Tom: When does a "full" vampire leave the uncontroled region?

If a vampire is brought to full capacity during someone's minion phase by Govern the Unaligned is must the vampire wait until the controler's transfer phase to "pop out"? If a full capacity vampire is sent to the uncontroled region by the vote Banishment do they immediately return to play or are they stuck in the uncontroled region until the controler's transfer phase? The turn after the Banished vampire enters play (returning from the uncontroled region) can legendary vampire be played on the vampire? Card text seems to support this. Thanks :-) ~Biomechanoid

In article <4c1buc$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: : If a vampire is brought to full capacity during someone's minion phase by : Govern the Unaligned is must the vampire wait until the controler's : transfer phase to "pop out"? Yes. The vampire doesn't come out until the influence phase. : If a full capacity vampire is sent to the uncontroled region by the vote : Banishment do they immediately return to play or are they stuck in the : uncontroled region until the controler's transfer phase? They would stay in the uncontrolled region until the old controller's transfer phase. : The turn after the Banished vampire enters play (returning from the : uncontroled region) can legendary vampire be played on the vampire? Card : text seems to support this. I don't see why not? Perhaps the Banishment itself made the vamp famous? : Thanks :-) : : ~Biomechanoid I think the rules are pretty clear that a vampire leaves the uncontrolled region only during the influence phase when the blood counters equal the blood capacity of the vamp. It doesn't matter how much blood is on the vamps at any other time. So, you could easily (in theory at least) use Banishment to get rid of a vamp for a full turn if the vote is called and passed, if the vamp is at full capacity. I hope this helps stephen beaulieu hi...@mail.utexas.edu

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4c1buc$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, biom...@aol.com (Biomech8), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #If a full capacity vampire is sent to the uncontroled region by the vote #Banishment do they immediately return to play or are they stuck in the #uncontroled region until the controler's transfer phase? They must wait until the controller's influence phase before becoming controlled again. -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com "Put your soul in the water and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry "Beauty of Gray"

Biomech8 (biom...@aol.com) wrote: : The turn after the Banished vampire enters play (returning from the : uncontroled region) can legendary vampire be played on the vampire? Card : text seems to support this. Agreeing with Stephen on this one; Legendary Vampire Master 2 pool UNIQUE MASTER. Choose a vampire with a capacity above 6 who was moved into your active region during your last turn. Put this card on that vampire. He or she gets +2 bleed and an additional 2 votes. This card may be burned by a vote called by any vampire as a +1 stealth action. Since the Banished vampire moves from your uncontrolled region to your controlled region once it gets enough blood counters on it, it seems perfectly logical that it should be an allowable target for LV. As a matter of fact, since the restriction is that the vampire must have been moved into your _active_ region last turn, it seems to me that it would also be allowable to play LV on a vampire who came out of torpor last turn (moved from inactive -> active). Lotsa ways to become legendary! ;-) Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

In article <4c2mv6$h...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >As a matter of fact, since the restriction is that the vampire must have >been moved into your _active_ region last turn, it seems to me that it >would also be allowable to play LV on a vampire who came out of torpor >last turn (moved from inactive -> active). > > Vampires in torpor are active just not ready aren't they?

Biomech8 (biom...@aol.com) wrote: : tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] In the revised Jyhad rulebook section 11.1 (the little diagram of the playing area and the accompanying text) I read: "...A vampire in either torpor or the active region is considered controlled." This either/or syntax indicates to me that torpor != active; a vampire who has come from torpor _should_ be fair game for Legendary status. [ quoted text not captured ]

biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: -> In article <4c2mv6$h...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane -> Travis) writes: -> -->As a matter of fact, since the restriction is that the vampire must -->have been moved into your _active_ region last turn, it seems to me -->that it would also be allowable to play LV on a vampire who came out -->of torpor last turn (moved from inactive -> active). -> -> Vampires in torpor are active just not ready aren't they? From looking at the rulebook, I think that vampires aren't referred to as "active". The region with all your ready _minions_ is called your "active region" whereas the region with your vampires in torpor is the "torpor area". Uncontrolled vampires are in the "uncontrolled area". Vampires are ready or not ready, rather than active or inactive. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : When a card refers to a minion entering the active region, it assumes : that the minion is entering from the inactive region, i.e., the : uncontrolled region. So Legendary Vampire may not be played on a vampire : just because it got out of torpor. (It also may not be played on a vampire : that stopped being contested.) I assume this to be official errata to the card then, as the card itself gives _no_ indication as to what it 'means' to say... If I may ask, why this errata? Is the card considered too powerful otherwise? Issuing this errata certainly goes against the earlier-stated policy of not issuing errata to a card unless it is absolutely necessary to fix something which is wildly broken (i.e. Hawg's second incarnation was fixed, but never the first - not broken 'enough'). Do you consider Legendary Vampire played the way I suggested to be 'wildly broken'? [ quoted text not captured ]

When a card refers to a minion entering the active region, it assumes that the minion is entering from the inactive region, i.e., the uncontrolled region. So Legendary Vampire may not be played on a vampire just because it got out of torpor. (It also may not be played on a vampire that stopped being contested.) Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >When a card refers to a minion entering the active region, it assumes >that the minion is entering from the inactive region, i.e., the >uncontrolled region. So Legendary Vampire may not be played on a vampire >just because it got out of torpor. (It also may not be played on a vampire >that stopped being contested.) Then it should refer to a minion becoming controlled, since that is what you describe. Becoming Active (Entering the active region) is something else. There is hopefully a reason behind defining game terminology Stating flatly that well-defined terminology is suspended for certain cards is a BadThing(tm). Huddling close to card text is fine - but don't tell us that it inherently "means" something which it clearly does not. There are two regions for each Methuselah: Controlled and Uncontrolled. Controlled is further divided into the Active Region (where Ready minions are) and the Torpor Region. All of this is clearly definined in the rulebook. Entering the active region has, in the absence of game-world terminology redefining "Enter", a very clear definition - that is: Moving from anyplace outside of the active to anyplace inside of the active region. -- 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 V:tES Rulemonger. |

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : When a card refers to a minion entering the active region, it assumes : that the minion is entering from the inactive region, i.e., the : uncontrolled region. So Legendary Vampire may not be played on a vampire : just because it got out of torpor. (It also may not be played on a vampire : that stopped being contested.) Therefore a torpor'd vampire is active, just not ready? -James

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >: When a card refers to a minion entering the active region, it assumes >: that the minion is entering from the inactive region, i.e., the >: uncontrolled region. So Legendary Vampire may not be played on a vampire >: just because it got out of torpor. (It also may not be played on a vampire >: that stopped being contested.) >I assume this to be official errata to the card then, as the card itself >gives _no_ indication as to what it 'means' to say... >If I may ask, why this errata?... The intention of the card was always to work only on a vampire that had just been influenced. We looked at the card earlier and decided that it was just assuming a rule, not that it needed errata. >Issuing this errata certainly goes against the earlier-stated >policy of not issuing errata to a card unless it is absolutely necessary >to fix something which is wildly broken (i.e. Hawg's second incarnation >was fixed, but never the first - not broken 'enough'). The other time when we issue errata is when a card was simply written incorrectly, though we'll occasionally pass in this instance if the difference seems neglibible. >Do you consider Legendary Vampire played the way I suggested to be >'wildly broken'? Conceptually, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : Legendary Vampire Master 2 pool : UNIQUE MASTER. Choose a vampire with a capacity above 6 who was moved : into your active region during your last turn. Put this card on that : vampire. He or she gets +2 bleed and an additional 2 votes. This card : may be burned by a vote called by any vampire as a +1 stealth action. : Since the Banished vampire moves from your uncontrolled region to your : controlled region once it gets enough blood counters on it, it seems : perfectly logical that it should be an allowable target for LV. : As a matter of fact, since the restriction is that the vampire must have : been moved into your _active_ region last turn, it seems to me that it : would also be allowable to play LV on a vampire who came out of torpor : last turn (moved from inactive -> active). You don't even have to control the vamp. You could Malkavian Dementia somebody else's vampire, then next turn (even after it goes back to its owner) make it legendary. Why anybody would want to do this is beyond me, but it seems possible by card wording. Just me. -- Richard Kenan Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : The intention of the card was always to work only on a vampire that had : just been influenced. We looked at the card earlier and decided that it : was just assuming a rule, not that it needed errata. What rule is it assuming? Care to give us a hint? : >Issuing this errata certainly goes against the earlier-stated : >policy of not issuing errata to a card unless it is absolutely necessary : >to fix something which is wildly broken (i.e. Hawg's second incarnation : >was fixed, but never the first - not broken 'enough'). : The other time when we issue errata is when a card was simply written : incorrectly, though we'll occasionally pass in this instance if the difference : seems neglibible. ... although sometimes it takes you a bloody long time to do it (cf Blood Rage) if it ever gets done at all (cf Concealed Weapon). : >Do you consider Legendary Vampire played the way I suggested to be : >'wildly broken'? : Conceptually, yes. So it's _not_ 'wildly broken' it just doesn't play the card the way you originally intended for it to play - and this is worth issuing errata for. Concetptually, Location/equipment is _far_ more broken than this, but I haven't seen any errata to fix this problem yet. Conceptually, the errata on Rotschreck _broke_ the card, not fixed it. It would merely be nice to see some sort of consistency; either Play As Written (unless a misprint totally breaks the card) or Issue Errata For Everything We Don't Like and Didn't Anticipate It is the fence-sitting and haphazard approach to issuing errata which angers people, In My Experience. [ quoted text not captured ]