Non-Mortal Minion

This is probablly a no-brainer but in the following rule for Orun pertaining to the Non-Mortal Minion piece. If I don't want to burn one Orun by doing a action, it would have to be tagrgeted towards a Mortal Ally and thats all, right? I'm assuming all Vampires are Non-Mortal. If this laibon succesfully bleeds for more than 2 or succesfully performs a action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one orun. Burn this card if this Laibon has more Orun and Aye than his capacity.

It's more that no vampire currently printed have a text that make them considered as mortal. Sonja Blue being the closest to that, but still not quite. If a vampire considered as a mortal were printed, you shouldn't target it either. (There is also the case of imbued, but they are ally, and they are not mortal)

> Ohlmann wrote: > (There is also the case of imbued, but they are ally, and they are not mortal) > Yes they are.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ohlmann wrote: > > (There is also the case of imbued, but they are ally, and they are not mortal) > > > Yes they are. > Indeed. www.vekn.net/index.php/rulebook/appendix-imbued-rules > 1. Imbued > > Imbued are new crypt cards. An imbued is considered a mortal ally, not a vampire. Imbued have 1 strength and 1 bleed, by default. Their cost is also their starting life, and it is specified on each card individually (like capacity). They have creeds (like clans). They have virtues (like Disciplines, but only one level). When they have zero life, they are incapacitated (like torpor) instead of being burned (see 5 below). Any "burn ally" effect will still burn an imbued, however. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Which is a huge fail from a lore viewpoint

> Ohlmann wrote: > Which is a huge fail from a lore viewpoint > whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Imbued_(cWOD) "Hunters are specifically not turned into supernatural creatures when they are Imbued; they still need everything a normal human does and can't take Aggravated damage. All they are really given are abilities which allow them to resist, in various ways, the powers of truly supernatural enemies." Mortals include any allies and retainers specifically named as mortals in their trait texts plus the imbued. And from the lore point of view the imbued are very much normal humans (read: mortals) with certain special abilities. Every other minion and retainer is non-mortal. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

Eh, they are like the mage : they are mortal in the sense they can die normally, but they are not regular mortal anymore. And mage doesn't have the mortal keyword. (and I don't trust the wiki on this part since it's contradicted both by each and every explanation on their reason of existence and by the rules. It's the same as saying that mage and ghoul were regular mortals)

Then trust the V:TES rules, which are available, have been quoted to you, and which should be the only consideration for your answer. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > Then trust the V:TES rules, which are available, have been quoted to you, and which should be the only consideration for your answer. > Have I said the rule should be changed ? For me, it's the same thing as 2-cap using Reform Body or Breath of the dragon : a rule-induced lore silliness. Which I never petioned to change. And rule *have* been the only consideration in my answer.

> Trigger wrote: > This is probablly a no-brainer but in the following rule for Orun pertaining to the Non-Mortal Minion piece. If I don't want to burn one Orun by doing a action, it would have to be tagrgeted towards a Mortal Ally and thats all, right? > I'm assuming all Vampires are Non-Mortal. > > If this laibon succesfully bleeds for more than 2 or succesfully performs a action against a non-mortal minion, he or she burns one orun. Burn this card if this Laibon has more Orun and Aye than his capacity. > You can perform non-bleed actions directed at Methuselahs (such as Enticement, Revelations, ..), for Methuselahs are not mortal. You can perform D actions against cards in play that are not mortal. This includes (but is not limited to): stealing the Powerbase: Montreal, playing Far Mastery to steal a Carlton Van Wyk, .. So, the answer to your question is : "No - you have other options."

Careful Pascal, you might confuse him. The important take away is 'what can I do without burning my Orun?' The reason you may do actions v. Methuselahs and not burn an Orun is because a Methuselah is not a minion. Non-mortal yes, but also not a minion. The reason you may do stand alone (i.e. not atop vampires) actions provided by card text and not burn an Orun is because, well, the action isn't directed at a non-mortal minion. So in example, because Powerbase: Montreal (or D.C. or Chicago) are not non-mortal minions, nor are attached to non-mortal minions, you won't burn Orun when you directly take an action against them. The reason you may Far Mastery Carlton Van Wyk and not burn an Orun is because he is a mortal minion. You cannot do this with Far Mastery against Mylan Horseed because he is not a mortal minion. You also cannot Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Harrod without burning an Orun, because Harrod is a non-mortal minion. You can however Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Jake Washington without burning an Orun, because Jake Washington is a mortal minion. One assumes (until a ruling says otherwise) that you may NOT do this again with Far Mastery against Thadius Zho, Mage because his text labels him a mage instead of a mortal, and so far the mage keyword has not been clarified to also mean mortal. Delightfully this assumption also applies to animals, as their keyword has yet to be clarified as also being 'mortal' in the broader sense. So taking a action versus an Undebridge Stray is targeting an animal (a non-mortal minion), and thus will burn one of your Orun. Yay! You may remove a Scorpion's Touch from your own non-mortal minions without burning Orun, as it is undirected then. To remove it crosstable from a non-mortal minion will burn an Orun. Mercifully burning a Haven Uncovered or Pentex on a vampire will not cause you to burn an Orun. Even though the master card is placed upon the targeted minion, the action to burn is targeting the Methuselah who played it, thus not qualifying as a v. non-mortal minion. That's most of the egregious stuff I can think of...

Your precisions are mostly correct, but some aren't. > Azel wrote: > The reason you may do D actions v. Methuselahs and not burn an Orun is because a Methuselah is not a minion. Non-mortal yes, but also not a minion. > Correct. > > Azel wrote: > The reason you may do stand alone (i.e. not atop vampires) D actions provided by card text and not burn an Orun is because, well, the D action isn't directed at a non-mortal minion. So in example, because Powerbase: Montreal (or D.C. or Chicago) are not non-mortal minions, nor are attached to non-mortal minions, you won't burn Orun when you directly take an action against them. > Correct. > > Azel wrote: > The reason you may Far Mastery Carlton Van Wyk and not burn an Orun is because he is a mortal minion. > Correct. > > Azel wrote: > You cannot do this with Far Mastery against Mylan Horseed because he is not a mortal minion. > Correct. > > Azel wrote: > You can however Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Jake Washington without burning an Orun, because Jake Washington is a mortal minion. > Partially correct - you can do this without burning an Orun [EDIT: Fixed], but the fact that Jake Washington is a mortal minion is moot. What matters is that Tasha Morgan is not a minion, and thus not a non-mortal minion. > > Azel wrote: > You may remove a Scorpion's Touch from your own non-mortal minions without burning Orun, as it is undirected then. To remove it crosstable from a non-mortal minion will burn an Orun. > Correct, but not for the right reason. "While in play, Scorpion's Touch is not a minion" is the correct reason. > Azel wrote: > You also cannot Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Harrod without burning an Orun, because Harrod is a non-mortal minion. > Well, you can do this, as the action targets Tasha Morgan (not a mortal minion, but a mortal retainer) and not Harrod. You could also burn a Secure Haven on Harrod with Arson (this action targets the Secure Haven). > Azel" wrote: > One assumes (until a ruling says otherwise) that you may NOT do this again with Far Mastery against Thadius Zho, Mage because his text labels him a mage instead of a mortal, and so far the mage keyword has not been clarified to also mean mortal. > > Delightfully this assumption also applies to animals, as their keyword has yet to be clarified as also being 'mortal' in the broader sense. So taking a action versus an Undebridge Stray is targeting an animal (a non-mortal minion), and thus will burn one of your Orun. Yay! > No need for clarification. These keywords are distinct, and there is no hidden implication. > Azel wrote: > You may remove a Scorpion's Touch from your own non-mortal minions without burning Orun, as it is undirected then. To remove it crosstable from a non-mortal minion will burn an Orun. > Wrong. Targetting a card on a minion doesn't target the minion. See also Arson on Secure Haven. > Azel wrote: > Mercifully burning a Haven Uncovered or Pentex on a vampire will not cause you to burn an Orun. Even though the master card is placed upon the targeted minion, the action to burn is targeting the Methuselah who played it, thus not qualifying as a v. non-mortal minion. > The target of these actions (burning Pentex, burning Haven Uncovered) is the card itself. See Salt of Thoth, Detect Authority or Ensconsed for examples.

> Pascal wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > You also cannot Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Harrod without burning an Orun, because Harrod is a non-mortal minion. > > > Well, you can do this, as the action targets Tasha Morgan (not a mortal minion, but a mortal retainer) and not Harrod. You could also burn a Secure Haven on Harrod with Arson (this action targets the Secure Haven). > I guess Azel got confused with counters on Harrod. Targeting counters (such as blood) on a minion targets the minion. Targeting cards on a minion targets the card (not the minion). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Azel wrote: > You also cannot Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Harrod without burning an Orun, because Harrod is a non-mortal minion. > > Pascal wrote: > Well, you can do this, as the action targets Tasha Morgan (not a mortal minion, but a mortal retainer) and not Harrod. You could also burn a Secure Haven on Harrod with Arson (this action targets the Secure Haven). > > Ankha wrote: > I guess Azel got confused with counters on Harrod. > Targeting counters (such as blood) on a minion targets the minion. > Targeting cards on a minion targets the card (not the minion). > I would venture Azel was thinking of an analogy: actions target cards in play, which are controlled by a Methuselah, and are therefore considered, by extension, to also target "you" as the Methuselah. It is not a big stretch to assume that actions which target cards "on" other cards (such as retainers or equipment on any minion) also target the minion they are on. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Whaaa? You mean I can loot minion attachments with my Laibon now! Yay! I'm not targeting them, just their stuff. Good. This has been a useful topic. PS: Quibble for posterity, you don't burn blood to Orun, you burn an attached Orun. > Pascal wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > You can however Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Jake Washington without burning an Orun, because Jake Washington is a mortal minion. > > > Partially correct - you can do this without burning blood to Orun, but the fact that Jake Washington is a mortal minion is moot. What matters is that Tasha Morgan is not a minion, and thus not a non-mortal minion. > Also, for clarification: Burning a Pentex Subversion and Haven Uncovered on your minions. The target of these actions is the card itself, however card control is still retained by the Methuselah who played it. The action is against the card itself, which is currently on your own vampire, but you have to remember the card's controller is elsewhere and thus burning it is a action against them. Because you're targeting the card, which is on your side of the table, while being controlled elsewhere by table. This really sucks as a visual reminder. The "Put this card on (a minion)" for master cards seems needlessly confusing. Shouldn't there be some visual consistency. Like clauses "Put this card into play and choose (a minion)" which leaves it on the controller's side of the field, and then "Put this card on (a minion), it's controller now controls this card." Or is this a legacy holdover? 'Cuz if it's a legacy holdover, it's absolutely fine to me. Keeps away new players by being confusing and all, but quite entertaining. It's like an elitist group reading 'legalese' or something, very Byzantine politics, retains the mood.

> Azel wrote: > PS: Quibble for posterity, you don't burn blood to Orun, you burn an attached Orun. > Good catch I edited that post. Thanks > Azel wrote: > Also, for clarification: Burning a Pentex Subversion and Haven Uncovered on your minions. The target of these actions is the card itself, however card control is still retained by the Methuselah who played it. The action is against the card itself, which is currently on your own vampire, but you have to remember the card's controller is elsewhere and thus burning it is a action against them. Because you're targeting the card, which is on your side of the table, while being controlled elsewhere by table. > Correct. Rulebook 6.2.2 wrote: > > 1. Who May Attempt to Block: If the action targets one or more other Methuselahs (or things controlled by other Methuselahs), then the action is called directed, and only the Methuselahs who are targeted (or control the targets) may use their ready untapped minions to attempt to block the action (going clockwise from the acting Methuselah, as usual). > > Azel wrote: > This really sucks as a visual reminder. The "Put this card on (a minion)" for master cards seems needlessly confusing. Shouldn't there be some visual consistency. Like clauses "Put this card into play and choose (a minion)" which leaves it on the controller's side of the field, and then "Put this card on (a minion), it's controller now controls this card." Or is this a legacy holdover? > This wouldn't be helpful for the "choose a minion" part - as the minion would still be on the other side of the table. For the "that minion's controller now controls this card", this would change a lot of things. For instance, burning the Haven Uncovered would be an undirected action (rather than a D action against the Methuselah who played it). There are ways of remembering who played that Pentex Subversion. First, you can ask. Players remember that. Second, if you use sleeves, you can check who's card it is by the colour of the cardsleeve. And third, there's the background logic. A combat-player is more likely to use Haven Uncovered than a vote deck. It is some sort of "legacy" - it's based on the background of the game, in which Methuselahs struggle to overcome other powers. What they, and what they use, is theirs. > Azel wrote: > 'Cuz if it's a legacy holdover, it's absolutely fine to me. Keeps away new players by being confusing and all, but quite entertaining. It's like an elitist group reading 'legalese' or something, very Byzantine politics, retains the mood. >

There are cards that are linked to more than one card or player: master cards played on another player's minion, superior Unholy Penance, Bauble, Blood Stone, boons,... No matter where you put those on the table, there will always be something else to remember. And that's not even counting cards that change controllers that you need to remember to get back at the end of the game