Apparently the Leandro tax is a choice that you can either:
choose to pay a pool and have influence
choose not to pay a pool and skip influence.
and if you forget, going back and making the decision is allowed
(depending on ease of doing this, obviously, and game state. but in
general, it's required.)
other possible situations:
Infernal cost: another choice. tap or pay a pool. presumably follows
Leandro precedent.
Edge pool gain: not a choice as such. just something you can get. if
you forget, tough.
Hunting Ground: again, not a choice, just something you can get. if
you forget, tough.
Palatial Estate: not a choice.
Herald of Topheth influence phase cost: a choice. burn a pool or burn
the herald.
how accurate are my assumptions so far?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
"I like to play the field"-LSJ
salem wrote:
> Apparently the Leandro tax is a choice that you can either:
> choose to pay a pool and have influence
> choose not to pay a pool and skip influence.
>
> and if you forget, going back and making the decision is allowed
> (depending on ease of doing this, obviously, and game state. but in
> general, it's required.)
>
> other possible situations:
>
> Infernal cost: another choice. tap or pay a pool. presumably follows
> Leandro precedent.
All choices follow the choice ruling, yes.
> Edge pool gain: not a choice as such. just something you can get. if
> you forget, tough.
Right, it is an effect that can be used or not.
> Hunting Ground: again, not a choice, just something you can get. if
> you forget, tough.
Right.
> Palatial Estate: not a choice.
Correct.
> Herald of Topheth influence phase cost: a choice. burn a pool or burn
> the herald.
Correct.
> how accurate are my assumptions so far?
Spot on.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> > Hunting Ground: again, not a choice, just something you can get. if
> > you forget, tough.
>
> Right.
>
How does Hunting Ground differ from the Rack?
quote from other thread:
"> What about forced blood *gain* effects (beneficial rather than
> detrimental) such as The Rack on a vampire that I forget to move blood
> to before I play that Master? Does the 2 blood go on at the point of
> rememberance?
Beneficial, detrimental - it's all handled the same way - rewind if
able/convenient. Restore/maintain balance if not."
If I forget to gain, can I call judge and ask for a rewind/restore/maintain
balance?
John
John Alston wrote:
> How does Hunting Ground differ from the Rack?
Rack, The: "During the controller's untap phase, the chosen vampire
gains 2 blood..."
XYZ Hunting Ground: "During your untap phase, you *may* move 1 blood..."
(emphasis mine)
--Colin McGuigan
salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<skttb0d74eiflm27s...@4ax.com>...
> Apparently the Leandro tax is a choice that you can either:
> choose to pay a pool and have influence
> choose not to pay a pool and skip influence.
>
> and if you forget, going back and making the decision is allowed
> (depending on ease of doing this, obviously, and game state. but in
> general, it's required.)
>
> other possible situations:
>
> Infernal cost: another choice. tap or pay a pool. presumably follows
> Leandro precedent.
Although this makes logical sense to me, it doesn't seem fair, which
makes me hard to accept it in some cases.
In Leandro's case, Methuselahs are suposed to make their choice during
their untap phases (from card text). If they don't, I fail to see why
they should be given a chance to do that later. There was no default
choice, ok. But there was no pool paid either. And no pool, no
transfers.
The Infernal minion's case is even worse, in my POV. During the
Methuselah untap phase, they should pay a pool, or the Infernal minion
is tapped. Is that correct? If so, whenever they remember they didn't
make their choice, the minion is already tapped. Sounds like it should
be too late to go back and pay pool to keep the minion untapped, since
I had a "time wind" during which my decision should have been made.
I understand there is no default decision. But I also believe that, if
I don't choose during the appropriate time, I have wasted my
opportunity.
Anyway, LSJ wrote something about a "choice ruling". I'd really like
to learn more about it. Is there any link I can search for?
Thanks a lot!
Luiz Colon
"Luiz Col?n" <lcm...@ig.com.br> wrote in message
news:ee0501ad.04060...@posting.google.com...
> salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<skttb0d74eiflm27s...@4ax.com>...
> > Infernal cost: another choice. tap or pay a pool. presumably follows> > Leandro precedent.
>
> Although this makes logical sense to me, it doesn't seem fair, which
> makes me hard to accept it in some cases.
[snip]
> I understand there is no default decision. But I also believe that, if
> I don't choose during the appropriate time, I have wasted my
> opportunity.
>
> Anyway, LSJ wrote something about a "choice ruling". I'd really like
> to learn more about it. Is there any link I can search for?
It's not that it is "acceptable" to not decide whether to keep your
Infernal minion untapped during your untap phase, or to not decide
whether to pay for Leandro's ability during your untap phase. It's
that, when someone *accidentally* forgets to do this, during a
tournament, the judge must decide how to correct the situation.
What LSJ has been saying (as I interpret it) is that it's typically
appropriate, when not "too much" has happened since the error, to
"rewind" to the point of the error ("undoing" everything that has
happened since) and correct it from there, moving on after the problem
has been corrected.
In my own opinion as a judge, the player making this mistake would at
least get a caution (an untracked verbal warning) on making the mistake,
and would probably get a warning (a tracked verbal warning with no other
penalty) the second time. If the player kept making the mistake
consistently, I would eventually suspect that it wasn't accidental at
all, at which point the player could be subject to penalties for
cheating (which are pretty severe, intentional cheating typically
results in disqualification without prize).
If in fact it *is* too late to rewind to the point of the error (in the
judge's opinion), the game would, instead of rewinding, continue on from
the current point, with some other method of correcting the situation
used, at the judge's discretion. For example, if I were judging and a
table realized during the next player's turn that the last player had
influenced out another vampire without paying for Leandro's ability, the
player would have to retroactively pay (assuming he or she still had the
pool to pay for it) and would also probably get a warning. A "penalty
pool" for having skipped the payment at the correct time might be
appropriate depending on the situation - keeping in mind that the
intention of penalties is to *maintain* the game balance as it should
have been, not to harm the player making the mistake to the (unearned)
benefit of some (but not all) of the other players.
At least, that's my take. :-)
Josh
book 'em, dan-o
> In Leandro's case, Methuselahs are suposed to make their choice during
> their untap phases (from card text). If they don't, I fail to see why
> they should be given a chance to do that later. There was no default
> choice, ok. But there was no pool paid either. And no pool, no
> transfers.
>
Or you can look at it the other way, no transfers, no pool. Since they
forgot to openly forfeit them, they clearly intended to use those
transfers and you yank away 1 pool.
> The Infernal minion's case is even worse, in my POV. During the
> Methuselah untap phase, they should pay a pool, or the Infernal minion
> is tapped. Is that correct? If so, whenever they remember they didn't
> make their choice, the minion is already tapped. Sounds like it should
> be too late to go back and pay pool to keep the minion untapped, since
> I had a "time wind" during which my decision should have been made.
>
Clearly they left the minion untapped, which means they intended to pay
the pool, therefore you yank a pool away.
> I understand there is no default decision. But I also believe that, if
> I don't choose during the appropriate time, I have wasted my
> opportunity.
>
Having to choose in these situations isn't an opportunity, it's a
requirement. Just like paying the cost of cards is a requirement. If
possible, you have to go back and meet the requirement, and make the
decision.
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:2i9k36F...@uni-berlin.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct.
> In my own opinion as a judge, the player making this mistake would at
> least get a caution (an untracked verbal warning) on making the
mistake,
> and would probably get a warning (a tracked verbal warning with no
other
> penalty) the second time. If the player kept making the mistake
> consistently, I would eventually suspect that it wasn't accidental at
> all, at which point the player could be subject to penalties for
> cheating (which are pretty severe, intentional cheating typically
> results in disqualification without prize).
Correct.
> If in fact it *is* too late to rewind to the point of the error (in
the
> judge's opinion), the game would, instead of rewinding, continue on
from
> the current point, with some other method of correcting the situation
> used, at the judge's discretion. For example, if I were judging and a
> table realized during the next player's turn that the last player had
> influenced out another vampire without paying for Leandro's ability,
the
> player would have to retroactively pay (assuming he or she still had
the
> pool to pay for it) and would also probably get a warning.
That is certainly an acceptable way to handle it.
>A "penalty pool" for having skipped the payment at the correct time
might be
> appropriate depending on the situation - keeping in mind that the
> intention of penalties is to *maintain* the game balance as it should
> have been, not to harm the player making the mistake to the (unearned)
> benefit of some (but not all) of the other players.
As you say, the judge is there to help correct the game state after and
error and return it to a fair and playable situation. The game state
isn't supposed to be tilted against the player who made the error as a
penalty. That is handled through the various cautions and warnings.
-Robert
--
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:33:36 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>salem wrote:>> Edge pool gain: not a choice as such. just something you can get. if
>> you forget, tough.>
>Right, it is an effect that can be used or not.
from the rulebook under section 4
"If you have the Edge, you may take one blood counter from the blood
bank and add it to your pool. "
how is that not a choice? You may choose to gain a pool or you may
choose not to gain a pool.
[ quoted text not captured ]
You chose to use the effect or not. If you don't gain a pool, you're not
using the effect at all.
The difference from the Leandro case (et al) is that you can't chose not to
use the effect, it's the effect itself that will present you a choice.
Flux
Flux wrote:
> shawn stanley wrote:>> "If you have the Edge, you may take one blood counter from the blood
>> bank and add it to your pool. "
>>
>> how is that not a choice? You may choose to gain a pool or you may
>> choose not to gain a pool.>
> You chose to use the effect or not. If you don't gain a pool, you're not
> using the effect at all.> The difference from the Leandro case (et al) is that you can't chose not
> to use the effect, it's the effect itself that will present you a choice.
Correct. And during your master phase you "may" play a master card.
You can choose not to - it is a choice.
But there's no effect that triggers that makes you make that choice
(unlike Leandro, contesting, etc.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:45:42 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Flux wrote:>> shawn stanley wrote:>>> "If you have the Edge, you may take one blood counter from the blood
>>> bank and add it to your pool. "
>>>
>>> how is that not a choice? You may choose to gain a pool or you may
>>> choose not to gain a pool.>>
>> You chose to use the effect or not. If you don't gain a pool, you're not
>> using the effect at all.>>> The difference from the Leandro case (et al) is that you can't chose not
>> to use the effect, it's the effect itself that will present you a choice.>
>Correct. And during your master phase you "may" play a master card.
>You can choose not to - it is a choice.
>But there's no effect that triggers that makes you make that choice
>(unlike Leandro, contesting, etc.)
but isn't controlling the edge the effect that triggers the choice.
If you don't have the edge you can't make the choice to gain the pool
or not.
shawn stanley wrote:
> from the rulebook under section 4
>
> "If you have the Edge, you may take one blood counter from the blood
> bank and add it to your pool. "
>
> how is that not a choice? You may choose to gain a pool or you may
> choose not to gain a pool.
The difference is that the edge pool is optional ("You *may* take..."),
whereas Leandro, etc, are non-optional.
If Leandro's text was, eg, "Methuselahs get no transfers during their
influence phase. A Methuselah may pay one pool during their untap phase
to gain transfers as normal." then it would also be optional. But the
current phrasing is a non-optional choice -- you must decide in your
untap phase whether you're paying or not.
--Colin McGuigan
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. The Edge rule doesn't say: during your untap phase you must choose
to gain a pool or not.
Just like the master phase rule doesn't say: during your master phase
you must choose to use a master phase action or not.
Invoking the Edge effect is something you "may" do. It is optional.
Leandro's effect is not optional.
Handling a contested card is not optional.
> If you don't have the edge you can't make the choice to gain the pool
> or not.
If you don't have the edge you cannot invoke the optional pool-gaining
effect that requires the edge, correct. The rules are pretty clear on that
point, too: "If you have the edge, you may take one blood counter..."
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:14:57 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>shawn stanley wrote:>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:45:42 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>>Correct. And during your master phase you "may" play a master card.
>>>You can choose not to - it is a choice.
>>>But there's no effect that triggers that makes you make that choice
>>>(unlike Leandro, contesting, etc.)>>
>> but isn't controlling the edge the effect that triggers the choice.>
>No. The Edge rule doesn't say: during your untap phase you must choose
>to gain a pool or not.
>
>Just like the master phase rule doesn't say: during your master phase
>you must choose to use a master phase action or not.
>
>Invoking the Edge effect is something you "may" do. It is optional.
>
>Leandro's effect is not optional.
>Handling a contested card is not optional.
>>> If you don't have the edge you can't make the choice to gain the pool
>> or not.>
>If you don't have the edge you cannot invoke the optional pool-gaining
>effect that requires the edge, correct. The rules are pretty clear on that
>point, too: "If you have the edge, you may take one blood counter..."
righteo, cheers gov