rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Some questions from Italy

5 messages from 4 participants · 13 April 2001
original thread on Google Groups

Vampyr

Hi there, this is my first post on the newsgroup, I hope I won't tire you with stupid questions and the like, but... some problems arised when I was looking to a game - not even playing!- today. Here they follow: 1) Is burning wrath playable by the Blood Brothers?? - I think NOT, but the guy there was playing with 12 BB and 12 BW in his "challenging" !Brujah deck he "just completed yesterday night"... and HE was saying you remove costs at the end, blah blah. Point is, I'm an ally, I've got 3 life, I spend 3, I die. Right? 2) Some chaotical things happened about vast wealth: 2.1) I use my action to go through my deck and so on, I find, say, a palatial estate while having just 1 blood on my vampire; what's going to happen?? 2.1.1) Should I tap the vampire, burn the palatial and not being victim of a possible intercept (I mean, they can't intercept me :-)) 2.1.2) The vampire doesn't tap, the card is burned, I shuffle the deck 2.1.3) The vampire doesn't tap, the card is not burned, I shuffle 2.2) I use vast wealth and the equipment that shows off costs more than the pool I have... 2.3) Can I choose to equip or not?? 2.4) I use vast wealth, I find a leather jacket, I play it. I think I'm not going to untap the vampire, as leather's wording clearly says when the equipment action etc.. with the leather is succesful.. blah blah; Am I wrong? thanks all Vampyr

James Coupe

In message <6csB6.3249$s93.2...@news.infostrada.it>, Vampyr <lucio.m...@libero.it> writes >1) Is burning wrath playable by the Blood Brothers?? Yes. They can play it and have the life for it. >- I think NOT, but the >guy there was playing with 12 BB and 12 BW in his "challenging" !Brujah deck >he "just completed yesterday night"... and HE was saying you remove costs at >the end, blah blah. Point is, I'm an ally, I've got 3 life, I spend 3, I >die. Right? When an ally has no life, it dies. In this case, you *can* play BW, but then the ally dies. >2) Some chaotical things happened about vast wealth: > 2.1) I use my action to go through my deck and so on, I find, say, a >palatial estate while having just 1 blood on my vampire; > what's going to happen?? "If the equipment cannot be legally placed on the vampire, it is burned without cost. [RTR] " Since you can't pay for it, you burn it. > 2.1.1) Should I tap the vampire, burn the palatial and not being >victim of a possible intercept (I mean, they can't intercept me :-)) That's not how Vast Wealth works. 1) Take action 2) Resolve blocking attempts 3) When action is successful, you *now* go and look for the card. "You only search your library if the action is successful. [TOM 19951107] " So, in your case: 1) Take the action (tapping the vampire) 2) Action is successful, following any block attempts 3) Find the Palatial Estate 4) Burn it, because you have insufficient blood. > 2.2) I use vast wealth and the equipment that shows off costs more than >the pool I have... > 2.3) Can I choose to equip or not?? No. "Paying for the equipment found is not optional. If paying the cost will oust the controlling Methuselah, then she is ousted. [RTR 19941109] " You *must* equip and *must* pay for it if you can. However, I can see a potential conflict between this and the cited RTR above, since you couldn't legally place the card on the vampire if you couldn't pay for it (e.g. you got a sub machine gun out when you only had 2 pool). > 2.4) I use vast wealth, I find a leather jacket, I play it. I think I'm >not going to untap the vampire, as leather's wording clearly says when the >equipment > action etc.. with the leather is succesful.. blah blah; Am I >wrong? The action with Vast Wealth is considered an equip action, so I'd let you untap at the end of the phase. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

Halcyan 2

>You *must* equip and *must* pay for it if you can. However, I can see a >potential conflict between this and the cited RTR above, since you >couldn't legally place the card on the vampire if you couldn't pay for >it (e.g. you got a sub machine gun out when you only had 2 pool). I was wondering about this a while back and I also thought it was sort of strange. If you had 2 pool, you wouldn't get ousted if you Vast Wealthed a SMG but if you draw a .44 then poof! I don't think it's *that* much of a problem (not worthy of a change) but I think it's sort of silly that you would have to go through all sorts of calculations. In that case above if you had .44's, SMG's, and some other non-pool equipment that you really needed, it might be better for you to lose a pool (to go down to 1) to insure that you aren't ousted by your own Vast Wealth... Halcyan 2

LSJ

James Coupe wrote: > Vampyr <lucio.m...@libero.it> writes > >1) Is burning wrath playable by the Blood Brothers?? > > Yes. They can play it and have the life for it. > > >- I think NOT, but the > >guy there was playing with 12 BB and 12 BW in his "challenging" !Brujah deck > >he "just completed yesterday night"... and HE was saying you remove costs at > >the end, blah blah. Point is, I'm an ally, I've got 3 life, I spend 3, I > >die. Right? > > When an ally has no life, it dies. In this case, you *can* play BW, but > then the ally dies. Right. You pay the cost *to* play the card - the "remove costs at the end" is not supported anywhere in the rules, except for action cards (and you still pay the cost *before* applying the effects of the successful action). If a strike card costs the ally his last life, he burns (and combat ends) before moving on to the "reolve strike" step. > >2) Some chaotical things happened about vast wealth: > > 2.1) I use my action to go through my deck and so on, I find, say, a > >palatial estate while having just 1 blood on my vampire; > > what's going to happen?? > > "If the equipment cannot be legally placed on the vampire, it is burned > without cost. [RTR] " > > Since you can't pay for it, you burn it. True, but the ruling you cite isn't what covers that. That ruling covers things like grabbing a second vehicle, a second Leather Jacket, or an equipment that requires a clan other than the acting vampire's clan, etc. If you cannot pay the pool cost, you're ousted. [RTR 06-OCT-1994] If you cannot pay the blood cost, the equipment is burned and no blood is lost. [LSJ 27-FEB-1997] > > 2.1.1) Should I tap the vampire, burn the palatial and not being > >victim of a possible intercept (I mean, they can't intercept me :-)) > > That's not how Vast Wealth works. > > 1) Take action > 2) Resolve blocking attempts > 3) When action is successful, you *now* go and look for the card. > > "You only search your library if the action is successful. [TOM > 19951107] " Correct. > So, in your case: > > 1) Take the action (tapping the vampire) > 2) Action is successful, following any block attempts > 3) Find the Palatial Estate > 4) Burn it, because you have insufficient blood. > > > 2.2) I use vast wealth and the equipment that shows off costs more than > >the pool I have... > > 2.3) Can I choose to equip or not?? > > No. > > "Paying for the equipment found is not optional. If paying the cost will > oust the controlling Methuselah, then she is ousted. [RTR 19941109] " > > You *must* equip and *must* pay for it if you can. However, I can see a > potential conflict between this and the cited RTR above, since you > couldn't legally place the card on the vampire if you couldn't pay for > it (e.g. you got a sub machine gun out when you only had 2 pool). No conflict. The Submachine Gun can legally be played by any minion, so the first RTR doesn't affect this. If you cannot pay the pool cost, you're ousted. > > 2.4) I use vast wealth, I find a leather jacket, I play it. I think I'm > >not going to untap the vampire, as leather's wording clearly says when the > >equipment > > action etc.. with the leather is succesful.. blah blah; Am I > >wrong? > > The action with Vast Wealth is considered an equip action, so I'd let > you untap at the end of the phase. Correct. [TOM 30-JAN-1996] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe

In message <3AD6ED29...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes >> You *must* equip and *must* pay for it if you can. However, I can see a >> potential conflict between this and the cited RTR above, since you >> couldn't legally place the card on the vampire if you couldn't pay for >> it (e.g. you got a sub machine gun out when you only had 2 pool). > >No conflict. The Submachine Gun can legally be played by any minion, so >the first RTR doesn't affect this. If you cannot pay the pool cost, you're >ousted. Which conflicts with the more general ruling established in: "You cannot play a card whose cost cannot be paid. [TOM 19960514] " ">>You cannot pay part of a cost.<< If, between the time a card is played and the time the cost is paid, you no longer can pay the cost, then no cost is paid and the card is burned without effect. [TOM 19960514]" (Emphasis mine.) "this minion <can equip>" is the text on Vast Wealth. Does that equipping count as playing the card? More specifically, could you burn a <blah> played via Vast Wealth with Direct Intervention? ("Can only burn minion cards played from the hand in the normal fasion <<sic - typo catch>> (not weapons played via Disguised Weapon or equipment played via Pier 13, for example). [RTR 20001020] " suggests not, with reference to the hand.) Either way, is it worth having one card step out of the established mechanics for paying costs? It doesn't seem to have any pressing need to stay in the errata/rulings, and, if anything, it provides a (minor) benefit to equipment (often a fragile strategy) as an upside. [ quoted text not captured ]