Groundfighting

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I just got back from our prerelease. The set is excellent, I just wish
we could have gotten more use out of some of the "Independent Clan" cards.
Gee, I wish there was a Kindred Most Wanted/Final Nights draft coming up.. :)
(plug plug *ahem* come to TotalCon!)
(I hope my order for Final Nights starters actually comes through so I don't
look like a total ass after all this plugging ;) )

Anyway..

The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
remember so far, was this:

=================
Groundfighting

Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.

Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
round as it is played.
=================

So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?

Obviously Immortal Grapple/Grasp of the Python..

But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
a weapon, indirectly.

What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.

And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?

I'm sure there are other examples, but I think a clarification might be
needed.

Thanks.
50 answers Last reply
More about groundfighting
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
    wrote:

    >The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
    >remember so far, was this:

    >=================
    >Groundfighting
    >Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
    >Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
    >opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
    >round as it is played.
    >=================

    >So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?

    Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
    Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.


    >But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
    >a weapon, indirectly.

    Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.


    >What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.

    Scorpion Sting does not in any way affect your ability to choose Dodge
    as a strike. Scorpion Sting cannot be cancelled by Groundfighting.


    >And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
    >does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?

    Nope. Card text does not support choosing a new strike.


    >I'm sure there are other examples, but I think a clarification might be
    >needed.

    Indeed.


    Carpe noctem.

    Lasombra

    http://www.TheLasombra.com
    Your best online source for information about V:TES.
    Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
    of booster and starter box displays.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    maneuvers/seting range.
    these do restrict which strike cards can be played (some strikes are
    only usable at certain range).
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    maneuvers can restrict the choice of strikes as some strikes are anly
    usable a certain range.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    The Lasombra wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
    >>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
    >>remember so far, was this:
    >
    >>=================
    >>Groundfighting
    >>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
    >>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
    >>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
    >>round as it is played.
    >>=================
    >
    >>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
    >
    > Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
    > Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
    >
    >>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
    >>a weapon, indirectly.
    >
    > Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.

    Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
    with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).

    >>What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.
    >
    > Scorpion Sting does not in any way affect your ability to choose Dodge
    > as a strike. Scorpion Sting cannot be cancelled by Groundfighting.

    Correct.

    >>And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
    >>does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?
    >
    > Nope. Card text does not support choosing a new strike.

    Correct.

    Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be restricting
    the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
    range" strike ability or weapon available.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@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/
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    >>>=================
    >>>Groundfighting
    >>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
    >>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
    >>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
    >>>round as it is played.
    >>>=================
    >>
    >>>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
    >>>a weapon, indirectly.

    > Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
    > with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).

    What about Rigor Mortis?
    Going with what you said, I would guess that Rigor Mortis is cancelable by
    any vampire who has a "built-in additional strike" ability (Jacko, Melisande,
    Black Metamorphosis, Sword of Judgment...), but not just someone who might
    generate additional strikes later (because they have celerity); correct?
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
    news:XLWdnYptFPXiTYTfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
    > >>>=================
    > >>>Groundfighting
    > >>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
    > >>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by
    the
    > >>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes
    this
    > >>>round as it is played.
    > >>>=================
    > What about Rigor Mortis?
    > Going with what you said, I would guess that Rigor Mortis is cancelable
    by
    > any vampire who has a "built-in additional strike" ability (Jacko,
    Melisande,
    > Black Metamorphosis, Sword of Judgment...), but not just someone who
    might
    > generate additional strikes later (because they have celerity); correct?

    Additional strikes are not noticed by Groundfighting.
    Restrict choice of strikes, not restrict ability to get more strikes.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be
    restricting
    > the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
    > range" strike ability or weapon available.

    same for setting range?

    I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
    opponents choice of strikes...
    well, quite obvious what designers intent was anyway :-)
    shame it wasn't cought during playtesting though.

    (sorry about the double post earlier, the first one didn't appear on
    google for a while and I though I probably forgot to post...)
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    (parts snipped)

    LSJ wrote:
    > <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
    > > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
    > > opponents choice of strikes...

    > Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
    > somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
    > not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
    >

    Adding to what LSJ said:

    Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
    range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
    like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
    range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
    usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
    by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
    would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
    range as appropriate).

    Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
    Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
    Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
    in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)


    > --
    > LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

    -John Flournoy
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
    news:1109008920.751981.47710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > LSJ wrote:
    > > Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be
    > restricting
    > > the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
    > > range" strike ability or weapon available.
    >
    > same for setting range?

    Yes.

    > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
    > opponents choice of strikes...

    Maneuvering clearly does not restrict it, as the minion
    is could maneuver back.

    Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
    somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
    not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.

    Similarly, Weakness would remove some options, but
    wouldn't directly restrict strikes.

    > well, quite obvious what designers intent was anyway :-)
    > shame it wasn't cought during playtesting though.

    It wasn't?

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1109013268.222400.217510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > (parts snipped)
    >
    > LSJ wrote:
    > > <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
    > > > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
    > > > opponents choice of strikes...
    >
    > > Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
    > > somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
    > > not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
    > >
    >
    > Adding to what LSJ said:
    >
    > Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
    > range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
    > like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
    > range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
    > usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
    > by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
    > would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
    > range as appropriate).

    An apt description/rationale.

    I was more thinking of already-in-play options, like Meat Hook's self
    destructive special or Seren Sukardi's special, and examining those
    in the light of the Drawing Out the Beast vs. Weapons angle.

    > Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
    > Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
    > Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
    > in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)

    Looks good.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > > Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
    > > Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
    > > Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card
    text
    > > in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
    >
    > Looks good.

    ok. fair enough.
    but on the other hand, that it needed such clarification indicates that
    all issues were not explored to full extent, which indicates that
    playtesting and review 'could' have dealt with it better (i.e. didn't
    catch).
    anyway, happy with this clarification :-)
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Morgan Vening wrote:
    > On 21 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
    > wrote:

    > >Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
    > >Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
    > >Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card
    text
    > >in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
    >
    > Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers
    to
    > long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
    > superior?

    Yes.

    > Or make a hand strike?

    Yes.

    >And then play Rotschrek (using Claws on the handstrike)?

    No.

    > I thought this was invalidated a long time ago. Has there been a
    > ruling change?

    There hasn't been a change. You cannot play Rotschreck in this
    circumstance because the aggravated damage isn't going to be inflicted
    on the opposing minion - to quote LSJ Rotschreck's "Card text says that
    the minion must attempt to use aggravated damage
    "against a vampire" - not merely against the air in front of him."

    That does not mean that you cannot make the ineffective strike itself;
    merely that Rotschreck can't be played on it.

    You can always make legal strikes even if they will not affect your
    target; you can play Undead Strength as your strike in a long-range
    combat, for instance, even though it will inflict no damage on your
    opponent, much like a blocker playing a strike card that he knows won't
    resolve in response to the acting minion playing Majesty. People
    occasionally do this to cycle strike cards out of their hand.

    The rulebook even notes that: "Unless the strike is identified as
    ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or
    combat ends), it is only effective at close range" - if strikes that
    aren't ranged could not be played at long range, the rules would say so
    instead of describing how such strikes don't have an effect when
    played.

    > Morgan Vening

    -John Flournoy
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > So it is caught in playtesting (and in design, actually -- you can't
    > write a sentence like that after this many sets without at least
    > considering the possible ramifications).

    excellent point...

    > The issue is then considered and this text is the result, since
    > "exhaustive" text will not fit in the box, and the decided-upon text
    is
    > clear enough (or as clear as it can be, YMMV) as to intent. How is
    that
    > not exploring it to the full extent?

    well... erm... look... point taken :-)
    IMHO it still does not 'feel' right. but as I have not managed to
    figure out an alternative text that (IMO) looks better, I have to agree
    that this is a sufficient solution.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:17:52 -0500, The Lasombra
    <TheLasombra@hotmail.com> scrawled:

    >On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
    >>remember so far, was this:
    >
    >>=================
    >>Groundfighting
    >>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
    >>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
    >>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
    >>round as it is played.
    >>=================
    >
    >>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
    >
    >Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
    >Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.

    the 'restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round' seems to
    strike Grasp of the Serpent off the list of cards effected by
    Groundfighting.

    What about superior Lapse?

    salem
    http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:17:23 +1100, salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >>> So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
    >>
    >> Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
    >> Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
    >
    > the 'restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round' seems to
    > strike Grasp of the Serpent off the list of cards effected by
    > Groundfighting.

    I'm curious, now that we've seen a hoser-hoser, when we'll be seeing
    a hoser-hoser-hoser. Like this:

    Immortaler Grapple
    pot: Play at close range before strikes are chosen. etc. (as IG)
    POT: Cancel a combat card that would cancel a combat card that would
    restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.

    ....but then, there is always:

    Underground Fighting
    Cancel a combat card that would cancel a combat card that would cancel
    a combat card that would restrict this minions choice of strikes.

    ....hmm...

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    demon@hell.is wrote:
    > but on the other hand, that it needed such clarification indicates that
    > all issues were not explored to full extent, which indicates that
    > playtesting and review 'could' have dealt with it better (i.e. didn't
    > catch).

    So it is caught in playtesting (and in design, actually -- you can't
    write a sentence like that after this many sets without at least
    considering the possible ramifications).

    The issue is then considered and this text is the result, since
    "exhaustive" text will not fit in the box, and the decided-upon text is
    clear enough (or as clear as it can be, YMMV) as to intent. How is that
    not exploring it to the full extent?

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@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/
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
    >
    > What about superior Lapse?
    >
    > salem
    > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

    I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
    Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Jozxyqk wrote:
    > LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    > > "Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
    > >> salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
    > >> >
    > >> > What about superior Lapse?
    > >> >
    > >> > salem
    > >> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    > >> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
    > >>
    > >> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say :
    no,
    > >> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
    >
    > > Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
    > > ability to strike, however.)
    >
    > But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a
    choice?

    And Thoughts Betrayed still allows other strike choices, like
    already-equipped weapons, strikes inherent to a vampire's text (like
    Marie Faucigny's dodge), or the outferior of Internal Recursion's
    granted-before-combat ability to S:CE.

    -John Flournoy
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
    > salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
    > >
    > > What about superior Lapse?
    > >
    > > salem
    > > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    > > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
    >
    > I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
    > Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).

    Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
    ability to strike, however.)

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    > "Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
    >> salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
    >> >
    >> > What about superior Lapse?
    >> >
    >> > salem
    >> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    >> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
    >>
    >> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
    >> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).

    > Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
    > ability to strike, however.)

    But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a choice?
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 21 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >> <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
    >> > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
    >> > opponents choice of strikes...
    >
    >> Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
    >> somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
    >> not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
    >>
    >
    >Adding to what LSJ said:
    >
    >Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
    >range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
    >like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
    >range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
    >usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
    >by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
    >would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
    >range as appropriate).
    >
    >Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
    >Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
    >Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
    >in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)

    Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers to
    long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
    superior? Or make a hand strike? And then play Rotschrek (using Claws
    on the handstrike)?

    I thought this was invalidated a long time ago. Has there been a
    ruling change?

    Morgan Vening
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Morgan Vening wrote:
    > On 21 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >>Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
    >>range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
    >>like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
    >>range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
    >>usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
    >>by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
    >>would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
    >>range as appropriate).
    >>
    >>Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
    >>Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
    >>Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
    >>in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
    >
    > Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers to
    > long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
    > superior? Or make a hand strike? And then play Rotschrek (using Claws
    > on the handstrike)?

    Yes.
    Yes. Song will have no effect, but can still be played.
    Yes. Hand strike will have no effect, but can still be chosen (indeed,
    must be chosen if you have no other strike to choose).
    No. The strike must be "against a vampire" to allow Rotschreck.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@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/
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
    news:hbWdnV8Ul_5QxobfRVn-gA@comcast.com...
    > But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a choice?

    Thoughts Betrayed (at DOM) is cancelable, because it
    limits your choices.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    salem wrote:
    > Interesting. I would have thought being not allowed to choose any
    > strike at all might somehow be considered somewhat of a restriction.

    that's what I would have thougt as well.
    but I can see the logic behind the justification as well (though I
    would lean towards another interpretation myself, which is a completely
    different matter anyway...).
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 23 Feb 2005 02:58:06 -0800, <demon@hell.is> wrote:

    > salem wrote:
    >> Interesting. I would have thought being not allowed to choose any
    >> strike at all might somehow be considered somewhat of a restriction.
    >
    > that's what I would have thougt as well.
    > but I can see the logic behind the justification as well (though I
    > would lean towards another interpretation myself, which is a completely
    > different matter anyway...).

    Now that I think of it, restricting the choice of strikes is taking away
    options. Immortal Grapple takes away all but one option; Lapse takes away
    one more with respect to that. I'm not sure why you need to be able to use
    at least one strike in order for the effect to qualify as restriction...

    Also, Immortal Grapple could be argued to take away your "choice"
    completely, since you cannot select your strike (it must be hand strike,
    no alternatives). The word "selection" might hint at selecting from among
    multiple available options.

    However, this is just abstract semantics shuffling. What I'm not content
    about is that IMHO Drawing out the Beast should not be cancelled by
    Groundfighting, as it's effect is not direct. The card only prevents you
    from using equipment; your inability to use equipment may prevent you
    from using a strike, but it could be argued that similar indirect
    causality limits you from using an "only usable at certain range" strike
    at the wrong range. I mean, Withering at superior limits your use of
    disciplines, indirectly limiting your options to strike. Etc. Canine
    Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes, burning
    your weapon. Getting burned in combat also, indirectly, limits your
    strike. So I think that only cards that explicitly restrict *strikes*
    should count.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    news:opsmnei0o1o6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > Now that I think of it, restricting the choice of strikes is taking away
    > options. Immortal Grapple takes away all but one option; Lapse takes
    away

    Not all but one. Lucky Blow, hand strike, Channeling the Beast, etc.

    > one more with respect to that. I'm not sure why you need to be able to
    use
    > at least one strike in order for the effect to qualify as
    restriction...

    Restricting the number of times you make a choice is not restricting the
    number of options you have at each choice nexus.

    Lapse doesn't restrict the number of options you'd have at the next
    choice nexus any more than something that restricts your ability
    to get additional strikes.

    > Also, Immortal Grapple could be argued to take away your "choice"
    > completely, since you cannot select your strike (it must be hand
    strike,
    > no alternatives). The word "selection" might hint at selecting from
    among
    > multiple available options.

    There are many options available that qualify as hand strikes.

    > Canine
    > Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
    burning
    > your weapon.

    No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
    burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
    Canine Horde strike resolves).

    > Getting burned in combat also, indirectly, limits your
    > strike.

    No. It limits the number of future "choose strike" nexuses (nexi?)
    you get.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:51:24 -0500, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com>
    wrote:
    >
    > > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    > > news:opsmnu83zgo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > >> King of the Mountaing at inferior?
    > >
    > >
    > > Still no.
    >
    > Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's
    next
    > strike.
    >
    > Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.

    The parallel is inexact. DotB explicitly prohibits the use of
    equipment. King of the Mountain does not - it merely burns the
    equipment and the rules then prohibit that minion from using burned
    equipment.

    I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no equipment
    to strike. I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
    strikes to play, right?

    John
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:00:40 -0500, LSJ
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    > > news:opsmn0o1jao6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > >> Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing
    minion's
    > >> next
    > >> strike.
    > >>
    > >> Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.
    > >
    > > It doesn't restrict the minion's next strike.
    > > It burns a weapon.
    > >
    > > DotB says "can't use weapon".
    >
    > Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
    > does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
    > It merely sets up an effect that makes the *minion* unable to use
    > equipment. He is still free to choose any legal strike he wishes.

    No, he is explicitly forbidden from using his gun/stick/poker/etc. for
    the remainder of combat.

    > Slightly unrelated thought experiment:
    >
    > Assuming a hypothetical combat card version of The Grandest Trick
    would
    > allow you to be treated as an ally for the remainder of combat. So
    if
    > Marconius is in combat with Seren Sukardi the Anarch, could Seren
    > cancel that card if Marconius would want to play it? I doubt so.

    No. Seren's own strike *restricts itself*. It is not restricted by a
    hypothetical card that does not explicity restrict it (like IG).

    > Similar notice - if Seren Sukardi the Anarch is in combat with
    Gillian
    > Krader, and Gillian plays Terror Frenzy at inferior, effectively
    > making it impossible for Seren to press and use her strike, would
    that
    > count? I still doubt so. Also, striking Seren the Anarch from close
    > range. Taking damage restricts her from using her special strike,
    so
    > she can cancel a Thrown Sewer Lid? Dunno.

    The terror frenzy is cancelable if Seren has a weapon, since it
    explicitly forbids the use of that strike. Seren's own strike, again,
    restricts itself based on outside factors. Those factors, themselves,
    do not restrict his strike.

    > I think that the line would logically be drawn where a card
    explicitly
    > and specifically limits a strike. "Opposing minion cannot srtike
    with
    > a weapon." cuts it IMHO, "Opposing minion cannot use equipment."
    does
    > not. Sure, one implies the other, but then so does burning a weapon
    > imply that the former bearer will be unable to use it on his next
    strike.

    "Opposing minion cannot use equipment" *includes explicitly* "Opposing
    minion cannot strike with a weapon". Burning a weapon does not
    explicitly keep that weapon from being used to strike.

    John
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    > On 23 Feb 2005 11:50:33 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:
    >
    > >I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no
    equipment
    > >to strike.
    >
    > It's simple, I guess. You don't have equipment? Drawing Out is not
    > restricting your choice of strikes, just prohibiting you from using a
    > *type* of strike you wouldn't be able to choose anyway.
    > You have equipment? Drawing Out is restricting your choices.

    Unless I disguised out or used WWS.

    > > I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
    > >strikes to play, right?
    > >John
    >
    > I'd assume yes, since IG do restrict your choices no matter if you
    > have something in hand or not. Groundfighting doesn't say anything
    > about you having a relevant type of strike right now, just being able
    > to choose.
    > Regarding equipment, you're not able to choose strike with an
    > equipment from the get go if you don't possess one.

    Well, unless you get one with one of several combat cards (Zip Gun,
    WWS, Concealed/Disguised). And, with non-hand strikes under a grapple,
    unless I get one from another source (card in play, strike card from
    hand) I wouldn't be able to choose a non-hand strike anyway (esp. since
    choosing not to strike at all is explicitly not allowed).

    > Also, having no non-hand strikes when IG is played doesn't mean you
    > *can't* draw one to use as an additional strike, and Groundfighting
    > refers to the whole round.

    Right, but I could also draw a Disguised Weapon with OBF, too, right?
    And Drawing Our also goes the whole round.

    I mean, I know that Grapple makes *very* explicit that it is
    restricting strikes. But so does DotB - it's just not an *important*
    restriction if you don't have a weapon (yet). Much like Grapple isn't
    an *important* restriction if you had no non-hand options available
    anyway.

    John.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Rigor Mortis at : "The opposing minion cannot use any additional
    > strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
    > cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional
    strikes
    > also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that
    mean
    > that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it
    depend
    > whether the anarch has [CEL], like Drawing out the Beast depends on
    > whether the anarch has a weapon?

    I thought you could still play it at CEL (or even cel) but you couldn't
    *use* the extra strike. Maybe I'm wrong.

    > Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes
    are
    > chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes
    all
    > the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1
    blood,
    > can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
    > question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)

    No, the anarch's lack of blood is what prevents the strike, not Thin
    Blood's text.

    > Range-setting effects: It seems like these are about as direct a
    > restriction on the anarch's ability to use (at least inherent) "only
    at
    > range X" strikes as Drawing out the Beast is against equipment-based
    > strikes. Why is DotB cancelable with Groundfighting, but
    range-setting
    > effects aren't, even if an existing strike choice is being disallowed
    by
    > the setting of range?

    DotB explicitly forbids certain strikes. Range-setting affects do not
    (the strike itself is generally what restricts its use).

    I still don't understand why DotB's cancelability first requires
    checking to see if I have any equipment-based strikes to make.

    John
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:57:34 -0500, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > There are many options available that qualify as hand strikes.

    Yeah, this was kind of weak... ;)

    >> Canine
    >> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
    > burning
    >> your weapon.
    >
    > No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
    > burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
    > Canine Horde strike resolves).

    Yes, but you cannot use it during your next strike. Meaning, during
    your next srtike, your choices are limited by the resolution of
    this Canine Horde strike.

    (Roughly equal to a pre-range DotB in that.)

    If not being able to use a weapon constitutes a direct restriction
    on selecting your strike with that particulat weapon, then getting
    a weapon burned or stolen, likewise, imposes the same limitation.

    > No. It limits the number of future "choose strike" nexuses (nexi?)
    > you get.

    ;)

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    news:opsmnjh1zvo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > >> Canine
    > >> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
    > > burning
    > >> your weapon.
    > >
    > > No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
    > > burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
    > > Canine Horde strike resolves).
    >
    > Yes, but you cannot use it during your next strike. Meaning, during
    > your next srtike, your choices are limited by the resolution of
    > this Canine Horde strike.
    >
    > (Roughly equal to a pre-range DotB in that.)
    >
    > If not being able to use a weapon constitutes a direct restriction
    > on selecting your strike with that particulat weapon, then getting
    > a weapon burned or stolen, likewise, imposes the same limitation.


    OK, then. Canine Horde doesn't restrict your choice when it is
    played. Unlike DotB, CH doesn't resolve when played.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:50:09 -0500, "LSJ"
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled:

    >"Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
    >> salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
    >> >
    >> > What about superior Lapse?
    >> >
    >> > salem
    >> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    >> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
    >>
    >> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
    >> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
    >
    >Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
    >ability to strike, however.)

    Interesting. I would have thought being not allowed to choose any
    strike at all might somehow be considered somewhat of a restriction.

    Oh well.

    salem
    http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Joshua Duffin wrote:

    > While Grasp of the Python may be "this kind of card", it is not
    > cancelable by Groundfighting, correct? I can't find the text of Grasp
    > at the moment, but as I remember, it restricts the choice of strikes
    > *next* round, not this round.

    Groundfighting
    Combat
    Requires a ready anarch or rulemonger
    Maneuver, press or burn 1 blood to cancel a long series of questions from
    Josh Duffin.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
    news:cvci12$2pn$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    > The Lasombra wrote:
    > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk
    <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
    > >>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I
    can
    > >>remember so far, was this:
    > >
    > >>=================
    > >>Groundfighting
    > >>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
    > >>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by
    the
    > >>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes
    this
    > >>round as it is played.
    > >>=================
    > >
    > >>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
    > >
    > > Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
    > > Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.

    While Grasp of the Python may be "this kind of card", it is not
    cancelable by Groundfighting, correct? I can't find the text of Grasp
    at the moment, but as I remember, it restricts the choice of strikes
    *next* round, not this round.

    > >>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to
    strike with
    > >>a weapon, indirectly.
    > >
    > > Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.
    >
    > Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
    > with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).

    Just how direct a "choice of strikes" effect does it take for a card to
    be cancelable by Groundfighting?

    It sounds like the line you're drawing is that Groundfighting requires a
    card to reduce the anarch's legal strike choices compared to what they
    would be without that card being played, but if a card makes you unable
    to strike at all (reduction in choices to 0) that's not cancelable.
    Logically, I'm not clear on why reducing your choices to "no choice"
    isn't cancelable but other subsets are. Anyway, for specific examples:

    Shape Mastery at [pro]: "Cancel a combat card that requires
    Obtenebration [obt], Protean, or Vicissitude [vic] as it is played (no
    cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot play that card again this
    action."

    If the canceled card is a strike card, Shape Mastery can be canceled by
    Groundfighting, correct?

    Withering at [THN]: "As [thn] above, and the minion with this card
    cannot play cards that require any Disciplines."

    Can this be canceled by Groundfighting? Even if it resolves at the same
    time as the anarch's strike, it restricts later strikes that the anarch
    could choose this round. (Basically the same question applies to Fata
    Amria at [chi].)

    The Drawing out the Beast and Thoughts Betrayed situations seem a little
    at odds: DotB is only cancelable by Groundfighting if the anarch is
    already in possession of a weapon, but Thoughts Betrayed at [DOM]
    doesn't require that the anarch's controller actually have a strike card
    in hand to be cancelable. What's the reasoning behind the difference?

    And as a side question, if DotB is played on the first round, and the
    opposing anarch has only an RPG Launcher for a weapon, that DotB cannot
    be canceled with Groundfighting, correct?

    Side DotB question number two: If the anarch has Potence thanks to Eye
    of Hazimel, and wants to play a Potence-requiring strike, can DotB be
    canceled by Groundfighting even though the Eye itself doesn't grant a
    strike?

    Rigor Mortis at : "The opposing minion cannot use any additional
    strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
    cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional strikes
    also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that mean
    that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it depend
    whether the anarch has [CEL], like Drawing out the Beast depends on
    whether the anarch has a weapon? (It's a little odd that you have to
    know the universe of possible card effects to know whether a particular
    card does or doesn't restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes...
    I don't know if there's any way around that given the desired effect of
    Groundfighting though.)

    Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes are
    chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes all
    the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1 blood,
    can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
    question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)

    Range-setting effects: It seems like these are about as direct a
    restriction on the anarch's ability to use (at least inherent) "only at
    range X" strikes as Drawing out the Beast is against equipment-based
    strikes. Why is DotB cancelable with Groundfighting, but range-setting
    effects aren't, even if an existing strike choice is being disallowed by
    the setting of range?


    Josh

    the sky is grey, and the sand is grey, and the ocean is grey
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 23 Feb 2005 11:50:33 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

    >I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no equipment
    >to strike.

    It's simple, I guess. You don't have equipment? Drawing Out is not
    restricting your choice of strikes, just prohibiting you from using a
    *type* of strike you wouldn't be able to choose anyway.
    You have equipment? Drawing Out is restricting your choices.

    > I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
    >strikes to play, right?
    >John

    I'd assume yes, since IG do restrict your choices no matter if you
    have something in hand or not. Groundfighting doesn't say anything
    about you having a relevant type of strike right now, just being able
    to choose.
    Regarding equipment, you're not able to choose strike with an
    equipment from the get go if you don't possess one.

    Also, having no non-hand strikes when IG is played doesn't mean you
    *can't* draw one to use as an additional strike, and Groundfighting
    refers to the whole round.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
    http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:59:43 -0500, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    > news:opsmnjh1zvo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    >> >> Canine
    >> >> Horde superior played at a weapon limits your choice of strikes,
    >> > burning
    >> >> your weapon.
    >> >
    >> > No. You can still choose to strike with that weapon. It won't get
    >> > burned until after the choose strike phase (it gets burned when the
    >> > Canine Horde strike resolves).
    >>
    >> Yes, but you cannot use it during your next strike. Meaning, during
    >> your next srtike, your choices are limited by the resolution of
    >> this Canine Horde strike.
    >>
    >> (Roughly equal to a pre-range DotB in that.)
    >>
    >> If not being able to use a weapon constitutes a direct restriction
    >> on selecting your strike with that particulat weapon, then getting
    >> a weapon burned or stolen, likewise, imposes the same limitation.
    >
    >
    > OK, then. Canine Horde doesn't restrict your choice when it is
    > played. Unlike DotB, CH doesn't resolve when played.

    King of the Mountaing at inferior?

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    news:opsmnu83zgo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > King of the Mountaing at inferior?


    Still no.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:

    > nexuses (nexi?)

    The plural of nexus is nexûs (long u).

    --CV
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "The Cadaverous Verger" <cadaverous.verger@REMOVETHISpriest.com> wrote in
    message news:cvib8t$1i9$1@bowmore.utu.fi...
    > LSJ wrote:
    >
    > > nexuses (nexi?)
    >
    > The plural of nexus is nexûs (long u).


    Thanks.
    The common English plural is nexuses, according to m-w.com


    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Joshua Duffin wrote:
    > While Grasp of the Python may be "this kind of card", it is not
    > cancelable by Groundfighting, correct? I can't find the text of Grasp
    > at the moment, but as I remember, it restricts the choice of strikes
    > *next* round, not this round.

    Card text is followed, right.

    > Just how direct a "choice of strikes" effect does it take for a card to
    > be cancelable by Groundfighting?

    As established already in this thread. The effect must restrict the
    minion's choice of strikes ("cannot use <blah> striketype", "cannot
    use equipment" when the minion has striking equipment, etc.).

    > It sounds like the line you're drawing is that Groundfighting requires a
    > card to reduce the anarch's legal strike choices compared to what they
    > would be without that card being played, but if a card makes you unable
    > to strike at all (reduction in choices to 0) that's not cancelable.
    > Logically, I'm not clear on why reducing your choices to "no choice"
    > isn't cancelable but other subsets are. Anyway, for specific examples:

    Removing the ability to choose is not the same as reducing your
    choices to "no choice". In one you choose, but have no options.
    In the other, you don't have the opportunity window to make
    a choice.

    > Shape Mastery at [pro]: "Cancel a combat card that requires
    > Obtenebration [obt], Protean, or Vicissitude [vic] as it is played (no
    > cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot play that card again this
    > action."
    >
    > If the canceled card is a strike card, Shape Mastery can be canceled by
    > Groundfighting, correct?

    Yes.

    > Withering at [THN]: "As [thn] above, and the minion with this card
    > cannot play cards that require any Disciplines."
    >
    > Can this be canceled by Groundfighting? Even if it resolves at the same
    > time as the anarch's strike, it restricts later strikes that the anarch
    > could choose this round. (Basically the same question applies to Fata
    > Amria at [chi].)

    No.

    > The Drawing out the Beast and Thoughts Betrayed situations seem a little
    > at odds: DotB is only cancelable by Groundfighting if the anarch is
    > already in possession of a weapon, but Thoughts Betrayed at [DOM]
    > doesn't require that the anarch's controller actually have a strike card
    > in hand to be cancelable. What's the reasoning behind the difference?

    One is restricting choice of strikes.

    > And as a side question, if DotB is played on the first round, and the
    > opposing anarch has only an RPG Launcher for a weapon, that DotB cannot
    > be canceled with Groundfighting, correct?

    Yes.

    > Side DotB question number two: If the anarch has Potence thanks to Eye
    > of Hazimel, and wants to play a Potence-requiring strike, can DotB be
    > canceled by Groundfighting even though the Eye itself doesn't grant a
    > strike?

    No. See the already-discussed Weakness.

    > Rigor Mortis at : "The opposing minion cannot use any additional
    > strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
    > cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional strikes
    > also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that mean
    > that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it depend

    No.

    > whether the anarch has [CEL], like Drawing out the Beast depends on
    > whether the anarch has a weapon? (It's a little odd that you have to
    > know the universe of possible card effects to know whether a particular
    > card does or doesn't restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes...
    > I don't know if there's any way around that given the desired effect of
    > Groundfighting though.)
    >
    > Thin Blood at [qui/QUI]: "Only usable at close range before strikes are
    > chosen. The opposing vampire burns 1 blood." If Thin Blood removes all
    > the blood from an anarch who wishes to play a strike that costs 1 blood,
    > can Thin Blood be canceled with Groundfighting? (Basically the same
    > question applies to Wave of Lethargy at [QUI].)

    No.

    > Range-setting effects: It seems like these are about as direct a
    > restriction on the anarch's ability to use (at least inherent) "only at
    > range X" strikes as Drawing out the Beast is against equipment-based
    > strikes. Why is DotB cancelable with Groundfighting, but range-setting
    > effects aren't, even if an existing strike choice is being disallowed by
    > the setting of range?

    Because they aren't actively restricting his choice, as stated.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@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/
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:51:24 -0500, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:

    > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    > news:opsmnu83zgo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    >> King of the Mountaing at inferior?
    >
    >
    > Still no.

    Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's next
    strike.

    Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    news:opsmn0o1jao6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's next
    > strike.
    >
    > Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.


    It doesn't restrict the minion's next strike.
    It burns a weapon.

    DotB says "can't use weapon".

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:00:40 -0500, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    > news:opsmn0o1jao6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    >> Why? It resolves when played, and it restricts the opposing minion's
    >> next
    >> strike.
    >>
    >> Exact parallel with pre-range DotB.
    >
    > It doesn't restrict the minion's next strike.
    > It burns a weapon.
    >
    > DotB says "can't use weapon".

    Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
    does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
    It merely sets up an effect that makes the *minion* unable to use
    equipment. He is still free to choose any legal strike he wishes.

    Slightly unrelated thought experiment:

    Assuming a hypothetical combat card version of The Grandest Trick would
    allow you to be treated as an ally for the remainder of combat. So if
    Marconius is in combat with Seren Sukardi the Anarch, could Seren
    cancel that card if Marconius would want to play it? I doubt so.

    Similar notice - if Seren Sukardi the Anarch is in combat with Gillian
    Krader, and Gillian plays Terror Frenzy at inferior, effectively
    making it impossible for Seren to press and use her strike, would that
    count? I still doubt so. Also, striking Seren the Anarch from close
    range. Taking damage restricts her from using her special strike, so
    she can cancel a Thrown Sewer Lid? Dunno.

    End thought experiment.

    I think that the line would logically be drawn where a card explicitly
    and specifically limits a strike. "Opposing minion cannot srtike with
    a weapon." cuts it IMHO, "Opposing minion cannot use equipment." does
    not. Sure, one implies the other, but then so does burning a weapon
    imply that the former bearer will be unable to use it on his next strike.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    news:opsmn203goo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
    > does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.

    Yes it does. It says he cannot use his equipment. If he has
    equipment with which to strike, that limits his choices.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 23 Feb 2005 12:45:13 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

    >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    >> On 23 Feb 2005 11:50:33 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:
    >>
    >> >I'm curious why it doesn't counter DotB even if you have no
    >equipment
    >> >to strike.
    >>
    >> It's simple, I guess. You don't have equipment? Drawing Out is not
    >> restricting your choice of strikes, just prohibiting you from using a
    >> *type* of strike you wouldn't be able to choose anyway.
    >> You have equipment? Drawing Out is restricting your choices.
    >
    >Unless I disguised out or used WWS.

    See below.

    >> > I assume it would counter IG even if you had no non-hand
    >> >strikes to play, right?
    >> >John
    >>
    >> I'd assume yes, since IG do restrict your choices no matter if you
    >> have something in hand or not. Groundfighting doesn't say anything
    >> about you having a relevant type of strike right now, just being able
    >> to choose.
    >> Regarding equipment, you're not able to choose strike with an
    >> equipment from the get go if you don't possess one.
    >
    >Well, unless you get one with one of several combat cards (Zip Gun,
    >WWS, Concealed/Disguised). And, with non-hand strikes under a grapple,
    >unless I get one from another source (card in play, strike card from
    >hand) I wouldn't be able to choose a non-hand strike anyway (esp. since
    >choosing not to strike at all is explicitly not allowed).
    >
    >> Also, having no non-hand strikes when IG is played doesn't mean you
    >> *can't* draw one to use as an additional strike, and Groundfighting
    >> refers to the whole round.
    >
    >Right, but I could also draw a Disguised Weapon with OBF, too, right?
    >And Drawing Our also goes the whole round.

    I guess that depends largely on what comes first. I've thought the
    same and found out that Groundfighting cancel a "card that restrict
    this anarch's choice of strikes *as it is played*. So you're the
    blocking minion and the acting one plays Drawing Out first, you can't
    groundfight even if you conceal/disguise a gun, it's too late. The
    reverse would be another different matter. LSJ?

    best,


    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
    http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > This seems to me like very drawkcab reasoning. In reality getting
    your
    > disciplines reduced will likely restrict your strikes... By
    directly
    > making you unable to use some of the cards that are in your hand. I
    > mean, if we look at strike options in play, Immortal Grapple only
    > restricts you if you are having a weapon (or non-hand strike option
    > listed on the crypt card). Yet Immortal Grapple seems to be
    considered
    > restricting your strikes even if you have no in-game strike options
    > available.

    I agree. Hypothetical card : Honor Duel - weapon strikes that are not
    with melee weapons cannot be played.

    Do I have to look and see if the other minion has a ranged weapon
    before I know if it's restricting his strikes?

    John.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:44:40 -0500, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    > news:opsmn203goo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    >> Well, it says cannot use equipment. The point, however, is that DotB
    >> does not directly restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.
    >
    > Yes it does. It says he cannot use his equipment. If he has
    > equipment with which to strike, that limits his choices.

    This seems to me like very drawkcab reasoning. In reality getting your
    disciplines reduced will likely restrict your strikes... By directly
    making you unable to use some of the cards that are in your hand. I
    mean, if we look at strike options in play, Immortal Grapple only
    restricts you if you are having a weapon (or non-hand strike option
    listed on the crypt card). Yet Immortal Grapple seems to be considered
    restricting your strikes even if you have no in-game strike options
    available.

    Drawing out the Beast would, therefor, by similar logic, always
    restrict your strikes. Becasue, you are denied certain (non-in-game)
    strike options, like striking with a Disguised Shotgun.

    I think that there is a gap there. I think the ways to resolve this:

    1. You only restrict Immortal Grapple (or other restrictive cards) when
    they restrict you from using strike options that are already available
    in-game. Thus, Immortal would not be cancelable, unless you have
    special card text allowing you a non-hand strike listed on the crypt
    card or any other relevant in-game or in-effect card (like in a combat
    after Shroud of Absence or Internal Recursion). This is probably the
    most contrived, and also makes GF somewhat weaker than it currently
    is. It is, however, pretty straightforward.

    2. You could say that cards that could restrict your strikes in any
    manner, even in relation to non-in-game strike sources, (including
    DotB, Terror Frenzy, Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed) can be
    canceled. Since DotB restricts you from choosing equipment-based
    strikes, you can cancel it, because you may want to play some
    equipment from your hand for strike-related use, etc. (Just as you
    might want to play a strike card from your hand when under the effects
    of Immortal Grapple). From this perspective, I'm not sure why it is
    reasonable to assume that the opposing minion has Majesty but not
    Weighted Walking Stick... (If indirectly affecting equipment counts,
    and restricting cards from hand also counts, then I'm not sure why
    indirectly affecting equipment cards in hand doesn't count). This is
    perhaps the most liberal method, but it may open up some loopholes.

    3. You could make GF only useful in which case the opposing card text
    excplicitly forbids a *strike*. Not just a use of an equipment, or
    playing of cards, or striking at all (this is currently covered
    AFAIK). Rather, choosing strikes, and in a direct fasion. Drawing
    the line somewhere between "cannot strike with / cannot use ...
    strikes / must use strikes" and "cannot use equipment / cannot use
    retainers / cannot use effects that would, by some chain of thought,
    somehow allow him some strikes". This is probably the best
    semantically and the simplest. This is my preference.

    Unless, the real issue is that the semantics are taking a backseat to
    game balance (which would limit your strikes, LSJ, to "Strike: maintain
    game balance" against my "Strike: argue semantics" and "Strike: argue
    logic" strikes. ;)

    Btw, I don't really care either way from a personal POV - I seldom
    play animalism, anarchs or weapons (except swords, sticks and other
    stuff DotB has no real impact on). Its just game logic and
    explainability I'm honestly trying to improve...

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
    news:cvj7i9$q2o$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    > Joshua Duffin wrote:

    > > Just how direct a "choice of strikes" effect does it take for a card
    to
    > > be cancelable by Groundfighting?
    >
    > As established already in this thread. The effect must restrict the
    > minion's choice of strikes ("cannot use <blah> striketype", "cannot
    > use equipment" when the minion has striking equipment, etc.).

    "Cannot use equipment" is just as indirect as several other examples
    that you've said *aren't* cancelable, though. Drawing out the Beast
    doesn't say that the opposing minion can't *strike* with a weapon, it
    says that he can't use equipment, which happens to limit his strike
    choices if he has a piece of equipment that can be used to strike. But
    no more directly than if he's prohibited from using discipline-requiring
    cards (Withering) and has a discipline-requiring strike in hand. Note
    that Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable regardless of whether the opposing
    anarch actually has a strike card to play in hand, which is just as
    direct (or indirect) as Withering's effect.

    My concern is that you're basically requiring the use of the word
    "strike" or forbidding of a particular strike for all other cards to be
    cancelable by Groundfighting - incidentally restricting strikes by
    having a more general effect won't do it - but not for Drawing out the
    Beast/Terror Frenzy, which have a general effect that sometimes happens
    to prohibit strikes.

    > > Logically, I'm not clear on why reducing your choices to "no choice"
    > > isn't cancelable but other subsets are. Anyway, for specific
    examples:
    >
    > Removing the ability to choose is not the same as reducing your
    > choices to "no choice". In one you choose, but have no options.
    > In the other, you don't have the opportunity window to make
    > a choice.

    Before Lapse is played, the opposing anarch has the ability to choose
    any strike. After Lapse is played, he can't choose a strike at all.
    How is that not a restriction? It's not a natural-number subset of his
    previous choices, but it is certainly a restriction on his ability to
    choose strikes.

    > > Rigor Mortis at : "The opposing minion cannot use any
    additional
    > > strikes this round." You said before, I believe, that it is not
    > > cancelable by Groundfighting. But its prohibition on additional
    strikes
    > > also prohibits striking with Acrobatics at [CEL]. Shouldn't that
    mean
    > > that Rigor Mortis *can* be canceled by Groundfighting? Does it
    depend
    >
    > No.

    That's a bit baffling. Rigor Mortis is clearly restricting the anarch's
    choice of strikes, in that he cannot strike with Acrobatics if Rigor
    Mortis is played. Is this ruling due to Rigor Mortis not explicitly
    prohibiting strikes, but prohibiting them as a "side effect"?

    I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but it seems to me that if it's
    actually *impossible* to write a particular effect in a clear and
    intuitive manner, that might be a good indication that a similar effect
    that *can* be written clearly should be used instead. (It may not be
    entirely impossible for the Groundfighting effect to be defined well,
    but I haven't seen or been able to think of any way to do it, yet.)


    Josh

    it certainly would have been simpler, for example, for it to cancel a
    "grapple" card, like that other one does...
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games