" it to get the intercept and the "block as if..." ability. Otherwise the NSftM has no effect. And Vlad can't use it if he doesn't need intercept (rulebook) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> VERY counterintuitive! > My thoughts exactly. I'm like, what. I would NOT be able to read that from the card texts alone. "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

I agree that a minion acting as if they had a requirement has a lot of coutnerintuitive components. Unless there is a dedicated section added to the rulebook that gets into every little situation of a minion acting as if they had a requirement, there is no amount of rewording on cards that is going to fix this. I wonder if it is better to just ban these cards. (I'm not joking or trying to be controversial; I already avoid any cards that allow a minion to act as if they had a requirement because I honestly do not know how to use them most of the time).

> Kraus wrote: > > > VERY counterintuitive! > > > My thoughts exactly. > > I'm like, what. > > I would NOT be able to read that from the card texts alone. > It is very similar to Guard Duty: you have to follow the cardtext, even if it's surprising. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > > > > VERY counterintuitive! > > > > > My thoughts exactly. > > > > I'm like, what. > > > > I would NOT be able to read that from the card texts alone. > > > It is very similar to Guard Duty: you have to follow the cardtext, even if it's surprising. > There is a clarification clause in the Amaranth version of Guard Duty, but not the card from Final Nights. From reading the Final Nights version of Guard Duty I would not be able to comprehend that it is unusable if no intercept is needed. Is this ruling really needed? Is there any way to work around it? It makes little sense (in any way but the strictest reading of the rules), is really confusing and often (I think) should be reminded in the card text. Intercept in these, I feel, should be an added benefit, not a hinderance. "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: > Is this ruling really needed? Is there any way to work around it? It makes little sense (in any way but the strictest reading of the rules), is really confusing and often (I think) should be reminded in the card text. > It's the application of the rules: you can't add intercept when you don't need intercept. > Kraus wrote: > Intercept in these, I feel, should be an added benefit, not a hinderance. > For Guard Duty, it's the consequence of a badly designed card. For Vlad Tepes, it results from the weird interactions his ability can generate. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Is this only relevant to Vlad? > > And if so why (aren't "other" Magaji with NSFTM affected by this limitation)? > > > It's only relevant to Vlad who doesn't use it continuously. > Ah, OK now I see it. Vlad needs to "activate" NSFTM. > Lönkka wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > , the same way he wouldn't be able to burn 1 blood with a Bowl of Convergence, or lock a WMRH Talk Radio to gain intercept. > > > For Bowl he needs to burn a blood and form WMRH he needs to tap WMRH. > > For NSFTM he doesn't need to do anything as NSFTM grants him +1 intercept. > Vlad has to "use" it to get the intercept and the "block as if..." ability. Otherwise the NSftM has no effect. And Vlad can't use it if he doesn't need intercept (rulebook)[/quote] I still think it is highly counterintuitive that if you have an effect (in the case of NSFTM block while untapped) and the same source also gives intercept you can't activate the effect if intercept is needed. Regarding Guard Duty which is at best a very marginal card that sees no use, perhaps it could be made slightly less marginal card by making the intercept voluntary? "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the chosen location is the target of a action (and you control the location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to block with OPTIONAL +1 intercept." or "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the chosen location is the target of a action (and you control the location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept IF NEEDED." Finnish Politics!

> "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the chosen location is the target of a action (and you control the location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept IF NEEDED." > Or, rather, even if it is not yet needed so that we'll actually get the benefit? I'm not sure what to do with Vlad and No secrets to make it more intuitive... "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: > > I'm not sure what to do with Vlad and No secrets to make it more intuitive... > A change I wouldn’t mind seeing is to restrict the “you can’t activate intercept that you don’t need” rule to apply only to the playing of reaction cards. (TBH, back when we were playing Jyhad in 94, I thought that was the actual rule.) Of course it is needed for reaction cards to avoid abuse, but what would be the case for abuse outside of that? If I tap KRCG when I don’t need it, have I really gained anything? Maybe the option to burn an extra pool so I can play a Parity Shift? Sure, Maris Streck could arbitrarily empty herself during any action with a block attempt in order to make use of Jake Washington next turn. Not terrible. Angelica could cycle master cards while blocking a zero stealth action instead of having to wait for a +1 stealth action. Certainly helpful for that deck, but it’s not a game-breaker. Am I missing anything that constitutes a serious case for abuse? I think the same change might go well for action modifiers and gaining stealth, though that’s not applicable to the Vlad situation. To be crystal clear, my proposal would look something like the modification below. (The wording from the current rules is included first for reference.) Rulebook: “Stealth can be added during an action only when needed (that is, only if the action is currently being blocked and the blocking minion has enough intercept to block the acting minion). Likewise, intercept can be added during an action only when needed (that is, only by a blocking minion when the acting minion's stealth exceeds his intercept).” Modification: “Action modifiers granting stealth can be played during an action only when stealth is needed (that is, only if the action is currently being blocked and the blocking minion has enough intercept to block the acting minion). Likewise, reaction cards granting intercept can be played during an action only when intercept is needed (that is, only to grant intercept to a blocking minion, and only when the acting minion's stealth exceeds his intercept).” It is a touch more wordy, but not confusing, unlike the Vlad situation. I have never been a fan of the generalized intercept/stealth rule, as it can seem weird when enforced outside of the playing of cards. Controlling card flow is an integral part of how the game is designed and has evolved. Preventing the activation of in-play effects in ways not explicit to card text, on the other hand, *feels* arbitrary, and occasionally, downright counterintuitive. Generally, I feel that there is more to be gained by such a rules change than just simplifying the Vlad case. When cards explicitly go against the normal rules, card-text takes precedence over the rules——that’s a big part of what makes this game fun while at the same time causing most of our woes. There are situations where the use of an in-play card effect is explicitly subverting the rules and that subversion interacts strangely with the need to enforce the standard (read: non-subverted) rules with respect to other cards in play. With this in mind, it may be that the fewer general restrictions we put on card-effects in play, the better. A downside to this theory is that while we take some burden away from the base rules set, we end up passing more burden on to the design team, since cards have to be worded that much more carefully. But honestly, I think we have reached that point anyhow, and the tradeoff is worth it. Sorry so long -- thanks for reading! -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

I think being able to play as much stealth (or intercept) as you want would be bad for the game. With stealth bleed dekcs the obvious problem is the hand jam. You need to get that additional modier or next action card but your hand is more or less full of stealth and the darn prey ain't blocking at all. Being able to play as much stealth as you will even if not needed would circumvent this and this would be A Bad Idea TM! Probably the same case with wall decks and cycling of intercept to find something else that is needed instead of just those intercept cards (untap? useful combat card?). All the above I can understand. However, I still think it is highly counterintuitive not to be able (with Vlad) to block vampires as if untapped using NSFTM if the opponent is not using stealth. Or, in similar instance, to untap with Guard Duty. Finnish Politics!

I think it would be clearer by errating Vlad: Independent: Vlad can play and uses cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect. +1 bleed. That way, Vlad will be continuously "using" cards, the same way a vampire he mimics (eg. a Magaji) uses cards. Until then, the ruling stands. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I think it would be clearer by errating Vlad: > > Independent: Vlad can play and uses cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that title or were of that sect. +1 bleed. > > That way, Vlad will be continuously "using" cards, the same way a vampire he mimics (eg. a Magaji) uses cards. > > Until then, the ruling stands. > The problem neither is with the text on the card nor with the current game mechanics. The problem is the interactions that arise from a minion acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. In my opinion, there's really no fixing this, other than having a section in the rulebook devoted to explaining how to handle card text that allows a minion to act as if they had a requirement they don't have.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > The problem neither is with the text on the card nor with the current game mechanics. The problem is the interactions that arise from a minion acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. In my opinion, there's really no fixing this, other than having a section in the rulebook devoted to explaining how to handle card text that allows a minion to act as if they had a requirement they don't have. > No. The problem lies in how people supposed it works, and how it really works. People expect Vlad to be able to use NSftM like a Magaji would. That's not the case => people are surprised and confused. By changing Vlad's cardtext so he is able to use NSftM like a Magaji would, we remove that surprise. The rules are fine. Adding a chapter like you suggest means that the cards can't be played as written, which is not good. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > The problem neither is with the text on the card nor with the current game mechanics. The problem is the interactions that arise from a minion acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. In my opinion, there's really no fixing this, other than having a section in the rulebook devoted to explaining how to handle card text that allows a minion to act as if they had a requirement they don't have. > > > No. The problem lies in how people supposed it works, and how it really works. > That's because it's not described anywhere other than in your brain. What I'm saying is how it really works needs to be described somewhere. This doesn't have to be in the rulebook, it could be in a FAQ document that explains odd interactions (similar to something like this , which used to exist and did offer some explanations of odd interactions i the game and how they worked). > People expect Vlad to be able to use NSftM like a Magaji would. That's not the case => people are surprised and confused. > Because it's not clearly described anywhere how it's supposed to work. It it were, perhaps there'd be no surprise. > By changing Vlad's cardtext so he is able to use NSftM like a Magaji would, we remove that surprise. > By changing one word on a card is not going to make people understand anything. It's a step in the right direction to enable Vlad to use NSftM like a Magaji, but changing one word is not going to describe what's supposed to happen sufficiently. > The rules are fine. > Agreed. > Adding a chapter like you suggest means that the cards can't be played as written, which is not good. > I don't understand why you think that. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant? The section in the rulebook would just further explain instances of a minion acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. I'm not proposing adding a section that's inconsistent with card text or rulings, rather a section that further explains the possible interactions and how to handle them that follows current rulings. For those who have very expert knowledge of the game, changing one word on a card may be fine. But for the rest, there needs to be further explanation of how to handle situations where minions act as if they had a requirement they don't have. These interactions are very difficult for anybody to grasp, and I think further explanation somewhere would be beneficial. That's all I'm saying.

Just chiming in to say that this is a very, very crucial and important discussion. "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

I've just come upon this. I think there is a significant issue that is being overlooked and that is that the text of the card is not +1 intercept when used, it is a conditional situation which will grant +1 intercept. Because of this distinction either both Vlad and regular Magaji cannot block non-stealth actions with "NSFTM" or both can. From the rules text "intercept can be added during an action only when needed, only by a blocking minion when the acting minion’s stealth exceeds their intercept." From NSFTM "The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires." This implicitly creates a situation where a Magaji does not have intercept before attempting to block a vampire at 0 stealth. As soon as they attempt to block that vampire, it would give them +1 intercept. It is not that they already had intercept, but when they attempt to block they would gain that intercept, which is against the rule. The other option is that they have an ability "+1 intercept when attempting to block vampires" and that ability kicks in whenever the criteria is met. Vlad can "Use" the card as a Magaji. That doesn't mean it affects him differently than a Magaji, it affects him AS a Magaji. He like magaji does not have intercept before attempting to block but he does suddenly have the same text of "The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires." Either Vlad and Magaji can both block 0 stealth vampires, or neither can. The +1 intercept for BOTH comes as a result of the block attempt. The card text for BOTH must be fully active before the block attempt is made by either of them or they cannot attempt the block in the first place. To put it another way, I am playing Vlad. Currently NSFTM is not being "used". I am tapped so I cannot attempt to block actions, nor do I have the "The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires." text. I choose to "Use" the card. I do not have +1 intercept YET, because I have not yet announced a block attempt. Until I announce that block attempt I will not gain that +1 intercept, EVEN THOUGH the entire card has been activated. This is exactly the same in the case of a 'real' Magaji, who does not yet have +1 intercept until after they announce the block but who is also already using the entire card text. TLDR Using the card text is not gaining intercept when intercept is not yet needed, it is gaining a conditional situation in which intercept will be added exactly in the same way traditional Magaji use the card.

Vlad Tepes has been changed: he now "uses" the card continuously (previously was: "can use"). NSFTM now works for him the same way it does for a regular magaji. Name: Vlad Tepes [Promo-20150215, Promo-20210701] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Tzimisce Group: 3 Capacity: 10 Discipline: aus ANI DOM PRO THA VIC Independent: Vlad uses and can play cards requiring a title or a sect as if he had that required title or were of that required sect. +1 bleed. www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director