Follow-up of www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/59067-shadow-boxing-and-untap-after-during-combat
If Kamiri wa Itherero is blocked by an ally (and combat occurs), and the ally survives combat, can Kamiri use Taking the Skin: Minion (superior) to untap after his special burns the ally after combat?
I would say yes, since Taking the Skin: Minion can be played as an action modifier, and thus should be playable after Kamiri's special triggers, but I want to make sure
Kamiri wa Itherero
Laibon: Younger vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block Kamiri. If an ally blocks Kamiri and combat occurs, burn the ally at the end of the action.
Taking the Skin: Minion
[Action Modifier] Action Modifier
[Combat] Combat
[abo] [REFLEX] Cancel a frenzy card played on this vampire as it is played.
[abo] Skin. Play when this vampire burns a minion. Put this card on this vampire and untap him or her. This vampire may bleed an additional time this turn and gets +1 bleed and +1 stealth when bleeding. Burn this card during your discard phase. A minion can have only one skin.
I am not fully sure on that since Kamiri's special burns the ally at the end of the action. Is there an action going to modify anymore at that point? Does it count as being burned by him?
> Klaital wrote:
> I am not fully sure on that since Kamiri's special burns the ally at the end of the action. Is there an action going to modify anymore at that point? Does it count as being burned by him?
>
Well, Freak Drive (for example) says "Only usable at the end of a successful action (after resolving the action)", which could be understood to mean that there is an "end of action" window where effects can occur (and, presumably, the player can order them) and where Action Modifiers can still be played.
Or not. That's why I asked, I'm not 100% sure
Kamiri's effect happens "at the end of the action", the same place where FD (for example) is still playable, so I suspect it would work. But confirmation would be nice.
The timing window works - "at the end of an action" is still inside the bounds of the action and the play of modifiers not bound by that phrase is allowed.
You can reference rulings on Voter Cap (after successful referendum) and Freak Drive (at the end of an action) being playable in either order as supporting rationale.
The problem I see (as mentioned above) is "Play when this vampire burns a minion." at [ABO]. I'm not sure sequence when Kamiri's text burns a blocking ally after combat meets that restriction.
Sure, the blocking ally burns, and even from Kamiri's special. But the Taking the Skin text reflects an active trigger, and Kamiri's text is passive. "X burns / X is burned"" as opposed to "Kamiri burns X", if you get my drift. I'm watching this one, cause if it does work, there is a terribly bad Kamiri + Absimilard's Army deck ready to be designed.
> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:
>
> The problem I see (as mentioned above) is "Play when this vampire burns a minion." at [ABO]. I'm not sure sequence when Kamiri's text burns a blocking ally after combat meets that restriction.
>
It is Kamiri's text that burns it, so Kamiri himself, in my opinion. Would be mighty weird for vampire's textbox and vampire itself be considered separate entities...
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/kamiri$20wa$20itherero%7Csort:date/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/V-kWdGYDkQY/-yFruMQfQdsJ.
Ossian blocks Kamiri on a D action. Ossian survives combat, and burns. Trophies cannot be awarded.
Rulebook text: When any vampire burns a Red List minion in combat or as a action (including diablerie), the controller of the trophy may choose to move the trophy to that vampire.
It was a D action and a Red List minion burned. But Kamiri's controller still can't invoke the clause granting the Trophy. It's not the same case (IN a D action, not AS a D action), but I've seen a ton of strange ruling extrapolations based on explicit text over 20 years, and we continue to see it incessantly as we playtest cards. Also, environmental effects are handled quite differently from "inflicted" effects in other parts of the game, so I take little for granted.
It's why I'm watching the thread and re-emphasizing the topic, rather than jumping to conclusions.
Taking the Skin: Minion should read: Only usable after this vampire burns a minion.
In that scenario, the timing would be good, except that Kamiri does not burn the minion. It's an "environmental" effect.
Consider: "The opposing minion takes 2 damage." and "This minion inflicts 2 damage to the opposing minion."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Taking the Skin: Minion should read: Only usable after this vampire burns a minion.
>
> In that scenario, the timing would be good, except that Kamiri does not burn the minion. It's an "environmental" effect.
>
> Consider: "The opposing minion takes 2 damage." and "This minion inflicts 2 damage to the opposing minion."
>
OK, I get that distinction. With respect to damage, it matters tons for Disarm and Pulled Fangs.
And please don't misunderstand, I like the environmental classification - it was I who proposed it for use with Trap's presses. So I'm totally on board.....but I want to pick at this a little for vampire text, because that application is new.
Consider: Minion A with [ANI][ABO] bleeds. Emerald Legionnaire B blocks. A: Carrion Crows. B: No Premaneuver. A: Maneuver to long with Fake Out. B: No Maneuver. Hand strikes. A takes no damage, B burns.
Can A play Taking the Skin? Conventional wisdom suggest yes.....but now we break down "environmental" is this broader context.
Vampire A's action clearly burned ally B, despite inflicting no damage attributed "physically attributed" to him. Ummm, that's kinda like the Kamiri-text case, isn't it?
So did Vampire A actually burn ally B, or is the label "environmental" getting in the way of him claiming HE did it? That seems to be the gist behind not letting Kamiri follow with Taking the Skin after a block, tight?
If TtS IS playable here (where environmental damage did all the dirty work), it starts to muddy the water. In one case, an environmental effect allows a follow-up play where other environmental effects didn't. I'm concerned about confusion when explaining the difference as a judge.
If TtS IS NOT playable after Crows accounts for a kill, it gets weird where Crows and hands strike both hit. The player controlling the ally could choose which part of the incoming "normal strike resolution" damage actually burned the ally. Maybe it requires prevention for the distinction to become apparent ((e.g., I take the Crows, Glancing Blow the hands, and burn, thereby preventing Taking the Skin).
So let's start with that base case....just Crows, maneuver, fry the ally. Can Vampire A play Take the Skin after killing it with an environmental effect? And why would that be different than killing it with a passive environmental effect.
And it there a different between something like Carrion Crows and Mambo Jean's text (or employed retainers like Murder of Crows) with respect to "passively there vs actively played" environmental effects. Good grief, I hope not.....I've had enough of that with Vlad.
Fortunately, we don't have to consider a vampire with the Book of Going Forth by Night and Taking the Skin.....the replacement effect makes it more straightforward
> Ankha wrote:
> Taking the Skin: Minion should read: Only usable after this vampire burns a minion.
>
> In that scenario, the timing would be good, except that Kamiri does not burn the minion. It's an "environmental" effect.
>
> Consider: "The opposing minion takes 2 damage." and "This minion inflicts 2 damage to the opposing minion."
>
Ok, fair enough, I get that distinction. Hmph, so that plan doesn't work, pity
The question posed by the previous post is interesting though. Is Taking the Skin: Minion playable if the vampire burned the opposing minion in combat via pure environmental damage (Crows, for example)?
> PetriWessman wrote:
> The question posed by the previous post is interesting though. Is Taking the Skin: Minion playable if the vampire burned the opposing minion in combat via pure environmental damage (Crows, for example)?
>
Yes, per a ruling:
> LSJ wrote:
> > What is the standard for whether a given minion is responsible for the
> > burning?
> Card text. Well, plus the aforecited ruling about a minion burned in combat is
> considered burned by the opposing minion.
>
There is a detailed thread on the newsgroup about it:
> LSJ wrote:
> >>> What about burning a minion with Auto-
> >>> De-Fe?
> >> The target minion is burned.
> >
> > ... and, since it was the result of a referendum, not of the action
> > itself - the action merely calls the referendum - TtS:M cannot be
> > played? (Not sure on this one.)
> Card text: "that vampire's controller burns that vampire".
> So Taking the Skin: Minion cannot be played.
>
> >>> What if there some kind of action that put a Gehenna Event in
> >>> play, thus burning Mukhtar Bey?
> >> Then Bey would burn.
> >
> > But since the action just put a Gehenna event in play, causing Bey to
> > burn himself, TtS:M cannot be played? (Parallel: War Ghoul.)
> Correct.
>
> >>> How do we tell what counts and what
> >>> doesn't?
> >> Card text.
> >
> > What is the standard for whether a given minion is responsible for the
> > burning?
> Card text. Well, plus the aforecited ruling about a minion burned in combat is
> considered burned by the opposing minion.
>
> > I'd have thought it would be clearer, based on whether the
> > effect which caused the burning came from the minion or not, but based
> > on the Julius ruling - that, say, if Julius were in combat with an Ex
> > Nihilo'd vampire unable to do damage, and Julius set off his Bomb and
> > blew himself up, it still counts as the Ex Nihilo'd vampire burning
> > him despite the complete passivity of the Ex Nihilo'd vampire in the
> > situation in question - I can't actually tell anymore what the
> > standard is.
> Being in combat is not being completely passive.
>
> > Can we get a clear statement about what criteria cause
> > the game state to regard Minion A as having burned Minion B? 'Cause
> > "card text" alone leaves too many vague points; clarification on what
> > card text should be communicating is needed.
> If there are any ambiguities left after reading card text, I'll be happy to
> address those.
>
and
> LSJ wrote:
> > 1) Minion A takes a action (under the newest definition of actions) that
> > "burns" Minion B explicitly by card text or rule text (i.e. Diablerie).
> 1) Minion a plays an effect which says "burn minion". Like diablerie (directed
> action, undirected action, Amaranth or any other diablerie). Or other "burn
> minion" effects, like Abomination, Akhenaten, Amam, Ambulance, Ankou, Cobra Fangs.
>
> Note that, as for determining directedness, effects of referendums are not
> counted here. In these cases, the minion's effect is to simply call the
> referendum. (See ruling Josh cited earlier)
>
> > 2) As (1), but the action does enough damage (aggravated if necessary) to cause
> > Minion B to burn (i.e. Cryptic Mission on Mylan Horseed or on empty Julius).
> 2) Inflicting damage on a minion the handling of which burns the minion (via
> aggravated damage for vampires or loss of life for allies), or simply removing
> all the life from an ally (damage-related or not).
>
> > 3) Minion B burns as a result of combat with Minion A, regardless of Minion A's
> > activity in that combat.
> 3) Exactly.
>
> > 4) Minion A (who is a vampire) blocks the "Leave Torpor" action of Minion B (who
> > is a vampire) and chooses to diablerize.
> Sure. But I'd put this under 1) above. Same for a Banshee Ironwail bearer
> blocking an ally with one life.
>
> > 5) Some non-action effect specifically says "(A minion) burns (another minion)".
> Also covered by 1) if you don't bother restricting 1) to "action".
>
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UdvGbJqOeo4/7tBzX8NMNB0J
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > PetriWessman wrote:
> > The question posed by the previous post is interesting though. Is Taking the Skin: Minion playable if the vampire burned the opposing minion in combat via pure environmental damage (Crows, for example)?
> >
> Yes, per a ruling:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > What is the standard for whether a given minion is responsible for the
> > > burning?
> > Card text. Well, plus the aforecited ruling about a minion burned in combat is
> > considered burned by the opposing minion.
> >
Well, I see where this is getting at. Minion opposing Kamiri is burned at end of the action, not at the end of combat? So in theory taking the skin condition is not met?
Overall, I can see the logic, although I wish the cardtexts didn't have to go this deep into complexity to be figured out how they work.. In here my issue are the numerous different steps (end of round of combat, end of combat, end of action etc)
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Overall, I can see the logic, although I wish the cardtexts didn't have to go this deep into complexity to be figured out how they work..
>
Unfortunately, this is inevitable: you have to read and understand cards. The card itself is not complex, the interaction is.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> In here my issue are the numerous different steps (end of round of combat, end of combat, end of action etc)
>
It is part of the game.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
...and one more related one, just to make sure:
- Kamiri with Monster bleeds, gets blocked by ally
- ally survives combat
- Kamiri's text burns ally "at the end of the action"
- Can I now use Monster to pay a blood & untap Kamiri?
I assume yes because Kamiri's effect and Monster happen in same window and I can order the effects how I like?
---
Monster
Master: archetype.
Put this card on a ready vampire you control. Once each turn when combat involving this vampire ends and the opposing minion is not ready, this vampire may burn a blood to untap. A vampire may have only one archetype.
No you can't. As per the text of monster 'combat involving... ends... opposing minion is not ready'. Kamiri's special text does not burn the ally in combat but long after that.
> Klaital wrote:
> No you can't. As per the text of monster 'combat involving... ends... opposing minion is not ready'. Kamiri's special text does not burn the ally in combat but long after that.
>
I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Is Kamiri's "at the end of the action" a different timing window than Monster's "when combat involving this vampire ends"? I thought those resolved to the same thing?
Sometimes I wish this game had clear and explicit timing windows (and matching keywords)...
> PetriWessman wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Is Kamiri's "at the end of the action" a different timing window than Monster's "when combat involving this vampire ends"? I thought those resolved to the same thing?
>
> Sometimes I wish this game had clear and explicit timing windows (and matching keywords)...
>
Yes. "End of the action" and "end of combat" are two different things.
When combat involving a succesful block of an action is about to end it goes like this:
1. End of round of combat
2. End of combat
3. End of action.
That these are separate subsequent steps, affect different card wordings and card interactions such as in this case. Even if there is a Strike: combat ends, all these steps still happen in order.
ps. I remember complaining about this complexity a time of two...
pps. There are technically even more steps where things can happen, such as if you played majesty, and opponent used a flash grenade. Majesty untaps minion before combat ends, flash grenade taps the minion AFTER combat ends but before action ends, and then acting minion can play freak drive to untap at the end of the action. Personally I would like to revamp this whole snake pit of combat rules. ...
ppps. It is generally good idea to check cards whether the things happen before or after combat ends. If it happens after combat ends, combat cards cant be played anymore. For example, if I play eye of unforgiving heaven and rotschreck to send opposing minion to torpor AFTER combat ends, I cannot play righteous aura anymore since its a combat card.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Yes. "End of the action" and "end of combat" are two different things.
>
Correct. An action is still ongoing after a combat has ended.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> When combat involving a succesful block of an action is about to end it goes like this:
> 1. End of round of combat
> 2. End of combat
> 3. End of action.
>
> That these are separate subsequent steps, affect different card wordings and card interactions such as in this case. Even if there is a Strike: combat ends, all these steps still happen in order.
>
Despite the way they are named, they are not "steps" of a same nature.
You can play cards "at the end of a round of combat".
You can't play cards "at the end of combat" or "at the end of the action" or "at the end of the turn" because these are events with no duration (some effects may be triggered though, such as a Molotov Cocktail burning).
The "end of round of combat" step should have a proper name to avoid that kind of confusion, or stay anonymous and be referred to as "after the press step" (the same way some cards are played "after action resolution")
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> You can't play cards "at the end of combat" or "at the end of the action"
>
Pretty sure you can. Freak drive and cat's guidance for example. You can play it after combat but still during an action. how is it not at the end of the action? Or are you introducing even more steps? If action was blocked and combat ensued and no further shenanigans were done (form of mist etc), the action will end immediately after combat. Here I see cards like freak drive played literally at the end of the action since thats all that's left of the action.
Your argument that "there is no duration" is REALLY weak, since VTES cards are already played at ridiculous times. Such as psyche played literally in middle of rotschrecks resolving.
It is far better in my opinion to have a clear step for something, rather than have cards playable at an ambiguous "after something" timing. I mean next turn is also after something. Doesn't define it clearly in my opinion.
VTES combat steps reminds me of real numbers, where there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2. All I wanted was to understand this game and have a finite amount of combat steps. All your explanations confuse me further and seems like the steps are only increasing.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > You can't play cards "at the end of combat" or "at the end of the action"
> >
> Pretty sure you can. Freak drive and cat's guidance for example. You can play it after combat but still during an action. how is it not at the end of the action?
>
There is a moment when, right before it is still the action, and right after the action is over. It is the definition of the end of the action.
If you are playing an action modifier, you are still during the action, not at the end of the action (see examples below to understand why).
Freak Drive and Cats's Guidance are played after resolution of the action.
The printed cardtext of Freak Drive says: "Only usable at the end of a successful action (after resolving the action)". We are working on removing the "at the end" part (that is a wording) because it is incorrect logically.
For instance, Momentary Delay is also played during the same window and allows the action to continue. That means that it wasn't the end of the action after all.
You could bleed, be blocked, play Freak Drive* at superior, Momentary Delay*, then be blocked again, play Form of Mist, and then play Enkil Cog*. All * are played "at the end of the action."
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Or are you introducing even more steps? If action was blocked and combat ensued and no further shenanigans were done (form of mist etc), the action will end immediately after combat.
>
It is not the case, since you can play Freak Drive. If the action had ended, you couldn't.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Here I see cards like freak drive played literally at the end of the action since thats all that's left of the action.
>
Wrong, the action can continue for instance.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Your argument that "there is no duration" is REALLY weak, since VTES cards are already played at ridiculous times. Such as psyche played literally in middle of rotschrecks resolving.
>
Rotschreck is played during a combat. Psyche! is played during a combat. None of them are played at the end of a phase or a step ("combat ends" doesn't end the combat immediately: you can play Taste of Vitae for instance, or Psyche! in our case).
> Bloodartist wrote:
> It is far better in my opinion to have a clear step for something, rather than have cards playable at an ambiguous "after something" timing. I mean next turn is also after something. Doesn't define it clearly in my opinion.
>
"After" means "immediately after" in VTES. But I agree with you and we try to remove as many "before" and "after" as possible. As well as "begin" and "end".
> Bloodartist wrote:
> VTES combat steps reminds me of real numbers, where there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2. All I wanted was to understand this game and have a finite amount of combat steps.
>
Well, it is the way VTES was designed at the start: a few steps are described, then plenty of things happen in between.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> All your explanations confuse me further and seems like the steps are only increasing.
>
It's contradictory: if you want clear steps instead of "before" or "after", then you can't complain because there are more steps.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> There is a moment when, right before it is still the action, and right after the action is over. It is the definition of the end of the action.
> If you are playing an action modifier, you are still during the action, not at the end of the action (see examples below to understand why).
> Freak Drive and Cats's Guidance are played after resolution of the action.
> The printed cardtext of Freak Drive says: "Only usable at the end of a successful action (after resolving the action)". We are working on removing the "at the end" part (that is a wording) because it is incorrect logically.
>
One: its not illogical.
Two: Why is "during an action" better option than "At the end of the action"? The latter makes things ordered, the former doesn't. Since we are talking about rules, it makes sense to have a defined order (even if the player chooses it himself).
For me it is obvious that "end of an action" is a step since there are several cards that are played during it and effects that are resolving during it. I see it simply as the last part of an action that happens after action itself has resolved. Once its over, the action is over and no action modifiers can be played.
Rather than have a philosphical debate of when does the action actually end, it is more important to know what is the last part of the action when cards can still be played. For me, it is a step called "end of the action". What is wrong with this?
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Rather than have a philosphical debate of when does the action actually end, it is more important to know what is the last part of the action when cards can still be played. For me, it is a step called "end of the action". What is wrong with this?
>
You can call it as you wish. "at the end of the action (after resolution)" is simply an old wording that will disappear.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> For me it is obvious that "end of an action" is a step since there are several cards that are played during it and effects that are resolving during it.
>
It's fine.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I see it simply as the last part of an action that happens after action itself has resolved. Once its over, the action is over and no action modifiers can be played.
>
That "end of the action part" can be over and still, the action continues (and more action modifiers can be played).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director