[LSJ] Aura of Invincibility
Ira
If a vampire uses Aura of Invincibility and then that initial vote
fails, does the vampire still go to torpor? I'm unclear about the
answer because the card is only put on the vampire if the initial
referendum passes. The whole rest of the text may only apply if the
initial if-clause is satisfied.
Also, the phrase "burn this card and send this vampire to torpor,"
confuses me a little if it applies before the card is put on the
vampire. Is the card in play, or in limbo?
If I had to answer to my own question, I'd guess that the card simply
remains "in limbo" during the whole referendum (in the same way an
action card remains in limbo before the action is resolved), and if
the initial vote fails, the vampire does go to torpor.
Thanks,
Ira
Here's the text:
Name: Aura of Invincibility
Rarity: Gehenna:C
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Cost: 1 blood
Only usable during a referendum, before any votes are cast.
If this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire and put
a counter on this card. This vampire gets an additional vote for each
counter on this card in referendums he or she calls. Add a counter to
this card when a referendum called by this vampire passes. If a
referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card and send this
vampire to torpor. A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility.
Izaak
The card isn't "on" the vampire until the referendum passes. If the
inital referendum fails, there's no "this card" to burn and the vampire
is not sent to torpor.
LSJ
>> If a vampire uses Aura of Invincibility and then that initial vote
>>fails, does the vampire still go to torpor? I'm unclear about the
>>answer because the card is only put on the vampire if the initial
>>referendum passes. The whole rest of the text may only apply if the
>>initial if-clause is satisfied.
>>Thanks,
>>Ira
>>
>>Name: Aura of Invincibility
> The card isn't "on" the vampire until the referendum passes. If the
> inital referendum fails, there's no "this card" to burn and the vampire
> is not sent to torpor.
Correct.
--
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/
Ankur Gupta
If a vampire already has an Aura of Invincibility, can he play another one
in order to cycle it? (Since the card isn't put on until the referendum is
successful?)
What happens if the referendum is successful?
My guess was yes, it could be played, and that the incoming copy (i.e. the
new one) was burned.
Ankur
LSJ
> Another followup question:
>
> If a vampire already has an Aura of Invincibility, can he play another one
> in order to cycle it? (Since the card isn't put on until the referendum is
> successful?)
No.
Ankur Gupta
>> in order to cycle it? (Since the card isn't put on until the referendum is
>> successful?)
>
> No.
Ok. What reason makes this the case? (I need to explain this to others.)
To me, the text "A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility."
doesn't preclude playing one, since the card is only put on the acting
vampire if the referendum is successful.
Ankur
LSJ
The same reason you cannot attempt to equip with a Hawg (to cycle)
when you already have a Sport Bike. (A minion can have only one
Vehicle).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8iikht%24v3j%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Or attempt to recruit Muddles when you already have him. (Can't
self-contest).
Just because it doesn't technically come into play until the action
resolves doesn't mean you can do something you're not allowed to.
Ira
Agreed.
> If the inital referendum fails, there's no "this card" to
> burn and the vampire is not sent to torpor.
Does the Aura of Invincibility exist in limbo while the referendum is
being resolved, in the same way that an action card exists in limbo
while the action is being resolved? I assume it does, per this ruling
by LSJ:
Therefore, the card still exists, and it seems to me that it can be
burned. So, the logic that "there's no 'this card' to burn" is
fallacious IMO.
LSJ, could you elaborate on the reasons behind the ruling? I'd like
to understand the reasoning behind the ruling so I can apply it in
similar cases.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the reason the vamp isn't sent to
torpor is either:
a) The initial "if" clause must be satisfied for the rest of the text
to apply at all.
b) If the card isn't put on the vamp, then "this vampire" doesn't
refer to anything (and therefore nothing goes to torpor.)
Choice (b) seems weak to me, because the vamp still played the action
mod, and normally "this vampire" on an action mod clearly refers to
the vampire playing the action mod, regardless of whether or not the
card is actually on the vampire.
Thanks,
Ira
LSJ
> LSJ, could you elaborate on the reasons behind the ruling?
Not really. It's clear as is. The ruling is just a clarification,
a restatement of card text.
Ira
It is not clear to me.
Here is my question: why does the sentence "If a referendum called by
this vampire fails, burn this card and send this vampire to torpor."
not apply on the initial referendum?
"This vampire" clearly refers to the vampire playing the action
modifier, and "burn this card" can certainly apply, even if the card
is in limbo and not on the vampire yet.
So, to me, card text implies that "if a referendum fails" you "burn
the card" (doesn't matter if it's on the vampire or not, you still
burn it) and then the vampire goes to torpor.
Clearly I'm interpretting the card text incorrectly, I just don't
understand what's wrong with my logic.
If you (or someone else with more insight than I) could answer the
only question posed in this post, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks, have a good weekend,
Ira
LSJ
> It is not clear to me.
> modifier,
Incorrect. By the first sentence, it is referring to the vampire
with the card, clearly, just as "this vampire" does in the
intervening two sentences.
Emmit Svenson
> Here is my question: why does the sentence "If a referendum called by
> this vampire fails, burn this card and send this vampire to torpor."
> not apply on the initial referendum?
>
> "This vampire" clearly refers to the vampire playing the action
> modifier, and "burn this card" can certainly apply, even if the card
> is in limbo and not on the vampire yet.
If you take "this vampire" in the sentence you quote to mean "the
vampire with this card" rather than "the vampire playing this action
modifier", then it's clear why the clause doesn't apply in the initial
referendum.
The card could be phrased more clearly, I agree.
LSJ
> If you take "this vampire" in the sentence you quote to mean "the
> vampire with this card" rather than "the vampire playing this action
> modifier", then it's clear why the clause doesn't apply in the initial
> referendum.
Or if you just take "this vampire" to mean what it meant in the other times
it appears on the card's text. Context, as it frequently does, helps clear
this up nicely.
> The card could be phrased more clearly, I agree.
By all means, suggest a clearer reading that still reads as nicely to
the non-lawyers and with the same character count (or smaller).
Ira
> Incorrect. By the first sentence, it is referring to the vampire
> with the card, clearly, just as "this vampire" does in the
> intervening two sentences.
Thank you for your usual patience and clarity. I understand now, and
when I looked at other cards like Repulsion [OBE] or Sleep Unseen
[OBF], it must be as you ruled it. I think I was a little confused
because cards like Sleep Unseen [obf] or Draught of the Soul
[qui][aus] sometimes clarify "this vampire" as "the vampire with this
card." Nonetheless, if the text says, "put this card on this
vampire," then all later references of "this vampire" refer to "the
vampire with this card."
That seems obvious now, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me for
Aura of Invincibility; I was (incorrectly) interpreting "this vampire"
as "the vampire playing the action modifier," and all the rest of the
effects (except the initial torpor effect) were consistent.
Regardless, I think I have a full understanding now, and hopefully
this discussion helped someone else as well.
Thanks,
Ira, who might make life easier if he simply understood the rulings,
and ignored the reasons behind them.
Colin McGuigan
> By all means, suggest a clearer reading that still reads as nicely to
> the non-lawyers and with the same character count (or smaller).
Original: Only usable during a referendum, before any votes are cast. If
this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire and put a
counter on this card. This vampire gets an additional vote for each
counter on this card in referendums he or she calls. Add a counter to
this card when a referendum called by this vampire passes. If a
referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card and send this
vampire to torpor. A vampire can have only one Aura of Invincibility.
389 non-whitespace characters.
Proposal: Only usable during a referendum, before any votes are cast.
Put this card on the acting vampire. When a referendum this vampire
called passes, put a counter on this card. This vampire gets an
additional vote for each counter on this card in referendums he or she
calls. If a referendum called by this vampire fails, burn this card; if
the card had any counters on it, send this vampire to torpor. A vampire
can have only one Aura of Invincibility.
367 non-whitespace characters.
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
Nice one.
Alters the functionality, though, in that the vampire can now "save"
the Aura if the initial referendum is about to fail with, for example,
Telepathic Vote Counting. And it would also be saved for future use
if the initial referendum were canceled by Delaying Tactics.
Not worth losing any design sleep over (if the alternate wording had
come to light before printing), of course.
Colin McGuigan
> Nice one.
>
> Alters the functionality, though, in that the vampire can now "save"
> the Aura if the initial referendum is about to fail with, for example,
> Telepathic Vote Counting. And it would also be saved for future use
> if the initial referendum were canceled by Delaying Tactics.
Mmm. True. This is why you're the professional and I'm the amatuer. =P
No way around that one, though, without having the card in some sort of
limbo state to begin with between "played" and "end of the referendum".
--Colin McGuigan
Emmit Svenson
> By all means, suggest a clearer reading that still reads as nicely to
> the non-lawyers and with the same character count (or smaller).
Only usable during a referendum before votes are cast.
If this referendum passes, put this card on the acting vampire and put
a counter on this card. When the vampire with this card calls a
referendum, he or she gains a vote for each counter on this card. If a
referendum called by the vampire with this card passes, add a counter
to this card; if it fails, burn this card and send the vampire to
LSJ
"the vampire" doesn't seem to be any clearer than the "this vampire"
that some are claiming causes confusion (that is, it's clear and
obvious, but not any moreso than the current text).
The "if it fails" seems like to confuse people who are confused by the
current wording.
Ira
Specifically, all combats are affected, not just ones where "this
vampire" attempts to block?
I mention it in this thread because it seemed relevant.
In these cases, I understand that "this vampire" means "the vampire
with this card." I also thought that an initial "if clause" means
that the rest of the paragraph only applies when the "if clause" is
satisfied.
Is the key difference between Aura of Invincibility and Blessing of
Chaos the fact that AoI starts with "If ..." and BoC starts with "Put
this card on this vampire." ?
Ira
Blessing of Chaos [Sabbat:R, CE:PM]
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dementation
+1 stealth action.
[dem] Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire attempts to
block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring
Dementation, Chimerstry, Dominate or Presence. Vampires opposing this
vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines.
[DEM] As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be
directed at this vampire.
LSJ
> Is this 1999 ruling on Blessing of Chaos still correct?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5efrb
>
> Specifically, all combats are affected, not just ones where "this
> vampire" attempts to block?
Yes. Card text: "Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play
cards that require those Disciplines."
> I mention it in this thread because it seemed relevant.
>
> In these cases, I understand that "this vampire" means "the vampire
> with this card." I also thought that an initial "if clause" means
> that the rest of the paragraph only applies when the "if clause" is
> satisfied.
No.
> Is the key difference between Aura of Invincibility and Blessing of
> Chaos the fact that AoI starts with "If ..." and BoC starts with "Put
> this card on this vampire." ?
No.
The difference is that "this vampire" refers to the vampire with this
card for a card in play. Or rather, that's the similarity, not the
difference.
> Ira
>
>
> Blessing of Chaos [Sabbat:R, CE:PM]
> Cardtype: Action
> Cost: 1 blood
> Discipline: Dementation
>
> +1 stealth action.
> [dem] Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire attempts to
> block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring
> Dementation, Chimerstry, Dominate or Presence. Vampires opposing this
> vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines.
> [DEM] As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be
> directed at this vampire.
--