If a vampire play Superior Thoughts Betrayed, can an oppsing Shadow Court Satyr use the hability of the card that was put on him if that card was an strike card?
Name: Thoughts Betrayed
[DS:C2, SW:PV, FN:PG, CE:PTr2, Third:C]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 2 blood
Discipline: Dominate
Only usable before range is determined on the first round.
[DOM] Opposing minion cannot play any strike cards for the duration of this combat.
Name: Shadow Court Satyr
AKA: Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling)
[Sabbat:R, SW:R, Third:R]
Cardtype: Ally
Clan: Gangrel antitribu
Cost: 3 pool
Changeling with 3 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed.
When the Satyr enters play, you {can} put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr {can} use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he {can} use it as a vampire with the basic level of {1 of} the Discipline{(s)} (if any).
Cards on SCS are played, cf. Target Vitals can be canceled. Thought Betrayed prevents the playing of strike cards, therefore it would prevent SCS from using its combat card to strike.
> kschaefer wrote:
> Cards on SCS are played, cf. Target Vitals can be canceled. Thought Betrayed prevents the playing of strike cards, therefore it would prevent SCS from using its combat card to strike.
>
Correct.
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/5KVz6HCzjRs/m/mB9wnoLCinYJ
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
@ankha How do you reconcile this ruling with the previous ruling from 2001 that says Direct Intervention cannot be played against the combat card?
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/x2EdFtlPs8Q/m/IPCbfV2Qct0J
A. You can cancel Target Vitals and any aim card as it is played using the card text option offered by those cards, but you cannot play another effect to cancel a card as it is played (eg. Direct Intervention)
B. You can cancel the combat card as it is played in all cases (REVERSAL of the 2001 ruling)
> lip wrote:
> @ankha How do you reconcile this ruling with the previous ruling from 2001 that says Direct Intervention cannot be played against the combat card?
> groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/x2EdFtlPs8Q/m/IPCbfV2Qct0J
>
> A. You can cancel Target Vitals and any aim card as it is played using the card text option offered by those cards, but you cannot play another effect to cancel a card as it is played (eg. Direct Intervention)
> B. You can cancel the combat card as it is played in all cases (REVERSAL of the 2001 ruling)
>
I think the reasons are two-fold;
1) Direct Intervention and other "cancel as played" effects provided by playing a card to cancel another have been ruled to only be applicable to cards played "normally" from hand.
2) The canceling option of Target Vitals is provided by the effect being played itself and thus not subject to the restriction of 1).
> inm8 wrote:
>
> > lip wrote:
> > @ankha How do you reconcile this ruling with the previous ruling from 2001 that says Direct Intervention cannot be played against the combat card?
> > groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/x2EdFtlPs8Q/m/IPCbfV2Qct0J
> >
> > A. You can cancel Target Vitals and any aim card as it is played using the card text option offered by those cards, but you cannot play another effect to cancel a card as it is played (eg. Direct Intervention)
> > B. You can cancel the combat card as it is played in all cases (REVERSAL of the 2001 ruling)
> >
> I think the reasons are two-fold;
> 1) Direct Intervention and other "cancel as played" effects provided by playing a card to cancel another have been ruled to only be applicable to cards played "normally" from hand.
> 2) The canceling option of Target Vitals is provided by the effect being played itself and thus not subject to the restriction of 1).
>
Correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director