Q: Provision Of The Silsila
nospam@tiscali.fr totof
I'd like to know how this card can be played as a reaction card
thank you
Provision of the Silsila [FN]
Cardtype: Action Modifier/Reaction
Clan: Assamite
This card can be played as an action modifier or a reaction card. Usable by
a tapped vampire.
Only usable after a combat involving this Assamite and an opposing minion
with a contract naming this Assamite. Only usable if the opposing minion is
not ready and this Assamite is ready. This Assamite gains enough blood from
the blood bank to reach full capacity, and the contract is burned.
James Coupe
<totof@nospam.?.fr.invalid> writes:
>(sorry if the message has been posted twice)
>I'd like to know how this card can be played as a reaction card
Like this:
>Only usable after a combat involving this Assamite and an opposing minion
>with a contract naming this Assamite.
You might, for instance, have blocked the vampire. Or been rushed by
them.
Bear in mind, of course, that you'd be tapped from the block, so you'd
need something like a Wake With Evening's Freshness in play. OR they
could have rushed you, which is unlikely but possible.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
reyda
|| (sorry if the message has been posted twice)
|| I'd like to know how this card can be played as a reaction card
||
|| thank you
t'es la honte de la france, mec, c'est écrit gros comme une maison sur la
carte !! et si tu sais pas lire y'a les icones pour t'aider .... pfff...
"Cardtype: Action Modifier/Reaction" => Là !
XZealot
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:AJHFeOBN...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <newscache$0d8g9h$5zi$1...@news.tiscali.fr>, totof
> <totof@nospam.?.fr.invalid> writes:
> >(sorry if the message has been posted twice)
> >I'd like to know how this card can be played as a reaction card
>
> Like this:
>
> >Only usable after a combat involving this Assamite and an opposing minion
> >with a contract naming this Assamite.
>
> You might, for instance, have blocked the vampire. Or been rushed by
> them.
>
> Bear in mind, of course, that you'd be tapped from the block, so you'd
> need something like a Wake With Evening's Freshness in play. OR they
> could have rushed you, which is unlikely but possible.
Actually, if you read the card it says that it is usable by a tapped
vampire. So, a wake is not required.
Provision of the Silsila [FN]
Cardtype: Action Modifier/Reaction
Clan: Assamite
###This card can be played as an action modifier or a reaction card. Usable
by
a tapped vampire.###
Only usable after a combat involving this Assamite and an opposing minion
with a contract naming this Assamite. Only usable if the opposing minion is
not ready and this Assamite is ready. This Assamite gains enough blood from
the blood bank to reach full capacity, and the contract is burned.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
nospam@tiscali.fr totof
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3e3725a7$0$27184$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
[excuse my french]
et toi je me demande si un jour t'ouvriras ta grande bouche pour autre chose
que pour faire ton interressant ...
t'arrives pas à dormir si t'as pas insulté ton "newbie" quotidien ??
je ne comprenais simplement pas pourquoi ils n'en avaient pas fait une
combat card qui se serait utilisée au même moment qu'un decapitate par
exemple
maintenant que quelqu'un m'a répondu, c'est plus clair, alors s'il te plait,
la prochaine fois, abstiens-toi
nospam@tiscali.fr totof
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
AJHFeOBN...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <newscache$0d8g9h$5zi$1...@news.tiscali.fr>, totof
> <totof@nospam.?.fr.invalid> writes:
> >(sorry if the message has been posted twice)
> >I'd like to know how this card can be played as a reaction card
>
> Like this:
>
> >Only usable after a combat involving this Assamite and an opposing minion
> >with a contract naming this Assamite.
>
> You might, for instance, have blocked the vampire. Or been rushed by
> them.
>
> Bear in mind, of course, that you'd be tapped from the block, so you'd
> need something like a Wake With Evening's Freshness in play. OR they
> could have rushed you, which is unlikely but possible.
thanks, that's now ok
In fact I was wandering why the card wasn't created as a combat card that
should be usable at the same moment as a decapitate and didn't get the
reaction/modifier part
Dorrinal
news:newscache$0d8g9h$5zi$1...@news.tiscali.fr...
It's usable as a reaction if you are not the acting vampire; i.e. the minion
with the contract entered combat with the Assamite or the Assamite blocked
an acting minion. It's nearly always the other way around but, hey, shit
happens.
~Dorrinal
reyda
|| "reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
|| 3e3725a7$0$27184$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
||| totof wrote:
||||| (sorry if the message has been posted twice)
||||| I'd like to know how this card can be played as a reaction card
|||||
||||| thank you
|||
||| t'es la honte de la france, mec, c'est écrit gros comme une
||| maison sur la carte !! et si tu sais pas lire y'a les icones pour
||| t'aider .... pfff...
|||
||| "Cardtype: Action Modifier/Reaction" => Là !
||
|| [excuse my french]
|| et toi je me demande si un jour t'ouvriras ta grande bouche pour
|| autre chose que pour faire ton interressant ...
ben oui... c'est ça aime moi mon cochon...
|| t'arrives pas à dormir si t'as pas insulté ton "newbie" quotidien
|| ??
tu pose des questions dont la réponse est écrite sur la carte, faut le faire
quand même !!
|| je ne comprenais simplement pas pourquoi ils n'en avaient pas fait
|| une combat card qui se serait utilisée au même moment qu'un
|| decapitate par exemple
parceque tu la joues une fois que le combat est FINI. c'est pas compliqué,
c'est écrit sur la carte ça aussi.
|| maintenant que quelqu'un m'a répondu, c'est plus clair, alors s'il
|| te plait, la prochaine fois, abstiens-toi
il t'as répondu ce que je t'aurais répondu. Il a juste mis en avant ce qui
était écrit sur le tesxte de la carte que tu as toi même posté.
sans rancune poulette =)
reyda
|| thanks, that's now ok
|| In fact I was wandering why the card wasn't created as a combat
|| card that should be usable at the same moment as a decapitate and
|| didn't get the reaction/modifier part
then why was your question something else than
"Explain me why Provision of silsilla is not a combat card ?"
Flux
> thanks, that's now ok
> In fact I was wandering why the card wasn't created as a combat card that
> should be usable at the same moment as a decapitate and didn't get the
> reaction/modifier part
There is a small functional difference that may be intended: a Hidden Lurker cannot
use PoS, but he could do so if it were a combat card.
Flux
XZealot
Lurker cannot
> use PoS, but he could do so if it were a combat card.
This is the first I have heard of this. Do explain...
James Coupe
internet.com> writes:
>> There is a small functional difference that may be intended: a Hidden
>Lurker cannot
>> use PoS, but he could do so if it were a combat card.
>
>This is the first I have heard of this. Do explain...
Acting vampires play action modifiers.
A Hidden Lurker is not an acting vampire. He only got to play the
Hidden Lurker through explicit card text, a la Mask of a Thousand Faces
or Cloak the Gathering (superior).
reyda
:: [excuse my french]
:: t'arrives pas à dormir si t'as pas insulté ton "newbie" quotidien??
ça m'épate quand même vachement que tu l'aies pris littéralement au premier
degré =D
on aurait pu dégénérer sur un thread rigolo qui parle des questions
franchouilles à la orhpy (genre : a t on le droit de feuilleter un playboy
en jouant) et non, au lieu de ça on s'insulte. dommage =)
nospam@tiscali.fr totof
ptet' la prochaine fois, mais là non, y avait vraiment pas la motivation
pour
XZealot
> In message <v3h3244...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox-
> internet.com> writes:
> >> There is a small functional difference that may be intended: a Hidden
> >Lurker cannot
> >> use PoS, but he could do so if it were a combat card.
> >
> >This is the first I have heard of this. Do explain...
>
> Acting vampires play action modifiers.
>
> A Hidden Lurker is not an acting vampire. He only got to play the
> Hidden Lurker through explicit card text, a la Mask of a Thousand Faces
> or Cloak the Gathering (superior).
There is explict card text.
This card can be played as an action modifier or a reaction card.
****Usable by a tapped vampire*****
Only usable after a combat involving this Assamite and an opposing minion
with a contract naming this Assamite. Only usable if the opposing minion is
not ready and this Assamite is ready. This Assamite gains enough blood from
the blood bank to reach full capacity, and the contract is burned.
It says that it is usable by a tapped vampire. This overrides the reaction
rule, so why wouldn't it override the action modifier rule?
Joshua Duffin
"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:v3ihvt1...@corp.supernews.com...
It's not the "tapped" part that keeps Provision from being playable
by a Hidden Lurker. Action modifiers can only (normally) be played
by an acting vampire. A Hidden Lurking vampire is not acting. So
it can't play Provision of the Silsila as an action modifier.
(Side note, most action modifiers are automatically playable (and
usually played) by tapped vampires - since vampires tap when
announcing actions, they normally have to play action modifiers
while tapped.)
Josh
if i don't die or worse i'm gonna need a nap
XZealot
reaction
> > rule, so why wouldn't it override the action modifier rule?
>
> It's not the "tapped" part that keeps Provision from being playable
> by a Hidden Lurker. Action modifiers can only (normally) be played
> by an acting vampire. A Hidden Lurking vampire is not acting. So
> it can't play Provision of the Silsila as an action modifier.
>
> (Side note, most action modifiers are automatically playable (and
> usually played) by tapped vampires - since vampires tap when
> announcing actions, they normally have to play action modifiers
> while tapped.)
Your side note addresses the point, and maybe it is minutae.
Why would it be printed "This card is useable as a action modifier or a
reaction card. This card is useable by a tapped minion" which would imply
that a tapped minion could use it as either a action modifier or a reaction
card. Why would you need to implictly say that a tapped minion can use an
action modifier card, when as you say, normally have to play aciton
modifiers when tapped.
The way that would be most clear would be "This card is useable as a action
modifier or a reaction card. If used as a reaction card then it is also
usable by a tapped vampire."
Why was it written this way? It is not like LSJ is afraid to put 12 lines
of text on a card.
James Coupe
internet.com> writes:
>> A Hidden Lurker is not an acting vampire. He only got to play the
>> Hidden Lurker through explicit card text, a la Mask of a Thousand Faces
>> or Cloak the Gathering (superior).
>
>There is explict card text.
>
>This card can be played as an action modifier or a reaction card.
>****Usable by a tapped vampire*****
This has no effect on action modifiers. All action modifiers are
playable by tapped vampires, by default.
It says nothing about non-acting minions playing it.
All action modifiers which don't otherwise address tapped/untapped
status are playable by a tapped vampire or an untapped vampire.
>It says that it is usable by a tapped vampire. This overrides the
>reaction
>rule, so why wouldn't it override the action modifier rule?
Because restating a rule doesn't over-ride it.
"Action modifier cards: The acting minion can play these cards
to modify his action."
is the rule we need to over-ride, if it's between a Hidden Lurker
Assamite with a Contract on the opponent.
See Mask of a Thousand Faces:
"Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting
minion who is capable of performing the action."
Not only does it over-rule the tapped status of the vampire (it now has
to be untapped), it also lets a minion who isn't acting play it.
Similarly, see Blanket of Night and Cloak the Gathering. They also
address the fact that other people can play it.
Remember: Hidden Lurker is an action modifier. The vampire playing the
Hidden Lurker can only play it in the first place because it says non-
acting vampires can play it. PotS says nothing about which vampire may
play it, only that the vampire may be tapped.
In effect, the "Playable by a tapped vampire" does *NOTHING* when it's
played as an action modifier. Read it as saying "Follows the normal
rules." As a reaction, it over-rides the usual untapped requirement,
like Wake with Evening's Freshness does.
See also the argument over the interpretation of The Sleeping Mind, in
the 6/23 and 7/7 debacle. Restating a basic truism doesn't expand it.
James Coupe
internet.com> writes:
>Why would it be printed "This card is useable as a action modifier or a
>reaction card. This card is useable by a tapped minion" which would imply
>that a tapped minion could use it as either a action modifier or a reaction
>card. Why would you need to implictly
explicitly, I think you mean.
>say that a tapped minion can use an
>action modifier card, when as you say, normally have to play aciton
>modifiers when tapped.
There is no text saying that someone who is not the acting vampire can
play it as an action modifier, however.
The point raised was about an Assamite going in as a Hidden Lurker.
They can't play it as a reaction (it's their turn, so they can't play
reactions) and they can't play it as an action modifier (they aren't the
acting minion).
There is no text on it which over-rides the need to be the acting
minion, like on Mask of a Thousand Faces. Simply re-stating basic rules
doesn't do that.
XZealot
> In message <v3ilpj3...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox-
> internet.com> writes:
> >Why would it be printed "This card is useable as a action modifier or a
> >reaction card. This card is useable by a tapped minion" which would
imply
> >that a tapped minion could use it as either a action modifier or a
reaction
> >card. Why would you need to implictly
>
> explicitly, I think you mean.
No actually, I mean implicitly, as in implied.
> >say that a tapped minion can use an
> >action modifier card, when as you say, normally have to play aciton
> >modifiers when tapped.
>
> There is no text saying that someone who is not the acting vampire can
> play it as an action modifier, however.
>
> The point raised was about an Assamite going in as a Hidden Lurker.
> They can't play it as a reaction (it's their turn, so they can't play
> reactions) and they can't play it as an action modifier (they aren't the
> acting minion).
>
> There is no text on it which over-rides the need to be the acting
> minion, like on Mask of a Thousand Faces. Simply re-stating basic rules
> doesn't do that.
Okay, point made. It just seemed strange.
LSJ
>
> > > It says that it is usable by a tapped vampire. This overrides the
> reaction
> > > rule, so why wouldn't it override the action modifier rule?
> >
> > It's not the "tapped" part that keeps Provision from being playable
> > by a Hidden Lurker. Action modifiers can only (normally) be played
> > by an acting vampire. A Hidden Lurking vampire is not acting. So
> > it can't play Provision of the Silsila as an action modifier.
> >
> > (Side note, most action modifiers are automatically playable (and
> > usually played) by tapped vampires - since vampires tap when
> > announcing actions, they normally have to play action modifiers
> > while tapped.)
>
> Your side note addresses the point, and maybe it is minutae.
>
> Why would it be printed "This card is useable as a action modifier or a
> reaction card. This card is useable by a tapped minion" which would imply
> that a tapped minion could use it as either a action modifier or a reaction
> card. Why would you need to implictly say that a tapped minion can use an
> action modifier card, when as you say, normally have to play aciton
> modifiers when tapped.
>
> The way that would be most clear would be "This card is useable as a action
> modifier or a reaction card. If used as a reaction card then it is also
> usable by a tapped vampire."
No. That would not be "most clear". It could imply to some players that the card
is not usable by a tapped vampire except when reacting, since the conditional
is there when it doesn't need to be. That is, the card is usable by a tapped
vampire in both the modifying and the reacting uses, so there is no value in
omitting one case when specifying the other, except for using more words and
possibly adding some obfuscation to the omitted usage.
> Why was it written this way? It is not like LSJ is afraid to put 12 lines
> of text on a card.
... when necessary. Your proposed alternate wording uses superfluous text.
It was written this way so as to be usable in a few additional cases in which
it would not have been usable without the sentence "Usable by a tapped
vampire", since designer intent was that it be usable in those cases.
--
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/
James Coupe
internet.com> writes:
>> >card. Why would you need to implictly
>>
>> explicitly, I think you mean.
>
>No actually, I mean implicitly, as in implied.
>
>> >say that a tapped minion can use an
>> >action modifier card,
Something that is implied is not stated directly.
"Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an
implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject."
Something is that is explicit is stated directly.
"Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied."
(Both dictionary.com)
Since the card says "Playable by a tapped minion" directly, it is fully
and clearly expressed -> explicit.
Next trick: The technical difference between implied and inferred. (Now
pretty much lost to linguistic history in general usage.)
XZealot
> In message <v3irbu6...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox-
> internet.com> writes:
> >> >card. Why would you need to implictly
> >>
> >> explicitly, I think you mean.
> >
> >No actually, I mean implicitly, as in implied.
> >
> >> >say that a tapped minion can use an
> >> >action modifier card,
>
> Something that is implied is not stated directly.
>
> "Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an
> implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject."
>
> Something is that is explicit is stated directly.
>
> "Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied."
> (Both dictionary.com)
>
>
> Since the card says "Playable by a tapped minion" directly, it is fully
> and clearly expressed -> explicit.
>
>
> Next trick: The technical difference between implied and inferred. (Now
> pretty much lost to linguistic history in general usage.)
The technical difference between implying and inferring is who is doing it.
A speaker implies and a listener infers. It depends on whether you are
distributing or receiving the information.
James Coupe
internet.com> writes:
>> Next trick: The technical difference between implied and inferred. (Now
>> pretty much lost to linguistic history in general usage.)
>
>The technical difference between implying and inferring is who is doing it.
>A speaker implies and a listener infers. It depends on whether you are
>distributing or receiving the information.
Unfortunately, almost no-one understands that these days, when it was a
useful distinction. :(
The OED catalogues this unfortunate evolution: 4. To lead to (something)
as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence; to imply. (Said of a fact
or statement; sometimes, of the person who makes the statement.) This
use is widely considered to be incorrect, esp. with a person as the
subject.
XZealot
> In message <v3j38qp...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox-
> internet.com> writes:
> >> Next trick: The technical difference between implied and inferred.
(Now
> >> pretty much lost to linguistic history in general usage.)
> >
> >The technical difference between implying and inferring is who is doing
it.
> >A speaker implies and a listener infers. It depends on whether you are
> >distributing or receiving the information.
>
> Unfortunately, almost no-one understands that these days, when it was a
> useful distinction. :(
I mean, you're English right? You guys invented the language, and now you
are going to tell me that you guys can't speak it. It's no wonder we
seceded. :P
reyda
:: "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
at this point a frenchman has to place the name Lafayette in the
conversation ;)
huhuhu...
reyda
XZealot
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e3bbdc9$0$28045$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
Okay I used to live there.... so what is your point? ;)