Rules Q: Change of Target & Hidden Lurker

I can't seem to find the answer to this in the rules and rulings. If a vampire acts and is successfully blocked through normal means, can its Methuselah first play Change of Target to cancel the action and then Hidden Lurker to create a combat between another of his vampires and the blocker? Change of Target is played after an action is successfully blocked before combat begins and "cancels the action and combat". Hidden Lurker states that it can be played "after the action is blocked and combat is over". The action was certainly blocked and it would happen after the issue of combat was resolved but no combat had actually taken place. I can see arguments against this being legal but nothing that strikes me as a slam-dunk because one could think of a "canceled combat" as being a combat that's now "over". Anyone? (Of course, looking for LSJ's confirmation, too.) Fred

In article <3B19A3BC...@netcom.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] If combat never happened, combat can't possibly be over. You can't Hidden Lurker unless its condition (combat resulting from a block) is met. This doesn't happen when Change of Target, Obedience, Kiss of Ra, or Brujah Frenzy are played. gomi -- the direction of the eye so misleading the corruption of the soul nauseously quick

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <3B19A3BC...@netcom.com>, > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > >I can't seem to find the answer to this in the rules and rulings. > > > >If a vampire acts and is successfully blocked through normal means, > >can its Methuselah first play Change of Target to cancel the action > >and then Hidden Lurker to create a combat between another of his > >vampires and the blocker? > > > >Change of Target is played after an action is successfully blocked > >before combat begins and "cancels the action and combat". Hidden Lurker > >states that it can be played "after the action is blocked and combat > >is over". The action was certainly blocked and it would happen after > >the issue of combat was resolved but no combat had actually taken place. > >I can see arguments against this being legal but nothing that strikes me > >as a slam-dunk because one could think of a "canceled combat" as being a > >combat that's now "over". > > If combat never happened, combat can't possibly be over. Well, yea, that's the argument against it I was already considering. It's just kind of a semantic argument, IMO. What I was looking for was a reference in the rules or rulings that state explicitly that "canceled combats" don't count as combat for purposes of action mods and reactions that must take place after a combat. > You can't Hidden Lurker unless its condition (combat resulting from a > block) is met. This doesn't happen when Change of Target, Obedience, > Kiss of Ra, or Brujah Frenzy are played. Playing Devil's advocate (I don't actually have that much of a stake in this except to sort out what principals, if any, come into play here) I might suggest that it isn't actually a condition that combat resulting from block occurred in order to play Hidden Lurker. As I said, Hidden Lurker's text only states that it is played "after the action is blocked and combat is over". I agree that that seems to imply the action must have been blocked, but the "combat is over" part might be taken to just mean that the timing of Hidden Lurker needs to take place after the issue of combat has been disposed of, similar to Cat's Guidance and Freak Drive at superior. It's not always clear which phrases and wording in card text imply necessary conditions to play the card and which ones simply are intended to delineate the timing of a card in fairly clear, simple terms. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any kind of a guideline in the rules and rulings that address this piece directly. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > > >I can't seem to find the answer to this in the rules and rulings. > > > > > >If a vampire acts and is successfully blocked through normal means, > > >can its Methuselah first play Change of Target to cancel the action > > >and then Hidden Lurker to create a combat between another of his > > >vampires and the blocker? > > If combat never happened, combat can't possibly be over. > Well, yea, that's the argument against it I was already considering. It's > just kind of a semantic argument, IMO. What I was looking for was a reference > in the rules or rulings that state explicitly that "canceled combats" don't > count as combat for purposes of action mods and reactions that must take place > after a combat. OK: You have to enter combat before combat can be over. If combat is canceled before being entered, then neither minion is considered to have been in the canceled combat. > > You can't Hidden Lurker unless its condition (combat resulting from a > > block) is met. This doesn't happen when Change of Target, Obedience, > > Kiss of Ra, or Brujah Frenzy are played. > > Playing Devil's advocate (I don't actually have that much of a stake in this > except to sort out what principals, if any, come into play here) I might suggest > that it isn't actually a condition that combat resulting from block occurred in > order to play Hidden Lurker. As I said, Hidden Lurker's text only states that > it is played "after the action is blocked and combat is over". I agree that that > seems to imply the action must have been blocked, but the "combat is over" part > might be taken to just mean that the timing of Hidden Lurker needs to take place > after the issue of combat has been disposed of, similar to Cat's Guidance and > Freak Drive at superior. Fair enough. Except that Cats' Guidance puts the "after combat" part in parentheses with the additional "if any" to drive the point home. Freak Drive doesn't mention combat. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/