Can "Inscription" be played by a non-Banu Haqim to put this equipment with a copy of "Hunger of Marduk" on a non-Banu Haqim?
And can the latter use this copy?
I guess the answer is "yes" in both cases, because "put" and "use" usually circumvent clan requirements, but I would like to be sure.
Thanks in advance!
Inscription
Cardtype: Equipment
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Equipment.
[tha] Put this equipment on a ready vampire and put a card that requires Blood Sorcery [tha] from your hand on it (face up, out of play; this acting vampire pays the cost of that card). The vampire with this equipment can burn this equipment to use the basic Blood Sorcery ability of that card.
[THA] As above, but the vampire can use the superior Blood Sorcery [THA] ability of the card.
Hunger of Marduk
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Banu Haqim
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Only usable before range is determined.
[tha] This round, this vampire can strike, ranged: steal 1 blood or life (becoming blood).
[THA] As above, but for 2 blood or life (becoming blood).
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
No. The only requirement that is obviated is Blood Sorcery.
See this LSJ ruling: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/RQBw8EnnD5s/m/NpdTwIuChy8J
@Ankha: Would you please confirm this ruling?
I know it was done by LSJ, but to be honest I do not understand why clan requirement is not circumvented in this case.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> @Ankha: Would you please confirm this ruling?
> I know it was done by LSJ, but to be honest I do not understand why clan requirement is not circumvented in this case.
>
Still hoping for a (detailed) answer.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
This ruling is off in my opinion and should be reversed… LSJ ruled that explicitly written requirements in the card text couldn’t be ignored which makes sense, but this ruling is changing how requirements on the attribute bar are handled for cards in play which doesn’t make sense.
For the card to work as ruled here consider the requirements on the attribute bar it would need explicit text saying something like “play the card as if from your hand.” which it doesn’t.
** updated the text as a ruling hasn´t actually been given...don´t know where I got that notion from...
> inm8 wrote:
> This ruling is off in my opinion and should be reversed… LSJ ruled that explicitly written requirements in the card text couldn’t be ignored which makes sense, but this ruling is changing how requirements on the attribute bar are handled for cards in play which doesn’t make sense.
> For the card to work as ruled here it would need explicit text saying something like “play the card as if from your hand.” which it doesn’t.
>
I disagree about anything needing to be changed from the card.
Vampire with inscription is not playing the hunger of marduk. They are using an ability on the inscription (which copies the ability from the inscribed card). Since they are not playing the hunger of marduk, the play requirements do not matter.
Putting a card on inscription doesn't have any other requirements than blood sorcery (thaumaturgy), thus hunger of marduk can be put there.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I didn't suggest the card needed changing and highlighted only what it would need to be for the given ruling to be applicable. requirements on the attribute bar to be considered
What I am suggesting is that the ruling regarding the need to fulfill requirements from the attribute bar that Ankha has given here should be reversed
** updated the text as a ruling hasn´t actually been given...don´t know where I got that notion from...
> inm8 wrote:
> What I am suggesting is that the ruling regarding the need to fulfill requirements from the attribute bar that Ankha has given here should be reversed
>
The LSJ ruling was provided by Karl.
I am still waiting for Vincent to verify or falsify that ruling. (I guess he is taking a deep rules dive before doing so.)
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> > What I am suggesting is that the ruling regarding the need to fulfill requirements from the attribute bar that Ankha has given here should be reversed
> >
> The LSJ ruling was provided by Karl.
> I am still waiting for Vincent to verify or falsify that ruling. (I guess he is taking a deep rules dive before doing so.)
>
Thanks for highlighting my error... updated my previous posts...don´t know where I got the notion that a ruling had been given from...
Is a ruling in the works for below (it has been a while already)??
> Hakuron wrote:
> Can "Inscription" be played by a non-Banu Haqim to put this equipment with a copy of "Hunger of Marduk" on a non-Banu Haqim?
> And can the latter use this copy?
>
> inm8 wrote:
> Is a ruling in the works for below (it has been a while already)??
>
> > Hakuron wrote:
> > Can "Inscription" be played by a non-Banu Haqim to put this equipment with a copy of "Hunger of Marduk" on a non-Banu Haqim?
> > And can the latter use this copy?
> >
I e-mailed Vincent a few days ago and he confirmed the need of doing a deep rules dive.
Edit: I assume this means we could actually see a reversal of the old ruling. Announcing a reversal means you need to be 100% sure about it, since a reversal of a reversal would not be appreciated.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
Aren't the oxygen reserves gradually running out?
By which I mean: Wouldn't it be about time for an answer?
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
If things are THAT complicated, would it be possible to get a preliminary answer at least?
In case a player asked me my question on a tournament next weekend, which answer would be the best, to a first approximation, until you announce a final ruling?
Should I provide that player with LSJ's old ruling quoted by Karl, even though it feels counterintuitive to me? Or is there sufficient reason to believe that the restrictions are actually being circumvented because of the wording?
Please.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
If there is a ruling from a rules director, always use that until a reversal is announced. Reversals takes 30 days to go "live" anyway.
In this case, we have LSJ's ruling. So, you should use it.
> kschaefer wrote:
> If there is a ruling from a rules director, always use that until a reversal is announced. Reversals takes 30 days to go "live" anyway.
>
> In this case, we have LSJ's ruling. So, you should use it.
>
Well, if a reversal takes 30 days to become effective, I would need it soon if I wanted to benefit from it on a tournament dated 17th of September ...
(However, in the meantime I got a deck idea in my mind which looks more promising.)
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> kschaefer wrote:
> No. The only requirement that is obviated is Blood Sorcery.
>
> See this LSJ ruling: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/RQBw8EnnD5s/m/NpdTwIuChy8J
>
No reversal for now, this ruling stands.
We'll probably rewrite Inscription someday.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> No reversal for now, this ruling stands.
>
LSJ´s ruling is a contradiction to the fact that requirements are only relevant when "playing" a card and that they don´t apply when using a card.
This ruling insinuates that for example, only a Banu Haqim could make use of the effect provided by Path of Blood to take the action to burn it (i.e. the requirement of the card must be met to use its effect) which we all know is not the case.
I question the choice of keeping the ruling when it clearly is wrong, it would be better to at least issue a new ruling in its place.
Furthermore, seems to me counterintuitive that requirements are ignored when one gets to "put a card" on Inscription but has to meet them when using its effect... in other games, inscription is commonly used for the purpose of allowing a one-time use of an effect one normally doesn't master/meet the requirements for.
The Path of Blood
Cardtype: Master
Clan: Banu Haqim
Cost: 1 pool
Unique.
Put this card in play. Cards requiring Quietus [qui] cost Banu Haqim 1 fewer blood. Any minion can burn this card as a action that inflicts 1 unpreventable environmental damage on acting vampires.
I do agree with inm8 in that LSJ ruling is contradictory to the card text.
The text says:
"The vampire with this equipment can burn this equipment to use the basic Blood Sorcery ability of that card."
It says "use" not "play". If requirements only apply when playing a card, then the requirements should not apply here. You are not playing the card from the inscription, you are using an ability on the card: inscription.
If the intent was different, inscription should say: "vampire with this equipment may play that card as if they had basic thaumaturgy blood sorcery".
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
From the rulebook
> Requirements for Playing Cards
>
> Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan, or Discipline (if any) required to play the card, and the cost (if any) of playing that card.
>
> Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, whereas only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
>
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > kschaefer wrote:
> > No. The only requirement that is obviated is Blood Sorcery.
> >
> > See this LSJ ruling: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/RQBw8EnnD5s/m/NpdTwIuChy8J
> >
> No reversal for now, this ruling stands.
> We'll probably rewrite Inscription someday.
>
Would you mind to elaborate on the reasonings behind the decision resp. your comment?
It would be of great help (not only) to me.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > kschaefer wrote:
> > > No. The only requirement that is obviated is Blood Sorcery.
> > >
> > > See this LSJ ruling: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/RQBw8EnnD5s/m/NpdTwIuChy8J
> > >
> > No reversal for now, this ruling stands.
> > We'll probably rewrite Inscription someday.
> >
> Would you mind to elaborate on the reasonings behind the decision resp. your comment?
> It would be of great help (not only) to me.
>
It's a global ruling about "using" a card vs "playing" a card.
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/g7KzVg2xLwk/m/caVhAlgfnE8J
I'll try to remove that distinction that isn't very intuitive, but it requires more work than just changing one card.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Thank you!
Follow-up questions:
Could nevertheless "Hunger of Marduk" be "inscriptioned" = put on a non-Banu Haqim, even though that vampire could not use it?
If yes, could only a Banu Haqim do so or any vampire with Blood Sorcery?
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
Yes, a non-Banu Haqim can put Hunger of Marduk on Inscription that is put on a non-Banu Haqim because Hunger of Marduk is not "played" but "put" on Inscription which means it doesn't check requirements (similar was ruled in the LSJ ruling regarding Diversion that requires an Anarch, the part that makes sense).
> inm8 wrote:
> Yes, a non-Banu Haqim can put Hunger of Marduk on Inscription that is put on a non-Banu Haqim because Hunger of Marduk is not "played" but "put" on Inscription which means it doesn't check requirements (similar was ruled in the LSJ ruling regarding Diversion that requires an Anarch, the part that makes sense).
>
Correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director