Shawn: rulings needed

In the Jyhad tournaments at Gateway 16 in L.A. several important card questions came up: 1.) Return to innocence says bleed your prey at X+capacity. Some people decided this means a bleed with RTI can not be deflected or tele-misdirected. If this is the case this is the worst trump card I can imagine. The only defense would be arcon invest or major boon. I assumed that if you deflected RTI the action would just fizzle and recipient would just take a normal bleed. Please give a quick ruling on this one. 2.) Freak drive: When using the superior version when is this card played? Some said because it is a action modifier it has to be played before entering combat because you can't play action modifiers after combat. This makes sense until you think about the errated hidden lurker. We have always played it after combat is finished. 3.) Can rotscreck be played against pulled fangs? 4.) Can 2nd tradition domain be used to block a action that is not at stealth? The debate continues to rage whether the primary function of this card is the untap or the intercept. It was almost unanimous among the people at this tournament that the primary function should be the untap, but some said that it had been ruled otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News: http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

tb...@lainet.com wrote: > > In the Jyhad tournaments at Gateway 16 in L.A. several important card > questions came up: > > 1.) Return to innocence says bleed your prey at X+capacity. Some people > decided this means a bleed with RTI can not be deflected or > tele-misdirected. If this is the case this is the worst trump card I can > imagine. The only defense would be arcon invest or major boon. I assumed > that if you deflected RTI the action would just fizzle and recipient would > just take a normal bleed. Please give a quick ruling on this one. The fact that RTI says "bleed your prey" does not mean that no one else can be bled using this card except your prey. This just tells you that you have to initially target this card pointed at your prey. If it gets deflected, then someone else is being bled, but the RTI has already been played; the bonus to the bleed has already been given. Deflection does not cancel the card. > 2.) Freak drive: When using the superior version when is this card played? > Some said because it is a action modifier it has to be played before > entering combat because you can't play action modifiers after combat. This > makes sense until you think about the errated hidden lurker. We have always > played it after combat is finished. Remember that even though you may be in combat, the action is still on; it has just been blocked. Once combat finishes, you have time to play action modifiers again, thus you can play Hidden Lurker or Freak Drive. I'm sure you could play Bonding or something, but it wouldn't do anything... > 3.) Can rotscreck be played against pulled fangs? God only knows what Rotschreck does, or how you play with it. Due to the incomprehensibility of the card, our play group has banned it; every thinks it does something different. > 4.) Can 2nd tradition domain be used to block a action that is not at > stealth? The debate continues to rage whether the primary function of this > card is the untap or the intercept. It was almost unanimous among the people > at this tournament that the primary function should be the untap, but some > said that it had been ruled otherwise. I would say that you cannot use 2nd T. unless the blocking Prince/Justicar has less intercept than the acting minion has stealth. James -- * James Hamblin * * Cornell University * * je...@cornell.edu *

tb...@lainet.com writes: >In the Jyhad tournaments at Gateway 16 in L.A. several important card >questions came up: > >1.) Return to innocence says bleed your prey at X+capacity. Some people >decided this means a bleed >with RTI can not be deflected or tele-misdirected. If this is the case >this is the worst trump card I can >imagine. The only defense would be arcon invest or major boon. I assumed >that if you deflected RTI the >action would just fizzle and recipient would just take a normal bleed. >Please give a quick ruling on this >one. No. It means that the Bleeding minion's action can only be taken against his Prey. It may be deflected (or Tele Misdirected) to any suitable Methuselah. The "your Prey" text serves to undo the mis-ruled, counter-rulebook errata that says that a (D) symbol on an action card means that you can direct the action at any Methuselah. So, whereas Computer Hacking can be used to bleed any Methuselah (and subsequently be bounced), Return to Innocence can be used only to bleed you prey (and subsequently be bounced). >2.) Freak drive: When using the superior version when is this card played? >Some said because it is a >action modifier it has to be played before entering combat because you >can't play action modifiers after >combat. This makes sense until you think about the errated hidden lurker. >We have always played it after >combat is finished. The official stance is that you play it (and cards like inferior Cat's Guidance) before combat. The Rules Team sees blocking as completely separated from the combat resulting from the block. >3.) Can rotscreck be played against pulled fangs? Not with the current ruling that says Rotschreck must be played when strikes are announced. >4.) Can 2nd tradition domain be used to block a action that is not at >stealth? The debate continues to >rage whether the primary function of this card is the untap or the >intercept. It was almost unanimous >among the people at this tournament that the primary function should be >the untap, but some said that it >had been ruled otherwise. No. 2nd tradition cannot be used unless: 1. You are a Prince or Justicar 2. You are tapped. 3. The acting minion's stealth exceeds your intercept. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | > Be careful who you correct. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | That should read "Be careful whom Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | you correct." -- Steffan O'Sullivan

In article <50jrrj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu says... >So, whereas Computer Hacking can be used to bleed any Methuselah (and >subsequently be bounced), Return to Innocence can be used only to bleed >you prey (and subsequently be bounced). This may be a stupid question, but does that mean that both your prey and predator can block the action because it isn't directed. Or does the fact that it is a bleed, denote that it is directed at the prey? Greg

In article <50l7s1$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] It is a directed action, by the fact that there is a (D) symbol on the card, and the definition of a directed action, and the fact that a bleed is always a directed action (although the rules team only recognizes the first of these, for simplicity's sake). -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <50l7s1$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, faul...@mail.utexas.edu (Greg Faulkner) wrote: > In article <50jrrj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu says... > > >So, whereas Computer Hacking can be used to bleed any Methuselah (and > >subsequently be bounced), Return to Innocence can be used only to bleed > >you prey (and subsequently be bounced). > > > This may be a stupid question, but does that mean that both your prey and > predator can block the action because it isn't directed. Or does the fact that > it is a bleed, denote that it is directed at the prey? (2). When a vampire bleeds, it is directed at the victim, no matter who that may be or how the bleed came about. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request

This bothers me: Bleed at +1 stealth/bleed/etc. is different from (D) Bleed at +1 stealth/bleed/etc. The former is a directed action at your prey, but the latter is a directed action at anyone. Is it just me or is this counter- intuitive? It's just my opinion that a bleed should be only at your prey unless the card specifies otherwise. -- ________________ Priest of Yawgmoth ______ ___@^^^^\ / \ and Phyrexian Netrep / \ @ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ > (^^^^^\ _______ ___/ \---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz / \_____________/ \__________________________________/

da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz (David Schwartz) writes: >This bothers me: >Bleed at +1 stealth/bleed/etc. >is different from >(D) Bleed at +1 stealth/bleed/etc. >The former is a directed action at your prey, but the latter is No, the former (if on an action card) is an *undirected* action (by RT logic). This is because it lacks the (D) symbol - the only way the RT has of telling if an action is directed or not. >a directed action at anyone. Is it just me or is this counter- >intuitive? It's just my opinion that a bleed should be only at >your prey unless the card specifies otherwise. Yes, it is counter-intuitive and counter-rulebook (either version). Check the house rules list for a (IMO) reasonable way of handling the directed problem. It's posted here every month and is available from the reference section of my VtES page: http://www.HomeFree.Net/view/page.exe?236 -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Beatings will continue http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | until morale improves. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz (David Schwartz) >It's just my opinion that a bleed should be only at >your prey unless the card specifies otherwise. Welcome to the club. Check out LSJ's house rules list; almost everybody on it agrees. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)