Jyhad: Another Torpor Q.

Here's another one. Vamp has a goul retainer. 1 Shotgun 3r, and a Flamethrower 2r Ag. I have the retainer use the shot gun, and I use the flame thrower. Enemy Vamp has 2 blood. The 3r puts him of her in torpor does my Flamethrower then burn the vamp or does the vamp luck out and go to torpor. It seems to me that the timing is simo but I'm not sure any response would be very appreciated. Thanx. Umbradomo, KMM

Kevin Masterson <kevin.masterson@aquila.com> wrote: >Vamp has a goul retainer. 1 Shotgun 3r, and a Flamethrower 2r Ag. >I have the retainer use the shot gun, and I use the flame thrower. >Enemy Vamp has 2 blood. The 3r puts him of her in torpor does my >Flamethrower then burn the vamp or does the vamp luck out and go to >torpor. It seems to me that the timing is simo but I'm not sure any >response would be very appreciated. If a vampire takes a mix of aggravated and non-aggravated damage at the same time, the non-aggro is applied first. So the Shotgun would hit home, then the Flamethrower, burning the vampire in this example. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <39osi5$n2h@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >Kevin Masterson <kevin.masterson@aquila.com> wrote: >>Vamp has a goul retainer. 1 Shotgun 3r, and a Flamethrower 2r Ag. >>I have the retainer use the shot gun, and I use the flame thrower. >>Enemy Vamp has 2 blood. The 3r puts him of her in torpor does my >>Flamethrower then burn the vamp or does the vamp luck out and go to >>torpor. It seems to me that the timing is simo but I'm not sure any >>response would be very appreciated. > >If a vampire takes a mix of aggravated and non-aggravated damage at >the same time, the non-aggro is applied first. So the Shotgun would >hit home, then the Flamethrower, burning the vampire in this example. > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for >aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought retainers could not use equipment. And I don't recall the Ghoul Retainer having a special exception to this rule. Sam freeman@cae.wisc.edu

Samuel Freeman (freeman@cae.wisc.edu) wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought retainers could not use > equipment. And I don't recall the Ghoul Retainer having a special > exception to this rule. It does have an exception. It can use any equipment (weapon) that the vampire does not use. -ben -- "I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tann- hauser gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."

Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote: : Kevin Masterson <kevin.masterson@aquila.com> wrote: : >Vamp has a goul retainer. 1 Shotgun 3r, and a Flamethrower 2r Ag. : >I have the retainer use the shot gun, and I use the flame thrower. : >Enemy Vamp has 2 blood. The 3r puts him of her in torpor does my : >Flamethrower then burn the vamp or does the vamp luck out and go to : >torpor. It seems to me that the timing is simo but I'm not sure any : >response would be very appreciated. : If a vampire takes a mix of aggravated and non-aggravated damage at : the same time, the non-aggro is applied first. So the Shotgun would : hit home, then the Flamethrower, burning the vampire in this example. Right, to a point. The non-aggravated damage is applied first, but since the target only has 2 BP in this example, and suffers a 3 points of damage burst, it goes to torpor before the aggravated damage hits home. Unless there is something I missed (a Rule Group ruling for example). -- Karrde "I've found that what people call luck if often little more than raw talent combined with the ability to make the most of opportunities." Talon Karrde to Mara Jade, "The Heir to the Empire" "Warfare is a kind of hell on earth that impatient mankind has aranged so it would not have to wait for the afterlife." Morgenes thoughts, "To Green Angel Tower" karrde@step.polymtl.ca

Frederic Genest <karrde@step.polymtl.ca> wrote: >: If a vampire takes a mix of aggravated and non-aggravated damage at >: the same time, the non-aggro is applied first. So the Shotgun would >: hit home, then the Flamethrower, burning the vampire in this example. >Right, to a point. The non-aggravated damage is applied first, but since >the target only has 2 BP in this example, and suffers a 3 points of >damage burst, it goes to torpor before the aggravated damage hits home. You don't deal the non-aggro, pause to figure out what happened with that, and then deal the aggro if the vampire is still around. Bang, the non-aggro hits, and then bang, the aggro hits and might or might not burn the vampire. If the vampire is not burned, then it goes to torpor as appropriate. This is the difference between a vampire taking a mix of aggro and non-aggro in one strike, vs. taking non-aggro in one strike and then aggro as an additional strike. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In <39rekp$19q0@charles.cdec.polymtl.ca>, karrde@step.polymtl.ca (Frederic Genest) writes: >Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote: >: Kevin Masterson <kevin.masterson@aquila.com> wrote: >: >Vamp has a goul retainer. 1 Shotgun 3r, and a Flamethrower 2r Ag. >: >I have the retainer use the shot gun, and I use the flame thrower. >: >Enemy Vamp has 2 blood. The 3r puts him of her in torpor does my >: >Flamethrower then burn the vamp or does the vamp luck out and go to >: >torpor. It seems to me that the timing is simo but I'm not sure any >: >response would be very appreciated. > >: If a vampire takes a mix of aggravated and non-aggravated damage at >: the same time, the non-aggro is applied first. So the Shotgun would >: hit home, then the Flamethrower, burning the vampire in this example. > > >Right, to a point. The non-aggravated damage is applied first, but since >the target only has 2 BP in this example, and suffers a 3 points of >damage burst, it goes to torpor before the aggravated damage hits home. > >Unless there is something I missed (a Rule Group ruling for example). Well, there was. Each strike (strike in this case being a unit of time) has it's own damage resolution phase. If the Shotgun & FT occur as a result of celerity. The V goes to torpor and escapes the second strike. However, the Ghoul Retainer (and Wolf Companion, Weather Control, <sup> Drawing Out the Beast, etc) does simultaneous damage in combination with the striking V. Thus all damage gets resolved together. Thus V burns. !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

Tom Wylie writes: >You don't deal the non-aggro, pause to figure out what happened with that, >and then deal the aggro if the vampire is still around. Bang, the non-aggro >hits, and then bang, the aggro hits and might or might not burn the vampire. If the non-aggravated damage is enough to send the vampire into torport, would a single point of aggravated damage be sufficient to burn the vampire? Or would it require two aggro to burn, as with any other zero-blood vampire? ************************************************************************ Trevor Barrie tbarrie@ "If the gods could build me a ladder 87 Kennedy Drive bud.peinet.pe.ca to the heavens, I'd climb up the West Royalty, PEI ladder and drop a big elbow on the C1E 1X7 CANADA (902)628-6845 world." - Cactus Jack ************************************************************************

Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote: >If the non-aggravated damage is enough to send the vampire into torport, would >a single point of aggravated damage be sufficient to burn the vampire? Or >would it require two aggro to burn, as with any other zero-blood vampire? It always requires at least two aggravated damage to burn a vampire outright. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3a9smt$7be@perv.hal.com>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote: >Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote: >>If the non-aggravated damage is enough to send the vampire into torport, would >>a single point of aggravated damage be sufficient to burn the vampire? Or >>would it require two aggro to burn, as with any other zero-blood vampire? > >It always requires at least two aggravated damage to burn a vampire outright. This makes no sense. The reason it normally takes two aggrivated damage to burn a vampire outright is that the first simply sends the vampire to torpor. Any vampire in torpor who takes aggrivated damage is burned, so the 2nd point burns them. So, if you've got a vampire who has one blood, who takes nine points of normal damage and 1 aggrivated at the same time, the recent ruling that you apply the non-aggrivated damage first *should* mean the vampire burns. -- Doug DeJulio ddj+@pitt.edu

Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote: : Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote: : >If the non-aggravated damage is enough to send the vampire into torport, would : >a single point of aggravated damage be sufficient to burn the vampire? Or : >would it require two aggro to burn, as with any other zero-blood vampire? : It always requires at least two aggravated damage to burn a vampire outright. : Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for : aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc. I was under the impression that aggravated damage was always applied first. Which is true now? -- Karrde "I've found that what people call luck if often little more than raw talent combined with the ability to make the most of opportunities." Talon Karrde to Mara Jade, "The Heir to the Empire" "Warfare is a kind of hell on earth that impatient mankind has aranged so it would not have to wait for the afterlife." Morgenes thoughts, "To Green Angel Tower" karrde@step.polymtl.ca

-> If a vampire takes a mix of aggravated and non-aggravated damage, the non-aggravated is applied first, to maximize the chances of burning the vampire outright. -> "... thus the vampire loses no blood, unless more than one aggravated damage is received. In this case the excess is paid in blood... If the vampire does not have the blood to heal excess aggravated damage, then it is considered destroyed and its card is burned." (page 32) So the first point of aggravated damage always sends the vampire to torpor rather than actually damaging it; whether it had already taken enough non-aggravated to torpor it is irrelevant. Only if more than one aggravated damage is dealt, and that excess cannot be healed, is the vampire burned outright. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-> "... thus the vampire loses no blood, unless more than one aggravated damage is received. In this case the excess is paid in blood... If the vampire does not have the blood to heal excess aggravated damage, then it is considered destroyed and its card is burned." (page 32) So the first point of aggravated damage always sends the vampire to torpor rather than actually damaging it; whether it had already taken enough non-aggravated to torpor it is irrelevant. Only if more than one aggravated damage is dealt, and that excess cannot be healed, is the vampire burned outright. Which, IMHO, is stupid. We've always played it so that if the vampire was in torpor when they took aggravated damage, it was treated like the first point had already occured, because that made sense to us. -- Chris Clark -- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- -- Chris Clark "Claudia, you've been a very...very...naughty...little...girl." -Lestat

Hello, I play MtG about once every week with a few of friends who have much more time and money than I do to invest in the game. Initially I was capable of holding my end but they've caught on to my tricks and tactics in addition to purchasing so many individual cards at high prices that I can't follow anymore. And there is no way I'll dish out a few more hundred bucks to keep up with them. The game is getting excessively boring and predictable. It's getting to be a trivial combinatorics problem to play the game. And, with at most seven cards in hand at any time, I find there is little challenge in finding the right card to play. It's automatic. My only chances occur in multi-player matches where I manage to play my opponents against each other. I'm desperately trying to revive an interest in the game. Does anyone know of decks made of high frequency cards which will hold their own against loaded decks ? Despite my many cards I have no Counterspell and Sera Angel cards. We play with at most 4 cards of any type but mana and at most 1 artifact of each kind. My opponents play darks and some legends in addition to revised cards. I only have revised cards. Decks of any color subset will do as I am grateful for any reply. I'm even willing to purchase a few low end uncommon cards to help my cause 8) I look forward to your responses. Thanks to anyone who'll manage to show me that Magic isn't a war of the wallets and that there is indeed a profound art in deck building. Eric -- ================================================================= Eric Masson - ericm@finnegan.ee.mcgill.ca - FAX: 514 398 4470 =================================================================

In article <3ahf8c$ktb@kirk.EE.McGill.CA>, ericm@kirk.EE.McGill.CA (Eric Masson) writes: |> |> Thanks to anyone who'll manage to show me that Magic isn't a war |> of the wallets and that there is indeed a profound art in deck |> building. Play multiplayer games. Cedric.

In article <3ahf8c$ktb@kirk.EE.McGill.CA>, ericm@kirk.EE.McGill.CA (Eric Masson) says: > >Hello, > >I play MtG about once every week with a few of friends who have much >more time and money than I do to invest in the game. Initially I was >capable of holding my end but they've caught on to my tricks and >tactics in addition to purchasing so many individual >cards at high prices that I can't follow anymore. And there is no >way I'll dish out a few more hundred bucks to keep up with them. > > >Thanks to anyone who'll manage to show me that Magic isn't a war >of the wallets and that there is indeed a profound art in deck >building. > >Eric >-- >================================================================= > Eric Masson - ericm@finnegan.ee.mcgill.ca - FAX: 514 398 4470 >================================================================= Two word answer: Pestilence Deck!! A nice little idea I came up with, it requires primarily common cards, and works well with almost entirely revised! Here is the basic concept: the deck is white/black, you try to get out a circle of protection black, a pestilence, a regenerating creature and you are in business! Just keep pestilencing, using your circle to protect yourself and remember to regenerate your creature! A good base for the deck is: 4 CoP: Black 2 CoP: Red (so you can't be fireballed to death!!) 4 Pestilence 4 Drudge Skeletons 4 Walking dead (a common Legends card, identical to drugde skeletons) 4 Dark Rituals some walls of swords (lots of health, good to stop flyers) 4 disenchants (to stop you opponents from using CoP Black :) a couple of regenerating walls as many will'o'the wisps as you can gather a Sacrifice or two a Demo-tutor or two if you have any a bunch of swamps and plains Keep in mind not to bring out TOO many creatures at once,otherwise you won't have enough mana to regerate them all!! Good luck! Warning: in multiplayer games, everyone will find you VERY aggravating, and will probably gang up and kill you :( Dave Woods dwoods@io.org

In article <3at13j$me6@ionews.io.org>, dwoods@io.org (Dave L.G. Woods) writes: >two words:Pestilence Deck! I agree with Dave. Some other cards you may want to consider in this type of deck are: Banshee (Dark U1) Greater Realm of Preservation (Legend R) Granted, these cards are rare, but the Pestilence Deck can be made tourney legal and very vicious. For more friendly decks, I increase my deck size to about 120, throw in 4 of all the Pestilence cards, along with some Bad Moons. I've played it quite a bit. It's lots of fun against blue. Demon3

dwoods@io.org (Dave L.G. Woods) writes: >In article <3ahf8c$ktb@kirk.EE.McGill.CA>, ericm@kirk.EE.McGill.CA (Eric Masson) says: >> >>Hello, >> >>I play MtG about once every week with a few of friends who have much >>more time and money than I do to invest in the game. Initially I was >>capable of holding my end but they've caught on to my tricks and >>tactics in addition to purchasing so many individual >>cards at high prices that I can't follow anymore. And there is no >>way I'll dish out a few more hundred bucks to keep up with them. >> >> >>Thanks to anyone who'll manage to show me that Magic isn't a war >>of the wallets and that there is indeed a profound art in deck >>building. >> >>Eric >>-- >>================================================================= >> Eric Masson - ericm@finnegan.ee.mcgill.ca - FAX: 514 398 4470 <Snip: "useless deck", imho> Beating any single deck is an almost mindless proposition. Simply change your strategy, colors, or focus. This leaves a player expecting to play a certain deck with a LOT of useless cards in his or her hand. Think about it: A person with black hosers, COP black, karma, lifeforce, etc, will find nothing to do with them against any color BUT black. Same for any hoser. Then, don't allow deck tuning unless the overcarded fool changes to an entirely different deck. Honest, the most wildly successful deck I've ever seen was comprised entirely of common cards and Arabian Nights commons (ok, this was a year ago, when arabians were still common.) Three words: Speed, Speed, Speed. When trading, know what you want, and what you're willing to give for them. I know one person who has spent $150 total, and is one of the best players I've ever played. He has 3 GOOD decks. Jamie -- Propel, propel, propel your craft... Poet's version: Placidly traversing the aqueous solution "Row, row row your boat" Ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically ecstatically Existance is naught but Delusion. wadell@rtt.colorado.edu

Jamie Wadell (wadell@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote: : dwoods@io.org (Dave L.G. Woods) writes: <CLIP...stuff deleted> What follows is a fairly flexible low-cost deck that has proved consistently competent against high-cost decks. It's one of the four "test decks" guys here uses to test our tournament decks. All cards are common in Revised unless otherwise noted. This deck is constructed to be tournament-legal. We dismantle our tournament decks if they can't beat this (and the other three test decks) on a consistent basis. Main Deck: Black Vise (Revised uncommon) Brassclaw Orcs (x2) (Fallen Empires common) Chain Lightning (x4) (Legends common) Channel (Revised uncommon) Disintegrate (x4) Fireball (x4) Forest (x9) Grizzly Bears (x3) Hurrican (x2) (Revised uncommon) Kird Ape (x4) Llanowar Elves (x4) Lightning Bolt (x4) Mountain (x10) Regrowth (Revised uncommon) Tranquility (x3) Shatterstorm (x2) (Revised uncommon) Sol Ring (Revised uncommon) Stone Rain Revised common: 45 Revised uncommon: 8 Legends common: 4 Fallen Empires common: 3 Total: 60 Sideboard: Brassclaw Orcs (Fallen Empires common) Desert Twister (Revised uncommon) Flashfires (Revised uncommon) Grizzly Bears Lifeforce (x2) (Revised uncommon) Red Elemental Blast (x4) Shatterstorm (Revised uncommon) Stone Rain (x3) Tranquility Revised common: 9 Revised uncommon: 5 Fallen Empires common: 1 Total: 15 Some of the more expensive cards that you want to sub in for cards in the basic deck if you get your hands on them: Library of Alexandria Mishra's Factory (x4) Sylvan Library Whirling Dervishes (x4) How to play this deck? Hammer your opponent with two creatures (hold the rest in your hand). Save your direct damage spells for your opponent's blockers. Only use the direct damage spells on your opponent to finish him off, do NOT cast direct damage spells on your opponent just because you can. And remember to use your sideboard and the Channel-Fireball-Red Elemental Blast combo. Hope that helps. - Steve - sl7506@u.cc.utah.edu