Code of Samiel and Loving Agony

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. Using a Red List analogy, if I were to enter combat with one, having the purest intention of just moving some cards, and were to accidentally (fortuitously?) burn that minion then I am eligible to reap the benefits no matter what my reasons for entering combat were.

Concerning combat, the whole argument is moot since both Trophy rule and Code of Samuel work if A) the opposing minion is burned in combat, whatever lead to the combat.

B) The second way to trigger the Code of Samuel is to burn the minion as (the result of a) action, not *during* a action.
Of course, if you burn the minion in combat during that action, it works per point A)

Robert wrote:

The second way to trigger the Code of Samuel is to burn the minion as (the result of a) action, not *during* a action.

The second way to trigger Code of Samiel is also to torporize a minion as (the result of a) action which seems to have happened through a card played during the resolution of the successful action that resulted in the torporization of the target in the scenario proposed.

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.