Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
<jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1109790408.593830.261840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:38mee8F5i9f4eU1@individual.net...
> > "Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:38mdmnF5q2up0U1@individual.net...
> > > If Daring the Dawn has been played on an action, vampires cannot
> block
> > > that action. Because of that, if the action is at stealth, an ally
> that
> > > can play Auspex-requiring cards can't play an Auspex intercept card
> to
> > > block the action either, because it'd have to play the Auspex card
> "as a
> > > vampire" and vampires can't block the Daring the Dawn action.
> >
> > The ally that is attempting to block and needs intercept can
> > play intercept, even if it means playing the intercept as a
> > vampire. He's still blocking as an ally.
>
> This would be a reversal. I don't mind you reversing it at all, since
> it makes more sense to me this way, but you had previously ruled it the
> other way. (I'm not trying to trip you up here, I do think this case
> is more logical the way you're ruling it now. Though logic can be a
> little difficult to apply in these cases, since there are contradictory
> effects at work.)
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/41de520084368d2e
It's a reversal, apparently, yes.
You were right all along. Happy?
> Anyway, being able to play a card that requires you to be a member of
> set A while blocking as a member of set B, with sets A and B excluding
> each other, seems like it should conflict with Sonja *not* being able
> to block as an ally after playing Wake with Evening's Freshness to gain
> the ability to block. Her ability to block as an ally shouldn't keep
> her from benefiting from Wake (because of it allowing a vampire to
> block, not an ally to block), any more than her ability to block as an
> ally keeps her block-as-an-ally from benefiting from an intercept card
> she plays as a vampire.
She can block as an ally. Which means, like all would-be blockers,
she must be untapped or able to block as if untapped.
She is not untapped.
And Wake allows the Vampire to block as if untapped, and an untapped
vampire cannot block a Daring the Dawn action.
> > > The analogy is (or could be) that if Kemintiri (merged) tries to
> play a
> > > card "as a justicar" while Fall of the Camarilla is in play, she
> can't
> > > do it because a Camarilla justicar cannot play cards that require a
> > > justicar while Fall of the Camarilla is in play.
> >
> > Nonsensical statement. A Camarilla justicar can play cards that
> > require a justicar while the Fall is in play (the p->q relationship
> > is true if p is false -- there are no justicars, so all of them
> > can do whatever they want).
>
> uh.... p->q relationship, true, p false?
>
> See, this is what I'm talking about when I say that the "play as an X"
> effects are inherently confusing.
The p->q stuff is just for clarity to those who like symbols.
The rest can use the immediately-following equivalent explanation:
"All none of them can do whatever they want".
> I think you're saying that the reason printed Camarilla justicars can't
> play justicar-requiring cards with Fall of the Camarilla in play is
> that they aren't justicars anymore. Fine.
I'm saying that vampires that aren't justicars don't meet the
requirements for justicar-requiring cards.
> But then it seems like
> merged Kemintiri should be susceptible to the same problem, in that if
> she plays a card "as a justicar", she should also fail to be a justicar
> because there are no justicars.
She is not susceptible to the "non-justicars don't meet the requirements"
since, even though she is a non-justicar, she can play cards that
require a justicar as if she were (as if she met the requirement).
Fall doesn't see her try to be "as if" a justicar (she isn't playing
it), so it has no bearing on her ability.
> Your argument seems like an insistence on having it both ways in the
> other direction: you're saying she can play a card that requires a
> justicar because she's not a printed justicar, she just has the
> card-text ability to play cards that require justicars, regardless of
> other effects that interfere with justicars. But that ability says she
> plays those cards *as* a justicar. If that doesn't mean that she's
> considered the same as a printed justicar for the play of these cards -
> and, for the duration of playing them, effects that affect the
> playability of those cards, like Fall of the Camarilla - then how is it
> meaningful to have an "as an X" rule?
Fall doesn't see her as a justicar. Only the card she plays
as a justicar sees her as one.
--
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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram