Here are some questions I have:
1) Do most people play with large decks? My Malkavian Deck doesn't
fit in a starter box anymore.
2) If I have a Information Highway and have another in my hand can I
put the one in my hand out and burn the original before I take any
damage? No, methinks.
3) Would someone Mail or post me a REAL good combat deck. If it's not
too much trouble I'd like it as a 4 cards limit deck (yes, I know already).
4) If a vampire burned if it takes excess aggravated damage? ( Ozmo
down to 3 blood and takes a blast of a flame thrower for 2 rounds )
5) If my Ozmo intercepts Anvil during Anvils equip action do we go into
combat? Does Anvil's RPG launcher (the card he was equiping) get
burned?
6) Am I the only person here who plays Malkavian?
If anyone would like to correct my Misguided Malkivian Madness Deck
please E-mail me.
Thank you,
Michael Jeung
pe...@scd.hp.com (Perry Jeung) writes:
>Here are some questions I have:
[Only the "hard science" questions follow, sorry:]
>2) If I have a Information Highway and have another in my hand can I
>put the one in my hand out and burn the original before I take any
>damage? No, methinks.
No. You can put the second out anc Contest both of them with yourself
for a complete round of play (until your next untap). At your next
untap you can:
Yield both of them.
Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (which will be Controlled
after the rest of the contests are resolved).
Pay two pool to continue contesting both (*bad* idea :-).
>4) If a vampire burned if it takes excess aggravated damage? ( Ozmo
>down to 3 blood and takes a blast of a flame thrower for 2 rounds )
A vampire is burned without passing though torpor if and only if he
takes X+2 points of damage in combat, where X is the amount of pool on
him, and the "+2" is aggravated damage from a single source.
With only +1 aggravated damage, the one point simply (re-)sends the vamp
to torpor.
The first point of aggravated that is not prevented will end combat by
sending the victim to torpor - which is why the "+2" must come in a single
shot.
>5) If my Ozmo intercepts Anvil during Anvils equip action do we go into
>combat? Does Anvil's RPG launcher (the card he was equiping) get
>burned?
Yes. Any action, ally, retainer, or equipment card used for a blocked action
is burned with no effect.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |
pe...@scd.hp.com (Perry Jeung) wrote:
>1) Do most people play with large decks? My Malkavian Deck doesn't
>fit in a starter box anymore.
Peace Perry,
Most of my decks run btwn 60-80 cards, though my Gangrel deck is 42 and
my Brujah & Tremere/Brujah decks are 90. It depends on the type of deck
and the type of cards you use (combat decks need more cards than other
decks).
>2) If I have a Information Highway and have another in my hand can I
>put the one in my hand out and burn the original before I take any
>damage? No, methinks.
Yes, you can, but you couldn't use either of them during the Influence Phase
that came after the Master Phase that you played the second IH and the
following Untap Phase where you could yield to yourself.
>3) Would someone Mail or post me a REAL good combat deck. If it's not
>too much trouble I'd like it as a 4 cards limit deck (yes, I know already).
I'm planning on reposting my Brujah deck (I deleted the text file from this
system) and writing up my T/B Thau/Cel deck.
>4) If a vampire burned if it takes excess aggravated damage? ( Ozmo
>down to 3 blood and takes a blast of a flame thrower for 2 rounds )
The formula for being burned by aggr dam is X+2, where X is the current blood
total of the vamp receiving the aggr dam. In your example, Ozmo would have to
take 5 aggr in ONE STRIKE to be burned.
>5) If my Ozmo intercepts Anvil during Anvils equip action do we go into
>combat? Does Anvil's RPG launcher (the card he was equiping) get
>burned?
Yes, there is combat (poor Ozmo). Yes, Anvil's Meth loses the RPG (the card
is burned).
>6) Am I the only person here who plays Malkavian?
No, you are not. I played Malk for a while, but my deck was too Malkavian
(I used all my Games of Malk and Malk Pranks) and it rarely did well.
>If anyone would like to correct my Misguided Malkivian Madness Deck
>please E-mail me.
Post it and I'm sure you will get lots of good feedback.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: pe...@scd.hp.com (Perry Jeung) writes:: >2) If I have a Information Highway and have another in my hand can I: >put the one in my hand out and burn the original before I take any
: >damage? No, methinks.: No. You can put the second out anc Contest both of them with yourself: for a complete round of play (until your next untap). At your next
: untap you can:
: Yield both of them.
: Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (which will be Controlled
: after the rest of the contests are resolved).
: Pay two pool to continue contesting both (*bad* idea :-).
Hold it, hold it...
in the Complete Rules Reference, it says:
A. UNTAP PHASE (mandatory) [12.1]
2. After untapping, take the following steps in any order. [12.1]
c. If you have a contested card which all other Methuselahs have
yielded, it becomes uncontested (controlled) and is untapped. [8]
d. Contest or Yield your contested cards and titles. [12.1]
i. Pay one pool for each unique card that you are Contesting. [8]
ii. Pay one vampire blood for any title that the vampire is Contesting.
A Vampire may choose to go to Torpor if he has no blood to pay.
Vampires in Torpor must yield. [17.2]
iii. Burn any card that you are yielding, along with any other cards
played on that card. Return the blood to the blood bank. [8]
Are you saying that I must take step d with _both_ my contested cards
simultaneously? I was always under the impression that I could take step
d.iii for the first Info Highway, then take step c for the other, thereby
allowing myself to use it again.
Granted, the IH would be out of play for the influence phase immediately
following the playing of the 2nd one, but that is neither here nor there.
Do you really have to pay all contested cards at once?
Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant
In article <43pk66$1...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
[when contesting two copies of a card with yourself...]
>: Yield both of them.
>: Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (which will be Controlled
>: after the rest of the contests are resolved).
>: Pay two pool to continue contesting both (*bad* idea :-).>in the Complete Rules Reference, it says:>
> A. UNTAP PHASE (mandatory) [12.1]
> 2. After untapping, take the following steps in any order. [12.1]
> c. If you have a contested card which all other Methuselahs have
> yielded, it becomes uncontested (controlled) and is untapped. [8]
> d. Contest or Yield your contested cards and titles. [12.1]
> i. Pay one pool for each unique card that you are Contesting. [8]
> ii. Pay one vampire blood for any title that the vampire is Contesting.
> A Vampire may choose to go to Torpor if he has no blood to pay.
> Vampires in Torpor must yield. [17.2]
> iii. Burn any card that you are yielding, along with any other cards
> played on that card. Return the blood to the blood bank. [8]
>
>
>Are you saying that I must take step d with _both_ my contested cards
>simultaneously? I was always under the impression that I could take step
>d.iii for the first Info Highway, then take step c for the other, thereby
>allowing myself to use it again.
No, not simultaneously.
But you do take step d. with all of your contested cards. Each card you
must either contest or yield. If you do not yield a contested card, then
you must contest it. This requires the burning of a pool.
Moreover:
Following a strict reading of the rules (which obviously aren't written with
the idea that self-contesting would ever be done), you don't even get
the copy that you didn't yield (assuming you yielded the other copy) until
the start of the *following* turn. (Section 8, last sentence of the first
paragraph - of both the pocket book and the "corrected" rules).
We all know that this is only another oversight, rather than the intention
of the rules-writers, right?
>Do you really have to pay all contested cards at once?
Not all at once, but you do have to decide whether to continue contesting
or yield every card that you are contesting. This choice is made
independently for each card, and all choices must be made during your untap.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text
On 20 Sep 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> >2) If I have a Information Highway and have another in my hand can I
> >put the one in my hand out and burn the original before I take any
> >damage? No, methinks.
>
> No. You can put the second out anc Contest both of them with yourself
> for a complete round of play (until your next untap). At your next
> untap you can:> Yield both of them.
> Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (which will be Controlled
> after the rest of the contests are resolved).
> Pay two pool to continue contesting both (*bad* idea :-).
>
Hi Scott,
Is this an official ruling or just common sense?
Algustas
*****If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one
being made.***** Otto Von Bismark
In article <43qjj3$n...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:
>: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>
>: > A. UNTAP PHASE (mandatory) [12.1]>: > 2. After untapping, take the following steps in any order. [12.1]
>: > c. If you have a contested card which all other Methuselahs have
>: > yielded, it becomes uncontested (controlled) and is untapped. [8]
>: > d. Contest or Yield your contested cards and titles. [12.1]
>: > i. Pay one pool for each unique card that you are Contesting. [8]
>: > ii. Pay one vampire blood for any title that the vampire is Contesting.
>: > A Vampire may choose to go to Torpor if he has no blood to pay.
>: > Vampires in Torpor must yield. [17.2]
>: > iii. Burn any card that you are yielding, along with any other cards
>: > played on that card. Return the blood to the blood bank. [8]
>: >
>: >
>: >Are you saying that I must take step d with _both_ my contested cards
>: >simultaneously?
>>: No, not simultaneously.>: But you do take step d. with all of your contested cards. Each card you
>: must either contest or yield. If you do not yield a contested card, then
>: you must contest it. This requires the burning of a pool.
>>You are intimating that there are only two states to a card I am
>contesting: continue contesting or yield. I say there are 3 states:
>continue, yield, or re-take control.
>
>Once I decide not to contest the first copy (and burn it), I now choose to
>go to step c, note that no one is contesting the second coy of the Info
>Highway, and bring it back into play. This is why I wondered about the
>decisions being simultaneous: I can take these steps in any order I want,
>so unless I must do all contested cards _at the same time_, nothing is
>stopping me from doing it this way. Analogous to playing a Blood Doll and
>using it in the same Master phase.
The way I see it: You can't go back to do a step again.
Once your start step d., you finish step d.
You can't go d., c., d.
Any more than you can repeatedly take step b. (Gain a pool for having the
Edge).
You can order the steps any way you like, but you can't intermix the steps.
Maybe each contested card gets its own step d., I don't know.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950920190908.16921A-100000@gladstone>,
Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 20 Sep 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>>> >2) If I have a Information Highway and have another in my hand can I
>> >put the one in my hand out and burn the original before I take any
>> >damage? No, methinks.
>>
>> No. You can put the second out anc Contest both of them with yourself
>> for a complete round of play (until your next untap). At your next
>> untap you can:
>> Yield both of them.
>> Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (which will be Controlled
>> after the rest of the contests are resolved).
>> Pay two pool to continue contesting both (*bad* idea :-).
>>>
>Hi Scott,
> Is this an official ruling or just common sense?
> Algustas
While no official ruling has come on Contesting a card with yourself, the
above does follow the Rules Outline, which has passed Tom's inspection.
Maybe he didn't read it the way I did, and read it Shane's way instead.
It isn't crystal clear, to be sure.
And (since self-contesting is almost always a bad idea), it doesn't matter
enough for an offial ruling, methinks.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:
: The way I see it: You can't go back to do a step again.
: Maybe each contested card gets its own step d., I don't know.
Yes: this is exactly the way I'm seeing it. Each contested card gets its
own yield/contest/re-take phase, rather than doing all contested cards
simultanously (i.e. without regard to what has happened to other
contested cards).
Although not of any great importance, an official answer on this one
would be nice. If Scott's interpretation were correct, then it would be
a good answer to the 'weenie deck contesting itself' (rather than paying
to get out of torpor) problem.
[ quoted text not captured ]
J. Hunter Johnson (jhun...@io.com) wrote:
: My interpretation is thus:
: At the beginning of your untap, you note what actions you're going to have
: to take: untap vampires, lose pool for Army of Rats, contest cards, etc.
: Then you do those in any order. So even if you yield one of the contested
: cards, you still have to pay to contest the other one. This is different
: than the Master phase example you used, yes. But I don't know of any cards
: that you can play to change your options during your untap.
Taking your stance precludes the possibility that there will _ever_ be
cards which allow you extra options during your untap phase.
Take for example the house rule that Chantry may be used during untap
insted of Master phase. Also, assume that I have a tremere in torpor
who is contesting a title. If I understand you correctly, you are
saying that I would declare that I was contesting and also declare that I
was rescuing the vampire.
The _order_ I do these things in is incredibly important in this case:
if I do the contesting phase first, I cannot contest but must yield as
the vmapire is in torpor. If I rescue the Tremere first, I can choose to
do either. Thus, making the decisions at the beginning of the round like
that simply cannot be done.
Also, take a hypothetical example: Rabies Infection - Equipment card which
may be tapped during my Untap phase to neutralize any one card which
has/requires the Animalism skill for one turn. Under the current ruling,
I could use this card to stop an AoR from hurting me for this turn, but
under your interpretation there would be no point - I have to declare
that the AoR is hurting me, and it is only a matter of when I apply the
damage.
I like the current rulings better - just a matter of getting a few
(extremely minor) bugs worked out. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:
: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
[ quoted text not captured ]
One of my favorite combos is to play with two or more anarch trouble
makers, I will use one pass it to my prey and then bring out another to
contest it. -Jake
[ quoted text not captured ]
Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: How can that be a problem?
<bobbit - rest of rebuttal>
The problem is this: one of the drawbacks of playing a weenie deck is
that one _cannot_ get a vampire out of torpor once it is in: the weenie
itself has no blood left, and only if you are very lucky wil you have a
vampire out with the 2 blood on it to rescue the other one.
Anything that makes it more difficult to get around this game-imposed
restriction is, IMHO, a Good Thing(tm).
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>Following a strict reading of the rules (which obviously aren't written with
>the idea that self-contesting would ever be done), you don't even get
>the copy that you didn't yield (assuming you yielded the other copy) until
>the start of the *following* turn. (Section 8, last sentence of the first
>paragraph - of both the pocket book and the "corrected" rules).
>
>We all know that this is only another oversight, rather than the intention
>of the rules-writers, right?
Oh, give me a break. The world is not going to end just because someone
clumsy enough to contest their own card isn't going to get that card back
for a turn after yielding all but one copy.
The rule on getting back contested cards is: if all but one copy of the
card is yielded, the "controller" of the last copy gets control of it
again during his or her next untap phase, unless of course it becomes
contested again in the meantime. Nice and simple, with no band-aid
to hold the hand of someone who contests their own card.
I guess the rule could be rewritten so you get control of it at
the end of your next untap phase, but frankly, it doesn't seem
worth the tradeoff.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.