Pulled Fangs Question

A while back I posted a question on Charnas the Imp. The consensus that I got was that since Charnas is a minion card, then the minion he is placed on has control of him. So, now this provokes yet another question...Who controls Pulled Fangs? The V:TES version states that the card can be burned by two D-Actions. Since you can't take a D-Action against yourself, this would imply the card is controlled by the Methuselah who placed the card on the Vampire. But, since it is a minion card it should be controlled by the vampire it is on (as per the Charnas decision). So which is it? If I take an action to burn the pulled fangs on one of my vampires, can the vampires of the Methuselah who played it on me attempt to block? And if so, then the logic which is the basis for the Charnas the Imp ruling can't be applied. Note that the Jyhad version of pulled fangs doesn't mention a D-Action, so I assume the card was "fixed" in V:TES (implying it is indeed controlled by the Methuselah who played it and not the recipient of it). Any input would be most appreciated. Thanks.

Thus saith Chris Gillam the Unworthy, in the Year of Our Lord Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:34:07 GMT : > So, now this provokes yet another question...Who controls Pulled Fangs? > The V:TES version states that the card can be burned by two D-Actions. > Since you can't take a D-Action against yourself, this would imply the > card is controlled by the Methuselah who placed the card on the Vampire. You cannot take (D) actions against yourself unless the card specifically states otherwise. Pulled Fangs allows you to take (D) actions against minions you control. Similar situation to Master: out of turn cards. Cannot be played on your turn unless the card states that it can, eg. Gangrel Conspiricy. > Note that the Jyhad version of pulled fangs doesn't mention a D-Action, > so I assume the card was "fixed" in V:TES (implying it is indeed > controlled by the Methuselah who played it and not the recipient of it). I think the "fix" is more of a "break", since cards are controlled by the meth who controls the minion they were on unless the card states otherwise. Since the action in the V:tES is now a (D) action, and the only meth who can block a (D) action is the target of the action. Unless Eagle's Sight is used. Thus the +1 stealth is somewhat acedemic. I would go with the original (Jyhad) card text. Hardrock -- Hardrock Llewynyth a.g.AB founding member (DNRC) hard...@speakeasy.org http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock [Hardrock] Kook Code: V.Fomin+ (Grubor+)*2 Kook Number: 3 Kook Code 2: (Boursy+5)*2 V.Fomin+ (Grubor+10)*2 Snowwolf+ Kook Number v.2: 32

cw...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Chris Gillam) writes: > A while back I posted a question on Charnas the Imp. The consensus that >I got was that since Charnas is a minion card, then the minion he is >placed on has control of him. > So, now this provokes yet another question...Who controls Pulled Fangs? The minion (vampire) whose fansg have been pulled. >The V:TES version states that the card can be burned by two D-Actions. Hurmph. Treat this as a mis-print then. No errata has been issued, however. There is no reason that the Fangs should remain under the control of the player who played them, however. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | He who laughs last http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | thinks slowest Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

See, maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I seem to recall a similar question about Shackles of Enkidu. I thought that it was ruled that the (D)-action mentioned on that card refered to the player who played the card. So shouldn't the same be true for Pulled Fangs? James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu --------------------------------------------------- "Well, Mulder didn't say that it _was_ Alex Trebek, just someone who looked extremely like him." -- Dana Scully, X-Files: "Jose Chung's _From Outer Space_"

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >See, maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I seem to recall a similar >question about Shackles of Enkidu. I thought that it was ruled that the >(D)-action mentioned on that card refered to the player who played the >card. So shouldn't the same be true for Pulled Fangs? No, because Shackles were meant to remain under the control of the player whose Gangrel brought them into play (or, at least, the action to burn the shackles was meant to be directed at that player). The action to burn Fangs was not meant to be so directed, as evidenced by the multitude of rulings from WotC governing the nature of the two actions in the Jyhad version. And there's no real WoD reason to have the action be directed, as there is for the action to burn Shackles (i.e., the shackled minion is "bound" or "arrested" by the controller of the Gangrel who shackled him). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin (je...@cornell.edu) wrote: : See, maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I seem to recall a similar : question about Shackles of Enkidu. I thought that it was ruled that the : (D)-action mentioned on that card refered to the player who played the : card. So shouldn't the same be true for Pulled Fangs? Well, first off, I was under the impression that an "errata" tag was used to introduce some information that the controller of the shackles was the controller of the Gangrel that originally equipped with it. In other words, the Gangrel that it was initially "played" on is the "controller". They then use them to "shackle" another minion. Pulled fangs is played directly on another minion... I don't think it would follow the same rules. -spongy

In article <5e9jjb$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >No, because Shackles were meant to remain under the control of >the player whose Gangrel brought them into play (or, at least, the >action to burn the shackles was meant to be directed at that >player). > >The action to burn Fangs was not meant to be so directed, as evidenced >by the multitude of rulings from WotC governing the nature of the >two actions in the Jyhad version. > >And there's no real WoD reason to have the action be directed, as there >is for the action to burn Shackles (i.e., the shackled minion is "bound" >or "arrested" by the controller of the Gangrel who shackled him). > >-- >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | He who laughs last >http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | thinks slowest >Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | Ok, so the fangs are a minion card that is played on an opposing minion. The opposing minion then has control of the card, not the player who played the card. Shackles of Enkidu are brought into play by a minion (an action must be taken). These remain under control of the player that brought them into play. They are a minion card. Charnas the Imp is a minion card. It takes an action to bring into play. Why then would the controller of the Imp be the person it is placed on and not the person that brought it into play. Wouldn't the Imp be more like the shackles then like the pulled fangs? The idea that the Imp is controlled by the person he is played on because it is a minion card can't hold, since shackles is also a minion card. If you want to get real world, wouldn't it make sense that if a sourcerer brought an Imp into play that was supposed to harm another person, then he would still control that Imp? I just don't see a good reason why the Imp shouldn't still be controlled by the Methuselah that brought it into play. - Chris Gillam

Chris Gillam wrote: > Ok, so the fangs are a minion card that is played on an > opposing minion. The opposing minion then has control of the > card, not the player who played the card. > > Shackles of Enkidu are brought into play by a minion (an > action must be taken). These remain under control of the > player that brought them into play. They are a minion card. > > Charnas the Imp is a minion card. It takes an action to > bring into play. Why then would the controller of the Imp be > the person it is placed on and not the person that brought it 1) Becuase it is a minion card, and has no obvious reason to have a "who controls me" mechanism different from the basic one. 2) Because it would be too powerful if it remained under the employer's control. > into play. Wouldn't the Imp be more like the shackles then > like the pulled fangs? The idea that the Imp is controlled by The Imp is so dissimilar to both Fangs and Shackles that no meaningful WoD parallels can be drawn. > the person he is played on because it is a minion card can't > hold, since shackles is also a minion card. > If you want to get real world, wouldn't it make sense that if > a sourcerer brought an Imp into play that was supposed to harm > another person, then he would still control that Imp? BEGIN DIGRESSION Based on my (ancient) D&D background, not on WoD Imps: Sorcerers who conjure demons (of which Imps are a feeble version), rarely, if ever, have control of the summoned demon. They simply exact a price (favor) from the demon in exchange for the freeing the demon or what have you. This price is frequently "go hurt so-and-so". The lack of control is the most publicized use for a protective pentagram. END DIGRESSION > I just don't see a good reason why the Imp shouldn't still be > controlled by the Methuselah that brought it into play. Them's the rules. You don't need a good reason to say that a card follows the basic rules. You *do* need a good reason to say that a card doesn't follow the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]