Code of Samiel and Loving Agony

The damage from Loving Agony is not part of the resolution of the action. In your scenario, the action was a rush that was unblocked. The resolution is a combat between the acting minion and the target, nothing more.

This is still a direct result of a directed action.

Robert wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Robert wrote:

My only objection is that, in the case that I am describing, this would be a successful action that is intended to burn or torporize the vampire as it is an unblocked rush action.

How would you propose to enforce the difference between a rush action intended to burn or torporize the vampire, and a rush action that was intended to cycle cards but things went in a direction you didn't expect?

No distinction should be necessary.

Erm, but it was you who said that your only issue is that you intended to burn or torporize the vampire. If that intent isn't relevant even to you, why on earth was it your only objection?

Robert wrote:

The damage from Loving Agony is not part of the resolution of the action. In your scenario, the action was a rush that was unblocked. The resolution is a combat between the acting minion and the target, nothing more.

This is still a direct result of a directed action.

It's not. The direct result of the directed action (say, Bum's Rush) was entering combat. That was what happened as a result of the action resolving successfully. Some cards were then played and some effects used, but you choosing to play Loving Agony isn't the same as you resolving Bum's Rush.

No distinction should be necessary.

Erm, but it was you who said that your only issue is that you intended to burn or torporize the vampire. If that intent isn't relevant even to you, why on earth was it your only objection?

If my only intention is to use The Shattering on a target with 3 blood to flow a card and maybe do some damage and that target attempts to block and I answer with a Croc's Tongue I just drew and it's Methuselah decides to attempt the block with another minion by burning 2 blood off the target and fails, then it did not matter what my intention was since I have now sent it to torpor and am entitled to the benefits. Distinction was not necessary.

This is still a direct result of a directed action.

It's not. The direct result of the directed action (say, Bum's Rush) was entering combat. That was what happened as a result of the action resolving successfully. Some cards were then played and some effects used, but you choosing to play Loving Agony isn't the same as you resolving Bum's Rush.

I can head into combat with a Loving Agony against a target with no blood on it knowing that I can send it to torpor as a direct result of that action that I am about to take.

This, again, feels like a hold out for logic that has been cited as a precedent, yet is not necessarily as sound or intuitive when questioned. Like Groundfighting being able to cancel an IG but not DotB without a weapon equipped. Burning a 2 life Ossian during a bleed with a Croc's Tongue would be an indirect way of burning a Red List during a and therefore not a Trophy gainer, but a Catatonic Fear played during a successful rush action with the end result being the torporization of the target minion has done the job just as efficiently as The Shattering scenario previously mentioned.

Code of Samiel
Type: Master
Requires: Salubri antitribu
Cost: 2 pool
Unique master.
Put this card in play. During your untap phase, a Salubri antitribu you control gains 1 blood. When a Salubri antitribu burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action, he or she untaps after the end of the minion phase. Burn option

Hmm, interesting.

burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action

Grammatically, the following meanings can be derived:
- Burns a ready vampire in combat.
- Sends a vampire to torpor in combat.
- Burns a ready vampire as a action.
- Sends a vampire to torpor as a action.

It looks like it requires an explicit action to burn a ready vampire or send a vampire to torpor. Anything else would not trigger this part of the text.

The following cards would trigger it (provided !salubri can play it, might take some setting up)
- Barreness (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=2027)
- Community Justice (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1778)
- Rubicon (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1979)
- Set's Curse (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1837)
- Sixth Tradition: Destruction (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=264)
- Sleep of Reason (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1363)

The following would not (examples, not complete):
- Diablerie: The target is not a ready vampire.
- Dismemberment of Osiris: It burns a vampire, but not a ready one.
- Horseshoes: Though it can torporise a vamp, it does not explicitly send one to torpor.
- Nosferatu Performance Art: If you turn your !salubri into a nosferatu to play this card, it's no longer a !salubri doing it

The Horseshoes case is very interesting, for that to work the wording of Code of Samiel had to be: "As a result of a action" in which case it would also work for rushes, but still not for Loving Agony, since the torpor moment (if any) happens after the combat was resolved (which is also the absolute end of any action unless continued by card text ie. form of mist) and is thus not a result of an action or combat.

Soooo, I would say it's a wording mistake, but unless errata-ed, this seems to be how it works wording wise.

Ankha wrote:

If Horseshoe deals enough damage upon resolution to send the vampire to torpor, it triggers the Code of Samiel, the same way as dealing enough damage in combat: you don't need a strike card that would say explicitely "send the opposing vampire to torpor".

A ruling would be in order

burns a ready vampire or sends a vampire to torpor in combat or as a action

Grammatically, the following meanings can be derived:
- Burns a ready vampire in combat.
- Sends a vampire to torpor in combat.
- Burns a ready vampire as a action.
- Sends a vampire to torpor as a action.

If the derived meanings are correct:
- Card triggers in combat when opposing vamp is burned or sent to torpor by whatever means.
- Card triggers only on an explicit "burn ready vampire" or "send vampire to torpor" action.

Is the derived meaning incorrect?

Afaik. the "As a action" part makes the explicit burn/torporise action required.

I do agree with you Ankha, it SHOULD be that way, but afaik. thats not the wording... I still say it's a wording mistake. This is a potential judge discussion nightmare. It really should read "As a result of a action".