rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

[lsj] bloodstorm of chorazin and psychomachia

10 messages from 5 participants · 20 February 2005 – 24 February 2005
original thread on Google Groups

salem

bloodstorm of chorazin: if my baali blocks, he's tapped. so it has to be _another_ baali playing Bloodstorm, or the blocking baali playing a wake? or was it supposed to be playable _before_ you tap for the block? and i am assuming that if you play it, other baali can't play more of them, due to the action ending (by blood's card text). there might be some connection between the 'this baali' in the main text refferring to the 'baali who blocks' in the bold text, but the 'this baali' could just refer to the baali playing the card, who doesn't necessarily have to be the baali referred to by the bold text. the way i initially thought it was supposed to work was: baali A blocks younger vampire. Baali A plays bloodstorm, taps, the younger vampire takes a damage, and there's no combat and the action is over (with no chance for freak drive). but then shawn pointed out the vagaries of the text, and now i'm all twisted around. anyway psychomachia: only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks. so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause. my brain's a bit frazzled at the moment from two full days of prerelease madness after a bit of a crazy friday night on the town, but i think i might have valid questions.... salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

LSJ

salem wrote: > bloodstorm of chorazin: > if my baali blocks, he's tapped. so it has to be _another_ baali > playing Bloodstorm, or the blocking baali playing a wake? > > or was it supposed to be playable _before_ you tap for the block? This, without the "supposed" -- it /is/ this way. Like Obedience. > and i am assuming that if you play it, other baali can't play more of > them, due to the action ending (by blood's card text). Only the blocker can play it, but yeah. > there might be some connection between the 'this baali' in the main > text refferring to the 'baali who blocks' in the bold text, but the > 'this baali' could just refer to the baali playing the card, who > doesn't necessarily have to be the baali referred to by the bold text. It is. > the way i initially thought it was supposed to work was: > baali A blocks younger vampire. Baali A plays bloodstorm, taps, the > younger vampire takes a damage, and there's no combat and the action > is over (with no chance for freak drive). Correct. > but then shawn pointed out the vagaries of the text, and now i'm all > twisted around. > > anyway > > psychomachia: > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks. > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause. pre has the "not tapped" clause. dai and DAI do not. > my brain's a bit frazzled at the moment from two full days of > prerelease madness after a bit of a crazy friday night on the town, > but i think i might have valid questions.... -- 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/

Emmit Svenson

salem wrote: > bloodstorm of chorazin: > if my baali blocks, he's tapped. so it has to be _another_ baali > playing Bloodstorm, or the blocking baali playing a wake? No. Like Voice of Madness, you play the Bloodstorm before tapping for the block.

salem

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:11:41 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled: [answers to my stupid questions] thanks for the quick responses! especially the psychomachia one >:-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > salem wrote: > > > psychomachia: > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks. > > > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause. > > pre has the "not tapped" clause. > dai and DAI do not. So the blocker is now tapped at [dai] or [DAI]? This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before the blocking minion is tapped for the successful block." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c3b54710ecaf29c If the blocker is now to be tapped, presumably the changed function of the card will appear on the "text migrations" page when the KMW texts go up? Josh psycho macher

LSJ

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:383ubkF...@individual.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:15:43 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:383ubkF...@individual.net... >> >> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... >> > salem wrote: >> > >> > > psychomachia: >> > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks. >> > > >> > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card >> > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause. >> > >> > pre has the "not tapped" clause. >> > dai and DAI do not. >> >> So the blocker is now tapped at [dai] or [DAI]? >> This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully >> blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before >> the blocking minion is tapped for the successful >> block." >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c3b54710ecaf29c >> >> If the blocker is now to be tapped, presumably the changed function of >> the card will appear on the "text migrations" page when the KMW texts go >> up? > >Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping. Also, I had the distinct impression that since [dai] says "The block fails", the blocker don't get to tap. The card would need explicit text to say so. Kiss of Ra springs to mind, but it clearly says "when a vampire without Fortitude *attempts* to block". I don't see why Psychomachia had this sort of text ("successfully blocks"). best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now) http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/

salem

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:15:43 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:383ubkF...@individual.net... >> >> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... >> > salem wrote: >> > >> > > psychomachia: >> > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks. >> > > >> > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card >> > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause. >> > >> > pre has the "not tapped" clause. >> > dai and DAI do not. >> >> So the blocker is now tapped at [dai] or [DAI]? >> >> This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully >> blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before >> the blocking minion is tapped for the successful >> block." >> >> >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c3b54710ecaf29c >> >> If the blocker is now to be tapped, presumably the changed function of >> the card will appear on the "text migrations" page when the KMW texts go >> up? > >Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping. nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! can't your 'tap the blocker' ruling be a reversal of this old one? like you said, at pre is has a 'do not tap the blocker' clause, but not at dai or DAI.... *insert vehement swear words here* [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0acq11lbehaq0a8g2...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:15:43 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: > > >"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:383ubkF...@individual.net... > >> > >> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message > >> news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > >> > salem wrote: > >> > > >> > > psychomachia: > >> > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks. > >> > > > >> > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card > >> > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause. > >> > > >> > pre has the "not tapped" clause. > >> > dai and DAI do not. > > >> This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully > >> blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before > >> the blocking minion is tapped for the successful block." > >> > >> > >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6 c3b54710ecaf29c > > > >Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping. > > nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! > > can't your 'tap the blocker' ruling be a reversal of this old one? > like you said, at pre is has a 'do not tap the blocker' clause, but > not at dai or DAI.... From card text, the contrast between the [pre] and [dai/DAI] versions does suggest that the blocker should be tapped. I think this arose from the errata (now card text) change to the usability of Psychomachia: instead of "Only usable when an ally or younger vampire is attempting to block", with the [pre] "does not tap" as reminder text, it became "Only usable when an ally or younger vampire ={successfully blocks}=". The [dai/DAI] versions were ruled the same way as they had been before, but the card text no longer really supports that ruling - it probably ought to be errata now, or reversed, as you say. Josh sanomachia

salem

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:33:34 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] although..... looking at it, the pre version does not fail the block, thus it would need the (reminder text). whereas the dai and DAI versions DO fail the block, thus making it plausible that the blocker is not tapped, and you don't need reminder text. damnit, why am i arguing against myself? :P ah. i see. daimoinon. devil's advocate. it all comes together... [ quoted text not captured ]