Burn Option wording in Rulebook v1.1

From the rulebook:

ADVANCED RULES
Some cards have a burn option icon.
This icon means that a Methuselah who does not control a minion who meets the requirements of this card who does not control a minion who meets the requirements of this card or who is a legal target for it, may discard it during ANY Methuselah’s unlock phase and and replace it. Each Methuselah is limited to one such discard each unlock phase.

Tattoo Signal
Cardtype: Action
Burn Option
+1 stealth action. Requires a Seraph.
Put this card on this acting Seraph. This ready Seraph may lock this card to unlock another Black Hand vampire. A minion may have only one Tattoo Signal.

Given that a Seraph can only have one Tattoo Signal, can I burn option a Tattoo Signal if all my Seraphs have one?

My reading of the rulebook's new text suggest, yes, because I do not have a minion "who is a legal target for it."

Here is another thread yet to be answered about the "burn option"

www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/81015-burn-option-and-requirements#109980

You cannot use the burn option if you have a ready Seraph, even if they already have a Tattoo Signal.

groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/NCJeinNxGfo/m/-_dXQoBdDysJ

> Now, since a Seraph can have only one Tattoo Signal, once a seraph has
> the card, is he still considered eligible for it?
Is he eligible? No.
Is he a minion that meets the requirements (that is: is he a Seraph)? Yes.

> In effect, am I allowed to use the burn option if I already have a
> single seraph with Tattoo Signal?

No.

Palamedes wrote:

You cannot use the burn option if you have a ready Seraph, even if they already have a Tattoo Signal.

groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/NCJeinNxGfo/m/-_dXQoBdDysJ

> Now, since a Seraph can have only one Tattoo Signal, once a seraph has
> the card, is he still considered eligible for it?
Is he eligible? No.
Is he a minion that meets the requirements (that is: is he a Seraph)? Yes.

> In effect, am I allowed to use the burn option if I already have a
> single seraph with Tattoo Signal?

No.

Thank you for responding with a ruling that is older than the most recent rulebook change that calls that and many other rulings into question. The reason for the original post was just that: the new rulebook wording makes that post moot.

I would like to daisy-chain some other questions regarding specific cards into the thread for some simple "yes/no" answers. These burn option uses may represent function changes. They probably escalate in absurdity as the list progresses.

1) RIDDLE PHANTASTIQUE: [action]: Ⓓ Put this card on an ally or younger vampire who is not Malkavian or Malkavian antitribu. Put X riddle counters on this card, where X is half the capacity of the acting vampire (round down). The minion with this card burns 1 riddle counter instead of unlocking during his or her unlock phase. Burn this card when it has no counters. You may not play this card if another Riddle Phantastique is in play.

Can I burn option Riddle if there are no younger non-Malk, non-!Malk or ally targets even though I control a Kiasyd? In the past, the answer was no. Now, it appears to be yes.

2) DEEP COVER AGENT: [action]: +1 stealth action. Requires a ready Seraph. Unique.
Ⓓ Put this card on a younger ready vampire. You still control this card. During your unlock phase, you may look at this vampire's controller's hand. This vampire can burn this card as a Ⓓ action.

Can I burn option DCA if there are no vampires younger than my ready Seraphs? Again, the pre-V1.1 answer would be no, with V1.1 it would seem to be yes.

3) HIGH ORUN: [action modifier] Requires a Laibon with three or more Orun. For the remainder of this action, cards that require any Disciplines cost this Laibon 1 less blood, and your hand size is one card larger.

There is an existing ruling if the minion meeting the requirements of a burn option card is in torpor, the burn option on a subset of cards can be used (actions, combat cards and reactions). In effect, the ruling states an implicit "ready minion" requirement exists on these cards. It does not apply to action modifiers, which are playable in torpor

(groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/JBdmMh1udN8/m/1bdYBRBxCAEJ)

I have a vampire with 3 Orun in torpor. High Orun is both a reaction (burnable) and an action modifier (not burnable) - can the card be burned if the only vampire can can play it is in torpor by referencing "the part of it that is unplayable?" It appears not, since LSJ's ruling referenced above specifically mentions High Orun.

I just wanted to make sure nothing has changed.

4) TRACKER'S MARK: [combat] Play when the opposing minion burns blood or life due to damage. Put this card on the opposing minion. This Salubri antitribu gets +1 intercept when attempting to block the minion with this card. If the vampire with this card is Tremere or Baali, this Salubri antitribu can enter combat with him or her as a Ⓓ action. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action. A vampire can play only one Tracker's Mark each combat.

Can I burn this in any unlock phase, because "opposing minion" is not a valid target during the unlock phase? Previously, no. Now....maybe?

5) CONSUME THE DEAD: [action] +1 stealth action. Ⓓ Enter combat with a wraith ally or burn a wraith retainer. [reaction] Only usable when a minion or retainer is being burned by any means except diablerie. Usable during combat. Usable by a locked Nagaraja. Remove that minion or retainer from the game instead. This Nagaraja gains 1 blood if the minion was a vampire or gains X+1 blood, where X is the blood or pool cost of that ally or retainer.

Can I burn option CtD if other players control no wraith allies or retainers? Previously no, now unsure.

Or does the [reaction] text prevent burning the card? Or does the presence of no currently burning target to remove during the unlock phase get around preventing a burn option?

GENERAL POINT: Finally, I wanted to ask if this "target" thing has been added to the Rulebook version 1.1 to make this specific card actually burnable?

TRANSCENDENT LIABON: Unique master. Put this card on a Laibon with at least three Aye and three Orun. During your unlock phase, this Laibon gains 1 blood. Allies and younger vampires must burn 1 blood or life to attempt to block this Laibon or to perform an action directed at this Laibon. Burn this card if this minion is not ready or has fewer than three Aye or three Orun.

If that's the driver for the change (I can't find many other possibilities) - it feels like the cart driving the horse. How about just changing that one card to read "Requires a Liabon with at least 3 Aye and 3 Orun" and then leaving the target part out of the rules?

kschaefer wrote:

Palamedes wrote:

You cannot use the burn option if you have a ready Seraph, even if they already have a Tattoo Signal.

groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/NCJeinNxGfo/m/-_dXQoBdDysJ

> Now, since a Seraph can have only one Tattoo Signal, once a seraph has
> the card, is he still considered eligible for it?
Is he eligible? No.
Is he a minion that meets the requirements (that is: is he a Seraph)? Yes.

> In effect, am I allowed to use the burn option if I already have a
> single seraph with Tattoo Signal?

No.

Thank you for responding with a ruling that is older than the most recent rulebook change that calls that and many other rulings into question. The reason for the original post was just that: the new rulebook wording makes that post moot.

The quoted ruling (that focuses on the "Requires a Seraph" part only) has actually been overruled by the below ruling and is what is being reflected in the updated version of the rules.

boardgamegeek.com/thread/662413/article/6920306


An updated version of the rulebook/rules doesn't per my understanding invalidate rulings made before the changes, this is mainly because of the hierarchy of how they are applied;

1) rulings,
2) the golden rule of card text,
3) and finally the rules.

Any changes made to the rules that have a functional impact are to be announced and if they have rulings that are misaligned/contradicting they need to be reversed and announced as no longer applicable for them to not overrule the rules.