In the last Jyhad game I played [before moving :( Have fun, Paul], I had
Lucian robbing people all over the place. He blocked a forced-to-hunt
minion that had a Flak Jacket. At close range, Lucian stole the flak
jacket. Could he use it to prevent the 1 damage done by the blocked
vampire? We said yes, but it has a really funny thing to imagine.
[He then additional striked the hunter into torpor. "Whaddaya doin,
gimme that jacket. Now geddoudaheah... *slap*"]
P.S. Anyone play Jyhad in Spokane, WA?
--
"I find that most philosophical discussions are psycho- // Bill Gilliland
logically useful but, in the end, when you look back //
historically at what was being said, and being said // "Semprini?" OY! OUT!
with such vigour, it's almost always - to a degree - //
nonsense!" (Richard Feynman) // ska...@u.washington.edu
In article <3r9mpn$c...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Semprini <ska...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I had Lucian robbing people all over the place. He blocked a forced-to-hunt
>minion that had a Flak Jacket. At close range, Lucian stole the flak
>jacket. Could he use it to prevent the 1 damage done by the blocked
>vampire? We said yes, but it has a really funny thing to imagine.
Not unless he stole it with First Strike. Since the strikes
resolve simutaneously, the damage will hit him before(or as) he gets
the Flak Jacket, but just before he spends a blood to heal that damage.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text
This brings up a question.
Suppose my opponent has a flamethrower, or other such awesome
equipment. I'm attacking, and my opponent blocks with that vampire.
I'm not afraid, because i've got a fast hands card (steal weapon with
first strike at superior). I slap it down.
My opponent only has normal celerity, but he plays another fast hands
to attempt to steal the flamethrower back; since he's only got normal
celerity its not a first strike.
The question is, who has the flamethrower at the end of the battle?
--George
In article <3rhvas$n...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
>In article <GFINK.95J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,[ quoted text not captured ]> Here's my take: when you declare the strike, you have to
>declare a legal strike. If it's steal equipment, the opponent has to
>have that piece of equipment in order to use the strike. So in strike
>declaration, you can say "I'll steal the flamethrower," but your
>opponent can't, because you vampire doesn't have one to steal. In other
>words, I don't think that he can call that strike, as there's nothing to
>steal. And you get the FT.
Well, he can attempt to steal weapon even when Lucian has no weapon, but
must announce the target along with the strike. He cannot target his own
Flame Thrower, so must simply steal nothing. (A hand strike would be a
better choice, but...) Net effect is still: Lucian gets the FT.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3ri27d$k...@crl.crl.com>, L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>In article <3rhvas$n...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
>Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:>>In article <GFINK.95J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
>>George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:>>>Suppose my opponent has a flamethrower, or other such awesome
>>>equipment. I'm attacking, and my opponent blocks with that vampire.
>>>I'm not afraid, because i've got a fast hands card (steal weapon with
>>>first strike at superior). I slap it down.
>>>My opponent only has normal celerity, but he plays another fast hands
>>>to attempt to steal the flamethrower back; since he's only got normal
>>>celerity its not a first strike.
>>>
>>>The question is, who has the flamethrower at the end of the battle?>> Here's my take: when you declare the strike, you have to
>>declare a legal strike. If it's steal equipment, the opponent has to
>>have that piece of equipment in order to use the strike.
however, in the above example the original stealing is at first strike
(See quoted text). therefore, the flamethrower would be in the stealer's
possession (the strike would have resolved) by the time the second steal
came around to resolution, and be a legal target. by that logic, the
original possessor would be able to steal it back. how does jyhad address
targets that change status prior to resolution? i think we need tom's
input on this.
>Well, he can attempt to steal weapon even when Lucian has no weapon, but
>must announce the target along with the strike. He cannot target his own
>Flame Thrower, so must simply steal nothing. (A hand strike would be a
>better choice, but...) Net effect is still: Lucian gets the FT.
i disagree, but things seem pretty murky. let's bounce it to tom and
see what happens.
heckler
--
If you've ever received email (or ANY sort of mail) from anyone who talks to
you with respect, or even (*GASP*) admires you, please forward it to me so i
may go into an apoplectic coma.
-5150
When you play a strike like Fast Hands, you must choose a piece of equipment
that the other minion has as you play the card. You don't wait until the
strike resolves. So if only one minion has a Flamethrower when strikes are
declared, the other minion is the only one that can try to steal or break
a Flamethrower.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <GFINK.95J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Suppose my opponent has a flamethrower, or other such awesome
>equipment. I'm attacking, and my opponent blocks with that vampire.
>I'm not afraid, because i've got a fast hands card (steal weapon with
>first strike at superior). I slap it down.
>My opponent only has normal celerity, but he plays another fast hands
>to attempt to steal the flamethrower back; since he's only got normal
>celerity its not a first strike.
>
>The question is, who has the flamethrower at the end of the battle?
Here's my take: when you declare the strike, you have to
declare a legal strike. If it's steal equipment, the opponent has to
have that piece of equipment in order to use the strike. So in strike
declaration, you can say "I'll steal the flamethrower," but your
opponent can't, because you vampire doesn't have one to steal. In other
words, I don't think that he can call that strike, as there's nothing to
steal. And you get the FT.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to
see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone
In article <3ri94b$m...@phakt.usc.edu>,
gomi no sensei <pech...@phakt.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <3ri27d$k...@crl.crl.com>, L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:>>Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:>>>George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:>>>>My opponent only has normal celerity, but he plays another fast hands
>>>>to attempt to steal the flamethrower back; since he's only got normal
>>>>celerity its not a first strike.>>>> Here's my take: when you declare the strike, you have to
>>>declare a legal strike. If it's steal equipment, the opponent has to
>>>have that piece of equipment in order to use the strike.>>however, in the above example the original stealing is at first strike
>(See quoted text). therefore, the flamethrower would be in the stealer's
>possession (the strike would have resolved) by the time the second steal
>came around to resolution, and be a legal target. by that logic, the
But you have to declare the strike during strike declaration, at
which time there's no FT for the other guy to target. While Scott is
right and you *can* go after nothing, whatever you go after has to be on
the guy you're going after, so the FT is not available for theft.
First strike doesn't matter until strike resolution, which is
after the declaration is over, and that makes it too late for the
opponent to name FT.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <DA3M1...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Gord Culleton <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Ok, I've been folowing this thread for a while, and this makes
>sense. By this ruling, a Steal/Destroy Equip./Weapon used as
>an additional strike would be legal? Eg. Tatiana steals Anvil's
>.44 with Sup. Celerity, thus depriving poor Anvil a strike. Anvil
>Blurs, punches Tatiana for being a knob, then steals the gun back.
>That has happened in a game. Was it legal?
Yep, that's perfectly fine, if Anvil's got the cards to do it.
Likewise, if Tatiana had the cards, she could call additional strikes to
fire the gun. I suppose that if it got really silly, if they both
played for two additional strikes, then Anvil could steal the gun back,
and then Tatiana could steal it back again! The blocker would have an
advantage, though, and would be able to hit (why use the gun if you know
that it'll be stolen). But it'd be fun to watch...
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <DA3M1...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>Gord Culleton <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:>>Ok, I've been folowing this thread for a while, and this makes
>>sense. By this ruling, a Steal/Destroy Equip./Weapon used as
>>an additional strike would be legal? Eg. Tatiana steals Anvil's
>>.44 with Sup. Celerity, thus depriving poor Anvil a strike. Anvil
>>Blurs, punches Tatiana for being a knob, then steals the gun back.
>>That has happened in a game. Was it legal?> Yep, that's perfectly fine, if Anvil's got the cards to do it.
>Likewise, if Tatiana had the cards, she could call additional strikes to
>fire the gun.
Nope. You can't use a weapon for a strike unless you started the round
of combat with it. [DTR, I believe]
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.scarolina.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, I've been folowing this thread for a while, and this makes
sense. By this ruling, a Steal/Destroy Equip./Weapon used as
an additional strike would be legal? Eg. Tatiana steals Anvil's
.44 with Sup. Celerity, thus depriving poor Anvil a strike. Anvil
Blurs, punches Tatiana for being a knob, then steals the gun back.
That has happened in a game. Was it legal?
Jere Culleton
(Rush Rules!!!)
Gord Culleton <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Ok, I've been folowing this thread for a while, and this makes
>sense. By this ruling, a Steal/Destroy Equip./Weapon used as
>an additional strike would be legal? Eg. Tatiana steals Anvil's
>.44 with Sup. Celerity, thus depriving poor Anvil a strike. Anvil
>Blurs, punches Tatiana for being a knob, then steals the gun back.
>That has happened in a game. Was it legal?
Sure, no problem, assuming the round was at close range ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3rkh0h$t...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>> Yep, that's perfectly fine, if Anvil's got the cards to do it.
>>Likewise, if Tatiana had the cards, she could call additional strikes to
>>fire the gun.>
>Nope. You can't use a weapon for a strike unless you started the round
>of combat with it. [DTR, I believe]
I don't think that's right. I just checked my DTR archives and
didn't see any mention of it. Plus, what good is Disguised Weapon if
you can't use it?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) writes:
> In article <3rkh0h$t...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
> L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>>> Yep, that's perfectly fine, if Anvil's got the cards to do it.
>>>Likewise, if Tatiana had the cards, she could call additional strikes to
>>>fire the gun.>>
>>Nope. You can't use a weapon for a strike unless you started the round
>>of combat with it. [DTR, I believe]>
> I don't think that's right. I just checked my DTR archives and
> didn't see any mention of it. Plus, what good is Disguised Weapon if
> you can't use it?
> | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
> | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
> | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
Yes, but Steal Weapon is different from Disguised Weapon, no?
In the rulebook, it specifically states (P.35 15.3.)"...The
epuipment may not used by the stealing minion until the following
round of combat..." There's been nothing in any FAQ or DTR
goodies to change this. 'Til next time...
Jere Culleton
(Rush Rules!!!)
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Nope. You can't use a weapon for a strike unless you started the round
>of combat with it. [DTR, I believe]
Not correct. Stealing a weapon with first strike neutralizes any strike
just declared for it (unless that was at first strike to), but you could
fire that weapon later that round if you meet all the requirements.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) writes:
> Not correct. Stealing a weapon with first strike neutralizes any strike
> just declared for it (unless that was at first strike to), but you could
> fire that weapon later that round if you meet all the requirements.
>
> Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Jyhad rulebook (unless it's been changed, I got mine for Xmas ;)
pg. 35 15.3 Steal Weapon - ...The Epuipment may *not* be used by
the stealing minion until the following round of combat.
Has this changed? If so, where can I get my maulers on a revised
set of rules, with all (or most) changes intact, without buying
a new Starter?
Jere Culleton
(Rush Rules!!!)
In article <3rq37r$4...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>Nope. You can't use a weapon for a strike unless you started the round
>>of combat with it. [DTR, I believe]>>Not correct. Stealing a weapon with first strike neutralizes any strike
>just declared for it (unless that was at first strike to), but you could
>fire that weapon later that round if you meet all the requirements.
>
You should mark this as errata then, since 15.3 explicitly states that you
can't use stolen equipment on the same round of combat
[ quoted text not captured ]