[LSJ] Question

If an Assamite is chosen for a Contract, gets burned, and another copy of that vamp is brought out, does the contract still apply? -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

Justin Fang wrote: > If an Assamite is chosen for a Contract, gets burned, and another copy of > that vamp is brought out, does the contract still apply? No. (I think) Robert

jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: > If an Assamite is chosen for a Contract, gets burned, and another copy of > that vamp is brought out, does the contract still apply? No. All cards/effects that choose/name a vampire choose/name a specific instance of that vampire (card in play). They do not choose/name all cards with that name. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <78i1a6$m7p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: >> If an Assamite is chosen for a Contract, gets burned, and another copy of >> that vamp is brought out, does the contract still apply? >No. All cards/effects that choose/name a vampire choose/name a >specific instance of that vampire (card in play). They do not >choose/name all cards with that name. This also applies to Possession, right? [ quoted text not captured ]

jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: > In article <78i1a6$m7p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > >jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: > >> If an Assamite is chosen for a Contract, gets burned, and another copy of > >> that vamp is brought out, does the contract still apply? > > >No. All cards/effects that choose/name a vampire choose/name a > >specific instance of that vampire (card in play). They do not > >choose/name all cards with that name. > > This also applies to Possession, right? It applies. If you bring the specific instance of the card back into play from the Ash Heap with Possession (or back into play after contesting), then the Contract will still allow that vampire to enter combat with the target of the Contract. Similar to the ruling on "effects pointing to the vampire from a card in play" for a Banished vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >No. All cards/effects that choose/name a vampire choose/name a > > >specific instance of that vampire (card in play). They do not > > >choose/name all cards with that name. > > This also applies to Possession, right? > It applies. If you bring the specific instance of the card back into > play from the Ash Heap with Possession (or back into play after > contesting), then the Contract will still allow that vampire to enter > combat with the target of the Contract. What? I thought all target/effects were forgotten as soon as the vampire hit the ashheap (paraphrase). > Similar to the ruling on "effects pointing to the vampire from a > card in play" for a Banished vampire. Yes, but a Banished vampire is not coming from the ashheap. It became uncontrolled, not burned. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > >No. All cards/effects that choose/name a vampire choose/name a > > > >specific instance of that vampire (card in play). They do not > > > >choose/name all cards with that name. > > > This also applies to Possession, right? > > It applies. If you bring the specific instance of the card back into > > play from the Ash Heap with Possession (or back into play after > > contesting), then the Contract will still allow that vampire to enter > > combat with the target of the Contract. > > What? I thought all target/effects were forgotten as soon as the > vampire hit the ashheap (paraphrase). OK. That's fine for almost all effects. since they are either produced by cards on the vampire himself or by cards no longer in play. But the Contract is still in play, and is still naming that particular card. It's a muddy little corner-case, to be sure. But this ruling seems to be consistent and non-problematic. To rule otherwise would affect the vampire if he is contested in the same way (since he is "out of play" with regard to the Contract just as much as he would be "out of play" if he were burned). > > Similar to the ruling on "effects pointing to the vampire from a > > card in play" for a Banished vampire. > > Yes, but a Banished vampire is not coming from the ashheap. It > became uncontrolled, not burned. True, but not a cause for a disparate ruling. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> But the Contract is still in play, and is still naming that particular > card. It's "still in play" by the nature that it is still controlled by the meth who put it into play? The card's text says "Put this card on any ready minion..." and I was always under the impression that if that minion went away, then the card went away. Apparently, this is not the case. So then I feel it is safe to assume that "Haven Uncovered" works the same way? The card's text is the same "Put this card on any ready minion..." and by the nature of control for master cards, is still in play/controlled even if the target minion is burned. So if that minion comes back into play (possession, for instance), then it can still be attacked via the "Haven Uncovered"? >It's a muddy little corner-case, to be sure. But this ruling seems > to be consistent and non-problematic. You are right. I've evidently mis-understood when cards that target minions go away. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

agentzero wrote: > >What? I thought all target/effects were forgotten as soon as the >vampire hit the ashheap (paraphrase). > Actually, this really makes me wonder. Does this mean I must choose an Assamite in play when I choose Contract? I thought I could choose any Assamite, whether or not he or she was in play. I suppose I could see a potential problem with a ruling like that, though. If Dancin' Dana had Clan Impersonated an Assamite, I could offer her a Contract on someone. Then, if she removed her Impersonation, she would no longer be an Assamite. No real problem, she can't attack her target anymore. However, I clearly can't play Contract for Dancin' Dana until she Impersonates the Assamite, even if she isn't out yet. I know that naming Embraced vampires is more of a JOL or roleplay thing for accounting purposes and not a real game mechanic. However, I could see the event where I offer a Contract to Marid al-Marzuq, some Embraced vampire who isn't in play yet. Then, someone else at the table Embraces Marid al-Marzuq, the Malkavian, and I wouldn't know where to stand. I guess I really can't offer a Contract to an Assamite who isn't in play. John Baker

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > But the Contract is still in play, and is still naming that particular > > card. > > It's "still in play" by the nature that it is still controlled by the > meth who put it into play? The card's text says "Put this card on > any ready minion..." and I was always under the impression that if > that minion went away, then the card went away. Apparently, this is > not the case. The Contract is put on the target and names an Assamite who can enter combat with the target. If the target is burned (sent to the ash heap), the Contract will be burned. But that isn't what this thread is discussing. This thread is about what happens when the Assamite named by the contract is burned. Obviously, the Contract is still on the victim (both of which are not in the ash heap). > So then I feel it is safe to assume that "Haven Uncovered" works the > same way? The card's text is the same "Put this card on any ready > minion..." and by the nature of control for master cards, is still > in play/controlled even if the target minion is burned. So if that > minion comes back into play (possession, for instance), then it > can still be attacked via the "Haven Uncovered"? No. Cards on burned minions are burned. > >It's a muddy little corner-case, to be sure. But this ruling seems > > to be consistent and non-problematic. > > You are right. I've evidently mis-understood when cards that target > minions go away. No, you just misunderstood what this thread was discussing. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

John M. Baker wrote: > > agentzero wrote: > > > >What? I thought all target/effects were forgotten as soon as the > >vampire hit the ashheap (paraphrase). > > > Actually, this really makes me wonder. Does this mean I must choose > an Assamite in play when I choose Contract? I thought I could choose > any Assamite, whether or not he or she was in play. Playing Cards * If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be destroyed/stolen. [RTR 980928] > I suppose I could see a potential problem with a ruling like that, though. > If Dancin' Dana had Clan Impersonated an Assamite, I could offer her > a Contract on someone. Then, if she removed her Impersonation, she > would no longer be an Assamite. No real problem, she can't attack her > target anymore. > > However, I clearly can't play Contract for Dancin' Dana until she > Impersonates the Assamite, even if she isn't out yet. > > I know that naming Embraced vampires is more of a JOL or roleplay > thing for accounting purposes and not a real game mechanic. However, > I could see the event where I offer a Contract to Marid al-Marzuq, some > Embraced vampire who isn't in play yet. Then, someone else at the > table Embraces Marid al-Marzuq, the Malkavian, and I wouldn't know > where to stand. > > I guess I really can't offer a Contract to an Assamite who isn't in play. Right. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> You are right. I've evidently mis-understood when cards that target >> minions go away. >No, you just misunderstood what this thread was discussing. <sheepish grin> oops, you're right. my bad. :p a0