(LSJ) Kaymakli Fragment vs Drawing out the Beast
floppyzedolfin
Here's the situation :
Vampire A and B are in combat. Vampire A has a Kaymakli Fragment.
Vampire A plays Drawing out the Beast.
Can Vampire B's strike be "steal the fragment" ?
LSJ
> Vampire A and B are in combat. Vampire A has a Kaymakli Fragment.
> Vampire A plays Drawing out the Beast.
> Can Vampire B's strike be "steal the fragment" ?
Not via the Fragment's strike option, no, since Vampire B cannot use equipment.
He could steal it with a (non-equipment-based) "steal equipment" effect, though,
like Mesmerize or something.
as...@hotmail.com
Eh? But Drawing only states he cannot use the eq, not anything about
carrying it.
LSJ
Yes, I noted that he could use a non-equipment-based strike to steal the equipment.
However, using the strike option provided by the equipment card Kaymakli
Fragment is using the equipment. So that strike option is denied by Drawing Out
the Beast.
See also Assault Rifle.
as...@hotmail.com
But it is not vamp B that A that is affected by Drawing right? So why
can´t he use the steal-clause on the eq?
LSJ
A played Drawing Out the Beast on B. B cannot use equipment. So B cannot use A's
Kaymakli Fragment (equipment) to steal the Kaymakli Fragment.
Sydnelson
>
> - Show quoted text -
LSJ, when Kaymakli Fragment + Imperator promo cards will be delivered
to tournament organizers (if this cards will be delivered sameday)?
And you have any news about Rise of Imperator storyline event???
as...@hotmail.com
So because B is frenzy, A also become unable to use eq? Do you think
this sounds logical?
henrik
> So because B is frenzy, A also become unable to use eq? Do you think
> this sounds logical?
It looks like you're mixing it up here.
A can use equipment.
B can not use A's equipment (which he would've been able to steal as a
strike via card text).
James Coupe
I fear you haven't understood what's going on.
A has Kaymakli Fragment.
Kaymakli Fragment has a clause that allows the opponent to steal it (as
a strike). When that clause is used, it is used by the opponent, not
the bearer. ("Any minion may steal this equipment as a strike.")
A plays Drawing out the Beast on B.
B wants to use the Kaymakli Fragment built-in steal clause to steal the
Kaymakli Fragment.
B has been affected by DotB. B is unable to use equipment. B cannot
use the Kaymakli Fragment's own text to steal it from A.
A quite happily carries on using the Kaymakli Fragment as normal
(although none of its effects are combat relevant to A right now). A is
not affected by DotB's equipment restriction clause at all. B is - and
that includes using any equipment B is carrying, but also the Kaymakli
Fragment on A (which would otherwise grant an ability to B).
If B was Lucian, for example, he could use his own card text to steal
the Kaymakli Fragment. Or a Chimerstry vampire could use Blessing of
Durga Syn. Neither of those involve using equipment to get the steal
strike.
The reason that your version is not logical is because it's not what's
going on.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
No, it doesn't sound logical. It is also not what I said; nor is it true. So
that works out well.
A can use equipment. If he had a .44, he could shoot it; if he had Flak Jacket,
he could prevent a damage with it.
A could use the Kaymakli Fragment if it provided any effect for A to use in
combat. But it doesn't. It only provide A two action options (draw 5 cards or
add 3 blood to an uncontrolled vampire).
It does provide B an effect usable in combat: a strike option.
But B, being unable to use equipment, cannot use the strike option provided by
that equipment.
as...@hotmail.com
Ah, I misread. As always. Sorry.