Concealed Weapon and cycling
BeAst
name must be in hand at the point of naming).
I also know that some combat cards can be played to no effect.
I found an old ruling form 1995 that seemed to indicate that you *had*
to name a valid target for CW for the card to be played, but it was
talking about Obfuscate, so I don't know if it was referring to
Disguised Weapon, or an earlier version of the card that required Obf.
So, for the sake of a modern ruling / my understanding: can you
deliberately name a weapon you don't have in hand to make CW fizzle,
and cycle a card? Can you name a weapon you don't have in hand even if
you have an alternate valid choice in hand?
E.g.
Methuselah A is on a small amount of pool. Xe has a minion in combat.
Xe's been really unlucky with card draw, and somehow has ended up with
a hand of 6 x Concealed weapon, and 1 x .44 magnum. Obviously they
could play a single CW and the .44, which would all be valid and
legal. Methuselah A decides that they don't want to spend the 2 pool
on the .44, but would like to cycle some cards to get something that
might save them from being ousted.
Can Methuselah A play 1 x concealed naming (for example) a poker? If
so, could they then deliberately fizzle (in principle) all 6 CW to
cycle those cards out of their hand (despite having an available valid
target for CW)?
---------
Card Text:
Concealed Weapon
Combat Card (disciplineless)
Only usable before range is determined.
This minion equips with a non-unique weapon card from your hand
(requirements and cost apply as normal). The weapon cannot cost 3 or
more pool or inflict (with a regular strike) aggravated damage or 4 or
more damage.
Thanks,
B
Chris Berger
> I'm aware of the restriction on Concealed Weapon (that the weapon you
> name must be in hand at the point of naming).
> I also know that some combat cards can be played to no effect.
>
>
> So, for the sake of a modern ruling / my understanding: can you
> deliberately name a weapon you don't have in hand to make CW fizzle,
> and cycle a card? Can you name a weapon you don't have in hand even if
> you have an alternate valid choice in hand?
>
As a general rule, when a card requires you to choose a target, you
must choose a legal target. If there is none, then you cannot play
the card. For example, you cannot attempt to call a Parity Shift if
no one has more pool than you (even if you somehow intend to reduce
someone's pool between attempting the action and starting the
referendum). The same holds for Concealed/Disguised Weapon.
Jozxyqk
> So, for the sake of a modern ruling / my understanding: can you
> deliberately name a weapon you don't have in hand to make CW fizzle,
> and cycle a card? Can you name a weapon you don't have in hand even if
> you have an alternate valid choice in hand?
No.
You can never attempt something that couldn't succeed at the time you announce
it.
BeAst
Cheers gents, that was my assumption, but I knew the card had been
errata'd since 1995. This combined with the playing combat cards to no
effect made me want to clarify.
Thanks for your time,
B
Martin Tibor Major
> As a general rule, when a card requires you to choose a target, you
> must choose a legal target. If there is none, then you cannot play
> the card. For example, you cannot attempt to call a Parity Shift if
> no one has more pool than you (even if you somehow intend to reduce
> someone's pool between attempting the action and starting the
> referendum). The same holds for Concealed/Disguised Weapon.
Are you sure about that? I thought you can play the parity shift and
if it isn't blocked the action will fizzle once you reach the
referendum.
LSJ
wrote:
He's right.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fb2e912959e8995c
Chris Berger
wrote:
> > As a general rule, when a card requires you to choose a target, you
> > must choose a legal target. If there is none, then you cannot play
> > the card. For example, you cannot attempt to call a Parity Shift if
> > someone's pool between attempting the action and starting the
> > referendum). The same holds for Concealed/Disguised Weapon.
>
> Are you sure about that? I thought you can play the parity shift and
> if it isn't blocked the action will fizzle once you reach the
> referendum.
You may be thinking of the situation where you call Parity Shift with
a legal target, but that person loses pool during the action and when
it comes time to set the referendum there is no longer a legal
target. In that case, Parity Shift was legal when played, but fizzles
at resolution because there is no legal target to name. But you can't
play it in the first place unless there is a legal target at that
point.
All actions work this way, BTW. An action must be legal when
attempted, and you must have the blood to pay for it, etc... Then, if
and when the action is successful, it fizzles if it is no longer legal
(e.g. if your vampire no longer has the blood to pay for it).
Martin Tibor Major
numb for example, you have to choose a legal target by the time the
action is anounced. Political actions are different: you choose the
target once you reach the referendum. You don't announce the damage
allocation of KRC when anouncing the action either. That's how I see
it.
LSJ
wrote:
> A still don't agree.
With what?
> When playing an action card like let's say mind
> numb for example, you have to choose a legal target by the time the
> action is anounced.
Correct.
> Political actions are different: you choose the
> target once you reach the referendum.
Correct.
> You don't announce the damage
> allocation of KRC when anouncing the action either.
Correct.
Although there has to exist a legal allocation when you play the card.
Not a big hurdle for KRC, since there's always a legal allocation with
2 or more players in the game.
Contrast Reckless Agitation when only 2 players remain. It cannot be
played at all, since there is no legal allocation for its 6 points.
> That's how I see
> it.
(Presumably) correct.
Martin Tibor Major
> On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A still don't agree.
>
> With what?
With this (post before me):
James Coupe
>On Jan 29, 8:41�pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2:32�pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > A still don't agree.
>>
>> With what?
>
>With this (post before me):
If you want to agree with something in the post before you, quote it in
your reply in the first place.
This is how Usenet works.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Martin Tibor Major
> Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 29, 8:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > A still don't agree.
>
> >> With what?
>
> >With this (post before me):
>
> If you want to agree with something in the post before you, quote it in
> your reply in the first place.
>
> This is how Usenet works.
Noted. The A should be an I. So I wanted to disagree.
Chris Berger
wrote:
> On Jan 29, 8:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 2:32 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > A still don't agree.
>
> > With what?
>
> With this (post before me):
>
> "You may be thinking of the situation where you call Parity Shift with
> a legal target, but that person loses pool during the action and when
> it comes time to set the referendum there is no longer a legal
> target. In that case, Parity Shift was legal when played, but fizzles
> at resolution because there is no legal target to name. But you can't
> play it in the first place unless there is a legal target at that
> point."
If you disagree with "that's how it works", then unfortunately, you're
wrong. It's been ruled on many times and is absolutely how it works.
You cannot call a vote which does not have a valid target, even though
you aren't going to choose the target until later.
If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well...
that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having
disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the
past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it
tends to not change things.
Martin Tibor Major
You're right, I didn't specify enough what I disagree with. It's your
second guess. The ruleing does not seem logical to me, because of what
I wrote earlier.
Of course I accept the ruleing.
LSJ
> If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well...
> that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having
> disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the
> past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it
> tends to not change things.
True, simply disagreeing with something won't tend to change it.
Providing reasons to change, assuming such reasons exist, has a better
chance of effecting a change.
wedge
It is my understanding that you replace a card before resolving its
effect, So you could play concealed weapon w/ lets say a poker in hand
and play the .44 magnum that you draw to replace CW. Likewise, with
Infernal Pursuit in play, you could choose to discard the weapon in
hand and fizzle CW.
But, if you have Tusk in play and no weapon in hand, even though you
know the next card is a weapon you can not play CW.
Matt
LSJ
> On Jan 30, 3:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > > If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well...
> > > that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having
> > > disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the
> > > past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it
> > > tends to not change things.
>
> > True, simply disagreeing with something won't tend to change it.
> > Providing reasons to change, assuming such reasons exist, has a better
> > chance of effecting a change.
>
> It is my understanding that you replace a card before resolving its
> effect,
More importantly, you fully declare the card as it is played (before
replacing it).
> So you could play concealed weapon w/ lets say a poker in hand
> and play the .44 magnum that you draw to replace CW.
So you would have to declare the CW: "I CW to equip a Poker from my
hand" before drawing the .44, and thus end up equipping the Poker.
> Likewise, with
> Infernal Pursuit in play, you could choose to discard the weapon in
> hand and fizzle CW.
That bit's true.
> But, if you have Tusk in play and no weapon in hand, even though you
> know the next card is a weapon you can not play CW.
Also true.
wedge
> On Jan 30, 11:14 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 3:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > If you disagree with whether or not it *should* work that way, well...
> > > > that's a valid stance, which I am intimately familiar with. Having
> > > > disagreed with the reasoning behind rulings many, many times in the
> > > > past, I can tell you that it's also a frustrating stance, because it
> > > > tends to not change things.
> More importantly, you fully declare the card as it is played (before
> replacing it).
>
> > So you could play concealed weapon w/ lets say a poker in hand
> > and play the .44 magnum that you draw to replace CW.
>
> So you would have to declare the CW: "I CW to equip a Poker from my
> hand" before drawing the .44, and thus end up equipping the Poker.
I was unaware that you had too name the weapon as part of declairation
of CW.
Thanks,
Matt
Salem
I often find that making parallels to other cards is a good way to
remind people that they need to declare (all) their cards properly when
played.
For example, do you just say "I'm playing a Bum's Rush. Anyone
blocking?". Or do you actually say which minion you're attempting to
Bum's Rush?
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Juggernaut1981
Yeah you have to Conceal/Disguise a weapon as you play the Conceal/
Disguise. Just like those "as this action is declared" action
modifiers (e.g. Weigh the Heart). So you Concealed Weapon a [insert
weapon here] then draw to replace both cards after declaration.
Shockwave
> Disguise. Just like those "as this action is declared" action
> modifiers (e.g. Weigh the Heart). So you Concealed Weapon a [insert
> weapon here] then draw to replace both cards after declaration.
But (as it came up in my weekly game including BeAst last week) you
can however, play an Action then also play the Seduction you drew to
replace it to prevent a minion being able to block, presumably (LSJ?)
because the Seduction isn't a requirement of being able to play the
Action.
Of course, I'm relying on Hugh A here, and would delight in finding
him wrong, but I suspect he isn't. *Grin*
- dk
LSJ
> But (as it came up in my weekly game including BeAst last week) you
> can however, play an Action then also play the Seduction you drew to
> replace it to prevent a minion being able to block, presumably (LSJ?)
> because the Seduction isn't a requirement of being able to play the
> Action.
> Of course, I'm relying on Hugh A here, and would delight in finding
> him wrong, but I suspect he isn't. *Grin*
Hugh is correct. "As the action is announced" is a longer window than
announcing the card.