[lsj] a question or two or three

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Say a vampire got a Zillah's Tears last turn.
This turn, is he allowed to:
Attempt to get another Zillah's tears, and just after tapping to
announce the action, burn the one he already has to untap, thus
leaving him without a Zillah's Tears, so that when the new one is on
him, he does not have more than one zillah's tears (and is untapped).
(The ruling about playing cards you can't afford if there is some way
to reduce the cost later made me think this might be able to be snuck
in now, but i doubt it.

Drawing Out The Beast damage.
During the press step, there's a point of damage to be dealt from
DotB. Does the acting meth get to order when it happens (regardless of
who played it), or is it just a 'press step effect' that the player of
the card can 'activate' whenever they are allowed (by sequencing
rules)?
or something else?

Weather Control
it's perfectly ok for me to play weather control, _not_ apply the
damage just yet, play an aura reading, play some other before range
cards, and then apply the damage effect if i want, right? i can order
it (subject to sequencing), just not leave the 'before range' step
without applying it....(kind of parallel to DotB above)

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:
> Say a vampire got a Zillah's Tears last turn.
> This turn, is he allowed to:
> Attempt to get another Zillah's tears, and just after tapping to
> announce the action, burn the one he already has to untap, thus
> leaving him without a Zillah's Tears, so that when the new one is on
> him, he does not have more than one zillah's tears (and is untapped).
> (The ruling about playing cards you can't afford if there is some way
> to reduce the cost later made me think this might be able to be snuck
> in now, but i doubt it.

No, because it'd be illegal for him to attempt the action to begin with.
Just like you can't Ambush an untapped vampire and hope they'll get
tapped somehow before the action resolves.

> Drawing Out The Beast damage.
> During the press step, there's a point of damage to be dealt from
> DotB. Does the acting meth get to order when it happens (regardless of
> who played it), or is it just a 'press step effect' that the player of
> the card can 'activate' whenever they are allowed (by sequencing
> rules)?
> or something else?

Weather Control precedent would say that the acting Methuselah gets to
order the effect.
>
> Weather Control
> it's perfectly ok for me to play weather control, _not_ apply the
> damage just yet, play an aura reading, play some other before range
> cards, and then apply the damage effect if i want, right? i can order
> it (subject to sequencing), just not leave the 'before range' step
> without applying it....(kind of parallel to DotB above)

Yes, if you're the acting Methuselah (with the modification that you
can't "apply the damage effect if i want" -- the damage must be applied,
even if someone plays superior Alpha Glint, taps Mariel, etc.

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:42:47 -0500, Colin McGuigan
> <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>
> >salem wrote:
> >> Say a vampire got a Zillah's Tears last turn.
> >> This turn, is he allowed to:
> >> Attempt to get another Zillah's tears, and just after tapping to
> >> announce the action, burn the one he already has to untap, thus
> >> leaving him without a Zillah's Tears, so that when the new one is
on
> >> him, he does not have more than one zillah's tears (and is
untapped).
> >> (The ruling about playing cards you can't afford if there is some
way
> >> to reduce the cost later made me think this might be able to be
snuck
> >> in now, but i doubt it.
> >
> >No, because it'd be illegal for him to attempt the action to begin
with.
> > Just like you can't Ambush an untapped vampire and hope they'll
get
> >tapped somehow before the action resolves.
>
> but by that reasoning it'd be illegal to try and play an action that
> costs 2 blood even if you have a card that will reduce the cost later
> (and you currently only have 1 blood)....

If you follow LSJ's link...

LSJ Oct 3 2001, 12:37 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
From: LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:29:05 -0400
Local: Wed,Oct 3 2001 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: Blood Tears (was Re: Experience)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original |
Report Abuse



Sorrow wrote:

> > Technically it is played to the ash heap to start the action, then
if
> > the action succeeds, it is put into play. The only two options are
"in
> > play" and "ash heap", and the equipment doesn't enter play until
the
> > action succeeds (cf. attempting to equip with a Blood Tears while
> > another Blood Tears is in play).


> Woah, so you can have a Blood Tears on the acting vamp who is
> attempting to equip another Blood Tears and, before the action is
> successful, burn the already equipped Blood Tears for the blood
> and then gain the new Blood Tears (if successful)?
> Too cool...



No. You can't play the card that would contest with yourself.
(Much like you cannot attempt an action that you cannot pay for,
even if you plan to be able to pay for it when it resolves.)

But if someone else controls the Blood Tears, she could burn it
between the time you play yours to announce the equip action and
the time the equip action succeeds.


--
LSJ (vtes...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes­/



-Scrote
>
> salem
> http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
> (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Colin McGuigan wrote:
> salem wrote:
>> Say a vampire got a Zillah's Tears last turn.
>> This turn, is he allowed to:
>> Attempt to get another Zillah's tears, and just after tapping to
>> announce the action, burn the one he already has to untap, thus
>> leaving him without a Zillah's Tears, so that when the new one is on
>> him, he does not have more than one zillah's tears (and is untapped).
>> (The ruling about playing cards you can't afford if there is some way
>> to reduce the cost later made me think this might be able to be snuck
>> in now, but i doubt it.
>
> No, because it'd be illegal for him to attempt the action to begin with.
> Just like you can't Ambush an untapped vampire and hope they'll get
> tapped somehow before the action resolves.

Correct.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/83712acfbfac18c3?hl=en

>> Drawing Out The Beast damage.
>> During the press step, there's a point of damage to be dealt from
>> DotB. Does the acting meth get to order when it happens (regardless of
>> who played it), or is it just a 'press step effect' that the player of
>> the card can 'activate' whenever they are allowed (by sequencing
>> rules)?
>> or something else?
>
> Weather Control precedent would say that the acting Methuselah gets to
> order the effect.

Sure.

>> Weather Control
>> it's perfectly ok for me to play weather control, _not_ apply the
>> damage just yet, play an aura reading, play some other before range
>> cards, and then apply the damage effect if i want, right? i can order
>> it (subject to sequencing), just not leave the 'before range' step
>> without applying it....(kind of parallel to DotB above)
>
> Yes, if you're the acting Methuselah (with the modification that you
> can't "apply the damage effect if i want" -- the damage must be applied,
> even if someone plays superior Alpha Glint, taps Mariel, etc.

Correct.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:42:47 -0500, Colin McGuigan
<maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:

>salem wrote:
>> Say a vampire got a Zillah's Tears last turn.
>> This turn, is he allowed to:
>> Attempt to get another Zillah's tears, and just after tapping to
>> announce the action, burn the one he already has to untap, thus
>> leaving him without a Zillah's Tears, so that when the new one is on
>> him, he does not have more than one zillah's tears (and is untapped).
>> (The ruling about playing cards you can't afford if there is some way
>> to reduce the cost later made me think this might be able to be snuck
>> in now, but i doubt it.
>
>No, because it'd be illegal for him to attempt the action to begin with.
> Just like you can't Ambush an untapped vampire and hope they'll get
>tapped somehow before the action resolves.

but by that reasoning it'd be illegal to try and play an action that
costs 2 blood even if you have a card that will reduce the cost later
(and you currently only have 1 blood)....

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:
> but by that reasoning it'd be illegal to try and play an action that
> costs 2 blood even if you have a card that will reduce the cost later
> (and you currently only have 1 blood)....

If you have a card in play that can reduce the cost (or pay for the cost
-- eg, Ravnos Carnival), it's legal.

If you have a card in your hand that could reduce the cost (though I
can't think of one at the moment), you're right, it's not legal.

But Blood Tears do not reduce the cost; they give you blood.

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:23:33 -0500, Colin McGuigan
<maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:

>salem wrote:
>> but by that reasoning it'd be illegal to try and play an action that
>> costs 2 blood even if you have a card that will reduce the cost later
>> (and you currently only have 1 blood)....
>
>If you have a card in play that can reduce the cost (or pay for the cost
>-- eg, Ravnos Carnival), it's legal.
>
>If you have a card in your hand that could reduce the cost (though I
>can't think of one at the moment), you're right, it's not legal.
>
>But Blood Tears do not reduce the cost; they give you blood.

that's right. but i was talking about zillah's tears.

i was trying to draw parallel between:

card in play to reduce cost creating legality
and
card in play that i can burn to make me not have one (zillah's tears)
to create legality.

and, apparently, i failed.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:
> that's right. but i was talking about zillah's tears.

Pffft.

> i was trying to draw parallel between:
>
> card in play to reduce cost creating legality
> and
> card in play that i can burn to make me not have one (zillah's tears)
> to create legality.
>
> and, apparently, i failed.

No; it's just that the rulings are "you cannot do things that require
something in the future, even if that something exists now". A good
parallel is Anson -- even if you have Anson, or the Parthenon, you can't
play multiple Out-of-Turn masters, banking on the fact that Anson will
still exist in your next master phase.

(Not sure how Ravnos Carnival fits into this; but "reduce cost" appears
to be an exception.)

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2005 05:02:31 -0700, "scrote" <mudz78@hotmail.com> scrawled:


>Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
>From: LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> - Find messages by this author
>Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:29:05 -0400
>Local: Wed,Oct 3 2001 12:29 pm
>Subject: Re: Blood Tears (was Re: Experience)
>Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original |
>Report Abuse
>
>
>
>Sorrow wrote:
>
>> > Technically it is played to the ash heap to start the action, then
>if
>> > the action succeeds, it is put into play. The only two options are
>"in
>> > play" and "ash heap", and the equipment doesn't enter play until
>the
>> > action succeeds (cf. attempting to equip with a Blood Tears while
>> > another Blood Tears is in play).
>
>
>> Woah, so you can have a Blood Tears on the acting vamp who is
>> attempting to equip another Blood Tears and, before the action is
>> successful, burn the already equipped Blood Tears for the blood
>> and then gain the new Blood Tears (if successful)?
>> Too cool...
>
>
>
>No. You can't play the card that would contest with yourself.
>(Much like you cannot attempt an action that you cannot pay for,
>even if you plan to be able to pay for it when it resolves.)


this bit seems to contradict the current 'reduce cost later'
ruling....

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:
>>From: LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> - Find messages by this author
>>No. You can't play the card that would contest with yourself.
>>(Much like you cannot attempt an action that you cannot pay for,
>>even if you plan to be able to pay for it when it resolves.)
>
> this bit seems to contradict the current 'reduce cost later'
> ruling....

Sure, except that you "could" pay for it with the Carnival when
you announce it (assuming costs could be paid at that time).

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, salem wrote:

> ah. it's almost making sense now. so if someone taps a warghoul and
> burns the carnival in the middle of your action...it just fizzles? so
> you were allowed to start something that you couldn't actually pay
> for. urk.

That doesn't seem so odd to me. The vampire could pay for the action when
it began. We already have plenty of examples how an action that was legal
when it was declared would fizzle because the vampire lost blood during
the action. The easiest example is a vampire with 1 blood bleeding with
Govern the Unaligned and playing Conditioning.

IMO, the potential weirdness there is that Ravnos Carnival says "When a
Ravnos you control successfully performs an action, you may use counters
from the Ravnos Carnival to pay some or all of the cost in blood (but not
pool) for the card." I may use the counters. Can I choose not to, even
if that would result in the action fizzling or am I forced to pay for the
action with counters, if my vampire lacks sufficient blood? What if my
vampire had enough blood when the action was declared but spent too much
on stealth or something? Am I now compelled to use Ravnos Carnival
counters to pay for the action or can I elect to have the action fizzle?

Matt Morgan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:23:55 -0500, Colin McGuigan
<maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:

>salem wrote:
>> that's right. but i was talking about zillah's tears.
>
>Pffft.

sorry. who am i to let facts get in the way of some good ...whatevers.


>> i was trying to draw parallel between:
>>
>> card in play to reduce cost creating legality
>> and
>> card in play that i can burn to make me not have one (zillah's tears)
>> to create legality.
>>
>> and, apparently, i failed.
>
>No; it's just that the rulings are "you cannot do things that require
>something in the future, even if that something exists now". A good
>parallel is Anson -- even if you have Anson, or the Parthenon, you can't
>play multiple Out-of-Turn masters, banking on the fact that Anson will
>still exist in your next master phase.
>
>(Not sure how Ravnos Carnival fits into this; but "reduce cost" appears
>to be an exception.)

yep. i'm all good with the generic ruling. i somewhat dislike the
"reduce cost" special case, however. doesn't seem particularly
consistent to me.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:55:20 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
scrawled:

>salem wrote:
>>>From: LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> - Find messages by this author
>>>No. You can't play the card that would contest with yourself.
>>>(Much like you cannot attempt an action that you cannot pay for,
>>>even if you plan to be able to pay for it when it resolves.)
>>
>> this bit seems to contradict the current 'reduce cost later'
>> ruling....
>
>Sure, except that you "could" pay for it with the Carnival when
>you announce it (assuming costs could be paid at that time).

ah. it's almost making sense now. so if someone taps a warghoul and
burns the carnival in the middle of your action...it just fizzles? so
you were allowed to start something that you couldn't actually pay
for. urk.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)