Mata Hari & The Grandest Trick & Madness Network.
floppyz...@gmail.com
If, in some perfect world, thousands of kilometers from Earth, Mata
Hari becomes Malkavian via Clan Impersonation, and declares a bleed
action using the Madness Network (wether it is her controler's turn or
not isn't a great deal), could she play The Grandest Trick on that
action ?
(btw, I'm the cause for Francois posting some really weird ruling
questions.)
Robert Scythe
> This is my - tricky and unusual, I admit - question :
>
> If, in some perfect world, thousands of kilometers from Earth, Mata
> Hari becomes Malkavian via Clan Impersonation, and declares a bleed
> action using the Madness Network (wether it is her controler's turn or
> not isn't a great deal), could she play The Grandest Trick on that
> action ?
The bleed action via a Madness Network requires a vampire and a clan
so the answer should be no.
Johannes Walch
LSJ
The prohibition on Grandest Trick, I'd guess.
The answer is: the action itself doesn't require a Malk, so it can be modified
with Grandest Trick.
floppyzedolfin
[yes, the last sentence of Grandest Trick made me wonder]
Johannes Walch
Ah right, I didn´t remember the clan part of the card. Should read the
cards before asking :)
Another question (it is REALLY cornercase, I know):
Assuming Mata Hari wants to equip with a IR Goggles. As the action is
announced she play a Gang Tactics (play first) and a Grandest Trick. Is
this possible? I would assume that it is.
Johannes
LSJ
> Assuming Mata Hari wants to equip with a IR Goggles. As the action is
> announced she play a Gang Tactics (play first) and a Grandest Trick. Is
> this possible? I would assume that it is.
Yes.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0235c5946162b0a9
floppyzedolfin
> Another question (it is REALLY cornercase, I know):
> Assuming Mata Hari wants to equip with a IR Goggles. As the action is
> announced she play a Gang Tactics (play first) and a Grandest Trick. Is
> this possible? I would assume that it is.
I'm adding an other question : can she announce an equip action, play
Grandest Trick, and then, using her cardtext, play Gang Tactics ?
LSJ
Her, yes. She would be an ally playing Gang Tactics "as if" a Nos anti.
Robert Scythe
> The answer is: the action itself doesn't require a Malk, so it can be modified
> with Grandest Trick.
I don't see how this should work. Any action taken via the Madness
Network requires a Malkavian which should prohibit the use of The
Grandest Trick by card text.Though the action would not normally
require a clan, The Network's card text would not allow the action to
happen without the clan status, hence it becomes an action requiring a
clan.
LSJ
You are mixing "action that requires a clan" with "able to take an action".
Robert Scythe
> You are mixing "action that requires a clan" with "able to take an action".
Not mixing it at all. If it "requires a clan" to be "able to take an
action" then said action "requires a clan" to take. But, whatever,
it's your call. And anything that will get a little used card played
is fine with me, so I'll take my Dr. Seuss arguments elsewhere!
LSJ
Here's one angle: "same action". If a vampire taking an action on his turn (in
the normal fashion) becomes prohibited from performing the "same action" until
some time in the future, can he do that action via the Network before the
prohibition has elapsed?
If it's the "same action", then it has the same requirements.
Robert Scythe
I believe the answer would be no. Maybe you have some idea in mind,
but I do not see how the Network can allow this action to be taken
before it has been released from prohibition. And if by some
interperative wording it can be done, then the Network would also add
the Malkavian clan requisite to this action.
LSJ
> On Feb 28, 3:50 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Robert Scythe wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 2:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> You are mixing "action that requires a clan" with "able to take an action".
>>> Not mixing it at all. If it "requires a clan" to be "able to take an
>>> action" then said action "requires a clan" to take. But, whatever,
>>> it's your call. And anything that will get a little used card played
>>> is fine with me, so I'll take my Dr. Seuss arguments elsewhere!
>> Here's one angle: "same action". If a vampire taking an action on his turn (in
>> the normal fashion) becomes prohibited from performing the "same action" until
>> some time in the future, can he do that action via the Network before the
>> prohibition has elapsed?
>>
>> If it's the "same action", then it has the same requirements.
>
> I believe the answer would be no. Maybe you have some idea in mind,
> but I do not see how the Network can allow this action to be taken
> before it has been released from prohibition.
Correct. And if it is the "same action", then it has the same requirements.
If it has different requirements, then it is not the same action.
> And if by some
> interperative wording it can be done, then the Network would also add
> the Malkavian clan requisite to this action.
No.
Try this angle:
Bob the Vampire gets +2 bleed on bleed actions that require a Malkavian.
Bob bleeds without the use of a card through Madness Network.
Robert Scythe
> > And if by some
> > interperative wording it can be done, then the Network would also add
> > the Malkavian clan requisite to this action.
>
> No.
>
> Try this angle:
>
> Bob the Vampire gets +2 bleed on bleed actions that require a Malkavian.
>
> Bob bleeds without the use of a card through Madness Network.
Ah, I see the direction you are kicking my head into. But I'd have to
say that via the Network Bob would get his +2 bleed because he cannot
take that action without being a Malk, which would make it an action
that requires one. The Network has to see you as a Malk in order to
let you take the action, which is therefore a requirement. If the
Network did not need that as an immediate requirement then Mata, as
just a Ravnos, should be able to use the Network to recruit a Muddled
since when she actually announces the action she would be considered a
Malk. Your ruling against this is sound, however, and wouldn't make
sense otherwise.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:45E42E62...@white-wolf.com...
How interesting. Is that really possible? Grandest Trick says "This acting
vampire is treated as a mortal ally for the duration of the action (cannot
spend or burn blood, cannot use Disciplines, will burn if reduced to 0 life,
etc.)." I guess Mata Hari being able to do this (in this order) depends on
the broadness of "etc." I would think that a mortal ally cannot have a
clan, and therefore while Mata Hari is being treated as one, she can't use
her cardtext to play cards that require a clan. But it depends on how much
she's being treated as a mortal ally, I guess. Does she still have her two
votes? I guess she might, if she can use her other vampiric cardtext?
Josh
grandest trick: competing with mask of a thousand faces for "most confusing
concepts created by the existence of this card"
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:45E42E62...@white-wolf.com...
>> floppyzedolfin wrote:
>>>> Another question (it is REALLY cornercase, I know):
>>>> Assuming Mata Hari wants to equip with a IR Goggles. As the action is
>>>> announced she play a Gang Tactics (play first) and a Grandest Trick. Is
>>>> this possible? I would assume that it is.
>>> I'm adding an other question : can she announce an equip action, play
>>> Grandest Trick, and then, using her cardtext, play Gang Tactics ?
>> Her, yes. She would be an ally playing Gang Tactics "as if" a Nos anti.
>
> How interesting. Is that really possible? Grandest Trick says "This acting
> vampire is treated as a mortal ally for the duration of the action (cannot
> spend or burn blood, cannot use Disciplines, will burn if reduced to 0 life,
> etc.)." I guess Mata Hari being able to do this (in this order) depends on
> the broadness of "etc."
No. It depends on whether her special has a hidden "While she's a vampire"
condition. It does not. Her special applies even while she's an ally. Imagine an
ally with Mata's text, and it should become clear.
> I would think that a mortal ally cannot have a
> clan,
Nor a Disciple. Correct. Mata has neither while she is a mortal ally.
But she does have her special regarding playing clan-req cards "as if", just
like some allies have special regarding playing Discipline-req "as if".
> and therefore while Mata Hari is being treated as one, she can't use
> her cardtext to play cards that require a clan.
Why can't she use her cardtext?
There's a difference between having a clan and using card text. Many allies have
card text. They can use their card text. Why not Mata?
> But it depends on how much
> she's being treated as a mortal ally, I guess.
No. It has nothing to do with how much she's treated as a mortal ally -- she's
fully treated as a mortal ally.
> Does she still have her two
> votes? I guess she might, if she can use her other vampiric cardtext?
Where did you pull "vampiric card text" from? Is that just smoke for "card text
on a crypt card"? Or do you posit that her card text has some hidden "while she
is a vampire" clause?
witness1
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
On that note, can Ian Forestal use his card text to play Conditioning
under the Grandest Trick?
witness1
-believe the lie
LSJ
> On that note, can Ian Forestal use his card text to play Conditioning
> under the Grandest Trick?
No, since it costs a blood (and he has no special allowance to spend life as
blood). He could play Threats, though. At inferior. After Clan Impersonating a
Kiasyd. Sure.
Remember to cut unused quoted material.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
[re Mata Hari, The Grandest Trick, and various other effects]
>> But it depends on how much she's being treated as a mortal ally, I
>> guess.
>
> No. It has nothing to do with how much she's treated as a mortal ally --
> she's fully treated as a mortal ally.
Fair enough. You're right, it doesn't. It just has to do with how her text
interacts with being treated as a mortal ally.
>> Does she still have her two votes? I guess she might, if she can use her
>> other vampiric cardtext?
>
> Where did you pull "vampiric card text" from? Is that just smoke for "card
> text on a crypt card"? Or do you posit that her card text has some hidden
> "while she is a vampire" clause?
Yes, it's smoke. I blew it out of my pipe. Which I am currently smoking.
It's just a phrase. Normally only vampires have votes, and I think of
vampires' printed cardtext as being vampiric cardtext. As opposed to
allies' printed text, which is ally cardtext.
I guess you're positing that her cardtext has no hidden "while she is a
vampire" clauses, which is fine, as you're in a position to decide which
hidden clauses do or don't exist.
I suppose it would rarely come up, but you could also have an Inner Circle
member bleed with The Grandest Trick and they'd still have their +2 bleed
and whatever specials, right? So Stanislava would be entirely unblockable
bleeding with TGT, yes? Might be better than Daring the Dawn for her...
One more odd interaction question for The Grandest Trick, then I'll go. Ian
Forestal can "play cards that require a Discipline as though he has the
basic level of that Discipline". Presumably this ability persists through
The Grandest Trick, so he can actually play any discipline-requiring card
while under Grandest Trick restrictions, since he's playing them via special
cardtext, not by having the discipline? Pretty funny. (Of course, he can't
play cards that cost blood since TGT specifically prohibits that.)
Oh wait, make that two stupid questions, another one just popped into my
head. Can you diablerize using The Grandest Trick? Based on the Madness
Network point that taking an action under Madness Network doesn't "require"
the trait of Malkavian or vampire (it just allows a Malkavian vampire to
take an action), diablerie doesn't "require" the trait of vampire either,
right? It's just an action that vampires can take? What about political
actions? The rulebook says only vampires can take them, but looking at the
latest cardtext download I have, it seems that political action cards no
longer have the text "Called by any vampire" - do they "require" a vampire,
or not precisely? And if not, which votes carry over while performing an
action with Grandest Trick? I would guess that any votes not associated
with a sect, i.e. all the independent printed votes plus any special
card-text votes, would be usable, but votes dependent on a clan or sect
would not...
Thanks!
Josh
may finally get some use out of all those grandest tricks that've been
gathering dust for so long
Joshua Duffin
"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1172684685....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On that note, can Ian Forestal use his card text to play Conditioning
> under the Grandest Trick?
Heh, you beat me to it! I think a more useful payoff would probably come if
you can take political actions with TGT, since a lot of the good stuff you'd
want Ian Forestal to play would cost blood and therefore not be usable. Or,
you could go around bleeding for 3 with any of the +2 bleed vamps, I guess.
You'd likely end up sad if you had to face somebody with allies though, if
you built a lot of your deck around this...
Josh
not so grand a trick then, is it?
(where'd that war ghoul come from?!)
LSJ
> It's just a phrase. Normally only vampires have votes, and I think of
> vampires' printed cardtext as being vampiric cardtext. As opposed to
> allies' printed text, which is ally cardtext.
>
> I guess you're positing that her cardtext has no hidden "while she is a
> vampire" clauses, which is fine, as you're in a position to decide which
> hidden clauses do or don't exist.
Wooh. Sour much?
Why pretend like it is some stretch to say that non-existent text doesn't exist?
This is not designer fiat. This is card text. Or rather not card text. The
absence of card text.
> I suppose it would rarely come up, but you could also have an Inner Circle
> member bleed with The Grandest Trick and they'd still have their +2 bleed
> and whatever specials, right?
Obviously. And if he had a Laptop, it would still give +1 bleed.
> So Stanislava would be entirely unblockable
> bleeding with TGT, yes?
Sure.
> Might be better than Daring the Dawn for her...
Hookay.
> One more odd interaction question for The Grandest Trick, then I'll go. Ian
> Forestal can "play cards that require a Discipline as though he has the
> basic level of that Discipline". Presumably this ability persists through
> The Grandest Trick, so he can actually play any discipline-requiring card
> while under Grandest Trick restrictions, since he's playing them via special
> cardtext, not by having the discipline? Pretty funny. (Of course, he can't
> play cards that cost blood since TGT specifically prohibits that.)
... at the basic level, yes.
> Oh wait, make that two stupid questions, another one just popped into my
> head. Can you diablerize using The Grandest Trick? Based on the Madness
> Network point that taking an action under Madness Network doesn't "require"
> the trait of Malkavian or vampire (it just allows a Malkavian vampire to
> take an action), diablerie doesn't "require" the trait of vampire either,
> right?
No. It requires a vampire. [6.5.4]
As does rescuing a vampire [6.5.3]
> It's just an action that vampires can take? What about political
> actions?
They require vampires, too. [6.1.7]
As does hunting. [6.1.2]
> The rulebook says only vampires can take them, but looking at the
> latest cardtext download I have, it seems that political action cards no
> longer have the text "Called by any vampire" - do they "require" a vampire,
> or not precisely?
They do.
> And if not, which votes carry over while performing an
> action with Grandest Trick? I would guess that any votes not associated
> with a sect, i.e. all the independent printed votes plus any special
> card-text votes, would be usable, but votes dependent on a clan or sect
> would not...
Moot.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> It's just a phrase. Normally only vampires have votes, and I think of
>> vampires' printed cardtext as being vampiric cardtext. As opposed to
>> allies' printed text, which is ally cardtext.
>>
>> I guess you're positing that her cardtext has no hidden "while she is a
>> vampire" clauses, which is fine, as you're in a position to decide which
>> hidden clauses do or don't exist.
>
> Wooh. Sour much?
I eat a lot of lemons. :-)
> Why pretend like it is some stretch to say that non-existent text doesn't
> exist? This is not designer fiat. This is card text. Or rather not card
> text. The absence of card text.
Sure. I agree. I find it strange that Madness Network requires "Malkavian"
but not "vampire" to take an action, but diablerie or calling a vote does
require "vampire". But not excessively strange. I'm not trying to talk you
into changing this one, I was just curious about it, cause it's weird.
Thanks again!
Josh
limes too
LSJ
> Sure. I agree. I find it strange that Madness Network requires "Malkavian"
> but not "vampire" to take an action,
That would be strange, if it were the case, yes.
But actions taken (under the network or otherwise) require what they require.
An action a Malk takes under the network isn't an "action that requires
Malkavian" (unless you're recruiting Muddles or some other action which actually
does require a Malk). Similarly, it isn't an "action that requires a vampire"
(unless you're hunting or taking some other action which actually requires a
vampire).
An action doesn't suddenly gain extra requirements just because a Malk is
performing it.
> but diablerie or calling a vote does
> require "vampire".
Rules text applies; that's not strange, either.
There's a difference between "requires an X" and permitting X to do something
that X meets the requirements of, even when that thing's requirements don't
include "being X".
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> Sure. I agree. I find it strange that Madness Network requires
>> "Malkavian" but not "vampire" to take an action,
>
> That would be strange, if it were the case, yes.
>
> But actions taken (under the network or otherwise) require what they
> require.
>
> An action a Malk takes under the network isn't an "action that requires
> Malkavian" (unless you're recruiting Muddles or some other action which
> actually does require a Malk). Similarly, it isn't an "action that
> requires a vampire" (unless you're hunting or taking some other action
> which actually requires a vampire).
>
> An action doesn't suddenly gain extra requirements just because a Malk is
> performing it.
Sorry, yes, I misspoke. I meant that I found it strange that Madness
Network, while allowing Malkavians to take actions, did *not* impose the
"requirement" of "Malkavian" or "vampire" on actions taken under its aegis.
But you're right, it wasn't especially strange, just unintuitive (to me).
Like Robert Scythe said earlier in the thread, it muddles my mind in a Dr.
Seussian way to think that the Madness Network lets only Malkavians take
actions, but those are not then actions that only Malkavians can take. :-)
Another random related question - it always comes back to Mask, doesn't
it? - under the current Mask of a Thousand Faces wording, is it legal to
start an action with a Malkavian through the Madness Network then have a
non-Malkavian Mask to take it over? I think there's a standing ruling that
it is not legal, but with the current wording, the only reason that comes to
mind for it to be illegal is that the starting of the action via Madness
Network might count as an "other effect" that has been used "that could not
have been used if this vampire were the acting vampire." (This might be why
I found Madness Network-vs-The Grandest Trick unintuitive - I was thinking
of Grandest Trick's restrictions working sort of the same way Mask's do.)
> There's a difference between "requires an X" and permitting X to do
> something that X meets the requirements of, even when that thing's
> requirements don't include "being X".
I can't really parse that sentence, but luckily I don't think it's necessary
that I do. ;-)
Josh
parsi-fool
James Coupe
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>witness1 wrote:
>> On that note, can Ian Forestal use his card text to play Conditioning
>> under the Grandest Trick?
>
>No, since it costs a blood (and he has no special allowance to spend
>life as blood). He could play Threats, though. At inferior. After Clan
>Impersonating a Kiasyd. Sure.
Can I double-check this?
- Ian is treated as an ally for the duration of the action.
- Ian's card text says he can play cards as if he had a discipline.
- The rules say that some allies can play cards "as a vampire", and
*that* gives them the ability to spend life as blood.
Now, Ian's card text doesn't say he can play them "as a vampire." But,
[LSJ 20050130], in amongst a discussion of "Requires a Justicar" meaning
"Requires a vampire who is Camarilla and a Justicar" for Kemintiri...
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9e80e7
6544131d75>
****
Just like the Discipline symbol is shorthand for "Requires a vampire
with one [or two] levels of the Discipline."
****
So if Ian the ally is playing Threats as if he had Dominate and is able
to play it, doesn't his special actually allow him (redundantly, 99.99%
of the time) to play cards as if he were a vampire with the relevant
discipline at inferior? Following the precedent of the implied card
text on Kemintiri, that is.
And since he is now playing cards "as if he were a vampire with inferior
<X>", does he now meet the rulebook text on spending life as blood?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> Like Robert Scythe said earlier in the thread, it muddles my mind in a Dr.
> Seussian way to think that the Madness Network lets only Malkavians take
> actions, but those are not then actions that only Malkavians can take. :-)
Perhaps. But "cardless hunt" is not an action that requires a Malkavian.
> Another random related question - it always comes back to Mask, doesn't
> it? - under the current Mask of a Thousand Faces wording, is it legal to
> start an action with a Malkavian through the Madness Network then have a
> non-Malkavian Mask to take it over?
No. The Masker has to be able to take the action.
James Coupe
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Here's one angle: "same action". If a vampire taking an action on his
>turn (in the normal fashion) becomes prohibited from performing the
>"same action" until some time in the future, can he do that action via
>the Network before the prohibition has elapsed?
>
>If it's the "same action", then it has the same requirements.
Are you using "same action" as it has previously been defined?
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/77203c
3b1c6ce010> has you replying to some stupid kid asking questions.
Since actions taken by action cards are the "same" based only
on card name (for purposes of Change of Target and Obedience),
this makes inferior Govern the Unaligned the "same action" as
superior Govern the Unaligned (since they have the same action
card name).
And those very clearly don't have the same requirements (inferior vs
superior).
And RTR 950905 implies that it's just card name: "Action cards may not
be repeated this way" (which is where "same action" is cited from in the
Rulings page).
Which would imply that Undue Influence [chi] is the "same action" as
Undue Influence [qui], or that Create Gargoyle [Tre] is the same action
as Create Gargoyle [!Tre] (for Mata Hari). And those definitely don't
have the same requirements.
LSJ
> In message <h0eFh.1488$LF6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>> Here's one angle: "same action". If a vampire taking an action on his
>> turn (in the normal fashion) becomes prohibited from performing the
>> "same action" until some time in the future, can he do that action via
>> the Network before the prohibition has elapsed?
>>
>> If it's the "same action", then it has the same requirements.
>
> Are you using "same action" as it has previously been defined?
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/77203c
> 3b1c6ce010> has you replying to some stupid kid asking questions.
>
> Since actions taken by action cards are the "same" based only
> on card name (for purposes of Change of Target and Obedience),
> this makes inferior Govern the Unaligned the "same action" as
> superior Govern the Unaligned (since they have the same action
> card name).
>
> And those very clearly don't have the same requirements (inferior vs
> superior).
Clearly not. In this usage "same action" would be a subset of that usage.
> And RTR 950905 implies that it's just card name: "Action cards may not
> be repeated this way" (which is where "same action" is cited from in the
> Rulings page).
Perhaps.
> Which would imply that Undue Influence [chi] is the "same action" as
> Undue Influence [qui], or that Create Gargoyle [Tre] is the same action
> as Create Gargoyle [!Tre] (for Mata Hari). And those definitely don't
> have the same requirements.
Perhaps.
LSJ
Sure, I'll buy that. I was treating the ally rules as a special rules for allies
and Ian's text being somehow different, since it isn't ally text. But sure,
while he's an ally, I guess it's OK to treat his text as ally text.
Conditioning (at inferior) is fine, too. (REVERSAL of the previous prohibition
on Conditioning).
Joshua Duffin
What, NOW you see a difference between ally text and vampire text? :-)
I would have thought that Grandest Trick vs Ian Forestal might be a case of
"most recently played card wins" where two effects contradict each other:
Ian can play cards as if he had any basic discipline, but The Grandest Trick
says that while he's an ally he can't spend blood, so he can't spend blood
since TGT was played more recently than Ian Forestal.
Hardly an earth-shattering issue, though this all could have been avoided if
Ian Forestal had gotten rewritten a while ago (it seems almost impossible
that original intent matches his text which actually *gives* him a
discipline at superior if you play the basic on him, but has him *fake* the
discipline at basic when he hasn't had a discipline master played on him).
Josh
too many rulings, not enough hos
LSJ
No. As I said, it's just text.
> I would have thought that Grandest Trick vs Ian Forestal might be a case of
> "most recently played card wins" where two effects contradict each other:
> Ian can play cards as if he had any basic discipline, but The Grandest Trick
> says that while he's an ally he can't spend blood, so he can't spend blood
> since TGT was played more recently than Ian Forestal.
He can't spend blood, you're right. He has no blood to spend. As an ally who can
play cards that require a Discipline, though, he plays them "as a vampire",
which means he can burn his life to pay blood costs. Life burning is allowed
under Grandest Trick.
> Hardly an earth-shattering issue, though this all could have been avoided if
> Ian Forestal had gotten rewritten a while ago (it seems almost impossible
> that original intent matches his text which actually *gives* him a
> discipline at superior if you play the basic on him, but has him *fake* the
> discipline at basic when he hasn't had a discipline master played on him).
Perhaps -- you'd rather he faked both?
Rewriting to *give* him basic would make the ability stronger, and it doesn't
need that. That alone would be reason enough why he hasn't gotten rewritten to
*have* the basics.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> I would have thought that Grandest Trick vs Ian Forestal might be a case
>> of "most recently played card wins" where two effects contradict each
>> other: Ian can play cards as if he had any basic discipline, but The
>> Grandest Trick says that while he's an ally he can't spend blood, so he
>> can't spend blood since TGT was played more recently than Ian Forestal.
>
> He can't spend blood, you're right. He has no blood to spend. As an ally
> who can play cards that require a Discipline, though, he plays them "as a
> vampire", which means he can burn his life to pay blood costs. Life
> burning is allowed under Grandest Trick.
Heh, okay. It seems like the upshot is that all the parenthetical text on
The Grandest Trick turns out to be just reminder text, but it's not real
important. :-)
>> Hardly an earth-shattering issue, though this all could have been avoided
>> if Ian Forestal had gotten rewritten a while ago (it seems almost
>> impossible that original intent matches his text which actually *gives*
>> him a discipline at superior if you play the basic on him, but has him
>> *fake* the discipline at basic when he hasn't had a discipline master
>> played on him).
>
> Perhaps -- you'd rather he faked both?
>
> Rewriting to *give* him basic would make the ability stronger, and it
> doesn't need that. That alone would be reason enough why he hasn't gotten
> rewritten to *have* the basics.
Ah, I see. To me, the strengthening of the ability would have been very
marginal. Or rewriting it to have him fake the superior would have avoided
strengthening the ability, sure.
Josh
ian hides in the forest, comes out only as a mortal ally
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > Perhaps -- you'd rather he faked both?
> > Rewriting to *give* him basic would make the ability stronger, and it
> > doesn't need that. That alone would be reason enough why he hasn't gotten
> > rewritten to *have* the basics.
>
> Ah, I see. To me, the strengthening of the ability would have been very
> marginal.
By the way, I always wondered how much his "fake" use of disciplines
at base level actually hinders him.
I can think of:
- He's still liable to be Kissed by Ra
- He can't learn Abombwe (not outright, I mean)
- If he Clan Impersonates Akunanse, he won't gain superior Animalism
or Fortitude or Abombwe from Reliquary: Akunanse Remains
- If he is chosen as target of Sanguine Instruction, he won't gain
[chosen discipline X] at superior but at base level
- Vial of Elder Vitae doesn't read as "burn this to get any discipline
*at superior* until next untap if you're Ian Forrestal; if you're not,
gain only one level of the chosen discipline".
What more?
I'd imagine that the real reason why this "fake use" was made so to
avoid possible, future card design ideas being thrown out of the
window just because they'd have a way, way bigger effect on him than
any other vampire.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
LSJ
> By the way, I always wondered how much his "fake" use of disciplines
> at base level actually hinders him.
> I can think of:
>
> - He's still liable to be Kissed by Ra
> - He can't learn Abombwe (not outright, I mean)
> - If he Clan Impersonates Akunanse, he won't gain superior Animalism
> or Fortitude or Abombwe from Reliquary: Akunanse Remains
> - If he is chosen as target of Sanguine Instruction, he won't gain
> [chosen discipline X] at superior but at base level
> - Vial of Elder Vitae doesn't read as "burn this to get any discipline
> *at superior* until next untap if you're Ian Forrestal; if you're not,
> gain only one level of the chosen discipline".
>
> What more?
Waxen Poetica
The Mole
Rooftop Shadow
Stunt Cycle
Meat Hook
Salem
Speed of Thought
--
salem
floppyzedolfin
world, I happily met Sonja Blue and Ian Forestal. There was a bit of a
trouble, since that was what was happening :
Ian Forestal, as usual, was acting under The Grandest Trick.
Enters Sonja Blue.
She attemps to block Ian Forestal using her (very) special power (be
able to block as an ally).
Would that block be cancelled or not if our brave old pal Ian played
an Eyes of the Serpent ?
Can things occur in the other chronology : Ian playing The Grandest
Trick / Eyes of the Serpent, and then, Sonja attempting to block,
using her card text to be considered as a ally towards TGT, and "not"
using it towards Eyes of the Serpent ? (that "towards" bit seems a bit
to tricky to be completely legal)
LSJ
> This Ian debate was pretty cool, and I must say, that in my wonderful
> world, I happily met Sonja Blue and Ian Forestal. There was a bit of a
> trouble, since that was what was happening :
>
> Ian Forestal, as usual, was acting under The Grandest Trick.
> Enters Sonja Blue.
> She attemps to block Ian Forestal using her (very) special power (be
> able to block as an ally).
> Would that block be cancelled or not if our brave old pal Ian played
> an Eyes of the Serpent ?
It would fail, as Ian's action cannot be blocked by allies and cannot be blocked
by vampires. Sonja cannot block as an ally, since allies cannot block, and she
cannot block as a vampire, likewise.
floppyzedolfin
ask.
The Grandest Trick says "This vampire's blood represents his or her
life while he or she is an ally.".
But, what happens to the life or blood the acting something (vampire /
ally, depends on when you look at the action) could gain during that
action?
For Instance, Ian Forestal manages to enter combat with someone, after
having played The Grandest Trick.
During that combat, the only thing that happens is, let's say, the
opposing minion going to long range, and Ian playing a Theft of Vitae.
Would Ian gain 1 life? Assuming he had 5 blood at the very begining of
the action, would he have 3 or 4 after the action ?
If, in another case, the vampire playing The Grandest Trick had a
Perfectionist on him - and everything went perfectly - , would he be
the first ally to gain 1 blood at the end of the action?
LSJ
> It may be my last question about that, but I really feel I have to
> ask.
> The Grandest Trick says "This vampire's blood represents his or her
> life while he or she is an ally.".
> But, what happens to the life or blood the acting something (vampire /
> ally, depends on when you look at the action) could gain during that
> action?
>
> For Instance, Ian Forestal manages to enter combat with someone, after
> having played The Grandest Trick.
> During that combat, the only thing that happens is, let's say, the
> opposing minion going to long range, and Ian playing a Theft of Vitae.
Ian the ally would play Theft "as a vampire", so he could gain blood, which he,
as an ally, would then treat as life.
> Would Ian gain 1 life? Assuming he had 5 blood at the very begining of
> the action, would he have 3 or 4 after the action ?
He would gain 1 from the Theft.
> If, in another case, the vampire playing The Grandest Trick had a
> Perfectionist on him - and everything went perfectly - , would he be
> the first ally to gain 1 blood at the end of the action?
No. Perfectionist only gives blood to "this vampire".
floppyzedolfin
> Ian the ally would play Theft "as a vampire", so he could gain blood, which he,
> as an ally, would then treat as life.
At last, let's explore what happens if, in that very case, Ian
Forestal had an Ex Nihilo.
He, "vampire", cannot gain blood. But when he playes the Theft, he's
an ally, considered "as a vampire" (towards the Theft).
So, if our Ian Forestal had an Ex Nihilo and, played during an action
- The Grandest Trick
<enters combat>
- Theft of Vitae
Would he gain 1 counter?
(It doesn't seem SO different from a vampire playing Ex Nihilo /
Descent into Darkness; he would gain blood when not a vampire, which
is allowed by Ex Nihilo)
LSJ
> At last, let's explore what happens if, in that very case, Ian
> Forestal had an Ex Nihilo.
> He, "vampire", cannot gain blood. But when he playes the Theft, he's
> an ally, considered "as a vampire" (towards the Theft).
> So, if our Ian Forestal had an Ex Nihilo and, played during an action
> - The Grandest Trick
> <enters combat>
> - Theft of Vitae
> Would he gain 1 counter?
Yes.