Some Questions [LSJ]

I have a few questions about when you replace cards. There has been some discussion and I'd like to be able to show a few players how it's supposed to be in "black and white". Some of theese questions I know the answer to, they are just there for completeness' sake. Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but at the end of the round a psyche is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but a "illusions of the kindred" is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? Minion A bum's rushes minion B, blocked by minion B2. Minion A plays form of mist. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? Minion A bleeds meth B, minion B wakes (old rules for wake) and deflects to meth C. Minion C deflects right back to meth B. Is minion B still "as if untapped"? When does meth B and C replace their wakes? Minion A makes an arson attempt, blocked by minion B. Can meth A replace for the Arson? Logic: (?!) since it was blocked the action is over... Thanx in advance for any answers, Robert

In article <36CAA4E6...@hem.passagen.se>, Robert Ekvall <rek...@hem.passagen.se> wrote: > I have a few questions about when you replace cards. There has been some > discussion and I'd like to be able to show a few players how it's > supposed to be in "black and white". Some of theese questions I know the > answer to, they are just there for completeness' sake. > > Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but at the end > of the round a psyche is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? I'd say yes. > > Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but a > "illusions of the kindred" is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's > rush? Hm, tricky, I'd say no. > > Minion A bum's rushes minion B, blocked by minion B2. Minion A plays > form of mist. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? Yes? > > Minion A bleeds meth B, minion B wakes (old rules for wake) and deflects > to meth C. Minion C deflects right back to meth B. Is minion B still "as > if untapped"? When does meth B and C replace their wakes? When combat is resolved or the bleed is successful (well it could be a bleed for 0, too). > > Minion A makes an arson attempt, blocked by minion B. Can meth A replace > for the Arson? Logic: (?!) since it was blocked the action is over... Nope, you replace after the ensuing (sp?) combat. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Robert Ekvall wrote: > > I have a few questions about when you replace cards. There has been some > discussion and I'd like to be able to show a few players how it's > supposed to be in "black and white". Some of theese questions I know the > answer to, they are just there for completeness' sake. Black-and-White explanation of the "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" restriction: Such a card (one that has the "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" restriction) is replaced at the end of combat (that is, when a combat ends), or at the end of the action, whichever comes first. > Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but at the end > of the round a psyche is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? Yes. The Bum's Rush is replaced after (the initial) combat. > Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but a > "illusions of the kindred" is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's > rush? Yes. The Bum's Rush is replaced after (the initial) combat. > Minion A bum's rushes minion B, blocked by minion B2. Minion A plays > form of mist. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? Yes. The Bum's Rush is replaced after (the initial) combat. > Minion A bleeds meth B, minion B wakes (old rules for wake) and deflects > to meth C. Minion C deflects right back to meth B. Is minion B still "as > if untapped"? Yes. Card text: "...until the current action is concluded." (Which is the default for reaction cards, anyhow). > When do meth B and C replace their wakes? Under the old rules for Wake (Replace after Combat instead of the current errata of Replace during your next Untap phase): When a combat ends or when the action concludes, whichever comes first. > Minion A makes an arson attempt, blocked by minion B. Can meth A replace > the Arson? Not until a combat ends or the action is concluded. > Logic: (?!) since it was blocked the action is over... No. The Block (and subsequent combat) is a part of the action. [6.2.3] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

Robert> Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but a Robert> "illusions of the kindred" is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's Robert> rush? LSJ> Yes. The Bum's Rush is replaced after (the initial) combat. I had to do a double-take on this until I realized that Illusions ends combat and starts up a new combat. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36CAA4E6...@hem.passagen.se>, Robert Ekvall <rek...@hem.passagen.se> wrote: >> Minion A bum's rushes minion B. The action isn't blocked but at the end >> of the round a psyche is played. Can meth A replace for the bum's rush? I believe the bum's rush is only replaced if the psyche is played at superior. Using the psyche as a press doesn't the end combat, thus the bum's rush shouldn't be replaced.

LSJ - I have a Form of corruption in play, targeting one of my prey's vampires. My prey currently holds the edge. If someone passes a Regaining the Upper Hand and targets my prey, do I put a counter on the Form of corruption? Card text on Form says "gets the edge" and card text on Regaining says "gets the edge". There is no discussion about whether the Meth already had the Edge or not. It would seem to maybe work like a Disarming Presence, wherein tapped vampires can still vote. My prey can get the Edge, even if they already have it. My guess is "Yes" I can place another Form counter. Is my logic/reasoning correct? And if not, in what way is it incorrect? (please Cc: via e-mail as well, I don't check here like I used) Thanks as always, Chris -- Chris, Tammy and Alex ino...@ix.netcom.com "It was Thursday, November 19th. That meant have a baby at the Martin/Shorb residence... On the whole, Chris reflected, it couldn't have been a heck of a lot better." Castellino

ino...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > LSJ - > > I have a Form of corruption in play, targeting one of my prey's vampires. My > prey currently holds the edge. If someone passes a Regaining the Upper Hand and > targets my prey, do I put a counter on the Form of corruption? Card text on Form > says "gets the edge" and card text on Regaining says "gets the edge". There is > no discussion about whether the Meth already had the Edge or not. It would seem > to maybe work like a Disarming Presence, wherein tapped vampires can still vote. > My prey can get the Edge, even if they already have it. > My guess is "Yes" I can place another Form counter. No. Like Curse of Nitocris, Form of Corruption only notices when a "new" Metuselah gets the Edge. If the Methuselah with the Edge "gets" the Edge, it doesn't count as "getting" the Edge. > Is my logic/reasoning > correct? Yes, it's just that the cards are poorly written. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > No. Like Curse of Nitocris, Form of Corruption only notices when a "new" > Metuselah gets the Edge. If the Methuselah with the Edge "gets" the Edge, > it doesn't count as "getting" the Edge. > > Yes, it's just that the cards are poorly written. I disagree that Form is poorly written. When I read the card, it was very clear to me how the card worked. So, if I wanted to use Regaining the Edge to add counters to my Form, I would bleed with Night Moves, call the vote, bleed again, call the vote again and so on... It's an interesting combo that makes it a very good thing that Setites can't easily get effects like Rutor's Hand and Freak Drive to allow multiple actions in a turn. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > No. Like Curse of Nitocris, Form of Corruption only notices when a "new" > > Metuselah gets the Edge. If the Methuselah with the Edge "gets" the Edge, > > it doesn't count as "getting" the Edge. > > > > Yes, it's just that the cards are poorly written. > > I disagree that Form is poorly written. Please see the original post in this thread for the description of the problem. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Please see the original post in this thread for the description of > the problem. I saw the original post a while ago. Just because someone didn't read the card closely enough (an occurence that happens far more often than it should) doesn't mean that it was poorly worded. Some concepts simply require compund (and therefore, complex) sentences to communicate. I don't remember how long it took me to convince people that Blood to Water can't burn vampires. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I disagree that Form is poorly written. >Please see the original post in this thread for the description of >the problem. I read the original post and it seemed to me that the poster was confused about the difference between getting the edge and maintaining the edge. You 'get' the edge if you don't already have it and 'maintain' it if you do. Since Form references 'getting' the edge, it is obvious that a new Form counter only applies when you get it and are not already controlling it. a0

In article <8mDA2.1229$mc....@monger.newsread.com>, "AgentZero" <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > I read the original post and it seemed to me that the poster was > confused about the difference between getting the edge and > maintaining the edge. You 'get' the edge if you don't already have > it and 'maintain' it if you do. Since Form references 'getting' the > edge, it is obvious that a new Form counter only applies when you > get it and are not already controlling it. Text of Regaining the Upper Hand: ] Name a Methuselah. Successful vote means that Methuselah gets the Edge. Pertinent text of Form of Corruption: ] Each time your prey gets the Edge, put a form counter on this card. Form does not explicitly state that it does not get a counter if a Methuselah already has the Edge when they gain it again. It says to put a counter on it when your prey "gets the Edge." RtUH says that the chosen Mehtuselah "gets the Edge." It's quite reasonable to think that a counter might go on the Form as its conditions have been met by a strict reading of what each card says. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8mDA2.1229$mc....@monger.newsread.com>, AgentZero <agen...@my-dejanews.com> writes >I read the original post and it seemed to me that the poster was >confused about the difference between getting the edge and >maintaining the edge. You 'get' the edge if you don't already have >it and 'maintain' it if you do. Unfortunately, the original (V:TES) rules book made the statement that whenever you successfully bleed, you "get the Edge". Nothing about maintaining it :( The new Rules Book makes the distinction of "simply keeping" it, but fails to clarify whether that means they "get" it or not. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Please see the original post in this thread for the description of > > the problem. > > I saw the original post a while ago. Just because someone didn't > read the card closely enough (an occurence that happens far > more often than it should) doesn't mean that it was poorly worded. That "someone" wasn't the original poster - that person (citation lost) made the point regarding card text very clearly. The card texts are poor, IMO, because they are using the same text for different things, namely "gets the Edge". RtUH: that Meth. "gets the Edge". FoC: each time your Prey "gets the Edge", put a ... Since they mean different things but use text that cannot mean those different things, at least one of them is poorly worded. One (or both) of them (probably FoC) should've said "... if she doesn't have it already" > Some concepts simply require compund (and therefore, complex) > sentences to communicate. I don't remember how long it took me > to convince people that Blood to Water can't burn vampires. B2W is correct as written, although it might have been written more clearly. There's a difference there in that, if read closely/strictly enough, BTW would be played correctly. It is played incorrectly only when read too casually. The opposite is true of RtUH-FoC, since a strict reading can yield incorrect play, whereas a not-so-rigorous reading might yield (and apparently has in some cases) only correct play. Errata is needed (and now exists) to enforce the correct play over the rigorous reading of card text. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

"AgentZero" <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >> I disagree that Form is poorly written. > >Please see the original post in this thread for the description of > >the problem. > > I read the original post and it seemed to me that the poster was > confused about the difference between getting the edge and > maintaining the edge. You 'get' the edge if you don't already have > it and 'maintain' it if you do. Since Form references 'getting' the Excerpt from the original post: ...Card text on Form says "gets the edge" and card text on Regaining says "gets the edge"... > edge, it is obvious that a new Form counter only applies when you > get it and are not already controlling it. As Net.Rep. I have learned that nothing is "obvious" :-) But in this case, it is even worse, since card text "obviously" matches on FoC and RtUH. You say Form references 'getting' the Egde. What does Regaining the Upper Hand reference? (A: 'getting' the Edge.) [ quoted text not captured ]