file Code of Samiel and Loving Agony

08 Apr 2016 13:34 #76315 by GreyB
Predator's Transformation is the only comparable card that has a "or as a (D) action" text (the "or" being the important component here).

Relevant text (Predator's Transformation):

Only usable when this vampire burns a minion controlled by your prey, either in combat or as a (D) action.

]

There are many other cards with "as a (D) action" where the explicit action precursors the action type, which makes the template: {action description} as a {action type}.

Another point, if Horseshoes can trigger Code of Samiel, then any rush action can as well, but I let me avoid that discussion.

:garg: :VIS: :POT: :FOR: :flight: -1 Strength

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2016 17:35 #76317 by brettscho

The Horseshoes case is very interesting, for that to work the wording of Code of Samiel had to be: "As a result of a (D) 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.


I'd just like to point out that the action isn't necessarily over once combat is complete. After the opposing vampire is sent to torpor via Loving Agony, you can still play Action Modifiers like Freak Drive. If the action isn't over, and the opposing minion was sent to torpor, that would seem to meet the criterion on Code of Samiel. The fact that it's unclear and that so many of these unclear situations exist is yet another great argument for a VTES reboot.

Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS

I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2016 19:14 #76320 by TwoRazorReign

The fact that it's unclear and that so many of these unclear situations exist is yet another great argument for a VTES reboot.


Or a great argument for keeping the game as is but rebooting the rulebook/detailed play summary/card rulings.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2016 19:45 - 08 Apr 2016 19:46 #76321 by Ankha

The Horseshoes case is very interesting, for that to work the wording of Code of Samiel had to be: "As a result of a (D) 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.


I'd just like to point out that the action isn't necessarily over once combat is complete. After the opposing vampire is sent to torpor via Loving Agony, you can still play Action Modifiers like Freak Drive. If the action isn't over, and the opposing minion was sent to torpor, that would seem to meet the criterion on Code of Samiel.

No, it doesn't meet the criterion. Noone contest the fact that the action is not over, but it has nothing to do with our case. The only relevant point is "what happened during the resolution of the action?" (or in combat, but that scenario seems to be quite clear for everyone).

Your point would be valid if it was stated "if the vampire is burned... during a (D) action."

So:
  • the (D) action results in burning the opposing minion (or sending it to torpor)
  • during the resolution of the (D) action, the opposing minion burns (or is sent to torpor)
  • the opposing minion is burned (or sent to torpor) as a (D) action
are the same

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 08 Apr 2016 19:46 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2016 21:02 #76323 by brettscho

The fact that it's unclear and that so many of these unclear situations exist is yet another great argument for a VTES reboot.


Or a great argument for keeping the game as is but rebooting the rulebook/detailed play summary/card rulings.


That's reasonable, but I honestly don't think that only making changes (clarifications) in the rulebook is going to fix the problem. Consider ammo cards that get played in a ton of unique timing windows during combat. The rulebook can't fix those. Only errata can. So the only way I see your proposed solution actually fixing the problem is to include some sweeping errata. I think that current players would be just as upset (or more so) than if VTES 2.0 was released. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but I do stand by it.

Either way, I'll keep supporting the game - blog, demo decks, getting cards into the hands of new players, new player guides, etc.

Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS

I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.095 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum