Rules Q - Direct Intervention, "Untap" effect
Hardy Range
this is to make sure:
When somebody uses a Direct Intervention to cancel a reaction card
that taps the reacting vampire (in our real life example, a Telepathic
Misdirection), the reacting vampire is NOT tapped, right?
There was some confusion about this since DI only explicitly mentions
that the acting minion remains untapped in the case of _action cards_,
but as I understand it, the current card text of DI (see below) with
its "That card has no effect" phrasing cancels the relevant text of
Telepathic Misdirection and other cards.
Direct Intervention [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Master
Cost: 1 pool
Master: out-of-turn.
Burn a minion card as it is played. <That card has no effect, and> any
blood or pool cost burned for that card is retrieved from the blood
bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played it. If the burned card
was an action card, the acting minion remains untapped. If the card
was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike.
Hardy Range
Prince of Bochum
http://www.vekn.de/main/vekn/playgroups/bochum
Kamel SENNI
> Hello,
>
> this is to make sure:
>
> When somebody uses a Direct Intervention to cancel a reaction card
> that taps the reacting vampire (in our real life example, a Telepathic
> Misdirection), the reacting vampire is NOT tapped, right?
Yes. Tapping the reacting vampire is a part of the effect of
telepathic misdirection. So, canceling the effect of TM make the vamp
not tap.
> There was some confusion about this since DI only explicitly mentions
> that the acting minion remains untapped in the case of _action cards_,
> but as I understand it, the current card text of DI (see below) with
> its "That card has no effect" phrasing cancels the relevant text of
> Telepathic Misdirection and other cards.
Not exactly, for "others cards". I have some confusion on this point,
and perhaps LSJ would answer : when playing a conditionning for
example, you can not use a threats, after a DI have canceled your
conditionning. (Am i right ?). DI cancels the efect of a card, not the
fact that that card have been played.
LSJ
> hardy...@gmx.de (Hardy Range) wrote:
>>When somebody uses a Direct Intervention to cancel a reaction card
>>that taps the reacting vampire (in our real life example, a Telepathic
>>Misdirection), the reacting vampire is NOT tapped, right?
>
> Yes. Tapping the reacting vampire is a part of the effect of
> telepathic misdirection. So, canceling the effect of TM make the vamp
> not tap.
Correct.
>>There was some confusion about this since DI only explicitly mentions
>>that the acting minion remains untapped in the case of _action cards_,
>>but as I understand it, the current card text of DI (see below) with
>>its "That card has no effect" phrasing cancels the relevant text of
>>Telepathic Misdirection and other cards.
>
> Not exactly, for "others cards". I have some confusion on this point,
> and perhaps LSJ would answer : when playing a conditionning for
> example, you can not use a threats, after a DI have canceled your
> conditionning. (Am i right ?).
No. You can play Threats after playing a Conditioning if the Conditioning
gets canceled. The thing on Conditioning that keeps Threats from being
played is canceled by DI.
> DI cancels the efect of a card, not the
> fact that that card have been played.
Correct. And the prohibition on Threats is one of the effects of Conditioning
that gets canceled.
--
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/
Flux
> hardy...@gmx.de (Hardy Range) wrote in message news:<f7e55900.0302...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>this is to make sure:
>>
>>When somebody uses a Direct Intervention to cancel a reaction card
>>that taps the reacting vampire (in our real life example, a Telepathic
>>Misdirection), the reacting vampire is NOT tapped, right?
>
>
> Yes. Tapping the reacting vampire is a part of the effect of
> telepathic misdirection. So, canceling the effect of TM make the vamp
> not tap.
Right.
>>There was some confusion about this since DI only explicitly mentions
>>that the acting minion remains untapped in the case of _action cards_,
>>but as I understand it, the current card text of DI (see below) with
>>its "That card has no effect" phrasing cancels the relevant text of
>>Telepathic Misdirection and other cards.
>
> Not exactly, for "others cards". I have some confusion on this point,
> and perhaps LSJ would answer : when playing a conditionning for
> example, you can not use a threats, after a DI have canceled your
> conditionning. (Am i right ?). DI cancels the efect of a card, not the
> fact that that card have been played.
You are correct in that DI doesn't cancel the fact that the card was played,
but that doesn't prevent you from using another (different) bleed modifier
afterwards. The reason is that bleed modifiers text only limits you from
playing other modifiers after the one you've played, they don't care about
modifiers played before - only the text on the second modifier has effect.
Your confusion may come from what happens with 'only one X is playable
during the game' (like Giant's Blood): those cards can't be played after
being cancelled with a DI, because the second card's text would 'see' the
previous one had been played, and so prevents itself from being played.
The reason DI mentions Action Cards (and not other types) is that tapping
for playing an Action Card is part of the basic game rules and happens when
you play the card (not when you apply the card text - there is a small
difference), it's not part of the card text that gets cancelled.
Flux
tetragrammaton
> Kamel SENNI wrote:
>> hardy...@gmx.de (Hardy Range) wrote:
>>> When somebody uses a Direct Intervention to cancel a reaction card
>>> that taps the reacting vampire (in our real life example, a
>>> Telepathic Misdirection), the reacting vampire is NOT tapped, right?
>>
>> Yes. Tapping the reacting vampire is a part of the effect of
>> telepathic misdirection. So, canceling the effect of TM make the vamp
>> not tap.
>
> Correct.
>
>>> There was some confusion about this since DI only explicitly
>>> mentions
>>> that the acting minion remains untapped in the case of _action
>>> cards_,
>>> but as I understand it, the current card text of DI (see below) with
>>> its "That card has no effect" phrasing cancels the relevant text of
>>> Telepathic Misdirection and other cards.
>>
>> Not exactly, for "others cards". I have some confusion on this point,
>> and perhaps LSJ would answer : when playing a conditionning for
>> example, you can not use a threats, after a DI have canceled your
>> conditionning. (Am i right ?).
>
> No. You can play Threats after playing a Conditioning if the
> Conditioning gets canceled. The thing on Conditioning that keeps
> Threats from being played is canceled by DI.
>
I want to be sure here too
Conditioning reads:
"After *playing* this card, you cannot *play* another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action"
So, say, if ancient influence reads
"Only 1 Ancient Influence can be *played* in a game."
(that is almost equivalent to
"after playing this card, no methuselah can play another Ancient Influence
for this game")
and it's ruled (correctly) that even if the first Ancient Influence is
"Direct Intervented"
in a game you can't *play* another one during that game,
how it can be that you can *play* "another action modifier to further
increase the bleed for this action"
after *playing* a conditiong that gets direct intervented ?
Does the verb *play* get two different meanings
if it's in bold on top on the card's text rather than in the text itself ?
thanks in advance
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>>No. You can play Threats after playing a Conditioning if the
>>Conditioning gets canceled. The thing on Conditioning that keeps
>>Threats from being played is canceled by DI.
>
> I want to be sure here too
> Conditioning reads:
> "After *playing* this card, you cannot *play* another action modifier to
> further increase the bleed for this action"
Right. And that declaration is canceled by DI.
> So, say, if ancient influence reads
> "Only 1 Ancient Influence can be *played* in a game."
> (that is almost equivalent to
> "after playing this card, no methuselah can play another Ancient Influence
> for this game")
Right. And that declaration is canceled by DI.
> and it's ruled (correctly) that even if the first Ancient Influence is
> "Direct Intervented"
> in a game you can't *play* another one during that game,
Card text on the second prohibits it.
> how it can be that you can *play* "another action modifier to further
> increase the bleed for this action"
> after *playing* a conditiong that gets direct intervented ?
Nothing prohibits it.
> Does the verb *play* get two different meanings
> if it's in bold on top on the card's text rather than in the text itself ?
In AI's case, the second AI prevents itself from being played. The card text
on the second is not canceled by formerly played DI.
Threats, however, has no prohibition on its own card text about being played
after a bleed modifier.
Kulaid
> Conditioning reads:
> "After *playing* this card, you cannot *play* another
> action modifier to
> further increase the bleed for this action"
>
That part is canceled by the DI as well... So you can play another
bleed modifier... But not the same one, cause playing the same action
modifier is prohibited not by the card but by the rules...
> So, say, if ancient influence reads
> "Only 1 Ancient Influence can be *played* in a game."
> (that is almost equivalent to
> "after playing this card, no methuselah can play another
> Ancient Influence
> for this game")
>
It's like giant blood, you can't even play it if it was played before...
That's different from bleed modifiers... Where it states you can't
play action modifiers after this to increase bleed... If that card was
cancelled, that portion of the card is also canceled...
> and it's ruled (correctly) that even if the first Ancient
> Influence is
> "Direct Intervented"
> in a game you can't *play* another one during that game,
>
> how it can be that you can *play* "another action modifier to further
> increase the bleed for this action"
> after *playing* a conditiong that gets direct intervented ?
> Does the verb *play* get two different meanings
> if it's in bold on top on the card's text rather than in
> the text itself ?
>
AI states you can't play it if it's played before in the game...
Bleed modifiers states you can't play action modifiers to increase bleed
after this card is played... So if the card is cancelled, that part of
the card is cancelled as well... Errr, I hope this make sense...
> thanks in advance
>
> Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
tetragrammaton
> tetragrammaton wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
> In AI's case, the second AI prevents itself from being played. The
> card text on the second is not canceled by formerly played DI.
>
> Threats, however, has no prohibition on its own card text about being
> played after a bleed modifier.
Ok, got it.
thanks a lot :-)
Emiliano
Snapcase
says...
:Direct Intervention [Sabbat, SW]
:Cardtype: Master
:Cost: 1 pool
:Master: out-of-turn.
:Burn a minion card as it is played. <That card has no effect, and> any
:blood or pool cost burned for that card is retrieved from the blood
:bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played it. If the burned card
:was an action card, the acting minion remains untapped. If the card
:was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike.
> You are correct in that DI doesn't cancel the fact that the card was played,
> but that doesn't prevent you from using another (different) bleed modifier
> afterwards. The reason is that bleed modifiers text only limits you from
> playing other modifiers after the one you've played, they don't care about
> modifiers played before - only the text on the second modifier has effect.
Side note: even if it did look back, the card text of the first bleed
modifier didn't take effect so there was no increase of bleed.
I guess the Action Modifier rule (1 of each per action) would dictate
that you couldn't play the Conditioning again after your first one was
DI'd. Why then, does DI not "taint" a vampire in the NRA rule's eyes
for purposes of playing an action card? Is it because the card was
"played" but it never actually "attempted the action" (which I think is
the clause NRA looks for)?
--
-Snapcase
James Coupe
<shotgu...@optonline.net> writes:
>I guess the Action Modifier rule (1 of each per action) would dictate
>that you couldn't play the Conditioning again after your first one was
>DI'd. Why then, does DI not "taint" a vampire in the NRA rule's eyes
>for purposes of playing an action card?
NRA isn't about attempting, in its original version or in the TCE
version.
[LSJ 20021217]
>There's still a question of when the "taint" is applied and, in the case
>of Mask,
>to whom. That's whence the question. The taint is applied to the minion
>who is the
>acting minion when the action resolves (successfully, blocked, ended, or
>otherwise).
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DFF20A4.43549F9A%40white-wolf.com>
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D