In a game last night, the following situation occured.
I was playing a Harbinger deck, and had 5 Slaughterhouses in play. I
had eliminated two players, and my last remaining opponent was playing
Lasombra.
He played a Political Seizure, targetting one of my Slaughterhouses,
and we were unsure of how it interacted, due to the wording of
Political Seizure.
Political Seizure
Type: Master
Requires: Lasombra
Cost: 2 pool
Master.
Choose a location controlled by another Methuselah. This card contests
THAT location as though it were the same card, even if the other
location is not unique. When the LAST COPY of that location is
yielded, burn this card; the other card comes into play under your
control untapped instead of being burned.
The two emphasized sections were where we came unstuck. The first
emphasis seems to indicate it's just the singular Slaughterhouse
that's contested, and others are unaffected. The second emphasis
confuses that issue. The three possible scenarios we could figure,
were...
a) 4 Slaughterhouses uncontested, 1 contested, 1 Lasombra contested, 1
pool per player to maintain contestation, failure on my part is the
taking of the 5th Slaughterhouse.
b) 5 Slaughterhouses contested, 1 Lasombra contested, 5 pool for me to
maintain contestation, failure on my part is the taking of just the
5th Slaughterhouse (remaining burnt).
c) 4 Slaughterhouses uncontested, 1 contested, 1 Lasombra contested, 1
pool per player to maintain contestation, failure on my part means a
different Slaughterhouse is now contested (based on the "When the LAST
COPY" part was considered).
We played using a), but it was immaterial to the game, as I was
incapable of dropping his hand below 7 for the Brinksmanship oust, and
he was able to bleed me out regardless.
I'm just curious how it should be if that situation arises again.
Morgan Vening
"Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:f40te2dbuf7e7hkkt...@4ax.com...
> In a game last night, the following situation occured.
>
> I was playing a Harbinger deck, and had 5 Slaughterhouses in play. I
> had eliminated two players, and my last remaining opponent was playing
> Lasombra.
>
> He played a Political Seizure, targetting one of my Slaughterhouses,
> and we were unsure of how it interacted, due to the wording of
> Political Seizure.
>
> Political Seizure
> Type: Master
> Requires: Lasombra
> Cost: 2 pool
> Master.
> Choose a location controlled by another Methuselah. This card contests
> THAT location as though it were the same card, even if the other
> location is not unique. When the LAST COPY of that location is
> yielded, burn this card; the other card comes into play under your
> control untapped instead of being burned.
>
> The two emphasized sections were where we came unstuck. The first
> emphasis seems to indicate it's just the singular Slaughterhouse
> that's contested, and others are unaffected. The second emphasis
> confuses that issue.
I don't see the problem. If contesting a unique card, a third copy
could later get put into play by a third Methuselah. (Due to the
way Political Seizure is worded, it couldn't target a unique location
already contested since it would be out of play, hence not a "location
controlled by another Methuselah".) Thus three or more copies of
whatever is being contested - including the PS - could be in play at
any time. If all the other copies are yielded (that is, after the
"last copy of that location" is yielded), the Political Seizure is then
burned and the last copy is taken from the owning Methuselah and
controlled by the Methuselah who played Political Seizure.
Now, if the location is not unique, no other copies will contest with
the Political Seizure and its target, including new copies. So the
"last copy" would then simply refer to the targeted card - assuming
it's yielded first.
> The three possible scenarios we could figure,
> were...
>
> a) 4 Slaughterhouses uncontested, 1 contested, 1 Lasombra contested, 1
> pool per player to maintain contestation, failure on my part is the
> taking of the 5th Slaughterhouse.
This is what I think happens.
Fred
Fred Scott wrote:
> "Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message> > He played a Political Seizure, targetting one of my Slaughterhouses,
> > and we were unsure of how it interacted, due to the wording of
> > Political Seizure.
> >
> > Political Seizure> > Choose a location controlled by another Methuselah. This card contests
> > THAT location as though it were the same card, even if the other
> > location is not unique. When the LAST COPY of that location is
> > yielded, burn this card; the other card comes into play under your
> > control untapped instead of being burned.
> >
> > The two emphasized sections were where we came unstuck. The first
> > emphasis seems to indicate it's just the singular Slaughterhouse
> > that's contested, and others are unaffected. The second emphasis
> > confuses that issue.
>> > a) 4 Slaughterhouses uncontested, 1 contested, 1 Lasombra contested, 1
> > pool per player to maintain contestation, failure on my part is the
> > taking of the 5th Slaughterhouse.
>
> This is what I think happens.
Correct. The other four Slaughterhouses are not copies of "that
location" -- they are merely other locations with the same name.