OFFICIAL V:EKN BRUJAH ANTITRIBU NEWSLETTER -- October 2001

OFFICIAL V:EKN BRUJAH ANTITRIBU NEWSLETTER -- October 2001 Volume III, Issue 1 IN THIS ISSUE... * Introduction * Story Time! * Found in the Dustbin: Blood Brother Ambush * Center Stage: Julian Sanders * Deck of the Month: Battery Included * Editor's Soapbox =================================================================== INTRODUCTION: So who's da new guy, huh? =================================================================== Well, I'm sure not Wes. Before I start in on my own ideas, though, I'd like to congratulate Wes on his excellent job with the newsletter in the past; and I'm sure the Setites will have plenty to look forward to from the twisted depths of his mind. Which probably isn't even an insult, if you're a snake. ;) But with the previous editor developing a bad case of the slithers, this position was left vacant... which resulted in someone getting SHANGHAIED to fill the job, and that someone was me. =) Make of it what you will. But I do have some ideas, and I'm looking forward to the chance to parade them around and show off some new tricks. (Picture a circus elephant with Celerity.) For one, I'd like to take them in some new directions. Many people look at the !Brujah, and see Richter, Jacko, Hugo, and Victor Tolliver, and say "Rush!" And they're certainly very good at it, and you can make a quite-effective deck with them by simply including 60- 70 various POT or CEL combat cards. But that's not all these guys can do, and over the next few months, I'll try to explore some different facets and ideas; creating a bruise-and-bleed, stealth- bleed, and even turning them into voters... or even interceptors, as amusing as that might sound at first. So, enough with the babbling, and on with the show! This month features a card everyone's seen and looked at, and was even discussed recently on the newsgroup; a vampire that everyone's seen, but may NOT have looked at; and a bright-idea deck that might not win you any tournaments, but will definitely shake things up in your local metagame. =================================================================== STORY TIME! =================================================================== (sounds of static) <tap... tap...> "Uh. This thing on? Yeah, ...okay. Uh. Story time is, um, cancelled until further notice. Go find a poetry reading or something." ==================================================================== FOUND IN THE DUSTBIN: Blood Brother Ambush ==================================================================== Blood Brother Ambush: Action Modifier, Brujah Antitribu, 2 blood "Only usable when an action is blocked. Combat does not occur. Put this card into play. While in play, this card represents an ally with 3 life and 2 strength who can strike for 2R damage; this ally enters combat with the blocking minion. Blood Brothers may play cards requiring basic Potence as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood is paid with life. If a card would give them blood, give them life instead. Burn this card at the end of combat or if the combat is cancelled." Well, that's certainly a lot of text; that by itself and the 2-blood cost may turn a lot of people off this card completely, and certainly gives anyone a pause for thought. But it's probably worth it to at least CONSIDER including one or two in every !Brujah deck. Why? First and foremost, it gets around any annoying reaction cards, most especially the dreaded Obedience. There's nothing more annoying than taking a nice peaceful bleed-for-3 action with a handful of combat, only to have that fatass Lucian play 2nd Tradition and Obedience on poor Jacko. But BBA resolves BEFORE Obedience can be played, and Obedience may not be played against allies... which could be a very rude surprise. Second, it saves YOUR vampire from potentially risky combat. Pesky Gangrel and Tzimisce in front of you blocking all your bleeds and poking you in the eye? Let 'em poke the BBA for one; it doesn't care about those stupid claws. Tired of fighting the Illusionary Ravnos playing their Trap/Undead Persistence? You've got your OWN "not my vampire" card; screw 'em. No matter what they do to the BBA... it only cost you two blood. And you can even play the BBA when someone blocks a Rush action. Third, it's a clan-based card, meaning even poor old piss-ass Frederick the Weak (or conceivably, your Embrace/Creation Rites) can play this card when he gets blocked. Sure, he has to hunt next turn, but let's be realistic; he was going to torpor anyway. At least this way he gets a chance at hitting back. Now let's look at how it fights. It's an ally with 3 life and 2 strength that can play inferior Potence cards. As if that wasn't annoying enough, it can strike for 2R damage, meaning that while a simple maneuver might be enough to get away from a ravening Hugo, it won't save you from the BBA. And inferior Potence... not enough can be said about this. The BBA can play Immortal Grapple, ensuring that for your 2 blood spent you at least get 2 damage off someone. There are several basic variants that can be used: - A simple Trap will cause 6 damage to any otherwise defenseless minion, ...such as Lucian above, who was relying VERY heavily on his Obedience. In addition, you can 'draw out' offensive combat cards with a Trap, as opposing minions will need to hit for 3 on the first round or risk taking another shot for 2. - Adding in a few Growing Fury gives the potential for 2nd- or 3rd- round strikes of 4 each. No good against S:CE, but against anything else... - Using Pushing the Limit gives you a strike for 4 in the first round, which combines well with Immortal Grapple for a good single- shot combo that can't easily be got past. And besides all this... most of your !Brujah have Potence, and can play the same cards that your BBA can play. So even if you don't have the BBA in hand, Rigby is able to play Pushing the Limit too, and get almost the same effect (although you are putting Rigby at risk). I personally like tossing at least a couple BBA/Trap in a !Brujah deck, just to get my vamps out of a bad situation if nothing else. And it should certainly always be up for consideration -- 2 blood is cheap, compared to possibly losing a key vampire. ==================================================================== CENTER STAGE: Julian Sanders ==================================================================== Final Nights gave us a new friend, and he fills a gap in our clan that few people were aware of. We already have a six-cap, yes... but Sela's vast array of disciplines, title, and +1 bleed tend to make her quite a target and draw a LOT of unwanted attention. Julian, on the other hand,... Julian Sanders, Brujah Antitribu, 6-cap CEL pot PRE Sabbat. Julian gets one optional press each combat. Julian's disciplines are much more innocuous, especially the inferior Potence. But don't be fooled; he's as mean as they get. He's got the basic pot/CEL combo, meaning Torn Signpost/IG/Blur for 6 points of damage on the first round, and superior Celerity for all the utility cards it provides. His optional press is always handy to continue and possibly IG/Blur *again*, or (if necessary) to end combat and back away from a pesky opposing Trap or other potential problem. And his superior Presence lets him both bleed effectively with Social Charm/Aire of Elation AND play Enchant Kindred at superior to bring out all his friends like Rigby, Hugo, and Victor Tolliver. Sela is nice, but it's tough to overlook that +1 bleed and superior Potence. Julian gives us the option to NOT be obvious... something many people just don't expect from the !Brujah. ==================================================================== DECK OF THE MONTH: Battery Included ==================================================================== So, it's a pretty straightforward bruise-and-bleed deck. It includes both our Card and Vampire of the month, and it's got a couple neat tricks in it I'll explore in detail in future newsletters. The Enchant Kindreds should be played at superior, for pool gain and extra vampires. Try not to empty your crypt, or you'll end up wasting the EKs as bleed. Once you get set up and rolling, bleed heavily with your minions, using the Aire of Elation for an occasional boost, or the Legal Manipulations to provoke a block. Use the BBAs as necessary to save your minions (or just to surprise someone who blocked Frederick), but don't be afraid to discard duplicates, as eventually decks WILL just quit blocking you. For your predator, some Bum's Rush are included, as well as light permanent intercept; depending on your environment, you may wish to replace some of the Wakes with more Rush actions. The BBA gets absolutely no benefit out of the Torn Signposts (except cycling a card), so YOUR vampires are going to have to use them while intercepting, and here a Trap works well also. The Minor Boon idea is intended to be used when intercepting and vaporizing a predator's key vamp; you should be able to at least get one minion tied up this way. This can be credited to something I saw BJ Campbell do long ago, and while I'll save a long discussion of it for another newsletter, suffice it to say that it's always good to have Jost Werner unable to bleed you at *ALL* for the entire game. Deck Name: Battery Included Created by: DSR Description: Showcase deck for Blood Brother Ambush. Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 13, Max: 26, Avg: 4.92] 1 Amelia (CEL POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 7, Bishop) 1 Evangeline (cel pot pre, Brujah Antitribu, 4) 1 Frederick the Weak (pre, Brujah Antitribu, 2) 2 Hugo (POT pre vic, Brujah Antitribu, 4) 1 Jacob Bragg (cel pot, Brujah Antitribu, 3) 1 Julian Sanders (CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6) 1 Richter (CEL for POT pre, Brujah Antitribu, 7) 2 Rigby (aus CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 5) 2 Sela (cel obt POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6, Bishop) Library: (80 cards) Master (11 cards) 1 Amusement Park Hunting Ground 4 Blood Doll 1 Hungry Coyote, The 1 London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper 3 Minor Boon 1 Waste Management Operation Action (13 cards) 4 Bum's Rush 6 Enchant Kindred 3 Legal Manipulations ActionMod (14 cards) 6 Aire of Elation 8 Blood Brother Ambush Reaction (8 cards) 8 Wake with Evening's Freshness Combat (30 cards) 9 Immortal Grapple 3 Taste of Vitae 8 Torn Signpost 10 Trap Retainer (1 card) 1 Mr. Winthrop Equipment (3 cards) 3 Sport Bike ==================================================================== TAMING THE ELEPHANT: Bruise and Bleed ==================================================================== While this newsletter is already long enough as is, I wanted to briefly touch on the idea of bruise-and-bleed as a strategy. Many people malign it as vulnerable to Deflection, weak on bruise, difficult to mix well, and other flaws. I believe that if built right, bruise-and-bleed can be VERY strong; but it takes changing your style around a little bit. ...Like not putting all your eggs in one basket. While the basic idea of bruise and bleed is to make the bleed large enough that people need to block or it hurts, it isn't very effective to do this with action cards. Using action cards telegraphs your intent to your opponent, and also guarantees that you'll have to kill all his vampires before ousting him, as he'll sacrifice as many vamps as he can when a bleed that'll oust comes through. It's much more effective to bleed for 1 initially, and use action modifiers to increase as necessary; this way your prey must consider ALL bleeds a potential threat, and is likely to let through a number of bleeds for 1 that normally wouldn't get by, while saving his Deflection for Sela (who can then Rush someone). The idea is to constantly keep your prey off balance and guessing; this can only help you in the long run. ...Or Rush actions. You don't need as many of them, since you only need to kill your prey's vampires if they're doing something that makes your bleeds ineffective, like Deflecting them. Otherwise, your Rush cards could go backwards against your predator, since all those bleeds for 1 become potential cardless Rush actions. Or better yet, those Rushes could be saved until you REALLY need them; after all, you're going to have a good bit of warning before Grendel does anything that'll knock tons of your pool off. So that's it for this month. I hope you've found it interesting, informative, entertaining, or hell, even suitable for the bottom of the bird cage as a printout. At least you did SOMETHING with it... and the bird might even build a !Brujah deck. ;) Next month: - Survivalist: Does it suck? - Rigby: inferior Auspex? - Avoiding the Googler: using your momos - and a bright, shiny, new deck!

> ==================================================================== > FOUND IN THE DUSTBIN: Blood Brother Ambush > ==================================================================== > > Blood Brother Ambush: Action Modifier, Brujah Antitribu, 2 blood > - A simple Trap will cause 6 damage to any otherwise defenseless > minion, ...such as Lucian above, who was relying VERY heavily on his > Obedience. In addition, you can 'draw out' offensive combat cards > with a Trap, as opposing minions will need to hit for 3 on the first > round or risk taking another shot for 2. > > - Adding in a few Growing Fury gives the potential for 2nd- or 3rd- > round strikes of 4 each. No good against S:CE, but against anything > else... > > - Using Pushing the Limit gives you a strike for 4 in the first > round, which combines well with Immortal Grapple for a good single- > shot combo that can't easily be got past. As seen at Gencon: BBA, increased strength xlots, IG, undead strength. ouch. Cameron

Howdy Derek, Great start! I absolutely hate potence, and yet I immediately sat down and started tinkering with a !Brujah-potence based deck. (Or course, then I decided I liked your deck better and scrapped it, but it's the thought that counts...) One question, for you and/or the powers that be. (Disclaimer: I'm really not trying to be dense or trolling, I just don't really know the answer and couldn't find it. Please don't flame me.) > Blood Brother Ambush: Action Modifier, Brujah Antitribu, 2 blood > > "Only usable when an action is blocked. Combat does not occur. Put > this card into play. While in play, this card represents an ally with > 3 life and 2 strength who can strike for 2R damage; this ally enters > combat with the blocking minion. Blood Brothers may play cards > requiring basic Potence as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost > in blood is paid with life. If a card would give them blood, give > them life instead. Burn this card at the end of combat or if the > combat is cancelled." Much snippage. > Combat (30 cards) > 9 Immortal Grapple > 3 Taste of Vitae > 8 Torn Signpost > 10 Trap OK, so Blood Brothers can clearly use IG and Trap. I'm pretty sure they can't Taste; they can play cards as a vampire only if those cards require Potence, yes? The real question, though: Can they benefit from the Torn Signposts (or, say, Fists of Death or Fire in the Blood)? They can clearly _play_ those cards, but all three explicitly talk about 'this vampire' and have continuing action. Are the Blood Brothers still considered vampires for purposes of these cards after they have played them, for instance in the next round of combat? My guess is yes; I wouldn't be guessing (i.e. I'd be certain) except that I was kind of confused by the whole Talaq wants a Rutor's Hand/Akhenaten wants Ex Nihilo controversy, in which it was ruled that allies who are able can _play_ cards as vampires (and suffer any immediate side effects of such play), but they cannot _use_ such cards, where 'use' means 'benefit from (or be affected by in any way?) after play'. Given that both the cards involved in the controversy are permanents, I'm guessing that 'use' further translates to 'benefit from after the action in which they are played ends', which would make the Potence cards usable by Blood Brothers; the 'play' of these cards would effectively confer their (continuing) benefits instantaneously. I did, BTW, try to find and navigate the original controversy without much luck - everything I found was either too broad to read through in less than a week or too narrow to answer my question. Again, please don't flame me. Thanks, Alex

Alex Broadhead wrote: > One question, for you and/or the powers that be. (Disclaimer: I'm > really not trying to be dense or trolling, I just don't really know > the answer and couldn't find it. Please don't flame me.) > > > Blood Brother Ambush: Action Modifier, Brujah Antitribu, 2 blood > [...] > OK, so Blood Brothers can clearly use IG and Trap. I'm pretty sure > they can't Taste; they can play cards as a vampire only if those cards > require Potence, yes? Correct. > The real question, though: Can they benefit from the Torn Signposts > (or, say, Fists of Death or Fire in the Blood)? They can clearly > _play_ those cards, but all three explicitly talk about 'this vampire' > and have continuing action. Are the Blood Brothers still considered > vampires for purposes of these cards after they have played them, for > instance in the next round of combat? The effect is applied to "this vampire" as the card is played. The effect then lasts for the remainder of combat. The card doesn't remain in play. > My guess is yes; I wouldn't be guessing (i.e. I'd be certain) except > that I was kind of confused by the whole Talaq wants a Rutor's > Hand/Akhenaten wants Ex Nihilo controversy, in which it was ruled that > allies who are able can _play_ cards as vampires (and suffer any > immediate side effects of such play), but they cannot _use_ such > cards, where 'use' means 'benefit from (or be affected by in any way?) > after play'. "use" means "use the card in play" Contrast with Torn Signpost, which isn't "used" except when played. > Given that both the cards involved in the controversy > are permanents, I'm guessing that 'use' further translates to 'benefit > from after the action in which they are played ends', which would make > the Potence cards usable by Blood Brothers; the 'play' of these cards > would effectively confer their (continuing) benefits instantaneously. TS is not permanent. It is discarded when played. -- 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/

If another Methuselah plays a Left for Dead on your Blood Brother Ambush, what is the end result? Left For Dead: Master: out-of-turn Only usable as an ally is burned in combat. Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned. Put 1 life on the ally from the blood bank if he or she has no life. Tap the ally. If the ally with this card enters combat, he or she is burned. Burn this card instead of untapping the ally during his or her next untap phase. Blood Brother Ambush: Only usable when an action is blocked. Combat does not occur. Put this card into play. While in play, this card represents an ally with 3 life and 2 strength who can strike for 2R damage; this ally enters combat with the blocking minion. Blood Brothers may play cards requiring basic potence as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood is paid with life. If a card would give them blood, give them life instead. Burn this card at the end of combat or if the combat is cancelled. If the BBA remains in play, is its inherent bleed 8 or 0? Does the world end if this occurs? -Mike

Mike Ooi wrote: > > If another Methuselah plays a Left for Dead on your Blood Brother Ambush, > what is the end result? Assuming he somehow got burned in combat - he's burned again (when combat ends) by card text on BBA. You can't play LfD on the BBA if the BBA is merely being burned as a result of combat ending, since that isn't being burned "in combat" as required by LfD. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > Well, I'm sure not Wes. Before I start in on my own ideas, though, > I'd like to congratulate Wes on his excellent job with the newsletter > in the past; and I'm sure the Setites will have plenty to look > forward to from the twisted depths of his mind. Which probably isn't > even an insult, if you're a snake. ;) Hell, it's not even an insult to me personally :) Good luck with the newsletter. I'm happy to have it in capable hands (ie. a thug). <snip Blood Brother Ambush + CoolComboCard ideas> I've always liked BBA with Burning Wrath. It costs the entire life of the BBA, but who cares? He was going to burn anyway... may as well make himself useful in the process. He basically becomes a spontaneous Escaped Mental Patient. The advantage to this is that it simply takes two cards and two blood from a !Brujah to do 2 agg damage. I think this is a pretty cost-effective way to do some aggravated damage, especially when you're not a clan with regular access to it. Now, if you are facing a clan you are afraid of, chances are they have a maneuver or damage prevention, but what can you do? At least your vampire stays vertical for another turn. I was considering this combo as a trick-deck a while back. Basically 10 BBA and 10 BW with a lot of heavy bleeds or other obnoxious actions. Relying on BBA of course will often get you into the same mess that Hidden Lurker decks have. What do you do when people stop blocking you? Best used sparingly I would imagine... Don't forget however that people often block Bum's Rush to get rid of the inherent maneuver. Not when you throw this dirty trick at them! Cheers, WES

>I've always liked BBA with Burning Wrath. It costs the entire life of the >BBA, but who cares? He was going to burn anyway... may as well make himself >useful in the process. He basically becomes a spontaneous Escaped Mental >Patient. Doesn't the Blood Brother die as soon as you play the Burning Wrath? He has 0 life and combat ends before strike resolution...right? Halcyan 2

Played Derek, I enjoyed that newsletter, keep it up and all that.

On 3 Oct 2001 11:23:20 -0700, alex.br...@clearband.com (Alex Broadhead) wrote: >Howdy Derek, > >Great start! I absolutely hate potence, and yet I immediately sat >down and started tinkering with a !Brujah-potence based deck. (Or >course, then I decided I liked your deck better and scrapped it, but >it's the thought that counts...) *chuckle* I like that particular thought, myself. Thanks =) >One question, for you and/or the powers that be. (Disclaimer: I'm >really not trying to be dense or trolling, I just don't really know >the answer and couldn't find it. Please don't flame me.) Asking questions in the "i have a question?" phrasing will almost NEVER get you flamed, except by bozos. Asking questions in the "what the fuck? this aint right, what stupid dork made this ruling?" phrasing will usually put a big old target on your forehead, however. >OK, so Blood Brothers can clearly use IG and Trap. I'm pretty sure >they can't Taste; they can play cards as a vampire only if those cards >require Potence, yes? Yep. Which is just as well, can you imagine these guys being able to gain blood somehow? Messy. (As a sideline, note that if you have a Mystic Vagabond in play, you can tap him after round 1 of the Trap to give the BBA an extra life. =) >The real question, though: Can they benefit from the Torn Signposts >(or, say, Fists of Death or Fire in the Blood)? They can clearly >_play_ those cards, but all three explicitly talk about 'this vampire' >and have continuing action. Are the Blood Brothers still considered >vampires for purposes of these cards after they have played them, for >instance in the next round of combat? LSJ has already answered the technical details on this one. Realistically, though; the Torn Signpost won't help them at all, since they already have 2 strength (and not +1 strength, like Binaca). The Fists of Death and Fire in the Blood produce identical effects, but it costs a life off the BBA to use them, so unless you're going to whack someone in the first round ONLY, then it's not a very efficient use of his life. Increased Strength will work for the BBA, and NOT cost any of his life... meaning you can combo with IG/Pushing the Limit for a big ugly first round strike, and as always, most of the rest of your vampires can IS/IG/PtL just as well as the BBA can. As (you or someone else?) commented later, yeah, people WILL eventually quit blocking you; but that's why you should feel free to discard the BBAs as much as possible; especially if you get the Waste Management Operation out, where they can just end up on the bottom of your library again. All the rest of your stuff can be moved pretty freely. If I were tweaking this for a tournament, I'd probably pull out 2 BBA and a Taste, add in a Dreams, Sudden, and DI, and swap Richter out for Sarah Brando or Hector Sosa. And maybe yank out cards by proportion until I got down to 70, to increase the effectiveness of the WMO. -- Derek

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:47:43 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > >> Well, I'm sure not Wes. Before I start in on my own ideas, though, >> I'd like to congratulate Wes on his excellent job with the newsletter >> in the past; and I'm sure the Setites will have plenty to look >> forward to from the twisted depths of his mind. Which probably isn't >> even an insult, if you're a snake. ;) > >Hell, it's not even an insult to me personally :) Damn. I was TRYING. =) >Good luck with the newsletter. I'm happy to have it in capable hands (ie. a >thug). Grod thump vampires! >Relying on BBA of course will often get you into the same mess that Hidden >Lurker decks have. What do you do when people stop blocking you? Best used >sparingly I would imagine... Don't forget however that people often block >Bum's Rush to get rid of the inherent maneuver. Not when you throw this >dirty trick at them! They also often block Bum's Rush to force you to pick a fight with someone who can fight back, or who has a .44 and can maneuver away. =) Both of these get kind of negated. I have a lot in there because unlike Hidden Lurker, BBA has a cost. While you can be pretty sure that someone will play an HL every chance they get (virtually no risk at all in doing so, and no cost), it doesn't LOOK like you should be able to play that many BBAs without getting completely out of blood. You could run into someone who keeps happily blocking, thinking "How many of those can he HAVE in the deck, anyway?" ... And they can then, of course, find out. =) -- Derek

In message <tc0prt07p7v2n2uhe...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes >They also often block Bum's Rush to force you to pick a fight with >someone who can fight back, or who has a .44 and can maneuver away. =) >Both of these get kind of negated. Thinking purely tangentially, it'd also be a nice surprise against a deck that was playing Purchase Pact... -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BBC3AB1...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > >I've always liked BBA with Burning Wrath. It costs the entire life of the > > >BBA, but who cares? He was going to burn anyway... may as well make himself > > >useful in the process. He basically becomes a spontaneous Escaped Mental > > >Patient. > > > > Doesn't the Blood Brother die as soon as you play the Burning Wrath? He has 0 > > life and combat ends before strike resolution...right? > > Yes. Well... Sheeyit. In that case I apologize to anyone I ever played this combo on. However, I'm not sure I see the reason for this. Burning Wrath is a strike. Why wouldn't the BBA's strike resolve normally even if he does die in the process? It would seem comparable to a vampire with 2 blood playing Burning Wrath and then being hit into torpor. Just because the BBA is an ally, does the timing somehow change? Please excuse my ignorance but this is a new one for me. It must be for others as well since I have used this combo many times without complaint. Well... other than 'Waah! Wes torped my vampire!' Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > Burning Wrath is a strike. Why wouldn't the BBA's strike resolve normally > even if he does die in the process? It would seem comparable to a vampire > with 2 blood playing Burning Wrath and then being hit into torpor. Just > because the BBA is an ally, does the timing somehow change? He dies immediately when his life is reduced to zero. In this case, that would be during the "choose strike" phase - before strike resolution begins. A vampire with 2 blood cannot play Burning Wrath (under usual circumstances), but a vampire with 3 could. Since an empty vampire is still ready (unlike the case for allies), combat continues to the strike resolution phase. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Burning Wrath is a strike. Why wouldn't the BBA's strike resolve normally >even if he does die in the process? It would seem comparable to a vampire >with 2 blood playing Burning Wrath and then being hit into torpor. Just >because the BBA is an ally, does the timing somehow change? > >Please excuse my ignorance but this is a new one for me. It must be for >others as well since I have used this combo many times without complaint. >Well... other than 'Waah! Wes torped my vampire!' Well I'm sure that similarly, if a vampire with 3 blood and an Anathema on him plays Burning Wrath (reducing him to 0 blood), he burns from the Anathema and the Burning Wrath strike never resolves... Halcyan 2

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BBB7FA5...@white-wolf.com>... > Mike Ooi wrote: > > > > If another Methuselah plays a Left for Dead on your Blood Brother Ambush, > > what is the end result? > > Assuming he somehow got burned in combat - he's burned again (when combat ends) > by card text on BBA. > > You can't play LfD on the BBA if the BBA is merely being burned as a result > of combat ending, since that isn't being burned "in combat" as required by > LfD. > So when an ally is burned the combat keeps going? I thought combat ended once the opponent is sent to torpor or burned. In your scenario BBA is burned, then brought back with LfD and combat is still going so that when it ends the BBA is burned again? If that is the case can the BBA play Mighty Mighty Grapple for a press after being LfD? If this was the Case with LfD, wouldn't every ally rescued die again since they are in combat with LfD on them? In a related question, if an ally of mine is burned in combat after blocking someones action and I play LfD, can the opponent play Psyche and burn my ally via the text on LfD? My guess is yes. Brad Ward prince of NLV

In message <e5b93701.01100...@posting.google.com>, Brad Ward <wa...@nevada.edu> writes >> You can't play LfD on the BBA if the BBA is merely being burned as a result >> of combat ending, since that isn't being burned "in combat" as required by >> LfD. >> > >So when an ally is burned the combat keeps going? Left for Dead: "Combat ends." [ quoted text not captured ]

Brad Ward wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BBB7FA5...@white-wolf.com>... > > Mike Ooi wrote: > > > > > > If another Methuselah plays a Left for Dead on your Blood Brother Ambush, > > > what is the end result? > > > > Assuming he somehow got burned in combat - he's burned again (when combat ends) > > by card text on BBA. > > > > You can't play LfD on the BBA if the BBA is merely being burned as a result > > of combat ending, since that isn't being burned "in combat" as required by > > LfD. > > > > So when an ally is burned the combat keeps going? If the ally is burned "in combat", then combat ends. Not the situation being described above. > I thought combat ended > once the opponent is sent to torpor or burned. Of course. > In your scenario BBA is > burned, then brought back with LfD and combat is still going so that when it > ends the BBA is burned again? If the BBA loses his last life "in combat" and is therefore burned (meaning combat would end), LfD can be played on him. LfD ends combat. Combat ending trigger's BBA's text - meaning that the BBA is burned. > If that is the case can the BBA play Mighty > Mighty Grapple for a press after being LfD? No. LfD ends combat (card text on LfD). Combat being ended burns BBA (card text on BBA). > If this was the Case with LfD, wouldn't every ally rescued die again since > they are in combat with LfD on them? No. See LfD card text. > In a related question, if an ally of mine is burned in combat after blocking > someones action and I play LfD, can the opponent play Psyche and burn my > ally via the text on LfD? My guess is yes. No, since the minion is not ready when combat ends (he's being burned), as required by Psyche! [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BBDEA81...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't see why you can't Psyche! Left for Dead Master: out-of-turn. Only usable as an ally is burned in combat. Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned. Put one life on the ally from the blood bank if he or she has no life. Tap the ally. If the ally with this card enters combat, he or she is burned. Burn this card instead of untapping the ally during his or her next untap phase. Psyche! [cel] Press. [CEL] Only usable at the end of a combat when both combatants are still ready. Combat starts again. This is considered an entirely new combat: weapons can contribute their maneuvers for a second time, and so forth. When you play LfD the ally is not burned, doesn't that mean that the ally is still ready and is not "being burned" by card text ( "that ally is not burned" ). This would mean that the requirements for Psyche! (S) are being met. Or is it the case that the ally is "being burned" but by card text on LfD you do not burn it.

>Left for Dead >Master: out-of-turn. Only usable as an ally is burned in combat. Combat >ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned. Put one life on >the ally from the blood bank if he or she has no life. Tap the ally. If the >ally with this card enters combat, he or she is burned. Burn this card >instead of untapping the ally during his or her next untap phase. > >Psyche! >[cel] Press. [CEL] Only usable at the end of a combat when both combatants >are still ready. Combat starts again. This is considered an entirely new >combat: weapons can contribute their maneuvers for a second time, and so >forth. My best guess is that Psyche! must be played at the end of a combat but still during the combat. So normally, when combat is ended with Majesty for instance, there is a span of time for Psyche! to be played. Whereas with Left for Dead, there is no such opportunity. (Don't know if that made sense. Oh well). Anyway. Look at the text. "Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned." The not burned part takes place after combat ends. So at the time combat ends (when Psyche! would be played), the minion is still considered burned (and hence Psyche! can't be played). And then after that (past the time you can play Psyche!) the ally is saved and is ready again. Perhaps Psyche! would be allowable if it said "only usable as an ally is burned in combat. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned. Combat ends. Etc, etc." Just guessing... Halcyan 2

>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:3BBDEA81...@white-wolf.com... >> Brad Ward wrote: >> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:<3BBB7FA5...@white-wolf.com>... >> > > Mike Ooi wrote: >> > > > >> > > > If another Methuselah plays a Left for Dead on your Blood Brother >Ambush, >> > > > what is the end result? >> > > >> > > Assuming he somehow got burned in combat - he's burned again (when >combat ends) >> > > by card text on BBA. Forgive the messy quoting. Now what I don't understand is this: If BBA is burned in combat (due to a Blood to Water, or 3 Weather Controls, or whatever) and is saved by Left for Dead, then he's burned again by card text of BBA. But when a vampire is diablerized and plays Crimson Fury, he's only burned once. (Previously asked). Text: "Burn both the diablerist and this vampire. (The diablerie is still considered successful.)" Since the diablerie is considered successful, wouldn't the vampire be burned once by the actual diablerie. And if a Reform Body was played, he'd also be burned by the card text of Crimson Fury? (So you'd need a second Reform Body). Maybe it's just me. Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >Left for Dead > >Master: out-of-turn. Only usable as an ally is burned in combat. Combat > >ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned. Put one life on > >the ally from the blood bank if he or she has no life. Tap the ally. If the > >ally with this card enters combat, he or she is burned. Burn this card > >instead of untapping the ally during his or her next untap phase. > > > >Psyche! > >[cel] Press. [CEL] Only usable at the end of a combat when both combatants > >are still ready. Combat starts again. This is considered an entirely new > >combat: weapons can contribute their maneuvers for a second time, and so > >forth. > > My best guess is that Psyche! must be played at the end of a combat but still > during the combat. So normally, when combat is ended with Majesty for instance, > there is a span of time for Psyche! to be played. Whereas with Left for Dead, > there is no such opportunity. (Don't know if that made sense. Oh well). > > Anyway. Look at the text. "Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally > is not burned." The not burned part takes place after combat ends. So at the > time combat ends (when Psyche! would be played), the minion is still considered > burned (and hence Psyche! can't be played). And then after that (past the time > you can play Psyche!) the ally is saved and is ready again. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >news:3BBDEA81...@white-wolf.com... > >> Brad Ward wrote: > >> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >news:<3BBB7FA5...@white-wolf.com>... > >> > > Mike Ooi wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > If another Methuselah plays a Left for Dead on your Blood Brother > >Ambush, > >> > > > what is the end result? > >> > > > >> > > Assuming he somehow got burned in combat - he's burned again (when > >combat ends) > >> > > by card text on BBA. > > Forgive the messy quoting. > > Now what I don't understand is this: > > If BBA is burned in combat (due to a Blood to Water, or 3 Weather Controls, or > whatever) and is saved by Left for Dead, then he's burned again by card text of > BBA. Correct. LfD doesn't prevent the ally from being burned at a later time by some other effect. > But when a vampire is diablerized and plays Crimson Fury, he's only burned > once. (Previously asked). Text: "Burn both the diablerist and this vampire. > (The diablerie is still considered successful.)" Since the diablerie is > considered successful, wouldn't the vampire be burned once by the actual > diablerie. And if a Reform Body was played, he'd also be burned by the card > text of Crimson Fury? (So you'd need a second Reform Body). The "Burn this vampire" part is to answer the question "is this vampire still burned?" It is not a second "burn". [LSJ 12-JUN-2001] [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BC17E8E...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think I understand. I noticed that cards like Riposte and Catatonic fear say "combat ends and....." so their effect is a part of the combat ending. LfD's effect however is triggered after combat ends. Psyche! is played as combat ends as opposed to after combat ends, so, as stated previously, when Psyche! would be played ( as combat is ending ) the opposing ally is not ready. When combat has ended, you cannot play Psyche! and the minion is not burned.

In message <ts338h8...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes >I think I understand. I noticed that cards like Riposte and Catatonic fear >say "combat ends and....." so their effect is a part of the combat ending. No. If a strike does "Strike: combat ends and...." the "and...." occurs *after* combat ends. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:EJkh$q2yDZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <ts338h8...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer > <e...@i.think.not> writes > >I think I understand. I noticed that cards like Riposte and Catatonic fear > >say "combat ends and....." so their effect is a part of the combat ending. > > No. If a strike does "Strike: combat ends and...." the "and...." occurs > *after* combat ends. I think I'm confused again. Given the rulings on Riposte, Catatonic Fear and Left for Dead. It seems to me that Psyche! is played as combat is ending, combat ends, then combat starts again. Otherwise, if you play Catatonic Fear then Psyche! the damage would be lost and if I remember a ruling on the news group it isn't. Forgive me for going on about this, I'm not trying to convince anyone they're incorrect. I like to understand *why* rulings are the way they are rather than build a list of X beats Y unless Z. It makes it much easier to answer questions that haven't come up before or I can't remeber the answer to.

GreySeer wrote: > > "James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:EJkh$q2yDZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > In message <ts338h8...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer > > <e...@i.think.not> writes > > >I think I understand. I noticed that cards like Riposte and Catatonic > fear > > >say "combat ends and....." so their effect is a part of the combat > ending. > > > > No. If a strike does "Strike: combat ends and...." the "and...." occurs > > *after* combat ends. > > I think I'm confused again. Given the rulings on Riposte, Catatonic Fear and > Left for Dead. It seems to me that Psyche! is played as combat is ending, > combat ends, then combat starts again. Otherwise, if you play Catatonic Fear > then Psyche! the damage would be lost and if I remember a ruling on the news > group it isn't. Superior Psyche! is played after combat ends. It can be played after replacing your Fake Out, for instance. It starts a new combat. Catatonic Fear's damage would still be inflicted after the first combat, however. Psyche! can only be played if both combatants are still ready at the end of combat, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BBDEA81...@white-wolf.com>... > > No. LfD ends combat (card text on LfD). Combat being ended burns BBA (card text on BBA). > What I don't understand is this: BBA is being burned, so LfD is played. Either combat is ended first, or the ally is prevented from being burned first. I don't know how to resolve timing issues if the two happen simultaneously, so they have to be sequential, right? Going by card text, combat ends first. BBA is being burned, then combat ends. BBA says that it is burned when combat ends. Well, it's already being burned, so that effect doesn't matter. An ally can't be "doubly burned". He's already being burned (because the burning hasn't been prevented at the time when the BBA's burn clause kicks in), so the text doesn't change that. Now, LfD says, "The ally is not burned." Okay, so he's not burned, combat ended already, so the BBA's burn clause is not going to check again until another combat starts. Result: BBA is alive. If we instead consider that the burning is prevented first (which would probably be considered errata), then the ally is not being burned when combat ends. Result: BBA is dead, but if it were any other ally, then Psyche! could be played, because the ally is ready when combat ends. If you somehow allow both effects to happen simultaneously, then it appears that BBA is being burned twice, and only one of those burns is being prevented. So, it would die. However, this doesn't give any clear answer to the question of Psyche! At the time of combat ending, the ally is in a transition phase between ready and not ready. I don't like this scenario, and that's why I assume that one of the above must happen.

> > I think I'm confused again. Given the rulings on Riposte, Catatonic Fear and > > Left for Dead. It seems to me that Psyche! is played as combat is ending, > > combat ends, then combat starts again. Otherwise, if you play Catatonic Fear > > then Psyche! the damage would be lost and if I remember a ruling on the news > > group it isn't. > > Superior Psyche! is played after combat ends. It can be played after replacing > your Fake Out, for instance. It starts a new combat. Catatonic Fear's damage > would still be inflicted after the first combat, however. Psyche! can only > be played if both combatants are still ready at the end of combat, though. Would it be the case then that, after playing LfD that the ally is still being burned, you just don't burn it ( by card text )? This seems very odd and that kind of reasoning could be carried into all kinds of situations. "I can disarm you because I inflicted more damage even though you prevented it"

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:5287ede4.01100...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] This is partly what I am trying to get at. I fail to see how things are timed so that we get both BBA burning and Psyche! not "beating" Left for Dead given the card texts. I'm glad I'm not the only one :} Don't get me wrong, I want BBA to burn and I don't want Psyche! beating LfD but I can't see how.

Chris Berger wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BBDEA81...@white-wolf.com>... > > > > No. LfD ends combat (card text on LfD). Combat being ended burns BBA (card text on BBA). > > > What I don't understand is this: BBA is being burned, so LfD is > played. Either combat is ended first, or the ally is prevented from > being burned first. I don't know how to resolve timing issues if the > two happen simultaneously, so they have to be sequential, right? BBA is burned (by some effect in combat - say getting punched for 7). This would end combat. LfD is played (In the "combat is ending" period). Then combat ends. Then BBA burns (by card text on BBA). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC2D257...@white-wolf.com>... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > What I don't understand is this: BBA is being burned, so LfD is > > played. Either combat is ended first, or the ally is prevented from > > being burned first. I don't know how to resolve timing issues if the > > two happen simultaneously, so they have to be sequential, right? > > BBA is burned (by some effect in combat - say getting punched for 7). > This would end combat. > LfD is played (In the "combat is ending" period). > Then combat ends. > Then BBA burns (by card text on BBA). But then BBA doesn't burn, by card text on LfD. No offense, but your post didn't really explain anything. This is the way I see the sequence happening: 1) BBA is burned 2) LfD is played 3) LfD ends combat 4) BBA's text kicks in, burning BBA. 5) LfD says that BBA is not burned. Where is the problem here? I guess it must be in step 4. Personally, I don't even see how the BBA's text could kick in at this point. BBA is already burned when combat ends. Effects are not usually generated by cards that have been burned, unless the text specifically says that it takes effect after the card is burned. BBA doesn't say that. But I'll just assume that the text still has effect, since the LfD is played as the minion is burned. This seems to pretend like the death effect works like in that other game, and that fast FX can happen while the BBA is "on its way to the ash heap", but allowing that... The BBA is being burned. LfD has not yet said that the BBA is not being burned. Then combat ends. BBA's text kicks in, and it's still being burned. Nothing has changed. It was already being burned before combat ended, and it's still being burned now. Now LfD says that it's not burned. Are you saying that there's some way a card can be double burned, so that its burning must be prevented twice?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:5287ede4.01100...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He saying that BBA burns every time combat ends, and since combat ends is part of Left for Dead then Left for Dead would burn it by card text.

Chris Berger wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC2D257...@white-wolf.com>... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > What I don't understand is this: BBA is being burned, so LfD is > > > played. Either combat is ended first, or the ally is prevented from > > > being burned first. I don't know how to resolve timing issues if the > > > two happen simultaneously, so they have to be sequential, right? > > > > BBA is burned (by some effect in combat - say getting punched for 7). > > This would end combat. > > LfD is played (In the "combat is ending" period). > > Then combat ends. > > Then BBA burns (by card text on BBA). > > But then BBA doesn't burn, by card text on LfD. No offense, but your > post didn't really explain anything. > > This is the way I see the sequence happening: > > 1) BBA is burned > 2) LfD is played > 3) LfD ends combat > 4) BBA's text kicks in, burning BBA. > 5) LfD says that BBA is not burned. But LfD has already finished - it's not an ongoing effect (well, the "not burning" part isn't, at any rate). 1) BBA is burned in combat 2) LfD is played to save it. 3) BBA is burned when combat ends. > Where is the problem here? I guess it must be in step 4. Personally, > I don't even see how the BBA's text could kick in at this point. BBA > is already burned when combat ends. Effects are not usually generated > by cards that have been burned, unless the text specifically says that > it takes effect after the card is burned. BBA doesn't say that. But > I'll just assume that the text still has effect, since the LfD is > played as the minion is burned. This seems to pretend like the death > effect works like in that other game, and that fast FX can happen > while the BBA is "on its way to the ash heap", but allowing that... > The BBA is being burned. LfD has not yet said that the BBA is not > being burned. Then combat ends. BBA's text kicks in, and it's still > being burned. Nothing has changed. It was already being burned > before combat ended, and it's still being burned now. Now LfD says > that it's not burned. BBA's effect doesn't "interrupt" LfD in the middle of LfD's effect. This is the same sort of thing that has been ruled for Rotschreck. > Are you saying that there's some way a card can be double burned, so > that its burning must be prevented twice? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC3A1E5...@white-wolf.com>... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > But then BBA doesn't burn, by card text on LfD. No offense, but your > > post didn't really explain anything. > > > > This is the way I see the sequence happening: > > > > 1) BBA is burned > > 2) LfD is played > > 3) LfD ends combat > > 4) BBA's text kicks in, burning BBA. > > 5) LfD says that BBA is not burned. > > But LfD has already finished - it's not an ongoing effect (well, the "not burning" > part isn't, at any rate). > Okay, if LfD is already finished by the time combat ends (which is when the BBA burns), then I should be able to play Psyche! after a LfD has been played (on just about any ally *other* than BBA). Here's the deal... both cards, Psyche! and BBA, pretty much require the ally to be ready when they take effect. With BBA, if the ally is not ready when combat ends, then the ally cannot burn again. Because you agreed that there is no way for a card to be "doubly burned". With Psyche!, the ally also has to be ready when combat ends. If the ally is not ready when combat ends, then you cannot play Psyche! So, either the ally is ready when combat ends, or it isn't. However, for BBA, you're saying the card will burn itself because the ally is ready when combat ends. For Psyche!, you're saying that it cannot be played because the ally is not ready when combat ends. Both effects take place at the same time ("when combat ends"), and in this particular case have the same requirement... that the ally who has had LfD played on him is not burned. Is the ally considered to be ready when combat ends or not?

Chris Berger wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > But then BBA doesn't burn, by card text on LfD. No offense, but your > > > post didn't really explain anything. > > > > > > This is the way I see the sequence happening: > > > > > > 1) BBA is burned > > > 2) LfD is played > > > 3) LfD ends combat > > > 4) BBA's text kicks in, burning BBA. > > > 5) LfD says that BBA is not burned. > > > > But LfD has already finished - it's not an ongoing effect (well, the "not burning" > > part isn't, at any rate). > > Okay, if LfD is already finished by the time combat ends (which is > when the BBA burns), then I should be able to play Psyche! after a LfD > has been played (on just about any ally *other* than BBA). Since both combatants were not ready back when combat was ending, Psyche! cannot be played. > Here's the deal... both cards, Psyche! and BBA, pretty much require > the ally to be ready when they take effect. With BBA, if the ally is > not ready when combat ends, then the ally cannot burn again. Because > you agreed that there is no way for a card to be "doubly burned". LfD ends combat and saves him. (he's no longer burning) Then BBA card text burns BBA. > With Psyche!, the ally also has to be ready when combat ends. If the > ally is not ready when combat ends, then you cannot play Psyche! The ally was ready when combat was ending, so Psyche! cannot be played. > So, either the ally is ready when combat ends, or it isn't. However, > for BBA, you're saying the card will burn itself because the ally is > ready when combat ends. For Psyche!, you're saying that it cannot be > played because the ally is not ready when combat ends. Both effects > take place at the same time ("when combat ends"), and in this > particular case have the same requirement... that the ally who has had > LfD played on him is not burned. Is the ally considered to be ready > when combat ends or not? Before LfD is played: not. After LfD is played: ready. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC49AD6...@white-wolf.com>... > > > With Psyche!, the ally also has to be ready when combat ends. If the > > ally is not ready when combat ends, then you cannot play Psyche! > > The ally was ready when combat was ending, so Psyche! cannot be played. > The ally was *not* ready when combat was ending? > > So, either the ally is ready when combat ends, or it isn't. However, > > for BBA, you're saying the card will burn itself because the ally is > > ready when combat ends. For Psyche!, you're saying that it cannot be > > played because the ally is not ready when combat ends. Both effects > > take place at the same time ("when combat ends"), and in this > > particular case have the same requirement... that the ally who has had > > LfD played on him is not burned. Is the ally considered to be ready > > when combat ends or not? > > Before LfD is played: not. > After LfD is played: ready. Before LfD is played, combat is not ending. Combat doesn't end until LfD is played. If you're saying that LfD is an atomic action that both ends combat and saves the minion, then combat ends and the minion is ready at the same time, allowing Psyche!, but burning BBA. If combat ends first, then the BBA card is literally not around to burn itself. When combat ends, BBA is in the ash heap. Cards do not generate effects from the ash heap, unless they say that they do. BBA doesn't say that it burns itself after combat ends, nor does it say that it burns itself if it's not in combat. It burns *at the end of combat*, and it will not burn itself if it's in the ash heap at the end of combat. Which it is. Am I the only one having this problem? I know, I know, I said I wouldn't start any more aguments like 2nd Tradition, and this is another timing issue like 2nd Trad (I argued that a minion could not need intercept before it was blocking, and therefore the card either couldn't be played by a tapped Prince at all, unless it was usable by a tapped Prince regardless of needing intercept). I just don't see it as possible that you can say that the minion is ready when combat ends for the purposes of one card, but that it is not ready for the purposes of another card. Honestly, if you can figure out exactly where what I believe contradicts the rules or an errata, I'll let it be, but it just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC3A1E5...@white-wolf.com>... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > But then BBA doesn't burn, by card text on LfD. No offense, but your > > > post didn't really explain anything. > > > > > > This is the way I see the sequence happening: > > > > > > 1) BBA is burned AND COMBAT ENDS. Psyche! cannot be played from this point on. > > > 2) LfD is played > > > 3) LfD ends combat LfD Ends Combat redundantly. Combat already ends immediately when either of the minions involved is no longer ready. For the Left for Dead to be played, Combat has to already end with the ally being burned. > > > 4) BBA's text kicks in, burning BBA. Right. > > > 5) LfD says that BBA is not burned. Wrong. There is no timing stack. Each affect or card resolves completely before any other effect. Ally is burned. Combat ends. Left for Dead is played. Ally is not burned, combat is confirmed as not restarting or continuing. Ally is burned by its own text. > > But LfD has already finished - it's not an ongoing effect (well, the "not burning" > > part isn't, at any rate). > > > > Okay, if LfD is already finished by the time combat ends (which is > when the BBA burns), then I should be able to play Psyche! after a LfD > has been played (on just about any ally *other* than BBA). No, the combat ended when the ally burned. > Here's the deal... both cards, Psyche! and BBA, pretty much require > the ally to be ready when they take effect. With BBA, if the ally is > not ready when combat ends, then the ally cannot burn again. Because > you agreed that there is no way for a card to be "doubly burned". > With Psyche!, the ally also has to be ready when combat ends. If the > ally is not ready when combat ends, then you cannot play Psyche! You have too many abbreviations in this post. Obviously you need to rethink this paragraph. > So, either the ally is ready when combat ends, or it isn't. The ally is burned. Combat Ends. Everything else happens later. Read 6.4.3 of the Final Nights rulebook, or its online version here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_4_3 "If one or both of the combatants are no longer ready (because one has taken too much damage, for instance), then combat ends immediately. So if a strike inflicts more damage than a minion can heal or prevent, then combat ends at that point (no further strikes, no presses, etc.). This is true at any point during combat, not just during strike resolution." > For Psyche!, you're saying that it cannot be > played because the ally is not ready when combat ends. The ally is burned. Combat Ends immediately. Psyche! cannot be played after this point. > Both effects take place at the same time ("when combat ends"), and in this > particular case have the same requirement... that the ally who has had > LfD played on him is not burned. Is the ally considered to be ready > when combat ends or not? The ally burned. The combat ended immediately. Psyche! cannot be played. After Left for Dead has been played, the combat has ended (or been cancelled) and the Blood Brother Ambush burns itself. "Burn this card at the end of combat or if the combat is cancelled." The Blood Brother Ambush cannot be prevented from burning itself by Left For Dead. Damage or blood costs paid have to kill the Blood Brother Ambush in order for Left For Dead to be played. As the Left for Dead has to be played by someone who is not the controlled of the Blood Brother Ambush, it is a VERY pointless discussion. Should it happen in a game, have a great laugh. Then remove from cards from the playing area and continue on with the next action. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Chris Berger wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC49AD6...@white-wolf.com>... > > > > > With Psyche!, the ally also has to be ready when combat ends. If the > > > ally is not ready when combat ends, then you cannot play Psyche! > > > > The ally was ready when combat was ending, so Psyche! cannot be played. > > > The ally was *not* ready when combat was ending? The premise under consideration is that the ally was being burned in combat, right. > > > So, either the ally is ready when combat ends, or it isn't. However, > > > for BBA, you're saying the card will burn itself because the ally is > > > ready when combat ends. For Psyche!, you're saying that it cannot be > > > played because the ally is not ready when combat ends. Both effects > > > take place at the same time ("when combat ends"), and in this > > > particular case have the same requirement... that the ally who has had > > > LfD played on him is not burned. Is the ally considered to be ready > > > when combat ends or not? > > > > Before LfD is played: not. > > After LfD is played: ready. > > Before LfD is played, combat is not ending. Combat doesn't end until LfD cannot be played if combat is not ending. > LfD is played. If you're saying that LfD is an atomic action that > both ends combat and saves the minion, then combat ends and the minion Yes. > is ready at the same time, allowing Psyche!, but burning BBA. If BBA was not ready at the end of combat, so Psyche! cannot be played. > combat ends first, then the BBA card is literally not around to burn > itself. When combat ends, BBA is in the ash heap. Cards do not > generate effects from the ash heap, unless they say that they do. BBA > doesn't say that it burns itself after combat ends, nor does it say > that it burns itself if it's not in combat. It burns *at the end of > combat*, and it will not burn itself if it's in the ash heap at the > end of combat. Which it is. So long as it's in the ash heap, sure. If it makjes more sense to you that it got into the ash heap some other way, then fine. > Am I the only one having this problem? I know, I know, I said I > wouldn't start any more aguments like 2nd Tradition, and this is > another timing issue like 2nd Trad (I argued that a minion could not > need intercept before it was blocking, and therefore the card either > couldn't be played by a tapped Prince at all, unless it was usable by > a tapped Prince regardless of needing intercept). I just don't see it > as possible that you can say that the minion is ready when combat ends > for the purposes of one card, but that it is not ready for the > purposes of another card. Honestly, if you can figure out exactly > where what I believe contradicts the rules or an errata, I'll let it > be, but it just doesn't make any sense to me at all. X: He's not ready for the purposes of both cards. X => LfD can be played. X => Psyche! cannot be played. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ad96876213bac1c7977...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com... > > > AND COMBAT ENDS. > Psyche! cannot be played from this point on. > > > > > 2) LfD is played > > > > 3) LfD ends combat > > LfD Ends Combat redundantly. Combat already ends immediately when > either of the minions involved is no longer ready. For the Left > for Dead to be played, Combat has to already end with the ally being > burned. > > > > > 4) BBA's text kicks in, burning BBA. > > Right. > > > > > 5) LfD says that BBA is not burned. > > Wrong. > There is no timing stack. > > Each affect or card resolves completely before any other effect. > > Ally is burned. > Combat ends. > Left for Dead is played. > Ally is not burned, combat is confirmed as not restarting or continuing. > Ally is burned by its own text. > Like you said, there is no timing stack. The ally dosn't know that combat ended, because it ended while the ally was burned. If the ally could know that combat was ending, your sequence of events should look like this... Ally is burned. Combat ends / ally is burned by its own text Left for Dead is played Ally is not burned, combat is confirmed as not restarting or continuing (*) If there is no timing stack, then why are you buffering the combat ends effect all the way to the end. By (*) combat is long over. There is no second combat ends step here to trigger the BBA's burn clause. BBA only burns when combat ends, not 3 steps after combat ends, and not after combat ends and all additional effects have been dealt with.

Chris Berger wrote: > Like you said, there is no timing stack. The ally dosn't know that > combat ended, because it ended while the ally was burned. > > If the ally could know that combat was ending, your sequence of events > should look like this... > > Ally is burned. > Combat ends / ally is burned by its own text > Left for Dead is played > Ally is not burned, combat is confirmed as not restarting or > continuing > (*) > > If there is no timing stack, then why are you buffering the combat > ends effect all the way to the end. By (*) combat is long over. > There is no second combat ends step here to trigger the BBA's burn > clause. BBA only burns when combat ends, not 3 steps after combat > ends, and not after combat ends and all additional effects have been > dealt with. 1) BBA suffers burning effect meaning combat would end. 2) In combat, Left For Dead is played, ending combat and saving BBA. 3) BBA is burned by its own card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BC5D7AE...@white-wolf.com... > > 1) BBA suffers burning effect meaning combat would end. > 2) In combat, Left For Dead is played, ending combat and saving BBA. > 3) BBA is burned by its own card text. > You just don't get it, LSJ. We don't care about the timing of effects or the rules or card text. We want to be able to block a minion with BBA. We want to Computer Hack w/ BBA. We want the BBA to get a Leather Jacket and a Laptop. To do that, we have to get it to survive that first combat. JUST GIVE US WHAT WE WANT! GARFUNKELIN'! -hee Mike Ooi

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > 1) BBA suffers burning effect meaning combat would end. > 2) In combat, Left For Dead is played, ending combat and saving BBA. > 3) BBA is burned by its own card text. So, is Left for Dead playable when Blood Brother Ambush burns himself "at the end of combat" (by his card text). If not playable, is this because "at the end of combat" (BBA) does not count as "in combat" (LfD)? If playable, what mechanism burns Blood Brother Ambush after combat is over (since "at the end of combat" would have to count as "in combat," and the "is not burned" provision of LfD is enforced after combat ends)? - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > 1) BBA suffers burning effect meaning combat would end. > > 2) In combat, Left For Dead is played, ending combat and saving BBA. > > 3) BBA is burned by its own card text. > > So, is Left for Dead playable when Blood Brother Ambush > burns himself "at the end of combat" (by his card text). No. > If not playable, is this because "at the end of combat" (BBA) > does not count as "in combat" (LfD)? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote in message news:<GDlx7.700437$NK1.63...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] *smack* no, that's not the point. The point is to get an actual explanation of timing whereby the minion is not ready when combat ends, but somehow burns itself when combat ends. I have never played with BBA, and I probably never will. LSJ, please answer THIS QUESTION: Can an ally burn if it is not ready (i.e. if it is burned)? Also, can card text on an ally cause an effect if that ally isn't ready? You keep restating the same thing over and over, while I ask, nay beg and plead for an explanation. If an ally cannot burn if it is not ready, then it must be ready when combat ends, or else BBA cannot burn itself. Assuming (ally not ready) => (ally cannot burn) then, (ally not ready when combat ends) => (BBA cannot burn itself after LfD) On the other hand, (ally ready when combat ends) => (Psyche! *can* be played after an LfD), assuming other conditions of Psyche! are met. Don't say, "ally burns, LfD is played ending combat, BBA burns itself from its own text." You are purposefully skipping over the step that causes timing problems. You always put up this intentional blindspot, where if you simply look at what I'm actually saying and consider it, you will either a) agree with me that there is a discrepancy in the ruling, or b) be able to actually explain in a way that I will agree with. If you had done either one at the beginning of this thread, we wouldn't be here, 30 or so posts deep.

In message <5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes >*smack* no, that's not the point. The point is to get an actual >explanation of timing whereby the minion is not ready when combat >ends, but somehow burns itself when combat ends. I have never played >with BBA, and I probably never will. Combat is ending because the Blood Brother Ambush is being burned due to excess damage, or somesuch. That is, the burning is taking place in combat. So, we're leaving combat. Left for Dead is played and saves the ally from being burned. However, combat also ends; Blood Brother Ambush then burns *again* by its own card text. Left for Dead does not (in a manner similar to Undead Persistence's torpor avoiding effect) prevent future burnings, it just stops one there and then. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote in message news:<GDlx7.700437$NK1.63...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3BC5D7AE...@white-wolf.com... > > > > > > 1) BBA suffers burning effect meaning combat would end. > > > 2) In combat, Left For Dead is played, ending combat and saving BBA. > > > 3) BBA is burned by its own card text. > > > > > > > You just don't get it, LSJ. We don't care about the timing of effects or the > > rules or card text. We want to be able to block a minion with BBA. We want > > to Computer Hack w/ BBA. We want the BBA to get a Leather Jacket and a > > Laptop. To do that, we have to get it to survive that first combat. JUST > > GIVE US WHAT WE WANT! GARFUNKELIN'! > > > *smack* no, that's not the point. The point is to get an actual > explanation of timing whereby the minion is not ready when combat > ends, but somehow burns itself when combat ends. I have never played > with BBA, and I probably never will. > > LSJ, please answer THIS QUESTION: Can an ally burn if it is not ready > (i.e. if it is burned)? Also, can card text on an ally cause an > effect if that ally isn't ready? No. (If it is *being* burned, it can redundantly receive another burn effect - which will have no effect, like tapping a tapped minion - but that's not the case with LfD/BBA). Yes. cf. Mummies. > You keep restating the same thing over and over, while I ask, nay beg > and plead for an explanation. If an ally cannot burn if it is not > ready, then it must be ready when combat ends, or else BBA cannot burn > itself. The explanation is, as I have given: After LfD, the ally is ready (and BBA burns himself). It is not ready *when* combat ends (or LfD couldn't be played). But it is ready after LfD is played. You cannot interrupt the LfD effect. Just as you cannot interrupt Rotschreck (when combat ends) to play Psyche! 1) Ally is being burned (combat is about to end). 2) LfD is played (in combat). Combat ends and ally is no longer being burned. 3) BBA burns himself by card text. > Assuming (ally not ready) => (ally cannot burn) > then, (ally not ready when combat ends) => (BBA cannot burn itself > after LfD) Ally says burn when combat ends => burns when combat ends. The fact that something saved him from a prior burning is not pertinent here. > On the other hand, (ally ready when combat ends) => (Psyche! *can* be > played after an LfD), assuming other conditions of Psyche! are met. Ally was not ready when combat ends (he was being burned, by necessity, since that is a pre-req to playing LfD). Simlarly, you cannot Psyche! a Minor Boon save. > Don't say, "ally burns, LfD is played ending combat, BBA burns itself > from its own text." You are purposefully skipping over the step that > causes timing problems. Not true. > You always put up this intentional blindspot, > where if you simply look at what I'm actually saying and consider it, > you will either a) agree with me that there is a discrepancy in the > ruling, or b) be able to actually explain in a way that I will agree > with. If you had done either one at the beginning of this thread, we > wouldn't be here, 30 or so posts deep. If you say so. A similar argument could be made from the other side as well. This sort of haranguing isn't productive, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ's rulings still don't make sense to me either. The most problematic idea is that a single combat is ended twice!_ 1. ally is burned 2. Combat ends (can no longer play psyche) 3. Play LfD Combat Ends again, Ally is ready When LfD is played LSJ says that it's ending a combat and the ally is ready. Why no Psyche at this point? What combat did it end? who where the combatants in this second combat?_ Another timing problem is in the wording of LfD itself and BBA. LfD reads Combat Ends, then ally is not burned put a life on him etc. It would seem to me that LSJ reads this card in reverse as: 1. Ally is not burned. 2. Combat Ends (hence BBA burning again via text) Note that Rotschrek sends the Vampire to Torpor so of Course No psyche can be played after Rotschrek since the combatants are not both ready. Even though the rulings don't make sense to me I understand that BBA burns no matter what and Psyche cannot be played after LfD. Just wish I knew this before I lost LfD Garou to an Assamites Psyche at the last LA tourney :(. -Brad Ward

Brad Ward wrote: > > LSJ's rulings still don't make sense to me either. The most > problematic idea is that a single combat is ended twice!_ > > 1. ally is burned > 2. Combat ends (can no longer play psyche) Combat is ending. Still in combat. This is the timing at which Undead Peristence, Amaranth, LfD, etc. can be played (in combat, before the end of combat). > 3. Play LfD Combat Ends again, Ally is ready > When LfD is played LSJ says that it's ending a combat and the ally > is ready. Why no Psyche at this point? What combat did it end? > who where the combatants in this second combat?_ Ally wasn't ready when combat was ending, as required by both LfD and Psyche! If LfD can be played (as in the assumption above), then Psyche! cannot be. No second combat, since Psyche! cannot be played. > Another timing problem is in the wording of LfD itself and BBA. LfD > reads Combat Ends, then ally is not burned put a life on him etc. It > would seem to me that LSJ reads this card in reverse as: > 1. Ally is not burned. > 2. Combat Ends (hence BBA burning again via text) No. I'm reading it, as I've said so many times already, as printed. 1. Combat ends and the ally is not burned. Before LfD: combat. After LfD: no combat. => combat ended. => BBA card text burns BBA. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC6C4A5...@white-wolf.com>... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > LSJ, please answer THIS QUESTION: Can an ally burn if it is not ready > > (i.e. if it is burned)? Also, can card text on an ally cause an > > effect if that ally isn't ready? > > No. (If it is *being* burned, it can redundantly receive another burn effect > - which will have no effect, like tapping a tapped minion - but that's not > the case with LfD/BBA). > But it is being burned when combat ends. Okay, I give up. > Yes. cf. Mummies. > Sorry, knew I forget to put in a redundant clause in there (i.e. unless it says it takes effect from the ash heap. > The explanation is, as I have given: > > After LfD, the ally is ready (and BBA burns himself). > It is not ready *when* combat ends (or LfD couldn't be played). But it is ready after LfD is played. > You cannot interrupt the LfD effect. > Just as you cannot interrupt Rotschreck (when combat ends) to play Psyche! > That's not haw fou've given it. You gave it like this: > 1) Ally is being burned (combat is about to end). > 2) LfD is played (in combat). Combat ends and ally is no longer being burned. > 3) BBA burns himself by card text. > Which didn't help. I'm still don't agree that this is the correct ruling, but I see that there is some kind of logic behind it. I still don't understand how BBA somehow *knows* that combat ended, since it wasn't around when combat ended, but if it could know, then I see how it will be burned. > Ally says burn when combat ends => burns when combat ends. > The fact that something saved him from a prior burning is not pertinent here. > See that's the sort of thing I get annoyed at. What about (Ally says burn when combat ends) AND (Ally is not ready when combat ends). Then you have a contradiction. Call (Ally burns when combat ends) proposition (a). Call (Ally is not ready when combat ends) proposition (b). Call (Ally is able to be burned when combat ends) proposition (c). (a) => (c) (b) => !(c) (a) AND (b) => ? (don't know how to do an upsidedown U for intersection...) The way I look at it, (a) and (b) => !(c). All I wanted is for you to refute (b) => !(c), which you have done above. Thank you. > If you say so. A similar argument could be made from the other side > as well. This sort of haranguing isn't productive, however. Isn't it? I agree that you've explained why it could occur. I still don't agree with the conclusion, but I seem to have coaxed an explanation out of you, finally.

Chris Berger wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BC6C4A5...@white-wolf.com>... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > LSJ, please answer THIS QUESTION: Can an ally burn if it is not ready > > > (i.e. if it is burned)? Also, can card text on an ally cause an > > > effect if that ally isn't ready? > > > > No. (If it is *being* burned, it can redundantly receive another burn effect > > - which will have no effect, like tapping a tapped minion - but that's not > > the case with LfD/BBA). > > > But it is being burned when combat ends. Okay, I give up. Yes, by LfD/BBA doesn't add another burn at that stage. LfD/BBA burns BBA after combat (after the initial burn is thwarted). > > Yes. cf. Mummies. > > > Sorry, knew I forget to put in a redundant clause in there (i.e. > unless it says it takes effect from the ash heap. OK. See also Charnas (a retainer whose text applies when he's being burned). Either way, the point isn't applicable here, since BBA is burning itself after LfD has saved it. > > The explanation is, as I have given: > > 1. > > After LfD, the ally is ready (and BBA burns himself). 2. > > It is not ready *when* combat ends (or LfD couldn't be played). But it is ready after LfD is played. 3. > > You cannot interrupt the LfD effect. 4. > > Just as you cannot interrupt Rotschreck (when combat ends) to play Psyche! > > > That's not haw fou've given it. You gave it like this: > > > 1) Ally is being burned (combat is about to end). > > 2) LfD is played (in combat). Combat ends and ally is no longer being burned. > > 3) BBA burns himself by card text. While it's true that I've said that, that doesn't mean that I haven't given it any other way. See Message-ID: 3BC49AD6...@white-wolf.com (a follow-up to one of your posts) for an example of the explanation I was referring to. That messages says "LfD ends combat and saves him. Then BBA card text burns BBA" (point 1) And "both combatants were not ready when combat was ending" (point 2) Points 3 and 4 were made in a different message, again in a follow-up to one of your posts. Message-ID: 3BC3A1E5...@white-wolf.com > Which didn't help. I'm still don't agree that this is the correct > ruling, but I see that there is some kind of logic behind it. I still > don't understand how BBA somehow *knows* that combat ended, since it > wasn't around when combat ended, but if it could know, then I see how > it will be burned. > > > Ally says burn when combat ends => burns when combat ends. > > The fact that something saved him from a prior burning is not pertinent here. > > > See that's the sort of thing I get annoyed at. What about (Ally says > burn when combat ends) AND (Ally is not ready when combat ends). Then > you have a contradiction. No. There is no contradiction there. If you burn BBA in combat and don't save him, his "burn me" clause won't contradict that burning - it's redundant, not contradictory. That was covered in my previous post, quoted at the top of this message. > Call (Ally burns when combat ends) > proposition (a). Call (Ally is not ready when combat ends) > proposition (b). Call (Ally is able to be burned when combat ends) > proposition (c). > > (a) => (c) > (b) => !(c) (b) does not imply !(c) Being burned doesn't mean you are not able to be burned. > (a) AND (b) => ? > (don't know how to do an upsidedown U for intersection...) (a) AND (b) => (c) > The way I look at it, (a) and (b) => !(c). All I wanted is for you to > refute (b) => !(c), which you have done above. Thank you. > > > If you say so. A similar argument could be made from the other side > > as well. This sort of haranguing isn't productive, however. > > Isn't it? I agree that you've explained why it could occur. I still > don't agree with the conclusion, but I seem to have coaxed an > explanation out of you, finally. It matches my previous posts. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Chris Berger wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > No. (If it is *being* burned, it can redundantly receive another burn effect > > > - which will have no effect, like tapping a tapped minion - but that's not > > > the case with LfD/BBA). > > > > > But it is being burned when combat ends. Okay, I give up. > > Yes, by LfD/BBA doesn't add another burn at that stage. > LfD/BBA burns BBA after combat (after the initial burn is thwarted). That's not how my Blood Brother Ambush reads. "Burn this card at the end of combat or if the combat is canceled." Left for Dead reads: "Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned." My question, I suppose, is whether events described in card texts occur simultaneously or sequentially. If they occur simultaneously, then it seems that Blood Brother Ambush burns itself simultaneously with Left for Dead's text advising that the ally is not burned, causing a timing problem that may or may not have yet been discussed. If they occur sequentially, then it seems that Blood Brother Ambush must not burn itself, since the burning "at the end of combat" is redundant to it already being burned from combat, while Left for Dead insists "that ally is not burned" after "combat ends." Pah, neither of these observations please me, so I don't want to wade deeper into either until I know for sure whether card texts occur simultaneously or sequentially. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > > > No. (If it is *being* burned, it can redundantly receive another burn > effect > > > > - which will have no effect, like tapping a tapped minion - but that's > not > > > > the case with LfD/BBA). > > > > > > > But it is being burned when combat ends. Okay, I give up. > > > > Yes, by LfD/BBA doesn't add another burn at that stage. > > LfD/BBA burns BBA after combat (after the initial burn is thwarted). > > That's not how my Blood Brother Ambush reads. > "Burn this card at the end of combat or if the combat is canceled." > > Left for Dead reads: > "Combat ends. Put this card on that ally; that ally is not burned." > > My question, I suppose, is whether events described in card texts > occur simultaneously or sequentially. Atomically. That is - it doesn't matter (see below). > If they occur simultaneously, then it seems that Blood Brother > Ambush burns itself simultaneously with Left for Dead's text > advising that the ally is not burned, causing a timing problem > that may or may not have yet been discussed. BBA's effect won't interrupt LfD's effect, so the timing problem doesn't materialize. > If they occur sequentially, then it seems that Blood Brother > Ambush must not burn itself, since the burning "at the end of > combat" is redundant to it already being burned from combat, > while Left for Dead insists "that ally is not burned" after > "combat ends." > > Pah, neither of these observations please me, so I don't > want to wade deeper into either until I know for sure > whether card texts occur simultaneously or sequentially. If it suits you more, take BBA's text to mean "after combat" instead of "at the end of combat". The errata isn't there, but the result is the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > > My question, I suppose, is whether events described in card texts > > occur simultaneously or sequentially. > > Atomically. That is - it doesn't matter (see below). Hrm. It may not matter for this particular situation, but it would still please me to have an answer, if there is one. For instance, if I have a card that says "Combat ends, untap this vampire." Does combat end first, then the vampire untaps, do the two events happen simultaneously, or does Heidelberg's Uncertainty Principle still apply? - Jason Bell P.S. And I really don't like this: LSJ wrote: > If it suits you more, take BBA's text to mean "after combat" > instead of "at the end of combat". The errata isn't there, > but the result is the same. Because if card texts aren't important, then perhaps we're all better off eliminating some of the other contradictions that card texts produce instead of reading some of them as they are written and errata-ing others on the fly.

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > > My question, I suppose, is whether events described in card texts > > > occur simultaneously or sequentially. > > > > Atomically. That is - it doesn't matter (see below). > > Hrm. It may not matter for this particular situation, > but it would still please me to have an answer, if > there is one. > > For instance, if I have a card that says > "Combat ends, untap this vampire." > > Does combat end first, then the vampire untaps, > do the two events happen simultaneously, or > does Heidelberg's Uncertainty Principle > still apply? It still doesn't matter, but treat the two as happening simultaneously. > - Jason Bell > > P.S. And I really don't like this: > LSJ wrote: > > If it suits you more, take BBA's text to mean "after combat" > > instead of "at the end of combat". The errata isn't there, > > but the result is the same. > Because if card texts aren't important, then perhaps we're > all better off eliminating some of the other contradictions > that card texts produce instead of reading some of them > as they are written and errata-ing others on the fly. My statement doesn't mean that card texts aren't important. I was trying to get the effect of card text across, since some players were having trouble with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: Dude, it's 6am EDT on a Saturday. I'm impressed with a prompt and responsive customer service representative, but for the love of Pete, take a break. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:2DUx7.5816$xf7.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He's probably up changing diapers. He'll go back to bed soon. =) > > - Jason Bell > Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_ "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." wrote: > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message > news:2DUx7.5816$xf7.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > Dude, it's 6am EDT on a Saturday. > > > > I'm impressed with a prompt and responsive customer > > service representative, but for the love of Pete, take > > a break. > > He's probably up changing diapers. He'll go back to bed soon. =) :-) Nah. The baby decided to sleep through the night for once, so that wasn't it. Actually I was doing some volunteer work yesterday. I got up when the alarm went off (and checked the NG 'cause I can't help it :-) [ quoted text not captured ]