Groundfighting
Jozxyqk
we could have gotten more use out of some of the "Independent Clan" cards.
Gee, I wish there was a Kindred Most Wanted/Final Nights draft coming up.. :)
(plug plug *ahem* come to TotalCon!)
(I hope my order for Final Nights starters actually comes through so I don't
look like a total ass after all this plugging ;) )
Anyway..
The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
remember so far, was this:
=================
Groundfighting
Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
round as it is played.
=================
So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
Obviously Immortal Grapple/Grasp of the Python..
But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
a weapon, indirectly.
What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.
And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?
I'm sure there are other examples, but I think a clarification might be
needed.
Thanks.
salem
<TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
>>remember so far, was this:
>
>>=================
>>Groundfighting
>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>>round as it is played.
>>=================
>
>>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
>
>Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
>Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
the 'restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round' seems to
strike Grasp of the Serpent off the list of cards effected by
Groundfighting.
What about superior Lapse?
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
The Lasombra
wrote:
>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
>remember so far, was this:
>=================
>Groundfighting
>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>round as it is played.
>=================
>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
>a weapon, indirectly.
Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.
>What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.
Scorpion Sting does not in any way affect your ability to choose Dodge
as a strike. Scorpion Sting cannot be cancelled by Groundfighting.
>And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
>does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?
Nope. Card text does not support choosing a new strike.
>I'm sure there are other examples, but I think a clarification might be
>needed.
Indeed.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
LSJ
>>remember so far, was this:
>
>>=================
>>Groundfighting
>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>>round as it is played.
>>=================
>
>>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
>
> Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
> Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
>
>>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
>>a weapon, indirectly.
>
> Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.
Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).
>>What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.
>
> Scorpion Sting does not in any way affect your ability to choose Dodge
> as a strike. Scorpion Sting cannot be cancelled by Groundfighting.
Correct.
>>And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
>>does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?
>
> Nope. Card text does not support choosing a new strike.
Correct.
Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be restricting
the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
range" strike ability or weapon available.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
de...@hell.is
usable a certain range.
Daneel
wrote:
>>> So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
>>
>> Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
>> Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
>
> the 'restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round' seems to
> strike Grasp of the Serpent off the list of cards effected by
> Groundfighting.
I'm curious, now that we've seen a hoser-hoser, when we'll be seeing
a hoser-hoser-hoser. Like this:
Immortaler Grapple
pot: Play at close range before strikes are chosen. etc. (as IG)
POT: Cancel a combat card that would cancel a combat card that would
restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
...but then, there is always:
Underground Fighting
Cancel a combat card that would cancel a combat card that would cancel
a combat card that would restrict this minions choice of strikes.
...hmm...
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
news:XLWdnYptFPX...@comcast.com...
> >>>=================
> >>>Groundfighting
> >>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
> >>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by
the
> >>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes
this
> >>>round as it is played.
> >>>=================
> Going with what you said, I would guess that Rigor Mortis is cancelable
by
> any vampire who has a "built-in additional strike" ability (Jacko,
Melisande,
> Black Metamorphosis, Sword of Judgment...), but not just someone who
might
> generate additional strikes later (because they have celerity); correct?
Additional strikes are not noticed by Groundfighting.
Restrict choice of strikes, not restrict ability to get more strikes.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
de...@hell.is
these do restrict which strike cards can be played (some strikes are
only usable at certain range).
Jozxyqk
>>>=================
>>>Groundfighting
>>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>>>round as it is played.
>>>=================
>>
>>>a weapon, indirectly.
> Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
> with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).
What about Rigor Mortis?
de...@hell.is
> Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be
restricting
> the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
> range" strike ability or weapon available.
same for setting range?
I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
opponents choice of strikes...
well, quite obvious what designers intent was anyway :-)
shame it wasn't cought during playtesting though.
(sorry about the double post earlier, the first one didn't appear on
google for a while and I though I probably forgot to post...)
LSJ
news:1109008920....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
> > Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be
> restricting
> > the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
> > range" strike ability or weapon available.
>
> same for setting range?
Yes.
> I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
> opponents choice of strikes...
Maneuvering clearly does not restrict it, as the minion
is could maneuver back.
Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
Similarly, Weakness would remove some options, but
wouldn't directly restrict strikes.
> well, quite obvious what designers intent was anyway :-)
> shame it wasn't cought during playtesting though.
It wasn't?
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
John Flournoy
LSJ wrote:
> <de...@hell.is> wrote in message
> > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
> > opponents choice of strikes...
> Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
> somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
> not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
>
Adding to what LSJ said:
Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
range as appropriate).
Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
-John Flournoy
LSJ
news:1109013268.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> (parts snipped)
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > <de...@hell.is> wrote in message
> > > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
> > > opponents choice of strikes...
>
> > Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
> > somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
> > not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
> >
>
> Adding to what LSJ said:
>
> Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
> range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
> like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
> range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
> usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
> by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
> would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
> range as appropriate).
An apt description/rationale.
I was more thinking of already-in-play options, like Meat Hook's self
destructive special or Seren Sukardi's special, and examining those
in the light of the Drawing Out the Beast vs. Weapons angle.
> Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
> in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
Looks good.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
de...@hell.is
> > Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> > Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> > Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card
text
> > in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
>
> Looks good.
ok. fair enough.
but on the other hand, that it needed such clarification indicates that
all issues were not explored to full extent, which indicates that
playtesting and review 'could' have dealt with it better (i.e. didn't
catch).
anyway, happy with this clarification :-)
Morgan Vening
wrote:
Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers to
long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
superior? Or make a hand strike? And then play Rotschrek (using Claws
on the handstrike)?
I thought this was invalidated a long time ago. Has there been a
ruling change?
Morgan Vening
LSJ
> but on the other hand, that it needed such clarification indicates that
> all issues were not explored to full extent, which indicates that
> playtesting and review 'could' have dealt with it better (i.e. didn't
> catch).
So it is caught in playtesting (and in design, actually -- you can't
write a sentence like that after this many sets without at least
considering the possible ramifications).
The issue is then considered and this text is the result, since
"exhaustive" text will not fit in the box, and the decided-upon text is
clear enough (or as clear as it can be, YMMV) as to intent. How is that
not exploring it to the full extent?
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
John Flournoy
> >Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> >Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> >Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card
text
> >in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
>
> Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers
to
> long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
> superior?
Yes.
> Or make a hand strike?
Yes.
>And then play Rotschrek (using Claws on the handstrike)?
No.
> I thought this was invalidated a long time ago. Has there been a
> ruling change?
There hasn't been a change. You cannot play Rotschreck in this
circumstance because the aggravated damage isn't going to be inflicted
on the opposing minion - to quote LSJ Rotschreck's "Card text says that
the minion must attempt to use aggravated damage
"against a vampire" - not merely against the air in front of him."
That does not mean that you cannot make the ineffective strike itself;
merely that Rotschreck can't be played on it.
You can always make legal strikes even if they will not affect your
target; you can play Undead Strength as your strike in a long-range
combat, for instance, even though it will inflict no damage on your
opponent, much like a blocker playing a strike card that he knows won't
resolve in response to the acting minion playing Majesty. People
occasionally do this to cycle strike cards out of their hand.
The rulebook even notes that: "Unless the strike is identified as
ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or
combat ends), it is only effective at close range" - if strikes that
aren't ranged could not be played at long range, the rules would say so
instead of describing how such strikes don't have an effect when
played.
> Morgan Vening
-John Flournoy
LSJ
Yes.
Yes. Song will have no effect, but can still be played.
Yes. Hand strike will have no effect, but can still be chosen (indeed,
must be chosen if you have no other strike to choose).
No. The strike must be "against a vampire" to allow Rotschreck.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
de...@hell.is
> So it is caught in playtesting (and in design, actually -- you can't
> write a sentence like that after this many sets without at least
> considering the possible ramifications).
excellent point...
> The issue is then considered and this text is the result, since
> "exhaustive" text will not fit in the box, and the decided-upon text
is
> clear enough (or as clear as it can be, YMMV) as to intent. How is
that
> not exploring it to the full extent?
well... erm... look... point taken :-)
IMHO it still does not 'feel' right. but as I have not managed to
figure out an alternative text that (IMO) looks better, I have to agree
that this is a sufficient solution.
Ankha
>
> What about superior Lapse?
>
> salem
> http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
> (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
LSJ
news:6c33635f.05022...@posting.google.com...
Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
ability to strike, however.)
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Jozxyqk
> "Ankha" <v.ri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6c33635f.05022...@posting.google.com...
>> salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<2d2j111642d4qo05s...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> > What about superior Lapse?
>> >
>> > salem
>> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
>> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
>>
>> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
>> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
> Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
> ability to strike, however.)
But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a choice?
John Flournoy
And Thoughts Betrayed still allows other strike choices, like
already-equipped weapons, strikes inherent to a vampire's text (like
Marie Faucigny's dodge), or the [pre] outferior of Internal Recursion's
granted-before-combat ability to S:CE.
-John Flournoy
LSJ
> But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a choice?
Thoughts Betrayed (at DOM) is cancelable, because it
limits your choices.
salem
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled:
>"Ankha" <v.ri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6c33635f.05022...@posting.google.com...
>> salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<2d2j111642d4qo05s...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> > What about superior Lapse?
>> >
>> > salem
>> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
>> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
>>
>> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
>> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
>
>Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
>ability to strike, however.)
Interesting. I would have thought being not allowed to choose any
strike at all might somehow be considered somewhat of a restriction.
Oh well.
de...@hell.is
> Interesting. I would have thought being not allowed to choose any
> strike at all might somehow be considered somewhat of a restriction.
that's what I would have thougt as well.
but I can see the logic behind the justification as well (though I
would lean towards another interpretation myself, which is a completely
different matter anyway...).
Daneel
Now that I think of it, restricting the choice of strikes is taking away
options. Immortal Grapple takes away all but one option; Lapse takes away
one more with respect to that. I'm not sure why you need to be able to use
at least one strike in order for the effect to qualify as restriction...
Also, Immortal Grapple could be argued to take away your "choice"
completely, since you cannot select your strike (it must be hand strike,
no alternatives). The word "selection" might hint at selecting from among
multiple available options.
However, this is just abstract semantics shuffling. What I'm not content
about is that IMHO Drawing out the Beast should not be cancelled by
Groundfighting, as it's effect is not direct. The card only prevents you
from using equipment; your inability to use equipment may prevent you
from using a strike, but it could be argued that similar indirect
causality limits you from using an "only usable at certain range" strike
at the wrong range. I mean, Withering at superior limits your use of
disciplines, indirectly limiting your options to strike. Etc. Canine
Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes, burning
your weapon. Getting burned in combat also, indirectly, limits your
strike. So I think that only cards that explicitly restrict *strikes*
should count.
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
news:opsmnei0...@news.chello.hu...
> Now that I think of it, restricting the choice of strikes is taking away
> options. Immortal Grapple takes away all but one option; Lapse takes
away
Not all but one. Lucky Blow, hand strike, Channeling the Beast, etc.
> one more with respect to that. I'm not sure why you need to be able to
use
> at least one strike in order for the effect to qualify as
restriction...
Restricting the number of times you make a choice is not restricting the
number of options you have at each choice nexus.
Lapse doesn't restrict the number of options you'd have at the next
choice nexus any more than something that restricts your ability
to get additional strikes.
> Also, Immortal Grapple could be argued to take away your "choice"
> completely, since you cannot select your strike (it must be hand
strike,
> no alternatives). The word "selection" might hint at selecting from
among
> multiple available options.
There are many options available that qualify as hand strikes.
> Canine
> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
burning
> your weapon.
No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
Canine Horde strike resolves).
> Getting burned in combat also, indirectly, limits your
> strike.
No. It limits the number of future "choose strike" nexuses (nexi?)
you get.
Daneel
wrote:
> There are many options available that qualify as hand strikes.
Yeah, this was kind of weak... ;)
>> Canine
>> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
> burning
>> your weapon.
>
> No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
> burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
> Canine Horde strike resolves).
Yes, but you cannot use it during your next strike. Meaning, during
your next srtike, your choices are limited by the resolution of
this Canine Horde strike.
(Roughly equal to a pre-range DotB in that.)
If not being able to use a weapon constitutes a direct restriction
on selecting your strike with that particulat weapon, then getting
a weapon burned or stolen, likewise, imposes the same limitation.
> No. It limits the number of future "choose strike" nexuses (nexi?)
> you get.
;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> >> Canine
> >> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
> > burning
> >> your weapon.
> >
> > No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
> > burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
> > Canine Horde strike resolves).
>
> Yes, but you cannot use it during your next strike. Meaning, during
> your next srtike, your choices are limited by the resolution of
> this Canine Horde strike.
>
> (Roughly equal to a pre-range DotB in that.)
>
> If not being able to use a weapon constitutes a direct restriction
> on selecting your strike with that particulat weapon, then getting
> a weapon burned or stolen, likewise, imposes the same limitation.
OK, then. Canine Horde doesn't restrict your choice when it is
played. Unlike DotB, CH doesn't resolve when played.
The Cadaverous Verger
> nexuses (nexi?)
The plural of nexus is nexūs (long u).
--CV
Daneel
wrote:
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsmnjh1...@news.chello.hu...
>> >> Canine
>> >> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
>> > burning
>> >> your weapon.
>> >
>> > No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
>> > burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
>> > Canine Horde strike resolves).
>>
>> Yes, but you cannot use it during your next strike. Meaning, during
>> your next srtike, your choices are limited by the resolution of
>> this Canine Horde strike.
>>
>> (Roughly equal to a pre-range DotB in that.)
>>
>> If not being able to use a weapon constitutes a direct restriction
>> on selecting your strike with that particulat weapon, then getting
>> a weapon burned or stolen, likewise, imposes the same limitation.
>
>
> OK, then. Canine Horde doesn't restrict your choice when it is
> played. Unlike DotB, CH doesn't resolve when played.
King of the Mountaing at inferior?
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> King of the Mountaing at inferior?
Still no.
LSJ
message news:cvib8t$1i9$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > nexuses (nexi?)
>
> The plural of nexus is nexūs (long u).
Thanks.
The common English plural is nexuses, according to m-w.com
Daneel
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsmnu83...@news.chello.hu...
>> King of the Mountaing at inferior?
>
>
> Still no.
Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's next
strike.
Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.
--
Bye,
Daneel
jnew...@difsol.com
The parallel is inexact. DotB explicitly prohibits the use of
equipment. King of the Mountain does not - it merely burns the
equipment and the rules then prohibit that minion from using burned
equipment.
I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no equipment
to strike. I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
strikes to play, right?
John
LSJ
> Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's next
> strike.
>
> Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.
It doesn't restrict the minion's next strike.
It burns a weapon.
DotB says "can't use weapon".
Daneel
wrote:
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsmn0o1...@news.chello.hu...
>> Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's
>> next
>> strike.
>>
>> Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.
>
> It doesn't restrict the minion's next strike.
> It burns a weapon.
>
> DotB says "can't use weapon".
Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
It merely sets up an effect that makes the *minion* unable to use
equipment. He is still free to choose any legal strike he wishes.
Slightly unrelated thought experiment:
Assuming a hypothetical combat card version of The Grandest Trick would
allow you to be treated as an ally for the remainder of combat. So if
Marconius is in combat with Seren Sukardi the Anarch, could Seren
cancel that card if Marconius would want to play it? I doubt so.
Similar notice - if Seren Sukardi the Anarch is in combat with Gillian
Krader, and Gillian plays Terror Frenzy at inferior, effectively
making it impossible for Seren to press and use her strike, would that
count? I still doubt so. Also, striking Seren the Anarch from close
range. Taking damage restricts her from using her special strike, so
she can cancel a Thrown Sewer Lid? Dunno.
End thought experiment.
I think that the line would logically be drawn where a card explicitly
and specifically limits a strike. "Opposing minion cannot srtike with
a weapon." cuts it IMHO, "Opposing minion cannot use equipment." does
not. Sure, one implies the other, but then so does burning a weapon
imply that the former bearer will be unable to use it on his next strike.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
>I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no equipment
>to strike.
It's simple, I guess. You don't have equipment? Drawing Out is not
restricting your choice of strikes, just prohibiting you from using a
*type* of strike you wouldn't be able to choose anyway.
You have equipment? Drawing Out is restricting your choices.
> I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
>strikes to play, right?
>John
I'd assume yes, since IG do restrict your choices no matter if you
have something in hand or not. Groundfighting doesn't say anything
about you having a relevant type of strike right now, just being able
to choose.
Regarding equipment, you're not able to choose strike with an
equipment from the get go if you don't possess one.
Also, having no non-hand strikes when IG is played doesn't mean you
*can't* draw one to use as an additional strike, and Groundfighting
refers to the whole round.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
jnew...@difsol.com
Daneel wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:00:40 -0500, LSJ
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> > news:opsmn0o1...@news.chello.hu...
> >> Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing
minion's
> >> next
> >> strike.
> >>
> >> Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.
> >
> > It doesn't restrict the minion's next strike.
> > It burns a weapon.
> >
> > DotB says "can't use weapon".
>
> Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
> does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
> It merely sets up an effect that makes the *minion* unable to use
> equipment. He is still free to choose any legal strike he wishes.
No, he is explicitly forbidden from using his gun/stick/poker/etc. for
the remainder of combat.
> Slightly unrelated thought experiment:
>
> Assuming a hypothetical combat card version of The Grandest Trick
would
> allow you to be treated as an ally for the remainder of combat. So
if
> Marconius is in combat with Seren Sukardi the Anarch, could Seren
> cancel that card if Marconius would want to play it? I doubt so.
No. Seren's own strike *restricts itself*. It is not restricted by a
hypothetical card that does not explicity restrict it (like IG).
> Similar notice - if Seren Sukardi the Anarch is in combat with
Gillian
> Krader, and Gillian plays Terror Frenzy at inferior, effectively
> making it impossible for Seren to press and use her strike, would
that
> count? I still doubt so. Also, striking Seren the Anarch from close
> range. Taking damage restricts her from using her special strike,
so
> she can cancel a Thrown Sewer Lid? Dunno.
The terror frenzy is cancelable if Seren has a weapon, since it
explicitly forbids the use of that strike. Seren's own strike, again,
restricts itself based on outside factors. Those factors, themselves,
do not restrict his strike.
> I think that the line would logically be drawn where a card
explicitly
> and specifically limits a strike. "Opposing minion cannot srtike
with
> a weapon." cuts it IMHO, "Opposing minion cannot use equipment."
does
> not. Sure, one implies the other, but then so does burning a weapon
> imply that the former bearer will be unable to use it on his next
strike.
"Opposing minion cannot use equipment" *includes explicitly* "Opposing
minion cannot strike with a weapon". Burning a weapon does not
explicitly keep that weapon from being used to strike.
John
LSJ
> Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
> does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
Yes it does. It says he cannot use his equipment. If he has
equipment with which to strike, that limits his choices.
jnew...@difsol.com
Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2005 11:50:33 -0800, jnew...@difsol.com wrote:
>
> >I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no
equipment
> >to strike.
>
> It's simple, I guess. You don't have equipment? Drawing Out is not
> restricting your choice of strikes, just prohibiting you from using a
> *type* of strike you wouldn't be able to choose anyway.
> You have equipment? Drawing Out is restricting your choices.
Unless I disguised out or used WWS.
> > I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
> >strikes to play, right?
> >John
>
> I'd assume yes, since IG do restrict your choices no matter if you
> have something in hand or not. Groundfighting doesn't say anything
> about you having a relevant type of strike right now, just being able
> to choose.
> Regarding equipment, you're not able to choose strike with an
> equipment from the get go if you don't possess one.
Well, unless you get one with one of several combat cards (Zip Gun,
WWS, Concealed/Disguised). And, with non-hand strikes under a grapple,
unless I get one from another source (card in play, strike card from
hand) I wouldn't be able to choose a non-hand strike anyway (esp. since
choosing not to strike at all is explicitly not allowed).
> Also, having no non-hand strikes when IG is played doesn't mean you
> *can't* draw one to use as an additional strike, and Groundfighting
> refers to the whole round.
Right, but I could also draw a Disguised Weapon with OBF, too, right?
And Drawing Our also goes the whole round.
I mean, I know that Grapple makes *very* explicit that it is
restricting strikes. But so does DotB - it's just not an *important*
restriction if you don't have a weapon (yet). Much like Grapple isn't
an *important* restriction if you had no non-hand options available
anyway.
John.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:cvci12$2pn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
> The Lasombra wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk
<jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
> >>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I
can
> >>remember so far, was this:
> >
> >>=================
> >>Groundfighting
> >>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
> >>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by
the
> >>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes
this
> >>round as it is played.
> >>=================
> >
> >>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
> >
> > Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
> > Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
While Grasp of the Python may be "this kind of card", it is not
cancelable by Groundfighting, correct? I can't find the text of Grasp
at the moment, but as I remember, it restricts the choice of strikes
*next* round, not this round.
> >>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to
strike with
> >>a weapon, indirectly.
> >
> > Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.
>
> Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
> with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).
Just how direct a "choice of strikes" effect does it take for a card to
be cancelable by Groundfighting?
It sounds like the line you're drawing is that Groundfighting requires a
card to reduce the anarch's legal strike choices compared to what they
would be without that card being played, but if a card makes you unable
to strike at all (reduction in choices to 0) that's not cancelable.
Logically, I'm not clear on why reducing your choices to "no choice"
isn't cancelable but other subsets are. Anyway, for specific examples:
Shape Mastery at [pro]: "Cancel a combat card that requires
Obtenebration [obt], Protean, or Vicissitude [vic] as it is played (no
cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot play that card again this
action."
If the canceled card is a strike card, Shape Mastery can be canceled by
Groundfighting, correct?
Withering at [THN]: "As [thn] above, and the minion with this card
cannot play cards that require any Disciplines."
Can this be canceled by Groundfighting? Even if it resolves at the same
time as the anarch's strike, it restricts later strikes that the anarch
could choose this round. (Basically the same question applies to Fata
Amria at [chi].)
The Drawing out the Beast and Thoughts Betrayed situations seem a little
at odds: DotB is only cancelable by Groundfighting if the anarch is
already in possession of a weapon, but Thoughts Betrayed at [DOM]
doesn't require that the anarch's controller actually have a strike card
in hand to be cancelable. What's the reasoning behind the difference?
And as a side question, if DotB is played on the first round, and the
opposing anarch has only an RPG Launcher for a weapon, that DotB cannot
be canceled with Groundfighting, correct?
Side DotB question number two: If the anarch has Potence thanks to Eye
of Hazimel, and wants to play a Potence-requiring strike, can DotB be
canceled by Groundfighting even though the Eye itself doesn't grant a
strike?
Rigor Mortis at [pre]: "The opposing minion cannot use any additional
strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional strikes
also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that mean
that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it depend
whether the anarch has [CEL], like Drawing out the Beast depends on
whether the anarch has a weapon? (It's a little odd that you have to
know the universe of possible card effects to know whether a particular
card does or doesn't restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes...
I don't know if there's any way around that given the desired effect of
Groundfighting though.)
Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes are
chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes all
the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1 blood,
can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)
Range-setting effects: It seems like these are about as direct a
restriction on the anarch's ability to use (at least inherent) "only at
range X" strikes as Drawing out the Beast is against equipment-based
strikes. Why is DotB cancelable with Groundfighting, but range-setting
effects aren't, even if an existing strike choice is being disallowed by
the setting of range?
Josh
the sky is grey, and the sand is grey, and the ocean is grey
jnew...@difsol.com
> strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
> cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional
strikes
> also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that
mean
> that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it
depend
> whether the anarch has [CEL], like Drawing out the Beast depends on
> whether the anarch has a weapon?
I thought you could still play it at CEL (or even cel) but you couldn't
*use* the extra strike. Maybe I'm wrong.
> Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes
are
> chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes
all
> the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1
blood,
> can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
> question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)
No, the anarch's lack of blood is what prevents the strike, not Thin
Blood's text.
> Range-setting effects: It seems like these are about as direct a
> restriction on the anarch's ability to use (at least inherent) "only
at
> range X" strikes as Drawing out the Beast is against equipment-based
> strikes. Why is DotB cancelable with Groundfighting, but
range-setting
> effects aren't, even if an existing strike choice is being disallowed
by
> the setting of range?
DotB explicitly forbids certain strikes. Range-setting affects do not
(the strike itself is generally what restricts its use).
I still don't understand why DotB's cancelability first requires
checking to see if I have any equipment-based strikes to make.
John
Matthew T. Morgan
> While Grasp of the Python may be "this kind of card", it is not
> cancelable by Groundfighting, correct? I can't find the text of Grasp
> at the moment, but as I remember, it restricts the choice of strikes
> *next* round, not this round.
Groundfighting
Combat
Requires a ready anarch or rulemonger
Maneuver, press or burn 1 blood to cancel a long series of questions from
Josh Duffin.
LSJ
> While Grasp of the Python may be "this kind of card", it is not
> cancelable by Groundfighting, correct? I can't find the text of Grasp
> at the moment, but as I remember, it restricts the choice of strikes
> *next* round, not this round.
Card text is followed, right.
> Just how direct a "choice of strikes" effect does it take for a card to
> be cancelable by Groundfighting?
As established already in this thread. The effect must restrict the
minion's choice of strikes ("cannot use <blah> striketype", "cannot
use equipment" when the minion has striking equipment, etc.).
> It sounds like the line you're drawing is that Groundfighting requires a
> card to reduce the anarch's legal strike choices compared to what they
> would be without that card being played, but if a card makes you unable
> to strike at all (reduction in choices to 0) that's not cancelable.
> Logically, I'm not clear on why reducing your choices to "no choice"
> isn't cancelable but other subsets are. Anyway, for specific examples:
Removing the ability to choose is not the same as reducing your
choices to "no choice". In one you choose, but have no options.
In the other, you don't have the opportunity window to make
a choice.
> Shape Mastery at [pro]: "Cancel a combat card that requires
> Obtenebration [obt], Protean, or Vicissitude [vic] as it is played (no
> cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot play that card again this
> action."
>
> If the canceled card is a strike card, Shape Mastery can be canceled by
> Groundfighting, correct?
Yes.
> Withering at [THN]: "As [thn] above, and the minion with this card
> cannot play cards that require any Disciplines."
>
> Can this be canceled by Groundfighting? Even if it resolves at the same
> time as the anarch's strike, it restricts later strikes that the anarch
> could choose this round. (Basically the same question applies to Fata
> Amria at [chi].)
No.
> The Drawing out the Beast and Thoughts Betrayed situations seem a little
> at odds: DotB is only cancelable by Groundfighting if the anarch is
> already in possession of a weapon, but Thoughts Betrayed at [DOM]
> doesn't require that the anarch's controller actually have a strike card
> in hand to be cancelable. What's the reasoning behind the difference?
One is restricting choice of strikes.
> And as a side question, if DotB is played on the first round, and the
> opposing anarch has only an RPG Launcher for a weapon, that DotB cannot
> be canceled with Groundfighting, correct?
Yes.
> Side DotB question number two: If the anarch has Potence thanks to Eye
> of Hazimel, and wants to play a Potence-requiring strike, can DotB be
> canceled by Groundfighting even though the Eye itself doesn't grant a
> strike?
No. See the already-discussed Weakness.
> Rigor Mortis at [pre]: "The opposing minion cannot use any additional
> strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
> cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional strikes
> also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that mean
> that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it depend
No.
> whether the anarch has [CEL], like Drawing out the Beast depends on
> whether the anarch has a weapon? (It's a little odd that you have to
> know the universe of possible card effects to know whether a particular
> card does or doesn't restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes...
> I don't know if there's any way around that given the desired effect of
> Groundfighting though.)
>
> Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes are
> chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes all
> the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1 blood,
> can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
> question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)
No.
> Range-setting effects: It seems like these are about as direct a
> restriction on the anarch's ability to use (at least inherent) "only at
> range X" strikes as Drawing out the Beast is against equipment-based
> strikes. Why is DotB cancelable with Groundfighting, but range-setting
> effects aren't, even if an existing strike choice is being disallowed by
> the setting of range?
Because they aren't actively restricting his choice, as stated.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Fabio "Sooner"
>Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2005 11:50:33 -0800, jnew...@difsol.com wrote:
>>
>> >I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no
>equipment
>> >to strike.
>>
>> It's simple, I guess. You don't have equipment? Drawing Out is not
>> restricting your choice of strikes, just prohibiting you from using a
>> *type* of strike you wouldn't be able to choose anyway.
>> You have equipment? Drawing Out is restricting your choices.
>
>Unless I disguised out or used WWS.
See below.
>> > I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
>> >strikes to play, right?
>> >John
>>
>> I'd assume yes, since IG do restrict your choices no matter if you
>> have something in hand or not. Groundfighting doesn't say anything
>> about you having a relevant type of strike right now, just being able
>> to choose.
>> Regarding equipment, you're not able to choose strike with an
>> equipment from the get go if you don't possess one.
>
>Well, unless you get one with one of several combat cards (Zip Gun,
>WWS, Concealed/Disguised). And, with non-hand strikes under a grapple,
>unless I get one from another source (card in play, strike card from
>hand) I wouldn't be able to choose a non-hand strike anyway (esp. since
>choosing not to strike at all is explicitly not allowed).
>
>> Also, having no non-hand strikes when IG is played doesn't mean you
>> *can't* draw one to use as an additional strike, and Groundfighting
>> refers to the whole round.
>
>Right, but I could also draw a Disguised Weapon with OBF, too, right?
>And Drawing Our also goes the whole round.
I guess that depends largely on what comes first. I've thought the
same and found out that Groundfighting cancel a "card that restrict
this anarch's choice of strikes *as it is played*. So you're the
blocking minion and the acting one plays Drawing Out first, you can't
groundfight even if you conceal/disguise a gun, it's too late. The
reverse would be another different matter. LSJ?
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
Daneel
wrote:
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsmn203...@news.chello.hu...
>> Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
>> does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
>
> Yes it does. It says he cannot use his equipment. If he has
> equipment with which to strike, that limits his choices.
This seems to me like very drawkcab reasoning. In reality getting your
disciplines reduced will likely restrict your strikes... By directly
making you unable to use some of the cards that are in your hand. I
mean, if we look at strike options in play, Immortal Grapple only
restricts you if you are having a weapon (or non-hand strike option
listed on the crypt card). Yet Immortal Grapple seems to be considered
restricting your strikes even if you have no in-game strike options
available.
Drawing out the Beast would, therefor, by similar logic, always
restrict your strikes. Becasue, you are denied certain (non-in-game)
strike options, like striking with a Disguised Shotgun.
I think that there is a gap there. I think the ways to resolve this:
1. You only restrict Immortal Grapple (or other restrictive cards) when
they restrict you from using strike options that are already available
in-game. Thus, Immortal would not be cancelable, unless you have
special card text allowing you a non-hand strike listed on the crypt
card or any other relevant in-game or in-effect card (like in a combat
after Shroud of Absence or Internal Recursion). This is probably the
most contrived, and also makes GF somewhat weaker than it currently
is. It is, however, pretty straightforward.
2. You could say that cards that could restrict your strikes in any
manner, even in relation to non-in-game strike sources, (including
DotB, Terror Frenzy, Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed) can be
canceled. Since DotB restricts you from choosing equipment-based
strikes, you can cancel it, because you may want to play some
equipment from your hand for strike-related use, etc. (Just as you
might want to play a strike card from your hand when under the effects
of Immortal Grapple). From this perspective, I'm not sure why it is
reasonable to assume that the opposing minion has Majesty but not
Weighted Walking Stick... (If indirectly affecting equipment counts,
and restricting cards from hand also counts, then I'm not sure why
indirectly affecting equipment cards in hand doesn't count). This is
perhaps the most liberal method, but it may open up some loopholes.
3. You could make GF only useful in which case the opposing card text
excplicitly forbids a *strike*. Not just a use of an equipment, or
playing of cards, or striking at all (this is currently covered
AFAIK). Rather, choosing strikes, and in a direct fasion. Drawing
the line somewhere between "cannot strike with / cannot use ...
strikes / must use strikes" and "cannot use equipment / cannot use
retainers / cannot use effects that would, by some chain of thought,
somehow allow him some strikes". This is probably the best
semantically and the simplest. This is my preference.
Unless, the real issue is that the semantics are taking a backseat to
game balance (which would limit your strikes, LSJ, to "Strike: maintain
game balance" against my "Strike: argue semantics" and "Strike: argue
logic" strikes. ;)
Btw, I don't really care either way from a personal POV - I seldom
play animalism, anarchs or weapons (except swords, sticks and other
stuff DotB has no real impact on). Its just game logic and
explainability I'm honestly trying to improve...
--
Bye,
Daneel
jnew...@difsol.com
your
> disciplines reduced will likely restrict your strikes... By
directly
> making you unable to use some of the cards that are in your hand. I
> mean, if we look at strike options in play, Immortal Grapple only
> restricts you if you are having a weapon (or non-hand strike option
> listed on the crypt card). Yet Immortal Grapple seems to be
considered
> restricting your strikes even if you have no in-game strike options
> available.
I agree. Hypothetical card : Honor Duel - weapon strikes that are not
with melee weapons cannot be played.
Do I have to look and see if the other minion has a ranged weapon
before I know if it's restricting his strikes?
John.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > Just how direct a "choice of strikes" effect does it take for a card
to
> > be cancelable by Groundfighting?
>
> As established already in this thread. The effect must restrict the
> minion's choice of strikes ("cannot use <blah> striketype", "cannot
> use equipment" when the minion has striking equipment, etc.).
"Cannot use equipment" is just as indirect as several other examples
that you've said *aren't* cancelable, though. Drawing out the Beast
doesn't say that the opposing minion can't *strike* with a weapon, it
says that he can't use equipment, which happens to limit his strike
choices if he has a piece of equipment that can be used to strike. But
no more directly than if he's prohibited from using discipline-requiring
cards (Withering) and has a discipline-requiring strike in hand. Note
that Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable regardless of whether the opposing
anarch actually has a strike card to play in hand, which is just as
direct (or indirect) as Withering's effect.
My concern is that you're basically requiring the use of the word
"strike" or forbidding of a particular strike for all other cards to be
cancelable by Groundfighting - incidentally restricting strikes by
having a more general effect won't do it - but not for Drawing out the
Beast/Terror Frenzy, which have a general effect that sometimes happens
to prohibit strikes.
> > Logically, I'm not clear on why reducing your choices to "no choice"
> > isn't cancelable but other subsets are. Anyway, for specific
examples:
>
> Removing the ability to choose is not the same as reducing your
> choices to "no choice". In one you choose, but have no options.
> In the other, you don't have the opportunity window to make
> a choice.
Before Lapse is played, the opposing anarch has the ability to choose
any strike. After Lapse is played, he can't choose a strike at all.
How is that not a restriction? It's not a natural-number subset of his
previous choices, but it is certainly a restriction on his ability to
choose strikes.
> > Rigor Mortis at [pre]: "The opposing minion cannot use any
additional
> > strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
> > cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional
strikes
> > also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that
mean
> > that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it
depend
>
> No.
That's a bit baffling. Rigor Mortis is clearly restricting the anarch's
choice of strikes, in that he cannot strike with Acrobatics if Rigor
Mortis is played. Is this ruling due to Rigor Mortis not explicitly
prohibiting strikes, but prohibiting them as a "side effect"?
I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but it seems to me that if it's
actually *impossible* to write a particular effect in a clear and
intuitive manner, that might be a good indication that a similar effect
that *can* be written clearly should be used instead. (It may not be
entirely impossible for the Groundfighting effect to be defined well,
but I haven't seen or been able to think of any way to do it, yet.)
Josh
it certainly would have been simpler, for example, for it to cancel a
"grapple" card, like that other one does...
LSJ
news:3869a2F...@individual.net...
> "Cannot use equipment" is just as indirect as several other examples
> that you've said *aren't* cancelable, though.
Perhaps. It is the runt of the litter for what gets in here, yes.
I'm aware of the needling points on the verbiage there.
> Before Lapse is played, the opposing anarch has the ability to choose
> any strike. After Lapse is played, he can't choose a strike at all.
> How is that not a restriction? It's not a natural-number subset of his
> previous choices, but it is certainly a restriction on his ability to
> choose strikes.
As explained already.
Reducing the number of times you get to make a choice is viewed
differently than restricting the number of options available
to you in a given time of choice.
> That's a bit baffling. Rigor Mortis is clearly restricting the anarch's
> choice of strikes, in that he cannot strike with Acrobatics if Rigor
> Mortis is played. Is this ruling due to Rigor Mortis not explicitly
> prohibiting strikes, but prohibiting them as a "side effect"?
Rigor mortis restricts gaining additional strikes.
It doesn't itself restrict strikes.
> I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but it seems to me that if it's
> actually *impossible* to write a particular effect in a clear and
> intuitive manner, that might be a good indication that a similar effect
> that *can* be written clearly should be used instead. (It may not be
> entirely impossible for the Groundfighting effect to be defined well,
> but I haven't seen or been able to think of any way to do it, yet.)
No argument there.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.