LSJ- Spell of Life and Possession
XZealot
killed and placed into my ashheap.
Can I possess them out?
If someone else puts them into play and they get killed, can I
daemonic possession them back into play?
If someone else puts them into play and they get killed, can I Compell
the Spirit/Resurrection them back into play?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
> I put a bunch of mummies into play via the spell of Life. They get
> killed and placed into my ashheap.
> Can I possess them out?
Yes. A card in the ash heap is just a card in the ash heap.
> If someone else puts them into play and they get killed, can I
> daemonic possession them back into play?
No. "That minion" was a mummy, and that card is not a mummy in the ash heap, so
there is no "that minion" to grab.
> If someone else puts them into play and they get killed, can I Compell
> the Spirit/Resurrection them back into play?
No/no, for the same reason. There is no ally to grab.
XZealot
Great! Thanks!
Raille
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:6Hnuj.58004$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> XZealot wrote:
>> I put a bunch of mummies into play via the spell of Life. They get
>> killed and placed into my ashheap.
>> Can I possess them out?
>
> Yes. A card in the ash heap is just a card in the ash heap.
>
>> If someone else puts them into play and they get killed, can I
>> daemonic possession them back into play?
>
> No. "That minion" was a mummy, and that card is not a mummy in the ash
> heap, so there is no "that minion" to grab.
Daemonic Possession
[nec] Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has been
burned since your last turn.
Move that minion from his owner`s ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood
or life from the blood bank
on the minion and tap the minion. You now control the minion.
[NEC] As above, but the minion is untapped.
I'm thinking that it should not matter with DP. It see's the minion card,
in this case a vampire, in the ash heap, which
for this scenario, was burned since our last turn, and should be able to be
selected as a target.
Since you stated No, can you explain the reason an Ex mummy, that is now
burned and residing in the ash heap, is not a target?
Raille
LSJ
Because the vampire in the ash heap is not the minion that was burned (i.e., is
not "that minion").
"That minion" was a mummy ally (with life).
So DP would be looking for that ally (and would, if found, give that ally 1 life).
Raille
So if the DP Text was more like this, it would be allowable:
[nec] Only usable when a minion card controlled by another Methuselah has
been
burned since your last turn.
Move that card from his owner`s ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood
or life from the blood bank on the minion and tap the minion. You now
control the minion.
Raille
Sorrow
>> burned and residing in the ash heap, is not a target?
> Because the vampire in the ash heap is not the minion that was burned
> (i.e., is not "that minion").
> "That minion" was a mummy ally (with life).
> So DP would be looking for that ally (and would, if found, give that ally
> 1 life).
I completely fail to see the distinction. Aren't all vampires "minions"?
As are allies?
From the rulebook:
Section 1.6.1.1:
"minion cards are played by the minions (vampires and allies)"
Section 1.6.3:
" Minion cards are cards that your vampires and allies (collectively
referred to as "minions") play"
Section "Rules Glossery":
"Minion: A vampire or ally"
> Daemonic Possession
> [nec] Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has been
> burned since your last turn.
> Move that minion from his owner`s ash heap to your ready region, put 1
> blood or life from the blood bank
> on the minion and tap the minion. You now control the minion.
> [NEC] As above, but the minion is untapped.
So since Daemonic Posession doesn't reference "ally" (which a vampire in the
ashheap wouldn't be, even if it was one in play) but instead references
"minion", shouldn't a vampire in the ashheap be a valid target, regardless
of what it was while in play?
Sorrow
LSJ
>>> Since you stated No, can you explain the reason an Ex mummy, that is now
>>> burned and residing in the ash heap, is not a target?
>> Because the vampire in the ash heap is not the minion that was burned
>> (i.e., is not "that minion").
>> "That minion" was a mummy ally (with life).
>> So DP would be looking for that ally (and would, if found, give that ally
>> 1 life).
>
> I completely fail to see the distinction. Aren't all vampires "minions"?
> As are allies?
Yes. But the vampire is not "that minion" ("that minion" being the one who was
burned).
Sorrow
>> As are allies?
> Yes. But the vampire is not "that minion" ("that minion" being the one who
> was burned).
I apologize for being so obtuse, but you are going to have to explain
precisely what the distinction is such that "that minion" is not the same as
"that vampire" or "that ally" (in a general sense) when both vampires and
allies qualify as "minions". Let's analyze a bit:
"[nec] Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has been
burned since your last turn"
If Carlton is burned, Carlton as an ally and thus a minion, would fall under
the requirement of the card and so could be DP'd back. If Anvil is burned,
Anvil as a vampire and thus a minion, would fall under the requirement of
the card and so could be DP'd back.
"Move that minion from his owner`s ash heap to your ready region, put 1
blood or life from the blood bank"
If an ally is a minion and a vampire is a minion, why is it that when a
vampire that was an ally while in play does qualify as "that minion"?
Sorrow
LSJ
>>> I completely fail to see the distinction. Aren't all vampires "minions"?
>>> As are allies?
>> Yes. But the vampire is not "that minion" ("that minion" being the one who
>> was burned).
>
> I apologize for being so obtuse, but you are going to have to explain
> precisely what the distinction is such that "that minion" is not the same as
> "that vampire" or "that ally" (in a general sense) when both vampires and
> allies qualify as "minions". Let's analyze a bit:
The distinction has nothing to do with "minion". "Represent" is the key.
> If an ally is a minion and a vampire is a minion, why is it that when a
> vampire that was an ally while in play does [not] qualify as "that minion"?
There wasn't a vampire in play. There was a vampire card used to represent an
ally in play.
If some other effect "Spell of Unlife" used vampire cards to "represent clanless
vampires with 12 capacity with QUI TEM +1 stealth and +1 bleed", then "that"
vampire would not be the same as the the vampire represented by the same card in
the ash heap.
Matthew T. Morgan
> If some other effect "Spell of Unlife" used vampire cards to "represent
> clanless vampires with 12 capacity with QUI TEM +1 stealth and +1 bleed",
> then "that" vampire would not be the same as the the vampire represented by
> the same card in the ash heap.
I have to say I'm really looking forward to this card. Kudos to the
design team yet again!
Matt Morgan
Sten During
Is this rule used for the (corner case) situation when a vampire using
The Grandest Trick is burned during the action? (Card DOES state that
the vampire IS an ally late in the card-text.)
Sten During
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Thrall of Arika
> LSJ wrote:
> > There wasn't a vampire in play. There was a vampire card used to
> > represent an ally in play.
>
> > If some other effect "Spell of Unlife" used vampire cards to "represent
> > clanless vampires with 12 capacity with QUI TEM +1 stealth and +1
> > bleed", then "that" vampire would not be the same as the the vampire
> > represented by the same card in the ash heap.
>
> Is this rule used for the (corner case) situation when a vampire using
> The Grandest Trick is burned during the action? (Card DOES state that
> the vampire IS an ally late in the card-text.)
>
> Sten During
>
The wording is a bit ambiguous. Grandest Trick begins by saying that
the Kiasyd is _treated_ as an ally, not that they actually become one.
I would say that the later "while he or she is an ally" text is just
to clarify the length of time that their blood is treated as life,
without sticking in further text in an already long text description.
With Spell of Life, the created mummies were never vampires, the
vampire cards are used to represent mummy allies, which just happen to
have the same name/uniqueness as the vampire cards used to represent
them.
I suppose the confusion comes from using actual minion cards to
represent other minions. Most other such cards, like Absimiliards
Army, are easier to see, since you're unlikely to have an Ally card
used to represent the AA minion. No one would say you could
Daemonically Possess back an AA minion if they happened to be an
actuall Ally card as well. Likewise, you couldn't Possess back Khazar
Diary wraiths either.
I'm curious though, as the ruling seems to half hinge on the fact that
it was a mummy ally that was burned, and so Daemonic Possession is
looking specifically for a mummy ally with <vampire name>. If rather
than having the vampire card represent and mummy ally, Spell of Life
indicated that the vampires came into play and were _treated_ as mummy
allies, would we still be unable to Possess them back?
Chris, Thrall of Arika
LSJ
> I'm curious though, as the ruling seems to half hinge on the fact that
> it was a mummy ally that was burned,
Not at all. It hinges on "that minion", as I've said.
Spell of Life uses the card to represent a minion *other than* the minion the
card normally represents.
sjohn...@gmail.com
> Is this rule used for the (corner case) situation when a vampire using
> The Grandest Trick is burned during the action? (Card DOES state that
> the vampire IS an ally late in the card-text.)
Card text is used in both cases.
Since the GT minion is still the same minion, it is a different case
from the Spell of Life situation in which the vampire card is used to
represent a different minion.
Similarly, a vampire with a Writ still represents the same vampire,
while an ally card used in Absimiliard's Army represents a different
ally than that card normally represents.
Salem
> I suppose the confusion comes from using actual minion cards to
> represent other minions. Most other such cards, like Absimiliards
> Army, are easier to see, since you're unlikely to have an Ally card
> used to represent the AA minion. No one would say you could
> Daemonically Possess back an AA minion if they happened to be an
> actuall Ally card as well.
I bet people would, though, for exactly the same reasons as are going on
here with the Spell of Life mummies.
Luckily, your AA ghoul cards will never end up back in an ash heap (" If
the ally is burned, it is removed from the game. When a Methuselah is
ousted, burn this card. Remove all such allies from the game when this
card leaves play."), so it can never come up.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
LSJ
(reposted from the proper account, for future Googling)