In the thread entitled “No Secrets from Vlad Tepes” it is ruled that Vlad Tepes cannot use No Secrets from the Magaji (NSftM) to block a vampire’s zero-stealth action, because when he uses it as a magaji during a vampire’s action, he gains an intercept against the current action that is not needed, which is disallowed by the rules.
Supposedly this drawback is unique to non-magaji who can use NSftM /as/ a magaji, because they activate the NSftM effects by using it, thus activating the intercept, whereas actual magaji do not activate NSftM; it is always on for them.
I brought this to my local playgroup and got an interesting response:
Note that NSftM is NOT worded as “The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept against vampires.” It is instead worded “The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires.”
Note the words “when attempting”. This implies that the magaji with NSftM does not have +1 intercept against vampires /until/ he attempts to block them, which means that he activates the +1 intercept effect as a result of the block attempt. In other words, any magaji with NSftM who attempts to block a zero stealth action of a vampire /gets/ intercept that is not needed.
Does this mean that all magaji with NSftM are not allowed to block vampires acting at zero stealth?
If not, then why not?
If the answer is that the timing of declaring the block attempt with NSftM is prior to getting the intercept, and then you cannot help but get the intercept, then why would that same ruling not apply to Vlad Tepes?
Best,
-Bill
-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
Oops -- forgot to include full card text:
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.
Artist(s): Heather Kreiter
-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:
> Note that NSftM is NOT worded as “The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept against vampires.” It is instead worded “The magaji with this card gets +1 intercept when attempting to block vampires.”
>
Both wordings mean the same.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> self wrote:
> so, a vampire that has a stock intercept like Jaroslav Pascek cant block unless the action is at stealth?
>
No. I think the difference being drawn out is that you can't play (or activate) an effect that gives you intercept unnecessarily. Permanent intercept that's just there - a vampire special, Mr Winthrop, Sport Bike etc. - isn't something you're activating, it's just there. For Magaji, the intercept is just there. For Vlad, it's not just there, it's Vlad activating his special to use it, which is more or less the same as Vlad playing an intercept reaction - which he can't voluntarily do without stealth being there (or card text allowing him to do it).
Sorry for persisting on this one; I answer to some nit-picky rules-lawyers here in Colorado.. anyhow:
I think that my playgroup showed how two different wordings lead to two different interpretations, so if both wordings are to be interpreted as having the same meaning, then which of the two meanings do we take?
Does A: the magaji get the +1 intercept only when blocking vamps, or B: do they have the +1 intercept (against vamps) even when not blocking? Does NSftM get nerfed ( A ) or not ( B )?
To further clarify the position: there seems to be precedent in V:TES for making a distinction between always having an effect that applies only in a situation vs. only having the effect during the situation for which it applies: Justicar Retribution.
Imagine that all Methuselahs currently control ready Malkavians and I control Rebecca, Chantry Elder, who is equipped with a Laptop. Rebecca has 3 bleed against any Methuselah at the table (because they control Malks), but she only gets it when she is bleeding, so she is not burned by Justicar Retribution, whereas Leandro does burn to JR because his +2 bleed is a standing plus-bleed. That is, Leandro has +2 applied to his bleed actions, but is considered to have that +2 even when he is not in a bleed action. Rebecca has a third bleed applied to her bleed actions, but is not considered to have it when she is not bleeding.
Thanks much!
-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:
> I think that my playgroup showed how two different wordings lead to two different interpretations, so if both wordings are to be interpreted as having the same meaning, then which of the two meanings do we take?
>
There is a lot of what you describe here in VTES: ambiguous wordings that are different but mean the same exact thing. If there's one thing that behooves the new owners of VTES to do, it's clean up all the inconsistent wording.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > self wrote:
> > so, a vampire that has a stock intercept like Jaroslav Pascek cant block unless the action is at stealth?
> >
> No. I think the difference being drawn out is that you can't play (or activate) an effect that gives you intercept unnecessarily. Permanent intercept that's just there - a vampire special, Mr Winthrop, Sport Bike etc. - isn't something you're activating, it's just there. For Magaji, the intercept is just there. For Vlad, it's not just there, it's Vlad activating his special to use it, which is more or less the same as Vlad playing an intercept reaction - which he can't voluntarily do without stealth being there (or card text allowing him to do it).
>
That there can be be this long of a paragraph written about this particular distinction is a huge problem. There used to be huge paragraphs written about Seeds of Corruption and its interaction with vampires' special abilities. That card was banned because it was too hard to make it all work. I see the same thing with minions acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. It's an effect that just doesn't work in a coherent way.
> Killiam wrote:
> Does A: the magaji get the +1 intercept only when blocking vamps, or B: do they have the +1 intercept (against vamps) even when not blocking? Does NSftM get nerfed ( A ) or not ( B )?
>
You're confusion comes partly from the word "when".
"When blocking vampires" defines the condition of the effect, and the timing of the effect. In your answer A), "only" would apply to the condition, not the timing (though they are very strongly related, timing is irrelevant if the condition isn't met).
So consider it to be a B. They have always +1 intercept, but only against vampires.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> That there can be be this long of a paragraph written about this particular distinction is a huge problem.
>
Deciding that problems exist because I can write a long paragraph is dumb. I can write lengthy paragraphs about any aspect of V:TES you want.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I see the same thing with minions acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. It's an effect that just doesn't work in a coherent way.
>
The ruling on sources of "play as if you met the requirements" is very precise and coherent. You meet the requirement for that card and that card only for: playing the card, resolving the card, and a lingering effect. If the card goes in play, you do not meet the requirement for any in-play effect. (I emphasis that card because some people think you turn into another clan or sect or whatever for a short while. You don't.)
For example, Sight Beyond Sight:
Requires Salubri
Put this card on a Salubri you control. The Salubri with this card gets +1 intercept.
If I play as a Salubri on Mata Hari, she is a Salubri for playing it - so I can meet the requirement of playing it on a Salubri, and I can target her with it. She meets the requirement for resolving it, so I can put it on her - although the distinction between play/resolve is only really that useful for cards with split play/resolution, like actions. There is no lingering effect. When it goes in play, it provides "The Salubri with this card" with a bonus. No bonus for Mata, because she is not a Salubri for effects that come from it being in play - unless, of course, she actually changes clans.
Raking Talons:
Requires Gargoyle
Only usable before range is determined.
For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes is aggravated. A vampire may play only one Raking Talons each combat.
Mata can play the card as a Gargoyle, so she meets the requirement. When it resolves, she's still able to meet it being a Gargoyle. It provides a lingering effect without going in play - so she is a Gargoyle for that, so for the remainder of combat, damage from Mata's hand strikes is aggravated. There is no in play effect, because the card does not go in play.
In practical terms, the only real thing that "play as a" doesn't do is work for you if that card goes in play and grants its benefits to "this Salubri antritribu" or "this Laibon", rather than "this minion" or "the vampire with this card" etc. Which is fairly simple to apply in practice, honestly.
The glitches that occur with Vlad because Vlad is not using the long-standing "play as a" template. He has invented a new template - "play and use". If a fake Magaji had a Mata-like special and put No Secrets in play, it would follow much the same process as Sight Beyond Sight - she could get it, but she wouldn't benefit from it when in play, because she wouldn't be a Magaji for "in play" effects, and it grants benefits to "the magaji with this card", much like "the Salubri with this card". Vlad has text that goes beyond that.
> Lönkka wrote:
> Why not reword Vlad a little bit so that he ain't a painfully unintuitive exception (for apparently no reason)?
>
or alternatively rule that he is always using the card and let him use the untap and gain intercept that isn't needed?
I don't see a problem:
Zoe with a Bowl has +1 intercept.
She cannot burn a blood for an additional intercept unless blocking an action at 2 or more stealth, even if you really want her to. This hasn't changed in years.
Vlad activating his "as a magagi" status is in the same window. Even if using the other half benefits u you, it's an intercept adding effect. If you need him to unlock and block 0 stealth actions, second trad has that "even if Intercept is not yet needed" bit.
No secrets is powerful. But not unbelievably impossible to deal with. Why does Vlad need special treatment? Plenty of vamps would be better with text that breaks the rules even more, but that doesn't mean its needed or smart.
@James: just for fun, can you write long paragraphs about eyes if the dead without sarcasm or negativity or rewording/errata suggestions and it not be about the art being not terrible. Because that would be impressive.
@tworazor: is your problem with the fact that no secrets works differently in different situations?
> @tworazor: is your problem with the fact that no secrets works differently in different situations?
>
Mine is. I mean, in two seemingly similar situations.
And that it requires quite a bit of deep digging into the rules to understand it. It's not clear at first glance, nor at second, and not even on the third.
Clarity and transparency as much as possible, plz.
"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
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> @tworazor: is your problem with the fact that no secrets works differently in different situations?
>
Yes; however, my perspective is a little different than most here. I am a very, VERY casual VTES player. I do not have the level of knowledge to understand how some of the more esoteric effects in the game work. I almost always look toward the rulebook/rulings/detailed play summary for answers. So while I believe no secrets working differently in different situations is an issue, the real problem is it's such a major chore trying to figure out how any effect that involves a minion is acting as if they had a requirement they don't have is supposed to work. Others in this thread seem to understand things just fine except for the interaction between No Secrets and Vlad. I assume this is because most people replying in this thread have been playing a long time and can understand these interactions. But, as a casual player who looks toward the rulebook for explanation, there is just no way of knowing how these interactions are supposed to work, and I don't even bother trying to include them when building decks. This would not be a problem for me if there were a dedicated section in the rulebook explaining things as jamesatzephyr did earlier in this thread. Whether adding such a section to the rulebook is feasible or not is a debate for another day.
Yes, I've wished for awhile we had a card searching database like the old Gatherer. Easy access to rulings on interactions in an intuitive search engine. Storing art images could be rough, but such a tool hosted by vekn could be wonderful, and while secret library and amaranth are great, they aren't as accessible as something integrated that links a card via forum post and is searchable etc.
I feel this situation was clear, but ive used Mata "as a whatever " enough for it to make sense.
New players we hope to get could benefit from extra tools.
If we want the game to be more accessible to the fabled New Players, then IMO we need to ged rid of such unintuitive exceptions.
No need to do major rules overhauls or revisions, just get rid of the unintuitive baggage by rewording them (NOW is the golden chance with the game getting back to print and order-what-thou-will PoD cards in the horizon).
Just sayin'...
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> No need to do major rules overhauls or revisions, just get rid of the unintuitive baggage by rewording them (NOW is the golden chance with the game getting back to print and order-what-thou-will PoD cards in the horizon).
>
> Just sayin'...
>
Sure, that's what we're doing. But all of you can help by pointing out cards that need special attention.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
So do Mata hari, tepes, vidal, kementeri,lisandro Giovanni, etc need reminder text or easily accessible erratta?
I'm not sure there's enough empty space for reminder text...
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> So do Mata hari, tepes, vidal, kementeri,lisandro Giovanni, etc need reminder text or easily accessible erratta?
>
Don't lump Vlad Tepes in with the others. He works differently because of his "use" text.
I'd be totally fine with something on "play as a" ending up on www.vekn.net/general-rulings , but it works in the same way as allies playing "as a" vampire with a discipline the rulebook.
Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play of the card, including duration effects (like "for the remainder of combat"). The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of 1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of a given capacity). If the ally gains life in excess of his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead. The ally is treated as a vampire only for the effect generated from playing the card. In particular, the ally is not treated as a vampire for effects the card has from being in play (like "the vampire with this card" effects).
The first part is that you fake the requirement for play/resolve, and lingering effect (duration effect). The second part is that you don't fake the requirement for in-play effects.
So no secrets is probably the only thing with this problem of needing activated, right?
Abbot, shaman, etc aren't relevant without being able to block and needing Intercept, so I can only think of no secrets having a relevant (ability to tap while locked) benefit that cannot be used if intercept isn't needed.
I may be undermining something, such as perma-rush from a source granting something else, but that should be it.