Hi guys,
Have been looking around, but couldn't find an appropriate answer, so
here you go:
supose you have 2 Salubri with superior OBEAH.
One of them has gotten hold of basic obf.
First Salubri takes an action (whatever: bleeding, hunting, not really
important..), and plays Repulsion
Second Salubri (the one with obf) plays Mask1000F
Now what happens?
A) the repulsion ends up on the first minion who initially started the
whole thing and played the Repulsion, but the +1 stealth (for the
duration of the action)carries over to the acting minion (seems
unlikely to me)
After this action it will be the first minion (without obf) who gets
the permanent +1stealth
B)the repulsion ends up on the first minion who initially started the
whole thing and played the Repulsion, but the +1 stealth DOESN'T carry
over to the acting minion who played the Mask
C)The Repulsion ends up on the second minion, who consequently gets
the +1stealth during the action already, and of course ever after
Additionally: should A or B be the correct answer: does the second
minion, masking the action, has the right to play another Repulsion
this time on his/herself?
My wildest guess would be:
B, and yes.
But, if so, why does Repulsion not suffer from the "cannot play the
same action modifier twice "rule?
Thanks in advance,
Jo
wolflord wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Have been looking around, but couldn't find an appropriate answer, so
> here you go:
>
> supose you have 2 Salubri with superior OBEAH.
> One of them has gotten hold of basic obf.
>
> First Salubri takes an action (whatever: bleeding, hunting, not really
> important..), and plays Repulsion
>
> Second Salubri (the one with obf) plays Mask1000F
> Now what happens?
>> B)the repulsion ends up on the first minion who initially started the
> whole thing and played the Repulsion, but the +1 stealth DOESN'T carry
> over to the acting minion who played the Mask
>> Additionally: should A or B be the correct answer: does the second
> minion, masking the action, has the right to play another Repulsion
> this time on his/herself?
Yes.
> My wildest guess would be:
> B, and yes.
Ding!
> But, if so, why does Repulsion not suffer from the "cannot play the
> same action modifier twice "rule?
It does. B only plays Repulsion once.
Likewise, if A had played Lost In Crowds, B could play Lost In Crowds
as well.
--
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/
> It does. B only plays Repulsion once.
>
> Likewise, if A had played Lost In Crowds, B could play Lost In Crowds
> as well.
Slightly unrelated question...
Is combining lots of M1KF and Command of the Beast a viable bleed
pump? Like, having 4 minions, one attempting a bleed (and playing
Command), then three consequent minions playing Mask and Command,
bringing the bleed to 5?
I thought (for some reason) that this deck was not possible, because
action modifiers were no longer restricted 'by minion', but rather 'by
action'.
I'm wrong, right? ;)
Bye,
Daneel
On 30 Mar 2004 22:32:24 -0800, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) scrawled:
>> It does. B only plays Repulsion once.
>>
>> Likewise, if A had played Lost In Crowds, B could play Lost In Crowds
>> as well.>
>Slightly unrelated question...
>
>Is combining lots of M1KF and Command of the Beast a viable bleed
>pump? Like, having 4 minions, one attempting a bleed (and playing
>Command), then three consequent minions playing Mask and Command,
>bringing the bleed to 5?
legal and viable. and painful. i've been bled by such a beast before,
and woe. woe woe.
>I thought (for some reason) that this deck was not possible, because
>action modifiers were no longer restricted 'by minion', but rather 'by
>action'.
that's a lie!
>I'm wrong, right? ;)
uhm....which bit?! :D
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Daneel wrote:
> Is combining lots of M1KF and Command of the Beast a viable bleed
> pump? Like, having 4 minions, one attempting a bleed (and playing
> Command), then three consequent minions playing Mask and Command,
> bringing the bleed to 5?
Yes, assuming that it's superior CotB.
Consider, though, that you'd require 4 DOM minions, 4 CotB, and 3 MoOTF
in order to get a bleed for five. Efficient that isn't.
(This doesn't work with other bleed modifiers, which all say "After
playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further
increase the bleed for this action.", so you can't stack Conditionings.)
> I thought (for some reason) that this deck was not possible, because
> action modifiers were no longer restricted 'by minion', but rather 'by
> action'.
Nope. Totally "by minion". See superior Cloak the Gathering.
--Colin McGuigan
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:45:22 -0600, Colin McGuigan
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>Daneel wrote:>> Is combining lots of M1KF and Command of the Beast a viable bleed
>> pump? Like, having 4 minions, one attempting a bleed (and playing
>> Command), then three consequent minions playing Mask and Command,
>> bringing the bleed to 5?>
>Yes, assuming that it's superior CotB.
>
>Consider, though, that you'd require 4 DOM minions, 4 CotB, and 3 MoOTF
>in order to get a bleed for five. Efficient that isn't.
well, start it with a scouting mission (for cheapness sake).
and end it with a conditioning (after the last CotB).
that's a 9 bleed for 1 blood and a heap of cards.
then 3 of those vamps are untapped at the end
and then you do it again with those 3 untapped guys, leaving 2
untapped, and having bled for another 8.
then you do it again with those two, for 7.
then the last one stays up to deflect, and your prey(s) has(have) lost
24 pool.
a dream turn, sure. but if you can pull off just bits of that combo
each turn, it's going to hurt.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:45:22 -0600, Colin McGuigan
> <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>
>>>Daneel wrote:
>>>>>Is combining lots of M1KF and Command of the Beast a viable bleed
>>>pump? Like, having 4 minions, one attempting a bleed (and playing
>>>Command), then three consequent minions playing Mask and Command,
>>>bringing the bleed to 5?>>
>>Yes, assuming that it's superior CotB.
>>
>>Consider, though, that you'd require 4 DOM minions, 4 CotB, and 3 MoOTF
>>in order to get a bleed for five. Efficient that isn't.>
>
> well, start it with a scouting mission (for cheapness sake).
> and end it with a conditioning (after the last CotB).
> that's a 9 bleed for 1 blood and a heap of cards.
Right. Where "heap of cards" == "9 cards", and that's just your first
minion...
> a dream turn, sure. but if you can pull off just bits of that combo
> each turn, it's going to hurt.
Considering that Govern + Command of the Beast + Conditioning is a bleed
for two less, with one more blood, but _six_ less cards, and so a _lot_
more likely to pull off...
--Colin McGuigan
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:49:04 -0600, Colin McGuigan
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> well, start it with a scouting mission (for cheapness sake).
>> and end it with a conditioning (after the last CotB).
>> that's a 9 bleed for 1 blood and a heap of cards.>
>Right. Where "heap of cards" == "9 cards", and that's just your first
>minion...
well, i never said it was easy....
>> a dream turn, sure. but if you can pull off just bits of that combo
>> each turn, it's going to hurt.>
>Considering that Govern + Command of the Beast + Conditioning is a bleed
>for two less, with one more blood, but _six_ less cards, and so a _lot_
>more likely to pull off...
but or so garish. anyone can govern+++, but it's _cool_ to do the mask
trick. :)
mind you, i could never do it as for some bizzarre reason i only have
2 command of the beasts and 4 masks.
ever get the feeling you have decks you just can't find any more that
have all those cards you thought you owned in them?
salem
owns about 12 cards requiring dementation. total. (!?)
[ quoted text not captured ]