Rotshreck/Amaranth in Malkavian Out-of-Turn combat - ruling, LSJ?

We had a couple of new guys at the Isle of Wight festival and i lent them two of my decks. The unlucky one got the Malkavian OOT combat deck which is probably asking too much of a new person, but the other guy did just fine with my presence-bleed deck of Cheese - 4th overall. Anyway i've been thinking about the Malky combat deck and talking about it with Rob Treasure and i think there is a better and simpler version, based on protean aggravated damage. Crypt: 4 Greger Anderssen Normal Brazil Watenda Dollface Ohanna Aleph Roland Bishop Didi Meyers Masters [18]: 5 Madness Network 6 Rotshreck 2 Direct Intervention 5 Protean Actions [18]: 11 x Bum's Rush 4 x 3rd tradition: Progeny 3 x GtU [either that or Sacrificial Lamb or Graverobbing] Combat [40]: 12 x Flesh of Marble 12 x Claws of the Dead 6 x Form of the Ghost 5 x Amaranth 5 x Ritual of the Bitter Rose Votes [10]: Anathema x 3 Malkavian Justicar x 2 Consanguineous Boon x 3 Archon x 2 Reactions [4]: 2nd Tradition: Domain x 4 Maybe there ought to be a space for Ivory Bow in here, just one of them. Possibly replacing one of the Archons. And if i build this deck in real space i will have to replace most of the Flesh of Marbles with Leather jackets and blood Tears cos i only have 4. I'm not sure about the Amaranth/Ritual combo though, and that's the reason for this post. Can i use Amaranth to diablerise a vampire that is going to torpor due to Rotschreck? We [James Coupe, William Lee and I] talked about this on the IoW and were really unsure, though our feeling was probably not - once strike combat ends has occurred, you can't do anything else [so if we're right Catatonic fear at superior on a vamp with no blood could not be followed by Amaranth, for example]. If not [ruling, LSJ?], the Amaranth cards would go out and be replaced by +stealth action modifiers to cover the diablerie - also useful for voting and equipping so you could use Forgotten Labyrinth. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > I'm not sure about the Amaranth/Ritual combo though, and that's the reason > for this post. Can i use Amaranth to diablerise a vampire that is going to > torpor due to Rotschreck? No. [LSJ 29-JUL-1998] http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=375960586 > We [James Coupe, William Lee and I] talked about > this on the IoW and were really unsure, though our feeling was probably not - > once strike combat ends has occurred, you can't do anything else [so if we're > right Catatonic fear at superior on a vamp with no blood could not be > followed by Amaranth, for example]. Correct. -- 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7a9ko5$p6s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >Crypt: >4 Greger Anderssen >Normal >Brazil >Watenda >Dollface >Ohanna >Aleph >Roland Bishop >Didi Meyers You forgot Zebulon... Zebulon 5 Malkavian OBF, dom, aus, pro I'd also double up on Watenda. Since Rotschrek is your only way to deal with S:CE, and you have little intercept, I'd probably go with 3. >Masters [18]: >5 Madness Network >6 Rotshreck >2 Direct Intervention I don't think DI is really that usefull here. Blood Dolls would be better. Then again, maybe you need it for S:CE. A Metro Underground would be de rigeur to go with the Madness Networks, probably a Hunting Ground to go with it, or perhaps the Rack. >5 Protean > >Actions [18]: >11 x Bum's Rush >4 x 3rd tradition: Progeny >3 x GtU [either that or Sacrificial Lamb or Graverobbing] Grave Robbing's only good if you have some way to prevent people from blocking, or really make them pay. GtU's probably the best option. >Combat [40]: >12 x Flesh of Marble >12 x Claws of the Dead >6 x Form of the Ghost >5 x Amaranth >5 x Ritual of the Bitter Rose Perhaps cut the Form of the Ghost? The claws help provide the maneuvers you'll want. Hmmm. I'd probably go for a mix of press/maneuver claws, and use Quick Meld. This should free up a bit of space for elsewhere. You also might want to think about Homuculi -- otherwise of what use is the Madness Network? >Votes [10]: >Anathema x 3 >Malkavian Justicar x 2 >Consanguineous Boon x 3 >Archon x 2 Honestly, how are you ever going to get any votes passed? This seems like a lot of space in your deck for cards that will probably do nothing. >Reactions [4]: >2nd Tradition: Domain x 4 Probably more. I'd go for as many 2nd's as I had Rotschrecks (6). >Maybe there ought to be a space for Ivory Bow in here, just one of them. >Possibly replacing one of the Archons. And if i build this deck in real space >i will have to replace most of the Flesh of Marbles with Leather jackets and >blood Tears cos i only have 4. Ivory Bow's probably a good idea. [snip: Can you combo Rots, Amaranth, and RotBR?] Good question. That'd completely change the deck. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <7a9qv6$dvn$1...@news.NERO.NET>, [ quoted text not captured ] All good comments - thanks, Jasper! I realized on the way home that i'd forgotten Zebulon and here is my revised version of the deck, which i dreamed up last night and this morning, before i looked at my mail. As you can see, it already incorporates a lot of Jasper's suggestions! Crypt: 5 x Greger Anderssen 2 x Zebulon Victoria Watenda Dollface Normal Brazil Masters [20] 4 x Madness Network 6 x Rotshreck 3 x Tribute to the Master 5 x Protean Direct Intervention [might drop this for a 7th Rotschreck] The Rack Combat [22] 3 x Flesh of Marble 13 x Claws of the Dead 6 x Form of the Ghost [might replace a couple of these by GtU] Actions [19] 12 x Bum's Rush 5 x Third Tradition: Progeny 2 x Graverobbing Reactions [15] 8 x Second Tradition: Domain 2 x Eagles' Sight Malkavian Rider Clause [might replace this by GtU] Retainers [2] 2 x Homunculus Equipment [3] Ivory Bow Inverary Castle Palatial Estate Votes [5] Malkavian Justicar x 4 Archon [as Jasper says, the votes are questionable. Might replace them by Judgements - Death to the Brujah and Camarilla Segregation, and Imperial Decree. Keep 1 Malkavian Justicar as a prayer card]. Action Modifiers [4] 4 x Forgotten Labyrinth [ quoted text not captured ]

AARGH!!! Fame! I need Fame! Fame instead of DI, probably. 5 x Greger Anderssen 2 x Zebulon Victoria Watenda Dollface Normal Brazil 4 x Madness Network 6 x Rotshreck 3 x Tribute to the Master 5 x Protean Fame The Rack 12 x Bum's Rush 5 x Progeny 2 x Graverobbing 4 x Swallowed by the Night 2 x Rapid Change 8 x Second Tradition: Domain 4 x Precognition 2 x Eagles' Sight 2 x Homunculus Ivory Bow Inverary Castle Scotland Palatial Estate Malkavian Justicar 13 x Claws of the Dead 3 x Flesh of marble 6 x Form of the Ghost GtU is worth a thought but i'm leaving it out because there is a LOT of Deflection in our environment at the moment, and none of my minions has DOM. When it works this deck should turn into a weenie swarm and then you don't need the bleed modifiers. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7a9qv6$dvn$1...@news.NERO.NET>, Jasper Phillips <phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU> writes >Ivory Bow's probably a good idea. > >[snip: Can you combo Rots, Amaranth, and RotBR?] > >Good question. That'd completely change the deck. My instincts said no, because it would be playing combat cards once combat had ended (card text from Rotschreck). However, I know that there are times when, even though combat has "ended" you can still do stuff. The recent (ish) reversal only targeted S:CE and not other forms of Combat Ends, so there is some confusion. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >[snip: Can you combo Rots, Amaranth, and RotBR?] > > My instincts said no, because it would be playing combat cards once > combat had ended (card text from Rotschreck). However, I know that > there are times when, even though combat has "ended" you can still do > stuff. The recent (ish) reversal only targeted S:CE and not other forms > of Combat Ends, so there is some confusion. You could never play combat cards outside of combat. That was inherent in the concept of "combat card". Except for some exceptions made for post-S:CE and Rutor's Hand. The rulings/errata that reversed those exceptions specifically targeted the exceptions, sure. But that shouldn't be confusing - rather clarifying. The reversal for the S:CE exception started with: Combat cards cannot be played after combat. REVERSAL: This includes after a Srike: Combat Ends resolves. In an attempt (futile?) to make that clear. -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7abmbj$fqu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, re-reading jasper's post i realise i need to explain this deck a bit better. The ideal is to use a Madness Network action to rush a minion out of turn. Manouever to close if necessary [Form of the Ghost rather than Claws because you can't rely on having superior protean, and also Claws costs more], strike Claws of the Dead and then Rotshreck if necessary [if you encounter S:CE, are fighting someone else combatty [not a problem if you flesh of marble having intercepted with Precognition] or anticipate damage prevention]. Then use another Madness Network action to diablerise or graverob or even, if they are famous, rescue the downed minion. With Homunculus, this has a chance of overcoming the inherent slowness of combat decks. Of course the deck can do other things - swarm bleed is plan B, and Princely intercept is another opportunity to torporise people. Judgement is necessary in the use of Rotshreck because you can only play one each time round the table. This version of the deck is going to need playtesting but my sense is that it could well achieve voting superiority by killing everyone else who votes and/or doing deals. In that case there might be a place for 1st Tradition: The Masquerade [because uniquely, you won't NEED your turn to hurt people] and in any event there is probably a case for 4th Tradition: The Accounting so's to get out more little vamps and/or gain pool. It's just a question of slots. Elysium, Obedience and Legacy of Power are the dangers for this deck. You can minimise these risks by voting out Elysium and being careful to jump on younger vampires and Princes first - or find a slot for DI. You want to be careful blocking vamps with FOR in case they are packing Kiss of Ra. Change of Target, Ghoul escort, Concoction of Vitality, Walk Through Arcadia and Day Op can be tiresome but all these have their own downside and they're not exactly strategies of choice for most decks these nights! There is another version of this deck with obf/cel and weapons. That works [though as James Coupe points out, it's a difficult deck to play], but i think this one will be even better. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ac68u$tt9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >Actually, re-reading jasper's post i realise i need to explain this deck a [snip Madness Networked Rush, then Agg + Rotschrek combo] Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable. Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with the Madness Network actions? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7adr0n$585$1...@news.NERO.NET>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yep, it's been ruled as OK by LSJ, and that ruling is the whole basis for the Malkavian OOT rush-combat concept. It is still the other guy/gal's turn when you play your Madness Network Actions so YOU can play OOT masters, but s/he can't. You can't, however, play Reactions, because these are played in response to other minion's actions. Curiously, i think that a Methuselah CAN play reaction cards in response to your Madness Network actions even though it's still his/her turn - so even though it's not your turn you can't play reactions, and even though it is still his/her turn, s/he can!!! Eeee, i LOVE this game!!!! [ quoted text not captured ]

phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <7ac68u$tt9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >Actually, re-reading jasper's post i realise i need to explain this deck a > [snip Madness Networked Rush, then Agg + Rotschrek combo] > > Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic > that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was > essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable. > > Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists > of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with > the Madness Network actions? Yes. It is still the other person's turn. -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic > that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was > essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable. The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected. > Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists > of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with > the Madness Network actions? Correct. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic > > that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was > > essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable. > > The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play > action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your > turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected. It's a little simpler than that, even. Action Modifiers and Reaction cards do not care whose turn it is, only on who the acting minion is (and who controls him). [1.6.3] No exceptions/alterations need be made for the MadNet cases. -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:20:46 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: >> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic >> that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was >> essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable. Noal> The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play Noal> action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your Noal> turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected. >> Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists >> of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with >> the Madness Network actions? Noal> Correct. Hmmmm... <evil plans forming>. Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :) //Petri

Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:20:46 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: > > >> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic > >> that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was > >> essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable. > > Noal> The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play > Noal> action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your > Noal> turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected. > [snip] > Hmmmm... <evil plans forming>. > > Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and > then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later > have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :) Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon, subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:12:00 GMT, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) said: >> Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and >> then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later >> have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :) LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon, LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707] Ah, yup, forgot to check the errata. Foiled again... on to the next Cunning Plan(tm) *grin* //Petri

In article <7adr0n$585$1...@news.NERO.NET>, Jasper Phillips <phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU> writes >Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists >of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with >the Madness Network actions? Indeed. It's not your turn (and no weirdness makes it your turn) so you can play it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri> Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and Petri> then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later Petri> have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :) LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon, LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707] Oh look. It's another one of those pesky 7/7 rulings. *sprays with can of MJL 7/7 repellent* Sure you can play it that way, Petri. *grin* Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > Ah, yup, forgot to check the errata. Foiled again... on to the next > Cunning Plan(tm) *grin* That was a lesson in why card text should be adhered to with rare exception. I see little reason for that errata. Paying 1 pool for a delayed deflection doesn't sound unreasonable to me. *shrug* Of course when we come up with the next "Cunning Plan (tm)", there will be errata made to prevent it, forcing us back into the same tired strategies. Pardon me, I forgot to take my cynicism pills. *wanders off* Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7afbit$nmj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > That was a lesson in why card text should be adhered to with > rare exception. I see little reason for that errata. Paying 1 pool > for a delayed deflection doesn't sound unreasonable to me. > *shrug* But it's better than a delayed Deflection. With Deflection, the new target gets a chance to deflect, block, or reduce. With whichever- boon-it-is-because-I-can't-remember-which-one-is-which Boon, the victim gets none of this. With the errata on it, you can't set up a situation where your risk in using the card is zero as you aren't going to increase a bleed on yourself. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7afbap$na5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn > LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon, > LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the > LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707] > > Oh look. It's another one of those pesky 7/7 rulings. > *sprays with can of MJL 7/7 repellent* > Sure you can play it that way, Petri. > *grin* Okay, so now I'm curious. Why was this 'cannot be played by controller of acting minion' clause added? As far as I can see this was always ruled the other way prior to 7/7/98, and in fact LSJ argued (way back in the day) that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. And the comment on the 7/7 ruling was simply that the VTES edition of the card had munged the 'you can modify the bleed' clause. Josh accidentally stirring up trouble? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Joshua Duffin wrote: > In article <7afbap$na5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn > > LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon, > > LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the > > LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707] > > Okay, so now I'm curious. Why was this 'cannot be played by controller > of acting minion' clause added? As far as I can see this was always > ruled the other way prior to 7/7/98, and in fact LSJ argued (way back > in the day) that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. And the > comment on the 7/7 ruling was simply that the VTES edition of the card > had munged the 'you can modify the bleed' clause. Now you've got me wondering how to abuse it without the errata... Well, suppose you have Madness Network in play, and a Malk with superior DOM who sits there playing Deflections at his predators bleed attempts. When the predator is finished, the Malk acts, bleeding for one successfully. You play Major Boon to take the loss yourself, then add Conditioning to increase the bleed to 3, thereby gaining the edge. Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make that Methuselah lose nine? Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn > > > LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon, > > > LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the > > > LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707] > > > > Okay, so now I'm curious. Why was this 'cannot be played by controller > > of acting minion' clause added? As far as I can see this was always > > ruled the other way prior to 7/7/98, and in fact LSJ argued (way back > > in the day) The RT examined that argument and effects of such a change (to allow OOT Masters on your own turn). It was decided that the change was not warranted. > > that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable > > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. and more abusive. The clause was added to ensure that the card functioned "correctly" in general - regardless of the turn-based playability of OOT Masters - whether by MadNet action or adjustment of the OOT restriction in general. Since the card needed errata anyway, the RT chose to go ahead and fix that part as well. > Now you've got me wondering how to abuse it without the errata... > > Well, suppose you have Madness Network in play, and a Malk with superior > DOM who sits there playing Deflections [on] his predators bleed attempts. > When the predator is finished, the Malk acts, bleeding for one > successfully. You play Major Boon to take the loss yourself, then add > Conditioning to increase the bleed to 3, thereby gaining the edge. You lose the 4 pool yourself. When you play Major Boon, you commit yourself to paying the pool loss required of that bleed action. And even without the Conditioning, you would still have gained the Edge, since the bleed amount was >= 1. > Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same > Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make > that Methuselah lose nine? No. Burning a Boon makes the Methuselah take the loss "instead of" you. After the first one is burned, you are not longer the Methuselah burning pool. -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, LSJ wrote: > > Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same > > Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make > > that Methuselah lose nine? > > No. Burning a Boon makes the Methuselah take the loss "instead of" you. > After the first one is burned, you are not longer the Methuselah burning > pool. OK, but is only the "first one" then burned, or all three? The conditions of burning have arguably been met for all three cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same > > > Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make > > > that Methuselah lose nine? > > > > No. Burning a Boon makes the Methuselah take the loss "instead of" you. > > After the first one is burned, you are not longer the Methuselah burning > > pool. > > OK, but is only the "first one" then burned, or all three? The conditions > of burning have arguably been met for all three cards. Burning a Major Boon is optional (card text). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ah60h$99f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable > > > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. > > and more abusive. Ah, so you changed your mind. ;-) > The clause was added to ensure that the card functioned "correctly" > in general - regardless of the turn-based playability of OOT > Masters - whether by MadNet action or adjustment of the OOT restriction > in general. Since the card needed errata anyway, the RT chose to go > ahead and fix that part as well. Okay, I'll buy that. I pretty much agree; the Malks don't really need to be able to use Major Boon for a clever sorta-Deflection angle, and giving everyone the sorta-Deflection angle is also fairly unnecessary. Josh [ quoted text not captured ]

jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > > that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable > > > > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. > > > > and more abusive. > > Ah, so you changed your mind. ;-) I was presented with convincing counter-arguments, yes. :-) -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]