Blood trade and conmsanguineous boon
Smiling Tom
enters play???
Smiling Tom, alarmed
salem
<tma...@almadrava.net> scrawled:
>Plain and simple: Is consanguineous boon no longer playable when blood trade
>enters play???
presumably it still is playable when Blood Trade is in play. it would
need to have 'boon' in it's text box, not merely it's name, to become
unplayable. (Based on the "Ventrue Investment is not an Investment
card" precedent).
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
"I like to play the field"-LSJ
LSJ
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:43:46 +0200, "Smiling Tom"
>>enters play???
>
> presumably it still is playable when Blood Trade is in play. it would
> need to have 'boon' in it's text box, not merely it's name, to become
> unplayable. (Based on the "Ventrue Investment is not an Investment
> card" precedent).
It is a Boon, but it is still playable, since Blood Trade only prevents
Boons from being put into play, not from being played to the ash heap,
as Consanguineous Boon is.
--
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/
Peter D Bakija
> It is a Boon, but it is still playable, since Blood Trade only prevents
> Boons from being put into play, not from being played to the ash heap,
> as Consanguineous Boon is.
So has Consanguineous Boon been errated to be a "Boon"?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your rest home."
-Elvis
Janne Hägglund
> [Consanguineous Boon] is a Boon, but it is still playable, since Blood
> Trade only prevents Boons from being put into play, not from being played
> to the ash heap, as Consanguineous Boon is.
So if Blood Trade is in play, can Life Boon still be played to prevent the
ousting of a player? (There would of course be no VP debt nor collecting
pool from the metuselah saved, due to Blood Trade.)
Life Boon [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, SW:PV, CE:PTo]
Cardtype: Master
Master: out-of-turn. {Boon}
Give pool to a Methuselah with no pool to keep him or her in the game; put
this card in play. During each of his or her untap phases, you can collect 1
pool from that Methuselah. The first victory point that the Methuselah wins
is given to you (unless you are ousted by then). This Life Boon is then
burned.
(Seems like our fiendishly isolationist Master/Anarch Revolt decks would
still have far too much bite...)
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>
>>It is a Boon, but it is still playable, since Blood Trade only prevents
>>Boons from being put into play, not from being played to the ash heap,
>>as Consanguineous Boon is.
>
>
> So has Consanguineous Boon been errated to be a "Boon"?
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist_C.html#Consanguineous_Boon
LSJ
> So if Blood Trade is in play, can Life Boon still be played to prevent the
> ousting of a player? (There would of course be no VP debt nor collecting
> pool from the metuselah saved, due to Blood Trade.)
No.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Q2Zuc.107930$hH.18...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Janne Hägglund wrote:
> > So if Blood Trade is in play, can Life Boon still be played to
prevent the
> > ousting of a player? (There would of course be no VP debt nor
collecting
> > pool from the metuselah saved, due to Blood Trade.)
>
> No.
Is that because, with Blood Trade's text of "No more boons may be put in
play", it becomes impossible to try to play Life Boon, Major Boon, and
Minor Boon, because playing the card would put them in play (even though
Life Boon's use of "put in play" implies that it goes into play
simultaneously with the gift of pool)?
Is Extremis Boon still playable under Blood Trade (to some effect, or no
effect) because it says "Other Methuselahs may bid pool to keep you in
the game. If one does, put this card in play"? It seems like it might
be playable but fail to go into play under the "if one does" clause.
I guess it might have been simpler to word Blood Trade "no more boons
may be played", unless leaving Consanguineous Boon playable was an
important part of the desired effect.
Josh
can't seem to face up to the facts
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Q2Zuc.107930$hH.18...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > So if Blood Trade is in play, can Life Boon still be played to prevent
the
> > ousting of a player? (There would of course be no VP debt nor
collecting
> > pool from the metuselah saved, due to Blood Trade.)
>
> No.
can we have a longer explanation ?
The Cadaverous Verger
> ...unless leaving Consanguineous Boon playable was an
> important part of the desired effect.
Come to think of it, if Blood Trade made Consang Boons also unplayable,
it might actually be worth playing. At least sometimes.
--CV
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Janne Hägglund wrote:
> > > So if Blood Trade is in play, can Life Boon still be played to
> prevent the
> > > ousting of a player? (There would of course be no VP debt nor
> collecting
> > > pool from the metuselah saved, due to Blood Trade.)
> >
> > No.
>
> Is that because, with Blood Trade's text of "No more boons may be put in
> play", it becomes impossible to try to play Life Boon, Major Boon, and
> Minor Boon, because playing the card would put them in play (even though
> Life Boon's use of "put in play" implies that it goes into play
> simultaneously with the gift of pool)?
Yes.
> Is Extremis Boon still playable under Blood Trade (to some effect, or no
> effect) because it says "Other Methuselahs may bid pool to keep you in
> the game. If one does, put this card in play"? It seems like it might
> be playable but fail to go into play under the "if one does" clause.
Yes.
> I guess it might have been simpler to word Blood Trade "no more boons
> may be played", unless leaving Consanguineous Boon playable was an
> important part of the desired effect.
The wording was changed from "may be played" to the current during playtest, yes.
LSJ
Yes.
Blood Trade's card text prevents Life Boon from being played, since
the effect of Life Boon's being played is prohibited by card text on
Blood Trade.
Joshua Duffin
> "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote:
> > Is Extremis Boon still playable under Blood Trade (to some effect,
or no
> > effect) because it says "Other Methuselahs may bid pool to keep you
in
> > the game. If one does, put this card in play"? It seems like it
might
> > be playable but fail to go into play under the "if one does" clause.
>
> Yes.
So in that situation, the bidding would still take place, the Extremis
Boon player would still receive the pool and stay in the game, but the
winning bidder wouldn't get any Boon benefits out of it since the
Extremis Boon would not actually go into play?
> The wording was changed from "may be played" to the current during
playtest, yes.
Hmm, I had forgotten about that. Looking back, I don't remember seeing
any particular reason for that change. (I mean, the wording seemed at
least as intuitive the other way, and I wouldn't think allowing Blood
Trade to prohibit Consanguineous Boon would have been a problem.)
Josh
tense and nervous and can't relax
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>>Is Extremis Boon still playable under Blood Trade (to some effect,
>
> or no
>
>>>effect) because it says "Other Methuselahs may bid pool to keep you
>
> in
>
>>>the game. If one does, put this card in play"? It seems like it
>
> might
>
>>>be playable but fail to go into play under the "if one does" clause.
>>
>>Yes.
>
> So in that situation, the bidding would still take place, the Extremis
> Boon player would still receive the pool and stay in the game, but the
> winning bidder wouldn't get any Boon benefits out of it since the
> Extremis Boon would not actually go into play?
If anyone cared to bid, yes.
>>The wording was changed from "may be played" to the current during
>
> playtest, yes.
>
> Hmm, I had forgotten about that. Looking back, I don't remember seeing
> any particular reason for that change. (I mean, the wording seemed at
> least as intuitive the other way, and I wouldn't think allowing Blood
> Trade to prohibit Consanguineous Boon would have been a problem.)
Don't let me lure you out into the open, BTW.
Playtesters are still under NDA. :-)
It was changed when the problem of the incidental and unwanted and
unwarranted prohibition on Con Boon was brought to my attention during
playtest.
Joshua Duffin
> Don't let me lure you out into the open, BTW.
> Playtesters are still under NDA. :-)
Oh, of course. I was thinking this fell (after you brought it up) under
the clause that the NDA doesn't cover "information that now or later,
through no act of Recipient, becomes generally known or available to the
public, as demonstrated through written records". In other words, that
as the developer, you were free to make public any aspect of playtest
versions of cards that you choose, and that if you do so, what you write
is no longer secret and becomes fair game for discussion. :-)
> It was changed when the problem of the incidental and unwanted and
> unwarranted prohibition on Con Boon was brought to my attention during
> playtest.
Heh, too bad about that, I guess. :-) (Or at least, it seems to me
that using a wording that makes Extremis Boon unplayable "makes sense"
for the card at least enough to make up for it also prohibiting
Consanguineous Boon.)
Josh
the first rule of secrecy is, don't tell anyone you have a secret?