Riddle Phantastique with a capacity 1 vampire

What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique on an ally ? [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game, when there's 1 counter on Wormwood] The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as played ? Name: Riddle Phantastique [BL:C1, LoB:R] Cardtype: Action Clan: Kiasyd Cost: 2 blood Burn Option (D) Put this card on an ally or younger vampire who is not Malkavian or Malkavian antitribu. Put X riddle counters on this card, where X is half the capacity of the acting vampire (round down). The minion with this card burns 1 riddle counter instead of untapping during his or her untap phase. Burn this card when the last counter is removed. You may not play this card if another Riddle Phantastique is in play.

floppyzedolfin wrote: > What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique > on an ally ? > [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to > reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game, > when there's 1 counter on Wormwood] > > The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as > played ? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: >> What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique >> on an ally ? >> [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to >> reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game, >> when there's 1 counter on Wormwood] >> >> The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as >> played ? > > Yes. There have been numerous statements made by the general vtes public on this newsgroup about how playing 0 for Secret Horde means it stays in play indefinitely (or until topped up with a Goth band ;). does this ruling mean those people have been wrong all along? -- salem

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, a Secret Horde with 0 counters is burned.

> > does this ruling mean those people have been wrong all along? > > Well, a Secret Horde with 0 counters is burned. Is that an answer to the question? The text on both cards says to burn it when the last counter is removed, not when there are 0 counters.

On 7 mrt, 19:21, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique > > on an ally ? > > [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to > > reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game, > > when there's 1 counter on Wormwood] > > > The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as > > played ? > > Yes. This seems contrary to cardtext. The last counter is never removed. That's the clause for burning. This doesn't come to pass, so there doesnt seem any reason for it to burn. However when following cardtext, the vampire untaps regardlessly, as there's no counters to burn instead of untapping. Why would it burn? Ruling? If so, it seems like an unneccessary ruling to me. There's no benefit to having a 0 counter riddle, aside from preventing another kyasid from playing any. That seems unlikely at best. Cheers, B > > Name: Riddle Phantastique > > [BL:C1, LoB:R] > > Cardtype: Action > > Clan: Kiasyd > > Cost: 2 blood > > Burn Option > > (D) Put this card on an ally or younger vampire who is not Malkavian > > or Malkavian antitribu. Put X riddle counters on this card, where X is > > half the capacity of the acting vampire (round down). The minion with > > this card burns 1 riddle counter instead of untapping during his or > > her untap phase. Burn this card when the last counter is removed. You > > may not play this card if another Riddle Phantastique is in play.-

Bram Vink wrote: > On 7 mrt, 19:21, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> floppyzedolfin wrote: >>> What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique >>> on an ally ? >>> [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to >>> reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game, >>> when there's 1 counter on Wormwood] >>> The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as >>> played ? >> Yes. > > This seems contrary to cardtext. The last counter is never removed. > That's the clause for burning. This doesn't come to pass, so there > doesnt seem any reason for it to burn. Perhaps so. It's a valid point. > However when following cardtext, the vampire untaps regardlessly, as > there's no counters to burn instead of untapping. Incorrect. The vampire doesn't untap. Burning the counter "instead" is mandatory, not optional. Burning a counter from a card that has none has no effect. > Why would it burn? Ruling? If so, it seems like an unneccessary ruling > to me. There's no benefit to having a 0 counter riddle, aside from > preventing another kyasid from playing any. That seems unlikely at > best. Except for the benefit of preventing the vampire from ever untapping "as normal" again (until some external means of burning the Riddle is applied), yes. That's a pretty big benefit, though. Enough to warrant a little dance with the wording to get the designer intent to show through (exp. when the card indicates designer intent so clearly -- the text indicates that the card believes there are counters on it as long as it is in play). Contrast Powerbase: New York, the ruling on which (combined with card text, as you say) probably led to all the judgments on Secret Horde for zero remaining in play. PB:NY and Riddle are at odds. PB:NY is strictly wallpapaer (and probably fails to achieve designer intent -- the intent seeming to be that it start with three counters). Those three are the only ones who can start empty (not counting Anathema, which doesn't use the "is removed" template). The Horde doesn't matter much one way or the other (not abusable or problematic either way). PB:NY doesn't function unless it stays in play when played at zero. Riddle is problematic if it stays in play when played at zero. PB:NY doesn't get played anyhow, so the question of it losing function is moot. If anyone cares to play it, however, the old ruling stands -- it is only burned when reduced to zero from a non-zero number of counters. The two that actually may see play, Riddle and Horde, follow the same ruling as each other (and contrary to PB:NY) -- they both burn when empty. I'll clarify the official card text for those two. If PB:NY ever gets reprinted, it'll probably be with a three-pool start (and burn when empty). But that (reprinting it at all) seems unlikely.

On Mar 8, 9:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Bram Vink wrote: > > Riddle is problematic if it stays in play when played at zero. > Not really. The described scenario of "Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game, when there's 1 counter on Wormwood" is really, really cornercase. Is there an easier way do it? If Mata Hari doesn't want somone to untap, Sensory Deprivation is a much easier way to do it. And if there is Wormwood with 1 counter in play (and at leat 9 other Gehenna Events), Riddle Phantastique is the least of your worries. > > The two that actually may see play, Riddle and Horde, follow the same ruling as > each other (and contrary to PB:NY) -- they both burn when empty. > > I'll clarify the official card text for those two. > Change them if you want. But I don't see any balance problems if all three are only burned on actual counter removal. Seems like consitency would be preferable here. -Ben Swainbank

[ quoted text not captured ] Nice and clear answer, well appreciated! B

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Seems like consitency > would be preferable here. Yes. And the preferable consistency would be that all are burned when empty (matching intent and intuition). But that really makes PB:NY unplayable. So the old ruling on PB:NY still stands if anyone want to try it. If no one does, then it is effectively consistent any how.

> If PB:NY ever gets reprinted, it'll probably be with a three-pool start (and > burn when empty). But that (reprinting it at all) seems unlikely. Why not? WW reprinted Powerbase: Rome. That's a shame. What about releasing a set of wallpaper cards reprinted and improved? It could be in a similar format to the 10th Anniversary set. A tin or two of reprinted cards. It would increase our base of playable cards with little investment. All those Powerbase: New Yorks gathering dust would spring to life and increase the diversity of our great game. :) Chris. Would love to see reprintings of Phobia, Mummify, PB:NY, Pere Lachaise etc.

On Mar 8, 10:18 pm, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > If PB:NY ever gets reprinted, it'll probably be with a three-pool start (and > > burn when empty). But that (reprinting it at all) seems unlikely. > > Why not? WW reprinted Powerbase: Rome. I don't think PB: Rome is a bad card, actually. It could be useful in some decks. PB:NY, on the other hand, is unplayable. Abraço, Luiz Mello

[ quoted text not captured ] PB: Rome was bad until WW reprinted it. That's what I mean. If PB: Rome can be upgraded why not other cards. Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] Because PB:NY will remain wallpaper unless is it made unrecognizable, at which point it should just be a new card.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm still fairly new to the game, so I don't instantly see why PB:NY is wallpaper. So what bit exactly makes it wallpaper, but cannot be changed and still keep the card recognizable? Probably the fact that if the counters are stolen one time, the card burns as well. In which case I don't see why it would become unrecognizable if you just remove the burn-clause. How about a making a vampire who can give the PB:NY a boost (like make the counters unstealable)? Or one who has a cool special only usable when controlling the PB:NY? or another location with a "if you also control..." clause (this new card would have to have an ok function by itself and a strong "superior" one when combined with the PB:NY)? Just a thought, I just don't like the idea of any cards being unusable. I'd rather have some new card allowing for a cornercase combo which would at least make them viable in a small amount of decks, than just have certain cards be dust-gatherers... I'm not a big fan of errata myself, but I think all cards that are currently considered wallpaper could be made "better" by introducing a new card that combos with it. Like Well-aimed Car for instance, I mean, we could have a Rico Loco-style vampire who, like, gets an additional strike when throwing a car, or throw them for free once per combat, or something. Still under the power curve in all probable cases, I know, but at least a bit more playable..

Teeka wrote: > I'm not a big fan of errata myself, but I think all cards that are > currently considered wallpaper could be made "better" by introducing a > new card that combos with it. Like Well-aimed Car for instance, I > mean, we could have a Rico Loco-style vampire who, like, gets an > additional strike when throwing a car, or throw them for free once per > combat, or something. Still under the power curve in all probable > cases, I know, but at least a bit more playable.. Ah, yes. That certainly remains a possibility for all cards. Even PB:NY. With proper support PB:NY may be reprinted (still with the 3-counter start, I imagine).