New Beast Question

I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he gets them. What would happen if Beast played Fast Hands to take opponent's weapon. Is he even allowed to play the card? If so, does the card have no effect, or is the weapon transferred to him and then burned? [I suspect it would be transferred to him and then burned, just like stolen blood in excess of capacity -- a prior example of stealing something that you cannot have.] On a similar note. Imagine I have Heidelburg Castle in play, and Beast out. Someone puts Charnas on another of my minions. Can I tap Heidelburg to send Charnas to Beast (which burns Charnas)? Is it forbidden for Charnas to target Beast, or is Charnas merely burned when this is done? Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect because he does not have the Stake? What happens if you play "Shackles of Inky-Doo" on Beast? Does he "have" the equipment, or is it merely "on" him? Is there a distinction here? Assuming not, what happens? Is it burned? Does combat end? What about Paralyze cards like Rowan Ring and Stake? I would assume that, in this case, the paralyze effect is independent of *having* the item, and lasts until the vampire is rescued from torpor even if the stake or ring is burned as soon as Beast receives it? Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is > now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he > gets them. > > What would happen if Beast played Fast Hands to take opponent's weapon. > Is he even allowed to play the card? If so, does the card have no effect, > or is the weapon transferred to him and then burned? Beast cannot play Fast Hands. In general, a minion cannot attempt to steal equipment that he is prohibited from having [LSJ 980208]. > On a similar note. Imagine I have Heidelburg Castle in play, and Beast > out. Someone puts Charnas on another of my minions. Can I tap Heidelburg > to send Charnas to Beast (which burns Charnas)? No, since Beast cannot have reatiners, you cannot attempt to give him a retainer. > Is it forbidden for Charnas to target Beast, or is Charnas merely burned > when this is done? It is forbidden. > Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I > keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In > either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect > because he does not have the Stake? Not sure. I'd say that the stake is given to Beast and then (immediately) burned. I'll put that on the RT list for confirmation. In either case, the victim doesn't untap while in torpor. > What happens if you play "Shackles of Inky-Doo" on Beast? Does he "have" > the equipment, or is it merely "on" him? Is there a distinction here? > Assuming not, what happens? Is it burned? Does combat end? You cannot Shackle beast. > What about Paralyze cards like Rowan Ring and Stake? I would assume that, > in this case, the paralyze effect is independent of *having* the item, and > lasts until the vampire is rescued from torpor even if the stake or ring > is burned as soon as Beast receives it? Yes. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, LSJ wrote: > > What happens if you play "Shackles of Inky-Doo" on Beast? Does he "have" > > the equipment, or is it merely "on" him? Is there a distinction here? > > Assuming not, what happens? Is it burned? Does combat end? > > You cannot Shackle beast. A minor point for consideration: A shackled minion may "have" the equipment, but certainly not in the normal sense of the word. His controller is not the controller of the card. He does not have it in the same sense that its previous owner had it, and can never use it. It merely marks him as shackled, and when he he is unshackled, the card is burned. Am I correct on this last point? I have been assuming that a Shackled vampire cannot use the Shackles if he/she somehow gets into combat, thereby transfering it to a third minion. But I could find no rulings or clarifications to this effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

Opening of tempory electronic portal initiated........... Enabled.... LSJ wrote: > > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is > > now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he > > gets them. <Snip...> > > Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I > > keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In > > either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect > > because he does not have the Stake? > > Not sure. I'd say that the stake is given to Beast and then > (immediately) burned. I'll put that on the RT list for confirmation. > > In either case, the victim doesn't untap while in torpor. > My god, the man is mortal! Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the wooden stake even be able to target beast? Other cards - like kiss of Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). Wooden stake also has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden stake? By the way, what happened to the survey that was carried out by Mark. Have there been any results compiled yet or has it been abandoned. Not that I'm overly interested in the result - just a little curious. Martin. Electronic portal closing..................

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Martin Jamieson wrote: > Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the > wooden stake even be able to target beast? Other cards - like kiss of > Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't > Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be > a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call > it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples > (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). Wooden stake also > has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in > order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you > therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden > stake? I rather dislike this idea...for the following reason. In terms of disciplines and special abilities, Beast is just about the most overpowered vampire ever printed. This is compensated for by what appears, at first glance, to be some serious restrictions (cannot play action cards or allies, cannot have or use equipment or retainers). A little thought reveals that this restriction is almost meaningless, because any deck that features Beast is not going to include any of the above cards. The restriction of him not being able to do this, is about as meaningful as a restriction forbidding him from from playing Thaumaturgy Cards, Obtenebrate Cards, or anything else you have no intention of putting in your Beast deck. Beast is, quite simply, a rush deck's dream, with no real downsides. Who cares if he cannot play action cards? The only action he needs to take is printed right on him. What you are proposing is to further turn his "restriction" into a bonus, by making him immune to many things his enemies will try to do to him. He already has been ruled immune to Shackles and Charnas. I hope he will not be immune to Stake, Wooden Stake, and Rowan Ring as well. If Beast were affected normally by Wooden Stake, but, unlike most vampires, unable to benefit from it's use once he rescues himself, this is actually the only way that I can think of that his "restriction" could actually hurt him in a deck designed around him. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] In a perfect world, Shackles would've said "burn this card to put a Shackle counter on the opposing minion." However, it isn't and it doesn't. It is still equipment after being "put on" the opposing minion. The Shackled minion cannot put the Shackles on another minion, because (and this is a *really* weak explanation) card text says "you may", and that "you" is referring to the controller of the card (which didn't change when the first minion was Shackled). Factoring in all the questions about how to interact with the equipment after it is put on a minion (transfering it, Heidelburg, diablerie, Beast, etc.), this is going to get pretty messy. I'll put this card on the RT review list to see if a reasonable fix (and the "mark the opposing minion" seems a fairly reasonable fix, but I haven't really investigated the issue) can be found. [ quoted text not captured ]

Martin Jamieson wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is > > > now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he > > > gets them. > > > Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I > > > keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In > > > either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect > > > because he does not have the Stake? > > > > Not sure. I'd say that the stake is given to Beast and then > > (immediately) burned. I'll put that on the RT list for confirmation. > > > > In either case, the victim doesn't untap while in torpor. > > Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the > wooden stake even be able to target beast? Yes. The Wstake, when used as a strike, is capable of affecting Beast (doing damage). The "give this eqipment to victim" effect doesn't even think about occuring until the victim is sent to torpor. And there's really no way of always knowing whether the target will prevent enough damage to avoid triggering the inappropriate (give this equipment to) effect. > Other cards - like kiss of > Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't > Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be > a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call > it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples > (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). The real difference is that Kiss of Ra has an explicit restriction prohibiting its use, whereas Wstake has an additional effect that occurs only when certain conditions are met. When those conditions are met, the additional effect is not optional. And, since it is not allowable, the card is burned. A minion with a Sport Bike cannot attempt to equip with a Hawg. But that same minion can take a Vast Wealth action. If that action retrieves a Hawg, then the Hawg is burned with no other effect (since it is not allowable). > Wooden stake also > has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in > order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you > therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden > stake? No. You are free to attempt to meet the conditions of the additional effect if you like. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the > > wooden stake even be able to target beast? Other cards - like kiss of > > Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't > > Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be > > a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call > > it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples > > (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). Wooden stake also > > has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in > > order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you > > therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden > > stake? > > > He already has been ruled immune to Shackles and Charnas. I hope he will > not be immune to Stake, Wooden Stake, and Rowan Ring as well. > > If Beast were affected normally by Wooden Stake, but, unlike most > vampires, unable to benefit from it's use once he rescues himself, this is > actually the only way that I can think of that his "restriction" could > actually hurt him in a deck designed around him. > You mention some very good points. I'd like to propose that using Wooden Stake, etc. on Beast will still have their normal effects on him but will not transfer or burn. Instead, the original minion should keep them. This seems to make some sense, as all three seem to have two clauses. a) The paralyze or do agg damage clause, and b) the "tranfer to victim when used" clause. Beast should simply cancel the second clause, allowing the wielder to hold on to his weapon. This also seems simpler and more intuitive than burning the weapon or ruling that it is burned when transferred to Beast. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > I rather dislike this idea...for the following reason. > > In terms of disciplines and special abilities, Beast is just about the > most overpowered vampire ever printed. This is compensated for by what > appears, at first glance, to be some serious restrictions (cannot play > action cards or allies, cannot have or use equipment or retainers). > > A little thought reveals that this restriction is almost meaningless, > because any deck that features Beast is not going to include any of the > above cards. The restriction of him not being able to do this, is about > as meaningful as a restriction forbidding him from from playing > Thaumaturgy Cards, Obtenebrate Cards, or anything else you have no > intention of putting in your Beast deck. Beast is, quite simply, a rush > deck's dream, with no real downsides. Who cares if he cannot play action > cards? The only action he needs to take is printed right on him. > > What you are proposing is to further turn his "restriction" into a bonus, > by making him immune to many things his enemies will try to do to him. > I didn't say that I liked it, I was just pointing it out. Consistency in the rules seems to be a pretty big issue at the moment and I just thought I'd try and look at it from a couple of different angles. Martin.

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > He already has been ruled immune to Shackles and Charnas. I hope he will > > not be immune to Stake, Wooden Stake, and Rowan Ring as well. > > > > If Beast were affected normally by Wooden Stake, but, unlike most > > vampires, unable to benefit from it's use once he rescues himself, this is > > actually the only way that I can think of that his "restriction" could > > actually hurt him in a deck designed around him. > > You mention some very good points. I'd like to propose that using Wooden > Stake, etc. on Beast will still have their normal effects on him but will not > transfer or burn. Instead, the original minion should keep them. This seems > to make some sense, as all three seem to have two clauses. a) The paralyze > or do agg damage clause, and b) the "tranfer to victim when used" clause. > Beast should simply cancel the second clause, allowing the wielder to hold on > to his weapon. This also seems simpler and more intuitive than burning the > weapon or ruling that it is burned when transferred to Beast. Current rulings seem to tend toward the pattern that Beast simply cannot get equipment in the first place, rather than burning it once he gets it, so this would seem consistent. However, transfering and then burning the item makes more "story" sense. The reason that a Stake paralyzes, (or that a Wooden Stake keeps you from untapping while in torpor), is that it is stuck through your heart. Remove the stake, and the vampire is free again. If I still have a Stake in my hand after striking Beast, it is rather difficult to see what is keeping Beast in torpor tapped. If it is burned as soon as Beast gets it, this is still a problem, but rather less of one. I can still imagine that a piece of wood is stuck through Beast. The fact that it was burned can be thought of as representing the fact that (as far as "using" it is concerned) it simply does not exist in Beast's animal mind. Once Beast is rescued from torpor and paralysis, he will discard that piece of wood as though it did not exist. For him, it is not equipment, just a useless piece of wood. [ quoted text not captured ]