[Question] Giant's Blood

> If my opponent plays Giant's Blood and i Sudden Reversal it, can i > play my Giant's Blood later on in the same game??? Yes. Rules: because the Suddenly Reversed Giant's Blood was never played. Concept: His minion never found the unique vial of Giant's Blood, so it's still there to be discovered by your minion. Mr. Pynk --- http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/

If my opponent plays Giant's Blood and i Sudden Reversal it, can i play my Giant's Blood later on in the same game??? -- Anthony Michael Amber Internet: aamb...@scu.edu.au Southern Cross University Lismore NSW Australia

"Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes: >> If my opponent plays Giant's Blood and i Sudden Reversal it, can i >> play my Giant's Blood later on in the same game??? >Yes. No. >Rules: because the Suddenly Reversed Giant's Blood was never played. Rules: SR only cancels a master card as it is being played. Therefore, it must be "played" to be SR'ed, and any subsequent time that Giant's Blood is "played", it will have no effect (card text). This has been the official ruling since 9/23/94. >Concept: His minion never found the unique vial of Giant's Blood, so it's >still there to be discovered by your minion. Nolo contendre. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A one-bit brain with a http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | parity error. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Tono <aamb...@scu.edu.au> wrote in article <4vr20n$8...@axis.scu.edu.au>... > If my opponent plays Giant's Blood and i Sudden Reversal it, can i > play my Giant's Blood later on in the same game??? > > -- > Anthony Michael Amber Internet: aamb...@scu.edu.au > Southern Cross University > Lismore NSW Australia > No, even if it is "suddenned" Giant's Blood can't be played more than one in a game. -- Michel BRIAND Toulouse, FRANCE media...@calva.net

Last errata I saw was that it had been considered to have been in play and therefore unuseable. So Hank the methuselah showed his minions the hidden panel where the vial was located only to find the bottle broken. Best answer would be to read the text on Sudden Reversal really closely. Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: > > > If my opponent plays Giant's Blood and i Sudden Reversal it, can i > > play my Giant's Blood later on in the same game??? > > Yes. > > Rules: because the Suddenly Reversed Giant's Blood was never played. > > Concept: His minion never found the unique vial of Giant's Blood, so it's > still there to be discovered by your minion. > [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : "Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes: : >> If my opponent plays Giant's Blood and i Sudden Reversal it, can i : >> play my Giant's Blood later on in the same game??? : : >Yes. : : No. This may be another thing that changed betwen Jyhad and V:Tes, but on the Jyhad version, the card says "If this is the first timeGiant's blood is played, refil the target vamp to capacity. If Giant's blood has already been played, the card has no effect." In other words, in Jyhad at least, you could play the card if it had already been played, but it wouldn't do anything for you. If it had been sudden Reversaled, it had still been played, and would therefore have no effect. Basically, this menas that you'd only want to play the card the second time to help loosen card jam. Joe -- Joe Helfrich, Managing Editor, CPI | Certainly the games is rigged. Don't j...@dimensional.com | let that stop you; if you don't bet, http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh | you can't win. --Lazarus Long *** Dum vivimus, vivamus! (While we live, let us _live_!) ***

>In other words, in Jyhad at least, you could play the card if it had >already been played, but it wouldn't do anything for you. If it had been >sudden Reversaled, it had still been played, and would therefore have no >effect. >Basically, this menas that you'd only want to play the card the second >time to help loosen card jam. >Joe >> Your'e wrong joe. Playing a sudden reversal makes it like the card has never been played....cause if you have to play a cost to bring out a master card the cost is returned to you. If sudden reversal simply negated the effects....i would insist that you must pay the cost still. So using my logic another giants blood can be played with its affect after a first giants blood has been reversed. STOP reading the cards so literal. The guys who wrote the cards ARE NOT English grammer (anti-ambiguity) Honour students...etc. Give 'em a break and use some logic. "ghost who walks"

In article <krtaxe01.9...@scilab.uct.ac.za>, [ quoted text not captured ] Joe's right. Sudden Reversal cancels the card (both effect and cost), but does not undo the fact that the card was played. This has been explicitly stated in many Rules Team Rulings since Nov94. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Eric Knight (krta...@scilab.uct.ac.za) wrote: : >> Your'e wrong joe. Playing a sudden reversal makes it like the card has : never been played....cause if you have to play a cost to bring out a master No, it's still played--after all, I don't get to play another master after you SR my Giant's blood. In "role playing" terms, the SR interfers with the actions caused by the card, it does not keep me from trying to complete a certain set of actions. : STOP reading the cards so literal. The guys who wrote the cards ARE NOT : English grammer (anti-ambiguity) Honour students...etc. Give 'em a break and : use some logic. I agree with you--as to what it _should_ be. Unfortunatly, the RULES TEAMS refuse to be bound by logic--for example, they completely hamstring Rostrech rather then let you play even one MOOT on your own turn. Take for example, the white MTG card that boosts both black and whote "guardian" creatures because someone was too lazy to check if other "guardian" type creatures had been made. If there's anyting that the rules teams are, it's anal retentive about card wordings. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

Joe Helfrich wrote: > : STOP reading the cards so literal. The guys who wrote the cards ARE NOT > : English grammer (anti-ambiguity) Honour students...etc. Give 'em a break and > : use some logic. > > I agree with you--as to what it _should_ be. Unfortunatly, the RULES > TEAMS refuse to be bound by logic--for example, they completely hamstring > Rostrech rather then let you play even one MOOT on your own turn. Take > for example, the white MTG card that boosts both black and whote > "guardian" creatures because someone was too lazy to check if other > "guardian" type creatures had been made. If there's anyting that the > rules teams are, it's anal retentive about card wordings. :( With the exception perhaps of the forementioned Rostrecht(however it's spelled) which according to the card wording would send the vampire recieving the aggravated to torpor not the other way round as the rules team has determined. :) jon

Jonathan G. Sushinsky (su...@wam.umd.edu) wrote: : Joe Helfrich wrote: : > I agree with you--as to what it _should_ be. Unfortunatly, the RULES : > TEAMS refuse to be bound by logic--for example, they completely hamstring : > Rostrech rather then let you play even one MOOT on your own turn. Take : : With the exception perhaps of the forementioned Rostrecht(however it's : spelled) which according to the card wording would send the vampire : recieving the aggravated to torpor not the other way round as the rules : team has determined. True. My point was that it's a Master Out of Turn, so rather then bend the literalness of "out of turn" they twist themselves in a knot. [ quoted text not captured ]