I just introduced my brother to Jyhad over break; he seems to enjoy it. :-)
One question came up. He used a Rat's Warning to untap a vampire when
a bleed was declared against him. But the untapped vampire did not
block the bleed. Does the vampire remain untapped when the action
is complete? (I thought not, but there's nothing on the card to
refute it...)
That would make an Auspex/Animalism vampire combination interesting;
untap with Rat's Warning in response to a bleed, but then only play
reaction cards (Telepathic Counter), which don't tap you back...
papillo the pongid
In <3bd95j$f...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, pap...@fc.hp.com (Bob Ellison) writes:
>I just introduced my brother to Jyhad over break; he seems to enjoy it. :-)
>One question came up. He used a Rat's Warning to untap a vampire when
>a bleed was declared against him. But the untapped vampire did not
>block the bleed. Does the vampire remain untapped when the action
>is complete?
Absolutely. The card untaps the V. A successful block will tap the V.
>
>That would make an Auspex/Animalism vampire combination interesting;
>untap with Rat's Warning in response to a bleed, but then only play
>reaction cards (Telepathic Counter), which don't tap you back...
That's why I bleed last.
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
r...@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
> Does the vampire remain untapped when the action
> >is complete?> Absolutely. The card untaps the V. A successful block will tap the V.
I've gotten some private e-mail on this; some say the vampire is tapped,
some don't.
It seems to me that Jyhad is designed so that a vampire that takes
an action, whether complete or blocked, is tapped; such a vampire may
awaken to attempt to block, but always returns to its tapped state at
the completion of the action. This matches the conceptual model that
a vampire taking an action has to spend a lot of time working on it.
There are a few exceptions that are usually clearly noted. Some
powerful cards allow a vampire that is blocked to remain untapped and
free to take further action; this fits with the conceptual model that
the acting vampire didn't have to take as much time to finish the action.
There are some cards that allow blocking vampires to remain untapped
after a block; the explanation is that blocking doesn't require as
much time as a normal action would.
The combinations seem obscure, though. What if a tapped Justine
Wakes with Evening's Freshness and blocks a capacity-3 vampire? Justine
doesn't tap after blocking low-weight vampires, but Wake with Evening's
Freshness taps the vampire after the action. It seems pretty clear
that Justine should end up tapped again; this seems to be the intention
of the ability to untap. This seems to be the case as long as the
actor used Wake, regardless of any other instructions to remain untap
(such as Majesty with superior Presence).
Rat's Warning seems odd. The vampire using it may untap - but may
apparently remain untapped, depending on the interpretation of the
card. It seems to me that if the card intended its wielder to remain
untapped, it would have specifically said so, as such a result is
counter to any other mechanics present in the game. This interpretation
also allows a vampire to take successful actions several times during
one turn of play (consider a Malkavian with an Animalism discipline and
the Madness Network; such a vampire coiuld take successful action after
every players' turn in a multiple-player game). This is also seems
counter to the intent of the rules, which everywhere else enforce
that a vampire may usually only take one attempt at an action, and may
certainly only take one successful action per turn.
If Tom's still around, I'd love to know first whether this use of the
card is a valid interpretation, and second whether it is an interpretation
that was intended by the designers (the two questions are very
different).
papillo the obsequious
Bob Ellison (pap...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
[Some very good points deleted]
: This is also seems: counter to the intent of the rules, which everywhere else enforce
: that a vampire may usually only take one attempt at an action, and may
: certainly only take one successful action per turn.
Doesn't it say somewhere in the rules that a vampire can take several
actions in the same turn if it can find some way to untap? I think so, but
I'm not sure, and I haven't got the rules with me.
Anders
m91...@kochab.tdb.uu.se (Anders Gabrielsson) writes:
>
> Doesn't it say somewhere in the rules that a vampire can take several
>actions in the same turn if it can find some way to untap? I think so, but
>I'm not sure, and I haven't got the rules with me.
Yup, page 20.
- Tor Iver
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor...@pvv.unit.no> CS student at NTH, Trondheim, NO
Info: http://www.pvv.unit.no/~toriver/ Member of The Software Workshop, UNIT
"There ain't no coming back!" - T-Bone, "The Crow" * Halfway, European Country
>> Does the vampire remain untapped when the action
>> >is complete?>> Absolutely. The card untaps the V. A successful block will tap the V.>It seems to me that Jyhad is designed so that a vampire that takes>an action, whether complete or blocked, is tapped; such a vampire may
>awaken to attempt to block, but always returns to its tapped state at
>the completion of the action. This matches the conceptual model that
>a vampire taking an action has to spend a lot of time working on it.
I wouldn't worry to much about the conceptual model when discussing
game mechanics. It's a really bad habit to get into.
>The combinations seem obscure, though. What if a tapped Justine
>Wakes with Evening's Freshness and blocks a capacity-3 vampire? Justine
>doesn't tap after blocking low-weight vampires, but Wake with Evening's
>Freshness taps the vampire after the action. It seems pretty clear
>that Justine should end up tapped again; this seems to be the intention
>of the ability to untap. This seems to be the case as long as the
This is simply solved by the fact the WwEF doesn't untap the vampire in
the first place. It simply allows a tapped vampire to play reaction cards
and attempt to block. It never actually becomes untapped. Justine, in
your example, would not be tapped by blocking the small vampire, but
nothing untapped her, so she stays tapped.
>Rat's Warning seems odd. The vampire using it may untap - but may
>apparently remain untapped, depending on the interpretation of the
>card.
They way I view it is the combat itself is what taps the vampire that
is blocking. Thus the vampire uses Rat's Warning, thus becomeing
untapped. Now it blocks and goes into combat thus becomeing tapped again.
> It seems to me that if the card intended its wielder to remain
>untapped, it would have specifically said so, as such a result is
>counter to any other mechanics present in the game. This interpretation
But, OTOH, I wouldn't want the cards to be piled with small print. It's
a tough job to get all the meaning that a card needs and no extra rules
garbage to detract from it. I suppose the hard part is with so many
people playing the game, it's tough to get wordings that everyone reads
the same.
>also allows a vampire to take successful actions several times during
>one turn of play (consider a Malkavian with an Animalism discipline and
>the Madness Network; such a vampire coiuld take successful action after
>every players' turn in a multiple-player game). This is also seems
>counter to the intent of the rules, which everywhere else enforce
>that a vampire may usually only take one attempt at an action, and may
>certainly only take one successful action per turn.
Wouldn't exactly work as you can only use RW after a bleed is declared
against you. Unless, of course, everyone wants to bleed you, that is. :)
Don Sowell
>: This is also seems
>: counter to the intent of the rules, which everywhere else enforce
>: that a vampire may usually only take one attempt at an action, and may
>: certainly only take one successful action per turn.> Doesn't it say somewhere in the rules that a vampire can take several
>actions in the same turn if it can find some way to untap? I think so, but
>I'm not sure, and I haven't got the rules with me.
Sure does. 12.3 Phase 2 - Minion says "If your minion manages to untap
due to a card effect this phase, it may take another action. Thus it is
possible for the same minion to take several actions during a turn."
Don Sowell
Before I could do anything to stop it, Bob Ellison wrote:
> The combinations seem obscure, though. What if a tapped Justine
> Wakes with Evening's Freshness and blocks a capacity-3 vampire? Justine
> doesn't tap after blocking low-weight vampires, but Wake with Evening's
> Freshness taps the vampire after the action. It seems pretty clear
> that Justine should end up tapped again; this seems to be the intention
> of the ability to untap. This seems to be the case as long as the
> actor used Wake, regardless of any other instructions to remain untap
> (such as Majesty with superior Presence).
Wake with Evening's Freshness does *not* untap the vampire. The vampire
is able to block or play reaction cards *as if* untapped, but he doesn't
physically untap to do it. If you Wake to block a bleed and your predator
plays Lost in Crowds, you've just burned a Wake because your blocker will
not untap in the first place.
--
He did not wear his scarlet coat, | a-Henh!
For blood and wine are red, | Brian Wilson
And blood and wine were on his hands |
When they found him with the dead. |
|
Oscar Wilde |
Don Sowell (que...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: They way I view it is the combat itself is what taps the vampire that: is blocking. Thus the vampire uses Rat's Warning, thus becomeing
: untapped. Now it blocks and goes into combat thus becomeing tapped again.
Actually, it's the blocking that causes the tapping.
The principle benefit to Rat's warning vs Wake is precisely that it
Does untap the Vampire. Consider: you attempt to block a bleed with a
wake, your predator ups the stealth and gets thru. If you are out of
Wakes, she is now free to do whatever she likes. Use Rats Warning, fail
to get the block off, and you are still up to try and stop any remaining
actions. The Second Tradition: Domain is more versitile, as it can be
used against any action, instead of just bleeds, but the +2 intercept means
you usually will end up tapped due to a succesful block (unlesss you then
play Cats Guidance)
Here is your twisted combo: Wake with Evening's Freshness, block,
then play Cat's Guidance and untap. With Eagle's sight and the Madness
Network, your pet Malkavian Can block during everyone's turn and act
many times betwixt!!! Crazy, man, crazy...like a fox.
Lance Berg
Gamemasters
>: They way I view it is the combat itself is what taps the vampire that
>: is blocking. Thus the vampire uses Rat's Warning, thus becomeing
>: untapped. Now it blocks and goes into combat thus becomeing tapped again.>Actually, it's the blocking that causes the tapping.
What reference says this? For example if I declare my minion, Jing Wei,
is blocking KoKo. You then lay down a Lost in Crowds. Oops, Jing can't
compete. So KoKo goes through and Jing *is not tapped*. But I declared
her as a blocker.
This is, of course, confusing.
What you're saying is that *successful* blocking taps the vampire.
Fair enough. But a successful block, by definition makes the vampires go
into combat. If this is changed (or a counterargument is put forth) I
would change my view, but, IMHO it is easier to think of the combat
itself as tapping the blocking vampire (and the action performed by the
acting minion tapping that vampire).
Especially with the rules team declaring the meta rule that all
combats tap the minions that are involved in that combat (excepting, of
course, specific breaking of this rule).
Don Sowell
In article <3c2amo$h...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
further evidence to support don's argument is the Endless Night card. if you
have superior obfuscate it says that the blocker is tapped even though the
block is unsuccessful. Endless Night is a stealth card.
Jonathan
[ quoted text not captured ]
How about Bum's Rush? The attacked minion does not block, but does go into
combat. Is the minion tapped?
-steve kertes
ker...@cs.washington.edu
ker...@geoworks.com
In article <3c2amo$h...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
Don Sowell <que...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Especially with the rules team declaring the meta rule that all
>combats tap the minions that are involved in that combat (excepting, of
>course, specific breaking of this rule).
>
I'm pretty sure that the rules team declared that the meta rule was that
combat does *not* in and of itself tap a minion unless a card says
otherwise. I'll look in my e-mail logs, but I think that I'm right on
this one.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
ek letters (lanc...@delphi.com) wrote:
<--Stuff about Wake with Evening's Freshness-->
: actions. The Second Tradition: Domain is more versitile, as it can be: used against any action, instead of just bleeds, but the +2 intercept means
: you usually will end up tapped due to a succesful block (unlesss you then
: play Cats Guidance)
Does the second tradition LET a vampire untap, then block? It sounds
like to me, the way the card is worded, that the vampire must have
BEEN untapped (probably by another card), then 2nd Trad. gives it +2
intercept. I know this sounds wierd, but that's the way I read it.
I'd been interested if anyone could clear this up.
Jonathan Trull (jonatha...@ccis01.baylor.edu)
"And somewhere in America, Richard Garfield laughs all the way to the
bank."
Yes, the wording on Domain is... interesting. Basically it lets a
tapped Prince or Justicar untap and attempt to block at +2 intercept.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
> Yes, the wording on Domain is... interesting. Basically it lets a
> tapped Prince or Justicar untap and attempt to block at +2 intercept.
Very interesting. Given recent discussion here... doesn't this imply
that, if the block fails, the Prince or Justicar remains untapped? (As
compared to Wake, which allows a tapped vampire to block and react *as
though* untapped...)
papillo the eccentric
>> Yes, the wording on Domain is... interesting. Basically it lets a
>> tapped Prince or Justicar untap and attempt to block at +2 intercept.
Actually,
The wording allows an untapped Prince or Justicar to block at +2
stealth as well:
Prince or Justicar
+2 intercept
Usable by a tapped ...
NOT:
Usable only by a tapped ...
That it *may* be used by a tapped Prince/Justicar is an enhancement to the
function of the card, *not* a limitation.
It's only foolish errata that has gone against logic to require a Prince
or Justicar to be tapped before it can get a bonus to intercept.
I wish the design team would give a reason for this errata.
(Actually I wish they would leave the card alone, but ...)
BledBecauseRakeWasUntapped,
L. Scott Johnson
In article <3bghj5$3...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, pap...@fc.hp.com (Bob Ellison)
wrote:
> > Does the vampire remain untapped when the action
> > >is complete?
>
> > Absolutely. The card untaps the V. A successful block will tap the V.
>
> I've gotten some private e-mail on this; some say the vampire is tapped,
> some don't.
>
> It seems to me that Jyhad is designed so that a vampire that takes
> an action, whether complete or blocked, is tapped; such a vampire may
> awaken to attempt to block, but always returns to its tapped state at
> the completion of the action. This matches the conceptual model that
> a vampire taking an action has to spend a lot of time working on it.
>
First off, blocking and action cause you to tap. Combat does not. This was
according to a net ruling by Tom Wylie.
Second, some "untap" cards (like "Wake with Evening's Freshness") state
that you can untap, but are tapped whether you block successfully or not.
Third, playing reaction cards do not tap you (unless it specifically says
it does, like "Telepathic Misdirection").
"Rat's Warning" is a reaction card playable by a tapped vampire that untaps
you versus a bleed action and does not require you retap at the end of the
action (I believe that is how the card reads). If the predator announces a
bleed, you play R.A. to untap, predator plays stealth to sneak past and you
cannot play any interceptso you play "Telepathic Counter" which reduces the
bleed. You are still untapped. Why? R.A. does not require you to retap and
T.C. is a reaction card and does not require you to tap.
Result: predator's bleeding vamp is tapped, your vamp is untapped, and the
bleed was unsuccessful if it was reduced to 0.
Animalism is tough. There are a lot of ways to use it to stay untapped!
> The combinations seem obscure, though. What if a tapped Justine
> Wakes with Evening's Freshness and blocks a capacity-3 vampire? Justine
> doesn't tap after blocking low-weight vampires, but Wake with Evening's
> Freshness taps the vampire after the action. It seems pretty clear
> that Justine should end up tapped again; this seems to be the intention
> of the ability to untap. This seems to be the case as long as the
> actor used Wake, regardless of any other instructions to remain untap
> (such as Majesty with superior Presence).
>
With a "Wake" she would be tapped because it is not the act of blocking a
lightweight vampire which taps Justine, but the post-"Wake" effect
(otherwise known as PWE). :)=
> Rat's Warning seems odd. The vampire using it may untap - but may
> apparently remain untapped, depending on the interpretation of the
> card. It seems to me that if the card intended its wielder to remain
> untapped, it would have specifically said so, as such a result is
> counter to any other mechanics present in the game.
No, it is the other way around. The mechanics of the game are that when you
untap, you stay untapped until you take an action which causes you to tap.
That is why there is a special note on "Wake" -- because *it* is the card
which breaks the mechanics of the rules; "Rat's Warning" does not.
> This interpretation
> also allows a vampire to take successful actions several times during
> one turn of play (consider a Malkavian with an Animalism discipline and
> the Madness Network; such a vampire coiuld take successful action after
> every players' turn in a multiple-player game). This is also seems
> counter to the intent of the rules, which everywhere else enforce
> that a vampire may usually only take one attempt at an action, and may
> certainly only take one successful action per turn.
>
I once played a deck with 24 (out of 60) "untap"-type cards. It was
maddening to all of the other players, but in the end, it did not win.
> If Tom's still around, I'd love to know first whether this use of the
> card is a valid interpretation, and second whether it is an interpretation
> that was intended by the designers (the two questions are very
> different).
>
> papillo the obsequious
--
Dale Hurtt
dhu...@harris.com
In article <D0FLE...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, ker...@cs.washington.edu
(Stephen Kertes) wrote:
> How about Bum's Rush? The attacked minion does not block, but does go into
> combat. Is the minion tapped?
>
The *attacked* minion is not tapped as combat does not cause a tap (a
successful block, however, does). The *attacking* minion is tapped, of
course, because it took an action.
> -steve kertes
> ker...@cs.washington.edu
> ker...@geoworks.com
--
Dale Hurtt
dhu...@harris.com
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct. A failed block under Domain would leave the vampire untapped;
a failed block under Wake with Evening's Freshness would leave it tapped.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Before I could do anything to stop it, Dale Hurtt wrote:
> Second, some "untap" cards (like "Wake with Evening's Freshness") state
> that you can untap, but are tapped whether you block successfully or not.
Wake does not let you untap anything. It lets a vampire block or play
reaction cards *as if* untapped, but it doesn't really untap the card.
--
Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a | a-Henh!
fully charged icing annointment utensil, he poots forth |
a tiny green rosette near the summit of a dense but | Brian
radiant muffin of his own design. | Wilson
|
We miss you, Frank! |
In article p...@perv.hal.COM, aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>
> Correct. A failed block under Domain would leave the vampire untapped;
> a failed block under Wake with Evening's Freshness would leave it tapped.
>
I disagree, the wording of the card clearly implies that the vampire must
first untap with another card, i.e wake with evenings and then it can gain
+2 intercept, no where on this card does it say "untap this vampire"
--Kurt
[ quoted text not captured ]
--Kurt
I have to say Tom Wylie is correct. The second tradition untaps the vampire and it
it gains +2 intercept. The actual wording is: +2 intercetp. Usable by a tapped
vampire that untaps and attempts to block. Thus, this card untaps the vampire
and it must attempt to block at +2 intercept.
-Brian
####
--
In article <3cl1b6$6...@gpo.gb.swissbank.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Wake with evening freshness does not untap you.
The only two cards(other then domain) that untap you are rat's warning and
cat's guidance. Cat's guidance is not applicable, b/c it is played before
another action is done.
That only leaves rat's warning to untap your prince/justicar. If what you
said was true, then 2nd trad. would be a really worthless card(almost as bad
as playing charnas the imp on one of your own guys).
In article 6...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bd...@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian D. Leist) writes:
> I have to say Tom Wylie is correct. The second tradition untaps the vampire and it
> it gains +2 intercept. The actual wording is: +2 intercetp. Usable by a tapped
> vampire that untaps and attempts to block. Thus, this card untaps the vampire
> and it must attempt to block at +2 intercept.
> -Brian
> ####
> --
If this is true than why do cards like "wake with eveing freshness" and
"Cat's Guidance" say this vampire untaps ?
Cats says "Untap this vampire"
the 2nd doesn't say that it says usable by a vampire that untaps and attempts to block
i.e. untaps with wake and then plays the 2nd tradition.
Maybe we should ask for a ruling on this card, because it is
very poorly stated
--Kurt
In article <3cshua$a...@gpo.gb.swissbank.com>,
Kurt Vile <vi...@il.us.swissbank.com> wrote:
>In article 6...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bd...@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian D. Leist) writes:
>>> I have to say Tom Wylie is correct. The second tradition untaps the vampire and it
>> it gains +2 intercept. The actual wording is: +2 intercetp. Usable by a tapped
>> vampire that untaps and attempts to block. Thus, this card untaps the vampire
>> and it must attempt to block at +2 intercept.
>> -Brian
>> ####
>> -->
>If this is true than why do cards like "wake with eveing freshness" and
>"Cat's Guidance" say this vampire untaps ?
Well, Wake *doesn't* say that the vampire untaps. It just
allows a vampire to act as if untapped for this one action.
After the action's over, the vampire is still tapped.
And Cat's Guidance non-superior version can only be used after a
block, not as a response to an action.
>
>Cats says "Untap this vampire"
>
>the 2nd doesn't say that it says usable by a vampire that untaps and attempts to block
>
What?!? Read the card, Kurt! It says right on it "usable by a tapped
vampire that untaps and attempts to block." It's right there! The
card allows the vampire to untap.
>Maybe we should ask for a ruling on this card, because it is
>very poorly stated
>
Gee. Maybe we should. But then again, Tom Wylie has already
spoken up. I guess WotC aren't the people we need a ruling from.
Who's left? God?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Before I could do anything to stop it, Kurt Vile wrote:
> If this is true than why do cards like "wake with eveing freshness" and
> "Cat's Guidance" say this vampire untaps ?
Once again, Wake with Evening's Freshness doesn't untap *anything.* It
simply allows a tapped vampire to play reaction cards and attempt to
block as if untapped.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Domain is badly worded. Only a tapped prince or justicar may use it.
That vampire then untaps and attempts to block at +2 intercept.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Domain is badly worded. Only a tapped prince or justicar may use it.
>That vampire then untaps and attempts to block at +2 intercept.
Why? Can somebody (Tom, Design Team, whoever) offer any explanation
as to why a tapped vampire can get a bonus to intercept and block and
action that the same vampire, untapped, cannot?
The card was badly, but correctly, worded in the first place:
+2 intercept. Prince or Justicar.
This is the effect of the card.
Usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar which untaps and attempts
to block.
This is an enhancement - allowing even a tapped P/J to use the card,
NOT a restriction disallowing untapped P/Js the use.
Can I please get a logical reason for the other side of this argument?
L. Scott Johnson
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Why? Can somebody (Tom, Design Team, whoever) offer any explanation
>as to why a tapped vampire can get a bonus to intercept and block and
>action that the same vampire, untapped, cannot?
Because the card says so. It's badly worded, but the intent *is* that it
only be used by a tapped vampire, as far as I know.
[ quoted text not captured ]