LSJ: Form of Mist/Repulsion Q
Joshua Duffin
needs the stealth. [LSJ 30-Jun-1997]
Repulsion (at OBE) is playable even if the acting vampire does
not currently need the stealth. [LSJ 14-Dec-2001]
This seems inconsistent. The 30Jun1997 ruling appears broad
enough that it should include OBE Repulsion in its scope:
"You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if
any minions have attempted to block the current action, but not
if the acting minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions'
intercept. You may play cards and abilities that provide
intercept only if the minion you want to play them on has
attempted to block the current action, but not if your minion's
intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth."
Despite the initial sentence of OBE Repulsion being "Put this
card on this vampire", it is clearly a card that provides
stealth just as much as PRO Form of Mist ("={When played by an
acting vampire, this card counts as an action modifier and the
action continues}= at +1 stealth as if unblocked") is. Neither
of them say simply "+1 stealth" like obf Lost in Crowds does,
but if we can tell by reading FoM that it "provides stealth"
and is therefore not playable unless you need stealth, we can
do the same for Repulsion.
The parallel to Sport Bike given in the 14Dec2001 ruling on
Repulsion seems sensible, but the 1997 ruling, read literally,
looks to me like it's actually so broad that it would prohibit
playing a Sport Bike on a minion that didn't (currently) need
intercept: Sport Bike, being a "card that provides intercept",
should only be playable "if the minion you attempted to play
[it] on has attempted to block the current action [...]".
Am I wrong about how parallel Repulsion and Form of Mist seem
to be? I don't see (now that it was pointed out to me last
night) how a ruling governing one can avoid governing the other.
thanks,
Josh
stupid allies anyway
LSJ
>
> Form of Mist (at PRO) is only playable if the acting vampire
> needs the stealth. [LSJ 30-Jun-1997]
>
> Repulsion (at OBE) is playable even if the acting vampire does
> not currently need the stealth. [LSJ 14-Dec-2001]
>
> This seems inconsistent. The 30Jun1997 ruling appears broad
> enough that it should include OBE Repulsion in its scope:
Form of Mist PRO adds stealth.
Repulsion OBE puts a card into play. The card, being in play, grants
additional stealth. See also equipping with a Sport Bike or a Mask
of Erebus.
> "You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if
> any minions have attempted to block the current action, but not
> if the acting minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions'
> intercept. You may play cards and abilities that provide
> intercept only if the minion you want to play them on has
> attempted to block the current action, but not if your minion's
> intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth."
>
> Despite the initial sentence of OBE Repulsion being "Put this
> card on this vampire", it is clearly a card that provides
> stealth just as much as PRO Form of Mist ("={When played by an
> acting vampire, this card counts as an action modifier and the
> action continues}= at +1 stealth as if unblocked") is. Neither
It is the card in play that provides stealth.
Not playing the card (contrast with Form of Mist).
> of them say simply "+1 stealth" like obf Lost in Crowds does,
> but if we can tell by reading FoM that it "provides stealth"
> and is therefore not playable unless you need stealth, we can
> do the same for Repulsion.
The stealth from Form of Mist comes from playing the card.
The stealth from Repulsion comes from the card in play.
> The parallel to Sport Bike given in the 14Dec2001 ruling on
> Repulsion seems sensible, but the 1997 ruling, read literally,
> looks to me like it's actually so broad that it would prohibit
> playing a Sport Bike on a minion that didn't (currently) need
> intercept: Sport Bike, being a "card that provides intercept",
> should only be playable "if the minion you attempted to play
> [it] on has attempted to block the current action [...]".
Playing the Sport Bike doesn't add intercept.
The Sport Bike in play gives intercept.
> Am I wrong about how parallel Repulsion and Form of Mist seem
> to be? I don't see (now that it was pointed out to me last
> night) how a ruling governing one can avoid governing the other.
By distinguishing between effects of playing cards and effects of
cards in play.
> stupid allies anyway
Sticky sigs?
--
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/
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD1578C...@white-wolf.com...
> The stealth from Form of Mist comes from playing the card.
> The stealth from Repulsion comes from the card in play.
It seems like the latter is only true if you apply the effects
one sentence at a time while reading the card one sentence at
a time (ie without looking ahead). If you read the whole card
before doing anything, you see "Put this card on this vampire.
This vampire gets +1 stealth." You are playing a card that,
by its text, provides stealth that comes from playing the
card. Reading the card as a whole, "This vampire gets +1
stealth" refers to this *playing* vampire at the same time
that it refers to "the vampire with this card".
Are current templates such that effects should always be
applied one sentence at a time with "then, afterwards" implied
at each period, or is this a case-by-case thing?
> > stupid allies anyway
>
> Sticky sigs?
I decided to use that as my sig all day today. Because allies
are stupid. :-)
Josh
stupid allies anyway
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3CD1578C...@white-wolf.com...
>
> > The stealth from Form of Mist comes from playing the card.
> > The stealth from Repulsion comes from the card in play.
>
> It seems like the latter is only true if you apply the effects
> one sentence at a time while reading the card one sentence at
> a time (ie without looking ahead). If you read the whole card
> before doing anything, you see "Put this card on this vampire.
> This vampire gets +1 stealth." You are playing a card that,
> by its text, provides stealth that comes from playing the
> card. Reading the card as a whole, "This vampire gets +1
> stealth" refers to this *playing* vampire at the same time
> that it refers to "the vampire with this card".
I see. And what effect do you think the card in play has? That
is, why is it put into play and why does it have a burn option?
After being put on a vampire, any reference on the card to "this
vampire" is usually taken to mean "the vampire with this card".
cf. "This vampire cannot have or play another Repulsion" (meaning
the vampire with this card, not the vampire who plays this card -
once the card is burned, he can play another).
> Are current templates such that effects should always be
> applied one sentence at a time with "then, afterwards" implied
> at each period, or is this a case-by-case thing?
You don't need a sequencing ruling, just a ruling on what "this
vampire" means. For cards played on vampires, it means the
vampire with the card. See Blood Hunt, Clan Impersonation, etc.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
[Repulsion]
> > Reading the card as a whole, "This vampire gets +1
> > stealth" refers to this *playing* vampire at the same time
> > that it refers to "the vampire with this card".
>
> I see. And what effect do you think the card in play has? That
> is, why is it put into play and why does it have a burn option?
I know what effect it has in play - I'm just saying it also
appears to have that effect "while being played".
> After being put on a vampire, any reference on the card to "this
> vampire" is usually taken to mean "the vampire with this card".
>
> cf. "This vampire cannot have or play another Repulsion" (meaning
> the vampire with this card, not the vampire who plays this card -
> once the card is burned, he can play another).
Right. That reminds me, actually:
AUS Melange: "As above, and if you successfully block the acting
minion, put this card on the acting minion; you still control this
card. You may burn this card to get +1 bleed when this vampire
bleeds the controller of the vampire with this card."
In the last sentence, "this vampire" seems like it must mean
"this reacting vampire". But you've already put the card on
the acting minion. Came up in a tournament a while ago and
confused us all. Were we (eventually) right, that "this
vampire" here means "this reacting vampire"?
These kinds of cards might all be clearer if they used "the
vampire with this card" when that's what they meant, instead
of just "this vampire". (And, of course, "this reacting"
or "this acting (or modifying)" vampire instead of just "this
vampire".)
> > Are current templates such that effects should always be
> > applied one sentence at a time with "then, afterwards" implied
> > at each period, or is this a case-by-case thing?
>
> You don't need a sequencing ruling, just a ruling on what "this
> vampire" means. For cards played on vampires, it means the
> vampire with the card. See Blood Hunt, Clan Impersonation, etc.
The "sequencing" question seems relevant to the May 1, 2002
Rotschreck ruling, though. If there's no sequencing - if all
a card's effects happen indivisibly - it shouldn't be possible
to "interrupt" Rotschreck with Psyche!.
Josh
stupid, stupid allies
LSJ
> AUS Melange: "As above, and if you successfully block the acting
> minion, put this card on the acting minion; you still control this
> card. You may burn this card to get +1 bleed when this vampire
> bleeds the controller of the vampire with this card."
>
> In the last sentence, "this vampire" seems like it must mean
> "this reacting vampire". But you've already put the card on
> the acting minion. Came up in a tournament a while ago and
> confused us all. Were we (eventually) right, that "this
> vampire" here means "this reacting vampire"?
Yes. See how card text (realizing the abiguity) goes on to
refer to "the vampire with this card" for clarity.
> These kinds of cards might all be clearer if they used "the
> vampire with this card" when that's what they meant, instead
> of just "this vampire". (And, of course, "this reacting"
> or "this acting (or modifying)" vampire instead of just "this
> vampire".)
True. But sometimes real estate conservation (of merely brevity)
is prefered.