Society and Self-Directed actions

If you play a Society of Leopold, and it finds it's way back on to a minion you control, can that minion take an action to move the Society? They would be taking a directed action against their own controller, which is normally not allowed (I think).

AJ <ast...@employersassist.co.nz> wrote in message news:2c81c54e.01061...@posting.google.com... > If you play a Society of Leopold, and it finds it's way back on to a > minion you control, can that minion take an action to move the > Society? Yes. >They would be taking a directed action against their own > controller, which is normally not allowed (I think). Wrong on both counts. Actions are only directed if they affect ANOTHER Methuselah or their cards. Actions which target yourself or your own cards are undirected, and can be blocked by either your prey or your predator. The action on Society of Leopold is directed at the controller of the minion you are moving the card onto. Move it onto Bob's vampire, and you are taking a direct action against Bob. Only Bob can block. No more, no less. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<qJVV6.30267$tb6.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for that. In fact, the cause of my confusion comes from a post between yourself and LSJ back in '98. I must be slow catching up :-) [Lasombra wrote:] > I have out two vampires with DOM and for. My prey has out 1 vamp which > is not tapped. I play Haven Uncovered on his vamp. My vamp 1 attacks > his vamp (who does not block), prevents his damage, and plays pulled fangs. > My vamp 2 plays Graverobbing at superior to bring his vamp into my active > region. > > Can his vamp now take an action to remove the Haven Uncovered??? > > No direct actions against yourself? [LSJ wrote] > Correct. You can not take the action to remove the Haven, since that > would require you to direct the (D) action to yourself. Sorry. Forgetting the change in Pulled Fangs since then, has the prohibition against 'No direct actions against yourself' changed? Why is the action to remove a Haven Uncovered a (D) action against the controller of the card (being the Methuselah who played it), but the (D) action to move the Society of Leopold an action against the Methuselah controlling the minion you are trying to move it to? Cheers, Andrew.

"AJ" <ast...@employersassist.co.nz> (thanks for the historic. snip) > Why is the action to remove a Haven Uncovered a (D) action against the > controller of the card (being the Methuselah who played it), but the > (D) action to move the Society of Leopold an action against the > Methuselah controlling the minion you are trying to move it to? > > Cheers, > > Andrew. Just use your brain and consider one thing : who controls the card ? In the case of the haven, the meth who played it still controls it. but when you play society of Leopold, the card now belongs to the affected vampire's controller. this implies two thing: the card doesn't go away when the meth who played is ousted, and giving the hot potato to someone else is a directed action (which happens to be at stealth). reyda

>Just use your brain and consider one thing : who controls the card ? In the >case of the haven, the meth who played it still controls it. but when you >play society of Leopold, the card now belongs to the affected vampire's >controller. this implies two thing: the card doesn't go away when the meth >who played is ousted, and giving the hot potato to someone else is a >directed action (which happens to be at stealth). Actually, the Society of Leopold is always controlled by the Methusaleh who played it (it just moves to different vampires). Who the directed action targets depends on the target. In the case of Haven Uncovered you're trying to burn *that* card so it's directed against Haven's controller. With Society of Leopold you're moving the card *to* another vampire (so that vampire's Methusaleh is who the action is directed toward). Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: 20010614175915...@ng-cb1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] hum..... i'll have to medidate that =) reyda

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: 20010614175915...@ng-cb1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] wait a minute ! i remember a tournament in the USA where i was forced to put a second Society on one of my vamps to contest myslef and save her. The judge told me i was not the controller of the moving card... I'm starting to feel dizzy... Next time i go to a tournament i'll insist to have a permanent phone liaison with LSJ himself....

AJ wrote: > Thanks for that. In fact, the cause of my confusion comes from a post > between yourself and LSJ back in '98. I must be slow catching up :-) [...] Forget the ancient posts if you're looking for current rulings. Everything you need is in the rulebook, on the online rulings list, or has been posted on this NG since the date given on the online rulings list. Only use the ancient posts to get some historical perspective as to why something may have been changed (or just to get a few giggles from some of the ancient flame wars) > Forgetting the change in Pulled Fangs since then, has the prohibition > against 'No direct actions against yourself' changed? Yes. Before, the WotC rules team said that an action was inherently directed (or not), regardless of target. After finding out if an action was directed, you could then assertain against whom the action could be taken (since being directed somehow granted the ability to direct the action at any target other than yourself or something you controlled). Except for a slew of exceptions. The changed in Mid 1998. Now the situation is as described in the current rulebook [6.2.2.2] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Reyda wrote: > wait a minute ! i remember a tournament in the USA where i was forced to put > a second Society on one of my vamps to contest myslef and save her. The > judge told me i was not the controller of the moving card... I'm starting to > feel dizzy... Next time i go to a tournament i'll insist to have a permanent > phone liaison with LSJ himself.... The player who played Society of Leopold is the controller (unless it has been traded via Succubus Club). Card text doesn't indicate change in control. [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20010614175915...@ng-cb1.aol.com>... > Actually, the Society of Leopold is always controlled by the Methusaleh who > played it (it just moves to different vampires). > > Who the directed action targets depends on the target. In the case of Haven > Uncovered you're trying to burn *that* card so it's directed against Haven's > controller. > > With Society of Leopold you're moving the card *to* another vampire (so that > vampire's Methusaleh is who the action is directed toward). > > Halcyan 2 Apart from intuition, how did you determine that the action is directed at the Methuselah who controls the minion you are trying to move the Society to? I could argue that the Methuselah who unleashed the Society (and controls it) should be the one having a say in where it's next target is (hence able to block attempts to move it). Is there a set of rules by which you determine this? Cheers, Andrew.

ast...@employersassist.co.nz (AJ) wrote in message > > Forgetting the change in Pulled Fangs since then, has the prohibition > against 'No direct actions against yourself' changed? Woops, sorry to take up space to correct myself, but found this from a Year 2000 posting that answers my question; "R. David Zopf" wrote: > tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8755vu$c23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > >Is [Anarch Revolt]'s effect cumulative? > Yes. Lose one pool for each copy in play. > > >Second question: can i target direct actions at my cards (minion, > >locations etc.)? > Barring card specific text or errata to the contrary, yes. Realize though > that you may never under any circumstances bleed yourself, or initiate a > combat between two of your own minions. Correct. If you "direct" an action at yourself (or your cards), then the action is undirected, by definition. the "(D)" symbol is used on cards to identify actions that are typically directed, but the directedness of the action is ultimately determined by the target itself, not the (D) symbol (or lack thereof). If you are a legal target for the action (by card text), then you are free to take the action "against" yourself. The cards that have specific errata to the contrary (errata issued to make the cards function as the card writers' intended) are: Darius Styx Goth Band Powerbase: Mexico City Powerbase: New York -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com)

In message <2c81c54e.01061...@posting.google.com>, AJ <ast...@employersassist.co.nz> writes >Apart from intuition, how did you determine that the action is >directed at the Methuselah who controls the minion you are trying to >move the Society to? Your action directly targets another minion. A - B - C in a game A plays Haven Uncovered on one of C's vamps. B uses a minion to rush that vamp of C. Even though the master card facilitating this is provided by A, the action targets one of C's vamps. Hence, it is directed at C. In the case of society of leopold, even though Society provides the action (and is controlled by whoever), the targeted vampire of the move is the target, similarly. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

> James Coupe wrote > In the case of society of leopold, even though Society provides the > action (and is controlled by whoever), the targeted vampire of the move > is the target, similarly. Alternatively, I as a Methuselah expend my resources bringing the Society under my control and giving it a victim. Now, some minion is trying to change it's victim. That is an action directed against MY Society. Do you think consequences on minions is of more importance than consequences on other cards, hence your interpretation, or is there another reason? Andrew.

AJ wrote: > > > James Coupe wrote > > > In the case of society of leopold, even though Society provides the > > action (and is controlled by whoever), the targeted vampire of the move > > is the target, similarly. > > Alternatively, I as a Methuselah expend my resources bringing the > Society under my control and giving it a victim. Now, some minion is > trying to change it's victim. That is an action directed against MY > Society. Placing a card (via an action) on another minion is always directed at that minion. Burning a card (as an action) is always directed at that card. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B294535...@white-wolf.com... > Reyda wrote: > > wait a minute ! i remember a tournament in the USA where i was forced to put > > a second Society on one of my vamps to contest myslef and save her. The > > judge told me i was not the controller of the moving card... I'm starting to > > feel dizzy... Next time i go to a tournament i'll insist to have a permanent > > phone liaison with LSJ himself.... > > The player who played Society of Leopold is the controller (unless it has > been traded via Succubus Club). Card text doesn't indicate change in > control. I seem to remember a ruling/clarification explaining which player controls master/action cards that stay in play, but I can't find it on the WW page, nor on the SW rulesbook. What happened to this? Flux

In message <2c81c54e.01061...@posting.google.com>, AJ <ast...@employersassist.co.nz> writes >Alternatively, I as a Methuselah expend my resources bringing the >Society under my control and giving it a victim. You're not. The controller of the Society doesn't change. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b29fba6$2...@212.18.160.197>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes >I seem to remember a ruling/clarification explaining which player controls >master/action cards that stay in play, but I can't find it on the WW page, >nor on the SW rulesbook. What happened to this? By default, any minion card - that is, non master card - is controlled by the controller of the minion it's on. Or, if it's in play, whosoever's ready region it's in. e.g. Charnas is controlled by the Methuselah whose vampire he's on, not by the person who initially played Charnas. By default, any master card is controlled by the person who played it. Specific card text is needed to keep a minion card controlled by the player (or another Meth, or whatever), or to transfer control of a master card. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<3b29fba6$2...@212.18.160.197>... > I seem to remember a ruling/clarification explaining which player controls > master/action cards that stay in play, but I can't find it on the WW page, > nor on the SW rulesbook. What happened to this? It's in the SW rulebook. [1.6.2] [1.6.3] [ quoted text not captured ]