Combo question

Is there in "famous" combo using Cryptic Mission and Society of Leopold? If so, how does it works? I read it somewhere but i can't figure it out...! Thanx a lot! .- Luis....@ip.pt

Luis P. Duarte (Luis....@ip.pt) wrote: : Is there in "famous" combo using Cryptic Mission and Society : of Leopold? If so, how does it works? : I read it somewhere but i can't figure it out...! I don't know how famous it is, and it's not exactly a direct combo in the way that (for example) Disarm and Decapitate are. The idea is to use Cryptic Missions to reduce a vampire to 0 blood and then play Society of Leopold on 'em while they're empty (or play Society and then reduce them to 0 blood before their next turn). Then, being at 0 blood, the vamp with Society will be burned. ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.") In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick. I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-) and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday... Josh sadly it turns out I only have maybe 11 Cryptic Missions at the moment...

In article <70ictj$4...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes >(I want to say Richard Zopf >but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-) Robert Goudie, of V:EKN I believe. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> > I don't know how famous it is, and it's not exactly a direct combo in > the way that (for example) Disarm and Decapitate are. The idea is to > use Cryptic Missions to reduce a vampire to 0 blood and then play > Society of Leopold on 'em while they're empty (or play Society and > then reduce them to 0 blood before their next turn). Then, being at > 0 blood, the vamp with Society will be burned. > > ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her > controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card > either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's > choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any > other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.") > > In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick. > I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf > but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-) > and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday... > Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I don't think so.) I think the "trick" is this: If the vampire is at 0 blood (or 1 blood), and has the Society on them, then they may burn 1 blood (and ignore the effect if at 0 blood already) to prevent being burned. This vampire is then (barring other effects) forced to hunt. Then, on the next turn, they have the same thing happen. So, it seems more of a slightly silly locking-down-peoples-vampires trick. The forced to hunt thing gets around the ability to move the Society. (Am I really wrong about being able to choose burning blood when there's none to burn?) -Chris

Chris Berger wrote: > > Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the > controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought > about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I > don't think so.) Actually, I'm pretty sure that Leopold _does_ burn an empty vampire (since they _can't_ burn one blood)... LSJ? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Oh, there you are. Out of donuts, are we?" -- Fraser Official Jyhad/V:tES FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html

Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > I don't know how famous it is, and it's not exactly a direct combo in > > the way that (for example) Disarm and Decapitate are. The idea is to > > use Cryptic Missions to reduce a vampire to 0 blood and then play > > Society of Leopold on 'em while they're empty (or play Society and > > then reduce them to 0 blood before their next turn). Then, being at > > 0 blood, the vamp with Society will be burned. > > > > ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her > > controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card > > either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's > > choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any > > other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.") > > > > In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick. > > I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf > > but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-) > > and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday... > > > Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the > controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought > about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I > don't think so.) > > I think the "trick" is this: If the vampire is at 0 blood (or 1 blood), > and has the Society on them, then they may burn 1 blood (and ignore the > effect if at 0 blood already) to prevent being burned. This vampire is > then (barring other effects) forced to hunt. Then, on the next turn, > they have the same thing happen. So, it seems more of a slightly silly > locking-down-peoples-vampires trick. The forced to hunt thing gets > around the ability to move the Society. (Am I really wrong about being > able to choose burning blood when there's none to burn?) No, not about that - but you are wrong in the belief that failing to burn a blood satifies the "either ... or" condition of Society. Since, by failing to burn a blood, the condition remains unsatisfied, you'll still have to burn the vampire. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

In article <36347C5B...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >Chris Berger wrote: >> >> Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the >> controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought >> about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I >> don't think so.) > >Actually, I'm pretty sure that Leopold _does_ burn an empty vampire >(since they _can't_ burn one blood)... LSJ? LAst time I asked LSJ, it went like this: Burn a blood or get burned... Did you burn a blood? No, so you get burned. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36355756...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > > ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her > > controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card > > either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's > > choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any > > other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.") > > > Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the > controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought > about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I > don't think so.) > > I think the "trick" is this: If the vampire is at 0 blood (or 1 blood), > and has the Society on them, then they may burn 1 blood (and ignore the > effect if at 0 blood already) to prevent being burned. This vampire is > then (barring other effects) forced to hunt. Then, on the next turn, > they have the same thing happen. So, it seems more of a slightly silly > locking-down-peoples-vampires trick. The forced to hunt thing gets > around the ability to move the Society. (Am I really wrong about being > able to choose burning blood when there's none to burn?) In general, I think you're right...but I'd argue that this specific card gets around the standard not needing to burn blood if you can't. I don't see anything from the card text specifically indicating that this is the case, but I certainly can't *defend* the thought process of "Oh, I'll choose to burn the blood...whoops, looks like I don't have any blood...too bad. I'll go hunt now." Personally, I think it's pretty weird and annoying that you can do that...at least with special abilities and such. Like Kalinda (?) -- the burn 2 blood to bleed at +1 with +1 stealth (or something like that). If you play a card and you can't burn the blood, I believe you aren't able to play it. Like Govern the Unaligned...well...it's one blood...you should be hunting. Let's say Kiss of Ra. If you can't burn the blood, I don't *think* you can play it. However, if you have an ability that requires you to burn blood, you can ignore the full cost if you can't pay it. In the case of Cryptic Mission, I think it's all well and good that no ill effects are suffered when used on a vampire with no blood on it, but for the most part, otherwise, I think it's pretty lame. Xian "you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out." -Jasper Phillips -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

xi...@waste.org wrote: > If you play a card and you can't burn the blood, I believe you aren't able to > play it. Like Govern the Unaligned...well...it's one blood...you should be > hunting. Let's say Kiss of Ra. If you can't burn the blood, I don't *think* > you can play it. However, if you have an ability that requires you to burn > blood, you can ignore the full cost if you can't pay it. In the case of > Cryptic Mission, I think it's all well and good that no ill effects are > suffered when used on a vampire with no blood on it, but for the most part, > otherwise, I think it's pretty lame. I believe that all of the cases you would label "lame" are illegal (or, at least, don't function the way that you think is lame). If you can/must burn blood "to" do/get something, and you fail to burn the blood, then you also fail to do/get that something. You cannot use an ability if you can't pay the full cost of using that ability. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick. >I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf >but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-) >and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday... Wasn't me, but I'll happily take the credit for it ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and future Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <7130uh$ncc$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, guenh...@mindspring.com wrote: > du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > >In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick. > >I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf > >but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-) > >and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday... > > Wasn't me, but I'll happily take the credit for it ;-) > Somebody else said they thought it was Robert Goudie, which is plausible. Even starts with an "R". ^_^ Josh not that I can remember who it was that said that... obviously I'm all kinds of bad with names... [ quoted text not captured ]