Count Zaroff has an Enrage on. He Enrage rushes, Amaranths and goes to
the uncontrolled region.
On the following turn, Undue Influence(qui) is played on him.
Does he recognize that it is a different turn? Or does he think it is
the same turn since he was out of play.
If he sees that it is a different turn does Enrage burn imediantly?
Matt
On Jan 27, 9:34 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:57 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Count Zaroff has an Enrage on. He Enrage rushes, Amaranths and goes to
> > the uncontrolled region.
> > On the following turn, Undue Influence(qui) is played on him.
>
> > Does he recognize that it is a different turn? Or does he think it is
> > the same turn since he was out of play.
>
> > If he sees that it is a different turn does Enrage burn imediantly?
>> I believe Enrage burns at the end of any turn, given past precedents:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b89c...>
> I'm pretty sure this had gotten discussed in more detail and specific
> to Enrage, but I can't find the link...
>
> - D.J.
I should have looked that up myself. Thanks for the post.
I guess I should point out that Count Zaroff is not the only card that
this will apply to.
Lay Low is the card I have in mind.
Perhaps, I should have called this thread, Does the uncontrolled region
(or a minion coming out of it) recognize a new turn?
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think generally a minion newly becoming controlled recognizes a new
turn, but that Enrage and other cards which say "this turn" or "your
next discard phase" or whatever, and are in play, are always checking
for you to reach an end-of-turn, at which point they will burn. One
of the other links I found while looking talked about contesting a
Chain-of-Command vampire and a Spell-of-Life mummy-vampire, and how if
the CoC vamp ends up winning, when it comes back it's passed the point
at which CoC would have shuffled it in (CoC no longer being in play),
and gets to hang around. This has always seemed like a contradiction
to me, but LSJ's been consistent about how he's ruled on them.
My guess is that for any effect (Zaroff, Lay Low, Descent into
Darkness, Banishment) that takes a vampire and its cards out of play,
and any cards that would burn "at the end of this turn" or some other
particular moment in time, they'll always check for that once they
come back into play. But as long as Zaroff got chances to keep being
Undue Influenced into play, using that rush, and eating people in
order to go back into hiding, he and his rage would be safe. Once he
hung around to the end of a turn, the Enrage would burn.
Seems expensive, though, what with the 1 pool, though I suppose you
could make that pay for itself by taking one back off of him (so that
his being full after all the snacking didn't put him right back in
play).
- D.J.
Meej wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2:14 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:>> On Jan 27, 9:34 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:>>> On Jan 27, 11:57 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:>>>> Count Zaroff has an Enrage on. He Enrage rushes, Amaranths and goes to
>>>> the uncontrolled region.
>>>> On the following turn, Undue Influence(qui) is played on him.
>>>> Does he recognize that it is a different turn? Or does he think it is
>>>> the same turn since he was out of play.
>>>> If he sees that it is a different turn does Enrage burn imediantly?>>> I believe Enrage burns at the end of any turn, given past precedents:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b89c...
Any turn it is in play, correct.
>>> I'm pretty sure this had gotten discussed in more detail and specific
>>> to Enrage, but I can't find the link...
I think perhaps because it uses "this turn" rather than "next turn", it hasn't
been discussed before.
>> I should have looked that up myself. Thanks for the post.
>>
>> I guess I should point out that Count Zaroff is not the only card that
>> this will apply to.
>> Lay Low is the card I have in mind.
>>
>> Perhaps, I should have called this thread, Does the uncontrolled region
>> (or a minion coming out of it) recognize a new turn?>
> I think generally a minion newly becoming controlled recognizes a new
> turn,
Correct. If it's a new turn, the newly returning vampire will recognize that it
is. If it is the same turn, the newly returning vampire will recognize that as well.
For example, Zaroff could Enrage-rush with that same Enrage this new turn (the
restriction against performing an action via card in play twice in one turn
doesn't apply, since it is a new turn).
> but that Enrage and other cards which say "this turn" or "your
> next discard phase" or whatever, and are in play, are always checking
> for you to reach an end-of-turn, at which point they will burn. One
> of the other links I found while looking talked about contesting a
> Chain-of-Command vampire and a Spell-of-Life mummy-vampire, and how if
> the CoC vamp ends up winning, when it comes back it's passed the point
> at which CoC would have shuffled it in (CoC no longer being in play),
> and gets to hang around. This has always seemed like a contradiction
> to me, but LSJ's been consistent about how he's ruled on them.
It only comes up because of CoC's overly-tight wording "cannot choose any unique
vampires already in play". I'm not sure what the inconsistent part is, though.
CoC is not a card in play constantly looking to burn the CoC'ed vampire. When
played, it leaves a triggered effect that is applied once, when triggered.
> My guess is that for any effect (Zaroff, Lay Low, Descent into
> Darkness, Banishment) that takes a vampire and its cards out of play,
> and any cards that would burn "at the end of this turn" or some other
> particular moment in time, they'll always check for that once they
> come back into play. But as long as Zaroff got chances to keep being
> Undue Influenced into play, using that rush, and eating people in
> order to go back into hiding, he and his rage would be safe. Once he
> hung around to the end of a turn, the Enrage would burn.
Right. The "burn me" text on the out-of-play Enrage is not harkened.
Once it returns to play, however, the effects of the card are again in effect.
On Jan 27, 2:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Meej wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 2:14 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 27, 9:34 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 27, 11:57 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Count Zaroff has an Enrage on. He Enrage rushes, Amaranths and goes to
> >>>> the uncontrolled region.
> >>>> On the following turn, Undue Influence(qui) is played on him.
> >>>> Does he recognize that it is a different turn? Or does he think it is
> >>>> the same turn since he was out of play.
> >>>> If he sees that it is a different turn does Enrage burn imediantly?
> >>> I believe Enrage burns at the end of any turn, given past precedents:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b89c...
>
> Any turn it is in play, correct.
*Nod* that's what I'd meant to say. Thanks for clarifying.
> >>> I'm pretty sure this had gotten discussed in more detail and specific
> >>> to Enrage, but I can't find the link...
>
> I think perhaps because it uses "this turn" rather than "next turn", it hasn't
> been discussed before.
I located it later - on the Presence.vekn forums - but since it
contained no new info that hadn't been conveyed and a lot of pre-LSJ-
clarification-speculation that turned out to be wrong, it didn't seem
worth linking to.
> > This has always seemed like a contradiction
> > to me, but LSJ's been consistent about how he's ruled on them.
>
> It only comes up because of CoC's overly-tight wording "cannot choose any unique
> vampires already in play". I'm not sure what the inconsistent part is, though.
> CoC is not a card in play constantly looking to burn the CoC'ed vampire. When
> played, it leaves a triggered effect that is applied once, when triggered.
(snip)
> Right. The "burn me" text on the out-of-play Enrage is not harkened.
> Once it returns to play, however, the effects of the card are again in effect.
The apparent inconsistency, which you've definitely made clear enough
that I think I've got a handle on one vs. the other, is that "this
turn" means "this turn", or "next turn" means "next turn", etc, for a
transient effect, but means "any turn" etc for an effect of a card in
play.
Examples:
Khabar: Glory on a banished vampire - burns on any of your untap
phases if in play, per above-linked ruling.
Enrage on Count Z etc - burns at the end of any turn if in play.
Chain-of-Command'ed vampire that contested - is apparently a strange
edge case, as an effect based on a card that doesn't stay in play.
Question:
Vampire A equips with a Baseball Bat/Leather Jacket, and is then
Banished during the same turn, before the Bat can untap xer. On a
later turn, xe is returned to play via Undue Influence, and taps to
perform an action of some sort. Does xe untap at the end of that
turn, as there's a lingering, unfulfilled effect from the Baseball
Bat? Or is that somehow different than the "burn myself" effect that,
using the same wording for timing, Enrage sets up? And if so, how/
why? (Designer Intent is a legitimate answer, of course, but it's not
clear from card text alone.)
Meej wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Meej wrote:>>> This has always seemed like a contradiction
>>> to me, but LSJ's been consistent about how he's ruled on them.>> It only comes up because of CoC's overly-tight wording "cannot choose any unique
>> vampires already in play". I'm not sure what the inconsistent part is, though.
>> CoC is not a card in play constantly looking to burn the CoC'ed vampire. When>> played, it leaves a triggered effect that is applied once, when triggered..> (snip)>> Right. The "burn me" text on the out-of-play Enrage is not harkened.
>> Once it returns to play, however, the effects of the card are again in effect.>
> The apparent inconsistency, which you've definitely made clear enough
> that I think I've got a handle on one vs. the other, is that "this
> turn" means "this turn", or "next turn" means "next turn", etc, for a
> transient effect, but means "any turn" etc for an effect of a card in
> play.
>
> Examples:
> Khabar: Glory on a banished vampire - burns on any of your untap
> phases if in play, per above-linked ruling.
> Enrage on Count Z etc - burns at the end of any turn if in play.
> Chain-of-Command'ed vampire that contested - is apparently a strange
> edge case, as an effect based on a card that doesn't stay in play.
There are many effects based on cards that don't stay in play.
Torn Signpost is a favorite, due to historical rulings.
The Leandro tax is another.
> Question:
> Vampire A equips with a Baseball Bat/Leather Jacket, and is then
> Banished during the same turn, before the Bat can untap xer. On a
> later turn, xe is returned to play via Undue Influence, and taps to
> perform an action of some sort. Does xe untap at the end of that
> turn, as there's a lingering, unfulfilled effect from the Baseball
> Bat? Or is that somehow different than the "burn myself" effect that,
> using the same wording for timing, Enrage sets up? And if so, how/
> why? (Designer Intent is a legitimate answer, of course, but it's not
> clear from card text alone.)
Successfully equipping (via an action) a Leather Jacket produces two effects: it
places the Leather Jacket on the acting minion and it sets up a "untap the
acting minion" effect to be triggered at the end of the turn.
That effect will be applied at the end of the turn even if the minion loses the
Leather Jacket (burning it for damage prevention, for example). The effect is
not one based on the card being in play (the minion would untap at the end of
every turn in that case).
So, if the minion is not in play when the effect is triggered (e.g, xe's been
Banished), then the effect will not untap xer when it goes off (just as CoC's
effect wouldn't move xer to the bottom of the crypt with the rest).
It differs from the Enrage case in that Enrage's "burn me" effect is an effect
of the card (Enrage) being in play.
On Jan 27, 4:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> There are many effects based on cards that don't stay in play.
> Torn Signpost is a favorite, due to historical rulings.
> The Leandro tax is another.
Good point - I'd been sure there must be more, similar ones; Chain was
the only one I could turn up on a quick digging on SecretLibrary that
ended at the end of turn. "Strange case" was definitely an
overstatement, though, sure.
> Successfully equipping (via an action) a Leather Jacket produces two effects: it
> places the Leather Jacket on the acting minion and it sets up a "untap the
> acting minion" effect to be triggered at the end of the turn.
>
> That effect will be applied at the end of the turn even if the minion loses the
> Leather Jacket (burning it for damage prevention, for example). The effect is
> not one based on the card being in play (the minion would untap at the end of
> every turn in that case).
>
> So, if the minion is not in play when the effect is triggered (e.g, xe's been
> Banished), then the effect will not untap xer when it goes off (just as CoC's
> effect wouldn't move xer to the bottom of the crypt with the rest).
Sure. That's how I understood that.
> It differs from the Enrage case in that Enrage's "burn me" effect is an effect
> of the card (Enrage) being in play.
How is that at all clear from card text? Enrage reads as if it
produces two effects: it places the Enrage on the acting minion, and
it sets up a "Burn this card" effect to be triggered at the end of
this turn. Or at least, there's nothing to distinguish it, in the
text, that I can see. It's possible there's a nuance of phrase, but
I'm not seeing what it is, if it's there. That's the question I'm
asking - not how do they work, but what's the critical difference that
makes them work differently when the wording appears functionally
equivalent.
- D.J.
On Jan 27, 5:43 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Burn this card" seems predicated on this card being in play (barring
> explicit text to the contrary).
I can't see any reason an effect couldn't attempt to burn a card
that's not in play, though it would fizzle when it did so.
I understand that LSJ appears to *want* it to be predicated as such.
But it's not in any card text, and it's counterintuitive to assign a
different connection between action resolution and card-in-play in two
different cases. And he asked what was counterintuitive.
- D.J.
Meej wrote:
>> It differs from the Enrage case in that Enrage's "burn me" effect is an effect
>> of the card (Enrage) being in play.>
> How is that at all clear from card text? Enrage reads as if it
> produces two effects: it places the Enrage on the acting minion, and
> it sets up a "Burn this card" effect to be triggered at the end of
> this turn. Or at least, there's nothing to distinguish it, in the
> text, that I can see. It's possible there's a nuance of phrase, but
> I'm not seeing what it is, if it's there. That's the question I'm
> asking - not how do they work, but what's the critical difference that
> makes them work differently when the wording appears functionally
> equivalent.
Enrage is a card in play, so that distinguishes it from CoC.
Leather Jacket's effect is worded with the conditional clause (the trigger), so
that distinguishes it from Enrage.
On Jan 27, 7:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Leather Jacket's effect is worded with the conditional clause (the trigger), so
> that distinguishes it from Enrage.
Ah. So it takes a conditional clause to separate the effects, then?
And again, how is this meant to have been evident other than by
ruling?
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
By default, effects generated by cards in play are continuous while
the card is in play. Leather Jacket's effect isn't continuous, and so
requires conditional text to indicate this.
Cards that aren't put into play _can't_ have continuous effects while
in play, so no such text is needed to indicate that they don't.
-witness1
Meej wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Leather Jacket's effect is worded with the conditional clause (the trigger), so
>> that distinguishes it from Enrage.>
> Ah. So it takes a conditional clause to separate the effects, then?
Not exactly. It just takes being written as something other than an effect
generated by the card being in play.
For instance, that could be accomplished just by listing the effect before the
"put me in play" effect of a card.
For instance, having a Melange on you doesn't give you +1 intercept.
And simply having a Blood Brother Ambush in play does not prevent all combats
from ever occurring.
See also Dark Influences, Dual Form (the original vampire's capacity doesn't get
restored if xe goes to torpor), Acceptance PA cards, Life Boon, Minor Boon,
Monomancy, Not to Be, etc.
> And again, how is this meant to have been evident other than by
> ruling?
Context.
On Jan 28, 11:17 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:26 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 7:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > > Leather Jacket's effect is worded with the conditional clause (the trigger), so
> > > that distinguishes it from Enrage.
>
> > Ah. So it takes a conditional clause to separate the effects, then?
>
> > And again, how is this meant to have been evident other than by
> > ruling?
>
> By default, effects generated by cards in play are continuous while
> the card is in play. Leather Jacket's effect isn't continuous, and so
> requires conditional text to indicate this.
That makes some sense. Thanks. I knew there had to be some
distinction I wasn't seeing that also wasn't being explained thus far,
and whatever miscommunication LSJ and I were having about what the
question actually was wasn't helping.
I'd still point out that this isn't quite that clear-cut with cards
like Crusade: X that are put into play, have no conditional clause,
and are (I assume) only intended to untap the vampire once, rather
than every discard phase. Also, "at the end of this turn" seems, or
at least can seem to a reasonable reader, like text being specific
rather than going by general rule and thus not the default. But,
essentially, there's always going to be some element of fiat here that
isn't obvious solely from card text in comparison, so whatever; it's a
moot point to some extent, as I'm absolutely clear on how these are
intended to work, and was just pointing out that "card text" is not,
in fact, a completely clear answer here - it also depends on past
rulings and defaults.
In any case, I think beating this dead horse (ani-nec-pot anarch
card!) is about done. Thanks for the patience, and for hammering that
through to clarity.
- D.J.