2 questions
Kenneth
StH considered an action. If not, wouldn't it then be possible for a
tapped vampire to burn this card?
I understand that "Burst of Sunlight" damage is considered enviromental
on the minion casting it, and is therfore not preventable by equipment
and many fortitude cards. So just to see if I understand this correctly,
how does a S:CE effect the minion playing BoS? I would say he still
takes whatever enviromental damage is coming to him, but several players
in my group disagree strongly on this. I would think it followed the
same rulings as with the dodge issue?
-Kenneth
jeroen rombouts
> I understand that "Burst of Sunlight" damage is considered enviromental
> on the minion casting it, and is therfore not preventable by equipment
> and many fortitude cards.
FYI, Flak jacket can prevent an inferior BoS. Most fortitude cards actually
can prevent this damage, only those that say 'from a strike' are the
exceptions.
>So just to see if I understand this correctly,
> how does a S:CE effect the minion playing BoS? I would say he still
> takes whatever enviromental damage is coming to him, but several players
> in my group disagree strongly on this. I would think it followed the
> same rulings as with the dodge issue?
>
your playgroup's right. From the rulebook:
"Combat Ends: This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is
always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike,
and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt.
Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a
dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging
minion."
Jeroen
Kenneth
jeroen rombouts wrote:
> FYI, Flak jacket can prevent an inferior BoS. Most fortitude cards actually
> can prevent this damage, only those that say 'from a strike' are the
> exceptions.
>
Yes, Flak Jacket can, Leather Jacket can't. Skin of Steel and Superior Mettle
are e.g. of cards that wouldn't prevent. No problem here.
>
> >So just to see if I understand this correctly,
> > how does a S:CE effect the minion playing BoS? I would say he still
> > takes whatever enviromental damage is coming to him, but several players
> > in my group disagree strongly on this. I would think it followed the
> > same rulings as with the dodge issue?
> >
> your playgroup's right. From the rulebook...
I guess they are. I think the environmental damage thing had me comparing to say
Weather Control and Blood to Water, but these are of course not strikes. My
mistake.
What about a grenade that gets a S:CE? No damage, but the grenade will be burnt?
-Kenneth
LSJ
>
> Concerning "Slaughtering the Herd"; is the 4 blood burned for removing
> StH considered an action. If not, wouldn't it then be possible for a
No.
> tapped vampire to burn this card?
Yes.
> I understand that "Burst of Sunlight" damage is considered enviromental
> on the minion casting it, and is therfore not preventable by equipment
> and many fortitude cards. So just to see if I understand this correctly,
Only equipment and fortitude (and others) that prevent damage "from a strike".
> how does a S:CE effect the minion playing BoS? I would say he still
It ends combat before any damage is done.
> takes whatever enviromental damage is coming to him, but several players
> in my group disagree strongly on this. I would think it followed the
> same rulings as with the dodge issue?
No, per 6.4.5
--
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/
LSJ
> What about a grenade that gets a S:CE? No damage, but the grenade will be burnt?
No, since it is not used.
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>> Concerning "Slaughtering the Herd"; is the 4 blood burned for removing
>> StH considered an action. If not, wouldn't it then be possible for a
>
>No.
>
>> tapped vampire to burn this card?
>
>Yes.
So could a vamp in combat pay the blood cost to avoid a Disarm being
played on him? And thus avoid going to Torpor?
Or does the Disarm take effect, send him to torpor as played, and then
he has the option of burning the disarm?
T
LSJ
> So could a vamp in combat pay the blood cost to avoid a Disarm being
> played on him? And thus avoid going to Torpor?
No. He could pay the blood cost to remove the Disarm. There is
no "avoid receiving Disarm" option.
> Or does the Disarm take effect, send him to torpor as played, and then
> he has the option of burning the disarm?
This.
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>Kenneth wrote:
>> What about a grenade that gets a S:CE? No damage, but the grenade will be burnt?
>
>No, since it is not used.
>
Eh?
So if I throw a grenade and opponent SCE, I somehow didnt throw the
grenade now?
Hey if thats the case, no one should ever have to burn blood for
strikes vs SCE, retrieve the card used, etc etc.
Pls explain.
T
James Coupe
>So if I throw a grenade and opponent SCE, I somehow didnt throw the
>grenade now?
This burning is done when the strike resolves. Interrupting strike
resolution prior to the resolution prevents this.
This is a facet of a number of rules, rather than real life comparisons.
Jyhad is a card game based on rules which, once established, may
interact in mildly odd but legally consistent fashions.
>Hey if thats the case, no one should ever have to burn blood for
>strikes vs SCE, retrieve the card used, etc etc.
These costs and burning are done when the card is played.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
LSJ
> >> What about a grenade that gets a S:CE? No damage, but the grenade will be burnt?
> >
> >No, since it is not used.
>
> grenade now?
That's correct. You announced your intention to throw the grenade
(you announced your strike). You don't throw the grenade until
strike resolution. S:CE ends combat before that happens.
> Hey if thats the case, no one should ever have to burn blood for
> strikes vs SCE, retrieve the card used, etc etc.
Not true. Card costs are paid when played (action cards excepted).
Don't confuse announcing the strike with resolving the strike.
Nystulc
>> grenade now?
>
>That's correct. You announced your intention to throw the grenade
>(you announced your strike). You don't throw the grenade until
>strike resolution. S:CE ends combat before that happens.
This, btw, is thematically correct, at least as regards Majesty. You are so
awed by the individuals presence that you are unable to follow through with
your intentions to attack. But your awesome beauty will not protect you from a
grenade that actually strikes.
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>> So could a vamp in combat pay the blood cost to avoid a Disarm being
>> played on him? And thus avoid going to Torpor?
>
>No. He could pay the blood cost to remove the Disarm. There is
>no "avoid receiving Disarm" option.
>
That sounds right, but I asked because the card actually says 'pay x
blood to burn this card' not remove it.
But assuming a strict sequence of play, putting the card on the
vampire, then going to torpor then activating the blood cost to remove
would be correct.
T
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3c7369cb.40472637@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes:
>>So if I throw a grenade and opponent SCE, I somehow didnt throw the
>>grenade now?
>
>This burning is done when the strike resolves. Interrupting strike
>resolution prior to the resolution prevents this.
>
>
Well actually its burnt after use. I can certainly see the SCE
voiding the damage to both minions(if at close) as the damage stage is
never achieved.
But there is no 'burn temporary equipment' phase in combat.
If you use the grenade as a strike, it shoudl be burnt after that use
as per card text.
T
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 06:29:39 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> >Kenneth wrote:
>> >> What about a grenade that gets a S:CE? No damage, but the grenade will be burnt?
>> >
>> >No, since it is not used.
>>
>> So if I throw a grenade and opponent SCE, I somehow didnt throw the
>> grenade now?
>
>That's correct. You announced your intention to throw the grenade
>(you announced your strike). You don't throw the grenade until
>strike resolution. S:CE ends combat before that happens.
>
>> Hey if thats the case, no one should ever have to burn blood for
>> strikes vs SCE, retrieve the card used, etc etc.
>
>Not true. Card costs are paid when played (action cards excepted).
>Don't confuse announcing the strike with resolving the strike.
>
Ah that's a better explanation. Thank you.
T
James Coupe
>>This burning is done when the strike resolves. Interrupting strike
>>resolution prior to the resolution prevents this.
>>
>>
>
>Well actually its burnt after use.
Which cannot occur until the strike resolves. Ergo, it occurs during
strike resolution.
Shaun McIsaac
LSJ wrote:
> Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 06:29:39 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> > >Kenneth wrote:
> > >> What about a grenade that gets a S:CE? No damage, but the grenade will be burnt?
> > >
> > >No, since it is not used.
> >
> > So if I throw a grenade and opponent SCE, I somehow didnt throw the
> > grenade now?
>
> That's correct. You announced your intention to throw the grenade
> (you announced your strike). You don't throw the grenade until
> strike resolution.
Seems more like the grenade should go off then, having already been thrown. Throwing a
grenade doesn't do damage (well maybe with a lot of POT), it's what the grenade does
after being thrown.
> S:CE ends combat before that happens.
True, but then if someone 'intends' to burning wrath they could use the same logic to get
out of paying for it.
> > Hey if thats the case, no one should ever have to burn blood for
> > strikes vs SCE, retrieve the card used, etc etc.
> Not true. Card costs are paid when played (action cards excepted).
> Don't confuse announcing the strike with resolving the strike.
Right, it's just odd that grenade (and bomb, I assume) interact in a different way than
other costed strikes in this respect.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > That's correct. You announced your intention to throw the grenade
> > (you announced your strike). You don't throw the grenade until
> > strike resolution.
>
> Seems more like the grenade should go off then, having already been thrown. Throwing a
> grenade doesn't do damage (well maybe with a lot of POT), it's what the grenade does
> after being thrown.
It hasn't been thrown.
It doesn't get thrown until strike resolution.
See my quote above.
Announcing the intention to throw it is not the same as throwing it.
> > S:CE ends combat before that happens.
>
> True, but then if someone 'intends' to burning wrath they could use the same logic to get
> out of paying for it.
Not true. Card costs are paid when played.
See my quote below.
> > > Hey if thats the case, no one should ever have to burn blood for
> > > strikes vs SCE, retrieve the card used, etc etc.
> > Not true. Card costs are paid when played (action cards excepted).
> > Don't confuse announcing the strike with resolving the strike.
>
> Right, it's just odd that grenade (and bomb, I assume) interact in a different way than
> other costed strikes in this respect.
Grenade is not a costed strike.
It doesn't cost anything to choose Grenade as your strike. (card text)
Grenade is burned on use, not on selection.
tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C6E3800...@white-wolf.com...
> Shaun McIsaac wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > That's correct. You announced your intention to throw the grenade
> > > (you announced your strike). You don't throw the grenade until
> > > strike resolution.
> It hasn't been thrown.
> It doesn't get thrown until strike resolution.
> See my quote above.
> Announcing the intention to throw it is not the same as throwing it.
>
> > > S:CE ends combat before that happens.
<snip>
So, for instance, under a drawing out the beast i can announce the
"intention"
to strike ("use") with a weapon (say, grenade), and then cancel my strike
with a superior primal instinct, remaing in the legal field, since
i "use" (forbidden by DotB's text) that weapon only when the strikes are
resolved..?
This rule seems a bit odd, imho:
worse, that blocking nice ahrimane Howler could attempt to strike with an
ivory bow, and then
it's controller
could play a rotschreck, and since the combat ends howler didn't "used" the
ivory bow?
A weapon, or an equipment,
should be considered "used" when someone attempts to "use" it, no matter
what the strike(s) will say later....
Just my thought
Emiliano , vekn prince of Rome
> --
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>worse, that blocking nice ahrimane Howler could attempt to strike with an
>ivory bow, and then
>it's controller
>could play a rotschreck, and since the combat ends howler didn't "used" the
>ivory bow?
They are prohibited from using it by Drawing out the Beast. Hence they
cannot declare a strike with it. (You can't declare a strike you can't
use e.g. under the influence of a Hidden Lurker.)
There is no such prohibition on use in the Grenade/Majesty situation.
LSJ
> > It doesn't get thrown until strike resolution.
> > See my quote above.
> > Announcing the intention to throw it is not the same as throwing it.
> >
> "intention"
> to strike ("use") with a weapon (say, grenade), and then cancel my strike
> with a superior primal instinct, remaing in the legal field, since
> i "use" (forbidden by DotB's text) that weapon only when the strikes are
> resolved..?
No. You cannot attempt an action you cannot pay for or that you do not
meet the requirements for or that you are prohibited from performing.
Likewise strikes (and everything else).
> This rule seems a bit odd, imho:
>
> worse, that blocking nice ahrimane Howler could attempt to strike with an
> ivory bow, and then
> it's controller
> could play a rotschreck, and since the combat ends howler didn't "used" the
> ivory bow?
No. Cannot attempt what you cannot do.
> A weapon, or an equipment,
> should be considered "used" when someone attempts to "use" it, no matter
> what the strike(s) will say later....
No, inherently.
tetragrammaton
<snip>
<snip>
> No. Cannot attempt what you cannot do.
Howler cannot "use" weapons.
Howler do not "use" the actual weapon until
the strike with that weapon is resolved, then.
At least this i can read about "use" a weapon from your statement above.
> > A weapon, or an equipment,
> > should be considered "used" when someone attempts to "use" it, no matter
> > what the strike(s) will say later....
>
> No, inherently.
Sorry to insist, but your point here seems still weak to me.
Grenade reads <burn after "use"> that is, in your version here:
you "use" (and therefore "burn") the grenade a when the "strikes are
resolved",
you do not "use" the grenade when you declare the strike with it,
as you pointed above.
So, i can't see what prohibits, say, Howler from declaring a strike with the
ivory
bow (which is not considered "using" it).
Clarify, please.
Thanks in advance
Emiliano
> --
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Howler cannot "use" weapons.
>Howler do not "use" the actual weapon until
> the strike with that weapon is resolved, then.
>At least this i can read about "use" a weapon from your statement above.
A declaration of a strike is a declaration that you are going to use
that weapon.
Since you cannot use that weapon, you cannot make that declaration.
tetragrammaton
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9+6bkwA7...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <19xb8.5913$8F6.3...@twister2.libero.it>, tetragrammaton
> <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Howler cannot "use" weapons.
> >Howler do not "use" the actual weapon until
> > the strike with that weapon is resolved, then.
> >At least this i can read about "use" a weapon from your statement above.
>
> A declaration of a strike is a declaration that you are going to use
> that weapon.
>
> Since you cannot use that weapon, you cannot make that declaration.
Ah, but i cannot use the weapon "lately", not when i declare
the strike, since when i declare the strike i'm not "using" the weapon.
As long as declaring does not mean "using" it,
howler can "declare" the strike with the ivory bow,
and then cancel it via a superior primal instinct or rotscheck, having them
in hand.
Imho, i can't see how this can be illegal, given the actual rulings here,
and given the official rules.
Emiliano
> --
Halcyan 2
>the strike, since when i declare the strike i'm not "using" the weapon.
>As long as declaring does not mean "using" it,
>howler can "declare" the strike with the ivory bow,
>and then cancel it via a superior primal instinct or rotscheck, having them
>in hand.
>Imho, i can't see how this can be illegal, given the actual rulings here,
>and given the official rules.
As LSJ and Mr. Coupe have already said, you cannot attempt to do something if
you are prohibited from doing it.
1.) I cannot attempt an action that costs 2 blood if my vampire has only 1
blood. Even if I *plan* to get blocked, Taste of Vitae a few blood back, and
then Form of Mist (so I now have the 2 blood). This is not legal.
2.) I can not have Agathha use Beast's ability to enter combat with another
minion. Even if I plan to have Beast use a Mask1K (so Agathha is only
*announcing* the action, not actually performing it) so that Beast ends up
performing the action. This is not legal.
3.) I cannot attempt to have Moncada try to block. Even if I have a Shilmulo
Deception (so Moncada wouldn't end up being the blocking minion), Moncada is
prohibited from blocking. (This is a bit of a weaker point).
4.) Similarly, Howler cannot use weapons. Thus she cannot attempt to use
weapons. Since she is prohibited from doing so in the first place, she is not
allowed to attempt it.
Anyway, *if* all of the above were allowable, what would happen if the card
(say Primal Instincts) was somehow cancelled (i.e. DI). That would cause even
more headaches...
Halcyan 2
tetragrammaton
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20020216183641...@mb-mq.aol.com...
<snip>
> As LSJ and Mr. Coupe have already said, you cannot attempt to do something
if
> you are prohibited from doing it.
My point is:
with howler i should not "prohibited" to "declare" a strike with a weapon
since,
by the rule suggested here by LSJ,
declaring a strike it's no "using" that weapon (by grenade's text).
The fact that "lately" she becomes "unable" to "use" (by her downside)
the weapon is irrelevant, here.
The rules do not prohibits this.
The rules just proihbits minions to "play" card which cost cannot be pay or
afforded:
You cannot play a card whose cost cannot be paid. [TOM 19960514
and so not to "use" specials at a given time.
I'm not prohibited to play an action card that will be "lately" fails since
the vampire taking it cannot pay it's cost (say , a vamp with two blood
playing a dominate kine and playing an elder impersonation on that action).
I'm not proibited to gain a maneuver with a thrown gate, and lately being
not able to strike with that thrown gate under an immortal grapple (even
played by myself).
I'm not prohibited to gain additional strikes, even if i will be not able to
strike lately
(say, using an additional sword of judgement's strike against an immortal
grapple).
Likewise, why declaring the strike with Howler, should break the rule "per
se" ?
At the time of declaration, given the rule,
howler is in the legal condition to rely on the weapon card, since she's not
"using" it.
And it's for that reason that i find this ruling on "use" the grenade (and
weapons in general, at this point) controversial.
More, if the "use" of a particular weapon is bound to that weapon's strike
resolution,
i could still maneuver to close with a, say,
44 magnum under a drawing out the beast, and then lately
being not able to do damage with it (since i'm not "using" the .44 nor
during the manuever nor
during the choose strike step, but just when the strikes are resolved).
Grenade's text reads <.....burn after "use">, so:
the "use" there must be changed into something else, or i still find
the given rule on "use" it (and all the other weapon in general ) fairly
consistent, here (lsj is welcomd to clear my mind, here...:) ).
<snip the various example>
> Anyway, *if* all of the above were allowable, what would happen if the
card
> (say Primal Instincts) was somehow cancelled (i.e. DI). That would cause
even
> more headaches...
It causes more headhaches because the given rule:
if "using" a weapon (say grenade) would mean
just "declaring" a strike with it (or "using" it's specials, say, .44
magnum's maneuver),
i would see not any problem.
Just my two votes
Emiliano
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>with howler i should not "prohibited" to "declare" a strike with a weapon
>since,
>by the rule suggested here by LSJ,
>declaring a strike it's no "using" that weapon (by grenade's text).
The declaration is an attempt to use it.
Since you cannot use it, you cannot attempt to use it, hence you cannot
declare it.
LSJ
>
> Howler cannot "use" weapons.
> Howler do not "use" the actual weapon until
> the strike with that weapon is resolved, then.
> At least this i can read about "use" a weapon from your statement above.
And Howler cannot attempt to use the weapon, since she cannot use it.
So she cannot choose it as her strike, since she cannot use it as her
strike.
> > > A weapon, or an equipment,
> > > should be considered "used" when someone attempts to "use" it, no matter
> > > what the strike(s) will say later....
> >
> > No, inherently.
>
> Sorry to insist, but your point here seems still weak to me.
> Grenade reads <burn after "use"> that is, in your version here:
> you "use" (and therefore "burn") the grenade a when the "strikes are
> resolved",
Correct.
> you do not "use" the grenade when you declare the strike with it,
> as you pointed above.
Correct.
> So, i can't see what prohibits, say, Howler from declaring a strike with the
> ivory
> bow (which is not considered "using" it).
The rule given and quoted above: cannot attempt what you cannot do.
Raille
Assume your allowed to declare a weapons strike with Howler.
What would happen to Howler if she was then forced into making the
strike with the weapon. Say some card either forced the card your going
to play out of your hand, or you were prohibited from play additional
cards.
Some of these effects currently exist in the game. Their utility in
combat is currently not applicable, but there is always future card
releases.
Raille
tetragrammaton
<snip>
> > So, i can't see what prohibits, say, Howler from declaring a strike with
the
> > ivory
> > bow (which is not considered "using" it).
>
> The rule given and quoted above: cannot attempt what you cannot do.
Where is written this rule?
The one, i mean, that i cannot attempt (to use or play) "now" what i will
cannot do (use) "lately" ?
Am i prohibited to steal a blood under legacy of caine if there are just
empty
ready vampires at the table?
Am i prohibited to attempt the damage to Ambrosius with
a cryptic mission?
Both of those instances describes attempts of what i "lately" will not
anyway able to do,
but that i'm allowed anyway to attempt, am i ?
Actually, i can even gain the additional strike with a sword of judgement,
or playing a blur
even if will be not able to strike with it "lately" say, under a rigor
mortis, since it has been ruled that:
You can gain additional strikes even if you cannot strike.
You still cannot strike with the additional strike, however. [LSJ 19970821
So, under these assumptions, i can't see how i cannot declare a strike with
a
weapon even if lately i cannot "use" it.
The implied fact that declaring means the intention to "use" it (later)
does not suffice to the rules logic given elsewhere, imho.
Since the declaration "per se" is not "using" that weapon.
Much as declaring a bleed does not implies that i want to use it against
my grandprey, after a deflection.
Emiliano
> --
Nystulc
>> The rule given and quoted above: cannot attempt what you cannot do.
>
>Where is written this rule?
I believe LSJ just wrote it. I'm sure he wrote similar things elsewhere and
earlier. But even if this were just the first time, I'm do not understand why
you would not deem that sufficient. He does, after all, have the authority to
make rulings.
>The one, i mean, that i cannot attempt (to use or play) "now" what i will
>cannot do (use) "lately" ?
I believe the general principle cited was that if one is prohibited from doing
something, one is likewise prohibited from attempting to do it.
>Am i prohibited to steal a blood under legacy of caine if there are just
>empty
>ready vampires at the table?
I don't know (LSJ?). However, I think it is not quite the same thing. You are
not necessarily prohibitted from attempting what is impossible for you to do,
merely from attempting to do what you are prohibited from doing.
>Am i prohibited to attempt the damage to Ambrosius with
>a cryptic mission?
I guess not, because you are not prohibited from damaging Ambrosius, so you are
likewise not prohibited from attempting to damage Ambrosius. Damaging
Ambrosius may be impossible (under certain circumstances) but that is not quite
the same thing as a prohibition from damaging him. You can attempt to damage
him, and the damage will be applied, but unless something happens to make it
aggravated, the damage will have no effect.
>Both of those instances describes attempts of what i "lately" will not
>anyway able to do,
>but that i'm allowed anyway to attempt, am i ?
Likewise, I believe nothing prevents allies with zero bleed from attempting to
bleed, even though the attempt may be doomed to failure with the current card
set.
>Actually, i can even gain the additional strike with a sword of judgement,
>or playing a blur
>even if will be not able to strike with it "lately" say, under a rigor
>mortis, since it has been ruled that:
>
>You can gain additional strikes even if you cannot strike.
>You still cannot strike with the additional strike, however. [LSJ 19970821
The gaining of additional strikes does not represent an attempt to strike.
Similarly, the gaining of votes, during a referendum, does not represent an
attempt to cast them.
If a minion were prohibited from gaining additional strikes, they would likely
be prohibited from attempting to gain additional strikes. Possibly relevant is
the rule against gaining additional strikes from more than one source. Once
that limit is used up, you cannot play any other additional strike effects,
whether you intend to use them or not. But there is no rule against gaining
strikes you are prohibited from using.
>So, under these assumptions, i can't see how i cannot declare a strike with
>a weapon even if lately i cannot "use" it.
Because the following rulings have been made:
1) If you are prohibited from doing something, you are likewise prohibited from
attempting to do it.
2) Declaring a strike is considered an attempt to use that strike
>The implied fact that declaring means the intention to "use" it (later)
>does not suffice to the rules logic given elsewhere, imho.
>Since the declaration "per se" is not "using" that weapon.
An attempt to do something is not necessarily a successful attempt. This can
lead to confusion that requires clarification.
For instance, when you say that a minion "bleeds" do you mean he bleeds
successfully, or merely that he attempts to bleed? Such ambiguity has required
clarification in the past on older cards, and have needed to be ruled on one
way or the other. Later wording tends to be more precise (and a bit more
wordy)..
The text on grenade says that it burns when used. Had it said it burns when
you attempt to use it, then I guess S:CE would not prevent it from burning.
But it does not say this, so "used" is interpreded to mean that one succeeds in
using it. This is appropriate, since semantic logic generally supports the
idea that what one FAILS TO DO is thefore NOT DONE.
>Much as declaring a bleed does not implies that i want to use it against
> my grandprey, after a deflection.
This seems to me like a non-sequitur.
Xian
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K1Vb8.12809$8F6.6...@twister2.libero.it...
> Am i prohibited to attempt the damage to Ambrosius with
> a cryptic mission?
Note that Ambrosius will lose one life to Cryptic Mission, as it does not do
damage; it steals blood/life.
Shadow Twin, however, will do one point of normal damage to Ambrosius, which
he will then ignore.
Xian
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Where is written this rule?
>The one, i mean, that i cannot attempt (to use or play) "now" what i will
>cannot do (use) "lately" ?
You cannot attempt something if, at the moment of attempting, it would
fizzle due to any number of factors. For instance, you cannot Strike:
Steal Equipment if the opponent doesn't have any equipment. You cannot
Minion Tap if you don't have a target available.
This is a general ruling that has been given on many occasions in many
variants.
>Am i prohibited to steal a blood under legacy of caine if there are just
>empty
>ready vampires at the table?
No. There is nothing prohibiting you from stealing blood from empty
vampires. (See Theft of Vitae against an empty vampire.)
What will result is you will steal the blood, up to the amount of blood
available on the vampire.
You may care to consult the rulings on this. There is one specifically
regarding this.
>Am i prohibited to attempt the damage to Ambrosius with
>a cryptic mission?
As Xian has pointed out, it isn't damage.
But there is no element of "cannot" here. The action has no need to
fizzle, you meet all the requirements.
However, in the instance of Shadow Twin, you would do the damage to
Ambrosius. Which he would ignore.
>Both of those instances describes attempts of what i "lately" will not
>anyway able to do,
No, they don't.
>but that i'm allowed anyway to attempt, am i ?
Yes, because there is no element of "cannot" about them.
There are a number of things you can do which many would regard as "odd"
or "stupid". However, the rules rarely prohibit from you doing such
unless this is also a breach of another point of the rules.
>Actually, i can even gain the additional strike with a sword of judgement,
>or playing a blur
>even if will be not able to strike with it "lately" say, under a rigor
>mortis, since it has been ruled that:
Gaining additional strikes does not commit you to striking - attempting
a strike is what actually commits you to striking.
>So, under these assumptions, i can't see how i cannot declare a strike with
>a
>weapon even if lately i cannot "use" it.
Announcing a strike is an attempt to use it. If you cannot do it, you
cannot attempt it.
>The implied fact that declaring means the intention to "use" it (later)
>does not suffice to the rules logic given elsewhere, imho.
>Since the declaration "per se" is not "using" that weapon.
No, the declaration is not using that weapon.
The declaration is the *attempt* to use that weapon. Since you cannot
use it, you cannot *attempt* it.
Much as a Gangrel cannot attempt to take the Triole's Revenge action.
LSJ
> Emiliano wrote:
> >Am i prohibited to steal a blood under legacy of caine if there are just
> >empty
> >ready vampires at the table?
>
> I don't know (LSJ?). However, I think it is not quite the same thing. You are
> not necessarily prohibitted from attempting what is impossible for you to do,
> merely from attempting to do what you are prohibited from doing.
"steal blood" effects target the minion, not the blood. You can steal blood from
an empty vampire (which will have no effect).
The rest of Nystulc's post is all correct [and snipped].
LSJ
> > a cryptic mission?
>
> Note that Ambrosius will lose one life to Cryptic Mission, as it does not do
> damage; it steals blood/life.
Cryptic Mission does damage to allies. It only burns blood from vampires.
It doesn't steal anything. (card text)
> Shadow Twin, however, will do one point of normal damage to Ambrosius, which
> he will then ignore.
As will CM.
Xian
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C70EA5A...@white-wolf.com...
> Cryptic Mission does damage to allies. It only burns blood from vampires.
> It doesn't steal anything. (card text)
D'oh. That's what I get for not looking at the card.
Thanks, LSJ. :)
Xian
tetragrammaton
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:joZ8R0No...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <K1Vb8.12809$8F6.6...@twister2.libero.it>, tetragrammaton
> <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
<snip>
> You may care to consult the rulings on this. There is one specifically
> regarding this.
>
Well, you may be of great aid telling me where is written such rule,
since i haven't still found it yet.
> >Am i prohibited to attempt the damage to Ambrosius with
> >a cryptic mission?
>
> As Xian has pointed out, it isn't damage.
>
What? Cryptic mission does "damage" to allies & retainers.
The "remove blood" is just for vamps.
> But there is no element of "cannot" here. The action has no need to
> fizzle, you meet all the requirements.
>
Sorry, i don't agree: i'm attempting something that obviously
i cannot do/use later (say "damaging" the ally,
equipping High Top with an aroon's feeding razor).
<snip>
> >Both of those instances describes attempts of what i "lately" will not
> >anyway able to do,
>
> No, they don't.
>
Tell me why, then.
> >but that i'm allowed anyway to attempt, am i ?
>
> Yes, because there is no element of "cannot" about them.
You'll admit that i "cannot" steal a blood that isn't there,
nor i "cannot" damage an ally that is immune to the actual damage.
However i can still "attempt" to do those things, as you confirm above.
"Undoable" things then, still allowed to be attempted.
> There are a number of things you can do which many would regard as "odd"
> or "stupid".
Actually, by logic, those things maybe be also "stupid" or "odd", but they
are still "impossible" to do, given the actual conditions.
The rulings just allow them, and the evidence is that the logic behind them
is commonly
accepted.
But here, for unkonwn logic reasons, i can't "attempt to do" what
i can't do "later", but just when it comes to "use" weapons...
Still looking for the rules' part where is written that
declaring the strike with a weapon is <attempting to "use" it later> .
<snip>
> >Actually, i can even gain the additional strike with a sword of
judgement,
> >or playing a blur
> >even if will be not able to strike with it "lately" say, under a rigor
> >mortis, since it has been ruled that:
>
> Gaining additional strikes does not commit you to striking - attempting
> a strike is what actually commits you to striking.
>
I'm not sure to understand, here.
Are you saying that if play a blur the subsequent additional trike (s)
is/are optional(s), and
i can choose to not "use" it/them?
> Announcing a strike is an attempt to use it. If you cannot do it, you
> cannot attempt it.
Ah,however i'm "using" the 44 magnum when i maneuver with it, and when
i declare the strike i'm (back) still "attempting to use" the .44......
Sounds still pretty illogical to me, i'm sorry.
> No, the declaration is not using that weapon.
>
> The declaration is the *attempt* to use that weapon. Since you cannot
> use it, you cannot *attempt* it.
Announcing an hunt under legacy of caine is an "attempt" to steal a blood,
and under the current rulings that "attempt" is allowed even if there are
just empty vampires around.
So, i can't see still a great difference between the two instances
("attempting to use" what i cannot use later, "attempting to do" what i
cannot do later).
Many rules intepretation allows "attempts" that from the beginning
produces a "no-usability" "undoabilitly" later,
much like an akhenathen playing an ex-nihilo, or talaq playing ruthor's
hand.
Those allies cannot "use" lately the card, but are still allowed to
"attempt" and play it.
They are just examples, and there are many others.
>
> Much as a Gangrel cannot attempt to take the Triole's Revenge action.
? attempting such action do not implies that a vampire is not of his/her
clan when he/she attempts the action.
Emiliano
> --
LSJ
>
> <snip>
>
> > You may care to consult the rulings on this. There is one specifically
> > regarding this.
> >
>
> Well, you may be of great aid telling me where is written such rule,
> since i haven't still found it yet.
Unknown, since you've snipped the point of interest.
> > But there is no element of "cannot" here. The action has no need to
> > fizzle, you meet all the requirements.
>
> Sorry, i don't agree: i'm attempting something that obviously
> i cannot do/use later (say "damaging" the ally,
> equipping High Top with an aroon's feeding razor).
You can inflict damage on an ally who will ignore it.
High Top can equip with the Razor, since that is not a hunt.
> You'll admit that i "cannot" steal a blood that isn't there,
No. Steal blood targets the minion. The minion is there. So you can
steal blood from him (and get nothing if he has none).
> nor i "cannot" damage an ally that is immune to the actual damage.
You can inflict damage on him, though.
> However i can still "attempt" to do those things, as you confirm above.
> "Undoable" things then, still allowed to be attempted.
Those aren't examples of undoable things being done. Those are
examples of doable things that happen to be ineffective.
> I'm not sure to understand, here.
> Are you saying that if play a blur the subsequent additional trike (s)
> is/are optional(s), and
> i can choose to not "use" it/them?
You must strike with your strikes if possible.
If there's some other effect that limits a given strike, OK.
> > Announcing a strike is an attempt to use it. If you cannot do it, you
> > cannot attempt it.
>
> Ah,however i'm "using" the 44 magnum when i maneuver with it, and when
> i declare the strike i'm (back) still "attempting to use" the .44......
> Sounds still pretty illogical to me, i'm sorry.
You've used it (to manuver). And you'll use it again (to strike).
Logical.
> Announcing an hunt under legacy of caine is an "attempt" to steal a blood,
> and under the current rulings that "attempt" is allowed even if there are
> just empty vampires around.
Yes, but not if there are no vampires around.
The vampires are the targets, not the blood counters.
> So, i can't see still a great difference between the two instances
> ("attempting to use" what i cannot use later, "attempting to do" what i
> cannot do later).
This is not one of those instances.
This is attempting (and doing) what you can do even though it is
ineffectual.
> Many rules intepretation allows "attempts" that from the beginning
> produces a "no-usability" "undoabilitly" later,
> much like an akhenathen playing an ex-nihilo, or talaq playing ruthor's
> hand.
Those are doable.
> Those allies cannot "use" lately the card, but are still allowed to
> "attempt" and play it.
... and allowed to play it (which is they key to being allowed to attempt
the action). Don't confuse using the card in play with playing the card.
> They are just examples, and there are many others.
All equally unrelated to "cannot do".
> > Much as a Gangrel cannot attempt to take the Triole's Revenge action.
>
> ? attempting such action do not implies that a vampire is not of his/her
> clan when he/she attempts the action.
Exactly.
The Gangrel cannot perform the action, so he cannot attempt the action.
tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C7120EA...@white-wolf.com...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > You may care to consult the rulings on this. There is one
specifically
> > > regarding this.
> > >
> >
> > Well, you may be of great aid telling me where is written such rule,
> > since i haven't still found it yet.
>
> Unknown, since you've snipped the point of interest.
Sorry to have snipped the actual part: i was referring to the
"being able to attempt what i cannot do"rule.
<snip>
> > nor i "cannot" damage an ally that is immune to the actual damage.
>
> You can inflict damage on him, though.
>
How? it's obvious that i cannot do that, given the example.
> > However i can still "attempt" to do those things, as you confirm above.
> > "Undoable" things then, still allowed to be attempted.
>
> Those aren't examples of undoable things being done. Those are
> examples of doable things that happen to be ineffective.
>
And this is exactly the point on my former Howler example:
for her, declaring the strike with a weapon is not "undoable" then,
since she's not "using" the weapon.
Only when she comes lately to "use" the weapon (during strike resolution)
at that point she's not able to "use" it (and the effect become
ineffective).
I say that is not undoable for her because, again, i can't find still no
such written
rule prohibiting the attempt to "use" what i will not able to
"use" later.
> > I'm not sure to understand, here.
> > Are you saying that if play a blur the subsequent additional trike (s)
> > is/are optional(s), and
> > i can choose to not "use" it/them?
>
> You must strike with your strikes if possible.
> If there's some other effect that limits a given strike, OK.
However, even if there's such a limiting effect around, is still
allowed to attempt to gain additional strikes, and this seems quite
countering the logic you given about "one cannot attempt undoable things".
<snip>
> > Ah,however i'm "using" the 44 magnum when i maneuver with it, and when
> > i declare the strike i'm (back) still "attempting to use" the .44......
> > Sounds still pretty illogical to me, i'm sorry.
>
> You've used it (to manuver). And you'll use it again (to strike).
> Logical.
Imho, is quite illogical that i'm not "using" that weapon when i'm declaring
the strike with it
> > Announcing an hunt under legacy of caine is an "attempt" to steal a
blood,
> > and under the current rulings that "attempt" is allowed even if there
are
> > just empty vampires around.
>
> Yes, but not if there are no vampires around.
> The vampires are the targets, not the blood counters.
>
Nor the "attempt to use" of a weapon targets that weapon, however.
> > So, i can't see still a great difference between the two instances
> > ("attempting to use" what i cannot use later, "attempting to do" what i
> > cannot do later).
>
> This is not one of those instances.
> This is attempting (and doing) what you can do even though it is
> ineffectual.
Ah, another unwritten point, then.
But this line, to deem a thing "doable but ineffective"
or "undoable because is ineffective", is a thin one, i feel.
(some question about masters, then)
Can i play a revelation at inferior if my prey has zero cards in hand ?
Can i play a shoock troops if i have no discipline cards in my hand?
Can i play a Storage Annex if it is the last card i have in hand?
Can i play an effective managent if i have no vampires in my crypt?
Can i declare the strike with a poker under drawing out the beast, if my
opponents (which is the acting one) strikes me with a first strike that
sends me to torpor?
(which causes me to never have "used" the poker, just to have declared the
strike with it) ?
This last condition, given the actual rulings, seems quite legal to me.
And so on.
> > Many rules intepretation allows "attempts" that from the beginning
> > produces a "no-usability" "undoabilitly" later,
> > much like an akhenathen playing an ex-nihilo, or talaq playing ruthor's
> > hand.
>
> Those are doable.
Forgive me, but those are not "doable" to me, those have just deemed to be
"playable"/"attemptable".
The allies will not able to "do" (use) what the card text's says.
> > Those allies cannot "use" lately the card, but are still allowed to
> > "attempt" and play it.
>
> ... and allowed to play it (which is they key to being allowed to attempt
> the action). Don't confuse using the card in play with playing the card.
>
Nor i want to confuse the declaring of a strike with a weapon
(which has been deemed to be "not" using it) with "using"
it later (in the strike resolution).
> > They are just examples, and there are many others.
>
> All equally unrelated to "cannot do".
>
Unrelated ?
I hope you'll admit there's a thin line, given the actual rulings,
between the <cannot do(attempt), "because" is ineffective> vs
<can do (attempt), "but" is ineffective> and the condition to attempt the
thing thereafter.
Emiliano
<snipped about triole's revenge>
> --
LSJ
> > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > > tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > <snip>
> > > > You may care to consult the rulings on this. There is one specifically
> > > > regarding this.
> > >
> > > Well, you may be of great aid telling me where is written such rule,
> > > since i haven't still found it yet.
> >
> > Unknown, since you've snipped the point of interest.
>
> Sorry to have snipped the actual part: i was referring to the
> "being able to attempt what i cannot do"rule.
I don't think so. James was probably referring to the rule on stealing
blood targetting minion and not the blood counter(s).
> > > nor i "cannot" damage an ally that is immune to the actual damage.
> > You can inflict damage on him, though.
>
> How? it's obvious that i cannot do that, given the example.
Hand strike. Cryptic Mission. Any number of things.
All of these inflict damage.
The fact that he ignores it is immaterial to the concept.
> > > However i can still "attempt" to do those things, as you confirm above.
> > > "Undoable" things then, still allowed to be attempted.
> >
> > Those aren't examples of undoable things being done. Those are
> > examples of doable things that happen to be ineffective.
>
> And this is exactly the point on my former Howler example:
> for her, declaring the strike with a weapon is not "undoable" then,
> since she's not "using" the weapon.
It is undoable since she cannot use the weapon, by the rule:
cannot attempt what you cannot do.
> Only when she comes lately to "use" the weapon (during strike resolution)
> at that point she's not able to "use" it (and the effect become
> ineffective).
She's always incapable of using the weapon (she doesn't mysteriously
gain the incapacity during strike resolution).
> I say that is not undoable for her because, again, i can't find still no
> such written
> rule prohibiting the attempt to "use" what i will not able to
> "use" later.
I've written it many times in this thread alone.
> > > I'm not sure to understand, here.
> > > Are you saying that if play a blur the subsequent additional trike (s)
> > > is/are optional(s), and
> > > i can choose to not "use" it/them?
> >
> > You must strike with your strikes if possible.
> > If there's some other effect that limits a given strike, OK.
>
> However, even if there's such a limiting effect around, is still
> allowed to attempt to gain additional strikes, and this seems quite
> countering the logic you given about "one cannot attempt undoable things".
It is not.
There is no prohibition against addition-strike-gaining, so it is
permitted.
> > > Ah,however i'm "using" the 44 magnum when i maneuver with it, and when
> > > i declare the strike i'm (back) still "attempting to use" the .44......
> > > Sounds still pretty illogical to me, i'm sorry.
> >
> > You've used it (to manuver). And you'll use it again (to strike).
> > Logical.
>
> Imho, is quite illogical that i'm not "using" that weapon when i'm declaring
> the strike with it
OK. IMHO it is not. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
> > > Announcing an hunt under legacy of caine is an "attempt" to steal a
> blood,
> > > and under the current rulings that "attempt" is allowed even if there
> are
> > > just empty vampires around.
> >
> > Yes, but not if there are no vampires around.
> > The vampires are the targets, not the blood counters.
>
> Nor the "attempt to use" of a weapon targets that weapon, however.
Yes, it does.
> > > So, i can't see still a great difference between the two instances
> > > ("attempting to use" what i cannot use later, "attempting to do" what i
> > > cannot do later).
> >
> > This is not one of those instances.
> > This is attempting (and doing) what you can do even though it is
> > ineffectual.
>
> Ah, another unwritten point, then.
? Sure.
> But this line, to deem a thing "doable but ineffective"
> or "undoable because is ineffective", is a thin one, i feel.
> (some question about masters, then)
>
> Can i play a revelation at inferior if my prey has zero cards in hand ?
Yes. The hand (of zero) still exists.
> Can i play a shoock troops if i have no discipline cards in my hand?
With X=0, yes.
> Can i play a Storage Annex if it is the last card i have in hand?
No.
> Can i play an effective managent if i have no vampires in my crypt?
No.
> Can i declare the strike with a poker under drawing out the beast, if my
> opponents (which is the acting one) strikes me with a first strike that
> sends me to torpor?
No.
> (which causes me to never have "used" the poker, just to have declared the
> strike with it) ?
Cannot attempt to use/do what you cannot use/do.
> This last condition, given the actual rulings, seems quite legal to me.
It is not, for the reason stated plainly so often already.
> > > Many rules intepretation allows "attempts" that from the beginning
> > > produces a "no-usability" "undoabilitly" later,
> > > much like an akhenathen playing an ex-nihilo, or talaq playing ruthor's
> > > hand.
> >
> > Those are doable.
>
> Forgive me, but those are not "doable" to me, those have just deemed to be
> "playable"/"attemptable".
> The allies will not able to "do" (use) what the card text's says.
Sorry.
The allies aren't vampires, so cannot benefit from "some vampire can do X"
effects, except inasfar as card text "play a card as a vampire" allows.
This is the direct application of card text.
> > > Those allies cannot "use" lately the card, but are still allowed to
> > > "attempt" and play it.
> >
> > ... and allowed to play it (which is they key to being allowed to attempt
> > the action). Don't confuse using the card in play with playing the card.
>
> Nor i want to confuse the declaring of a strike with a weapon
> (which has been deemed to be "not" using it) with "using"
> it later (in the strike resolution).
Good start.
Now see the rule: "cannot attempt to do what you cannot do".
> > > They are just examples, and there are many others.
> >
> > All equally unrelated to "cannot do".
>
> Unrelated ?
> I hope you'll admit there's a thin line, given the actual rulings,
> between the <cannot do(attempt), "because" is ineffective> vs
> <can do (attempt), "but" is ineffective> and the condition to attempt the
> thing thereafter.
If you like. The line, however thin, is clear.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes:
>> Sorry to have snipped the actual part: i was referring to the
>> "being able to attempt what i cannot do"rule.
>
>I don't think so. James was probably referring to the rule on stealing
>blood targetting minion and not the blood counter(s).
James was actually specifically referring to the ruling on Legacy of
Caine, where a basic consulting of the specific rulings on the card
would have noted that his suppositions regarding its functioning were
totally incorrect in this regard.
tetragrammaton
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > tetragrammaton wrote:
>
> > And this is exactly the point on my former Howler example:
> > for her, declaring the strike with a weapon is not "undoable" then,
> > since she's not "using" the weapon.
>
> It is undoable since she cannot use the weapon, by the rule:
> cannot attempt what you cannot do.
>
Yes, and i would like to read this rule soon on the official
clarification rulings errata, since there's not such a rule written still.
> I've written it many times in this thread alone.
>
Yes, but not all the players read here.
A lot more read the official clarifications etc...and even more read just
the
rule booklet, usually.
So, it would be not a bad idea to put this rule "cannot attempt what cannot
do" written.
> > However, even if there's such a limiting effect around, is still
> > allowed to attempt to gain additional strikes, and this seems quite
> > countering the logic you given about "one cannot attempt undoable
things".
>
> It is not.
> There is no prohibition against addition-strike-gaining, so it is
> permitted.
>
This point is still unclear to me, sorry.
We got a defined prohibition with the "cannot attempt what cannot do".
Under some conditions/effects, i "cannot do/use" any (additional) strike(s),
but i'm still NOT prohibited to play or use an effect to "attempt" gaining
them....
The rulings' logic seem me pretty reversed, here.
> > Imho, is quite illogical that i'm not "using" that weapon when i'm
declaring
> > the strike with it
>
> OK. IMHO it is not. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
Ok, on this point i still disagree, then ... :)
<snipped on the legacy of caine, point taken>
> >
> > Can i play a revelation at inferior if my prey has zero cards in hand ?
>
> Yes. The hand (of zero) still exists.
> > Can i play an effective managent if i have no vampires in my crypt?
>
> No.
>
Mmmh, but can i play a recruitment with an empty crypt, or a coroner's
contact if i have no samedi in it (or, still, with the crypt empty) ?
Does not the crypt with zero vampires still exists as much the hand with
zero cards exists?
<snip>
> >
> > Forgive me, but those are not "doable" to me, those have just deemed to
be
> > "playable"/"attemptable".
> > The allies will not able to "do" (use) what the card text's says.
>
> Sorry.
> The allies aren't vampires, so cannot benefit from "some vampire can do X"
> effects, except inasfar as card text "play a card as a vampire" allows.
> This is the direct application of card text.
Ok
>
> > > > They are just examples, and there are many others.
> > >
> > > All equally unrelated to "cannot do".
> >
> > Unrelated ?
> > I hope you'll admit there's a thin line, given the actual rulings,
> > between the <cannot do(attempt), "because" is ineffective> vs
> > <can do (attempt), "but" is ineffective> and the condition to attempt
the
> > thing thereafter.
>
> If you like. The line, however thin, is clear.
Clear, but not enough, since it still gives space to argue against it.
(actually, i'm pretty unsure about what will be your answer on
the "doability" of playing the recruitment or the coroner's with an empty
crypt).
Emiliano
> --
LSJ
>
> Yes, but not all the players read here.
Fine. Pass it along to the players you play with.
(The others you needn't worry about).
> A lot more read the official clarifications etc...and even more read just
> the
> rule booklet, usually.
As you say.
> So, it would be not a bad idea to put this rule "cannot attempt what cannot
> do" written.
It seems a bit too obvious. Everyone (else) seems to be playing it
correctly by default.
> > > However, even if there's such a limiting effect around, is still
> > > allowed to attempt to gain additional strikes, and this seems quite
> > > countering the logic you given about "one cannot attempt undoable
> things".
> >
> > It is not.
> > There is no prohibition against addition-strike-gaining, so it is
> > permitted.
> >
>
> This point is still unclear to me, sorry.
> We got a defined prohibition with the "cannot attempt what cannot do".
> Under some conditions/effects, i "cannot do/use" any (additional) strike(s),
> but i'm still NOT prohibited to play or use an effect to "attempt" gaining
> them....
> The rulings' logic seem me pretty reversed, here.
You're confusing gaining additional strikes (e.g. Blur) with using
additional strikes (e.g. "hands for 1" or "Undead Strength").
HL makes no restriction on gaining additional strikes. It just
makes a restriction on striking (using strikes).
You successfully gain the additional strikes. So now you have 2 or
3 strikes instead of 1. Before you had 1 strike you couldn't use.
Now you have 2 or 3. You can gain additional strikes, therefore you
can attempt to gain them.
> > > Can i play a revelation at inferior if my prey has zero cards in hand ?
> >
> > Yes. The hand (of zero) still exists.
>
> > > Can i play an effective managent if i have no vampires in my crypt?
> >
> > No.
> >
> Mmmh, but can i play a recruitment with an empty crypt, or a coroner's
> contact if i have no samedi in it (or, still, with the crypt empty) ?
> Does not the crypt with zero vampires still exists as much the hand with
> zero cards exists?
Yes to both. They target the crypt, not a specific card in it.
> > > Forgive me, but those are not "doable" to me, those have just deemed to
> be
> > > "playable"/"attemptable".
> > > The allies will not able to "do" (use) what the card text's says.
> >
> > Sorry.
> > The allies aren't vampires, so cannot benefit from "some vampire can do X"
> > effects, except inasfar as card text "play a card as a vampire" allows.
> > This is the direct application of card text.
>
> Ok
>
> >
> > > > > They are just examples, and there are many others.
> > > >
> > > > All equally unrelated to "cannot do".
> > >
> > > Unrelated ?
> > > I hope you'll admit there's a thin line, given the actual rulings,
> > > between the <cannot do(attempt), "because" is ineffective> vs
> > > <can do (attempt), "but" is ineffective> and the condition to attempt
> the
> > > thing thereafter.
> >
> > If you like. The line, however thin, is clear.
>
> Clear, but not enough, since it still gives space to argue against it.
Players can argue against anything.
That doesn't mean it isn't clear enough.
It is clear enough to answer, quite directly, any argument against it.
> (actually, i'm pretty unsure about what will be your answer on
> the "doability" of playing the recruitment or the coroner's with an empty
> crypt).
The crypt exists, it can be targetted.
Pepijn
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Unrelated ?
>> > I hope you'll admit there's a thin line, given the actual rulings,
>> > between the <cannot do(attempt), "because" is ineffective> vs
>> > <can do (attempt), "but" is ineffective> and the condition to attempt
>the
>> > thing thereafter.
>>
>> If you like. The line, however thin, is clear.
>
>Clear, but not enough, since it still gives space to argue against it.
>(actually, i'm pretty unsure about what will be your answer on
>the "doability" of playing the recruitment or the coroner's with an empty
>crypt).
Isn't it so if it says cannot do you can still attempt, and if it says
cannot attempt then you can't even use it for cylcing cards?
LSJ
> Isn't it so if it says cannot do you can still attempt, and if it says
> cannot attempt then you can't even use it for cylcing cards?
No.
A Gangrel cannot recruit a Muddled Vampire Hunter, so cannot attempt
the action (to cycle the card).
James Coupe
<neuro...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>Isn't it so if it says cannot do you can still attempt, and if it says
>cannot attempt then you can't even use it for cylcing cards?
No. You can't attempt something you can't do.
e.g. You can't attempt to Strike: Destroy Equipment if there isn't any
there.
LSJ
>
> In message <3c7256f9....@newszilla.xs4all.nl>, Pepijn
> <neuro...@xs4all.nl> writes:
> >Isn't it so if it says cannot do you can still attempt, and if it says
> >cannot attempt then you can't even use it for cylcing cards?
>
> No. You can't attempt something you can't do.
>
> e.g. You can't attempt to Strike: Destroy Equipment if there isn't any
> there.
True. Note that this prohibition arises because of the lack of a
target. You cannot attempt something against a non-existent target.
There is also the prohibition against attempting things that you
are restricted from doing (playing a Theft of Vitae under an
Immortal Grapple just to get it out of your hand, for example).
And the prohibition against attempting things you do not meet
the requirements (including cost) of.
Pepijn
wrote:
>Pepijn wrote:
>> Isn't it so if it says cannot do you can still attempt, and if it says
>> cannot attempt then you can't even use it for cylcing cards?
>
>No.
>
>A Gangrel cannot recruit a Muddled Vampire Hunter, so cannot attempt
>the action (to cycle the card).
I stand corrected.. now I see the example... DUH!
:)
tetragrammaton
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > I've written it many times in this thread alone.
> >
>
> correctly by default.
>
that declaring the strike with a weapon is "not" using that weapon,
and that the "use" of it occours just during the strike resolution.
This, too, is pretty unwritten on the actual rules, unless one asks about
it.
> > This point is still unclear to me, sorry.
> > We got a defined prohibition with the "cannot attempt what cannot do".
> > Under some conditions/effects, i "cannot do/use" any (additional)
strike(s),
> > but i'm still NOT prohibited to play or use an effect to "attempt"
gaining
> > them....
> > The rulings' logic seem me pretty reversed, here.
>
> You're confusing gaining additional strikes (e.g. Blur) with using
> additional strikes (e.g. "hands for 1" or "Undead Strength").
>
> HL makes no restriction on gaining additional strikes. It just
> makes a restriction on striking (using strikes).
>
> You successfully gain the additional strikes. So now you have 2 or
> 3 strikes instead of 1. Before you had 1 strike you couldn't use.
> Now you have 2 or 3. You can gain additional strikes, therefore you
> can attempt to gain them.
Imho, a very thin line, but i think i taken the point.
>
> > > > Can i play a revelation at inferior if my prey has zero cards in
hand ?
> > >
> > > Yes. The hand (of zero) still exists.
> >
> > > > Can i play an effective managent if i have no vampires in my crypt?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > Mmmh, but can i play a recruitment with an empty crypt, or a coroner's
> > contact if i have no samedi in it (or, still, with the crypt empty) ?
> > Does not the crypt with zero vampires still exists as much the hand
with
> > zero cards exists?
>
> Yes to both. They target the crypt, not a specific card in it.
>
Mmh, but the coroner's reads "search your crypt TO find a samedi
vampire....etc",
it seems i need badly a samedi to be in there , to be able to play the
coroner's....
much like the effective management targets the top vampire of my crypt.
> > Clear, but not enough, since it still gives space to argue against it.
>
> Players can argue against anything.
> That doesn't mean it isn't clear enough.
Not completely true, as much as all of this was not completely clear, i
think.
It seems me now that that "cannot attempt
what you can't do" is restricted to the first instance/target
we find on the involved card's text.
There may be other instance after the first one that
ovbiously cannot be done (so that will "fizzle"), but it's just the first
one
that tells if the attempt is legal or not.
Much like looking at an empty hand (which, odd as maybe
be is still deemed possible) and then make discard a card that isn't there,
which "fizzle" since the first instance (looking at the empty hand) was
considered legal.
Emiliano
<snip>
> --
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Yes to both. They target the crypt, not a specific card in it.
>>
>
>Mmh, but the coroner's reads "search your crypt TO find a samedi
>vampire....etc",
>it seems i need badly a samedi to be in there , to be able to play the
>coroner's....
>much like the effective management targets the top vampire of my crypt.
No. It's "search your crypt" - target crypt. To find <X>.
LSJ
> > correctly by default.
> >
> However, here was not so obvious
> that declaring the strike with a weapon is "not" using that weapon,
> and that the "use" of it occours just during the strike resolution.
> This, too, is pretty unwritten on the actual rules, unless one asks about
> it.
That's all inherent in the "choose strike" "resolve strike" dinstinction.
> Mmh, but the coroner's reads "search your crypt TO find a samedi
> vampire....etc",
> it seems i need badly a samedi to be in there , to be able to play the
> coroner's....
> much like the effective management targets the top vampire of my crypt.
No. You need a crypt to search. What you are searching for (to find) is
irrelevant.
> It seems me now that that "cannot attempt
> what you can't do" is restricted to the first instance/target
> we find on the involved card's text.
All targets.
> There may be other instance after the first one that
> ovbiously cannot be done (so that will "fizzle"), but it's just the first
> one
> that tells if the attempt is legal or not.
No.
> Much like looking at an empty hand (which, odd as maybe
> be is still deemed possible) and then make discard a card that isn't there,
The card to be discarded isn't chosen by the play of the card.
It's chosen during the resolution.
Chris Berger
>
>
> This point is still unclear to me, sorry.
> We got a defined prohibition with the "cannot attempt what cannot do".
> Under some conditions/effects, i "cannot do/use" any (additional)
strike(s),
> but i'm still NOT prohibited to play or use an effect to "attempt" gaining
> them....
> The rulings' logic seem me pretty reversed, here.
>
argue English semantics points, you may want to learn English first.
Otherwise, just take our word for it. None of the supposed paradoxes that
you have brought up is actually an attempt to do what you are prohibited
from doing. Howler attempting to strike with a chainsaw is prohibited. She
can't do it, so she can't attempt it.
tetragrammaton
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:0mvc8.21092$UT6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zesc8.21883$eD3.8...@twister1.libero.it...
> >
> >
> > This point is still unclear to me, sorry.
> > We got a defined prohibition with the "cannot attempt what cannot do".
> > Under some conditions/effects, i "cannot do/use" any (additional)
> strike(s),
> > but i'm still NOT prohibited to play or use an effect to "attempt"
gaining
> > them....
> > The rulings' logic seem me pretty reversed, here.
> >
> Your problem is probably with the language. If you're going to continue
to
> argue English semantics points, you may want to learn English first.
Semantics was not the point here. Just logic.
And i don't know how good is my english, anyway i think i can understand
it enough to debate here whenever i find some defective logic (for me) in
the
given rulings.
> Otherwise, just take our word for it.
"Our"...? Are you in the rule team ?
I'm here just to ask official clarification.
So, until LSJ answers, i think that every other's word is good as mine.
> None of the supposed paradoxes that
> you have brought up is actually an attempt to do what you are prohibited
> from doing.
I think i brought no paradoxes of sort.
I just pointed the rulings part that seemed contraddictory
or defective about the stuff debated here, and LSJ clarified me about.
That's all
Emiliano
<snip>
Chris Berger
>
>
> Semantics was not the point here. Just logic.
>
damage on Ambrosius, and on what it means to "use" a weapon.
> > Otherwise, just take our word for it.
>
> "Our"...? Are you in the rule team ?
> I'm here just to ask official clarification.
> So, until LSJ answers, i think that every other's word is good as mine.
>
LSJ *has* answered. About 20 times. You just don't like his answer. a)
You cannot attempt something you are prohibited from doing. b) You don't
"use" a weapon until you use it, which doesn't include declaring your
intention to use it.
tetragrammaton
>
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qrzc8.2299$Zf3....@twister2.libero.it...
> >
> >
> > Semantics was not the point here. Just logic.
> >
> You're arguing the semantics of whether or not you are permitted to
inflict
> damage on Ambrosius, and on what it means to "use" a weapon.
>
Sorry to insist.
It's not semantic, it's just trying to understand well the logic
behind "damaging ambrosius", "using a weapon" "attempting to do" and the
like.
Not the meanings of, but just the motivations behind the rules.
Maybe, as you say, the language matter can influence this
understanding process, making it lenghty;
but when i come to explain to my players
the rulings, the translation matters (even of the logic behind them),
and i must be really convinced about this logic.
> > > Otherwise, just take our word for it.
> >
> > "Our"...? Are you in the rule team ?
> > I'm here just to ask official clarification.
> > So, until LSJ answers, i think that every other's word is good as mine.
> >
> LSJ *has* answered. About 20 times. You just don't like his answer.
The fact if i like it or not is irrelevant here.
I do like to understand well a rule (the rules), however, and
if the logic behind the rule itself seems weak to me, i think
i'm allowed to debate it as long as there are points unclear for me.
This is just what happened here.
> b) You don't
> "use" a weapon until you use it, which doesn't include declaring your
> intention to use it.
That point was clear from the beginning and, indeed,
it just has been the starting point of the discussion for me.
Emiliano
>
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> You're arguing the semantics of whether or not you are permitted to
>inflict
>> damage on Ambrosius, and on what it means to "use" a weapon.
>>
>
>Sorry to insist.
>It's not semantic
You are arguing over the meaning of "use". This is semantics.
www.dictionary.com (definition 3)
"* The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other
language form"
CurtAdams
>No. You need a crypt to search. What you are searching for (to find) is
>irrelevant.
This is exactly the kind of thing that gets confusing. Why is an
empty hand still a hand and yet an empty crypt is no longer a crypt?
I assume, then, that once your crypt were empty you could no
longer play a card to move a vampire from your ash heap to your
crypt, since your crypt does not exist.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Chris Berger
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020219204853...@mb-mv.aol.com...
> LSJ writes:
>
> >No. You need a crypt to search. What you are searching for (to find) is
> >irrelevant.
>
> This is exactly the kind of thing that gets confusing. Why is an
> empty hand still a hand and yet an empty crypt is no longer a crypt?
> I assume, then, that once your crypt were empty you could no
> longer play a card to move a vampire from your ash heap to your
> crypt, since your crypt does not exist.
>
can't play it", it means that no, you're not prohibited from playing it
because you always have a crypt.
tetragrammaton
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:U7sBFBC$Juc8...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <poAc8.2555$E33....@twister1.libero.it>, tetragrammaton
> <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> You're arguing the semantics of whether or not you are permitted to
> >inflict
> >> damage on Ambrosius, and on what it means to "use" a weapon.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry to insist.
> >It's not semantic
>
> You are arguing over the meaning of "use". This is semantics.
>
No, i was arguing about the logic behind
"attempt to use", since i was
missing the point about "attempting now
what one is prohibithed to do(use) later".....
Emiliano
Nystulc
>Sorry to insist.
>It's not semantic, it's just trying to understand well the logic
> behind "damaging ambrosius", "using a weapon" "attempting to do" and the
>like.
>Not the meanings of, but just the motivations behind the rules.
>Maybe, as you say, the language matter can influence this
>understanding process, making it lenghty;
>but when i come to explain to my players
>the rulings, the translation matters (even of the logic behind them),
>and i must be really convinced about this logic.
OK. I'll have another go at this.
Best as I can figure, from your posts, you seem to be having difficulty with
the general principle "cannot attempt what you cannot do", because, as you
understand that phrase, it is too broad, and extends to things it should not
extend to, like attempting to inflict damage to Ambrosius. But that's fine.
I'll go with that. If that phrase is not useful to you in understanding the
rules, then drop it. Assume that you CAN attempt what you cannot do. But,
having said that, you need to acknowledge/accept the following rules/rulings.
1. You cannot attempt what you are PROHIBITED from doing. If something is
forbidden to do, it is likewise forbidden to attempt. (Note this is not
necessarily the same thing as saying you cannot attempt the impossible).
2. You are PROHIBITED from doing the following
- a. Doing anything prohibited by card text
- b. Playing any card you do not meet the requirements for.
- c. Playing a card or action where you cannot meet its cost (even if you do
not pay the cost till resolution). This may be considered a subset of 2b above
-- or not, as you choose.
- d. Playing a card that requires you to specify a target, when their is no
valid target available to specify. ie. playing disguised weapon when their is
no weapon card in your hand, or attempting a bums rush when no other Methuselah
has ready minions.
You can regard all of the above as individual separate rulings, rather than
appications of any general principle. If you want to attempt something you
feel you "cannot do", and it is not covered by the above list (like damaging
Ambrosius), then chances are, it is permitted to attempt, however ineffective
it may be doomed to be. (Hope I did not leave anything out)
You seemed to be having some difficulty with why it is permissible to target an
empty hand, since, in your understanding, there is nothing to target. For
this, you just have to accept that all regions of card play are considered to
have an existence that is separate from the cards that may or may not be in
them: Hand, Library, Crypt, Ash Heap, Ready Region, Torpor Region,
Uncontrolled Region are all treated similarly. Imagine these all as abstract
"regions" (hand-region) or containers, and it will be easily be possible to
determine that is possible to look at them even if they are empty, like looking
in an empty box. Thus, you can play Revelations on an empty hand, but (I
suspect) not Feline Saboteur, since the latter targets a card in the hand,
rather than the hand itself.
None of this is inevitable. Had you been the Rules Authority, you could, for
instance, have decided that an empty hand, library or ready region is
non-existent and cannot be targetted. We all then would have to accept your
way of thinking on its own inherent logic. But since that is not the case, it
will have to be you who makes the mental adjustments. If you demand compelling
reason why it HAS to be this way, you will never find it. The rules of all
games (and languages, and logic systems) are arbitrary.
As a final note, when card text refers affects "any amount" or "all" of a type
of target, then that word is interpreted as possibly including zero amount (one
may disagree with this, but it is in accord with formal Logic as taught
academically). Thus, you can minion tap a minion for zero blood. You can call
Kindred Segregation to burn zero allies in play. You can play superior (but
not inferior) Shepherd's Innocence to take control of zero cards that require
animalism. You can play a card to zero effect whenever card text seems to
permit that option.
Hope this helps.
LSJ
Correct. The ash heap, hand, library, crypt, uncontrolled region, ready reagion,
and torpor region all exist all the time, even when empty.
John B. Whelan
> Thus, you can play Revelations on an empty hand, but (I
> suspect) not Feline Saboteur, since the latter targets a card in the hand,
> rather than the hand itself.
On second thought, I think FS just targets the Methuselah.