[LSJ] Erciyes Fragment Question

[Guest]

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

Hi all.

First i am sorry if my english is poor (I'm spanish).

Yesterday we had a trouble with this card...

I use the fragment's ability to steal a Political Strangehold card
from my prey's ash heap. Arika plays that card and calls the
referendum. Then, during the referendum, a cross-table Sebastien
Goulet uses a Delaying Tactics. The DT says that the political action
card is retrieved in my hand, but the card was not in my hand, what
happens with the card? is placed again on the Erciyes Fragment and so
the fragment is useless since nobody can call that referendum again?
Is placed in my hand because DT's text although i played it from
Erciyes Fragment?

Delaying Tactics
Only usable during a referendum
The referendum is canceled. Untap the acting vampire. The controller
of the acting vampire takes the political card (if any) back into his
or her hand (and discards down to his or her hand size), and his or
her vampires cannot take the same political action this turn.

Erciyes Fragment, The
Unique
Put this card in play. Tap this card to move a library card from your
prey's ash heap to this card, face down. You may look at that card at
any time. You may play the card from the Fragments as if playing it
from your hand (requirements and cost, if any, apply as normal). When
that card is burned, remove it from the game instead. Only 1 card can
be on this card at a time. Any vampire with a capacity above 4 can
steal the Fragments (and any card on it) for his or her controller as
a (D) action.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

"Ashenbach" <Ashenbach@iespana.es> wrote in message news:8b63da3e.0503220258.12a8effc@posting.google.com...
> Hi all.
>
> First i am sorry if my english is poor (I'm spanish).
>
> Yesterday we had a trouble with this card...
>
> I use the fragment's ability to steal a Political Strangehold card
> from my prey's ash heap. Arika plays that card and calls the
> referendum. Then, during the referendum, a cross-table Sebastien
> Goulet uses a Delaying Tactics. The DT says that the political action
> card is retrieved in my hand, but the card was not in my hand, what
> happens with the card? is placed again on the Erciyes Fragment and so
> the fragment is useless since nobody can call that referendum again?
> Is placed in my hand because DT's text although i played it from
> Erciyes Fragment?

It is moved to its owner's hand. [RTR 25-APRIL-1997]

Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into their
owner's ash heap, hand, or library.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

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

Ashenbach a écrit :
> Hi all.
>
> First i am sorry if my english is poor (I'm spanish).
>
> Yesterday we had a trouble with this card...
>
> I use the fragment's ability to steal a Political Strangehold card
> from my prey's ash heap. Arika plays that card and calls the
> referendum. Then, during the referendum, a cross-table Sebastien
> Goulet uses a Delaying Tactics. The DT says that the political action
> card is retrieved in my hand, but the card was not in my hand, what
> happens with the card?

Erciyes fragmanent specifically says that when you use (burn) a card on
it it is removed from the game. So it cannot go back to your hand or
onto the Erciyes frag'

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> "Ashenbach" <Ashenbach@iespana.es> wrote in message
news:8b63da3e.0503220258.12a8effc@posting.google.com...
> > Hi all.
> >
> > First i am sorry if my english is poor (I'm spanish).
> >
> > Yesterday we had a trouble with this card...
> >
> > I use the fragment's ability to steal a Political Strangehold card
> > from my prey's ash heap. Arika plays that card and calls the
> > referendum. Then, during the referendum, a cross-table Sebastien
> > Goulet uses a Delaying Tactics.
>
> It is moved to its owner's hand. [RTR 25-APRIL-1997]
>
> Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into their

> owner's ash heap, hand, or library.
>

What? Even though Delaying Tactics has explicit card text that says
"The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if any)
back into his
or her hand." The card actually goes to back to its owner (my
prey's!?!) hand?

-Ben Swainbank

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into
their
>
> > owner's ash heap, hand, or library.
> >
>
> What? Even though Delaying Tactics has explicit card text that says
> "The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if
any)
> back into his
> or her hand." The card actually goes to back to its owner (my
> prey's!?!) hand?

That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics can't put a
card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand because the
the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum - in fact,
it was never in his hand in the first place.

Note that similarly Delaying Tactics fails to grab a vote you called
that you'd previously put on a vampire with Echo of Harmonies, or a
vote-card-in-play like trying to get rid of a previously-played Rumors
of Gehenna - since the vote wasn't played from your hand to begin that
referendum, DT won't and can't put the card 'back into' your hand.

> -Ben Swainbank

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

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

John Flournoy wrote:

>
> That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics can't put
a
> card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand because
the
> the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum - in
fact,
> it was never in his hand in the first place.
>

Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go *back* to
my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't come
from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may never
have been in his hand.

Shouldn't it get removed from the game?

> Note that similarly Delaying Tactics fails to grab a vote you called
> that you'd previously put on a vampire with Echo of Harmonies.

That does seem simlar. But with echo doesn't the card to the ash heap
instead of back to my hand -- even if I own it?

-Ben Swainbank

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > John Flournoy wrote:
> > >
> > > That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics can't
put
> > a
> > > card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand
because
> > the
> > > the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum - in
> > fact,
> > > it was never in his hand in the first place.
> > Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go *back*
to
> > my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't
come
> > from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may
never
> > have been in his hand.
> >
> > Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
>
> What effect is removing it from the game?
> How is that any more "should be" than the current?
>
> The "back" has nothing to do with it.

Well when is an action card "burned"?

Is it when the action succeeds? (no blocks, go to referendum)

When the action is fully resolved? (after combat(s)/action mod(s))

> The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule is
> that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to their
> owner's hand (or ash heap or library).
>
> I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.

Restatement of the above "when is it burned" answer should make it all
clear for everyone.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1111610714.615045.103550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > John Flournoy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics
can't
> > put
> > > > a
> > > > > card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum -
in
> > > > fact,
> > > > > it was never in his hand in the first place.
> > > > Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go
*back*
> > to
> > > > my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't
> > come
> > > > from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may
> > never
> > > > have been in his hand.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
> > >
> > > What effect is removing it from the game?
> > > How is that any more "should be" than the current?
> > >
> > > The "back" has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Well when is an action card "burned"?
> >
> > Is it when the action succeeds? (no blocks, go to referendum)
> >
> > When the action is fully resolved? (after combat(s)/action mod(s))
>
> When the action resolves (after resolving, but before, say, Freak
Drive).
>
> > > The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule
is
> > > that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to
their
> > > owner's hand (or ash heap or library).
> > >
> > > I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.
> >
> > Restatement of the above "when is it burned" answer should make it
all
> > clear for everyone.
>
> How is that?

Well an action card played is neither in your ashheap nor burned until
the action resolves. That means it isn't removed from the game per
Erciyes Fragments and therefore unretrievable by DT (which was my
concern, not where it would go once the DT affected it).

Jff

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
>
> What effect is removing it from the game?
> How is that any more "should be" than the current?
>

The card was about to get removed from the game by being played off
Erciyes Fragment. The question is can DT save it from this fate and
how?

> The "back" has nothing to do with it.
>
> The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule is
> that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to their
> owner's hand (or ash heap or library).

Ok. But DT card text states "The controller of the acting vampire takes
the political action card (if any) back into his or her hand." If
"back" isn't given much weight, then this seems like it would be a
clear case of explicit card text overruling the usual rule (owner vs
controller). The card would end up in the hand of "The controller of
the acting vampire".

If card text is somehow insufficient, Succubus Club provided precedent
for getting cards owned by someone else into your hand.

I notice Amam gets shuffled into "his owner's" library where the
on-line text for Akhenaten puts in "your" library. I can see how "your"
would be subject to the general ruling of the owner, as opposed to the
(pre-burning) controller, where hand, ash heap, and library are
concerned. DTs (now obsolete?) text seems to clearly point to the
controller.

>
> I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.
>

That should clear it up. But then whose vampires "cannot attempt the
same political action this turn."?

-Ben Swainbank

 

[Guest]

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

"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John Flournoy wrote:
> >
> > That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics can't put
> a
> > card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand because
> the
> > the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum - in
> fact,
> > it was never in his hand in the first place.
> Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go *back* to
> my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't come
> from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may never
> have been in his hand.
>
> Shouldn't it get removed from the game?

What effect is removing it from the game?
How is that any more "should be" than the current?

The "back" has nothing to do with it.

The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule is
that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to their
owner's hand (or ash heap or library).

I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.

> > Note that similarly Delaying Tactics fails to grab a vote you called
> > that you'd previously put on a vampire with Echo of Harmonies.
>
> That does seem simlar. But with echo doesn't the card to the ash heap
> instead of back to my hand -- even if I own it?

DT wouldn't even attempt to move the Echo'ed card, since the Echo'ed
card wasn't played.

With Echo, the card is burned (goes to it's owners ash heap, not your
ash heap).

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

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

<jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1111610714.615045.103550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
> > "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > John Flournoy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics can't
> put
> > > a
> > > > card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand
> because
> > > the
> > > > the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum - in
> > > fact,
> > > > it was never in his hand in the first place.
> > > Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go *back*
> to
> > > my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't
> come
> > > from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may
> never
> > > have been in his hand.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
> >
> > What effect is removing it from the game?
> > How is that any more "should be" than the current?
> >
> > The "back" has nothing to do with it.
>
> Well when is an action card "burned"?
>
> Is it when the action succeeds? (no blocks, go to referendum)
>
> When the action is fully resolved? (after combat(s)/action mod(s))

When the action resolves (after resolving, but before, say, Freak Drive).

> > The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule is
> > that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to their
> > owner's hand (or ash heap or library).
> >
> > I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.
>
> Restatement of the above "when is it burned" answer should make it all
> clear for everyone.

How is that?

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>>"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
>>
>>What effect is removing it from the game?
>>How is that any more "should be" than the current?
>
> The card was about to get removed from the game by being played off
> Erciyes Fragment. The question is can DT save it from this fate and
> how?

Being played off of Erciyes doesn't remove a card from the game.
That would make it kinda difficult to use, say, a Flak Jacket
from the Fragment.

The card played from the Fragment is only removed from the game
by the Fragment "when it is burned."

>>The "back" has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule is
>>that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to their
>>owner's hand (or ash heap or library).
>
> Ok. But DT card text states "The controller of the acting vampire takes
> the political action card (if any) back into his or her hand." If
> "back" isn't given much weight, then this seems like it would be a
> clear case of explicit card text overruling the usual rule (owner vs
> controller). The card would end up in the hand of "The controller of
> the acting vampire".
>
> If card text is somehow insufficient, Succubus Club provided precedent
> for getting cards owned by someone else into your hand.

Succubus Club indeed does.
That doesn't change DT.

> I notice Amam gets shuffled into "his owner's" library where the
> on-line text for Akhenaten puts in "your" library. I can see how "your"
> would be subject to the general ruling of the owner, as opposed to the
> (pre-burning) controller, where hand, ash heap, and library are
> concerned. DTs (now obsolete?) text seems to clearly point to the
> controller.

?
DT's card text is just as subject to the general ruling as "your".
They are equivalent in their level of Methuselah specification
and in their lack of overriding of the rule.

>>I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.
>>
> That should clear it up. But then whose vampires "cannot attempt the
> same political action this turn."?

Um. Right.
If it isn't clear already, although I can't see how there is
more than one possible answer to that, the clarified card text
should clarify that.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:25:51 -0500, "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:

>"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> John Flournoy wrote:
>> >
>> > That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics can't put
>> a
>> > card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand because
>> the
>> > the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum - in
>> fact,
>> > it was never in his hand in the first place.
>> Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go *back* to
>> my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't come
>> from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may never
>> have been in his hand.
>>
>> Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
>
>What effect is removing it from the game?
>How is that any more "should be" than the current?

Erciyes Fragments?
" When that
card is burned, remove it from the game instead."

I think Reyda or someone mentioned this elsewhere...

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

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

salem wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:25:51 -0500, "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:
>>"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go *back* to
>>>my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't come
>>>from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may never
>>>have been in his hand.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
>>
>>What effect is removing it from the game?
>>How is that any more "should be" than the current?
>
> Erciyes Fragments?
> " When that
> card is burned, remove it from the game instead."
>
> I think Reyda or someone mentioned this elsewhere...

As you say "when that card is burned".

But DT isn't burning the card, so the question "what effect
is removing it from the game?" still stands.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

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

On 23 Mar 2005 13:15:09 -0800, jeffkuta@pacbell.net scrawled:

>LSJ wrote:
>> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:1111610714.615045.103550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > LSJ wrote:
>> > > "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > John Flournoy wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's right. The key word here is 'back': Delaying Tactics
>can't
>> > put
>> > > > a
>> > > > > card on Erciyes Fragments 'back into' the controller's hand
>> > because
>> > > > the
>> > > > > the card wasn't played from his hand to call the referendum -
>in
>> > > > fact,
>> > > > > it was never in his hand in the first place.
>> > > > Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go
>*back*
>> > to
>> > > > my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't
>> > come
>> > > > from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may
>> > never
>> > > > have been in his hand.
>> > > >
>> > > > Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
>> > >
>> > > What effect is removing it from the game?
>> > > How is that any more "should be" than the current?
>> > >
>> > > The "back" has nothing to do with it.
>> >
>> > Well when is an action card "burned"?
>> >
>> > Is it when the action succeeds? (no blocks, go to referendum)
>> >
>> > When the action is fully resolved? (after combat(s)/action mod(s))
>>
>> When the action resolves (after resolving, but before, say, Freak
>Drive).
>>
>> > > The point is that DT is returning the card to hand, and the rule
>is
>> > > that cards sent to hand (or ash heap or library) are sent to
>their
>> > > owner's hand (or ash heap or library).
>> > >
>> > > I'll update the wording to DT to match the (standing) ruling.
>> >
>> > Restatement of the above "when is it burned" answer should make it
>all
>> > clear for everyone.
>>
>> How is that?
>
>Well an action card played is neither in your ashheap nor burned until
>the action resolves. That means it isn't removed from the game per
>Erciyes Fragments and therefore unretrievable by DT (which was my
>concern, not where it would go once the DT affected it).

but as soon as it's unblocked, that's it. resolve. burn the card, and
have the referendum. but in the EF case, remove the card from the game
instead, and call the referendum. then, play DT, and .... ummm....
there is no card in ashheap to retreive with DT.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
>
> ?
> DT's card text is just as subject to the general ruling as "your".
> They are equivalent in their level of Methuselah specification
> and in their lack of overriding of the rule.
>

This is what has me confused about this ruling. The rule states that:

"Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into their
owner's ash heap, hand, or library."

but the DT says that...

"The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if any)
back into his or her hand"

The card text clearly contradicts the rule. By 1.4 The Golden Rule Of
Cards doesn't the card text win? Do you see this as an exception to
1.4? Or don't you see a contradiction between the rule and text?

The fact that DTs text is going to be changed to more consistently fit
the ruling suggests that you see a need for the change. But you seem to
be arguing that even without the text change the rightful place for a
DTed, borrowed card, is its owners hand.

-Ben Swainbank

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > DT's card text is just as subject to the general ruling as "your".
> > They are equivalent in their level of Methuselah specification
> > and in their lack of overriding of the rule.
> >
>
> This is what has me confused about this ruling. The rule states that:
>
> "Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into
their
> owner's ash heap, hand, or library."
>
> but the DT says that...
>
> "The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if
any)
> back into his or her hand"
>
> The card text clearly contradicts the rule. By 1.4 The Golden Rule Of
> Cards doesn't the card text win? Do you see this as an exception to
> 1.4? Or don't you see a contradiction between the rule and text?
>
> The fact that DTs text is going to be changed to more consistently
fit
> the ruling suggests that you see a need for the change. But you seem
to
> be arguing that even without the text change the rightful place for a
> DTed, borrowed card, is its owners hand.

He doesn't 'seem to be arguing' it - he is stating it absolutely. (Or
restating it, as that ruling about 'go back to your owner' has been the
case since the Rules team made that clarification/ruling 8 years ago.)

You are also mistaken about the applicability of the Golden Rule (1.4)
- the statement "Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library
always go into their owner's ash heap, hand, or library" is not a
"Rule" as given in the rulebook - it is part of the "Official
Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata", the compilation of things decided
and made official by the Rules Team and/or LSJ.

And those 'Clarifications Rulings & Errata' by their nature do not
conform to 'the Golden Rule' you refer to - if the cards not only took
precedence over the rules in the rulebook where they conflict but also
over the rulings, clarifications and errata, there would be virtually
no point in HAVING any such rulings and errata, nor in having a rules
team making decisions about it - the cards would always win, and
nothing anybody ever said could change that short of printing a new
card.

Which clearly isn't the case.

> -Ben Swainbank

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> That should clear it up. But then whose vampires "cannot attempt the
> same political action this turn."?

The acting minion's controller, of course.

DT's card text is incredibly clear on it: The controller of the acting
minion does two things: they pick up the action card if any, and they
can't call the same vote again. The fact that there are rulings
dictating where the card goes (if any) has zero impact on 'and his or
her (referring to the controller) vampires cannot attempt the same
political action again.'

DT doesn't suddenly exempt the acting minion's controller from the
prohibition on repeating the action if the vote card either didn't go
into their hand or didn't exist in the first place; nothing in DT's
text nor the rulebook nor any ruling ever has indicated that DT's
repeat-action prohibition is based on where (or if) the vote card ends
up, nor if there was even a vote card in the first place. The 'if any'
part of the pick-up clause isn't worded to apply to the no-repeat
clause.

And it's an INCREDIBLY corner-case question to begin with - since
you're talking about a DT putting a vote card into someone ELSE's hand,
the only way it could possibly matter to that other person is if they
have Malkavians with the Madness Network in play. Otherwise, there's no
opportunity for their minions to attempt any political actions in the
same turn that someone else's acting vampire took that political
action.

> -Ben Swainbank

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

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

John Flournoy wrote:
>
> And those 'Clarifications Rulings & Errata' by their nature do not
> conform to 'the Golden Rule' you refer to - if the cards not only
took
> precedence over the rules in the rulebook where they conflict but
also
> over the rulings, clarifications and errata, there would be virtually
> no point in HAVING any such rulings and errata, nor in having a rules
> team making decisions about it - the cards would always win, and
> nothing anybody ever said could change that short of printing a new
> card.
>

Ok. If the Golden Rule doesn't apply to rulings then I can see how that
resolves the issue.

I have always conceived as the rulings as being extensions of the
rules, but not taking precedence over them. This may be incorrect.

I have assumed that card text and rules take precedence. When a
situation arises that is either not covered by the rules and card text
or where there are multiple, logical interpretations of the precise
result in the application of the rules and card text, then a ruling (or
clarification) is required to indicate which interpretation is applied.


Anyone have another good example of a ruling that overrides explicit
card text?

-Ben Swainbank

 

[Guest]

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

Just out of curiosity, looking at the original post... I hope that the
political stranglehold was placed in the ash heap via discard as
opposed to being played. You can only play one ya know.

Which leads to the clarification...

If Delaying tactics is played on a political stranglehold, you cannot
play it again ever right?


LSJ wrote:
> "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111684941.618634.26600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > >
> > > ?
> > > DT's card text is just as subject to the general ruling as
"your".
> > > They are equivalent in their level of Methuselah specification
> > > and in their lack of overriding of the rule.
> > >
> >
> > This is what has me confused about this ruling. The rule states
that:
> >
> > "Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into
their
> > owner's ash heap, hand, or library."
> >
> > but the DT says that...
> >
> > "The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if
any)
> > back into his or her hand"
>
> "back" implying that this not overriding the who-gets-what rule.
>
> > The card text clearly contradicts the rule. By 1.4 The Golden Rule
Of
>
> Then you'd have to fall back on "back" to yield some other
> unintuitive answer, like burning or removing from game the PA card.
>
> > Cards doesn't the card text win? Do you see this as an exception to
> > 1.4? Or don't you see a contradiction between the rule and text?
>
> I see that DT's card text is not written well.
> Which is why it is being rewritten.
>
> > The fact that DTs text is going to be changed to more consistently
fit
> > the ruling suggests that you see a need for the change. But you
seem to
> > be arguing that even without the text change the rightful place for
a
> > DTed, borrowed card, is its owners hand.
>
> "Rightful" as per the "back" indicating that DT is assuming that
> the controller of the acting minion is the owner of the card.
>
> --
> LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap
to reply).
> V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
>
> Anyone have another good example of a ruling that overrides explicit
> card text?

Several of the cards that got eventual new print versions used to be
overruled by rulings; Immortal Grapple springs to mind although I'm too
lazy to look it up precisely. Many of those cards have been given new
printings/errata to resolve those conflicting issues, like melee
weapons that were based off your 'hand damage' while being affected by
only SOME cards that modified your base hand damage (like Torn Signpost
vs. Wolf Claws) as well as whether or not they counted as hand strikes.

Early on (1996?), Rotschreck had a ruling that was different from card
text; it flipped-flopped over if it was to be played on the opposing
minion when you played agg damage or when they played agg damage.

Similarly, early on, action cards that lacked the (D) were ruled in
various ways as to whether or not they counted as directed actions;
conflicts with that and the rulebook rules on Diablerie led to certain
cards being ruled as directed/undirected actions overriding their
then-existent card text. It was a big mess, until default
clarifications to the rules were made about things like 'directed
actions you take against things you control become undirected'.

But generally, I think LSJ/the Rules Team try to errata/clarify/reprint
things to fix these problems pretty quickly when they get noticed; a
lot of them were caught a long time ago (and now that the conflicting
wording of DT has been caught, that too will get fixed as LSJ noted.)

> -Ben Swainbank

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> salem wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:30:38 GMT, LSJ
<vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> >>salem wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:25:51 -0500, "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com>
> >>>>"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111607991.588436.113450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>Okay... giving weight to *back* I can see how it wouldn't go
*back* to
> >>>>>my hand. But why does it go *back* to my prey's hand? It didn't
come
> >>>>>from there. He doesn't control the acting vampire. The card may
never
> >>>>>have been in his hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Shouldn't it get removed from the game?
> >>>>
> >>>>What effect is removing it from the game?
> >>>>How is that any more "should be" than the current?
> >>>
> >>>Erciyes Fragments?
> >>>" When that
> >>>card is burned, remove it from the game instead."
> >>>
> >>>I think Reyda or someone mentioned this elsewhere...
> >>
> >>As you say "when that card is burned".
> >>
> >>But DT isn't burning the card, so the question "what effect
> >>is removing it from the game?" still stands.
> >
> > when an action is successful, the action card (if it's not to go in
> > play) is burned. unless it just sits on the table doing nothing
> > forever.
>
> Right.
>
> > for political actions, the referendum is part of the resolution, so
> > it's after it's successful, so by then the card is burned. so EF
> > removes it from the game. DT has to wait until the referendum to be
> > played, by which time EF has already removed the would-be burned PA
> > card from the game.
>
> No. Conducting the referendum is the resolution. The action card
> is not burned until after the resolution.
>
> See also calling a Rumors of Gehenna from the Fragment -- if the
> Fragment removed it from play before the successful referendum
> could put it in play ...

Is there a memory effect associated with the Erciyes Fragment?

RoG is on EF. RoG is called, passes, and goes into play.
RoG cancelling referendum is called, passes and RoG goes...where?

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

jeffk...@pacbell.net wrote:

> Is there a memory effect associated with the Erciyes Fragment?
>
> RoG is on EF. RoG is called, passes, and goes into play.
> RoG cancelling referendum is called, passes and RoG goes...where?

As noted elsewhere in the thread: Into its owner's ashheap, per this
Rules Team Ruling:

"Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into their
owner's ash heap, hand, or library."

Since cancelling Rumors of Gehenna burns the card, it goes to the ash
heap, and therefore into the ash heap of the card's owner (and not to
the ash heap of the different person who played it.)

> Jeff

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

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

"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111684941.618634.26600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > DT's card text is just as subject to the general ruling as "your".
> > They are equivalent in their level of Methuselah specification
> > and in their lack of overriding of the rule.
> >
>
> This is what has me confused about this ruling. The rule states that:
>
> "Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into their
> owner's ash heap, hand, or library."
>
> but the DT says that...
>
> "The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if any)
> back into his or her hand"

"back" implying that this not overriding the who-gets-what rule.

> The card text clearly contradicts the rule. By 1.4 The Golden Rule Of

Then you'd have to fall back on "back" to yield some other
unintuitive answer, like burning or removing from game the PA card.

> Cards doesn't the card text win? Do you see this as an exception to
> 1.4? Or don't you see a contradiction between the rule and text?

I see that DT's card text is not written well.
Which is why it is being rewritten.

> The fact that DTs text is going to be changed to more consistently fit
> the ruling suggests that you see a need for the change. But you seem to
> be arguing that even without the text change the rightful place for a
> DTed, borrowed card, is its owners hand.

"Rightful" as per the "back" indicating that DT is assuming that
the controller of the acting minion is the owner of the card.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

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

John Flournoy wrote:
> jeffk...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> > Is there a memory effect associated with the Erciyes Fragment?
> >
> > RoG is on EF. RoG is called, passes, and goes into play.
> > RoG cancelling referendum is called, passes and RoG goes...where?
>
> As noted elsewhere in the thread: Into its owner's ashheap, per this
> Rules Team Ruling:
>
> "Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into
their
> owner's ash heap, hand, or library."
>
> Since cancelling Rumors of Gehenna burns the card, it goes to the ash
> heap, and therefore into the ash heap of the card's owner (and not to
> the ash heap of the different person who played it.)

Perhaps you misunderstood my intent.

>From EF: "When that card is burned, remove it from the game instead."

Does the RoG remember it was played off of the EF, and would therefore
be removed from the game instead of being burnt into its owner's
ashheap?

Jeff