On the Qui Vive and Imbued
ironf...@yahoo.com.au
Reaction
Only usable by a tapped minion. This reacting minion can play reaction
cards and
attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is
concluded. If this
minion is an ally, he or she does not untap as normal during his or her
next untap
phase. A minion may play only one On the Qui Vive between his or her
untap phases.
I think those who play the Imbued are going to love this card :(
Fred Scott
<ironf...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1157693521.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I think everybody is going to love this card - that is, putting it in the class of
generalized, no-requirements untapping cards with Wake with Evening's Freshness and
Forced Awakening, it seems to be the best of the three. In small vampire decks,
I'd be tempted to play almost exclusively with OtQV and ignore the other two.
Only in decks with larger vampires and more dependence on reaction cards would
I start to look at adding, let alone using predominantly, one or both of the
other choices.
At the very least, every deck in creation that now uses WwEF and/or FA should
be reconstructed with at least a few OtQVs swapped in their place. Interestingly
enough, if you want a lot of On the Qui Vives, the thing to do is to buy a box of
starters, not a box of boosters. There's only 180 common cards in a box of
boosters so you'll get an average of 1.8 of them in a box. There'll be 12 of
them in a box of starters, which is cheaper anyway.
Also, rules question: interacting with Power cards that have reaction symbols
on them. Would playing On the Qui Vive allow a tapped imbued to use a reaction-
based power? Strictly speaking, that's not "playing a reaction card". It's
using a power card. And the way the rule on power cards is written strikes me
as being somewhat ambiguous: "... Some effect or powers are 'always on'. Others
have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining when and how the effect
can be used..." Can you use a power with a reaction symbol when playing OtQV
because you could play reaction cards at that time?
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
<snip - On the Qui Vive>
>I think everybody is going to love this card - that is, putting it in
>the class of
>generalized, no-requirements untapping cards with Wake with Evening's
>Freshness and
>Forced Awakening, it seems to be the best of the three. In small
>vampire decks,
>I'd be tempted to play almost exclusively with OtQV and ignore the other two.
>Only in decks with larger vampires and more dependence on reaction cards would
>I start to look at adding, let alone using predominantly, one or both of the
>other choices.
I don't think it has to just be larger decks - but larger decks do get
closer to the One Main Reacting Vampire. If, for example, I was
planning on having Gloria Giovanni be my Deflection bitch and I were
including, say, 6 to 8 wakes of some sort (predominantly Wake with
Evening's Freshness, at present, say), I'd probably swap out some for On
the Qui Vive but not all of them, so that I have a better chance at
being able to play more than one wake if I need to.
On the Qui Vive's "one between untap phases" will annoy any deck that
plans to use mostly one vampire as a wall (Sport Bike + Guardian Angel +
Atonement on one vamp, say), or deflector, or whatever else you might be
doing. Which is fine - I certainly agree that it's a strong card, so
having some situations where Wake or Forced are more appropriate is
still good.
>Also, rules question: interacting with Power cards that have reaction symbols
>on them. Would playing On the Qui Vive allow a tapped imbued to use a
>reaction-
>based power? Strictly speaking, that's not "playing a reaction card". It's
>using a power card.
I'd say you can't, for much the same reasoning. The Imbued rules page
suggests that the card types indicate "how and when" you use them,
rather than actually saying "Treat this as playing an equivalent card
from your hand."
I'm not 100% sure what "Standard rules for using such effects apply
(e.g., a reacting minion must be ready and untapped)" means, in this
context though. However, since we know that "play" means "play in the
normal sense", I'm reasonably confident we can rule out Powers since I
don't think Powers count for that.
I'm also inclined to think (via the magic of ESP) that Angel of Berlin
would have been worded as a Wake if they could be, but maybe LSJ had
some other things in mind they could do while really untapped (like, I
don't know, maybe he really wanted to let them fizzle Ambush actions
targeted at them).
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> Also, rules question: interacting with Power cards that have reaction symbols
> on them. Would playing On the Qui Vive allow a tapped imbued to use a reaction-
> based power?
Yes.
> Strictly speaking, that's not "playing a reaction card". It's
> using a power card. And the way the rule on power cards is written strikes me
> as being somewhat ambiguous: "... Some effect or powers are 'always on'. Others
> have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining when and how the effect
> can be used..." Can you use a power with a reaction symbol when playing OtQV
> because you could play reaction cards at that time?
Exactly. That's what the reaction symbol means, by the text you cite.
witness1
Not particularly. See the part where it says "If this minion is an
ally, he or she does not untap as normal during his or her next untap
phase." That means that I'm trading my untap later to (not really)
untap now. Which, when you need it, is a fine thing, to be sure, but
it's significantly weaker for imbued than it is for vampires. I won't
be adding more than a couple to any of my decks, I don't think.
Witness1
-ItE
Matthew T. Morgan
> I'm also inclined to think (via the magic of ESP) that Angel of Berlin
> would have been worded as a Wake if they could be, but maybe LSJ had
> some other things in mind they could do while really untapped (like, I
> don't know, maybe he really wanted to let them fizzle Ambush actions
> targeted at them).
The thing about Angel of Berlin is that since it's a master card and not a
reaction, there doesn't need to be an action underway when you play it.
To word it like a wake, you'd need something like "if there should happen
to be an action occuring when you play this card...."
Also, it would be less good for something like Champion (must be untapped,
doesn't tap you) and better against something like Form of Mist. I don't
know if those were design considerations or not, but there you are.
Matt Morgan
Fred Scott
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2006090807...@fnord.io.com...
> The thing about Angel of Berlin is that since it's a master card and not a reaction, there doesn't need to be an action underway
> when you play it. To word it like a wake, you'd need something like "if there should happen to be an action occuring when you play
> this card...."
No. You'd word it, "This card can only be played while another Methuselah's
minion is acting. A vampire (or minion if that was the intent) you control
may block and play reaction cards as if untapped." I think it's quite easy
to make a master OOT function like a reaction card. Though there wouldn't
be too much point, other than adding the cost of an MPA to it.
Fred
LSJ
Indeed. Such a thing was proposed as a house rule for Wake back in May
1996.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/da79086363d62046
James Coupe
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Fred Scott wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, that's not "playing a reaction card". It's
>> using a power card. And the way the rule on power cards is written strikes me
>> as being somewhat ambiguous: "... Some effect or powers are 'always on'. Others
>> have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining when and how the effect
>> can be used..." Can you use a power with a reaction symbol when playing OtQV
>> because you could play reaction cards at that time?
>
>Exactly. That's what the reaction symbol means, by the text you cite.
The text "This reacting minion can play reaction cards and attempt to
block as though untapped until the current action is concluded" directly
states that reaction cards can be played. If I can use reaction powers
from a piece of text allowing me to play reaction cards, does this mean
that using a power is actually equivalent to playing a card?
* Can Watenda cancel a combat card power? If so, does the Imbued still
tap the combat card? Also if so, if it costs Conviction, how
does that figure in the cost?
* Can I use Approximation of Loyalty to cancel the use of a reaction
power? "Cancel a reaction card played by a vampire with
capacity below 7 or an ally as it is played (no cost is paid)."
* Same question, Direct Intervention.
* Since this ruling implies that using a power counts as playing a card
(since that's all that On The Que Vive's text enables), does the
current card text (pre-3E) of Visit from the Capuchin mean a
counter is burned when a reaction power is used?
witness1
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1157716859....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
> >Fred Scott wrote:
> >> Strictly speaking, that's not "playing a reaction card". It's
> >> using a power card. And the way the rule on power cards is written strikes me
> >> as being somewhat ambiguous: "... Some effect or powers are 'always on'. Others
> >> have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining when and how the effect
> >> can be used..." Can you use a power with a reaction symbol when playing OtQV
> >> because you could play reaction cards at that time?
> >
> >Exactly. That's what the reaction symbol means, by the text you cite.
>
> The text "This reacting minion can play reaction cards and attempt to
> block as though untapped until the current action is concluded" directly
> states that reaction cards can be played. If I can use reaction powers
> from a piece of text allowing me to play reaction cards, does this mean
> that using a power is actually equivalent to playing a card?
Probably not. The Nights of Reckoning rules are occasionally vague, but
I took "Others have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining
when and how the effect can be used..." to mean that a minion can play
powers with a [CARDTYPE] icon when (and only when) he could play cards
with the same icon.
Saves a fair bit of text on an already longwinded card.
Witness1
-ItE
James Coupe
witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> The text "This reacting minion can play reaction cards and attempt to
>> block as though untapped until the current action is concluded" directly
>> states that reaction cards can be played. If I can use reaction powers
>> from a piece of text allowing me to play reaction cards, does this mean
>> that using a power is actually equivalent to playing a card?
>
>Probably not. The Nights of Reckoning rules are occasionally vague, but
>I took "Others have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining
>when and how the effect can be used..." to mean that a minion can play
>powers with a [CARDTYPE] icon when (and only when) he could play cards
>with the same icon.
That's how I took it, too, which is why I couldn't quite see how text
enabling the play of reaction cards enables the use of a power - unless
the card is treated as being played, somehow.
witness1
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1157816391.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >James Coupe wrote:
> >> The text "This reacting minion can play reaction cards and attempt to
> >> block as though untapped until the current action is concluded" directly
> >> states that reaction cards can be played. If I can use reaction powers
> >> from a piece of text allowing me to play reaction cards, does this mean
> >> that using a power is actually equivalent to playing a card?
> >
> >Probably not. The Nights of Reckoning rules are occasionally vague, but
> >I took "Others have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining
> >when and how the effect can be used..." to mean that a minion can play
> >powers with a [CARDTYPE] icon when (and only when) he could play cards
> >with the same icon.
>
> That's how I took it, too, which is why I couldn't quite see how text
> enabling the play of reaction cards enables the use of a power - unless
> the card is treated as being played, somehow.
If the rule is that whenever you are able to play reaction cards you
are also able to play reaction powers, you don't need reaction powers
to count as "playing a card". The wake enables you to play reaction
cards. The rules then state that since you can play reaction cards, you
may use reaction powers.
Witness1
-ItE
James Coupe
witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>If the rule is that whenever you are able to play reaction cards you
>are also able to play reaction powers, you don't need reaction powers
>to count as "playing a card". The wake enables you to play reaction
>cards. The rules then state that since you can play reaction cards, you
>may use reaction powers.
Ah, that would make sense.
So the effective rule on powers would be:
"Any time you could play a card of the type(s) indicated by the
power, you can use the power."
LSJ
> In message <1157716859....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
> >Fred Scott wrote:
> >> Strictly speaking, that's not "playing a reaction card". It's
> >> using a power card. And the way the rule on power cards is written strikes me
> >> as being somewhat ambiguous: "... Some effect or powers are 'always on'. Others
> >> have a card type icon (action, combat, etc.) explaining when and how the effect
> >> can be used..." Can you use a power with a reaction symbol when playing OtQV
> >> because you could play reaction cards at that time?
> >
> >Exactly. That's what the reaction symbol means, by the text you cite.
>
> The text "This reacting minion can play reaction cards and attempt to
> block as though untapped until the current action is concluded" directly
> states that reaction cards can be played. If I can use reaction powers
> from a piece of text allowing me to play reaction cards, does this mean
> that using a power is actually equivalent to playing a card?
No.
> * Can Watenda cancel a combat card power? If so, does the Imbued still
> tap the combat card? Also if so, if it costs Conviction, how
> does that figure in the cost?
No.
> * Can I use Approximation of Loyalty to cancel the use of a reaction
> power? "Cancel a reaction card played by a vampire with
> capacity below 7 or an ally as it is played (no cost is paid)."
No.
> * Same question, Direct Intervention.
No.
> * Since this ruling implies that using a power counts as playing a card
It doesn't.
It says that the Reaction symbol indicates when the power can be used.
Meaning that the reaction symbol says that the power can be used
whenever a reaction card may be.
> (since that's all that On The Que Vive's text enables), does the
> current card text (pre-3E) of Visit from the Capuchin mean a
> counter is burned when a reaction power is used?
No.