(Q) Brick Laying vs Secure Haven
floppyzedolfin
Can a vampire play Brick Laying at superior on a Secure Haven?
I know it's OK to play it at inf, but I wasn't sure whether Brick
Laying sup' also targetted the minion or not. My guess is that it also
targets the minion, and therefore cannot be played on a Secure Haven'd
minion.
Thanks,
~~
Brick Laying
Cardtype: Action
Discipline: Potence
[pot] (D) Burn a haven on an ally or younger vampire, or tap an ally
or younger vampire.
[POT] As above, and inflict 1 damage on that minion.
Secure Haven
Cardtype: Master
Cost: 1 pool
Master: unique location. Haven.
Put this card on a minion you control. This minion cannot be -{the
target of other Methuselahs' actions}-. Any Methuselah burns an
additional pool when playing master cards on (or that target) this
minion. Burn this card if this minion enters torpor. A minion may have
only one haven.
LSJ
> Hi there,
> Can a vampire play Brick Laying at superior on a Secure Haven?
>
> I know it's OK to play it at inf, but I wasn't sure whether Brick
> Laying sup' also targetted the minion or not. My guess is that it also
> targets the minion, and therefore cannot be played on a Secure Haven'd
> minion.
Correct.
Azel
> On 12/18/09 9:38 , floppyzedolfin wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> > Can a vampire play Brick Laying at superior on a Secure Haven?
>
> > I know it's OK to play it at inf, but I wasn't sure whether Brick
> > Laying sup' also targetted the minion or not. My guess is that it also
> > targets the minion, and therefore cannot be played on a Secure Haven'd
> > minion.
>
> Correct.
wait, what?
"I know it is OK to play it at inf... My guess is that [superior]...
cannot be played on a Secure Haven'd minion."
the two contradict, they both cannot be correct. Is it OK to play it
at inferior against a Secure Haven or not?
Chris Berger
No, it was correct as stated. You can play inferior Brick Laying on a
Secure Haven, but you cannot play superior on it.
LSJ
Correct. Secure Haven doesn't protect itself (or other cards on the minion). It
only protects the minion.
Card text: "This minion cannot be the target of other Methuselahs' actions."
Salem
to clarify a little further, it can be played at inferior for the first
effect (burn the haven), but not the second effect (tap and ally or
younger vampire).
"[pot] (D) Burn a haven on an ally or younger vampire, or tap an ally
or younger vampire."
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Azel
so the implication here is that the "as above" clause REQUIRES you to
select BOTH options, if a choice is present above. so it doesn't read
off of an inferior choice and then apply the superior additional
effect. sounds linguistically counter-intuitive -- i mean, there is an
"or" word present -- but apparently the selection is only relevant
upon one section. which is amusing, because in law you have sections
routinely key off of each other, and selections "from above" reflect
into relevant subsequent sections. why this breaks intuitive English
language and legal tradition i do not know, but i will accept it as
another ruling that is relevant to vtes proper, as vtes is neither
within the language and legal tradition, even though it is composed
from it.
Azel
btw, i do understand the implication that the damage affects the
minion, but it sounds like it is a residual effect not dependent upon
targeting. what i read is the location is targeted and destroyed, and
afterwards the minion the location was on takes residual damage from
proximity, not targeting. but whatever, apparently the targeted
demolition of the haven equals the targeted directing at the minion if
and only if it ends up dealing residual damage upon the minion. if
nary a brick can blemish their attire, only then can the explosion go
off... ok, sure, whatever works.
LSJ
> On Dec 19, 3:40 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > On 12/19/09 1:30 , Chris Berger wrote:
> > > No, it was correct as stated. You can play inferior Brick Laying on a
> > > Secure Haven, but you cannot play superior on it.
>
> > Correct. Secure Haven doesn't protect itself (or other cards on the minion). It
> > only protects the minion.
>
> > Card text: "This minion cannot be the target of other Methuselahs' actions."
>
> so the implication here is that the "as above" clause REQUIRES you to
> select BOTH options, if a choice is present above.
No. The implication is that "and" means both.
Card: "[POT] As above, AND inflict 1 damage on that minion. "
> so it doesn't read
> off of an inferior choice and then apply the superior additional
> effect.
That's exactly how it reads: Both the inferior (which involves a
choice of two options) and the extra superior effect.
The inferior is a choice.
Card: "[pot] (D) Burn a haven on an ally OR younger vampire, or tap an
ally
or younger vampire."
So, while you could not use it to tap a Secure Havened minion, you
could use it to burn the Secure Haven itself.
Superior thus reads:
((Burn a haven on an ally or younger vampire) OR (tap an ally or
younger vampire) AND (inflict 1 damage on that minion))
Secure Haven prohibits the "(inflict 1 damage one that minion)", so
the effect cannot be used.
> sounds linguistically counter-intuitive -- i mean, there is an
> "or" word present -- but apparently the selection is only relevant
> upon one section.
Text applies where it is, yeah. That's actually pretty intuitive.
> which is amusing, because in law you have sections
> routinely key off of each other, and selections "from above" reflect
> into relevant subsequent sections. why this breaks intuitive English
> language and legal tradition i do not know, but i will accept it as
> another ruling that is relevant to vtes proper, as vtes is neither
> within the language and legal tradition, even though it is composed
> from it.
This is not a ruling per se: there is no ambiguity to resolve. This is
just a clarification. Card text is clear.