rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

More Rules Questions

6 messages from 3 participants · 02 October 2000 – 03 October 2000
original thread on Google Groups

Lee Fent

I've got a couple of quick questions... Can you use Possession on a "The Embrace" vampire? The second one is similar, but it's a flavor question. Suppose you had a vampire (Koko for example) diablerize an older vampire successfully, and you go through your deck and get a discipline card and place it on Koko, thus making Koko a 3 cap. Say Koko gets burnt, and you use possession to bring Koko back, does the discipline card come back with koko, since it represents an ability, not equipment, or does just Koko come back? The rules would support just Koko (I think), but flavor supports Koko plus, since he's a generation older and more powerful, and that is an intrinsic ability. Thanks, Lee

LSJ

Lee Fent wrote: > Can you use Possession on a "The Embrace" vampire? No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action card. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). > Suppose you had a vampire (Koko for example) diablerize an older > vampire successfully, and you go through your deck and get a > discipline card and place it on Koko, thus making Koko a 3 cap. Say > Koko gets burnt, and you use possession to bring Koko back, does the > discipline card come back with koko, since it represents an ability, > not equipment, or does just Koko come back? The rules would support > just Koko (I think), but flavor supports Koko plus, since he's a > generation older and more powerful, and that is an intrinsic ability. Just Koko, right. -- 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/

LSJ

Lee Fent wrote: > > I've got a couple of quick questions... > > Can you use Possession on a "The Embrace" vampire? No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action cards. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). > The second one is similar, but it's a flavor question. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ

Lee Fent wrote: > > I've got a couple of quick questions... > > Can you use Possession on a "The Embrace" vampire? No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action card. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). > Suppose you had a vampire (Koko for example) diablerize an older [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Ooi

I just wanted to make sure you saw the 4 responses from LSJ and understood the differences between each response ;-p LSJ wrote: >Lee Fent wrote: > > I've got a couple of quick questions... > > Can you use Possession on a "The Embrace" vampire? >No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action cards. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). See, here he is talking about the difference in card types. If you note his tone, he is being stern yet gentle, like a old shrubbery protecting a creeping vine. >No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action cards. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). In this one, however, he is talking about Banishment, which gets him a little too excited, maybe even blustery. >No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action cards. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). Here I think the emphasis is on the ash heap. I detect a hint of sadness, perhaps even melancholy. I can almost picture a tear rolling down his cheek as he reposted this one. >No, because it is not a vampire while it is in your ash heap - it is just an action cards. It's only a vampire while in play (or while in your uncontrolled region, should it get Banished). Of course, masterfully, might I add, he finishes this response by bringing up another even more daunting question: the state of existence. How did we become to be? How are we being? How are you? See, he cares. Here are the responses to the second question: > The second one is similar, but it's a flavor question. > Suppose you had a vampire (Koko for example) diablerize an older > vampire successfully, and you go through your deck and get a > discipline card and place it on Koko, thus making Koko a 3 cap. Say > Koko gets burnt, and you use possession to bring Koko back, does the > discipline card come back with koko, since it represents an ability, > not equipment, or does just Koko come back? The rules would support > just Koko (I think), but flavor supports Koko plus, since he's a > generation older and more powerful, and that is an intrinsic ability. >Just Koko, right. Each response can be seen as a small haiku. There are three words used here. In each response, you can feel the power of each word differently. Of course, the first response centers around the first word, "Just". All meanings of this word are here: only, fair, upright, maybe even righteous. >Just Koko, right. The second response centers on the second word, "Koko". This haiku is more about onomatopoeia - just say this word and feel the emotions it brings up, see the images, a being lost in darkness... >Just Koko, right. The third response centers on the third word, "right". See how brilliantly he creates symmetry. Think of how many meanings the first and third word share! >Just Koko, right. The fourth response, you might think, would center on the piece as a whole. And you'd be wrong. Actually, here I think there might just have been some sort of accidental quad posting. -- 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/ To you I scream "Author! Author!" -Mike Ooi Insane Prince of Houston, TX now home to the functionally named Houston Texans NFL team

LSJ

Mike Ooi wrote: > > I just wanted to make sure you saw the 4 responses from LSJ and understood > the differences between each response ;-p :-) Clever and gracious in the face of a faux pas. Thanks for the entertaining save. Sorry 'bout the multis - my newsserver was acting up yesterday afternoon, and kept feeding me error messages when I tried to post - I gave up after three attempts and switched to a different server to post the final copy of the message. [ quoted text not captured ]