KERIN BRITTON L (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) wrote:
: If a contested unique location (or any unique card for that matter) is
: burned, are both his copy and your copy discarded, or do you keep yours?
: If not, can the same location be brought out again later?: --Can you imagine having an implant so that the government can track you
: wherever you go? It's coming from AT&T.
KERIN BRITTON L (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) wrote:
: If a contested unique location (or any unique card for that matter) is
: burned, are both his copy and your copy discarded, or do you keep yours?
: If not, can the same location be brought out again later?
An early version of the Jyhad FAQ (which may even still be available on
the WotC site for all I know) incorrectly talks about burning contested
locations. This cannot be done, and was corrected in later versions.
All Contested cards are _out of the game_ until they are no longer
contested. There are currently no cards that allow a Meth to screw with
the contested cards themselves. (Praxis: Solomon allows you to make a
decision _about_ the contested cards...)
Thus, contested locations cannot be burned, contested minions cannot be
Bums Rush'd, etc.
Shane H.W. Travis | Should we raise a generation of literate Americans,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | very little of America as we know it would survive.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | --Richard Mitchell
In article <438al7$2...@news.alaska.edu>, fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (KERIN
BRITTON L) wrote:
: If a contested unique location (or any unique card for that matter) is
: burned, are both his copy and your copy discarded, or do you keep yours?
: If not, can the same location be brought out again later?
The current ruling is that all contested cards are out of play. Thus a
contested card cannot be burned unless someone gives it up or is forced to
give it up. This is a DTR that corrects the statement in one of the
rulebooks that a contested location can be automaticly burned by any
attempt.
Unique cards that are burned (including Vampires) may be brought out again
by any Meth. at any time in the game. So if you lost a unique location to
Arson, and you had another one in your hand, you could play it on your
next Master phase.
Hope this helps
stephen
If a contested unique location (or any unique card for that matter) is
burned, are both his copy and your copy discarded, or do you keep yours?
If not, can the same location be brought out again later?
--Can you imagine having an implant so that the government can track you
[ quoted text not captured ]
tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>All Contested cards are _out of the game_ until they are no longer
>contested. There are currently no cards that allow a Meth to screw with
>the contested cards themselves. (Praxis: Solomon allows you to make a
>decision _about_ the contested cards...)>Thus, contested locations cannot be burned, contested minions cannot be
>Bums Rush'd, etc.
Can't remember if this was ever brought up here...what about
retainers and equipment ON a contested minion? Obviously, you can't
use the Blood Doll or Rack, but can do you contest the Sengir Dagger
on your contested Dre when another 'Dagger comes out?
Can Far Mastery grab a contested minion's retainers?
A literal reading of the rules says yes, I think, and I can certainly
see a Mr. Winthrop leaving a vampire who never shows up anyway and joining
another one.
In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu>,
Owen Reynolds <reyn...@cs.iastate.edu> wrote:
>tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>>>All Contested cards are _out of the game_ until they are no longer
>>contested. There are currently no cards that allow a Meth to screw with
>>the contested cards themselves. (Praxis: Solomon allows you to make a
>>decision _about_ the contested cards...)>>>Thus, contested locations cannot be burned, contested minions cannot be
>>Bums Rush'd, etc.>
> Can't remember if this was ever brought up here...what about
>retainers and equipment ON a contested minion? Obviously, you can't
>use the Blood Doll or Rack, but can do you contest the Sengir Dagger
>on your contested Dre when another 'Dagger comes out?
Judging by the ltest ruling on Contested Vampires holding Contested Titles,
I'd say that the Dagger would be Contested as well as the minion holding
it. But, I'm not as schizophrenic as th RT, so don't quote me.
> Can Far Mastery grab a contested minion's retainers?
Definately not. Except for the possibility of being Contested, all cards
on a Contested minion (including the minion himself) are out of play.
> A literal reading of the rules says yes, I think, and I can certainly
>see a Mr. Winthrop leaving a vampire who never shows up anyway and joining
>another one.
Hmmm. You probably have something there.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text
In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu>,
reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote:
> tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>
> >All Contested cards are _out of the game_ until they are no longer
> >contested. There are currently no cards that allow a Meth to screw with
> >the contested cards themselves. (Praxis: Solomon allows you to make a
> >decision _about_ the contested cards...)
>
> >Thus, contested locations cannot be burned, contested minions cannot be
> >Bums Rush'd, etc.
>
> Can't remember if this was ever brought up here...what about
> retainers and equipment ON a contested minion? Obviously, you can't
> use the Blood Doll or Rack, but can do you contest the Sengir Dagger
> on your contested Dre when another 'Dagger comes out?
No, your Dagger is out of play while Dre is contested. The other owner
uses it freely unless/until you win the contest of vampires, at which time
the contest of daggers begins.
J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com>
PGP keys by request
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
a...@sun.lclark.edu (Andrea Williams) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:
>: Judging by the ltest ruling on Contested Vampires holding Contested Titles,>: I'd say that the Dagger would be Contested as well as the minion holding
>: it. But, I'm not as schizophrenic as th RT, so don't quote me.>: > Can Far Mastery grab a contested minion's retainers?>: Definately not. Except for the possibility of being Contested, all cards
>: on a Contested minion (including the minion himself) are out of play.><snip>>Either my reading is off, or you contradict yourself here, Scott. If all
>cards on a contested minion are out of play, then the SD would be out of
>play when the vamp was contested. So no, another SD being brought out
>wouldn't be contested, unless the first vamp became uncontested, and was
>the one with the SD.
As I said: "Compared with the ruling on Contested Vampires with Contested
Titles." Contested cards are out of the game except w.r.t. contesting.
Therefore a unique equipment on a contested vamp would be subject to
contesting if another minion equipped with that unique equip.
Except for being contested, cards on Contested cards are out of play.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>In article <43jmiu$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:>>As I said: "Compared with the ruling on Contested Vampires with Contested
>>Titles." Contested cards are out of the game except w.r.t. contesting.
>>Therefore a unique equipment on a contested vamp would be subject to
>>contesting if another minion equipped with that unique equip.
>>
>>Except for being contested, cards on Contested cards are out of play.>Hi Scott, I'm not up to date on this one. Who pays the Contest cost
>of a contested title on a contested vampire?
Tom says no one can - therefore the Vampire yields his Title automatically
during his controllers untap (as if the Vamp were in Torpor):
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Re: Question on contesteds and titles
Date: 17 Aug 1995 07:35:58 GMT
Message-ID: <40urgu$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: The question that I have is: If a contested Vampire has a Title, and
>:gets contested, shouldn't both Vampires take damage as long as the
>:contesting goes on?
>Interesting question - one which has never come up in our group as we
>have few praxis seziures or ______ Justicar cards. Instinctive reaction
>would be that if one is asserting that the vampires are indeed the same,
>they _would_ have to both take damage intil the title is yielded.
>
>This begs the question, however: who decides whether or not to yield the
>title? The vampire is out of play, so neither Meth has control over it at
>this point to be able to _make_ the decision to yield the title...
Seems to me the simplest solution would be to adopt the rule for trying
to contest titles from torpor: you can't. Whichever of the vampires has
its "turn" first is forced to yield the title, just as if it was in torpor.
If the title is being contested with a vampire in play, the situation would
quickly devolve to only the vampire in play laying claim to the title.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In <43mbpr$q...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>>>In article <43jmiu$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:>>>>As I said: "Compared with the ruling on Contested Vampires with Contested
>>>Titles." Contested cards are out of the game except w.r.t. contesting.
>>>Therefore a unique equipment on a contested vamp would be subject to
>>>contesting if another minion equipped with that unique equip.
>>>
>>>Except for being contested, cards on Contested cards are out of play.>>>Hi Scott, I'm not up to date on this one. Who pays the Contest cost
>>of a contested title on a contested vampire?>
>Tom says no one can - therefore the Vampire yields his Title automatically
>during his controllers untap (as if the Vamp were in Torpor):
Pardon ?!?
As the contested Vampire is out of the game - so is its title (it is
a property of the Vampire that can't be given to another Vamp like
equipment can). IMHO.
>Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:>>: The question that I have is: If a contested Vampire has a Title, and
>>:gets contested, shouldn't both Vampires take damage as long as the
>>:contesting goes on?
>>Interesting question - one which has never come up in our group as we
>>have few praxis seziures or ______ Justicar cards. Instinctive reaction
>>would be that if one is asserting that the vampires are indeed the same,
>>they _would_ have to both take damage intil the title is yielded.
>>
>>This begs the question, however: who decides whether or not to yield the
>>title? The vampire is out of play, so neither Meth has control over it at
>>this point to be able to _make_ the decision to yield the title...>
>Seems to me the simplest solution would be to adopt the rule for trying
>to contest titles from torpor: you can't. Whichever of the vampires has
>its "turn" first is forced to yield the title, just as if it was in torpor.
This would mean that contesting a Vampire would lead to an automatic yield
for the other one since he will untap before the aggressor. Even if the
aggressor would yield the Vampire on its next untap (due to blood shortage)
the winning Vampire would have lost its title. Doesn't sound fair to me.
(I know: this is not supposed to be fair :-) )
>If the title is being contested with a vampire in play, the situation would
>quickly devolve to only the vampire in play laying claim to the title.
As I said above: the contested Vampire is out of the game and therefor
its title can't be contested.
I don't have my rulesbook with me, but as I understand the rules it is
that everything on and with a contested Vampire is out of the game as
long as the Vampire is contested. That would mean that even unique
equipment/retainer aren't there and can't be contested until the Vampire
becomes uncontested at which time they will be contested (again).
(This also allows for some devious plots to take equipment/retainers out
of the game and play my own copy of them :-) )
Bye, Michael
--
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Michael Gerdau Institut fuer Meereskunde |
| ger...@ifm.uni-hamburg.de Universitaet Hamburg |
| Tel. +49(0)40 4123 2988 Troplowitzstrasse 7 |
| FAX +49(0)40 560 5724 D-22529 Hamburg (Letters) |
| 2b or not 2b that's ff D-20146 Hamburg (Parcels) |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie): Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
: Subject: Re: Question on contesteds and titles
: Date: 17 Aug 1995 07:35:58 GMT
: Message-ID: <40urgu$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>: Seems to me the simplest solution would be to adopt the rule for trying: to contest titles from torpor: you can't. Whichever of the vampires has
: its "turn" first is forced to yield the title, just as if it was in torpor.: If the title is being contested with a vampire in play, the situation would: quickly devolve to only the vampire in play laying claim to the title.
This brings up a question I have had for a while: are Tom's ideas about
gameplay official unless we hear otherwise? (Tom - please jump in and
answer this one...)
I ask because Tom himself has stated he doesn't play a lot of Jyhad.
OTOH, he is the Netrep, so what he says should go, right? (Or at leaet be
an official answer.)
I don't have a lot of problem with this ruling _specifically_, only that
it is one of a number on which Tom has given his opinion and not said
explicitly, "... but I'll forward it to the rules team," thus we do not
know if the rules team agrees with Tom.
This thought was specifically triggered by the phrase 'Seems to me....'
This sounds like someone giving an opinion rather than a rules-errata. It
would be nice if in situations like this we know in what capacity Tom was
speaking: player, Final Word, or Netrep-who-is-passing-along-his-ideas-and-
ours-to-the-rules-team.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>As I said: "Compared with the ruling on Contested Vampires with Contested
>Titles." Contested cards are out of the game except w.r.t. contesting.
>Therefore a unique equipment on a contested vamp would be subject to
>contesting if another minion equipped with that unique equip.
>Except for being contested, cards on Contested cards are out of play.
Since there's some confusion on this point: what Scott said is correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>This brings up a question I have had for a while: are Tom's ideas about
>gameplay official unless we hear otherwise? (Tom - please jump in and
>answer this one...)
Yes, they should be taken as official. Note that I do check answers
that I'm not sure of before posting, that I'll say I'm not sure about
an answer if I'm not, and that, like everyone, I do make mistakes...
>I don't have a lot of problem with this ruling _specifically_, only that
>it is one of a number on which Tom has given his opinion and not said
>explicitly, "... but I'll forward it to the rules team," thus we do not
>know if the rules team agrees with Tom.
I generally don't see the need to give credentials for whatever rulings
I post here. If it seems that a ruling needs backing up, I'll put it
on the question list for the rules team. Note that, just as with Magic,
this occasionally leads to my being overruled...
>This thought was specifically triggered by the phrase 'Seems to me....'
>This sounds like someone giving an opinion rather than a rules-errata. It
>would be nice if in situations like this we know in what capacity Tom was
>speaking: player, Final Word, or Netrep-who-is-passing-along-his-ideas-and-
>ours-to-the-rules-team.
Doh! Now that you mention it, I forgot to check on this contesting issue
with the rules team. I'll put it on the list now.
[ quoted text not captured ]