Toreador Grand Ball

Master. Put this card in play. Choose two ready Toreador you control. The first Toreador cannot be blocked unless he or she attempts to bleed. The second Toreador does not untap as normal during the untap phase; tap the second Toreador. This card may be burned by any minion as a (D) action; Nosferatu get -1 stealth when attempting that action. Can a minion controlled by the same methuselah as the TGB intent this action, which then becomes uncontrolled ? I would say : no, according to what LSJ says about Pentex Subversion : "> If is is a (D) action and I cannot direct it against myself, then I must > convince someone else to do the job. You cannot direct it against yourself, so you can't take the action to burn it if you are the controller of the PS (i.e., if your are the Methuselah who played the PS)." So ? -- Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia

Orpheus wrote: > Master. Put this card in play. Choose two ready Toreador you control. The > first Toreador cannot be blocked unless he or she attempts to bleed. The > second Toreador does not untap as normal during the untap phase; tap the > second Toreador. This card may be burned by any minion as a (D) action; > Nosferatu get -1 stealth when attempting that action. > > Can a minion controlled by the same methuselah as the TGB intent this > action, which then becomes uncontrolled ? Eh? If I'm reading right -- can a minion controlled by the Methuselah that played the TGB take the action to burn it -- then yes, they can. Since it's a D action against the Methuselah itself, it becomes undirected. (Just like a rescuing your own vampire is an undirected, etc) > I would say : no, according to what LSJ says about Pentex Subversion : > > "> If is is a (D) action and I cannot direct it against myself, then I must > >>convince someone else to do the job. > > You cannot direct it against yourself, so you can't take the action to > burn it if you are the controller of the PS (i.e., if your are the > Methuselah who played the PS)." Not sure about the context of LSJ's quote, but it may be referring to the case where you have only one minion, and it's Pentex Subverted, in which case they can't do anything at all. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> I would say : no, according to what LSJ says about Pentex Subversion : >> You cannot direct it against yourself, so you can't take the action to >> burn it if you are the controller of the PS (i.e., if your are the >> Methuselah who played the PS)." > > Not sure about the context of LSJ's quote, but it may be referring to > the case where you have only one minion, and it's Pentex Subverted, in > which case they can't do anything at all. Or the quote is from the dark past when the (D) symbol was interpretted as something other than reminder text. That's the problem with uncited references - hard to check. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> > Not sure about the context of LSJ's quote, but it may be referring to > > the case where you have only one minion, and it's Pentex Subverted, in > > which case they can't do anything at all. > > Or the quote is from the dark past when the (D) symbol was interpretted > as something other than reminder text. That's the problem with uncited > references - hard to check. http://groups.google.be/groups?q=control+%2B+pentex+subversion+author:LSJ&hl =fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=33DCA793.ABD%40regency.wizards.com&rnum=1 So, which is it for the Pentex Subversion : is the action to burn it directed on the player who played it, and if so can he or can't he make the action to burn it ? Thanks, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It's directed at the player who played it. The player who played it can have a minion take an action to remove it. I think the referenced ruling is now outdated by new rules on what happens when you do a (D) action against yourself. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> http://groups.google.be/groups?q=control+%2B+pentex+subversion+author:LSJ&hl >> =fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=33DCA793.ABD%40regency.wizards.com&rnum=1 >> >> So, which is it for the Pentex Subversion : is the action to burn it >> directed on the player who played it, and if so can he or can't he >> make the >> action to burn it ? > > > It's directed at the player who played it. > > The player who played it can have a minion take an action to remove it. > I think the referenced ruling is now outdated by new rules on what > happens when you do a (D) action against yourself. Correct. If the player who controls it attempts to remove it, the action is undirected (and can be blocked by prey and pred). [ quoted text not captured ]

> > It's directed at the player who played it. > > > > The player who played it can have a minion take an action to remove it. > > I think the referenced ruling is now outdated by new rules on what > > happens when you do a (D) action against yourself. > > Correct. If the player who controls it attempts to remove it, the action > is undirected (and can be blocked by prey and pred). Last verification : who controls a Society of Leopold ? I'm asking because a player in Barcelona lost a table because of something the judges said (in the unnoficial tournie), so I'd like to be 100% sure... T.I.A. Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > Last verification : who controls a Society of Leopold ? It is a master card, so is governed by the rules for control of master cards. [1.6.2] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:41:31 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Orpheus wrote: >> Last verification : who controls a Society of Leopold ? > >It is a master card, so is governed by the rules for control of master >cards. [1.6.2] Society of Leopold reads: "Put this card on a vampire. During his or her controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's choice). The vampire with this card can move it to any other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action." the question then is: is the vampire moving it as a D action against the controller of the Society (the meth that played it), or is the D action against the methuselah who's vampire you are trying to put the Society on? i'd assume the latter, but i can almost see the former being applicable. almost. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

[ quoted text not captured ] The latter, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Question to LSJ. You state in your explanation of TGB that the host does not untap as normal as long as he is a Toreador. Does this mean that if I play TGB, tap the host, and clan impersonate the host that I still have an unblockable guest and a host that can untap as normal? thanks Paul Wiggers

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. The TGB's effect on the guest is independent of the effect on the host. And each effect is predicated on the minion in question being Toreador. If the minion in question is not Toreador, then that portion of the effect is not applied (this is true even when the minion in question is burned or otherwise leaves play - the effect on the other Toreador is still in force). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40168A9B...@white-wolf.com>... > Paul Wiggers wrote: > > Question to LSJ. > > > > You state in your explanation of TGB that the host does not untap as > > normal as long as he is a Toreador. Does this mean that if I play TGB, > > tap the host, and clan impersonate the host that I still have an > > unblockable guest and a host that can untap as normal? > > Yes. The TGB's effect on the guest is independent of the effect on > the host. And each effect is predicated on the minion in question > being Toreador. If the minion in question is not Toreador, then > that portion of the effect is not applied (this is true even when > the minion in question is burned or otherwise leaves play - the > effect on the other Toreador is still in force). TGB -> unblockable Precog. Mobility by Guest to untap Host -> Clan Impersonation by Host. Fun fun fun! DZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > TGB -> unblockable Precog. Mobility by Guest to untap Host -> Clan > Impersonation by Host. > > Fun fun fun! Till TGB gets burned, and you need another host, and your first no longer qualifies. I find using Delilah or some other 2-cap Toreador for multiple TGBs to be easier. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<ybKcnQZ0UN7...@speakeasy.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Clan Impersonation [AH:C2, CE:C] Cardtype: Action Cost: 2 blood +1 stealth action. Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her original clan (if any). This vampire can burn this card as an action. There's some hope in the last sentence. With a deck packing Precog. Mobility, removing the CI , then putting it on again shouldn't be that huge an obstacle to overcome, especially for the benefit of the Host also being able to act... DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > Clan Impersonation [AH:C2, CE:C] > Cardtype: Action > > Cost: 2 blood > > +1 stealth action. > Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire is > considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her original > clan (if any). This vampire can burn this card as an action. > > There's some hope in the last sentence. With a deck packing Precog. > Mobility, removing the CI , then putting it on again shouldn't be that > huge an obstacle to overcome, especially for the benefit of the Host > also being able to act... Assuming that the CI isn't blocked -- and these being Toreador, that is kind of a big assumption -- the Host is now down two blood, and if you ever want to TGB them again, that'll be another action to burn the CI (that could be blocked), and then another way to untap them, and another CI at another two blood after it's done. It just seems like a lot of work, unless you're doing a lot more with the CI than just getting out of playing host. --Colin McGuigan

> Assuming that the CI isn't blocked -- and these being Toreador, that is > kind of a big assumption -- the Host is now down two blood, and if you > ever want to TGB them again, that'll be another action to burn the CI > (that could be blocked), and then another way to untap them, and another > CI at another two blood after it's done. > > It just seems like a lot of work, unless you're doing a lot more with > the CI than just getting out of playing host. You might as well just play Alexandra to untap the host... I have to agree that the idea of the combo is fun, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<zvGcnUgZFMJ...@speakeasy.net>... > atomweaver wrote: > > Clan Impersonation [AH:C2, CE:C] > > Cardtype: Action > > > > Cost: 2 blood > > > > +1 stealth action. > > Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire is > > considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her original > > clan (if any). This vampire can burn this card as an action. > > > > There's some hope in the last sentence. With a deck packing Precog. > > Mobility, removing the CI , then putting it on again shouldn't be that > > huge an obstacle to overcome, especially for the benefit of the Host > > also being able to act... > > Assuming that the CI isn't blocked -- Here we go. OK, just so you know, Atom doesn't play this game ;-) Using suppositions about as particular game state to discount a tactic leads to 100+ post threads with largely nothing of value within. Yep, there's lots of things that can go wrong... and also, Yep, the text is there to allow for this combo to be recycled. Looking merely at the proposed deck tactic, a Precog. Mobility deck _should_ have the ability to support action-rich tactics like this. I agree that the execution of it will be a matter of the ability of the deckbuilder to adequately perceive his meta-game. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:10:07 -0600, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled: >atomweaver wrote: >> Clan Impersonation [AH:C2, CE:C] >> Cardtype: Action >> >> Cost: 2 blood >> >> +1 stealth action. >> Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire is >> considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her original >> clan (if any). This vampire can burn this card as an action. >> >> There's some hope in the last sentence. With a deck packing Precog. >> Mobility, removing the CI , then putting it on again shouldn't be that >> huge an obstacle to overcome, especially for the benefit of the Host >> also being able to act... > >Assuming that the CI isn't blocked -- and these being Toreador, that is >kind of a big assumption -- erm, i thought the point was you WEREN'T a toreador, you were something else, and you CI to toreador and get chosen for a TGB, then get untapped with precog, then you burn the CI. [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: > Here we go. OK, just so you know, Atom doesn't play this game ;-) Then why do you post to this newsgroup? (For the Canadians: =P) > Using suppositions about as particular game state to discount a tactic > leads to 100+ post threads with largely nothing of value within. Yep, > there's lots of things that can go wrong... and also, Yep, the text > is there to allow for this combo to be recycled. Looking merely at > the proposed deck tactic, a Precog. Mobility deck _should_ have the > ability to support action-rich tactics like this. I agree that the > execution of it will be a matter of the ability of the deckbuilder to > adequately perceive his meta-game. Say what you want about whether or not the CI would get blocked, but in order to replicate the effects of having a 2 cap Toreador out there, you're using 2 cards (the CI and some untap effect), 2 actions, and 2 blood. Compare to, say, Enchanting out Delilah, which is 1 card, 1 action, and 0 blood. I fail to see -- but would love to be educated on this -- how a Precog Mobility deck would give you extra actions, since all Precog lets you do is trade one minion's action for another, so I'm not seeing how that helps matters. You use a 3-cap AUS vampire and Precognizant Mobility instead of a 2-cap Toreador? --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<nrSdnT0Vncv...@speakeasy.net>... > atomweaver wrote: > > Here we go. OK, just so you know, Atom doesn't play this game ;-) > > Then why do you post to this newsgroup? > There's always some hope that the rest of you will learn ;-) What can I say, I'm an optimist. > (For the Canadians: =P) No.... I don't come here for the Canadians. I'm sure they're all well and fine, but once Remy Auclaire went underground, the rest of the Canadians pale by comparison... > > > Using suppositions about as particular game state to discount a tactic > > leads to 100+ post threads with largely nothing of value within. Yep, > > there's lots of things that can go wrong... and also, Yep, the text > > is there to allow for this combo to be recycled. Looking merely at > > the proposed deck tactic, a Precog. Mobility deck _should_ have the > > ability to support action-rich tactics like this. I agree that the > > execution of it will be a matter of the ability of the deckbuilder to > > adequately perceive his meta-game. > > Say what you want about whether or not the CI would get blocked, I say nothing. I don't need to... > but in > order to replicate the effects of having a 2 cap Toreador out there, > you're using 2 cards (the CI and some untap effect), 2 actions, and 2 > blood. Compare to, say, Enchanting out Delilah, which is 1 card, 1 > action, and 0 blood. > *Nods*. Drawback: More action intensive. Benefit: Can use a more robust minion as host. > I fail to see -- but would love to be educated on this -- how a Precog > Mobility deck would give you extra actions, since all Precog lets you do > is trade one minion's action for another, so I'm not seeing how that > helps matters. You use a 3-cap AUS vampire and Precognizant Mobility > instead of a 2-cap Toreador? > The CI angle calls for more actions from a single minion, the Host. Precog. Mobility provides those with an in-clan Toreador discipline. Net actions aren't gained, agreed. Net extra actions aren't really what is needed. Sorry my previous post _did_ imply that, didn't it? Poor writing on my part. DaveZ Atom Weaver