Rotshreck/Amaranth in Malkavian Out-of-Turn combat - ruling, LSJ?
legb...@my-dejanews.com
of my decks. The unlucky one got the Malkavian OOT combat deck which is
probably asking too much of a new person, but the other guy did just fine
with my presence-bleed deck of Cheese - 4th overall.
Anyway i've been thinking about the Malky combat deck and talking about it
with Rob Treasure and i think there is a better and simpler version, based on
protean aggravated damage.
Crypt:
4 Greger Anderssen
Normal
Brazil
Watenda
Dollface
Ohanna
Aleph
Roland Bishop
Didi Meyers
Masters [18]:
5 Madness Network
6 Rotshreck
2 Direct Intervention
5 Protean
Actions [18]:
11 x Bum's Rush
4 x 3rd tradition: Progeny
3 x GtU [either that or Sacrificial Lamb or Graverobbing]
Combat [40]:
12 x Flesh of Marble
12 x Claws of the Dead
6 x Form of the Ghost
5 x Amaranth
5 x Ritual of the Bitter Rose
Votes [10]:
Anathema x 3
Malkavian Justicar x 2
Consanguineous Boon x 3
Archon x 2
Reactions [4]:
2nd Tradition: Domain x 4
Maybe there ought to be a space for Ivory Bow in here, just one of them.
Possibly replacing one of the Archons. And if i build this deck in real space
i will have to replace most of the Flesh of Marbles with Leather jackets and
blood Tears cos i only have 4.
I'm not sure about the Amaranth/Ritual combo though, and that's the reason
for this post. Can i use Amaranth to diablerise a vampire that is going to
torpor due to Rotschreck? We [James Coupe, William Lee and I] talked about
this on the IoW and were really unsure, though our feeling was probably not -
once strike combat ends has occurred, you can't do anything else [so if we're
right Catatonic fear at superior on a vamp with no blood could not be
followed by Amaranth, for example]. If not [ruling, LSJ?], the Amaranth cards
would go out and be replaced by +stealth action modifiers to cover the
diablerie - also useful for voting and equipping so you could use Forgotten
Labyrinth.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
LSJ
> I'm not sure about the Amaranth/Ritual combo though, and that's the reason
> for this post. Can i use Amaranth to diablerise a vampire that is going to
> torpor due to Rotschreck?
No. [LSJ 29-JUL-1998]
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=375960586
> We [James Coupe, William Lee and I] talked about
> this on the IoW and were really unsure, though our feeling was probably not -
> once strike combat ends has occurred, you can't do anything else [so if we're
> right Catatonic fear at superior on a vamp with no blood could not be
> followed by Amaranth, for example].
Correct.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
Jasper Phillips
<legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Crypt:
>4 Greger Anderssen
>Normal
>Brazil
>Watenda
>Dollface
>Ohanna
>Aleph
>Roland Bishop
>Didi Meyers
You forgot Zebulon...
Zebulon 5 Malkavian OBF, dom, aus, pro
I'd also double up on Watenda. Since Rotschrek is your only way
to deal with S:CE, and you have little intercept, I'd probably go
with 3.
>Masters [18]:
>5 Madness Network
>6 Rotshreck
>2 Direct Intervention
I don't think DI is really that usefull here. Blood Dolls would be
better. Then again, maybe you need it for S:CE.
A Metro Underground would be de rigeur to go with the Madness Networks,
probably a Hunting Ground to go with it, or perhaps the Rack.
>5 Protean
>
>Actions [18]:
>11 x Bum's Rush
>4 x 3rd tradition: Progeny
>3 x GtU [either that or Sacrificial Lamb or Graverobbing]
Grave Robbing's only good if you have some way to prevent people
from blocking, or really make them pay. GtU's probably the best option.
>Combat [40]:
>12 x Flesh of Marble
>12 x Claws of the Dead
>6 x Form of the Ghost
>5 x Amaranth
>5 x Ritual of the Bitter Rose
Perhaps cut the Form of the Ghost? The claws help provide the maneuvers
you'll want. Hmmm. I'd probably go for a mix of press/maneuver claws,
and use Quick Meld. This should free up a bit of space for elsewhere.
You also might want to think about Homuculi -- otherwise of what
use is the Madness Network?
>Votes [10]:
>Anathema x 3
>Malkavian Justicar x 2
>Consanguineous Boon x 3
>Archon x 2
Honestly, how are you ever going to get any votes passed? This
seems like a lot of space in your deck for cards that will probably
do nothing.
>Reactions [4]:
>2nd Tradition: Domain x 4
Probably more. I'd go for as many 2nd's as I had Rotschrecks (6).
>Maybe there ought to be a space for Ivory Bow in here, just one of them.
>Possibly replacing one of the Archons. And if i build this deck in real space
>i will have to replace most of the Flesh of Marbles with Leather jackets and
>blood Tears cos i only have 4.
Ivory Bow's probably a good idea.
[snip: Can you combo Rots, Amaranth, and RotBR?]
Good question. That'd completely change the deck.
--
/\ Jasper Phillips
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--.
* http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`
legb...@my-dejanews.com
All good comments - thanks, Jasper! I realized on the way home that i'd
forgotten Zebulon and here is my revised version of the deck, which i dreamed
up last night and this morning, before i looked at my mail. As you can see,
it already incorporates a lot of Jasper's suggestions!
Crypt:
5 x Greger Anderssen
2 x Zebulon
Victoria
Watenda
Dollface
Normal
Brazil
Masters [20]
4 x Madness Network
6 x Rotshreck
3 x Tribute to the Master
5 x Protean
Direct Intervention [might drop this for a 7th Rotschreck]
The Rack
Combat [22]
3 x Flesh of Marble
13 x Claws of the Dead
6 x Form of the Ghost [might replace a couple of these by GtU]
Actions [19]
12 x Bum's Rush
5 x Third Tradition: Progeny
2 x Graverobbing
Reactions [15]
8 x Second Tradition: Domain
2 x Eagles' Sight
Malkavian Rider Clause [might replace this by GtU]
Retainers [2]
2 x Homunculus
Equipment [3]
Ivory Bow
Inverary Castle
Palatial Estate
Votes [5] Malkavian Justicar x 4 Archon [as Jasper says, the votes are
questionable. Might replace them by Judgements - Death to the Brujah and
Camarilla Segregation, and Imperial Decree. Keep 1 Malkavian Justicar as a
prayer card].
Action Modifiers [4]
4 x Forgotten Labyrinth
legb...@my-dejanews.com
Fame! I need Fame!
Fame instead of DI, probably.
5 x Greger Anderssen
2 x Zebulon
Victoria
Watenda
Dollface
Normal
Brazil
4 x Madness Network
6 x Rotshreck
3 x Tribute to the Master
5 x Protean
Fame
The Rack
12 x Bum's Rush
5 x Progeny
2 x Graverobbing
4 x Swallowed by the Night
2 x Rapid Change
8 x Second Tradition: Domain
4 x Precognition
2 x Eagles' Sight
2 x Homunculus
Ivory Bow
Inverary Castle Scotland
Palatial Estate
Malkavian Justicar
13 x Claws of the Dead
3 x Flesh of marble
6 x Form of the Ghost
GtU is worth a thought but i'm leaving it out because there is a LOT of
Deflection in our environment at the moment, and none of my minions has DOM.
When it works this deck should turn into a weenie swarm and then you don't
need the bleed modifiers.
James Coupe
<phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU> writes
>Ivory Bow's probably a good idea.
>
>[snip: Can you combo Rots, Amaranth, and RotBR?]
>
>Good question. That'd completely change the deck.
My instincts said no, because it would be playing combat cards once
combat had ended (card text from Rotschreck). However, I know that
there are times when, even though combat has "ended" you can still do
stuff. The recent (ish) reversal only targeted S:CE and not other forms
of Combat Ends, so there is some confusion.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
LSJ
> combat had ended (card text from Rotschreck). However, I know that
> there are times when, even though combat has "ended" you can still do
> stuff. The recent (ish) reversal only targeted S:CE and not other forms
> of Combat Ends, so there is some confusion.
You could never play combat cards outside of combat. That was
inherent in the concept of "combat card".
Except for some exceptions made for post-S:CE and Rutor's Hand.
The rulings/errata that reversed those exceptions specifically
targeted the exceptions, sure. But that shouldn't be confusing -
rather clarifying.
The reversal for the S:CE exception started with:
Combat cards cannot be played after combat.
REVERSAL: This includes after a Srike: Combat Ends resolves.
In an attempt (futile?) to make that clear.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
legb...@my-dejanews.com
Actually, re-reading jasper's post i realise i need to explain this deck a
bit better. The ideal is to use a Madness Network action to rush a minion out
of turn. Manouever to close if necessary [Form of the Ghost rather than Claws
because you can't rely on having superior protean, and also Claws costs
more], strike Claws of the Dead and then Rotshreck if necessary [if you
encounter S:CE, are fighting someone else combatty [not a problem if you
flesh of marble having intercepted with Precognition] or anticipate damage
prevention]. Then use another Madness Network action to diablerise or
graverob or even, if they are famous, rescue the downed minion. With
Homunculus, this has a chance of overcoming the inherent slowness of combat
decks. Of course the deck can do other things - swarm bleed is plan B, and
Princely intercept is another opportunity to torporise people. Judgement is
necessary in the use of Rotshreck because you can only play one each time
round the table. This version of the deck is going to need playtesting but my
sense is that it could well achieve voting superiority by killing everyone
else who votes and/or doing deals. In that case there might be a place for
1st Tradition: The Masquerade [because uniquely, you won't NEED your turn to
hurt people] and in any event there is probably a case for 4th Tradition: The
Accounting so's to get out more little vamps and/or gain pool. It's just a
question of slots.
Elysium, Obedience and Legacy of Power are the dangers for this deck. You can
minimise these risks by voting out Elysium and being careful to jump on
younger vampires and Princes first - or find a slot for DI. You want to be
careful blocking vamps with FOR in case they are packing Kiss of Ra. Change
of Target, Ghoul escort, Concoction of Vitality, Walk Through Arcadia and Day
Op can be tiresome but all these have their own downside and they're not
exactly strategies of choice for most decks these nights!
There is another version of this deck with obf/cel and weapons. That works
[though as James Coupe points out, it's a difficult deck to play], but i think
this one will be even better.
Jasper Phillips
<legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Actually, re-reading jasper's post i realise i need to explain this deck a
Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic
that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was
essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable.
Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists
of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with
the Madness Network actions?
legb...@my-dejanews.com
Yep, it's been ruled as OK by LSJ, and that ruling is the whole basis for the
Malkavian OOT rush-combat concept. It is still the other guy/gal's turn when
you play your Madness Network Actions so YOU can play OOT masters, but s/he
can't. You can't, however, play Reactions, because these are played in
response to other minion's actions.
Curiously, i think that a Methuselah CAN play reaction cards in response to
your Madness Network actions even though it's still his/her turn - so even
though it's not your turn you can't play reactions, and even though it is
still his/her turn, s/he can!!! Eeee, i LOVE this game!!!!
LSJ
> In article <7ac68u$tt9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Actually, re-reading jasper's post i realise i need to explain this deck a
> [snip Madness Networked Rush, then Agg + Rotschrek combo]
>
> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic
> that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was
> essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable.
>
> Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists
> of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with
> the Madness Network actions?
Yes. It is still the other person's turn.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic
> that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was
> essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable.
The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play
action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your
turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected.
> Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists
> of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with
> the Madness Network actions?
Correct.
Noal
--
"Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?"
-woman at a gas station in Detroit
LSJ
> > Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic
> > that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was
> > essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable.
>
> The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play
> action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your
> turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected.
It's a little simpler than that, even. Action Modifiers and Reaction
cards do not care whose turn it is, only on who the acting minion
is (and who controls him). [1.6.3]
No exceptions/alterations need be made for the MadNet cases.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Petri Wessman
>> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic
>> that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was
>> essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable.
Noal> The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play
Noal> action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your
Noal> turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected.
>> Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists
>> of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with
>> the Madness Network actions?
Noal> Correct.
Hmmmm... <evil plans forming>.
Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and
then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later
have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :)
//Petri
LSJ
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:20:46 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >> Huh, I didn't think that was legal, due to some sort of weird logic
> >> that while your minions were acting via the Madness Network, it was
> >> essentially your turn, and so Out of Turn masters were unplayable.
>
> Noal> The only restriction was that when your Malk is acting, you can play
> Noal> action mods and others can play reaction cards as if it was your
> Noal> turn. Out of Turn Masters are unaffected.
> Hmmmm... <evil plans forming>.
>
> Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and
> then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later
> have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :)
Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn
* Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon,
subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the
controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707]
Petri Wessman
>> Does this mean that I could bleed out-of-turn with the Network and
>> then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later
>> have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :)
LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn
LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon,
LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the
LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707]
Ah, yup, forgot to check the errata. Foiled again... on to the next
Cunning Plan(tm) *grin*
//Petri
James Coupe
<phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU> writes
>Anyway, I thought I'd seen that ruled somewhere way back in the mists
>of the newgroup... I take it you can actually use Rotschrek with
>the Madness Network actions?
Indeed.
It's not your turn (and no weirdness makes it your turn) so you can play
it.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
Petri> then Major Boon the bleed? That way I would pay 1 pool and then later
Petri> have my prey pay if I'm bled? Nice. :)
LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn
LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon,
LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the
LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707]
Oh look. It's another one of those pesky 7/7 rulings.
*sprays with can of MJL 7/7 repellent*
Sure you can play it that way, Petri.
*grin*
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
"Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?"
-woman at a gas station in Detroit
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Ah, yup, forgot to check the errata. Foiled again... on to the next
> Cunning Plan(tm) *grin*
That was a lesson in why card text should be adhered to with
rare exception. I see little reason for that errata. Paying 1 pool
for a delayed deflection doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
*shrug*
Of course when we come up with the next "Cunning Plan (tm)",
there will be errata made to prevent it, forcing us back into the
same tired strategies.
Pardon me, I forgot to take my cynicism pills. *wanders off*
Noal
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> That was a lesson in why card text should be adhered to with
> rare exception. I see little reason for that errata. Paying 1 pool
> for a delayed deflection doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
> *shrug*
But it's better than a delayed Deflection. With Deflection, the
new target gets a chance to deflect, block, or reduce. With whichever-
boon-it-is-because-I-can't-remember-which-one-is-which Boon, the
victim gets none of this. With the errata on it, you can't set up
a situation where your risk in using the card is zero as you aren't
going to increase a bleed on yourself.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
Joshua Duffin
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn
> LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon,
> LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the
> LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707]
>
> Oh look. It's another one of those pesky 7/7 rulings.
> *sprays with can of MJL 7/7 repellent*
> Sure you can play it that way, Petri.
> *grin*
Okay, so now I'm curious. Why was this 'cannot be played by controller
of acting minion' clause added? As far as I can see this was always
ruled the other way prior to 7/7/98, and in fact LSJ argued (way back
in the day) that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable
on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. And the
comment on the 7/7 ruling was simply that the VTES edition of the card
had munged the 'you can modify the bleed' clause.
Josh
accidentally stirring up trouble?
Lupus Australis
> In article <7afbap$na5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn
> > LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon,
> > LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the
> > LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707]
>
> Okay, so now I'm curious. Why was this 'cannot be played by controller
> of acting minion' clause added? As far as I can see this was always
> ruled the other way prior to 7/7/98, and in fact LSJ argued (way back
> in the day) that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable
> on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do. And the
> comment on the 7/7 ruling was simply that the VTES edition of the card
> had munged the 'you can modify the bleed' clause.
Now you've got me wondering how to abuse it without the errata...
Well, suppose you have Madness Network in play, and a Malk with superior
DOM who sits there playing Deflections at his predators bleed attempts.
When the predator is finished, the Malk acts, bleeding for one
successfully. You play Major Boon to take the loss yourself, then add
Conditioning to increase the bleed to 3, thereby gaining the edge.
Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same
Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make
that Methuselah lose nine?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
LSJ
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > LSJ> Major Boon - Master Out-of-Turn
> > > LSJ> * Any player (not just "you") can modify the bleed after the Boon,
> > > LSJ> subject to the normal rules. Major Boon cannot be played by the
> > > LSJ> controller of the acting minion. [RTR 980707]
> >
> > Okay, so now I'm curious. Why was this 'cannot be played by controller
> > of acting minion' clause added? As far as I can see this was always
> > ruled the other way prior to 7/7/98, and in fact LSJ argued (way back
> > in the day)
The RT examined that argument and effects of such a change (to allow OOT
Masters on your own turn). It was decided that the change was not warranted.
> > that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable
> > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do.
and more abusive.
The clause was added to ensure that the card functioned "correctly"
in general - regardless of the turn-based playability of OOT
Masters - whether by MadNet action or adjustment of the OOT restriction
in general. Since the card needed errata anyway, the RT chose to go
ahead and fix that part as well.
> Now you've got me wondering how to abuse it without the errata...
>
> Well, suppose you have Madness Network in play, and a Malk with superior
> DOM who sits there playing Deflections [on] his predators bleed attempts.
> When the predator is finished, the Malk acts, bleeding for one
> successfully. You play Major Boon to take the loss yourself, then add
> Conditioning to increase the bleed to 3, thereby gaining the edge.
You lose the 4 pool yourself. When you play Major Boon, you commit yourself
to paying the pool loss required of that bleed action.
And even without the Conditioning, you would still have gained the Edge,
since the bleed amount was >= 1.
> Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same
> Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make
> that Methuselah lose nine?
No. Burning a Boon makes the Methuselah take the loss "instead of" you.
After the first one is burned, you are not longer the Methuselah burning
pool.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Lupus Australis
> > Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same
> > Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make
> > that Methuselah lose nine?
>
> No. Burning a Boon makes the Methuselah take the loss "instead of" you.
> After the first one is burned, you are not longer the Methuselah burning
> pool.
OK, but is only the "first one" then burned, or all three? The conditions
of burning have arguably been met for all three cards.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > > Sick Thought: If I have 3 Major Boons in play against the same
> > > Methuselah, can I, in response to a 3 bleed, burn them all at once to make
> > > that Methuselah lose nine?
> >
> > No. Burning a Boon makes the Methuselah take the loss "instead of" you.
> > After the first one is burned, you are not longer the Methuselah burning
> > pool.
>
> OK, but is only the "first one" then burned, or all three? The conditions
> of burning have arguably been met for all three cards.
Burning a Major Boon is optional (card text).
Joshua Duffin
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable
> > > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do.
>
> and more abusive.
Ah, so you changed your mind. ;-)
> The clause was added to ensure that the card functioned "correctly"
> in general - regardless of the turn-based playability of OOT
> Masters - whether by MadNet action or adjustment of the OOT restriction
> in general. Since the card needed errata anyway, the RT chose to go
> ahead and fix that part as well.
Okay, I'll buy that. I pretty much agree; the Malks don't really need
to be able to use Major Boon for a clever sorta-Deflection angle, and
giving everyone the sorta-Deflection angle is also fairly unnecessary.
Josh
LSJ
> vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > > Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> > > > that Major Boon (and all other OOT masters) should be playable
> > > > on your own turn, which would have made it even easier to do.
> >
> > and more abusive.
>
> Ah, so you changed your mind. ;-)
I was presented with convincing counter-arguments, yes. :-)
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------