[LSJ] Illusions of the kindred vs Amaranth
charles lechasseur
Illusions of the Kindred and Amaranth. There was an argument about this as
there seem to have been multiple reversals of the rulings at stake here, so
I thought I'd ask here to get the right answer.
Vampire A enters combat with vampire B. Before range, A plays Illusions of
the Kindred. Combat ends, and vampire B enters combat with illusory vampire
C. Combat goes on, and C pummels his/her opponent, sending it to torpor. C
then plays Amaranth. B burns. This means combat ends. In theory, C would
then be removed from the game.
In the online rulebook, the blood hunt is described in a section (6.5.6)
that is separate from the rest of the diablerie steps (6.5.5). 6.5.5 further
mentions that "After diablerie, a blood hunt may be called on the
diablerist."
However, a ruling for "Torpor and Diablerie" found on the Rulings & Errata
page mentions that "The steps of diablerie (section 6.5.5 of the rules) are
indivisible - you cannot interrupt them to play other effects (exceptions
made for effects played within the referendum, per 6.5.6)." The wording of
this errata seems to imply that the blood hunt (6.5.6) is part of the
diablerie itself.
The question:
Is the blood hunt part of the diablerie, thus happening before combat ends
(which could mean the illusory vampire, C, could be sent to the ash heap
instead of being removed from the game if he/she burns during the blood
hunt), or is the blood hunt separate from the diablerie, thus happening
after combat has ended (and thus in this case would not happen because C
would be removed from the game)?
Sorry if this post is long, just thought I'd provide all the details that
lead to our confusion. Thanks in advance for a clarification on this.
LSJ
> The question:
>
> Is the blood hunt part of the diablerie, thus happening before combat ends
> (which could mean the illusory vampire, C, could be sent to the ash heap
> instead of being removed from the game if he/she burns during the blood
> hunt), or is the blood hunt separate from the diablerie, thus happening
> after combat has ended (and thus in this case would not happen because C
> would be removed from the game)?
Neither.
The blood hunt is not part of diablerie, but happens immediately after.
In the case of Amaranth, it happens before combat ends.
In the case of the action, it happens before the action ends.
Google: "illusions amaranth author:LSJ" (sort by date, since recent
rulings having precedence over older rulings).
--
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/
Emmit Svenson
> Neither.
> The blood hunt is not part of diablerie, but happens immediately after.
> In the case of Amaranth, it happens before combat ends.
> In the case of the action, it happens before the action ends.
>
> Google: "illusions amaranth author:LSJ" (sort by date, since recent
> rulings having precedence over older rulings).
After reading your rulings and the card text, it seems to me that the
illusionary kindred would be sent to the ash heap by the blood hunt
referendum, but would then be removed from the game as combat ends due
to the vampires no longer being ready. Is this correct?
LSJ
No. Once in the ash heap, he is not "visible" to the effect that wants
to remove him from the game.
Johannes Walch
> > illusionary kindred would be sent to the ash heap by the blood hunt
> > referendum, but would then be removed from the game as combat ends due
> > to the vampires no longer being ready. Is this correct?
>
> No. Once in the ash heap, he is not "visible" to the effect that wants
> to remove him from the game.
But if everyone chooses NOT to let him burn he is removed from the game,
right ?
LSJ
?
What "let him burn"?
If the blood hunt doesn't burn him, and no other effect burns him, then
he isn't burned (this is identical to the case for non-illusionary minions
and cards in general; a "burn it" effect must be applied in order to burn
a card in play. No spontaneous combustion.).
If he is still in the game when the "remove from game" effect comes looking
for him, he is removed from the game.
Emmit Svenson
> No. Once in the ash heap, he is not "visible" to the effect that wants
> to remove him from the game.
Do you mind if I ask you to refer this one to the rules team? Since
there are other effects that remove ashed vampires from the game, it
seems reasonable that Illusions would work that way.
I'm only trying to save our local prince from the heartbreak of trying
to build a working Illusions/Amaranth/Possession deck. :)
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EB1BD11...@white-wolf.com>...
>
>>No. Once in the ash heap, he is not "visible" to the effect that wants
>>to remove him from the game.
>
> Do you mind if I ask you to refer this one to the rules team? Since
> there are other effects that remove ashed vampires from the game, it
> seems reasonable that Illusions would work that way.
The only effects that affect ashed vampires are the ones that say they
do by explicit card text. Illusions has no such text.
If you can provide any rules-based or card-text-based reason why Illusions
should ignore the current rule against targeting ashed vampires, I'll happily
send it off to the rules team.