LSJ: Employed by

[Guest]

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

In a post from 2000...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/aa20ff7b52d0e02d

....you explain that a vampire with Depravity is prohibited from
employing retainers, i.e. taking the action to put them in play, but
that they can still *have* and get the benefit of retainers that they
had before Depravity or gained later.

Ghoul Escort and Resplendant Protector have been rephrased in recent
printings to clear up confusion about whether they grant their benefits
to the minions that employed them or to the minons they are on. But
there are other cards that use the "employed by" phrase that seem
problematic.

Mask Empathy says "Burn a retainer employed by the opposing minion
(usable at close range)." Does that mean you cannot burn retainers that
were employed by another minion then moved to the opposing minion? Does
it mean you can burn Charnas off a vampire not in the combat if he was
employed by the opposing minion? Or should Mask Empathy more properly
read "Burn a retainer on the opposing minion"?

Stanislava says "Retainers employed by a minion opposing Stanislava
lose their abilities until the end of combat..." Does that mean
retainers that were employed by another minion then moved to the
opposing minion do not lose their abilities during combat with
Stanislava? Or should Stanislava more properly read "Retainers on a
minion opposing Stanislava"?

Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[Guest]

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

Emmit Svenson wrote:
> Mask Empathy says "Burn a retainer employed by the opposing minion
> (usable at close range)." Does that mean you cannot burn retainers that
> were employed by another minion then moved to the opposing minion? Does

No. "employed by" means "on" in that sense.

> it mean you can burn Charnas off a vampire not in the combat if he was
> employed by the opposing minion? Or should Mask Empathy more properly
> read "Burn a retainer on the opposing minion"?

Both phrasings are equivalent.

> Stanislava says "Retainers employed by a minion opposing Stanislava
> lose their abilities until the end of combat..." Does that mean
> retainers that were employed by another minion then moved to the
> opposing minion do not lose their abilities during combat with
> Stanislava? Or should Stanislava more properly read "Retainers on a
> minion opposing Stanislava"?

Equivalent -- they mean exactly the same thing.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/