The rules say: Directed actions may not target the acting minion's
Methusalah.
The text of Rampage says:
"(D) Burn any location. This is at +1 stealth if you choose a location
you control."
Question: What happens if you choose a location you control?
(Can't imagine a situation when you would do that, though)
- Is the possibility to burn a location you control illegal?
- Is the action to burn one's own location
- unblockable (because of the directed character)?
- an undirected action which may be blocked by predator or prey?
--
Michael Beer, Dortmund, Germany, ICQ 1175389
--------------------------------------------
Life is founded on Chaos.
So if you find your living room became disordered:
Don't panic! It's natural... :)
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Michael Beer wrote:
> The rules say: Directed actions may not target the acting minion's
> Methusalah.
>
Correct.
> The text of Rampage says:
> "(D) Burn any location. This is at +1 stealth if you choose a location
> you control."
>
Here's where you're wrong. That's not the correct text. It should
be:
"(D) Burn any location. If you choose a location you control, this
is a +1 stealth action".
It this clear now? If not, note that the "+1 stealth action"
expression doesn't have a (D) in it, and thus is not a (D) action.
> Question: What happens if you choose a location you control?
> (Can't imagine a situation when you would do that, though)
>
Think "Rack". Think HG with your pred or prey with Arcanum
Chapterhouse (and for some reason it's not a good thing to burn the
Chapterhouse instead). There's always a reason. If you're not playing
Malks, that is.
Pontes
8[
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Michael Beer wrote:
: >
: > The rules say: Directed actions may not target the acting minion's
: > Methusalah.: >: > The text of Rampage says:
: > "(D) Burn any location. This is at +1 stealth if you choose a location
: > you control.": >
: > Question: What happens if you choose a location you control?: > (Can't imagine a situation when you would do that, though): >
: > - Is the possibility to burn a location you control illegal?: No, since it is allowed by card text (overriding the rule prohibiting
: self-directed (D) actions).: > - Is the action to burn one's own location: > - unblockable (because of the directed character)?
: > - an undirected action which may be blocked by predator or prey?: Unblockable.
Uh, if it's unblockable, why does it get/need a stealth bonus?
Chris Mattern
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> Michael Beer wrote:
> >
> > The rules say: Directed actions may not target the acting minion's
> > Methusalah.
> >
> > The text of Rampage says:
> > "(D) Burn any location. This is at +1 stealth if you choose a location
> > you control."
> >
> > Question: What happens if you choose a location you control?
> > (Can't imagine a situation when you would do that, though)
> >
> > - Is the possibility to burn a location you control illegal?
>
> No, since it is allowed by card text (overriding the rule prohibiting
> self-directed (D) actions).
>
> > - Is the action to burn one's own location
> > - unblockable (because of the directed character)?
> > - an undirected action which may be blocked by predator or prey?
>
> Unblockable.
>
It seems you haven't read my reply to this thread, Scott. Isn't it
true that the correct VtES wording for Rampage is:
"(D) burn a location. If you choose a location you control, this is a +1
stealth action"
Since the "+1 stealth action" has no (D) in it, it's considered
undirected, correct?
I realize Jyhad wording is different, wich is probably why you
came up with that answer, wich I would agree if Jyhad text had mantained
in VtES.
David Pontes
8[
Chris Mattern (matt...@cais2.cais.com) wrote:
: L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: : No, since it is allowed by card text (overriding the rule prohibiting
: : self-directed (D) actions).: : > - Is the action to burn one's own location
: : > - unblockable (because of the directed character)?
: : > - an undirected action which may be blocked by predator or prey?: : Unblockable.: Uh, if it's unblockable, why does it get/need a stealth bonus?
It seems it is not technically an unblockable action, just one
that is very hard to block. Cards like Day Op basically make
any blocking attempt fail. (D) actions against yourself cannot
be blocked by anyone except Anneke or with Eagle's Sight (or
similar effects, if they exist). Has it really been changed to
(D) against yourself? This would seem to contradict earlier
blanket statements from different threads forbidding (D)
actions against yourself, period.
-Dave Green
Chris Mattern wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:> : > The text of Rampage says:
> : > "(D) Burn any location. This is at +1 stealth if you choose a location
> : > you control."
> : >
> : > Question: What happens if you choose a location you control?
> : > (Can't imagine a situation when you would do that, though)> : > - Is the action to burn one's own location
> : > - unblockable (because of the directed character)?
> : > - an undirected action which may be blocked by predator or prey?
>
> : Unblockable.
>
> Uh, if it's unblockable, why does it get/need a stealth bonus?
Because of card text (according to the RT): Rampage has the (D)
symbol, so it is directed. Only the target of the action can
block (and you cannot block your own actions), so the action is
unblockable (unless Anneke or Eagle's Sight is used, in which
case +1 intercept is necessary to match the stealth).
The card was probably intended to make the self-directed burn
a +1 stealth undirected action, but that's not how it ended up
being printed - and "intentions" hold a lower standing than
card text when it comes to determining how a card works.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
David Pontes wrote:
> It seems you haven't read my reply to this thread, Scott. Isn't it
> true that the correct VtES wording for Rampage is:
>
> "(D) burn a location. If you choose a location you control, this is a +1
> stealth action"
>
> Since the "+1 stealth action" has no (D) in it, it's considered
> undirected, correct?
>
Incorrect. By that reasoning, Nosferatu Performance Art would be
undirected if the acting vampire's capacity exceeds five.
To unravel the text, note what that the "if" clause merely adds to
the fundamental function of the card:
The "+1 stealth action" also doesn't make any reference to burning
the location. But we never question whether the location is burned
if it is one you control.
The reason for this is that it says "this" is a +1 stealth action.
The "this" refers to the action on the card - namely: "(D) burn a
location".
> I realize Jyhad wording is different, wich is probably why you
> came up with that answer, wich I would agree if Jyhad text had mantained
> in VtES.
To be sure: *I* didn't come up with that answer - the Rules Team did.
That answer has never been overturned.
My personal answers do not always agree with the RT. But giving my
personal answers is not a part of my role as NetRep.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dave Green wrote:
> Chris Mattern (matt...@cais2.cais.com) wrote:
> : L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:> : : No, since it is allowed by card text (overriding the rule prohibiting
> : : self-directed (D) actions).
>> : : > - Is the action to burn one's own location> : : > - unblockable (because of the directed character)?
> : : > - an undirected action which may be blocked by predator or prey?
>
> : : Unblockable.
>> Has it really been changed to
> (D) against yourself?
No. It has always been (D) against yourself.
> This would seem to contradict earlier
> blanket statements from different threads forbidding (D)
> actions against yourself, period.
The blanket statement has never been "period". It has always been
"unless card text indicates otherwiase". Which is true of
any statement (except errata which changes card text, of course).
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> Because of card text (according to the RT): Rampage has the (D)
> symbol, so it is directed. Only the target of the action can
> block (and you cannot block your own actions), so the action is
> unblockable (unless Anneke or Eagle's Sight is used, in which
> case +1 intercept is necessary to match the stealth).
>
> The card was probably intended to make the self-directed burn
> a +1 stealth undirected action, but that's not how it ended up
> being printed - and "intentions" hold a lower standing than
> card text when it comes to determining how a card works.
Hullo :)
Speaking of D actions and good intentions, I have been getting really
annoyed with Powerbase Mexico City. D action to remove the 5 blood that
cost you 2 in the master phaseyou just had, then in your minion phase
one of your small sabbat vampires goes to get it, generating net 3 pool,
for little risk, seeing the action is unblockable. A couple of guys I
play with have been stocking up on them, 5 or 6 in a deck, because they
are such a sure thing. Maybe once a night someone will eagles sight it,
but thats a very small risk. Its just such a badly thought out card, it
would be fine if the methusela who put it out just took 1 from it every
master phase making it a target like other power bases, but it doesnt
get used like that. Please help LSJ.
> Speaking of D actions and good intentions, I have been getting
really
>annoyed with Powerbase Mexico City. D action to remove the 5 blood that
>cost you 2 in the master phaseyou just had, then in your minion phase
>one of your small sabbat vampires goes to get it, generating net 3 pool,
>for little risk, seeing the action is unblockable.
Actually, that's basically what we were talking about - illegal D actions.
You can't D action yourself unless specifically allowed, and Powerbase
Mexico doesn't allow you to, therefore you can't do it. Awwwww.
---
Liam Burke
"The Democrats can't pull it together if we rip them apart."
-overheard
James B. Floate wrote:
> Hullo :)> Speaking of D actions and good intentions, I have been getting really
> annoyed with Powerbase Mexico City. D action to remove the 5 blood that
> cost you 2 in the master phaseyou just had, then in your minion phase
> one of your small sabbat vampires goes to get it, generating net 3 pool,
> for little risk, seeing the action is unblockable.
This is illegal. The action is (D). But that doesn't mean you can go get
it yourself (unblockable). It means that you can't go get it yourself
at all.
(D) actions cannot be taken to target yourself or card(s) you control
unless allowed by card text. The only card that has card text allowing
a self-directed (D) action is Rampage (for whatever reason).
[ quoted text not captured ]
>What about Sacrificial Lamb? Wasn't there something similar
>with it?
No, the inferior version can only be used on your vamps. The superior is
a D and can be used on others.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dave Green wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
>> : (D) actions cannot be taken to target yourself or card(s) you control> : unless allowed by card text. The only card that has card text allowing
> : a self-directed (D) action is Rampage (for whatever reason).
>> What about Sacrificial Lamb? Wasn't there something similar
> with it?
The inferior is undirected (and targets a vampire you control),
while the superior is directed (and targets a vampire you do not
control). As printed.
For a brief time (before the non-self-directed-(D)-action rule
was formally stated), the superior was ruled to be unblockable
if it was used to target a vampire you controlled. When the
non-self-directed-(D)-action rule was formalized, this little
ruling was discarded as moot.
[ quoted text not captured ]