Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Animal allies: Are they mortal or monster?

41 views
Skip to first unread message

sutekh_23

unread,
May 15, 2006, 12:41:40 PM5/15/06
to
If this question has been answered, apologies in advance. I was just
wondering about the "monster" status of animal allies brought into play
with the card text demdemeh.
Card text:

Demdemeh
Clan: Tzimisce (group 4)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: ANI CEL FOR VIC aus pre
Laibon: If any Gehenna cards are in play during your untap phase, you
may move an animal retainer on Demdemeh to your ready region as an
animal ally with 1 strength and 1 bleed. While that animal has more
than 2 life, he or she gets +1 strength.

All it says is that they are "animal allies" so for the purpose of
dealing with the imbued what are they considered? Previous rulings make
me tend to think that they are "monsters" as it does not specificly
state they are mortal, yet logic would dictate that they are mortal?
Anyone got a answer? LSJ?, the regular answer crew?
Thanks in advance
Sutekh_23

Jozxyqk

unread,
May 15, 2006, 12:44:15 PM5/15/06
to
sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> All it says is that they are "animal allies" so for the purpose of
> dealing with the imbued what are they considered? Previous rulings make
> me tend to think that they are "monsters" as it does not specificly
> state they are mortal, yet logic would dictate that they are mortal?
> Anyone got a answer? LSJ?, the regular answer crew?

Monster: any vampire or non-mortal, non-animal ally or retainer.


sutekh_23

unread,
May 15, 2006, 12:48:07 PM5/15/06
to

Hmm, actually now you have written that I would now say mortal (animal
ally)
Thanks though
Sutekh_23

LSJ

unread,
May 15, 2006, 1:00:56 PM5/15/06
to

Josh is correct -- monster is defined as any vampire or any non-mortal,
non-animal ally or retainer.
The animal allies are not monsters. Nor are they mortal allies.

sutekh_23

unread,
May 15, 2006, 1:05:47 PM5/15/06
to

So, in effect they are neither, correct?
Thank you gentlemen
Sutekh_23

Jozxyqk

unread,
May 15, 2006, 1:26:32 PM5/15/06
to
sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote:

> > > > Monster: any vampire or non-mortal, non-animal ally or retainer.
> > >
> > > Hmm, actually now you have written that I would now say mortal (animal
> > > ally)
> >
> > Josh is correct -- monster is defined as any vampire or any non-mortal,
> > non-animal ally or retainer.
> > The animal allies are not monsters. Nor are they mortal allies.

> So, in effect they are neither, correct?

That's what "Nor" means.
Not just "in effect"; LSJ has *specifically stated* the answer.

Each ally has one keyword defining its "type".
If that type is "mortal", or "animal", then that ally is not a monster.
Otherwise, it is.

0 new messages