In article <757h98$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Randi S. Herdman <ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Can non-preventable aggravated damage (i.e., dawn operation with weather
>control, force of will,
>or daring the dawn) be changed to regular damage using skin of night?
Force of Will, Daring the Dawn:
No, as combat cards (such as Skin of Night) cannot be played outside
of combat, which is when the damage dealt by such cards occurs.
Dawn Operation/Weather Control:
Sure.
>I am expecting a "yes" answer, but if so, doesn't that make a daring the dawn/skin of night combo
>entirely unblockable?
Moot.
gomi
--
you say they taught you how to read and write
yeah, they taught you how to count
i say they taught you how to buy and sell
your own body by the pound
Okay, I've been poking around trying to find a definitive answer but I can't.
Can non-preventable aggravated damage (i.e., dawn operation with weather control, force of will,
or daring the dawn) be changed to regular damage using skin of night?
I am expecting a "yes" answer, but if so, doesn't that make a daring the dawn/skin of night combo
entirely unblockable?
Thanks.
Neil Paananen
> Can non-preventable aggravated damage (i.e., dawn operation with weather
control,
> force of will, or daring the dawn) be changed to regular damage using skin of
night?
For combat cards, yes. Action modifiers, no.
> I am expecting a "yes" answer, but if so, doesn't that make a daring the
dawn/skin of night
> combo entirely unblockable?
*nods* Which is why the Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo is really
rude. In essence, it's Kiss of Ra at 2 less blood and isn't prevented if the
opposing vampire has fortitude.
It can only be stopped by the following cards: Direct Intervention
(obviously), Skin of Night, Fire Dance, Death Pact and Heart of Darkness.
Merrill Molitor is also immune to this combo and Undead Persistance will
delay the inevitable.
Noal
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:36:35 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>*nods* Which is why the Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo is really
>rude. In essence, it's Kiss of Ra at 2 less blood and isn't prevented if the
>opposing vampire has fortitude.
>
>It can only be stopped by the following cards: Direct Intervention
>(obviously), Skin of Night, Fire Dance, Death Pact and Heart of Darkness.
>Merrill Molitor is also immune to this combo and Undead Persistance will
>delay the inevitable.
Yes, but making a Tha/For deck comes with its own inherent icky
problems - and after running mine last night, I found that after you
pull off one "storms at dawn" combination, nobody ever actually blocks
anything you do again. Which is great if you have big bleed.
Except... Tha/For doesn't inherently come with big bleed, so you hafta
add Dominate cards in and your deck starts getting this really really
bloated look to it. =)
Although it's almost as much fun to play Burst of Sunlight/Skin of
Rock, too, just for the "You have WHAT in that deck?" surprise value.
=)
-- Derek
(replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)
Randi S. Herdman wrote in message <757h98$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>I am expecting a "yes" answer, but if so, doesn't that make a daring the
dawn/skin of night combo
>entirely unblockable?
Maybe Heart of Darkness can be the solution to it. It changes the aggravated
dmg to normal and
so probably your vampire won't go to torpor by FoW/Daring the Dawn combo.
.- Luis....@ip.pt
> Yes, but making a Tha/For deck comes with its own inherent icky
> problems - and after running mine last night, I found that after you
> pull off one "storms at dawn" combination, nobody ever actually blocks
> anything you do again. Which is great if you have big bleed.
...or Graverobbing. *grin*
> Except... Tha/For doesn't inherently come with big bleed, so you hafta
> add Dominate cards in and your deck starts getting this really really
> bloated look to it. =)
...actually it's not that bad. Fortitude-Dominate-Thamaturgy is a great
match-up. Thamaturgy has some great combat cards...but Potence and
Protean decks beat the crap out of it. Fortitude gives the vampire much
needed defense and there's even a Fortitude card with a press.
Since Dominate tends to match up with Thamaturgy real well and does
some great things like Grave Robbing, Mind Rape (which is a great
set-up for Return to Innocence), Dominate Kine and Slaughtering the
Herd. These kind of actions tend to make people want to block you,
which of course unleashes the evil combo.
Here's a sample fortitude-dominate-thaumaturgy crypt:
Bindusara, Historian of the Kindred-Ventrue-9 cap
Cardano-Tremere-9 cap
(2x) Muaziz, Archon of Ulugh Beg-Tremere-7 cap
(2x) Iliana-Gangrel-7 cap
(2x) Marlene, The Infernalist-Ventrue Antitribu-6 cap
Merill Molitor-Tremere-5 cap
Sarah Cobbler-Tremere-4 cap
Ingrid Russo-Ventrue Antitribu
Jing Wei-Tremere-3 cap
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <758ghj$fof$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes
>*nods* Which is why the Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo is really
>rude. In essence, it's Kiss of Ra at 2 less blood and isn't prevented if the
>opposing vampire has fortitude.
>
>It can only be stopped by the following cards: Direct Intervention
>(obviously), Skin of Night, Fire Dance, Death Pact and Heart of Darkness.
>Merrill Molitor is also immune to this combo and Undead Persistance will
>delay the inevitable.
If Dawn Ops is prevalent, I find "don't block" to be a reasonable
option. This prevents the agg damage from ever happening and lets hand
jam sort them out. Then, on your turn, go and get them - when dawn ops
is unplayable.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> *nods* Which is why the Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo is really
> rude. In essence, it's Kiss of Ra at 2 less blood and isn't prevented if the
> opposing vampire has fortitude.
>
> It can only be stopped by the following cards: Direct Intervention
> (obviously), Skin of Night, Fire Dance, Death Pact and Heart of Darkness.
> Merrill Molitor is also immune to this combo and Undead Persistance will
> delay the inevitable.
>
Merrill is not immune, but simply "resistant" to the combo. I can, of
course, always follow up the first Weather Control with another one.
Unfortunately, though, as James mentions, the combo isn't quite
foolproof. An intelligent blocker will soon stop blocking.
-Chris
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:06:42 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Yes, but making a Tha/For deck comes with its own inherent icky
>> problems - and after running mine last night, I found that after you
>> pull off one "storms at dawn" combination, nobody ever actually blocks
>> anything you do again. Which is great if you have big bleed.>
>...or Graverobbing. *grin*
All five of mine made it into that deck. ;)
>...actually it's not that bad. Fortitude-Dominate-Thamaturgy is a great
>match-up. Thamaturgy has some great combat cards...but Potence and
>Protean decks beat the crap out of it. Fortitude gives the vampire much
>needed defense and there's even a Fortitude card with a press.
Oh, it's a wonderful matchup and turns THA into the combat monster you
always wanted it to be. But it takes so many cards that you start
running up against the informal 90-card limit after awhile. (Although
I must say, it's much more enjoyable to ignore maneuver cards when
building a THA deck, since you're not worried about damage anymore.)
>Since Dominate tends to match up with Thamaturgy real well and does
>some great things like Grave Robbing, Mind Rape (which is a great
>set-up for Return to Innocence), Dominate Kine and Slaughtering the
>Herd. These kind of actions tend to make people want to block you,
>which of course unleashes the evil combo.
>
>Here's a sample fortitude-dominate-thaumaturgy crypt:
>
>Bindusara, Historian of the Kindred-Ventrue-9 cap
>Cardano-Tremere-9 cap
>(2x) Muaziz, Archon of Ulugh Beg-Tremere-7 cap
>(2x) Iliana-Gangrel-7 cap
>(2x) Marlene, The Infernalist-Ventrue Antitribu-6 cap
>Merill Molitor-Tremere-5 cap
>Sarah Cobbler-Tremere-4 cap
>Ingrid Russo-Ventrue Antitribu
>Jing Wei-Tremere-3 cap
Heh. Mine has more minion taps, and Merill, Sarah, Jing, and Ingrid
removed in favor of Bryan Van Duesen (7, big THA, big DOM, +1 bleed if
you hafta, just gotta stick a FOR card on him), another Cardano, and a
Ulugh. =) Otherwise it's roughly the same. =) I don't normally
like using big-cap vampires either, but it seems pretty tough to get
all the skills you need with at least a COUPLE at superior without
going much above 6. And if you're going to go much above six, you
might as well minion tap/restoration or minion tap/Theft of Vitae a
few times just for the blood. Although thinking about it, Merrill
probably should go in just for his built in Skin of Night.
And I've found that I just don't like having to RELY on skill cards to
make my weenies worthwhile. If they don't have the skills at minor, I
don't want to put them in usually. Except that Marlene is the
smallest cap vamp with both at inferior... d'oh!
But it's fun to Rush an untapped vampire, Dawn Op it at inferior so
they back out of blocking (leaves them untapped), Weather Control/Skin
of Night them to torpor, then Freak Drive and Grave Rob that vampire
to your controlled region to block for you 'til your next turn. =)
Doesn't go off very often, requiring six cards. But it's so fun,
especially if they have other vampires who COULD block the
graverobbing action... knowing that they will probably lose -that- one
to torpor as well =)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thanks for the quick response, I realized why I had been so confused -- I was glancing over the
6/23 rulings and read, "Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution" I
didn't continue to read the part about "whenever appropriate during combat."
Whups.
- Neil Paananen
Confused Archbishop of Denver
In article <757k5r$im8$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:
>In article <757h98$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Randi S. Herdman <ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Can non-preventable aggravated damage (i.e., dawn operation with weather
>>control, force of will,
>>or daring the dawn) be changed to regular damage using skin of night?>>Force of Will, Daring the Dawn:
>
>No, as combat cards (such as Skin of Night) cannot be played outside
>of combat, which is when the damage dealt by such cards occurs.
>
>Dawn Operation/Weather Control:
>
>Sure.
>>>I am expecting a "yes" answer, but if so, doesn't that make a daring the dawn/skin of night
combo
>>entirely unblockable?>[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:34:20 GMT, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek
S. Ray) wrote:
>But it's fun to Rush an untapped vampire, Dawn Op it at inferior so
>they back out of blocking (leaves them untapped), Weather Control/Skin
>of Night them to torpor, then Freak Drive and Grave Rob that vampire
>to your controlled region to block for you 'til your next turn. =)
Do ignore that bit about "blocking for you 'til your next turn", since
Dawn Op doesn't take effect for an unblocked action and so the vampire
would -have- to be tapped. But that's why they made Burst of
Sunlight, I s'pose. :) I think I was just brain dead while I was
posting.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7593sg$194$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Mind Rape (which is a great set-up for Return to Innocence)
Doesn't work post-7/7. Say, you Mind Rape a vampire, take control of it your
next turn, and have it RtI. At the end of your turn, you give it back.
During its owner's untap, RtI kicks in, and whoever happens to be its
controller's prey at the time loses the pool.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu)
This space intentionally left blank.
Derek S. Ray wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:06:42 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Here's a sample fortitude-dominate-thaumaturgy crypt:
> >
> >Bindusara, Historian of the Kindred-Ventrue-9 cap
> >Cardano-Tremere-9 cap
> >(2x) Muaziz, Archon of Ulugh Beg-Tremere-7 cap
> >(2x) Iliana-Gangrel-7 cap
> >(2x) Marlene, The Infernalist-Ventrue Antitribu-6 cap
> >Merill Molitor-Tremere-5 cap
> >Sarah Cobbler-Tremere-4 cap
> >Ingrid Russo-Ventrue Antitribu
> >Jing Wei-Tremere-3 cap
>
> Heh. Mine has more minion taps, and Merill, Sarah, Jing, and Ingrid
> removed in favor of Bryan Van Duesen (7, big THA, big DOM, +1 bleed if
> you hafta, just gotta stick a FOR card on him), another Cardano, and a
> Ulugh. =) Otherwise it's roughly the same. =) I don't normally
> like using big-cap vampires either, but it seems pretty tough to get
> all the skills you need with at least a COUPLE at superior without
> going much above 6. And if you're going to go much above six, you
> might as well minion tap/restoration or minion tap/Theft of Vitae a
> few times just for the blood. Although thinking about it, Merrill
> probably should go in just for his built in Skin of Night.
>
And of course, do not forget Ian Forrestal, who has DOM/THA/for. At 7
capacity, he's perfect for this deck, perhaps even warranting two
copies.
-Chris
jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote:
> >Mind Rape (which is a great set-up for Return to Innocence)
>
> Doesn't work post-7/7. Say, you Mind Rape a vampire, take control of it your
> next turn, and have it RtI. At the end of your turn, you give it back.
> During its owner's untap, RtI kicks in, and whoever happens to be its
> controller's prey at the time loses the pool.
I don't know what you've been smoking, but that is simply not true.
The new errata states "your prey" not "the prey of the person
controlling this vampire".
Noal
Return to Innocence [AH] - action (4)
New card text: "Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more,
put this card on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any
blood or goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap,
this vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is
the capacity of this vampire."
[RTR 980707]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> And of course, do not forget Ian Forrestal, who has DOM/THA/for. At 7
> capacity, he's perfect for this deck, perhaps even warranting two
> copies.
He's an 8 cap....and since he doesn't have Fortitude at superior and no
special card text, he's too expensive for what he has. I've tried him in
the deck and found that he was simply not effective.
Noal
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote:
> > >Mind Rape (which is a great set-up for Return to Innocence)
> >
> > Doesn't work post-7/7. Say, you Mind Rape a vampire, take control of it your
> > next turn, and have it RtI. At the end of your turn, you give it back.
> > During its owner's untap, RtI kicks in, and whoever happens to be its
> > controller's prey at the time loses the pool.
>
> I don't know what you've been smoking, but that is simply not true.
> The new errata states "your prey" not "the prey of the person
> controlling this vampire".
Justin is correct.
"You" refers to the controller of the card, as always.
Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
it is on.
"Your prey" means "the prey of the controller of this card" which is in this
case "the prey of the controller of this vampire" (barring any unusual
change-controller effects like Succubus Club).
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html[ quoted text not captured ]
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
> it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
> it is on.
That is not clear from the text of the card. It can easily be interpreted to
specifically target a Methuselah (your prey) and that will not change no
matter who controls the vampire afterwards.
> "Your prey" means "the prey of the controller of this card" which is in this
> case "the prey of the controller of this vampire" (barring any unusual
> change-controller effects like Succubus Club).
That's a bloody crock. That's not how the average person is going to
interpret it...nor should they. If a vampire I control plays an effect that
specifically targets my prey, then it should not matter if that vampire
changes hands before the effect is completed.
If you're going to re-write card text, please do so more clearly. Those
of us that are trying to moderate games using your wordings are going
to need to buy a case of aspirin for all the headaches it's giving us.
*shakes head*
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
http://kite.eecs.umich.edu/MIRT/
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <75dvf9$43t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
> it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
> it is on.
Where is this control thing from? I just looked through all the rulings
and the updated rulebook and couldn't find any reference to this. Could you
point me to the right place? I always thought control changing cards only
associated with those specific cards. So if you took control of someone's
Angel with a .44 and they were ousted, the .44 would be gone.
By LSJ's statement, a skill card on a stolen vampire is controlled by whom?
I always thought that control was maintained by whoever played the card
unless explicit card text changed things.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> > Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
> > it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
> > it is on.
>> That is not clear from the text of the card. It can easily be interpreted to
> specifically target a Methuselah (your prey) and that will not change no
> matter who controls the vampire afterwards.
>
> > "Your prey" means "the prey of the controller of this card" which is in this
> > case "the prey of the controller of this vampire" (barring any unusual
> > change-controller effects like Succubus Club).
>
> That's a bloody crock. That's not how the average person is going to
> interpret it...nor should they. If a vampire I control plays an effect that
> specifically targets my prey, then it should not matter if that vampire
> changes hands before the effect is completed.
And how do you think Army of Rat's functions after Shepherd's Innocence is
used to change the controller of the Army?
Contrast the card text on Spying Mission and Incriminating Videotape for
controller-independent targetting.
> If you're going to re-write card text, please do so more clearly. Those
> of us that are trying to moderate games using your wordings are going
> to need to buy a case of aspirin for all the headaches it's giving us.
>
> *shakes head*
*shakes head*
This usage is consistent (cf. Powerbase: *, * Hunting Ground, <long list of
other Master: Locations>, Anarch Troublemaker, Arms Dealer, Fragment of the
Book of Nod, Millicent Smith, Soul Gem, Fortune Teller, Rutor's Hand,
Arcanum Investigator, Form of Corruption, Jackal, Bauble, etc.)
Getting the wrong reading from not reading the card text carefully/precisely
enough can cause headaches, yes. See Blood to Water.
Sure the wording could be clearer. Build a better mousetrap, deliver foolproof
software, and all that.
But the wording is sufficient as it is. And there's something to be said
for concise text, as well. This is a complex game. Not every contengency
can or should be written explicitly on the cards when the standard rules
of the game apply.
If I have to occasionally answer "Is an empty vampire burned by Blood to
Water?" and the like, well, that's part of the job.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> > Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
> > it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
> > it is on.
>> By LSJ's statement, a skill card on a stolen vampire is controlled by whom?
> I always thought that control was maintained by whoever played the card
> unless explicit card text changed things.
Since we are discussing control of cards...who is the controller of Charnas?
The player of Charnas, the controller of the vampire that played Charnas or
the controller of the vampire with Charnas on its back?
Noal
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:06:11 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
>That's a bloody crock. That's not how the average person is going to
>interpret it...nor should they. If a vampire I control plays an effect that
>specifically targets my prey, then it should not matter if that vampire
>changes hands before the effect is completed.
You are holding a fire hose, spraying water on a house fire to put it
out. You have begun an effect that targets a house, one that does not
resolve instantaneously. I walk up to you and turn you around so that
you are now spraying water on the house across the street. Does this
matter in the resolution of the effect (ie, do you still successfully
put out the fire) ??
Of course it matters, and that's EXACTLY how the average person will
interpret the card text. If you stop something before it's done
happening, it obviously changes what happens.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <75eeh6$hii$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes
>Since we are discussing control of cards...who is the controller of Charnas?
>The player of Charnas
No, although they could be.
>, the controller of the vampire that played Charnas
No, although they could be.
>or
>the controller of the vampire with Charnas on its back?
This one.
The only minion card which doesn't work like this is Shackles of Inky-
Doo.
From the other way around, master cards are always controlled by the
person who plays them, until control of the CARD is shifted. Note the
way that Blood Doll is worded, to only allow the current controller of
this vampire to use it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The only minion card which doesn't work like this is Shackles of Inky-
> Doo.
Right, by errata [RTR 08-JUL-96]
And Phobia and Temptation [RTR 13-NOV-96]
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> > > Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
> > > it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
> > > it is on.
> >
> > By LSJ's statement, a skill card on a stolen vampire is controlled by whom?
> > I always thought that control was maintained by whoever played the card
> > unless explicit card text changed things.
>> Since we are discussing control of cards...who is the controller of Charnas?> The player of Charnas, the controller of the vampire that played Charnas or> the controller of the vampire with Charnas on its back?
Charnas is a minion card, so it is controlled by the controller of
the minion it is on.
[ quoted text not captured ]
mboh...@shout.net wrote:
>
> In article <75dvf9$43t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,> vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
>
> > Since Return to Innocence is a minion card, if the controller of the minion
> > it is on changes, it becomes controlled by the new controller of the minion
> > it is on.
>> Where is this control thing from? I just looked through all the rulings
> and the updated rulebook and couldn't find any reference to this. Could you
> point me to the right place? I always thought control changing cards only
> associated with those specific cards.
RTR 27-OCT-95:
4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
situations in Magic.
Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a
Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control the
Laptop, but not the Protean.
> So if you took control of someone's
> Angel with a .44 and they were ousted, the .44 would be gone.
No. You would control both Angel and the .44, so they would both
remain.
> By LSJ's statement, a skill card on a stolen vampire is controlled by whom?
The Methuselah who played it.
> I always thought that control was maintained by whoever played the card
> unless explicit card text changed things.
That's true for Master cards.
Minion cards (non-Master library cards) are controlled by the
controller of the minion (barring explict card text, of course).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <367E44...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:> RTR 27-OCT-95:
> 4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
> except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
> situations in Magic.> > I always thought that control was maintained by whoever played the card> > unless explicit card text changed things.
>
> That's true for Master cards.
> Minion cards (non-Master library cards) are controlled by the
> controller of the minion (barring explict card text, of course).
Why the inconsistency as this is obviously a ruling rather than something
that is in the rulebook? What would be the adverse effects of making
both minion and master cards the same in "change of controller" situations?
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > mboh...@shout.net wrote:
>
> > RTR 27-OCT-95:
> > 4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on
it
> > except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
> > situations in Magic.
>
> > > I always thought that control was maintained by whoever played the card
> > > unless explicit card text changed things.
> >
> > That's true for Master cards.
> > Minion cards (non-Master library cards) are controlled by the
> > controller of the minion (barring explict card text, of course).
>
> Why the inconsistency as this is obviously a ruling rather than something
> that is in the rulebook? What would be the adverse effects of making
> both minion and master cards the same in "change of controller" situations?
The current system is the most logical/sensical.
You expect minions to "control" weapons, retainers, etc. they have.
Change the controller of the minion, then the controller of those
minion cards on that minion changes as well.
While Master cards "on" minions are not generally "controlled" by the
minion. Often they're not even controlled by the controller of the
minion in common usage (Fame, Haven Uncovered, etc.). It wouldn't
make sense to have the controller of these master cards somehow
linked to the controller of the minion they are on when the control
of the minion changes.
That's the entirety of the explanation.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <75n9dt$gmh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net writes
>> That's true for Master cards.
>> Minion cards (non-Master library cards) are controlled by the
>> controller of the minion (barring explict card text, of course).>
>Why the inconsistency as this is obviously a ruling rather than something
>that is in the rulebook? What would be the adverse effects of making
>both minion and master cards the same in "change of controller" situations?
Well, if you want Master cards to be controlled by whoever they're on,
look at the Master cards that you put on other vampires. e.g. I put a
Haven Uncovered cross-table and never get the opportunity to defend it
from a burn action because that's directed at the controller, which
would be that vampire's Methuselah - so only his predator and prey get
the opportunity.
Also, it provides the only current method of getting rid of some cards.
Gangrel Atavism, say, cannot be got rid of except by ousting its
controller (since cards you control go with you when you are ousted, but
not cards that have changed control). There are a few cards like this
that would be adversely affected if you couldn't get rid of them because
you controlled them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Mike Bohlmann wrote:
> > That's true for Master cards.
> > Minion cards (non-Master library cards) are controlled by the
> > controller of the minion (barring explict card text, of course).
>
> Why the inconsistency as this is obviously a ruling rather than something
> that is in the rulebook? What would be the adverse effects of making
> both minion and master cards the same in "change of controller" situations?
Mike, I think a case may be made that any minion card on a vampire (retainers,
equipment, Pulse of Canille, etc.) is owned by the vampire and that anyone
who controls the vampire controls those kind of cards.
Master cards are owned by the "Master" that played them. Which means that
unless somebody specifically takes control of them (like stealing a location)
they are still controlled by the originating player.
That's how it makes sense to me.
Noal
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]