Player A has a Trophy Hunting Ground in play.
Player B use's reformation (dom. Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground.) to
steal it.
Is this legal play?
Where does, or how is the change assigned?
If the stolen THG is burned or otherwise removed to the ash heap, does it go
back to the original card owner?
Raille
On Tue, 2 May 2006 22:15:44 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Player A has a Trophy Hunting Ground in play.>Player B use's reformation (dom. Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground.) to
>steal it.>Is this legal play?
Perhaps.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Preview_KMW_Trophy
"Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
Looks like the specific card text over-rides this rule.
>Where does, or how is the change assigned?
The controller of the acting minion will decide, same as any other
ambiguous change of control. See the parallel with Location Based
Equipment.
Equipments which are Locations (Loquipment):
# Loquipment may be put on any ready minion if moved in an ambiguous
fashion (by Disputed Territory, e.g.). If the new controller has no
minions, the locquipment is burned. (Note: currently all moves are
ambiguous - TOM). [RTR 19960112]
>If the stolen THG is burned or otherwise removed to the ash heap, does it go
>back to the original card owner?
Always.
1.1.2 of the online rulebook.
Burn: When a card is "burned," it is placed into its owner's discard
pile (the discard pile is called the "ash heap" for this reason).
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/
Trophy: Hunting Ground [KMW:R]
Cardtype: Master
Master. Trophy. Hunting Ground.
During your untap phase, the vampire with this card gains 2 blood from
the blood bank. A vampire can gain blood from only one Hunting Ground
card each turn.
Artist: Avery Butterworth
Reformation [Gehenna:C]
Cardtype: Action
Discipline: Dominate
+1 stealth action. Requires a ready anarch.
[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground.
Artist: Attila Adorjany
The Lasombra wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 22:15:44 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Player A has a Trophy Hunting Ground in play.
>
> >Player B use's reformation (dom. Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground.) to
> >steal it.
>
> >Is this legal play?
>
> Perhaps.
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Preview_KMW_Trophy
>
> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
>
> Looks like the specific card text over-rides this rule.
My interpretation of this situation is different:
Player B can steal the Trophy Hunting Ground - meaning that he does
take control of it.
But it still stays on Player A's original vampire.
Greetings,
Hardy Range
Prince of Bochum, Germany
In message <1146641638.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> writes:
>Player B can steal the Trophy Hunting Ground - meaning that he does
>take control of it.
>But it still stays on Player A's original vampire.
That ignores
# Master Cards: Changing the controller of a location has no
other effect, unless specified by card text. Exception: A
location "on" another controlled card is moved onto an
appropriate card controlled by the new controller of the
location. (so you can retarget a Tomb of Ramses, for example,
but the amount of blood on a powerbase doesn't change). [RTR
19980623]
Card-text of Trophy: Hunting Ground: "During your untap phase, the
vampire with this card gains 2 blood from the blood bank. A vampire can
gain blood from only one Hunting Ground card each turn."
It's a master card. It's "on" another card. It's a location. RTR
19980623 seems to apply.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1146641638.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> writes:
> >Player B can steal the Trophy Hunting Ground - meaning that he does
> >take control of it.
> >But it still stays on Player A's original vampire.
>
> That ignores
>
> # Master Cards: Changing the controller of a location has no
> other effect, unless specified by card text. Exception: A
> location "on" another controlled card is moved onto an
> appropriate card controlled by the new controller of the
> location. (so you can retarget a Tomb of Ramses, for example,
> but the amount of blood on a powerbase doesn't change). [RTR
> 19980623]
>
> Card-text of Trophy: Hunting Ground: "During your untap phase, the
> vampire with this card gains 2 blood from the blood bank. A vampire can
> gain blood from only one Hunting Ground card each turn."
>
> It's a master card. It's "on" another card. It's a location. RTR
> 19980623 seems to apply.
That analysis would be true, if it were a location. But it's not a
location.
It stays put.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146656879.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> James Coupe wrote:>> Card-text of Trophy: Hunting Ground: "During your untap phase, the
>> vampire with this card gains 2 blood from the blood bank. A vampire can
>> gain blood from only one Hunting Ground card each turn."
>>
>> It's a master card. It's "on" another card. It's a location. RTR
>> 19980623 seems to apply.>
> That analysis would be true, if it were a location. But it's not a
> location.
>
> It stays put.
I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master
cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but Reformation's
text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground."
Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking something not
rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing vampire should get the
stolen hunting ground. No rulings are needed; card text suffices. (Note
that Reformation does not say "take control of". It says "steal". Compare
to Ethan Locke: "As a (D) action, Ethan may steal a Discipline master card
from another vampire if he does not already possess the superior level of
that Discipline." Clearly that Discipline master goes on Ethan Locke, even
though changing the controller of a master: Discipline card via Malkavian
Time Auction/etc. would not move the card.)
Josh
thief in the temple tonight
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > That analysis would be true, if it were a location. But it's not a
> > location.
> >
> > It stays put.
>
> I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master
> cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but Reformation's
> text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground."
> Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking something not
> rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing vampire should get the
> stolen hunting ground.
It seems obvious that the stealing Methuselah should get control.
Or do you suggest that if the hunting ground in question were the Zoo
Hunting Ground, that that Zoo Hunting Ground should be placed on the
stealing vampire?
> No rulings are needed; card text suffices. (Note
> that Reformation does not say "take control of". It says "steal". Compare
Same thing, when refering to something controlled by someone else.
> to Ethan Locke: "As a (D) action, Ethan may steal a Discipline master card
> from another vampire if he does not already possess the superior level of
> that Discipline." Clearly that Discipline master goes on Ethan Locke, even
> though changing the controller of a master: Discipline card via Malkavian
> Time Auction/etc. would not move the card.)
Correct, there.
But indeed it does function differently (as indicated by the "already
possess").
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146680392....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
[re: Trophy Hunting Ground vs Reformation]
>> I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master
>> cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but
>> Reformation's
>> text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a hunting ground."
>> Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking something not
>> rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing vampire should get
>> the
>> stolen hunting ground.>
> It seems obvious that the stealing Methuselah should get control.
> Or do you suggest that if the hunting ground in question were the Zoo
> Hunting Ground, that that Zoo Hunting Ground should be placed on the
> stealing vampire?
I suggest that when something is stolen, the thief moves it to a place where
he can make use of it. It is rather unheard of for the thief to leave it
where it was. One might say, in that case, that it has not been stolen at
all, since the original owner still has it.
There are no other "steal" effects that end up with the target unstolen. I
guess you're sticking to the guns of "only equipment, retainers, and
locations can be moved when control changes", but next time I would suggest
using "take control of" rather than "steal", in that case.
>> to Ethan Locke: "As a (D) action, Ethan may steal a Discipline master
>> card
>> from another vampire if he does not already possess the superior level of
>> that Discipline." Clearly that Discipline master goes on Ethan Locke,
>> even
>> though changing the controller of a master: Discipline card via Malkavian
>> Time Auction/etc. would not move the card.)>
> Correct, there.
>
> But indeed it does function differently (as indicated by the "already
> possess").
It seems unnecessarily subtle to discover the movement of the card in "if he
does not already possess" rather than "steal".
Josh
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > But indeed it does function differently (as indicated by the "already
> > possess").
>
> It seems unnecessarily subtle to discover the movement of the card in "if he
> does not already possess" rather than "steal".
You're right there. He should say that the Discipline card is moved
explicitly.
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4brstrF...@individual.net...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:1146656879.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> James Coupe wrote:>>>> Card-text of Trophy: Hunting Ground: "During your untap phase, the
>>> vampire with this card gains 2 blood from the blood bank. A vampire can
>>> gain blood from only one Hunting Ground card each turn."
>>>
>>> It's a master card. It's "on" another card. It's a location. RTR
>>> 19980623 seems to apply.>>
>> That analysis would be true, if it were a location. But it's not a
>> location.
>>
>> It stays put.>
> I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master
> cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but
> Reformation's text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a
> hunting ground." Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking
> something not rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing
> vampire should get the stolen hunting ground. No rulings are needed; card
> text suffices.
Isn't this argument moot, considering 1.6.2.3? What am I missing?
"Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
--
Mike Ooi
"I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're
going and hook up with them later."
-Mitch Hedberg
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4brstrF...@individual.net...
>[ quoted text not captured ]
Personally I thought it was rather clear also, but the original owner of the
Trophy disagreed.
Raille
UniqueMaster wrote:
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4brstrF...@individual.net...
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:1146656879.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> James Coupe wrote:
> >
> >>> Card-text of Trophy: Hunting Ground: "During your untap phase, the
> >>> vampire with this card gains 2 blood from the blood bank. A vampire can
> >>> gain blood from only one Hunting Ground card each turn."
> >>>
> >>> It's a master card. It's "on" another card. It's a location. RTR
> >>> 19980623 seems to apply.
> >>
> >> That analysis would be true, if it were a location. But it's not a
> >> location.
> >>
> >> It stays put.
> >
> > I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master
> > cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but
> > Reformation's text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a
> > hunting ground." Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking
> > something not rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing
> > vampire should get the stolen hunting ground. No rulings are needed; card
> > text suffices.
>
> Isn't this argument moot, considering 1.6.2.3? What am I missing?
>
> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
What would happen if the Trophy had not yet been placed on a when the
reformation was taken?
Raille
Raille wrote:
> What would happen if the Trophy had not yet been placed on a when the
> reformation was taken?
The new controller would be the one to eventually decide when it was
awarded (when a vampire eventually burns a Red List minion).
"UniqueMaster" <crap...@what.what> wrote in message
news:YsSdnc4eTderhMTZ...@texas.net...
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4brstrF...@individual.net...>> I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master>> cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but
>> Reformation's text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a
>> hunting ground." Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking
>> something not rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing
>> vampire should get the stolen hunting ground. No rulings are needed;
>> card text suffices.>
> Isn't this argument moot, considering 1.6.2.3? What am I missing?
>
> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
Well, card text can override most of the rules in the rulebook. You can't
normally move a master: discipline card once it's been put in play either,
but there are a couple effects that will steal one anyway. That is, this is
why it COULD go the other way - the actual ruling is that it cannot be
stolen to any good effect; all Reformation would do is change control of the
Trophy (and therefore, whose untap phase the Trophy-bearer gets blood in).
Josh
not so masterful
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bv1fbF...@individual.net...
>
> "UniqueMaster" <crap...@what.what> wrote in message
> news:YsSdnc4eTderhMTZ...@texas.net...>> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4brstrF...@individual.net...>>>> I'm not so sure it ought to stay put. You're right that the master
>>> cards/locations ruling doesn't have much application here, but
>>> Reformation's text is pretty clear: "[dom] (D) Burn 1 blood to steal a
>>> hunting ground." Steal is very plain English saying that you are taking
>>> something not rightfully yours. It seems obvious that the stealing
>>> vampire should get the stolen hunting ground. No rulings are needed;
>>> card text suffices.>>
>> Isn't this argument moot, considering 1.6.2.3? What am I missing?
>>
>> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again.">
> Well, card text can override most of the rules in the rulebook. You can't
> normally move a master: discipline card once it's been put in play either,
> but there are a couple effects that will steal one anyway.
True, but there is no explicit rule barring the movement of discipline
cards. It just requires explicit text to determine how it could happen.
Which we have on Absorb the Mind and Ethan Locke. What we have for trophies
is an explicit rule which is probably not as clear as we need with devious
people like us playing the game.
A possible fix (if trophies are not meant to be stealable) is to change the
Trophy rule to mirror Eye of Hazimel:
"While on a vampire, a trophy cannot be transferred, moved or stolen."
It fixes the Reformation problem, doesn't create unstealable Progeny, and
frees up Design to create other trophies with keywords. Keywords like "Gun",
"Vehicle", "Phobia Counters". Try and steal my phobia counters, damn yoU!
> That is, this is why it COULD go the other way - the actual ruling is that
> it cannot be stolen to any good effect; all Reformation would do is change
> control of the Trophy (and therefore, whose untap phase the Trophy-bearer
> gets blood in).
And when the Trophy is removed from play due to someone being ousted.
More things to look at for trophies, including the Rehlow-I put Trophy:
Retainers on your vampire and make you employ expensive retainers of my
choosing-problem. Has a ruling been issued on that? I'm not sure.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bv1fbF...@individual.net...
>> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again.">
> Well, card text can override most of the rules in the rulebook.
I've always thought that was a fundamentally unworkable concept:
Card A (action): This action can absolutely never be blocked no
matter what.
Card B (reaction): This reacting minion blocks the acting minion
no matter, despite any text on the action card.
I mean, I'm sure the conundrum can be worked out and rulings can
be issued and all that, but when you just say "card text overrides
rulebook rules", you create the potential for conflicts like
this since it doesn't give any clue _which_ card's text is more
important than another's.
Ultimately, card text doesn't actually override rules in a CCG
like they say. Ultimately, card text that contradicts rules
just means the actual CCG rules are extended in a usually
unwritten fashion to accommodate the new card functions. When
conundrums like this are created, LSJ (or the equivalent
authority in whichever game you're talking about) gets going
and issues rulings which extend the unwritten rules to a
written format - though still often not actually causing the
rulebook itself to be altered - and which resolve whatever
paradox has occurred.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
you mean 'IF a vampire eventually burns a Red List minion'. ;)
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
I suck at Trophies.
Fred Scott wrote:
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4bv1fbF...@individual.net...
> >> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
> >
> > Well, card text can override most of the rules in the rulebook.
>
> I've always thought that was a fundamentally unworkable concept:
>
> Card A (action): This action can absolutely never be blocked no
> matter what.
>
> Card B (reaction): This reacting minion blocks the acting minion
> no matter, despite any text on the action card.
This is not an example of card vs. rules, so doesn't quite fit the rule
that you're attempting to demonstrate as unworkable.
Shifting your statement above that "when card text contradicts card
text, then card text applies" is an unworkable concept, then you get
the point.
But the rules don't say that, so we're safe there.
There is a ruling regarding card text vs. card text, though, which is
that the most recent effect wins out. Like Clan Impersonation vs. Clan
Impersonation. (Note that some cards prohibit later cards from being
used -- like cards that set range.)
> I mean, I'm sure the conundrum can be worked out and rulings can
> be issued and all that, but when you just say "card text overrides
> rulebook rules", you create the potential for conflicts like
> this since it doesn't give any clue _which_ card's text is more
> important than another's.
It isn't trying to. It says _which_ of card text and rules text is more
important. Namely: card text.
The ruling about most recent card played has precendence is the one
that offers the clue as to _which_ card's text is more important than
another card's.
> Ultimately, card text doesn't actually override rules in a CCG
> like they say. Ultimately, card text that contradicts rules
> just means the actual CCG rules are extended in a usually
> unwritten fashion to accommodate the new card functions. When
Tomayto, tomahto.
Wake actually overrides the rules about tapped vampires not being able
to block. Strained Vitae Supply actually overrides the rules about how
much stealth a hunt action has.
> conundrums like this are created, LSJ (or the equivalent
> authority in whichever game you're talking about) gets going
> and issues rulings which extend the unwritten rules to a
> written format - though still often not actually causing the
> rulebook itself to be altered - and which resolve whatever
> paradox has occurred.
There may indeed be a few instances of conundrums. But that does not
mean the concept is fundamentally unworkable.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146830847.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Fred Scott wrote:>> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4bv1fbF...@individual.net...
>> >> "Once placed on a vampire, a trophy cannot be moved again."
>> >
>> > Well, card text can override most of the rules in the rulebook.
>>
>> I've always thought that was a fundamentally unworkable concept:
>>
>> Card A (action): This action can absolutely never be blocked no
>> matter what.
>>
>> Card B (reaction): This reacting minion blocks the acting minion
>> no matter, despite any text on the action card.>
> This is not an example of card vs. rules, so doesn't quite fit the rule
> that you're attempting to demonstrate as unworkable.
Actually it is. My point is that "card vs. rules" doesn't describe
all the issues that come up. In fact, "card vs. card" is quite
possible and the statement, "Card text can override rules in the
rulebook" doesn't cover the situation. It's not unworkable because
it's wrong in and of itself. It's unworkable because it's
incomplete.
> But the rules don't say that, so we're safe there.
As far as I know, the rules don't say anything.
> There is a ruling regarding card text vs. card text, though, which is
> that the most recent effect wins out. Like Clan Impersonation vs. Clan
> Impersonation. (Note that some cards prohibit later cards from being
> used -- like cards that set range.)
With all due respect, I don't believe that addresses the conunumdrum I
posed above. I believe the situation would require some kind of a
ruling.
>> Ultimately, card text doesn't actually override rules in a CCG
>> like they say. Ultimately, card text that contradicts rules
>> just means the actual CCG rules are extended in a usually
>> unwritten fashion to accommodate the new card functions. When>
> Tomayto, tomahto.
I disagree. Effectively, the claim from Josh's quoted statement is
that cards go outside "rules space" (for want of a better term) and
alter it. My dispute is that there is _no_ such thing as going
outside rules space. Just that new cards which allow some new effect
actually (de facto) alter and widen the rules space. The distinction
is in the misunderstanding that cards which contradict rules all exist
in some kind of a vacuum. They don't. I believe that that's why
mistakes often get made in the design of cards by designers, when
they forget about what other cards do as they design new cards and
create problematic and/or unintended interactions between cards. And
by players who don't always realize that a new effect is more
complex and involved than they first thought when they read a
relatively simple passage on a card. I think my way of stating the
situation (above) is a better way to conceptualize the relationship
between cards and rules.
> Wake actually overrides the rules about tapped vampires not being able
> to block. Strained Vitae Supply actually overrides the rules about how
> much stealth a hunt action has.
And Spying Mission overrides the payment a prey would make to satisfy
a bleed, as does Archon Investigation. If a predator wants to play the
former and a prey wants to play the latter on the same bleed, how is
conflict resolved? Well, of course, a method has been well-established.
But I'll bet it was never considered until after AI was printed. Even
if it was, there have been thousands of other such interactions that
weren't - that is my point.
> There may indeed be a few instances of conundrums. But that does not
> mean the concept is fundamentally unworkable.
I don't think "few" describes it very well. I'm sure you do as good
a job as anyone could about thinking the implications of new effects
through before you approve them for printing. But, certainly correct
me if I'm wrong, I don't believe you can say you've only been
surprised by unexpected interactions just a "few" times over the
years.
I suppose you can dust off my distinction as "tomayto, tomahto" in
that it doesn't fix the problem, obviously. But I still think it's
a stronger way of describing reality. Which makes it a useful
thing in my book.
Fred