Baseball Bat + Concealed Weapon
ira...@gmail.com
If a minion uses Concealed Weapon to get a Baseball Bat, does the
player draw a replacement card for the Baseball Bat immediately, or
after the action is over?
I know the minion won't untap, but I'm not sure about the card
redraw. My guess is that the Baseball Bat isn't redrawn immediately.
Thanks,
Ira
Name: Baseball Bat
[TR:C]
Cardtype: Equipment
Cost: 1 pool
Melee weapon. Do not replace until the end of this action.
Strength+1 damage each strike. If the action to equip with the
Baseball Bat is successful, untap the acting minion at the end of the
turn.
Name: Concealed Weapon
[Jyhad:C, CE:C/PB/PTo, BH:PTo4, KMW:PAl3, LotN:PG2]
Cardtype: Combat
Only usable before range is determined.
Equip this minion with a non-unique weapon card from your hand. Pay
cost as normal. The weapon cannot cost 3 or more pool or inflict (with
a regular strike) aggravated damage or 4 or more damage.
LSJ
> Hello LSJ,
>
> If a minion uses Concealed Weapon to get a Baseball Bat, does the
> player draw a replacement card for the Baseball Bat immediately, or
> after the action is over?
>
> I know the minion won't untap, but I'm not sure about the card
> redraw. My guess is that the Baseball Bat isn't redrawn immediately.
Redraw immediately. The DNR clause only applies when the card is played.
For example, if Topaz plays a Concealed Weapon to get a Grenade and looks at
your hand and pulls your Baseball Bat instead, you would also replace the Bat
immediately.
François
Speaking of Topaz :
She needs to meet the requirements of the taken equipment, doesn't
she ?
Can she take a Palatial Estate from prey's hand ?
If she plays a Concealed Weapon to get a Grenade, can she pick a non-
concealable equipment in prey's hand (e.g. a Heart of Nizchetus or an
Ivory Bow) ?
Which equipment are paid : the one from your hand, the one from your
prey, or maybe both ?
Thank you,
François
LSJ
> Speaking of Topaz :
>
> She needs to meet the requirements of the taken equipment, doesn't
> she ?
No. Card text: "take".
> Can she take a Palatial Estate from prey's hand ?
Yes.
> If she plays a Concealed Weapon to get a Grenade, can she pick a non-
> concealable equipment in prey's hand (e.g. a Heart of Nizchetus or an
> Ivory Bow) ?
Yes.
> Which equipment are paid : the one from your hand, the one from your
> prey, or maybe both ?
Your hand, since you have to successfully equip before Topaz's ability can be used.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello LSJ,
>
> > If a minion uses Concealed Weapon to get a Baseball Bat, does the
> > player draw a replacement card for the Baseball Bat immediately, or
> > after the action is over?
>
> > I know the minion won't untap, but I'm not sure about the card
> > redraw. My guess is that the Baseball Bat isn't redrawn immediately.
>
> Redraw immediately. The DNR clause only applies when the card is played.
I'm uncomfortable with this ruling. On the one hand, there does seem
to be precedent. DI cannot cancel the weapon played with Disguised
Weapon, but can only burn cards "played in the normal fashion". But
even this ruling seems to acknowledge that the card is indeed "played"
-- just not in a "normal fashion".
On the other hand, if these cards are not "played" -- then what
prevents my Nossie from getting a Femur of Toomler with disguised
weapon? Or any vampire from getting a Kerrie with concealed weapon?
We are ordered to pay costs as normal, but are not instructed that we
must meet requirements as normal. But requirements only apply when
minion cards are "played".
I know there were rulings in the past, but they are not listed on the
main rulings page, presumably because they are considered to covered
by the following:
From: 1.6.3. Minion Cards
“In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan
symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be
played by a vampire who meets the requirements.”
My other objection was that, when I first saw "baseball bat" my first
thought was, "ah -- now bastard sword is wallpaper" -- but then I
remembered disguised weapon, and the advantage of being able to
replace cards during combat. With this ruling, the argument that
balance has been retained seems less convincing.
> For example, if Topaz plays a Concealed Weapon to get a Grenade and looks at
> your hand and pulls your Baseball Bat instead, you would also replace the Bat
> immediately.
Fine. But that seems like an abnormal situation that need not
necessarily coincide with the general rule.
LSJ
> On Jul 2, 7:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> ira...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hello LSJ,
>>> If a minion uses Concealed Weapon to get a Baseball Bat, does the
>>> player draw a replacement card for the Baseball Bat immediately, or
>>> after the action is over?
>>> I know the minion won't untap, but I'm not sure about the card
>>> redraw. My guess is that the Baseball Bat isn't redrawn immediately.
>> Redraw immediately. The DNR clause only applies when the card is played.
>
> I'm uncomfortable with this ruling. On the one hand, there does seem
> to be precedent. DI cannot cancel the weapon played with Disguised
> Weapon, but can only burn cards "played in the normal fashion". But
> even this ruling seems to acknowledge that the card is indeed "played"
> -- just not in a "normal fashion".
Quite the opposite. It isn't "played". Instead, CW is played. And that effect
causes the minion playing it to equip with a ... weapon from your hand.
> On the other hand, if these cards are not "played" -- then what
> prevents my Nossie from getting a Femur of Toomler with disguised
> weapon? Or any vampire from getting a Kerrie with concealed weapon?
Failure to meet the requirements (which are still checked, since CW uses the
"equip" phrasing rather than the "move" phrasing).
> We are ordered to pay costs as normal, but are not instructed that we
> must meet requirements as normal. But requirements only apply when
> minion cards are "played".
Not true. Requirements are also checked to "equip" or "recruit" or "employ".
> I know there were rulings in the past, but they are not listed on the
> main rulings page, presumably because they are considered to covered
> by the following:
>
> From: 1.6.3. Minion Cards
> “In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan
> symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be
> played by a vampire who meets the requirements.”
>
> My other objection was that, when I first saw "baseball bat" my first
> thought was, "ah -- now bastard sword is wallpaper" -- but then I
> remembered disguised weapon, and the advantage of being able to
> replace cards during combat. With this ruling, the argument that
> balance has been retained seems less convincing.
Hmm. And yet, both the sword and the bat can be played as actions themselves.
And so the argument remains convincing.
>> For example, if Topaz plays a Concealed Weapon to get a Grenade and looks at
>> your hand and pulls your Baseball Bat instead, you would also replace the Bat
>> immediately.
>
> Fine. But that seems like an abnormal situation that need not
> necessarily coincide with the general rule.
Fine. And it need not necessarily oppose the general rule, either.
Indeed, it's just an illustrative example (illustrative in that it is a parallel
case).
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 7:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Hello LSJ,
> >>> If a minion uses Concealed Weapon to get a Baseball Bat, does the
> >>> player draw a replacement card for the Baseball Bat immediately, or
> >>> after the action is over?
> >>> I know the minion won't untap, but I'm not sure about the card
> >>> redraw. My guess is that the Baseball Bat isn't redrawn immediately.
> >> Redraw immediately. The DNR clause only applies when the card is played.
>
> > I'm uncomfortable with this ruling. On the one hand, there does seem
> > to be precedent. DI cannot cancel the weapon played with Disguised
> > Weapon, but can only burn cards "played in the normal fashion". But
> > even this ruling seems to acknowledge that the card is indeed "played"
> > -- just not in a "normal fashion".
>
> Quite the opposite. It isn't "played". Instead, CW is played. And that effect
> causes the minion playing it to equip with a ... weapon from your hand.
It is "played" in at least one sense. It enters play.
> > On the other hand, if these cards are not "played" -- then what
> > prevents my Nossie from getting a Femur of Toomler with disguised
> > weapon? Or any vampire from getting a Kerrie with concealed weapon?
>
> Failure to meet the requirements (which are still checked, since CW uses the
> "equip" phrasing rather than the "move" phrasing).
>
> > We are ordered to pay costs as normal, but are not instructed that we
> > must meet requirements as normal. But requirements only apply when
> > minion cards are "played".
>
> Not true. Requirements are also checked to "equip" or "recruit" or "employ".
I'll believe it if you say so, but it is news to me, and I can find no
support for it in the rulebook. My understanding has always been that
requirements are only checked when the card enters play (ie. "is
played") from your hand, ash heap, library, or some other out-of-play
source.
Hence I have always thought that if Chandler Hungerford "equips" with
Shackles of Enkidu, then Renegade Garou may also "equip" with Shackles
of Enkidu by a transfer-equip action.
> > My other objection was that, when I first saw "baseball bat" my first
> > thought was, "ah -- now bastard sword is wallpaper" -- but then I
> > remembered disguised weapon, and the advantage of being able to
> > replace cards during combat. With this ruling, the argument that
> > balance has been retained seems less convincing.
>
> Hmm. And yet, both the sword and the bat can be played as actions themselves.
> And so the argument remains convincing.
Techinically yes, but as I said, less convincing. I suppose the
Salubri-Antitribu, if they expect to be blocked might want to play it,
in combination with Gift of Bellona.
LSJ
> It is "played" in at least one sense. It enters play.
Entering play is not the same as being played. See again Topaz.
>> Not true. Requirements are also checked to "equip" or "recruit" or "employ".
>
> I'll believe it if you say so, but it is news to me, and I can find no
> support for it in the rulebook. My understanding has always been that
> requirements are only checked when the card enters play (ie. "is
> played") from your hand, ash heap, library, or some other out-of-play
> source.
That isn't "i.e.", since entering play is not the same as being played.
>> Hmm. And yet, both the sword and the bat can be played as actions themselves.
>> And so the argument remains convincing.
>
> Techinically yes, but as I said, less convincing. I suppose the
> Salubri-Antitribu, if they expect to be blocked might want to play it,
> in combination with Gift of Bellona.
Well, anyway, the idea isn't to have new cards maintain balance with the weakest
cards in the existing set. The idea is merely to avoid absolute wallpapering of
the existing cards.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is "played" in at least one sense. It enters play.
>
> Entering play is not the same as being played. See again Topaz.
>
> >> Not true. Requirements are also checked to "equip" or "recruit" or "employ".
>
> > I'll believe it if you say so, but it is news to me, and I can find no
> > support for it in the rulebook. My understanding has always been that
> > requirements are only checked when the card enters play (ie. "is
> > played") from your hand, ash heap, library, or some other out-of-play
> > source.
>
> That isn't "i.e.", since entering play is not the same as being played.
You are in charge of definitions, of course. I am merely stating what
my prior understanding had been, and pointing out appear to me to be
consequences of the current understanding.
One consequence is that the rulebook and/or rulings page and/or card
texts may need some tightening up. Currently, there is nothing that
says a Nossie cannot play disguised weapon to get a Femur of Toomler,
since the relevant rulebook rule refers only to cards that are
"played".
Another apparent consequence of your clarifications appears to be that
it is not possible for a non-Tzimisce to "equip" with Femur of Toomler
with a transfer-equipment action. But IIRC, this was formerly ruled
otherwise.
So I was hoping you would clarify regarding the latter point.
Kevin M.
> Currently, there is nothing that says a Nossie cannot play
> disguised weapon to get a Femur of Toomler, since the
> relevant rulebook rule refers only to cards that are "played".
If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, what logically
makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur if they play a
card stating "equip...with a weapon"?
> Another apparent consequence of your clarifications appears
> to be that it is not possible for a non-Tzimisce to "equip" with
> Femur of Toomler with a transfer-equipment action. But IIRC,
> this was formerly ruled otherwise.
If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, what logically
makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur if they take an
action to "equip with an equipment card currently possessed by one of your
other minions"?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
suolir...@gmail.com
The rulebook only mentions requirements in relation to playing cards.
Equipping with Concealed Weapon or an equipment card from another
minion is not playing an equipment card.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Currently, there is nothing that says a Nossie cannot play
>> > disguised weapon to get a Femur of Toomler, since the
>> > relevant rulebook rule refers only to cards that are "played".
>>
>> If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, what
>> logically makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur
>> if they play a card stating "equip...with a weapon"?
>>
>> > Another apparent consequence of your clarifications appears
>> > to be that it is not possible for a non-Tzimisce to "equip" with
>> > Femur of Toomler with a transfer-equipment action. But IIRC,
>> > this was formerly ruled otherwise.
>>
>> If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, what
>> logically makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur
>> if they take an action to "equip with an equipment card currently
>> possessed by one of your other minions"?
>
> Equipping with Concealed Weapon or an equipment card from another
> minion is not playing an equipment card.
What is the *first word* on Disguised/Concealed Weapon? And why would you
choose to ignore that word and how it relates to the definition given in
[6.1.3]? I'm confused.
witness1
> suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Currently, there is nothing that says a Nossie cannot play
> >> > disguised weapon to get a Femur of Toomler, since the
> >> > relevant rulebook rule refers only to cards that are "played".
>
> >> If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, what
> >> logically makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur
> >> if they play a card stating "equip...with a weapon"?
>
> >> > Another apparent consequence of your clarifications appears
> >> > to be that it is not possible for a non-Tzimisce to "equip" with
> >> > Femur of Toomler with a transfer-equipment action. But IIRC,
> >> > this was formerly ruled otherwise.
>
> >> If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, what
> >> logically makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur
> >> if they take an action to "equip with an equipment card currently
> >> possessed by one of your other minions"?
>
> > The rulebook only mentions requirements in relation to playing cards.
> > Equipping with Concealed Weapon or an equipment card from another
> > minion is not playing an equipment card.
>
> What is the *first word* on Disguised/Concealed Weapon? And why would you
> choose to ignore that word and how it relates to the definition given in
> [6.1.3]? I'm confused.
The first word is equip.
The rulebook DOES NOT tell you that you have to meet the requirements
of a card in order to equip it.
That's the problem - the rulebook doesn't reflect the rulings. That's
it.
-witness1
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur,
Bad premise. I believe (or at least believed) that he CAN equip with
a Femur, based on past rulings. A "transfer equipment" action is an
"equip" action. See the rulebook. Precedent says, therefore, that a
Nosferatu can make an "equip" action without triggering requirements
of the equipment.
> [...] what logically
> makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur if they play a
> card stating "equip...with a weapon"?
Up until now, I did not think that either. I believed that equiping
with a Femur, via disguised weapon, counted as "playing" the Femur.
Per the rulebook, "playing" a minion card triggers its requirements.
> > Another apparent consequence of your clarifications appears
> > to be that it is not possible for a non-Tzimisce to "equip" with
> > Femur of Toomler with a transfer-equipment action. But IIRC,
> > this was formerly ruled otherwise.
>
> If you believe that a Nosferatu cannot equip with a Femur, [...]
I don't believe that, or at least, I didn't believe that.
> [...] what logically
> makes you think that a Nosferatu *can* equip with a Femur if they take an
> action to "equip with an equipment card currently possessed by one of your
> other minions"?
A prior ruling.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
Here's some cites
LSJ 2002-11-13
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DD248EB.201C918B%40white-wolf.com
LSJ 2001-06-15
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=eb4eb7f8.0106150926.54266f7d%40p...
LSJ 1998-12-11
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36711ADF.15FB%40wizards.com
suolir...@gmail.com
>I'm confused.
Apparently ;)
Happens to all of us some times.
John Flournoy
Actually, the rules do - for cards equipped from your hand (and not
from other sources.).
Here's where:
6.1.3 (Equip action). You're given a choice of two options for what
'equip' entails:
A) "To equip with an equipment card from your hand, play the card and
tap the acting minion."
or
B) "To equip with an equipment card currently possessed by one of your
other minions, tap the acting minion (the minion who is attempting to
get the equipment) and announce the equipment card he is getting."
So in case A), you are explicitly playing the card. Case B), you
aren't.
If you -are- 'playing the card' (case A), you are subject to the rules
under 'Requirements for Playing Cards' (section 1.6.1.3). If you
aren't playing the card (case B), you don't care about the
restrictions.
So anything that says 'equip' looks at first 6.1.3 - and if the card
being 'equipped' is coming from your hand, it counts as being 'played'
and thus the requirements on the card are checked.
If the card doesn't say 'equip' and isn't otherwise being 'played'
from your hand, the requirements don't apply.
> That's the problem - the rulebook doesn't reflect the rulings. That's
> it.
>
> -witness1
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
Note that the rules for "Equip" specify that cards coming from your
hand include playing the card, and that cards being transferred do not
include verbage about 'play the card'.
Also note that the section on card-requirements appear under
"Requirements to Play a card." Cards that are moving around without
being played from your hand aren't subject to this rule.
A non-Tzimisce using an equip action to take a Femur from another
minion is performing an equip action, but does not count as playing
the Femur because it's not coming from his hand and thus can do so.
A non-Tzimisce using Disguised Weapon to take a Femur from your hand
counts as 'equipping' the weapon, and since it is equipping from your
hand involves 'playing' the card per the equip rules. And thus cannot
meet the requirements for playing the card.
-John Flournoy
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Jul 2, 4:52 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > The rulebook DOES NOT tell you that you have to meet the requirements
> > of a card in order to equip it.
>
> Actually, the rules do - for cards equipped from your hand (and not
> from other sources.).
>
> Here's where:
>
> 6.1.3 (Equip action). You're given a choice of two options for what
> 'equip' entails:
>
> A) "To equip with an equipment card from your hand, play the card and
> tap the acting minion."
>
> or
>
> B) "To equip with an equipment card currently possessed by one of your
> other minions, tap the acting minion (the minion who is attempting to
> get the equipment) and announce the equipment card he is getting."
>
> So in case A), you are explicitly playing the card. Case B), you
> aren't.
When you play "disguised weapon" it is neither case "A" nor case "B".
It is case "C" -- a non-standard "equip" effect.
> If you -are- 'playing the card' (case A), you are subject to the rules
> under 'Requirements for Playing Cards' (section 1.6.1.3). If you
> aren't playing the card (case B), you don't care about the
> restrictions.
Right.
> So anything that says 'equip' looks at first 6.1.3 - and if the card
> being 'equipped' is coming from your hand, it counts as being 'played'
> and thus the requirements on the card are checked.
The problem with this logic is that LSJ has just ruled otherwise.
Otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Please see up-
thread.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> Note that the rules for "Equip" specify that cards coming from your
> hand include playing the card, and that cards being transferred do not
> include verbage about 'play the card'.
These describe the 2 standard equip actions. Once "disguised weapon"
is played, things become non-standard, and the above does not
necessarily apply.
> Also note that the section on card-requirements appear under
> "Requirements to Play a card." Cards that are moving around without
> being played from your hand aren't subject to this rule.
Agreed.
> A non-Tzimisce using an equip action to take a Femur from another
> minion is performing an equip action, but does not count as playing
> the Femur because it's not coming from his hand and thus can do so.
Agreed.
> A non-Tzimisce using Disguised Weapon to take a Femur from your hand
> counts as 'equipping' the weapon, and since it is equipping from your
> hand involves 'playing' the card per the equip rules.
I also believed it counted as "playing" the card -- though not quite
for the reasons you stated. The problem arises because LSJ just told
me differently.
suolir...@gmail.com
from your hand.
"To equip with an equipment card from your hand, play the card and tap
placed on the minion (and the cost, if any, is paid). If the action is
unsuccessful, the card is burned (see Resolve the Action, sec.
6.2.3)."
So Dimple bleeds, gets blocked by Smudge and untaps via Firebrand.
Smudge Conceals a .44 Magnum. Dimple, the acting minion, gets tapped
and the Magnum burns because the action was unsuccessful. Right?
bwross
> So anything that says 'equip' looks at first 6.1.3 - and if the card
> being 'equipped' is coming from your hand, it counts as being 'played'
> and thus the requirements on the card are checked.
>
> If the card doesn't say 'equip' and isn't otherwise being 'played'
> from your hand, the requirements don't apply.
Which would mean that a Concealed Baseball Bat would count as played,
and therefore the DNR would apply. That's the problem here, concealed/
disguised equipment apparently needs to be both played (for the
requirements) and not played (to avoid the DNR... see LSJ's first post
this thread).
It appears that we just need to have some explicit rulings to follow
as to exactly when requirements and when DNRs (and other "bold
specification line" details) apply. Because it sure doesn't have
anything to do with whether the card is played or not.
Brent Ross
LSJ
> It appears that we just need to have some explicit rulings to follow
> as to exactly when requirements and when DNRs (and other "bold
> specification line" details) apply. Because it sure doesn't have
> anything to do with whether the card is played or not.
It has exactly to do with that.
Choices:
Play the card. Replace it (or delay replacement as indicated).
Have the card manipulated by some other effect. Ignore any delayed replacement
the card's text gives that would have applied if it had been played under its
own power.
Cards' effects that manipulate the card may give heed to the card's requirements
or may not. It depends on the card text of the card generating that effect. If
the text explicitly says to obey requirements, then do so. If the effect
implicitly says to obey requirements via the use of "equip" et al., then do so.
If the text simply moves the card without explicitly or implicitly saying to
conform to the requirements, then the requirements are ignored (and, if there's
a choice, the basic level of the card is used).
John Flournoy
I'm aware of the disconnect already, yes.
I wasn't addressing 'why does the DNR clause not count as playing when
the requirements part does under Concealed weapon', merely the
statement that the rules don't say you have to meet the requirements
(which the rules in fact do.)
Scott has NOT ruled 'otherwise' with respect to 'you must meet the
requirements of a weapon in order to conceal it out' anywhere in the
thread that I can find. it remains as it was before 'yes you must'.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
I'm agreeing that it's odd to count the card as 'played' for purposes
of meeting requirements yet 'not played' for purposes of DNR clauses.
It'd probably be better worded in the rules if 'equip' simply said
that cards equipped from your hand had to meet the requirements
without verbage about if they count as played or not.
-John Flournoy
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> bwross wrote:
> > It appears that we just need to have some explicit rulings to follow
> > as to exactly when requirements and when DNRs (and other "bold
> > specification line" details) apply. Because it sure doesn't have
> > anything to do with whether the card is played or not.
>
> It has exactly to do with that.
>
> Choices:
>
> Play the card. Replace it (or delay replacement as indicated).
>
> Have the card manipulated by some other effect. Ignore any delayed replacement
> the card's text gives that would have applied if it had been played under its
> own power.
... unless, I suppose, the manipulating card tells you that the
manipulated cared is "played" -- as in Blood of the Cobra or Charming
Lobby. (Nor would it necessarily be illogical if this were judged to
be "implicit" even in the absence of such text).
> Cards' effects that manipulate the card may give heed to the card's requirements
> or may not. It depends on the card text of the card generating that effect. If
> the text explicitly says to obey requirements, then do so. If the effect
> implicitly says to obey requirements via the use of "equip" et al., then do so.
Except that is not "implicit" to me, because I already know that
equipping need not trigger requirements.
If it is implicit, it seems far more natural to read "equip from your
hand" as "equip by playing from your hand" -- and the requirements
will come along with it. To say that one, but not the other, is
implied seems very counterintuitive.
But I suppose this means that:
Mata Hari cannot get a Femur of Toomler via disguised weapon.
Tatiana S. cannot use a Pack Alpha to employ a Dog Pack.
Ian Forrestal cannot use a Pack Alpha to emply a Raven Spy.
Baldesar R. does NOT pay one less for weapons he gets via concealed
weapon.
Total Insantity does NOT prevent you from getting a weapon (which is
an action card) via disguised weapon.
Right?
LSJ
> But I suppose this means that:
>
> Mata Hari cannot get a Femur of Toomler via disguised weapon.
Correct. DW doesn't require Tzimisce, so she doesn't get to play it as a Tzimisce.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/782f7be69bb661a5
> Tatiana S. cannot use a Pack Alpha to employ a Dog Pack.
Correct. PA doesn't require a Gangrel.
> Ian Forrestal cannot use a Pack Alpha to emply a Raven Spy.
He can. Pack Alpha requires Animalism, and so he can play it as a vampire with
basic Animalism.
> Baldesar R. does NOT pay one less for weapons he gets via concealed
> weapon.
He does.
http://thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7-7.txt
> Total Insantity does NOT prevent you from getting a weapon (which is
> an action card) via disguised weapon.
Sure.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> > Ian Forrestal cannot use a Pack Alpha to emply a Raven Spy.
>
> He can. Pack Alpha requires Animalism, and so he can play it as a
> vampire with basic Animalism.
Is the logic that Pack Alpha effectively gives him animalism until the
resolution of Pack Alpha's effect?
In that case, I guess he still cannot play Pack Alpha to employ an
animal retainer that requires, say, Serpentis.
> > Baldesar R. does NOT pay one less for weapons he gets via
> > concealed weapon.
>
> He does.http://thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7-7.txt
Seems inconsistent. But the ruling seems to explicitly acknowledge
the incongruity, so I guess it's like errata.
LSJ
> On Jul 2, 9:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Ian Forrestal cannot use a Pack Alpha to emply a Raven Spy.
>> He can. Pack Alpha requires Animalism, and so he can play it as a
>> vampire with basic Animalism.
>
> Is the logic that Pack Alpha effectively gives him animalism until the
> resolution of Pack Alpha's effect?
No. The logic is that he plays it as a vampire with basic animalism, per his
card text.
> In that case, I guess he still cannot play Pack Alpha to employ an
> animal retainer that requires, say, Serpentis.
True.
bwross
> > It appears that we just need to have some explicit rulings to follow
> > as to exactly when requirements and when DNRs (and other "bold
> > specification line" details) apply. Because it sure doesn't have
> > anything to do with whether the card is played or not.
>
> It has exactly to do with that.
>
> Choices:
>
> Play the card. Replace it (or delay replacement as indicated).
>
> Have the card manipulated by some other effect. Ignore any delayed replacement
> the card's text gives that would have applied if it had been played under its
> own power.
My point was largely in response to John's assertion that a Nossie
pulling a disguised Femur of Toomler is restricted simply because the
card has been "played". Which it can't be, because the Baseball Bat's
DNR doesn't apply in the same situation because the card is "not
played". Using whether a card has been "played" simply doesn't work
for what he wants it to do. It can't be covering both restrictions
and DNRs by itself.
In fact, your choices aren't enough either... sure they cover the DNR
case, but they don't cover the restriction case which I was also
talking about. The Femur of Toomler can be manipulated by transfer
equipping to a Nossie because it comes under the second choice. But
it can't be Disguised by a Nossie. So if these choices were a
dicotomy, you'd have to be using the first case when Disguising and
thus "playing" the card and setting off DNRs... but you can't be
because you're using a mainpulation effect that doesn't play the card
wrt DNR. So the dicotomy of played/not played as a way to judge both
requirements and DNRs is clearly false... there must be at least a
third case. Thus, the statement that "it has exactly to do with that"
to this situation (requirement and DNR) being determined entirely by
played/not played status is completely false... the issue is more
complex than simply played/not played. Which is my point, as you
probably already know because of the rest of your post...
> Cards' effects that manipulate the card may give heed to the card's requirements
> or may not. It depends on the card text of the card generating that effect. If
> the text explicitly says to obey requirements, then do so. If the effect
> implicitly says to obey requirements via the use of "equip" et al., then do so.
> If the text simply moves the card without explicitly or implicitly saying to
> conform to the requirements, then the requirements are ignored (and, if there's
> a choice, the basic level of the card is used).
See... now you're adding in other things to explain the requirements
case, so it very much is not "exactly" covered by if the card is
played.
In fact it's still not really covered. Transfering equipment is done
with an equip action and uses the word in the rulebook where it's
defined (not to mention that it's in the Equip section as a type of
equip action). Disguised Weapon also uses the word "equip". In both
cases, there is no further comment about following restrictions on the
card. But by what we have here, either both methods can equip a
Nossie with the Femur of Toomler or neither of them can, because they
both: use the word "equip", no futher instructions on restrictions are
given, and in both cases the equipment is manipulated by an effect and
not played.
Of course just means that there's still some magic missing from the
formula here (perhaps things in the rule book are "meta-magical" so
restrictions need to be explicit there even if you are taking about an
action "to *equip* with an equipment card currently possessed by one
of your other minions" as an *equip* action in the *Equip* section,
but on a card the word "equip" implicitly makes them apply). One
thing is for sure, things are apparently not trivial. Perhaps we need
a logic table for all the different situations and whether DNRs,
restrictions, cost, etc apply. Or a flowchart... that could work too.
Brent Ross
Kevin M.
> Perhaps we need a logic table for all the different
> situations and whether DNRs, restrictions, cost,
> etc apply. Or a flowchart... that could work too.
'We' defined as 'bwross', sure. It does sound like a flowchart would be a
good option for you.
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
> bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps we need a logic table for all the different
> > situations and whether DNRs, restrictions, cost,
> > etc apply. Or a flowchart... that could work too.
>
> 'We' defined as 'bwross', sure. It does sound like a flowchart would be a
> good option for you.
>
I wouldn't say that he's alone in that opinion. Or, well.. I'd rather
see some new wordings in the rulebook than a flowchart, but..
Personally I know how I/my playgroup play Disguised Weapon and how we
rule around transferring clan-requiring equipments via default
actions, but apparently it can be ruled differently and the rulebook
apparently (after reading this thread and the rulebook) doesn't really
support all situations covered. Nothing a few minor changes wouldn't
fix though, but still.
Meej
> > Baldesar R. does NOT pay one less for weapons he gets via concealed
> > weapon.
>
> He does.http://thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7-7.txt
But Scott - that ruling applies to "playing" cards, whether in the
normal manner or not:
"All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played
("as normal"
or otherwise)."
And just up-thread - in http://tinyurl.com/6fleqg - you explicitly
said it's not "played." Even "not-as-normal.":
> > even this ruling seems to acknowledge that the card is indeed "played"
> > -- just not in a "normal fashion".
>
> Quite the opposite. It isn't "played". Instead, CW is played. And that effect
> causes the minion playing it to equip with a ... weapon from your hand.
So either the 7/7/7 ruling doesn't apply, or something's off in one of
the definitions: either equip in the rulebook, or what counts as
played, or what triggers DNR clauses and requirements and so on.
(We all know how it's "supposed" to work, I think - well, I'll admit
that the implication that Mata Hari can't Disguise a Femur is new to
me, but I can see where it comes from - but that's not because it's
crystal clear and contradiction-free.)
- D.J.
LSJ
> On Jul 2, 9:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Baldesar R. does NOT pay one less for weapons he gets via concealed
>>> weapon.
>> He does.http://thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7-7.txt
>
> But Scott - that ruling applies to "playing" cards, whether in the
> normal manner or not:
> "All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played
> ("as normal"
> or otherwise)."
>
> And just up-thread - in http://tinyurl.com/6fleqg - you explicitly
> said it's not "played." Even "not-as-normal.":
Context counts. They're making the same distinction.
"Not played (as normal)".
Meej
> Meej wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 9:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Baldesar R. does NOT pay one less for weapons he gets via concealed
> >>> weapon.
> >> He does.http://thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7-7.txt
>
> > But Scott - that ruling applies to "playing" cards, whether in the
> > normal manner or not:
> > "All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played
> > ("as normal"
> > or otherwise)."
>
> > said it's not "played." Even "not-as-normal.":
>
> Context counts. They're making the same distinction.
>
> "Not played (as normal)".
The quote you responded to explicitly read "is played, just not in a
normal fashion" - to which you replied "quite the opposite."
That seems, very clearly, to imply either: that it's not played-not-as-
normal because it's not played at all, or that it's played as
normal.
- D.J.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> The quote you responded to explicitly read "is played, just not in a
> normal fashion" - to which you replied "quite the opposite."
>
> That seems, very clearly, to imply either: that it's not played-not-as-
> normal because it's not played at all, or that it's played as
> normal.
It is possible that it could be acknowledged that such cards are
indeed "played" in some sense or other, but that a distinction might
be drawn based on WHO was doing the playing. For instance, a minion
(or Methuselah) "plays" concealed weapon, which card in turn causes
another card to "be played" (by the concealed weapon, but not directly
by a Methuselah or a Minion).
I have not had time to think through how that distinction might apply
here. I'm just throwing that thought out there.