Spell of Life
Action, FoS
+1 stealth action. Put this card in play. Only one spell of Life may
be played each turn. You may burn five Spells of Life to put up to
five vampires from your uncontrolled region in play. Each represents a
unique mummy ally with life equal to capacity, 1 bleed and 2 strength
who can enter combat with a minion as a (D) action.
So the question is, do you have to control all the Spell of Life cards
in play to burn them? By the wording, no but this seems a bit odd.
Last night, 2 players were playing Spell of Life decks. One player
both players had 2 out, when the second player played his third.
There were now 5 Spells of Life in play for him to burn.
I did a quick scan of the newsgroup, but my phone is pretty slow, so
we made the ruling that yes, he could, not that it seemed 100% right.
So, did we rule right or wrong? Either way, it was funny.
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
[ quoted text not captured ]
My guess would be that you played it right (see Set's Curse), but that
it wasn't original designer intent. :)
It'd need a "burn 5 of your spells of life" or "burn 5 spells of life
you control" or something to make it only target your's.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Salem wrote:
> J wrote:>> Spell of Life
>> Action, FoS
>> +1 stealth action. Put this card in play. Only one spell of Life may
>> be played each turn. You may burn five Spells of Life to put up to
>> five vampires from your uncontrolled region in play. Each represents a
>> unique mummy ally with life equal to capacity, 1 bleed and 2 strength
>> who can enter combat with a minion as a (D) action.
>>
>> So the question is, do you have to control all the Spell of Life cards
>> in play to burn them? By the wording, no but this seems a bit odd.
>> Last night, 2 players were playing Spell of Life decks. One player
>> both players had 2 out, when the second player played his third.
>> There were now 5 Spells of Life in play for him to burn.
>>
>> I did a quick scan of the newsgroup, but my phone is pretty slow, so
>> we made the ruling that yes, he could, not that it seemed 100% right.
>>
>> So, did we rule right or wrong? Either way, it was funny.>
> My guess would be that you played it right (see Set's Curse), but that
> it wasn't original designer intent. :)
Half correct. J played it right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ahh...your mind is far too devious for me to fathom!
and anyway, shouldn't they all be bane mummies? I thought when Set stole
the Spell of Life that Isis had installed that copy with a virus that
caused a serious defect on rebooting?
Although I guess in vtes there's no distinction, since I just looked up
Sutekh's latest card text and it just says "Mummy ally" now....whereas
my printed copy says "Bane Mummy ally". Not that this would make a
difference here since Sutekh's ability only triggers on a recruit....
[ quoted text not captured ]