Blood Fury vs Diversion

Name: Blood Fury
[Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:PTr4, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB3]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Only usable at close range.
[tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage.
[THA] As above, but for strength+2 damage.
Artist: Daniel Gelon


Name: Diversion
[Anarchs:C2/PAG4]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Celerity/Fortitude/Thaumaturgy
Requires a ready anarch.
[cel] Gain one additional strike.
[for] Prevent up to 2 damage.
[tha] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood with an optional maneuver.
Artist: Andrew Bates

I agree that the intent of Blood Fury is clear... fortitude damage prevention does not work against it. But I was reading the text of the card and notice that it is phrased "by cards that require fortitude." Technically, Diversion does not *require* fortitude. A vampire without fortitude can play the *card*. If Blood Fury said "by effects that require fortitude" it would be unambiguous. I'm just wondering if I have discovered a loophole, or if there is a ruling that says otherwise. Thoughts?

dcherryholmes wrote: Name: Blood Fury
[Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:PTr4, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB3]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Only usable at close range.
[tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage.
[THA] As above, but for strength+2 damage.
Artist: Daniel Gelon


Name: Diversion
[Anarchs:C2/PAG4]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Celerity/Fortitude/Thaumaturgy
Requires a ready anarch.
[cel] Gain one additional strike.
[for] Prevent up to 2 damage.
[tha] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood with an optional maneuver.
Artist: Andrew Bates

I agree that the intent of Blood Fury is clear... fortitude damage prevention does not work against it. But I was reading the text of the card and notice that it is phrased "by cards that require fortitude." Technically, Diversion does not *require* fortitude. A vampire without fortitude can play the *card*. If Blood Fury said "by effects that require fortitude" it would be unambiguous. I'm just wondering if I have discovered a loophole, or if there is a ruling that says otherwise. Thoughts?

Dave - what discipline do you need to play:
"[for] Prevent up to 2 damage."?
Therefore it requires it for that effect.

Wow, just realized Daves never posted on here.

I

That is one interpretation. And if it were official, I would be fine with it. But, it is not a strict reading of the text of Blood Fury. Blood Fury was not written with multidiscipline cards in mind, so at that time any Fortitude prevention would be strictly a Fortitude card. Do you see my point?

dcherryholmes wrote: That is one interpretation. And if it were official, I would be fine with it. But, it is not a strict reading of the text of Blood Fury. Blood Fury was not written with multidiscipline cards in mind, so at that time any Fortitude prevention would be strictly a Fortitude card. Do you see my point?

I think this answers your question:
(from the General Rulings page)

When played, a split Discipline card counts as requiring the Discipline being used (for effects that enhance or restrict cards that require certain Disciplines). In the hand (or library or ash heap), the card can be considered to require either Discipline (for effects that retrieve cards that require certain Disciplines). [LSJ 20020510]