LSJ: Nights of Reckoning questions
Joshua Duffin
compatible with the note "if the bottom card is an imbued, no new combat
begins and the imbued is removed from play."
Illusions' text is: "Move the bottom card of your crypt to your ready
region. He or she does not contest any other vampires or titles in play. The
vampire has an amount of blood equal to half of his or her capacity (round
down). Combat begins between the vampire and the opposing minion. Remove the
vampire from the game at the end of combat."
From the "imbued grabbed from crypt" rules above, I would think that if the
bottom card of the crypt is an imbued, he would be moved to the ready region
as normal, since that movement is done "blind". Once he was moved to the
ready region, he would then no longer be blind and therefore ineligible to
receive blood or begin combat - but also ineligible to be removed from the
game at the end of combat as a vampire. (For one thing, there is no 'end of
that combat' in the first place, since there's no start to that combat
either.) I'd think that the imbued ought to stick around in play with no
blood, just based on the rule and the card text. I mean, I guess it's a
relatively reasonable ruling to say that that's not what happens and
Illusions just immediately removes the imbued from the game instead. But it
doesn't seem to follow obviously from card text, so I'd think it should be
listed as an erratum/ruling (rather than dropped as a mere clarification)
after the previews are over, if that's the way it's going to be?
Also, the preview page lists the Soul Gem of Etrius as being
imbued-compatible. I wouldn't think that it should be, at least not if
Illusions of the Kindred isn't. Soul Gem text: "If the vampire with this
equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that vampire
is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready
region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity;
otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul
Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the
Soul Gem."
Here, again, I would think that the initial "draw off the crypt" part would
work fine with imbued, since it's done blind. But when it goes on to "if
that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her...", I don't see why
it would put the imbued in play but *not* give it blood or life - it seems
to me that it would either put 'that younger vampire' in play with blood
from the blood bank, or else say "this isn't a younger vampire at all" and
treat it as such. Admittedly there's a bit of complication here in that the
"otherwise" clause still wants to move "that vampire" to your uncontrolled
region - but regardless, it seems to me that "that vampire" should either be
treated as not a vampire at all (since the effect is no longer blind once
you've drawn the card, a la Illusions of the Kindred), or else treated as a
vampire throughout the resolution of the card's effect (and given blood
equal to "capacity" when moved to the ready region).
Josh
is no rock'n'roll fun
lactamaeon
The Soul Gem makes sense according to the guidelines defined for
checking capacity of a crypt card targeted blindly. You check (blind)
the top 'vampire' of your crypt and compare capacity to starting life
(as the guidelines mention). If it's 'younger', you put the soul gem on
him and put him in play. He's then not a vampire and thus ineligible to
recieve blood from the blood bank. If it's 'older', it moves to your
uncontrolled region. No problem, right?
This doesn't mesh well with Illusions of the Kindred, though, which
should probably be made into a ruling/errata as you say. I think
getting an instant minion with IotK is probably a pretty bad idea, even
if they're incapacitated right away.
Matthew T. Morgan
> On the preview page, Illusions of the Kindred is listed as non-Imbued
> compatible with the note "if the bottom card is an imbued, no new combat
> begins and the imbued is removed from play."
>
> Illusions' text is: "Move the bottom card of your crypt to your ready
> region. He or she does not contest any other vampires or titles in play. The
> vampire has an amount of blood equal to half of his or her capacity (round
> down). Combat begins between the vampire and the opposing minion. Remove the
> vampire from the game at the end of combat."
>
> From the "imbued grabbed from crypt" rules above, I would think that if the
> bottom card of the crypt is an imbued, he would be moved to the ready region
> as normal, since that movement is done "blind". Once he was moved to the
> ready region, he would then no longer be blind and therefore ineligible to
> receive blood or begin combat - but also ineligible to be removed from the
> game at the end of combat as a vampire. (For one thing, there is no 'end of
> that combat' in the first place, since there's no start to that combat
> either.) I'd think that the imbued ought to stick around in play with no
> blood, just based on the rule and the card text. I mean, I guess it's a
> relatively reasonable ruling to say that that's not what happens and
> Illusions just immediately removes the imbued from the game instead. But it
> doesn't seem to follow obviously from card text, so I'd think it should be
> listed as an erratum/ruling (rather than dropped as a mere clarification)
> after the previews are over, if that's the way it's going to be?
So Illusions of the Kindred = free Imbued machine? That was certainly not
the designer's intent, I'll wager.
Agreed that it's more like errata than a clarification, but it's certainly
necessary.
> Also, the preview page lists the Soul Gem of Etrius as being
> imbued-compatible. I wouldn't think that it should be, at least not if
> Illusions of the Kindred isn't. Soul Gem text: "If the vampire with this
> equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that vampire
> is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready
> region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity;
> otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul
> Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the
> Soul Gem."
>
> Here, again, I would think that the initial "draw off the crypt" part would
> work fine with imbued, since it's done blind. But when it goes on to "if
> that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her...", I don't see why
> it would put the imbued in play but *not* give it blood or life - it seems
> to me that it would either put 'that younger vampire' in play with blood
> from the blood bank, or else say "this isn't a younger vampire at all" and
> treat it as such. Admittedly there's a bit of complication here in that the
> "otherwise" clause still wants to move "that vampire" to your uncontrolled
> region - but regardless, it seems to me that "that vampire" should either be
> treated as not a vampire at all (since the effect is no longer blind once
> you've drawn the card, a la Illusions of the Kindred), or else treated as a
> vampire throughout the resolution of the card's effect (and given blood
> equal to "capacity" when moved to the ready region).
Yeah, that makes no sense to me. First you draw your crypt card. Okay so
far. It's an Imbued, so none of the rest of the Soul Gem text applies to
it. What do you do normally when drawing a crypt card? Put it in your
uncontrolled region with no counters. Seems like the "otherwise, move
that vampire to your uncontrolled region" part is reminder text. That's
the default thing to do when drawing a crypt card.
Matt Morgan
LSJ
> On the preview page, Illusions of the Kindred is listed as non-Imbued
> compatible with the note "if the bottom card is an imbued, no new combat
> begins and the imbued is removed from play."
>
> Illusions' text is: "Move the bottom card of your crypt to your ready
> region. He or she does not contest any other vampires or titles in play. The
> vampire has an amount of blood equal to half of his or her capacity (round
> down). Combat begins between the vampire and the opposing minion. Remove the
> vampire from the game at the end of combat."
>
> From the "imbued grabbed from crypt" rules above, I would think that if the
> bottom card of the crypt is an imbued, he would be moved to the ready region
> as normal, since that movement is done "blind". Once he was moved to the
> ready region, he would then no longer be blind and therefore ineligible to
> receive blood or begin combat - but also ineligible to be removed from the
> game at the end of combat as a vampire.
Nah. He's already the target crypt card (referred to as "vampire" on
cards that assume all crypt cards are vampires). He was targeted blind,
though, so that's OK.
Applying each portion of the card to the target:
"Move the bottom card of your crypt to your ready region. He or she
does not contest any other vampires or titles in play."
He is put in the ready region.
"The vampire has an amount of blood equal to half of his or her
capacity (round down)."
He can't have blood, so whatever he "gains" merely flows right into the
bank. And he has no life, so he is incapacitated.
"Combat begins between the vampire and the opposing minion."
He is not ready, so he cannot enter combat.
"Remove the vampire from the game at the end of combat."
And then he's removed from the game.
> (For one thing, there is no 'end of
> that combat' in the first place, since there's no start to that combat
> either.)
Moot.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/25f0793150f6267e
> I'd think that the imbued ought to stick around in play with no
> blood, just based on the rule and the card text. I mean, I guess it's a
> relatively reasonable ruling to say that that's not what happens and
> Illusions just immediately removes the imbued from the game instead. But it
> doesn't seem to follow obviously from card text, so I'd think it should be
> listed as an erratum/ruling (rather than dropped as a mere clarification)
> after the previews are over, if that's the way it's going to be?
It follows from the ruling of "work with what you get".
Like Bear-Baiting looks at the imbued's cost, even though you're
looking at the face of the card.
> Also, the preview page lists the Soul Gem of Etrius as being
> imbued-compatible. I wouldn't think that it should be, at least not if
> Illusions of the Kindred isn't. Soul Gem text: "If the vampire with this
> equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that vampire
> is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready
> region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity;
> otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul
> Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the
> Soul Gem."
Breakdown:
Vampire of capacity X bearing Soul Gem is burned.
"Draw the top vampire of your crypt."
Grabs imbued card.
"If that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move
him or her to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to
his or her capacity."
If imbued's cost < X, then put him in play. He gets no blood (just like
IotK case). He is incapacitated.
"otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region."
Otherwise, move him to your uncontrolled region.
> Here, again, I would think that the initial "draw off the crypt" part would
> work fine with imbued, since it's done blind. But when it goes on to "if
> that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her...", I don't see why
> it would put the imbued in play but *not* give it blood or life - it seems
> to me that it would either put 'that younger vampire' in play with blood
> from the blood bank, or else say "this isn't a younger vampire at all" and
> treat it as such. Admittedly there's a bit of complication here in that the
> "otherwise" clause still wants to move "that vampire" to your uncontrolled
> region - but regardless, it seems to me that "that vampire" should either be
> treated as not a vampire at all (since the effect is no longer blind once
> you've drawn the card, a la Illusions of the Kindred), or else treated as a
> vampire throughout the resolution of the card's effect (and given blood
> equal to "capacity" when moved to the ready region).
Imbued can't hold blood, regardless of how cards treat them.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1143141691....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> or else treated as a
>> vampire throughout the resolution of the card's effect (and given blood
>> equal to "capacity" when moved to the ready region).
>
> Imbued can't hold blood, regardless of how cards treat them.
Aha, this pretty much explains why both cards function as they're described
on the preview page.
But imbued presumably *can* hold blood while uncontrolled, since that's
presumably how you get them into play in the first place (unless there are
other subtleties to the imbued rules that haven't shown up on the preview
page yet). It's not much of a stretch to imagine that other effects that
would give them blood blindly while treating them (blindly) as vampires
would convert that blood into life through the same magic as when the blood
you influence them out with becomes life as they come into play, is it?
That said, a rule that imbued can't hold blood while controlled seems fine
to me.
Josh
soul controller
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> But imbued presumably *can* hold blood while uncontrolled, since that's
> presumably how you get them into play in the first place (unless there are
> other subtleties to the imbued rules that haven't shown up on the preview
> page yet).
IIRC, pool transferred to uncontrolled cards is not blood. They're just
pool counters.
They only become "blood" once a vampire enters play.
Probably that's why the design team thought that it was ok to put other
critters down there ;)
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:1143141691....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> >> or else treated as a
> >> vampire throughout the resolution of the card's effect (and given blood
> >> equal to "capacity" when moved to the ready region).
> >
> > Imbued can't hold blood, regardless of how cards treat them.
>
> Aha, this pretty much explains why both cards function as they're described
> on the preview page.
>
> But imbued presumably *can* hold blood while uncontrolled, since that's
In the uncontrolled region, it's just counters. Blood counters (from
the blood bank), yes, but it's still just counters -- blood counters
(from the blood bank) are used as influence trackers in the
uncontrolled region, as pool trackers in your pool, as blood trackers
on vampires, as life trackers on allies, etc.
> presumably how you get them into play in the first place (unless there are
> other subtleties to the imbued rules that haven't shown up on the preview
> page yet). It's not much of a stretch to imagine that other effects that
> would give them blood blindly while treating them (blindly) as vampires
> would convert that blood into life through the same magic as when the blood
> you influence them out with becomes life as they come into play, is it?
Um, I suppose so.
> That said, a rule that imbued can't hold blood while controlled seems fine
> to me.
OK.
Ankur Gupta
> Like Bear-Baiting looks at the imbued's cost, even though you're
> looking at the face of the card.
For the ruling of "work with what you get," it seems that the spirit of
this is that you attempt to perform analogous operations with different
types of cards in order to address the intent of the card. With this in
mind, what would convince a logical player that "vampire" can refer to
"imbued" but "blood gained" cannot refer to "life gained"? After all, it
is all counter-moving stuff.
As another example, during your transfer phase, you are putting "blood" on
the imbued. (Explicitly, in fact, with card text like that from Govern the
Unaligned.) Do these work or not? If so, where does a logical player draw
the line for "work with what you get"?
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
LSJ
> > It follows from the ruling of "work with what you get".
> > Like Bear-Baiting looks at the imbued's cost, even though you're
> > looking at the face of the card.
>
> For the ruling of "work with what you get," it seems that the spirit of
> this is that you attempt to perform analogous operations with different
> types of cards in order to address the intent of the card. With this in
> mind, what would convince a logical player that "vampire" can refer to
> "imbued" but "blood gained" cannot refer to "life gained"? After all, it
> is all counter-moving stuff.
Disconnect.
There's nothing to indicate that blood is transformed to life (or vice
versa).
> As another example, during your transfer phase, you are putting "blood" on
> the imbued. (Explicitly, in fact, with card text like that from Govern the
> Unaligned.) Do these work or not? If so, where does a logical player draw
> the line for "work with what you get"?
Govern only targets vampires in your uncontrolled region.
Can't target imbued.
lactamaeon
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> > It follows from the ruling of "work with what you get".
> > Like Bear-Baiting looks at the imbued's cost, even though you're
> > looking at the face of the card.
>
> For the ruling of "work with what you get," it seems that the spirit of
> this is that you attempt to perform analogous operations with different
> types of cards in order to address the intent of the card. With this in
> mind, what would convince a logical player that "vampire" can refer to
> "imbued" but "blood gained" cannot refer to "life gained"? After all, it
> is all counter-moving stuff.
It could have been ruled that way, just like 'burn blood' card effects
could have been ruled to burn life on allies. But they weren't, because
a decision had to be made one way or the other. The ruling was made in
favor of literal card text as often as possible. "Work with what you
get" comes into play when the card text alone doesn't explain what to
do.
> As another example, during your transfer phase, you are putting "blood" on
> the imbued. (Explicitly, in fact, with card text like that from Govern the
> Unaligned.) Do these work or not? If so, where does a logical player draw
> the line for "work with what you get"?
"Work with what you get" refers to any card that you couldn't look at
the face of *before* the effect went off - because those cards all
refer to 'vampire' but now you can't always know before the effect goes
off whether the targeted card is a vampire or an imbued.
You can't govern back to imbued, because you can see the face and know
that it's an imbued instead of a vampire. You can use Effective
Management to get an imbued, because you can't look at the card and see
if it's a vampire or not before playing the EM. If you're using
something like Petra Resonance, you need to know how to resolve the
effect if one or more imbued come up. These are the *only* effects
which do not always follow literal card text - because the literal card
text *needs* a ruling on what to do if the revealed card is not a
vampire.
Daneel
<fabio....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> But imbued presumably *can* hold blood while uncontrolled, since that's
>> presumably how you get them into play in the first place (unless there
>> are
>> other subtleties to the imbued rules that haven't shown up on the
>> preview
>> page yet).
>
> IIRC, pool transferred to uncontrolled cards is not blood. They're just
> pool counters.
Dunno. Cards say stuff like "Move 3 blood from the blood bank to a younger
vampire in your uncontrolled region."
> They only become "blood" once a vampire enters play.
> Probably that's why the design team thought that it was ok to put other
> critters down there ;)
>
> Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
--
Bye,
Daneel