Haven Uncovered...

Hello...I was just wondering...could a haven uncovered be played on one of your own vampires. Say could I put fame on Smudge...then haven uncovered on him next turn would it be legal to attack my own vampire then? Any light you can shed on this subject would be greatly appreciated.THanks:) --Nathan Somers 'Official protester for the cancellation of My So Called Life 'I would have thought by my 15th year I would have a love life...I dont even have a like life.' Angela Chase 'MSCL'

In article <3plr90$m...@news.gate.net>, Kelly <du...@gate.net> wrote: >Hello...I was just wondering...could a haven uncovered be played on one >of your own vampires. Say could I put fame on Smudge...then haven >uncovered on him next turn would it be legal to attack my own vampire then? >Any light you can shed on this subject would be greatly appreciated.THanks:) Well, there's no prohibition against putting it on your own vampire. However, the question then becomes whether or not you can attack yourself. There have been lots of haggles over the official rules, but no clear decision. The best I can tell you is that we usually play by the rule that you can't make a (D) attack against one of your own minions. It makes things a lot more clear and seems to us to be quite in the spirit of the rules. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

Cards with directed actions, other than bleed cards, may be directed against yourself unless the card indicates otherwise. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3ps7m5$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Cards with directed actions, other than bleed cards, may be directed >against yourself unless the card indicates otherwise. Why? In the rules, (D) is defined as against someone else. And besides, this leads to one of the cheesiest combos in the game (taking a (D) against your own Famous Vampire). So both from a rules reading and a game balance perspective, it makes *much* more sense to not allow it. Which leaves me only one question: Why did you rule on this in this manner? [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > Why? In the rules, (D) is defined as against someone else. And >besides, this leads to one of the cheesiest combos in the game (taking a >(D) against your own Famous Vampire). So both from a rules reading and >a game balance perspective, it makes *much* more sense to not allow it. >Which leaves me only one question: Why did you rule on this in this >manner? Looking the corrected rulebook, I can't find anything that says you can't use D actions on yourself ("Directed actions... allow you to direct the action against *any* Methuselah", Section 13.3.1). Matt Burke just confirmed that you can use D actions against yourself, with the exceptions being any kind of bleed, and any card that explicitly says it's used on another Methuselah. There may be certain cards which would be better off if you couldn't use them against yourself (e.g. Haven Uncovered), but in general it's not a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3q2ip1$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Looking the corrected rulebook, I can't find anything that says you can't >use D actions on yourself ("Directed actions... allow you to direct the >action against *any* Methuselah", Section 13.3.1). Matt Burke just confirmed >that you can use D actions against yourself, with the exceptions being any >kind of bleed, and any card that explicitly says it's used on another >Methuselah. There may be certain cards which would be better off if you >couldn't use them against yourself (e.g. Haven Uncovered), but in general >it's not a problem. Be careful with your logic here. If you can't bleed yourself because of, I guess, the definition in 12.3.1 Minion Actions under the Bleed definition ("It is the basic action of your minion to undermine the power and influence of another player ... meddling directly in the affairs of another Methuselah."), then you can also use that same logic to apply the first definition of directed action to what you cannot do ("Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are called directed actions and can only be blocked by that Methuselah's minions. Other actions are called non-directed..." 13.3.1, second and third sentence). By the logic that you can't bleed yourself because of the rule in the book (quoted above), you can't direct an action against yourself, since (by the parallel wording) you are not *another* Methuselah. And if an action is not directed against another Methuselah, it's non-directed. So to keep a directed action directed, it *must* be done against another Methuselah, and thus cannot be done against yourself. The later section saying that you can direct against *any* Meth. doesn't have to be exclusive of the first paragraph. Simply take the union of the two sets, <another Meth> and <any Meth>, and you come up with being able to direct the action at any other Methuselah. That's the theory, and it works much better than saying "and the cards that this rule *does* break aren't a problem." [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >Looking the corrected rulebook, I can't find anything that says you can't >use D actions on yourself ("Directed actions... allow you to direct the >action against *any* Methuselah", Section 13.3.1). Matt Burke just confirmed >that you can use D actions against yourself, with the exceptions being any >kind of bleed, and any card that explicitly says it's used on another >Methuselah. There may be certain cards which would be better off if you >couldn't use them against yourself (e.g. Haven Uncovered), but in general >it's not a problem. Peace Tom, FWIW, I don't think you should be able to do (D) actions against yourself. Your pred/prey _should_ be able to interfere in actions that you take "against" yourself. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Cards with directed actions, other than bleed cards, may be directed : against yourself unless the card indicates otherwise. : Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for : aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. I take it that this means that except for anneke or eagles sight , this ruling makes graverobbing an unblockable get out of torpor...... uses,uses JA Chapman