This question came up in a game I played recently, my Navar McLaren was
burned, can one of my opponents influence it later in the game and bring
it into play (if they have Navar in their deck also), it seems to me
a bit illogical, after all the vampire doesn´t exist anymore...
Anyone?
Phi
(baa...@cs.utwente.nl)
In article <3o3epi$2...@driene.student.utwente.nl>,
Phi <baa...@cs.utwente.nl> wrote:
>This question came up in a game I played recently, my Navar McLaren was
>burned, can one of my opponents influence it later in the game and bring
>it into play (if they have Navar in their deck also), it seems to me
>a bit illogical, after all the vampire doesn´t exist anymore...
Illogical, perhaps. But it is a card game - and the intent is to remove
any consideration of the history of the state of the game -
the game state can be seen by looking at everyone's layout.
Burning a vampire (or any unique card) does not prohibit someone else
from controlling that same card later.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text
Sorry, but I *still* have problems quoting. The question of
a recycled vampire came out, and it seems like when a lick is
burned, it opens the path for someone else to bring out a vampire
of the same name. Here's a question that arose over a game. If
Tatiana Blood Bonded Anvil, and Anvil ends up taking a dirt-nap,
and someone else brings out another Anvil, is *he* then Bonded
as well? I mean, Anvil's burned, right? I thought evil identical
twins are only believable on the daytime soaps...
May you Sleep Quietly
And Hunt Safely...
Jere Culleton
In article <D80nJ...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, Blood Bond isn't played on the vampire, so wouldn't be burned
with him, and it does say *name* a vampire (even one not yet in the
game), so any vampire by that name would be unable to block,
even Anvil's evil twin.
[ quoted text not captured ]
bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gord Culleton) wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, but I *still* have problems quoting. The question of
> a recycled vampire came out, and it seems like when a lick is
> burned, it opens the path for someone else to bring out a vampire
> of the same name. Here's a question that arose over a game. If
> Tatiana Blood Bonded Anvil, and Anvil ends up taking a dirt-nap,
> and someone else brings out another Anvil, is *he* then Bonded
> as well? I mean, Anvil's burned, right? I thought evil identical
> twins are only believable on the daytime soaps...
Peace Jere,
It is a totally new, improved, and lemon-freshened Anvil, who is _not_
blood bonded.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>It is a totally new, improved, and lemon-freshened Anvil, who is _not_
>blood bonded.
Correct.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gord Culleton) writes:
>Sorry, but I *still* have problems quoting. The question of
>a recycled vampire came out, and it seems like when a lick is
>burned, it opens the path for someone else to bring out a vampire
>of the same name. Here's a question that arose over a game. If
>Tatiana Blood Bonded Anvil, and Anvil ends up taking a dirt-nap,
>and someone else brings out another Anvil, is *he* then Bonded
>as well? I mean, Anvil's burned, right? I thought evil identical
>twins are only believable on the daytime soaps...
When the first Anvil is burnt, all cards on him go to the ashheap too. So
Anvil #2 will come out with none of those advantages/disadvantages.
Sorry, Jyhad DOES have evil identical twins.
You can, of course, play with the house rule that once a unique is burned
it's gone for the duration of the game, but that is a house rule, and not
official.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3ob9cj$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gord Culleton) writes:
>>>Sorry, but I *still* have problems quoting. The question of
>>a recycled vampire came out, and it seems like when a lick is
>>burned, it opens the path for someone else to bring out a vampire
>>of the same name. Here's a question that arose over a game. If
>>Tatiana Blood Bonded Anvil, and Anvil ends up taking a dirt-nap,
>>and someone else brings out another Anvil, is *he* then Bonded
>>as well? I mean, Anvil's burned, right? I thought evil identical
>>twins are only believable on the daytime soaps...>
>When the first Anvil is burnt, all cards on him go to the ashheap too. So
>Anvil #2 will come out with none of those advantages/disadvantages.
>
Unfortunately Blood Bond is *not* played on a vmpire. It simply
Names a vampire . It is not burnt when the named vampire goes to the ashheap.
I've seen Tom's post re: gut reaction, and find myself again
at odds with these o'er hasty answers.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>When the first Anvil is burnt, all cards on him go to the ashheap too.
So
>>Anvil #2 will come out with none of those advantages/disadvantages.>>Unfortunately Blood Bond is *not* played on a vmpire. It simply
>Names a vampire . It is not burnt when the named vampire goes to the
>ashheap.
Correct. By analogy, effects on that vampire should go away too.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3ogi8d$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
But it is not an effect on the burnt vampire. It is an effect on the
acting vampire (which is why it is an undirected action rather
than a directed one). The acting vampire chooses (names) a vampire
who cannot block the acting vampire for the remainder of the game.
If it was a directed action, I would agree with you - that it is burnt when
its target is. But it has no target (other than the acting vampire).
Tom?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. | are subject to card text.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:>>Unfortunately Blood Bond is *not* played on a vmpire. It simply>>Names a vampire. It is not burnt when the named vampire goes to the ashheap.>Blood Bond does not instruct you to play it on a vampire, and therefore
>goes to the ash heap as soon as it is played. People typically leave the
>card in play as a reminder, but the card is not actually in play.>Blood Bond names a given vampire card. If that vampire is burned, the
>Blood Bond effect ends. This may not be 100% realistic from a simulation
>standpoint, but it is how the game works.
If it names a particular vampire card, then why is it not a directed action.
This is equivalent to the effect of the Army of Rats. The Rats, though
not directed, affect only one Methuselah. If that Methuselah is ousted,
the Rats are not burned; they simply target the new Methuselah called
"prey".
Blood Bond chooses a vampire. If that vampire is burned, or is not yet
in play, the effect waits until a suitably named vampire enters play.
I would like to see a reason explain both the undirectnedness and the
targetted effect you propose at the same time.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately Blood Bond is *not* played on a vmpire. It simply
>Names a vampire. It is not burnt when the named vampire goes to the ashheap.
Blood Bond does not instruct you to play it on a vampire, and therefore
goes to the ash heap as soon as it is played. People typically leave the
card in play as a reminder, but the card is not actually in play.
Blood Bond names a given vampire card. If that vampire is burned, the
Blood Bond effect ends. This may not be 100% realistic from a simulation
standpoint, but it is how the game works.
[ quoted text not captured ]
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>>>>Unfortunately Blood Bond is *not* played on a vmpire. It simply>>>Names a vampire . It is not burnt when the named vampire goes to the
>>>ashheap.>>>Correct. By analogy, effects on that vampire should go away too.>But it is not an effect on the burnt vampire. It is an effect on the
>acting vampire (which is why it is an undirected action rather
>than a directed one). The acting vampire chooses (names) a vampire
>who cannot block the acting vampire for the remainder of the game.>If it was a directed action, I would agree with you - that it is burnt
when
>its target is. But it has no target (other than the acting vampire).
Sho 'nuff!
I've posted my proposal to the house rules that BB is a misprint and
should be (D). If I'm wrong about it being a misprint, I definitely have
to agree with Scott's argument.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)