off-turn Nocturn

Hi, I noticed that text for Nocturn in official card list had changed a little. Name: Nocturn [SoC:C, HttB:PKia2] Cardtype: Ally Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Obtenebration Demon with 1 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. [obt] {Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.}. If this is this vampire's first successful recruit action this turn, {unlock him or her}. Nocturn can play non-ally cards {requiring} basic Obtenebration [obt] as a vampire. Burn Nocturn during your unlock phase. [OBT] As above, and this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood. Artist: Leif Jones If Nocturn is somehow recruited off-turn (e.g. via Malkavian Madness network) does this text change allow Noctrun to act during that (off-) turn?

Text was changed in accordance to the rule change of [RTR 20180303] . Since allies are no longer put into the uncontrolled zone, text was changed from "is put into ready region" to "can act the turn it is recruited" for all allies that had this feature. So, the behaviour has not changed AFAIK. Although your question is relevant given the new wording ☺︎

> Whisker wrote: > If Nocturn is somehow recruited off-turn (e.g. via Malkavian Madness network) does this text change allow Noctrun to act during that (off-) turn? > No. It just overrides the "If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your ready region, but it cannot act this turn" bold part. However, there's nothing that allows the Nocturn to act when it's not your minion phase. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > However, there's nothing that allows the Nocturn to act when it's not your minion phase. > To be fair, the card seems to say exactly that... 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. [obt] {Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.}. Similarly: Enkil: During any Methuselah's minion phase, this vampire can lock this card to take an action. Madness network: Unlocked Malkavians can take actions in any Methuselah's minion phase (follow normal sequencing rules). IMO it's not distinct enough from the cards that _do_ allow it to say that Nocturn _doesnt_ allow it. It literally says 'It can act'. The ruling may be clear, but the card test is not.

While it's true that a Nocturn can act "as soon as it is recruited", you still cannot act while it's not your own minion phase. It just doesn't have "recruitment sickness". This is clearly what Ankha addresses. Sure, it's not worded perfectly, which is why we needed a ruling in the first place.

If you look at the old wording: "Move Nocturn to the ready region when recruited" it's pretty clear what the intended effect was. However, since allies are now put in the ready region by default, the wording needed to change. There is no reason to assume the behavior did, however.

> narpassword wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > However, there's nothing that allows the Nocturn to act when it's not your minion phase. > > > To be fair, the card seems to say exactly that... > > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > > [obt] {Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.}. > The sentence on the Nocturn overrides the bold part of the following rule "If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your ready region, but it cannot act this turn (and the cost, if any, is paid)" Technically, you are right, but the sentence should be understood as "Nocturn is not restricted by the rule preventing it from acting the turn it is recruited.". That latest wording has its own shortcomings. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > narpassword wrote: > > ... > > > The sentence on the Nocturn overrides the bold part of the following rule "If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your ready region, but it cannot act this turn (and the cost, if any, is paid)" > > Technically, you are right, but the sentence should be understood as "Nocturn is not restricted by the rule preventing it from acting the turn it is recruited.". That latest wording has its own shortcomings. > If we go back to RTR 03/03/2018 www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76447-rules-team-rulings-rtr-03-03-2018 there were known differences created by changing the rule on how allies were recruited. What reasoning is there that those changes are acceptable yet this is not? They all create difference on how power balance works (namely a large one with fresh recruited allies being able to block against Enkil etc.) yet somehow the madness network malk/enkil [obt] Nocturn is game breaking? I propose one of the following routes; 1) Follow 1.4 and the card text as it is technically understood until the cards either prove to be a problem in some obscure overpowered combination or they are reprinted and therefore require more "permanent" wording. As it was accepted that ally interactions in the game would change due to RTR 03/03/2018 Rule change #2 this is the most natural way. This is the "bug" as a "feature" route, nothing wrong with that if it does not break the game. 2) Change the wording of Nocturn to be in line technically with the "should be understood" version. There's already disparity with Nocturns in cardboard form and the cardlist.txt, small changes to it should be easy fix to ensure the current interpretation of designer intent is maintained. Preferably before they're reprinted/added to print on demand. 3) Reverse RTR 03/03/2018 Rule change #2 along with the wordings as it breaks the original design intent of allies and out of turn action interactions. As I'm sure it was well tought out and properly pondered change, this is the most drastic as while it fixes the issue, it also forfeits all the gains from that RTR rule change. While I personally never had trouble understanding the old ally recruiting mechanics, there's over two year's worth of new and old players who've learned the current RTR. Nocturn as a card it's not really worth that amount of trouble. I hope 1) is the route taken, and someone is mad enough to make Malk Masika obt deck. Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.

> Kilrauko wrote: > ... > > I propose one of the following routes; > > 1) Follow 1.4 and the card text as it is technically understood until the cards either prove to be a problem in some obscure overpowered combination or they are reprinted and therefore require more "permanent" wording. As it was accepted that ally interactions in the game would change due to RTR 03/03/2018 Rule change #2 this is the most natural way. This is the "bug" as a "feature" route, nothing wrong with that if it does not break the game. > > ... > > I hope 1) is the route taken, and someone is mad enough to make Malk Masika obt deck. > Well, I actually don't think that making nocturn work this way would be over powered in any way. Nor I think the way they actually work is under powered. So why changing them in the first place ? And this could be a precedent for having a petaniqua / madness network / infernal servitor deck ! I don't think it would be OP neither but there could be room for it ! And finally, why adding additional minor modifications to the way these allies have been initially designed ?

> Timo wrote: > And this could be a precedent for having a petaniqua / madness network / infernal servitor deck ! > Indeed. New decks and deck ideas would be possible! Personally I would be all for it. I can barely bring myself to make decks these days since I feel everything has been seen hundred times already. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Yeah, out of turn Nocturn probably ain't game breaking... Would be clearer to let them act on the turn they are recruited. You know, because of the card text. (Also worth noticing is that when recruited out of turn they have shorter life span than usually). Finnish Politics!

Historically, design intent means less than the actual wording, cf. Kemintiri (ADV). Kemintiri (ADV) was supposed to allow you to play Master cards that required Ventrue, Camarilla, or Justicar (design intent), but lacks the "you" signifier in her text. Therefore the wording only allows Kemintiri do play such cards. In fact, LSJ ruled for design intent, but was convinced (and created a reversal) to align his ruling with printed card text. The design intent was that Nocturns (and other such allies) would only be able to act on their controller's turns, but are able to do so during the turn that they are recruited. When the rule changed regarding placing allies in the uncontrolled region (a good simplification for the game), the new wording opened up the possibility for off-turn acting. While the design intent might be to prevent such things, the wording on the cards suggest that off-turn acting is allowed if that is the turn that they are recruited. Ruling otherwise just to align with design intent ignores the actual worded text. That seems contrary to supporting clear and consistent rulings. Furthermore, as others point out, none of this would be overpowering and could possibly even lead to new deck concepts.

> Lönkka wrote: > Yeah, out of turn Nocturn probably ain't game breaking... > > Would be clearer to let them act on the turn they are recruited. You know, because of the card text. > > (Also worth noticing is that when recruited out of turn they have shorter life span than usually). > All strong points. I wouldn’t mind it being ruled this way.

I'll consider it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Sure, out of turn Nocturn probably ain't game breaking, but... What about [OBT] version? Can a vampire with Enkil Cog (already used for the first Nocturn) perform another Nocturn action again this (off-)turn? If they cannot, why? The card seems to say exactly they can. [OBT] As above, and this vampire can perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood.

Dear all, > Palamedes wrote: > Sure, out of turn Nocturn probably ain't game breaking, but... > What about [OBT] version? Can a vampire with Enkil Cog (already used for the first Nocturn) perform another Nocturn action again this (off-)turn? > If they cannot, why? The card seems to say exactly they can. > > [OBT] As above, and this vampire can perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood. > I would disagree. The vampire cannot act without any other special effect like Madness Netword, etc. So Superior OBT Nocturn grant the option to redo the Nocturn recruiting action if that vampire could act. I think that is the same as "Taking the Skin: Minion". It grand you the option to bleed one more time, only if that vampire could act. Name: Taking the Skin: Minion Cardtype: Action Modifier/Combat Discipline: Abombwe [abo] Skin. Play when this vampire burns a minion. Put this card on this vampire and unlock 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 would say the only the basic version makes confusion. Regards, Rémi. I am Rémi Cavaillé (), Barcelona (Spain). I was the Prince of Lyon (France) around 2003. I am now Official Judge and the 5th Prince of Barcelona. Enjoy VTES, Marvel Champions, L5R and more gaming activities in Khan Jugar: sites.google.com/view/khanjugar/

There are two other scenarios that would point in the same direction: 1/ Nocturn at superior says: "As above, and this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood.". Let's say the vampire who recruited the Nocturn was using Enkil Cog and untaps, does that mean he can do another Nocturn without the use of the Enkil Cog? The clause overrides the NRA, not the fact that the vampire cannot normally act during other Methuselahs' minion phase. 2/ Theo Bell says: "Theo can enter combat with a minion as a action." However, he cannot do this outside your minion phase by default. Enkil Cog specifies: "During any Methuselah's minion phase, this vampire can lock this card to perform an action." Madness Network specifies: "Unlocked Malkavians can perform actions in any Methuselah's minion phase" Nocturn lack the "in/during any Methuselah's minion phase" clause. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > 1/ Nocturn at superior says: "As above, and this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood.". Let's say the vampire who recruited the Nocturn was using Enkil Cog and untaps, does that mean he can do another Nocturn without the use of the Enkil Cog? The clause overrides the NRA, not the fact that the vampire cannot normally act during other Methuselahs' minion phase. > Enkil Cog enables the vampire to act out of turn and card text on Nocturn allows it to do so again. Quite simply card text: "this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn" (highlight mine). > Ankha wrote: > 2/ Theo Bell says: "Theo can enter combat with a minion as a action." However, he cannot do this outside your minion phase by default. > Per the rulebook he cannot act out of turn and nothing on his card text suggests otherwise. This seems like a red herring comment to prop up the weak argument supporting the misruling about Nocturn. > Ankha wrote: > Nocturn lack the "in/during any Methuselah's minion phase" clause. > But Nocturn does have the card text: "the turn it is recruited" and "this turn." That should be whatever turn this turn is whether that's your turn or out-of-turn. That's the overriding text that supersedes the standard rulebook rule about when minion can act. If you want to have Nocturn's only be able to act on their turn or prevent additional recruit actions, then you're going to need to be wordier and more specific about what the current turn is.

"The embrace +1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile vampire.Put this card in play. It becomes a 1-capacity non-unique vampire of the same clan and sect as the acting vampire, and must hunt this turn." Then this means the embrace can hunt during the turn you create it with another vampire with Enkil cog ?

> kschaefer wrote: > If you want to have Nocturn's only be able to act on their turn or prevent additional recruit actions, then you're going to need to be wordier and more specific about what the current turn is. > It is NOT possible to have every single things written clearly without any wrong interpretations possible on each and every cards. It is why we need rulings in the first place. And no, having a text "he can act the turn it is recruited" does not erase every single lines about actions in the rulebook. It can act "if nothing prevents it to do so" no old text pentex nor anything like that or for example not being your turn... The text highlighted is here to supersede the rules about allies not being allowed to act the turn they are recruited. It can be misleading about if it erases other rules but it had been ruled that it did not.

> Rynkle wrote: > "The embrace > +1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile vampire.Put this card in play. It becomes a 1-capacity non-unique vampire of the same clan and sect as the acting vampire, and must hunt this turn." > > Then this means the embrace can hunt during the turn you create it with another vampire with Enkil cog ? > "Must" and "can" have different meanings in english language. A vampire that can hunt, has the option to hunt or not. They have a choice and are able to do it. Can act means just that, "is able to." A vampire that must hunt, has no choice but neither is he somehow granted the possibility. "Must" does not include "is able to" part but instead "if able, then". What's more, if they are unable to hunt for whatever reason (usually multiple different mandatory actions) but also unability to act on other methuselahs turn, the action fizzles cannot be attempted as one cannot attempt what one cannot do per LSJ. However, if the embrace is malkavian, and madness network is in play, that embrace vampire *must* hunt as soon as the order of play allows the controlling methuselah to declare the action. Thanks to Madness Network, they *can* take actions on other turns and thanks to embrace's text, they "must" choose to take that action. Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.

> Kilrauko wrote: > However, if the embrace is malkavian, and madness network is in play, that embrace vampire *must* hunt as soon as the order of play allows the controlling methuselah to declare the action. Thanks to Madness Network, they *can* take actions on other turns and thanks to embrace's text, they "must" choose to take that action. > Actually, I think that a malkavian embrace being created in someone else turn is not forced to hunt. It is exactly the same with any empty malkavian. They can take actions. And if they decide to use this option, the only one they can perform is hunting. The "must hunt" in embrace card text makes it a mandatory action on the same level as a vampire being empty and unlocked "must hunt" (we could look into the case with an out of turn spirit marionnette on a malkavian under madness network : the malk "must bleed" but is allowed to "not act" instead). To come back to Nocturn being allowed to act on someone else turn its card text being seen as erasing the rulebook in regard to whose turn it is : With the same idea, we could have the following situation : I play a nocturn with my predator having a gran madre di dio in play and so the nocturn comes into play locked. But it "can act the turn it is recruited" so it should be allowed to act even if it is locked ?

> Timo wrote: > With the same idea, we could have the following situation : > I play a nocturn with my predator having a gran madre di dio in play and so the nocturn comes into play locked. > > But it "can act the turn it is recruited" so it should be allowed to act even if it is locked ? > Good point. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

To shorten the story, if there is no such sentence in the rules, it should be added: In 6. Minion Phase: During your minion phase, you may have your minions take actions. Your minions can take actions only in your minion phase. ...at the end of the paragraph: Some rare effects can allow your minions to take actions in someone else’s minion phase. Such effects must explicitly state that your minions may take actions in other Methuselah's minion phase, since you have no minion phase in their turn. In 6.1.5. Recruit Ally (+1 stealth): If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your ready region, but it cannot act this turn (and the cost, if any, is paid). If it can act this turn for some reason, it only applies in your minion phase.

> Timo wrote: > > > Kilrauko wrote: > > .. . > > > Actually, I think that a malkavian embrace being created in someone else turn is not forced to hunt. > > It is exactly the same with any empty malkavian. > > They can take actions. And if they decide to use this option, the only one they can perform is hunting. > > The "must hunt" in embrace card text makes it a mandatory action on the same level as a vampire being empty and unlocked "must hunt" (we could look into the case with an out of turn spirit marionnette on a malkavian under madness network : the malk "must bleed" but is allowed to "not act" instead). > Ah but thanks to embrace's text and how mandatory hunt is defined it is not. The Rulebook says, and I quote; > http://www.vekn.net/rulebook/6-minion-phase wrote: > Most of the activity in the game occurs in the minion phases. During your minion phase, you may have your minions take actions. Only ready unlocked minions can take actions, and taking an action locks the acting minion. Other Methuselah's ready unlocked minions may attempt to block your action, and blocking locks the blocking minion (see Resolve Any Block Attempts, sec. 6.2.2). > ... > Some actions are mandatory. For example, a ready vampire with no blood must hunt. During your minion phase, none of your minions can take any non-mandatory actions if any of your ready unlocked minions have mandatory actions yet to perform. If you have two or more minions with mandatory actions, they may be done in the order you choose. A minion with a mandatory action to perform cannot perform any other action. If a single minion has two or more different mandatory actions, then he is "stuck" and cannot take any action (this doesn't prevent your other minions from taking non-mandatory actions, however). > This is what I've always assumed LSJ in groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/5uz0i-W7BjM/m/xMfwRHMhvW4J is referring; > Non-existant user wrote: > ... > > 2. If the Madness Network is out and I have an untapped ready malk does > > > he a)have to hunt? b) able to take the non mandatory actions while > > > empty OOT? > > > > Malkavian's taking actions OOT due to Madness Network is not mandatory. > > BUT, If you > > decide to act OOT with a Malkavian that has no blood, then you have to > > hunt, that is > > mandatory. > > Correct. > > ... > Empty malkavian is not forced to hunt via madness network as empty hunts are mandatory only during controllers minion phase (per rules). However if via some means that hunt is mandatory outside their controller's minion phase, like with The Embrace's card text and 1.4 > > 1.4 wrote: > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > the embrace malkavian has to hunt the turn it is recruited. If the "must hunt" part of the card text was not there, it would act like any other ready untapped malkavian with 0 blood on other methuselah's turn with madness network. Lutz at 0 blood and fresh embrace at 0 have different conditions oot, one has nothing forcing them and another has. Therefore claiming just because 0 blood malkavians can choose, the embrace malkavian at 0 can choose makes it false equivalence. I also might have understood this interaction wrong for years? Mods feel free to split this to it's own topic if needed as I haven't been able to find exact LSJ ruling on OOT malkavian embraces and madness network. Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.

> Kilrauko wrote: > Empty malkavian is not forced to hunt via madness network as empty hunts are mandatory only during controllers minion phase (per rules). > > However if via some means that hunt is mandatory outside their controller's minion phase, like with The Embrace's card text and 1.4 > > > > 1.4 wrote: > > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > > > > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > > The important thing to know is "which part of the rule does the card contradict". The scope must be as little as possible. > Kilrauko wrote: > the embrace malkavian has to hunt the turn it is recruited. If the "must hunt" part of the card text was not there, it would act like any other ready untapped malkavian with 0 blood on other methuselah's turn with madness network. Lutz at 0 blood and fresh embrace at 0 have different conditions oot, one has nothing forcing them and another has. Therefore claiming just because 0 blood malkavians can choose, the embrace malkavian at 0 can choose makes it false equivalence. > The "must" part indicates that the Embrace has a mandatory action to perform. Even if one gives blood to the Embrace (e.g., with Heidelberg), the Embrace must hunt. If one manages to unlock the Embrace after they have hunted, they can do something else (since the mandatory action has been performed). An empty vampire has also a mandatory action to perform, on the exact same level of priority. The only difference is the condition that imposes the mandatory action. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Palamedes wrote: > To shorten the story, if there is no such sentence in the rules, it should be added: > > In 6. Minion Phase: > During your minion phase, you may have your minions take actions. Your minions can take actions only in your minion phase. > The sentence in red is redundant. Anything that is not allowed by the rules is forbidden by default. You cannot perform actions during the discard phase for instance, because the rulebook doesn't explictely allow minions to perform actions during discard phases. Similarily, nothing in the rules explicitely allows your minions to act outside your own minion phase. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> kschaefer wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > 1/ Nocturn at superior says: "As above, and this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood.". Let's say the vampire who recruited the Nocturn was using Enkil Cog and untaps, does that mean he can do another Nocturn without the use of the Enkil Cog? The clause overrides the NRA, not the fact that the vampire cannot normally act during other Methuselahs' minion phase. > > > Enkil Cog enables the vampire to act out of turn and card text on Nocturn allows it to do so again. Quite simply card text: "this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn" (highlight mine). > As I stated in www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/78800-off-turn-nocturn?start=24#100872, the question is: "what part of the rules does the cardtext override"? The ruling says, in that case: it overrides the NRA, nothing else. > kschaefer wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > 2/ Theo Bell says: "Theo can enter combat with a minion as a action." However, he cannot do this outside your minion phase by default. > > > Per the rulebook he cannot act out of turn and nothing on his card text suggests otherwise. This seems like a red herring comment to prop up the weak argument supporting the misruling about Nocturn. > No, it is here to illustrate that only relevant parts of the rules are being overridden. Nothing in the rules explicitely allows minions to enter combat as a action the way Theo Bell does. However, Theo Bell can because his cardtext allows him to do so. But it doesn't override anything else: Theo Bell cannot perform that action during other player's turn by default, nor during the discard phase etc. > kschaefer wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Nocturn lack the "in/during any Methuselah's minion phase" clause. > > > But Nocturn does have the card text: "the turn it is recruited" and "this turn." That should be whatever turn this turn is whether that's your turn or out-of-turn. That's the overriding text that supersedes the standard rulebook rule about when minion can act. > > If you want to have Nocturn's only be able to act on their turn or prevent additional recruit actions, then you're going to need to be wordier and more specific about what the current turn is. > Or all we need is a clarification for that situation. Nocturn's cardtext is already pretty long, the "can act this turn" can be understood differently, that's why there is a clarification. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

My 2 cents From what i read and understand it seems to me that it might be a good idea to reconsider the ruling of the text "X can act the turn it is recruited." from not just being a rewording/replacement of the previous text "Move X to the ready region when recruited." to avoid needing to errata the card text. It´s clear by the current ruling that the intention was to clarify that the recruited ally is not restricted by the rule preventing it from acting the turn it is recruited but the text "X can act the turn it is recruited." isn't clearly indicating that it is limited to when done in ones own minion phase and furthermore such a change would only affect two cards currently (i think) and wouldn't be a game breaking change. On the topic of minions taking actions out of turn, it is not allowed by the fact that it isn´t mentioned as allowed in the rules and can only be overruled by card text as per the rules, which in the below cases when just going by the text of the cards mean they can act. A turn is a turn regardless whos turn it is in the sense of text and meaning. Something saying you are allowed to do something in a "turn" without specifically limiting its meaning to ones own minion phase means it applies to any/anyone´s turn. There are a lot of cards with the text "each turn", where some are played in ones own turn, some during other players turn and some in either turn, without ever mentioning whos turn it has to be and are sometimes limited in function and when they are usable by further text. The lack of "in/during any Methuselah's minion phase" doesn´t apply by default in the written language and would only be taken as that because of intent and/or ruling which creates unclarity. Enkil Cog and Madness Network cards text and the likes superseding the rule of acting out of turn are the sole enabler for cards which say they can be used in the current turn, without being limited to have to be in the controllers own minion phase, should be able to be used in any/anyone´s turn if just considering text and not rulings.. 1) Vampire using Enkil Cog to recruit Nocturn out of turn Enkil Cog allows the vampires to take an (one) action out of turn which in this case is the recruitment of Nocturn. Nocturn can then act because the card text says so, if disregarding the current ruling, being the part that is superseding the rule of acting out of turn by stating it can act this turn which by text doesn´t check whos turn it is. If Nocturn was recruited at superior the vampire can perform the same action again this turn, again because the card text says so, superseding the rule of acting out of turn, with an additional cost to the same action. 2) Vampire using Enkil Cog to recruit Nocturn out of turn while its prey has Gran Madre di Dio, Italy in play Enkil Cog allows the vampires to take an (one) action out of turn which in this case is the recruitment of Nocturn. As Gran Madre di Dio, Italy is in play Nocturn enters play locked and cannot act this turn. The card text of Nocturn and Gran Madre di Dio, Italy creates a contradiction where one say it can act this turn and the other puts the minion in a state "locked" where by rules it can´t act if not stated in the card text that it can act while locked. The rules state that in the minion phase "Only ready unlocked minions can take actions". The rules in my opinion should be the tie breaker in any case where two or more cards have contradicting rules superseding effects and therefore here resulting in that Nocturn can´t act this turn. 3) Vampire (ex Theo Bell) using Enkil Cog to perform a Govern the Unaligned bleed out of turn lacking the text "can/must act this turn" and followed by the use of Helicopter Enkil Cog allows the vampires to take an (one) action out of turn which in this case is a Govern the Unaligned bleed. After successful action Helicopter is locked to unlock the vampire. At this point there is nothing that would allow Theo Bell to use his special or perform another action even though he is unlocked as there isn´t any card or effect that allows him to act out of turn and/or in the current turn again. 4) Malkavian Vampire using Madness Network to play The Embrace out of turn or having a Malkavian without blood during another players turn Madness Network allows the vampires to take the action out of turn which in this case is The Embrace. The Embrace vampire must hunt this turn because the card text says so and is therefore allowed to in this turn. The Malkavian vampire without blood is able to act because Madness Network and must do so because the rules say so forcing it to Hunt. The rules say "a ready vampire with no blood must hunt" and doesn´t say it has to only happen in your own minion phase turn. By rules text it is then only limited to happen by when the vampire is allowed to act, forcing the taking of the action Hunt when ever possible to act. Conclusion - I think that anything that allows us to play the game controlled by the text in the rules and the cards decreasing the need to lean on rulings because the text doesn´t clearly convey the workings of the effects/cards is the right path for the game to reduce the complexity and threshold of the game as long as the game doesn´t get broken in the process. I´m not a VTES expert by any means but with my current understanding of the described situations above nothing is game breaking and would only be opening up the possibility of reverting some rulings which aren't very intuitive in relation to the texts and/or intentions of the card/effects design which in my opinion is secondary to having a "to the point" game which works with as little rulings as possible. Card texts: Name: Enkil Cog [KoT:R, Anthology:1, 25th:1] Cardtype: Action Modifier Unique. Requires a vampire with capacity 10 or more. Only usable after resolution of a successful bleed against your prey. Put this card on this vampire. This vampire gets +1 bleed. During any Methuselah's minion phase, this vampire can lock this card to take an action. Artist: Marian Churchland; Ginés Quiñonero; Marian Churchland Name: Nocturn [SoC:C, HttB:PKia2] Cardtype: Ally Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Obtenebration Demon with 1 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. [obt] {Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.}. If this is this vampire's first successful recruit action this turn, {unlock him or her}. Nocturn can play non-ally cards {requiring} basic Obtenebration [obt] as a vampire. Burn Nocturn during your unlock phase. [OBT] As above, and this vampire {can} perform this action again this turn, with the cost increased by 1 blood. Artist: Leif Jones Name: Gran Madre di Dio, Italy [Promo-20061126] Cardtype: Equipment In play, this is a unique location and does not count as equipment. When your predator or prey puts a minion in play in any phase except the unlock phase, that minion is locked. If that minion is a younger vampire, he or she burns 1 blood. Artist: Ginés Quiñonero Name: Govern the Unaligned [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PL2/PV, FN:PG2, CE:C/PV4, Anarchs:PAG, KMW:PAl3, Third:PTr5, HttB:PKia6/PSal4, SP:PoS6, 25th:7, FB:PTr6/PV6] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Dominate [dom] Bleed with +2 bleed. [DOM] +1 stealth action. Add 3 blood to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region. Artist: Mark Poole; Oliver Meinerding Name: Helicopter [Third:U/PTr, KoT:U] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 3 pool Vehicle. When a minion equips with the Helicopter, lock it. After resolving a successful action, this minion may lock the Helicopter to unlock. A minion may have only one vehicle. Artist: Eric Lofgren Name: Madness Network [Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R, KoT:R] Cardtype: Master Clan: Malkavian Unique master. Put this card in play. Unlocked Malkavians can take actions in any Methuselah's minion phase (follow normal sequencing rules). Any minion can burn this card as an action that any unlocked Malkavian (in addition to the normally eligible blockers) can attempt to block. Artist: Leif Jones; Anson Maddocks Name: The Embrace [Jyhad:R2, VTES:R, CE:R2, KoT:R, SP:LB9] Cardtype: Action Cost: 2 blood +1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile vampire. Put this card in play. It becomes a 1-capacity non-unique vampire of the same clan and sect as the acting vampire, and must hunt this turn. Artist: Pete Venters; Mark Nelson

> inm8 wrote: > 2) Vampire using Enkil Cog to recruit Nocturn out of turn while its prey has Gran Madre di Dio, Italy in playAs Gran Madre di Dio, Italy is in play Nocturn enters play locked and cannot act this turn. The card text of Nocturn and Gran Madre di Dio, Italy creates a contradiction where one say it can act this turn and the other puts the minion in a state "locked" where by rules it can´t act if not stated in the card text that it can act while locked. > It's not contradictory as in "X can perform actions" vs "X cannot perform actions". Locked vampires can perform actions provided the card allows to do so (e.g., Force of Will). If the Nocturn sentence is considered "absolute" (as in: it overrides any existing rules about performing actions), then it should override the necessity to be unlocked. > inm8 wrote: > The rules state that in the minion phase "Only ready unlocked minions can take actions". > The rules in my opinion should be the tie breaker in any case where two or more cards have contradicting rules superseding effects and therefore here resulting in that Nocturn can´t act this turn. > It doesn't work like this. The general rule is (by priority order): CARD "cannot" effects > CARD "can" effects > RULES "cannot effect" For instance, the rules forbid a vampire from bleeding more than once in a turn. However, Taking the Skin: Minion overrides this restriction. But if the vampire has a Pentex Subversion attached, they cannot perform the bleed action at all. > inm8 wrote: > I´m not a VTES expert by any means but with my current understanding of the described situations above nothing is game breaking and would only be opening up the possibility of reverting some rulings which aren't very intuitive in relation to the texts and/or intentions of the card/effects design which in my opinion is secondary to having a "to the point" game which works with as little rulings as possible. > It would create need for other rulings such as "what happens if the Nocturn is locked"? One way or the other, you'll have to define the scope of what rules are overridden by the Nocturn's sentence. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > For instance, the rules forbid a vampire from bleeding more than once in a turn. However, Taking the Skin: Minion overrides this restriction. But if the vampire has a Pentex Subversion attached, they cannot perform the bleed action at all. > Nitpicking : Old text Pentex Subversion

> Ankha wrote: > > > > inm8 wrote: 2) Vampire using Enkil Cog to recruit Nocturn out of turn while its prey has Gran Madre di Dio, Italy in playAs Gran Madre di Dio, Italy is in play Nocturn enters play locked and cannot act this turn. The card text of Nocturn and Gran Madre di Dio, Italy creates a contradiction where one say it can act this turn and the other puts the minion in a state "locked" where by rules it can´t act if not stated in the card text that it can act while locked. > > > It's not contradictory as in "X can perform actions" vs "X cannot perform actions". Locked vampires can perform actions provided the card allows to do so (e.g., Force of Will). If the Nocturn sentence is considered "absolute" (as in: it overrides any existing rules about performing actions), then it should override the necessity to be unlocked. > When the rules say "Only ready unlocked minions can take actions" and "the ally is placed in your ready region, but it cannot act this turn" it is setting up the restrictions and requirements that apply if not overruled explicitly by card text. The text of Nocturn says "{Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.}." referencing to the recruitment of it and the ability to act the current turn, saying nothing about being able to overrule the requirement of needing to be unlocked to act. Thereby if Nocturn enters play locked it cannot act as it doesn't comply with the explicit requirement of being unlocked to do so if not stated explicitly in card text which it doesn´t. In regards to the example of Force of Will the card text explicitly says "Only usable by a locked vampire." referencing to the the fact that the vampire has to be locked and that the action is usable/allowed which is the part that overrules the requirement of being unlocked. Name: Force of Will [DS:C2, FN:PR2, Anarchs:PAG/PG2, KMW:PG, Third:C] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Fortitude Only usable by a locked vampire. [for] Bleed with +1 bleed. After resolution, this vampire takes 2 unpreventable aggravated damage even if the action is blocked. [FOR] As above, but with +2 bleed, and the acting vampire takes only 1 unpreventable aggravated damage. Artist: Ron Spencer > Ankha wrote: > > > > inm8 wrote: The rules state that in the minion phase "Only ready unlocked minions can take actions". > > The rules in my opinion should be the tie breaker in any case where two or more cards have contradicting rules superseding effects and therefore here resulting in that Nocturn can´t act this turn. > > > It doesn't work like this. The general rule is (by priority order): CARD "cannot" effects > CARD "can" effects > RULES "cannot effect" > > For instance, the rules forbid a vampire from bleeding more than once in a turn. However, Taking the Skin: Minion overrides this restriction. But if the vampire has a Pentex Subversion attached, they cannot perform the bleed action at all. > My mistake there wasn´t a contradiction of card texts in this case and it is actually the fact that the Nocturn card text doesn´t explicitly says that it can act while locked which prevents it from being able to do so per the rules. Agree with the priority of rule and understand that if we had the old wording of Pentex Subversion a vampire wouldn´t be allowed to act because of it as the "cannot take actions" from the card text has higher priority. If the vampire would be locked instead (ie. Enkil Cog + Deep Song by another vampire after acquiring Taking the Skin: Minion) it wouldn´t be allowed to bleed or take any other action without anything explicitly saying that it is allowed by card text to do so while locked. > Ankha wrote: > > > > inm8 wrote: I´m not a VTES expert by any means but with my current understanding of the described situations above nothing is game breaking and would only be opening up the possibility of reverting some rulings which aren't very intuitive in relation to the texts and/or intentions of the card/effects design which in my opinion is secondary to having a "to the point" game which works with as little rulings as possible. > > > It would create need for other rulings such as "what happens if the Nocturn is locked"? > One way or the other, you'll have to define the scope of what rules are overridden by the Nocturn's sentence. > The text of Nocturn doesn´t say it overrules all rules and is confined by what it is explicitly stating. If there aren´t other rules or other cards text adding more requirements and/or restrictions it is to be handled as written. In the case of acting out of turn which is overruled by cards like Enkil Cog and there then are cards that grant the continued action taking by card texts that explicitly say it is allowed to "act this turn" is because there is nothing that says that you can only act in your own minion phase. If this is not to be allowed and to be clear it should then be added to the rules that cards that grant action taking in this/current turn can only be used in ones own minion phase and only cards like Enkil Cog would be able to overrule the acting out of turn. This should only be done if it breaks the game which at the moment i don´t see it doing. In the case of acting in general or allowed by card text it is always restricted to minions that are unlocked if not otherwise explicitly stated in card text that they are allowed to while locked. Even If being in ones own minion phase having Theo Bell ready but locked he cannot use his special because he isn´t allowed to act because he is locked and nothing in his special explicitly states that he can do so while locked and therefore the rule applies that states that he has to be unlocked to take an action. The same should then apply to Nocturn if recruited while its prey has Gran Madre di Dio, Italy in play.

> inm8 wrote: > In the case of acting out of turn which is overruled by cards like Enkil Cog and there then are cards that grant the continued action taking by card texts that explicitly say it is allowed to "act this turn" is because there is nothing that says that you can only act in your own minion phase. > By construction, the rulebook describes what the player can do, not what the player cannot do (unless it needs to put restrictions on something else it allows to do, for instance "minions can bleed" but "minions cannot bleed twice"), so there is no reason to write down "You cannot perform actions during other Methuselah's turns": if nothing allows it in the rulebook, it is forbidden, by default. The rulebook says "During your minion phase, you may have your minions take actions." Since there is nothing in the rulebook that allows to perform actions outside one's minion phase, it means that your minions can only take actions during your minion phase. > inm8 wrote: > If this is not to be allowed and to be clear it should then be added to the rules that cards that grant action taking in this/current turn can only be used in ones own minion phase > You're making a difference between: "This minion can perform actions." and "This minion can perform actions this turn". That's fine, but we have to agree on the scope covered by "this turn". What restriction does this remove? The ruling says: it removes the restriction for an ally of not being to take actions the turn it is recruited. Not: as above, AND it also removes the restriction for minions to act only during your turn > inm8 wrote: > and only cards like Enkil Cog would be able to overrule the acting out of turn. > This is the case, because it explicitely states "during other Methuselah's minion phase". To summarize: There are multiple rules preventing an ally from acting during a turn: 1/ it's not your minion phase 2/ the ally is locked 3/ the ally has been recruited this turn The sentence "Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited" only removes restriction 3/. I agree it's opened to discussion (6 pages already), but that's the official clarification. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: By construction, the rulebook describes what the player can do, not what the player cannot do (unless it needs to put restrictions on something else it allows to do, for instance "minions can bleed" but "minions cannot bleed twice"), so there is no reason to write down "You cannot perform actions during other Methuselah's turns": if nothing allows it in the rulebook, it is forbidden, by default. > "if nothing allows it in the rulebook, it is forbidden, by default" This is clear and i don´t question this. > Ankha wrote: The rulebook says "During your minion phase, you may have your minions take actions." Since there is nothing in the rulebook that allows to perform actions outside one's minion phase, it means that your minions can only take actions during your minion phase. > Again this is clear and i don´t question this. > Ankha wrote: You're making a difference between: "This minion can perform actions." and "This minion can perform actions this turn". > That's fine, but we have to agree on the scope covered by "this turn". What restriction does this remove? > > The ruling says: it removes the restriction for an ally of not being to take actions the turn it is recruited. > Not: as above, AND it also removes the restriction for minions to act only during your turn > I do make a difference between the two because language wise there is one. This is what i have tried to convey. The ruling has sided with intention of design an not by the written word which is bound to happen and should if it is considered game breaking but it is also what makes it unclear for people that aren´t experts on the rulings which aren´t always the easiest to find. The best would obviously be that the card texts conveyed exactly what it intended but it isn´t always the case. The scope that I'm suggesting is what i have tired to described that "this turn" on its own doesn't actually allow you to act out of turn but that it allows the continued acting in anyone's turn which would have had to be initiated by cards of the like of Enkil Cog for it to be able to happen out of turn...this is not going to be the most common of things and thus considered at the moment as probably not game breaking. > Ankha wrote: > To summarize: > There are multiple rules preventing an ally from acting during a turn: > 1/ it's not your minion phase > 2/ the ally is locked > 3/ the ally has been recruited this turn > > The sentence "Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited" only removes restriction 3/. > > I agree it's opened to discussion (6 pages already), but that's the official clarification. > The current official stand and rulings are clear. As i wrote above this is where i mean that the Nocturn text doesn´t by text alone only overrule nr 3 but also nr 1 as long as initiated by the likes of Enkil Cog. At the end of the day it is your prerogative and burden as the expert and appointed rules manager to decide and I'm just providing my way of seeing it for you to consider...as many considerations and view points as possible in a constructive way hopefully give you the means to take the best decision for this game that we all love.

> Ankha wrote: > By construction, the rulebook describes what the player can do, not what the player cannot do (unless it needs to put restrictions on something else it allows to do, for instance "minions can bleed" but "minions cannot bleed twice"), so there is no reason to write down "You cannot perform actions during other Methuselah's turns": if nothing allows it in the rulebook, it is forbidden, by default. > Indeed. However there is this little thing ahead of all other rules: > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > It is not specified what rules cards can or cannot break. Therefore it can be assumed that cardtext can overrule all rules. Saying that the aforementioned action rules could not be overruled by cardtext is paradoxical and confusing. At least I have no clue what rules can or cannot be broken by cardtext, if its not all of them. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Indeed. However there is this little thing ahead of all other rules: > > > > > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > > > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > > > > > > > > It is not specified what rules cards can or cannot break. Therefore it can be assumed that cardtext can overrule all rules. > > > SO much this! > Finnish Politics!

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > By construction, the rulebook describes what the player can do, not what the player cannot do (unless it needs to put restrictions on something else it allows to do, for instance "minions can bleed" but "minions cannot bleed twice"), so there is no reason to write down "You cannot perform actions during other Methuselah's turns": if nothing allows it in the rulebook, it is forbidden, by default. > > > Indeed. However there is this little thing ahead of all other rules: > > > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > > > It is not specified what rules cards can or cannot break. Therefore it can be assumed that cardtext can overrule all rules. > Sure. > Bloodartist wrote: > Saying that the aforementioned action rules could not be overruled by cardtext is paradoxical and confusing. At least I have no clue what rules can or cannot be broken by cardtext, if its not all of them. > Please re-read the thread and quote the relevant part. I don't know how you came to this conclusion. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> inm8 wrote: > > I do make a difference between the two because language wise there is one. This is what i have tried to convey. The ruling has sided with intention of design an not by the written word which is bound to happen and should if it is considered game breaking but it is also what makes it unclear for people that aren´t experts on the rulings which aren´t always the easiest to find. > The best would obviously be that the card texts conveyed exactly what it intended but it isn´t always the case. The scope that I'm suggesting is what i have tired to described that "this turn" on its own doesn't actually allow you to act out of turn but that it allows the continued acting in anyone's turn which would have had to be initiated by cards of the like of Enkil Cog for it to be able to happen out of turn...this is not going to be the most common of things and thus considered at the moment as probably not game breaking. > > > Ankha wrote: > > To summarize: > > There are multiple rules preventing an ally from acting during a turn: > > 1/ it's not your minion phase > > 2/ the ally is locked > > 3/ the ally has been recruited this turn > > > > The sentence "Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited" only removes restriction 3/. > > > > I agree it's opened to discussion (6 pages already), but that's the official clarification. > > > The current official stand and rulings are clear. As i wrote above this is where i mean that the Nocturn text doesn´t by text alone only overrule nr 3 but also nr 1 as long as initiated by the likes of Enkil Cog. > Any number of clarifications on a card text could NOT covers every single LITTLE things in the game. For example, the actual card text of nocturn could be understood that it could act during my discard phase because it is "the turn it is recruited" and by the golden rule of cards, nocturn card text takes priority above the rulebook. But no, it doesn't work this way and I don't see the need of putting that restriction on any card text nor the rulebook. And I emphasized the "little" in my sentence because let be honest, we are speaking of 2 allies who "can act the turn it is recruited" : Nocturn and Infernal Servitor and 2 cards which could allow to be recruited in another minion phase : Enkil Cog and Madness Network. And we have a total of 0 malkavian with and a total of 1 malkavian with (Petaniqua and she doesn't have any easy access to unlock). And using the unique out of turn action of a 10+ cap vampire with Enkil Cog to recruit a Nocturn or an Infernal Servitor is NOT something that would happen more than once in a thousand games... So I guess I understand the points made which are (if I understand correctly) : 1) it is not perfectly clear with only the card text and the rule book if the Nocturn is allowed to act OoT 2) it would not be gamebreaking to have it ruled that it would allow nocturn to act OoT And it had been answered (at length) : 1) yes but it had been clarified by a ruling like a thousand other points in this game that can't be put crystal clear in rules or card text 2) no it would not but it has been thought of by the rule authority and ruled otherwise. Regards...

> Timo wrote: Any number of clarifications on a card text could NOT covers every single LITTLE things in the game. > Agree with you on this that it isn´t possible for everything but in this case I'm of the opinion that the text should be taken for what it says. > Timo wrote: For example, the actual card text of nocturn could be understood that it could act during my discard phase because it is "the turn it is recruited" and by the golden rule of cards, nocturn card text takes priority above the rulebook. But no, it doesn't work this way and I don't see the need of putting that restriction on any card text nor the rulebook. > This is exactly what I'm saying that it should be able to do if you had a way of performing the recruit action during either your own or someone else's discard phase (which as far as i know doesn´t exist) or any other phase for that matter. > Timo wrote: And I emphasized the "little" in my sentence because let be honest, we are speaking of 2 allies who "can act the turn it is recruited" : Nocturn and Infernal Servitor and 2 cards which could allow to be recruited in another minion phase : Enkil Cog and Madness Network. > > And we have a total of 0 malkavian with and a total of 1 malkavian with (Petaniqua and she doesn't have any easy access to unlock). > > And using the unique out of turn action of a 10+ cap vampire with Enkil Cog to recruit a Nocturn or an Infernal Servitor is NOT something that would happen more than once in a thousand games... > There are more cards (some below) than just the mentioned two that use the wording of being able to act or do something "this turn" without mentioning further restrictions but which when related to acting are dependent of the likes of Enkil Cog or Madness Network (in the case of Nocturn at superior, only the first one would be dependent of ex Enkil Cog, it would allow further Nocturn to be recruited for an additional cost). It´s because of this dependency that it wouldn´t be game breaking. Dreams of the Sphinx Ennoia's Theater The Embrace Thin-Blooded Seer Tumnimos Waters of Duat > Timo wrote: So I guess I understand the points made which are (if I understand correctly) : > 1) it is not perfectly clear with only the card text and the rule book if the Nocturn is allowed to act OoT > > And it had been answered (at length) : > 1) yes but it had been clarified by a ruling like a thousand other points in this game that can't be put crystal clear in rules or card text > 2) no it would not but it has been thought of by the rule authority and ruled otherwise. > It would be clear, in my opinion, if the rulings aligned with the literal meaning of the text instead of contradicting it by aligning it with the intention of design (for some cards). There are plenty of cards with the text "During your xxxxx phase", limiting when those cards can be used which hasn't been the case on the above cards, clearly indicating when a card have had the need to be restricted to ones own turn/phases. If the text of Nocturn was to convey the intention of design it should have said : {During your minion phase Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.} Always easy to point out after the fact but the point that I'm trying to make is more how the handling of "this turn" cards should be handled and not so much arguing for Nocturn specifically. > Ankha wrote: I agree it's opened to discussion (6 pages already), but that's the official clarification. > Doing just that trying to influence the direction of handling of "this turn" cards in a way I believe to be good for the game. If nothing else to provide a different point of view. And who knows...this might open up an interesting design space in the game.

What I find totally confusing in your argument is that you accept, that there are certain things that are not overruled by the "this turn" phrasing. Why should this be restricted to the phase it was recruited in? Why should the rule, that you have to be unlocked to act, not be overruled? None of this is clearly answered by the cardtext. So there are a lot more subtleties that could arise if one tries to take the wording literally. I have not seen a good argument why one should be more clear than the other. So some ruling seems to be necessary either way - therefore I think following the design intent is better. Maybe this ruling should added to the General Rulings page, since there are multiple allies with this wording and I think it's possible, we'll see it in the future on more cards. Prince of Bonn, Germany

> Yomyael wrote: What I find totally confusing in your argument is that you accept, that there are certain things that are not overruled by the "this turn" phrasing. Why should this be restricted to the phase it was recruited in? Why should the rule, that you have to be unlocked to act, not be overruled? None of this is clearly answered by the cardtext. > Don’t know if it is a good argument or not but the reasoning i’m trying to argue for is that: Because there is a rule that says that “only ready unlocked minions can take an action” there needs to be explicit text that says that you can act while locked. Because there is a rule that says that “during your minion phase you may have your minions take actions” there needs to be explicit text that says that you can act out of turn. Because there is no rule that says that “this turn” is limited to your own and if the card text doesn’t have any such restriction it means literally it isn’t limited, also at the same time while the templating of “during your xxxx phase” is commonly used where I have to believe that it has been where deemed as need. Bottom line of my argument is that if there is a rule for something as per my reasoning there needs to be explicit text overruling it for it to be able to be ignored which in the case of “{Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited.}“: There is no text saying that it can act while locked and therefore can’t if that is the case. There is text saying that it can act this turn, without being limited to your own turn or phase, as long as it is the same turn that it was recruited. The recruitment that enables the text saying “act the turn it is recruited” aka “this turn” doesn’t overrule acting out of turn but enables the continued acting out of turn if initiated by a card saying an action can be taken during someone else’s turn or phase (Enkil Cog and Madness Network explicitly say “during any Methuselah's minion phase). If an action is taken with Enkil Cog during someone else’s minion phase ending with the minion in an unlocked state in itself doesn’t allow continued action taking nor initiation.

> inm8 wrote: > There is no text saying that it can act while locked and therefore can’t if that is the case. > There is text saying that it can act this turn, without being limited to your own turn or phase, as long as it is the same turn that it was recruited. > Sorry but I really don't understand the logic here (I begin to see these arguments as troll). On the one hand you say card text need to explicitly states that it can act even if locked for it to be allowed. On the other hand you discard the fact that nocturn card text doesn't explicitly states that it can act during someone else turn and decide that it can... You can't decide that because Enkil Cog allow a very specific vampire to act OoT, it will allow nocturn to act OoT also... I'll try to make another similarity : Grey Thorne uses make the misere "as a vampire with " in order to enter combat with a vampire and is not blocked. Grey Thorne would not be allowed to play a taste of vitae "as a vampire" even if it happens in the middle of an action granted by an action card which see him as a vampire.

Ain't there quite a few cards where they've been ruled to work as written (as opposed to designer intent)? With this it seems to be the other way around. It is mighty difficult to play the game where you need to know in which cases cards work as written and the instances where they work as designer intended. Finnish Politics!

> Timo wrote: Sorry but I really don't understand the logic here (I begin to see these arguments as troll). > Funny how because you don´t agree with something you classify it as trolling when i have done nothing but to try to explain my view without insulting nor name calling anyone. We don´t need to agree on this and it is completely fine by me. > Timo wrote: On the other hand you discard the fact that nocturn card text doesn't explicitly states that it can act during someone else turn and decide that it can... > As explained in my earlier post the part that allows it to act out of turn as per my logical argument is that its text states it can act this turn which doesn´t check for which or whos turn it is and that that text only gets to become relevant to allow continued acting when initiated by a card explicitly saying an action can happen out of turn. > Timo wrote: Grey Thorne uses make the misere "as a vampire with " in order to enter combat with a vampire and is not blocked. > Grey Thorne would not be allowed to play a taste of vitae "as a vampire" even if it happens in the middle of an action granted by an action card which see him as a vampire. > Really don´t see how this clarifies anything or how this would be the same or similar situation. The text of Grey Thorne is explicitly limited to that only cards that require one of the specified disciplines would consider him as if he was an Anarch Vampire. This clearly conveys that cards that don't require disciplines or requires disciplines other than the mentioned ones won´t consider Grey Thorne as anything else than what he is which is an ally. Therefore Taste of Vitae cannot be used as it requires no disciplines to be played and explicitly says this vampire gains blood excluding non-vampires from being able to use it. Name: Grey Thorne [TR:R] Cardtype: Ally Cost: 2 blood Unique ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. Requires an anarch. Grey may play cards that require Celerity [cel] or Potence [pot] as an {A}narch vampire. During your unlock phase, if Grey has only 1 life, any ready anarch may burn a blood to add 1 life to him. Artist: Matt Dixon Name: Make the Misere [AU:C] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Celerity/Obfuscate/Potence Requires an anarch. More than one discipline can be used to play this card. Enter combat with a locked minion. [cel] This anarch gets 1 optional maneuver during that combat. [obf] This action is at +1 stealth. [pot] This anarch gets +1 strength during that combat. Artist: Grzegorz Bobrowski Name: Taste of Vitae [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, SW:PB, CE:U/PB2/PN, BH:PN2, KMW:PAn2, LoB:PO2, Third:PB2, LotN:PG2, KoT:U/PB3/PT3] Cardtype: Combat Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to the amount lost by the opposing vampire to damage during this round. A vampire may play only one Taste of Vitae each round. Artist: Pete Venters; Brian LeBlanc

> inm8 wrote: > > > Timo wrote: Sorry but I really don't understand the logic here (I begin to see these arguments as troll). > > > Funny how because you don´t agree with something you classify it as trolling when i have done nothing but to try to explain my view without insulting nor name calling anyone. We don´t need to agree on this and it is completely fine by me. > In my mouth, calling someone a troll is not name calling and I apologize if it has been understood this way. I just don't understand the logic in your arguments (I am not saying there is none). At this point, I guess we can agree we disagree.

The ambiguity of the "can act the turn it is recruited" has been discussed and ruled. I think the ruling makes sense, Ankha's argument were clear and on point. Off-turn Nocturns may not be overpowered, but please also consider that the ruling here must also apply to Infernal Servitor, an already powerful piece of the whole Unnamed/Enkil Cog/Homunculus combo. Maybe if anyone could come up with a clearer (but not longer) card text to replace the "can act the turn it is recruited" idiom, that would be best, but I have not seen a proposal yet, nor have I one myself. Infernal Servitor Requires an infernal vampire. Infernal Servitor can act the turn it is recruited. Remove it from the game if you control no infernal vampires, or after it performs a successful action. As above, and the Servitor can play cards requiring basic Daimoinon and/or Obfuscate as a vampire.

> lip wrote: The ambiguity of the "can act the turn it is recruited" has been discussed and ruled. I think the ruling makes sense, Ankha's argument were clear and on point. > Fully agree > Ankha wrote: > > > > Snodig wrote: > > > > > > Lönkka wrote: Yeah, out of turn Nocturn probably ain't game breaking... > > > > > > Would be clearer to let them act on the turn they are recruited. You know, because of the card text. > > > > > > (Also worth noticing is that when recruited out of turn they have shorter life span than usually). > > > > > > > > All strong points. I wouldn’t mind it being ruled this way. > > > I'll consider it. > The fact that the text is ambiguous and that Ankha is considering if to change the ruling or make it more clear (somehow) are good reasons for everyone to present their arguments and points of views which they think are good for the game. Highlighting the pros, cons and any potential loopholes being opened up to break or abuse the game is in everyone's interest. > lip wrote: Off-turn Nocturns may not be overpowered, but please also consider that the ruling here must also apply to Infernal Servitor, an already powerful piece of the whole Unnamed/Enkil Cog/Homunculus combo. > How is this more powerful than having Unnamed acting/bleeding on his own? He can do more damage than Infernal Servitor. Is it because of not risking an encounter with Unnamed him self and another minion?

> lip wrote: > ... > > Maybe if anyone could come up with a clearer (but not longer) card text to replace the "can act the turn it is recruited" idiom, that would be best, but I have not seen a proposal yet, nor have I one myself. ... > The "not longer" part is a tall order considering "Nocturn can act the turn it is recruited." has to include Nocturn (name), can, act, turn and recruited by default and the rest is needed to form grammatically correct sentence. It's 41 characters in total with spaces included, aka cardspace used. Shortest addition I can see that is aligned with the ruling and prevents off turn mistakes is "When If recruited on controllers owners turn, Nocturn it can act." yet that still means 52 50 45 40 characters or cardspace, with spaces included ofc. EDIT: And there it is; "If recruited on owners turn, it can act." shorter version by cheating and removing the name of the card to instead use "it" in similar fashion as say Shambling Hordes does. With Nocturn this can be accomplished by moving sentence "Nocturn can play non-ally cards {requiring} basic Obtenebration [obt] as a vampire." on top and having the follow up sentence with "it" reference that sentence. For Infernal Servitor the task is easier as it's shortened to "servitor" on superior part already and therefore while the inferior part has to be "If recruited on owners turn, Infernal Servitor can act.", the "servitor" bit on superior is shortened to "it" therefore making up card space. Feel free to ponder what ramifications that proposed wording entails compared to current one. Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.