Alltho i think it愀 unintended, the following intepretation of
dualforms cardtext is possible:
Vampire A makes a Copy, A2.
Vampire A2 suffers a purge, therefor A2 leaves the ready region.
A is burned due to Dual Form cardtext. A leaves the ready region.
(and goes into ashheap).
A2 is burned due to Dual Form cardtext.
Is this how it愀 ment to work?
Daniel H wrote:
> Alltho i think it´s unintended, the following intepretation of[ quoted text not captured ]> Is this how it´s ment to work?
No. As LSJ has stated (increasingly repeatedly), when A is burned due
to A2 leaving the ready region, the effect is done; A2 does not also
burn from A having burned in response to A2's change of status.
When one of them leaves the ready region, the other burns, and the
effect of the card is resolved and over without it rebounding onto the
remaining vampire.
If it were meant for both vampires to burn that way, the card would say
'both' instead of 'the other'.
-John Flournoy
On 18 Jan 2005 10:47:08 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com>
scrawled:
>
>Daniel H wrote:>> Alltho i think it愀 unintended, the following intepretation of>> dualforms cardtext is possible:
>>
>> Vampire A makes a Copy, A2.
>> Vampire A2 suffers a purge, therefor A2 leaves the ready region.
>>
>> A is burned due to Dual Form cardtext. A leaves the ready region.
>> (and goes into ashheap).
>>
>> A2 is burned due to Dual Form cardtext.
>>>> Is this how it愀 ment to work?>
>No.
[snip]
>If it were meant for both vampires to burn that way, the card would say
>'both' instead of 'the other'.
I'm guessing card text could perhaps have been a bit clearer, just a
teeny bit, just a hint more clear, judging from the sheer volume of
posts with the same question in it.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
I'm guessing card text could perhaps have been a bit clearer, just a
teeny bit, just a hint more clear, judging from the sheer volume of
posts with the same question in it.
Well, imho the card text is COMPLETELY clear.
it is clearly not intented to burn both vampires,
if it was, it will say burn both vampires.
I understand how someone could think that it does so,
but LSJ clearly said that when A goes to torpor, A2 burns
and that's what happens with this pair as an effect of A going
to torpor. I believe that when all people realize this and stop
asking the same question (congrats on your anger management,
i would have banged my head on the wall), then we will all be happy
that Dual Form's text is not longer by 2-3 lines.
George
What clearer card text do you propose, Salem?
I've spent at least four minutes thinking about a better way to phrase
it, and I couldn't come up with anything. The current text, combined
with LSJ's clarifications, is sufficiently clear to me.
Personally, when I forced myself to guess at the correct ruling before
hearing LSJ's answer, I guessed correctly. I think even without access
to LSJ's clarifications, judges are likely to rule correctly on this
particular card.
Ira, who still has a lot of goodwill towards the rules team due to the
recently banned cards.
all you would have to do is to add "ready" to the burn sentence, i.e
"the other ready vampire is burned.". AFAIK it´s impossible to make
both
vampires leavy the ready region at the exacly same time.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 18 Jan 2005 22:58:04 -0800, "Daniel H" <dani...@home.se> scrawled:
>all you would have to do is to add "ready" to the burn sentence, i.e
>"the other ready vampire is burned.". AFAIK it´s impossible to make
>both
>vampires leavy the ready region at the exacly same time.
at a cursory thought, that seems like it would work, to me.
my responses to Ira below...
>ira...@gmail.com wrote:>> What clearer card text do you propose, Salem?
admittedly, i had nothing.
>> I've spent at least four minutes thinking about a better way to>phrase>> it, and I couldn't come up with anything. The current text, combined
>> with LSJ's clarifications, is sufficiently clear to me.
yes, with lsj's clarification, i know how it works. uh, 'cause, he
clarified it.
>> Personally, when I forced myself to guess at the correct ruling>before>> hearing LSJ's answer, I guessed correctly. I think even without>access>> to LSJ's clarifications, judges are likely to rule correctly on this
>> particular card.
umm, well, i guessed wrong. and i have been known to judge the odd
tourney. (admittedly, not recently. but i'm working on it now i am
settled in my new job).
i felt it seemed like the dual form text had an ongoing (continuous)
checking, and when the conditions were met, it activated. and
then...well, i couldn't see any reason why the effect wouldn't still
be ongoing, and checking, and heck damn it just spotted the conditoon
being met yet again.
>> Ira, who still has a lot of goodwill towards the rules team due to>the>> recently banned cards.
i even found a deck i had with one of those in it! stupid Dramatic
Upheaval lying as prayer/token vote defense/leverage device in a
weenie bleed deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 19 Jan 2005 00:48:41 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled:
>how about 2 Baltimore purges on the same minion ?
>that would force people to start asking questions...
i'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume you're replying
to the comment:
"AFAIK it愀 impossible to make
both
vampires leavy the ready region at the exacly same time."
and my reponse to your comment is:
the BP resolve sequentially. one first, then the other.
and to get them on the vampire in the first place easily requires just
a madness network and a way to untap. more convolutedly involves other
people stealing your vampire with temporary control stealing effects
and playin BPs.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> I'm guessing card text could perhaps have been a bit clearer, just a
> teeny bit, just a hint more clear, judging from the sheer volume of
> posts with the same question in it.
Thanks for that insight.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
and my reponse to your comment is:
the BP resolve sequentially. one first, then the other.
and to get them on the vampire in the first place easily requires just
a madness network and a way to untap. more convolutedly involves other
people stealing your vampire with temporary control stealing effects
and playin BPs.
i know, as i have told "that would force people to start asking
questions", so
what i am saying is that also in that case (adding "ready") there would
be
questions.
George
LSJ, if the Dual Form goes to torpor and the original vampire is
burnt, you possess the original vampire (returning with his original
capacity) back into the game and rescue the dual form from torpor,
is the "special tie" between these two active again ? or lost forever ?
(sorry for reposting the same question again, but i don't think that
i have gotten an answer, yet)
George
<geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
news:1106139939.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ, if the Dual Form goes to torpor and the original vampire is
> burnt, you possess the original vampire (returning with his original
> capacity) back into the game and rescue the dual form from torpor,
> is the "special tie" between these two active again ? or lost forever ?
Burning breaks all ties.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Daniel H wrote:
> AFAIK it´s impossible to make both
> vampires leavy the ready region at the exacly same time.
It happens. Jaroslav could send multiple Sabbat vampires to torpor at
once with his special. Or if one Dual Form vamp were stolen, the two
could enter a combat that resulted in both going to torpor.
On 19 Jan 2005 04:13:03 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
yeah...umm...but questions that have been asked before and that the
answer is quite obvious to. compared to the not so obvious answer to
the question of 'why don't they both burn?'.
adding 'ready' is a damn good simple 'fix', as far as i can tell.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:06:07 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> I'm guessing card text could perhaps have been a bit clearer, just a
>> teeny bit, just a hint more clear, judging from the sheer volume of
>> posts with the same question in it.>
>Thanks for that insight.
Glad i could be of assistance. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78etu01ligaui19l7...@4ax.com...
> adding 'ready' is a good simple 'fix', as far as i can tell.
Yes. It's a mild change to the card, and certainly only for
corner cases not worth worrying about.
But the card's already printed, so it'll have to wait until
it gets reprinted.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:00:53 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:78etu01ligaui19l7...@4ax.com...>> adding 'ready' is a good simple 'fix', as far as i can tell.>
>
>Yes. It's a mild change to the card, and certainly only for
>corner cases not worth worrying about.
>
>But the card's already printed, so it'll have to wait until
>it gets reprinted.
I'm happy with that statement, and it's pretty much more than i was
even hoping for. :)
so, who wants beer, now that we're done?
[ quoted text not captured ]