[lsj] bloodstorm of chorazin and psychomachia
salem
if my baali blocks, he's tapped. so it has to be _another_ baali
playing Bloodstorm, or the blocking baali playing a wake?
or was it supposed to be playable _before_ you tap for the block?
and i am assuming that if you play it, other baali can't play more of
them, due to the action ending (by blood's card text).
there might be some connection between the 'this baali' in the main
text refferring to the 'baali who blocks' in the bold text, but the
'this baali' could just refer to the baali playing the card, who
doesn't necessarily have to be the baali referred to by the bold text.
the way i initially thought it was supposed to work was:
baali A blocks younger vampire. Baali A plays bloodstorm, taps, the
younger vampire takes a damage, and there's no combat and the action
is over (with no chance for freak drive).
but then shawn pointed out the vagaries of the text, and now i'm all
twisted around.
anyway
psychomachia:
only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks.
so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card
neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause.
my brain's a bit frazzled at the moment from two full days of
prerelease madness after a bit of a crazy friday night on the town,
but i think i might have valid questions....
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
LSJ
> bloodstorm of chorazin:
> if my baali blocks, he's tapped. so it has to be _another_ baali
> playing Bloodstorm, or the blocking baali playing a wake?
>
> or was it supposed to be playable _before_ you tap for the block?
This, without the "supposed" -- it /is/ this way. Like Obedience.
> and i am assuming that if you play it, other baali can't play more of
> them, due to the action ending (by blood's card text).
Only the blocker can play it, but yeah.
> there might be some connection between the 'this baali' in the main
> text refferring to the 'baali who blocks' in the bold text, but the
> 'this baali' could just refer to the baali playing the card, who
> doesn't necessarily have to be the baali referred to by the bold text.
It is.
> the way i initially thought it was supposed to work was:
> baali A blocks younger vampire. Baali A plays bloodstorm, taps, the
> younger vampire takes a damage, and there's no combat and the action
> is over (with no chance for freak drive).
Correct.
> but then shawn pointed out the vagaries of the text, and now i'm all
> twisted around.
>
> anyway
>
> psychomachia:
> only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks.
>
> so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card
> neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause.
pre has the "not tapped" clause.
dai and DAI do not.
> my brain's a bit frazzled at the moment from two full days of
> prerelease madness after a bit of a crazy friday night on the town,
> but i think i might have valid questions....
--
LSJ (vte...@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/
Emmit Svenson
> bloodstorm of chorazin:
> if my baali blocks, he's tapped. so it has to be _another_ baali
> playing Bloodstorm, or the blocking baali playing a wake?
No. Like Voice of Madness, you play the Bloodstorm before tapping for
the block.
salem
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled:
[answers to my stupid questions]
thanks for the quick responses! especially the psychomachia one >:-)
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
> salem wrote:
>
> > psychomachia:
> > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks.
> >
> > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card
> > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause.
>
> pre has the "not tapped" clause.
> dai and DAI do not.
So the blocker is now tapped at [dai] or [DAI]?
This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully
blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before
the blocking minion is tapped for the successful
block."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c3b54710ecaf29c
If the blocker is now to be tapped, presumably the changed function of
the card will appear on the "text migrations" page when the KMW texts go
up?
Josh
psycho macher
LSJ
news:383ubkF...@individual.net...
Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
wrote:
>"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:383ubkF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
>> > salem wrote:
>> >
>> > > psychomachia:
>> > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks.
>> > >
>> > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card
>> > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause.
>> >
>> > pre has the "not tapped" clause.
>> > dai and DAI do not.
>>
>> So the blocker is now tapped at [dai] or [DAI]?
>> This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully
>> blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before
>> the blocking minion is tapped for the successful
>> block."
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c3b54710ecaf29c
>>
>> If the blocker is now to be tapped, presumably the changed function of
>> the card will appear on the "text migrations" page when the KMW texts go
>> up?
>
>Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping.
Also, I had the distinct impression that since [dai] says "The block
fails", the blocker don't get to tap. The card would need explicit
text to say so.
Kiss of Ra springs to mind, but it clearly says "when a vampire
without Fortitude *attempts* to block". I don't see why Psychomachia
had this sort of text ("successfully blocks").
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
salem
>"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:383ubkF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
>> > salem wrote:
>> >
>> > > psychomachia:
>> > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks.
>> > >
>> > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the card
>> > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause.
>> >
>> > pre has the "not tapped" clause.
>> > dai and DAI do not.
>>
>> So the blocker is now tapped at [dai] or [DAI]?
>>
>> This seems to reverse what you said in 2003 when the "successfully
>> blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played before
>> the blocking minion is tapped for the successful
>> block."
>>
>>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c3b54710ecaf29c
>>
>> If the blocker is now to be tapped, presumably the changed function of
>> the card will appear on the "text migrations" page when the KMW texts go
>> up?
>
>Ah, well. There you go. Play before tapping.
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
can't your 'tap the blocker' ruling be a reversal of this old one?
like you said, at pre is has a 'do not tap the blocker' clause, but
not at dai or DAI....
*insert vehement swear words here*
Joshua Duffin
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0acq11lbehaq0a8g2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:15:43 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:
>
> >"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:383ubkF...@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cva2dl$qhn$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
> >> > salem wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > psychomachia:
> >> > > only usable when a younger vamp or ally successfully blocks.
> >> > >
> >> > > so the blocker is tapped? and then the block fails, but the
card
> >> > > neglects to have a 'do not tap the blocking minion' clause.
> >> >
> >> > pre has the "not tapped" clause.
> >> > dai and DAI do not.
>
> >> blocks" was just errata (not new text): "Psychomachia is played
before
> >> the blocking minion is tapped for the successful block."
> >>
> >>
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6
c3b54710ecaf29c
> >
>
> nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
>
> can't your 'tap the blocker' ruling be a reversal of this old one?
> like you said, at pre is has a 'do not tap the blocker' clause, but
> not at dai or DAI....
From card text, the contrast between the [pre] and [dai/DAI] versions
does suggest that the blocker should be tapped. I think this arose from
the errata (now card text) change to the usability of Psychomachia:
instead of "Only usable when an ally or younger vampire is attempting to
block", with the [pre] "does not tap" as reminder text, it became "Only
usable when an ally or younger vampire ={successfully blocks}=". The
[dai/DAI] versions were ruled the same way as they had been before, but
the card text no longer really supports that ruling - it probably ought
to be errata now, or reversed, as you say.
Josh
sanomachia
salem
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled:
although.....
looking at it, the pre version does not fail the block, thus it would
need the (reminder text).
whereas the dai and DAI versions DO fail the block, thus making it
plausible that the blocker is not tapped, and you don't need reminder
text.
damnit, why am i arguing against myself? :P
ah. i see. daimoinon. devil's advocate. it all comes together...