Tempting your own vampires, and other stupid questions...
Kulaid
'burn all the <counters> on this card to untap that vampire and take
control of him or her until the end of your turn.' Or can't you,
since you already control the vampire? Or burning the counters only
untaps your vampire?
If that is the case...
Is there an instant you lose control of that Vampire? Can you burn
the counters DURING an action to cause an action to fail Or cancel a
combat, and have that vampire untap?
Question 2: If your immune to non-aggravated damage, do you still take
damage from unpreventable damage?
Question 3: If Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling), has 'Weighted Walking
Stick' as the combat card on him... Would the weighted walking stick
refresh each combat? Well, if you play it as a combat card from your
hand... Rather then have it using it as an equipment? How about
Dragon breath rounds? will that card burn up with the gun too? Would
Darkness Within burn after combat, or stay in play... (I like the
idea of the shadow court satyr, trying to think of cool use for them
outside of the taste of vitae/theft angle...)
Question 4: Khobar towers used on an ally would get it's recruiting
cost/blood (I read the ruling for jan 17th, 2003 now it's blood too,
was it always the case?) But how bout if the cost was decreased?
Question 5: Is rescuing a vampire from torpor the same thing as leave
torpor yourself? Can you say, I'm rescuing my vampires... No
blocks... then Mask to the vampire in torpor to leave torpor? Or is
it considered an action the vampire in torpor cannot do?
Question 6: Can you 'Compel the Spirit' 'Jake Washington'? From the
Text(the online text), I would say yes...
LSJ
>
> Question 1: If you play temptation on your own vampire... Can you
> 'burn all the <counters> on this card to untap that vampire and take
> control of him or her until the end of your turn.' Or can't you,
> since you already control the vampire? Or burning the counters only
> untaps your vampire?
You can.
> If that is the case...
> Is there an instant you lose control of that Vampire? Can you burn
> the counters DURING an action to cause an action to fail Or cancel a
> combat, and have that vampire untap?
Not usefully, no. When the temporary control effect ends, you still
control the vampire.
> Question 2: If your immune to non-aggravated damage, do you still take
> damage from unpreventable damage?
You ignore the non-aggravated damage you do not prevent.
> Question 3: If Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling), has 'Weighted Walking
> Stick' as the combat card on him... Would the weighted walking stick
> refresh each combat? Well, if you play it as a combat card from your
No. WWS card text says to burn it. SCS's card text doesn't offer any
way around that.
> hand... Rather then have it using it as an equipment? How about
> Dragon breath rounds? will that card burn up with the gun too? Would
No.
> Darkness Within burn after combat, or stay in play... (I like the
> idea of the shadow court satyr, trying to think of cool use for them
> outside of the taste of vitae/theft angle...)
Burned.
> Question 4: Khobar towers used on an ally would get it's recruiting
> cost/blood (I read the ruling for jan 17th, 2003 now it's blood too,
> was it always the case?) But how bout if the cost was decreased?
Gets the full printed pool cost of recruit.
It counts only pool costs. See the online card text.
> Question 5: Is rescuing a vampire from torpor the same thing as leave
> torpor yourself? Can you say, I'm rescuing my vampires... No
No.
> blocks... then Mask to the vampire in torpor to leave torpor? Or is
> it considered an action the vampire in torpor cannot do?
The latter.
> Question 6: Can you 'Compel the Spirit' 'Jake Washington'? From the
> Text(the online text), I would say yes...
No. He is not an ally in the ash heap - he's just a master card.
From the online card text: "While in play, this card represents a mortal ally ..."
--
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/
albert1642
>> cost/blood (I read the ruling for jan 17th, 2003 now it's blood too,
>> was it always the case?) But how bout if the cost was decreased?
>
>Gets the full printed pool cost of recruit.
>It counts only pool costs. See the online card text.
On http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html, ther Khobar towers ruling
reads...
Khobar Towers: X is the pool cost or the blood cost of the ally, as
appropriate. [RTR 20020501]
If that the case, what does this ruling for then? Why is there a ruling on
this card? Especially about the blood cost? I don't understand why the ruling
talks about blood cost then?
>> Question 6: Can you 'Compel the Spirit' 'Jake Washington'? From the
>> Text(the online text), I would say yes...
>
>No. He is not an ally in the ash heap - he's just a master card.
>From the online card text: "While in play, this card represents a mortal ally
>..."
>
The online card text for the Compel the spirit is...
Compel the Spirit
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Necromancy
+1 stealth action. Only usable if a retainer or ally you control has been
burned since your last turn.
[nec] Move the card from your ash heap to your hand.
[NEC] Move the card from your ash heap to your ready region, even if this
vampire doesn't meet the requirements, if any, of the card (use the normal
version if it requires a Discipline). Move X life counters from the blood bank
to the card, where X is the number of life printed on the card. If a retainer
is chosen, it must be placed on the acting minion.
Jake Washington was a ally you control, and was burned since your last turn...
The card just says if an retainer or ally you control been burned since your
last turn... Return it the CARD into your hand, or into the active region...
Nothing about that card having to be an ally or retainer card... Or is there
a ruling I can't seem to find?
Halcyan 2
>turn...
>The card just says if an retainer or ally you control been burned since your
>last turn... Return it the CARD into your hand, or into the active region...
>Nothing about that card having to be an ally or retainer card... Or is
>there
>a ruling I can't seem to find?
Well, similarly, a vampire who burned while playing The Grandest Trick was an
ally you controlled who burned. But can't Compel him back either.
The point is that the retainer/ally has to be a retainer/ally while in the ash
heap otherwise you can't target them.
Halcyan 2
Chris Arthur
>
> > Question 4: Khobar towers used on an ally would get it's recruiting
> > cost/blood (I read the ruling for jan 17th, 2003 now it's blood too,
> > was it always the case?) But how bout if the cost was decreased?
>
> Gets the full printed pool cost of recruit.
> It counts only pool costs. See the online card text.
>
What happened to:
> >If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool.
> >If it cost X blood, then you get X pool.
> >If it cost X pool, then you get X pool.
> >
> >The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X
> >on card text.
> > LSJ
Chris.
LSJ
>
> >> Question 4: Khobar towers used on an ally would get it's recruiting
> >> cost/blood (I read the ruling for jan 17th, 2003 now it's blood too,
> >> was it always the case?) But how bout if the cost was decreased?
> >
> >Gets the full printed pool cost of recruit.
> >It counts only pool costs. See the online card text.
>
> On http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html, ther Khobar towers ruling
> reads...
>
> Khobar Towers: X is the pool cost or the blood cost of the ally, as
> appropriate. [RTR 20020501]
>
> If that the case, what does this ruling for then? Why is there a ruling on
> this card? Especially about the blood cost? I don't understand why the ruling
> talks about blood cost then?
Ah yes.
The 01-MAY-2002 ruling reversed the former ruling.
Apparently the reversal didn't make it into the card text lists.
I'll correct that.
Sorry for the oversight.
> Jake Washington was a ally you control, and was burned since your last turn...
> The card just says if an retainer or ally you control been burned since your
> last turn... Return it the CARD into your hand, or into the active region...
> Nothing about that card having to be an ally or retainer card... Or is there
> a ruling I can't seem to find?
Just the one about him not being an ally in the ash heap.
He's not an ally, so he cannot be retrieved by the card that will retrieve an ally.
vermillian
> >> Question 6: Can you 'Compel the Spirit' 'Jake Washington'? From the
> >> Text(the online text), I would say yes...
> >
> >No. He is not an ally in the ash heap - he's just a master card.
> >From the online card text: "While in play, this card represents a mortal ally
> >..."
> >
> The online card text for the Compel the spirit is...
>
> Compel the Spirit
> Cardtype: Action
>
> Cost: 1 blood
>
> Discipline: Necromancy
>
> +1 stealth action. Only usable if a retainer or ally you control has been
> burned since your last turn.
> [nec] Move the card from your ash heap to your hand.
> [NEC] Move the card from your ash heap to your ready region, even if this
> vampire doesn't meet the requirements, if any, of the card (use the normal
> version if it requires a Discipline). Move X life counters from the blood bank
> to the card, where X is the number of life printed on the card. If a retainer
> is chosen, it must be placed on the acting minion.
>
> Jake Washington was a ally you control, and was burned since your last turn...
> The card just says if an retainer or ally you control been burned since your
> last turn... Return it the CARD into your hand, or into the active region...
> Nothing about that card having to be an ally or retainer card... Or is there
> a ruling I can't seem to find?
This guys got a point. It does just say "If a retainer or ally you
control has been burned since your last turn."
Now, perhaps if it wasn't an ally when it got burned, then sure. But
other wise, unless there's a <insert card/rule change termonology
here> then the retrieving Jake (or a vampire burned as an ally from
Grandest Trick) with Compel the Spirit should be legit.
~SV
vermillian
Um... the card says nothing about retrieving an ally. It says if a
card with X trait has been burned since your last turn take that card
into your hand. The text refers to THAT card. It should say "take that
ally into your hand" or some stuff, but it says that CARD. Jake
Washington was an ally, it was burned, take the Jake Washington card
back into your hand.
So until you rule or errata or rule change or whatever, this card, I'm
taking it back into my hand/into play.
~SV
Kulaid
Question 1... Machine Blitz, if I choose a rowan ring... It'll do no
damage, and won't strike:go to torpor, correct? How bout if it's
based on STR damage? would it be your vampire str, or the opposing
vampires str?
Question 2... Malkavian Game, can you tell the other Methuselah what
your gonna do? Rock/papper/scissors? Same with the malkavian prank?
Question 3... If you DI a card that was payed by a Masochism
counter... Does the Masochism counter reset? Because DI only states
blood or pool, nothing about counters...
Question 4... Can you CI to a gargolye slave to a certain clan?!?
Can you be a slave to any clan? Or a Blood brother of a certain
circle?
Question 5... If you Malkavian Time Auction a card you temporary
control, does the winning bidder gain control of it... Or does it go
back to it's 'true' controller when it's the winning bidder's untap
phase? Or whenever the return to controller phase was... (With
Malkavian Dementia, but I can think of other ways.)
James Coupe
<Kula...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Question 1... Machine Blitz, if I choose a rowan ring... It'll do no
>damage, and won't strike:go to torpor, correct?
Sure.
Machine Blitz only cares about amount of damage. Everything else is
irrelevant.
>How bout if it's
>based on STR damage? would it be your vampire str, or the opposing
>vampires str?
# A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon
would inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent.
(This affects Machine Blitz). [RTR 19980623]
>Question 2... Malkavian Game, can you tell the other Methuselah what
>your gonna do? Rock/papper/scissors? Same with the malkavian prank?
You can say whatever you want. You could, of course, be lying.
>Question 3... If you DI a card that was payed by a Masochism
>counter...
Masochism doesn't pay for cards. It reduces their cost, according to
the online texts.
> Does the Masochism counter reset? Because DI only states
>blood or pool, nothing about counters...
DI also says nothing about counters that aren't cost based.
I can't see you getting them back.
>Question 4... Can you CI to a gargolye slave to a certain clan?!?
You could change clan, yes. That wouldn't change who your 'master' clan
was. It simply changes your *own* clan.
>Can you be a slave to any clan?
Sure - if there's card text for it. Clan Impersonation won't do it.
>Or a Blood brother of a certain
>circle?
No. All Blood Brothers who aren't designated as a specific circle end
up in a circle on their own. Even if you get 5 vampires, each Clan
Impersonated to Blood Brother, they end up in 5 separate circles.
Treat Ian Forestal, CIed to Blood Brother, as being in the "Ian
Forestal" circle, if it's easier.
Glossary: "Circle: Each Blood Brother is identified with a particular
circle. A vampire without a circle designation is his own circle."
>Question 5... If you Malkavian Time Auction a card you temporary
>control, does the winning bidder gain control of it... Or does it go
>back to it's 'true' controller when it's the winning bidder's untap
>phase? Or whenever the return to controller phase was... (With
>Malkavian Dementia, but I can think of other ways.)
The permanent control effect over-rides the temporary one.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Kevin M.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E37C9BF...@white-wolf.com...
> > albert1642 wrote:
> >
> > The card just says if an retainer or ally you control been burned since your
> > last turn... Return it the CARD into your hand, or into the active region...
> > Nothing about that card having to be an ally or retainer card... Or is there
> > a ruling I can't seem to find?
>
> Just the one about him not being an ally in the ash heap.
> He's not an ally, so he cannot be retrieved by the card that will retrieve an ally.
It doesn't say on the Compel the Spirit card text that you are retrieving an ally. It says "Move the card from the ash heap..." on both the inf. and sup. effects.
1. Only usable if a retainer or ally you control has been burned since your last turn.
- I had Jake Washington, an ally, in play, and he was burned since my last turn -- OK
2. inf. or sup.: "Move the card from the ash heap..." -- OK
Based on card text alone, I don't see why you can't do this. I *do* know *why* you shouldn't be able to do this -- it's an inconsistency -- but strictly reading the card text would make you think doing this is completely OK.
The only thing I can think of is that Jake isn't an ally anymore after he's burned, since he then reverts back to "being" a Master card. But, isn't he an ally *when* he's being burned? Is the timing of this everything when dealing with this issue?
> 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/
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Kulaid
> In message <c4ec918b.03012...@posting.google.com>, Kulaid
> <Kula...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Question 1... Machine Blitz, if I choose a rowan ring... It'll do no
> >damage, and won't strike:go to torpor, correct?
>
> Sure.
>
> Machine Blitz only cares about amount of damage. Everything else is
> irrelevant.
>
> >How bout if it's
> >based on STR damage? would it be your vampire str, or the opposing
> >vampires str?
>
> # A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon
> would inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent.
> (This affects Machine Blitz). [RTR 19980623]
>
> >Question 2... Malkavian Game, can you tell the other Methuselah what
> >your gonna do? Rock/papper/scissors? Same with the malkavian prank?
>
> You can say whatever you want. You could, of course, be lying.
>
this card...
> >Question 3... If you DI a card that was payed by a Masochism
> >counter...
>
> Masochism doesn't pay for cards. It reduces their cost, according to
> the online texts.
>
> > Does the Masochism counter reset? Because DI only states
> >blood or pool, nothing about counters...
>
> DI also says nothing about counters that aren't cost based.
>
> I can't see you getting them back.
How about ravnos cache? The master card says it's counters on it as
blood...
If you DI a 'brother's blood' since the blood burn from it isn't the
result of the card, but to heal damage or prevent destruction... Would
he get that blood back?
Brings me to another question... I had a cel/tham deck... I theft a
blood brother, can he 'heal' that damage with the brother's blood?
Can he heal more then the damage that was inflicted on him?
> >Question 5... If you Malkavian Time Auction a card you temporary
> >control, does the winning bidder gain control of it... Or does it go
> >back to it's 'true' controller when it's the winning bidder's untap
> >phase? Or whenever the return to controller phase was... (With
> >Malkavian Dementia, but I can think of other ways.)
>
> The permanent control effect over-rides the temporary one.
So the winner of the bid would get the card permanently? Great... I
don't like that at all...
LSJ
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> > >Question 3... If you DI a card that was payed by a Masochism
> > >counter...
> >
> > Masochism doesn't pay for cards. It reduces their cost, according to
> > the online texts.
> >
> > > Does the Masochism counter reset? Because DI only states
> > >blood or pool, nothing about counters...
> >
> > DI also says nothing about counters that aren't cost based.
> >
> > I can't see you getting them back.
>
> How about ravnos cache? The master card says it's counters on it as
> blood...
The cost paid is retrieved.
In a perfect world, it should be simply "not paid" instead of "retrieved".
For instance, if you have a Realm of the Black Sun in play and Sudden your
prey's Short-Term Investment, you'll gain a pool under the cost retrieval
system.
But, that's card text for you.
I'll put this on the RT list, since player intuition would tend to run
contrary to the "retrieval" card text.
> If you DI a 'brother's blood' since the blood burn from it isn't the
> result of the card, but to heal damage or prevent destruction... Would
> he get that blood back?
No. He wouldn't burn the blood at all, so there's nothing to get back.
> Brings me to another question... I had a cel/tham deck... I theft a
> blood brother, can he 'heal' that damage with the brother's blood?
What damage? Theft of Vitae does no damage.
> Can he heal more then the damage that was inflicted on him?
No. This is true in every instance of healing damage - not just Brother's Blood.
--
James Coupe
<Kula...@yahoo.com> writes:
<Arrangements on Malkavian game>
>Just heard of a case, where somebody kept a player in the game using
>this card...
Perfectly legal.
Bear in mind that anyone can say what they're going to do. You can, of
course, choose to try and manipulate this. (For example, in a Game of
Malkav.) Or you can try and convince other people they're lying.
<Playing Direct Intervention - what gets returned>
>How about ravnos cache? The master card says it's counters on it as
>blood...
Bear in mind that Ravnos Cache works only on equips. Ravnos Carnival
works only actions. So Ravnos Carnival *must* have had the chance for
DI to pass long before the action is paid for.
When taking action for equipment, Ravnos Cache will also be in the same
situation as Ravnos Carnival.
So, for both of them, in usual circumstances, the cost will not yet have
been paid.
If we take the situation of Disguised Weapon or Concealed Weapon, in
which case there isn't a whole action for delaying the cost, two rulings
here are useful. First of all, the useful ruling about Direct
Intervention:
# Can only burn minion cards played from the hand in the normal fashion
(not weapons played via Disguised Weapon or equipment played via Pier
13, for example). [RTR 20001020]
Secondly, a dead ruling (the 20001020 one overturned it):
Disguised/Concealed Weapon: You can DI the card itself (in
which case the weapon is not played), or you can DI the
weapon. [LSJ 04-MAY-1999]
What is useful about it is that it makes clear that to play Direct
Intervention on the Concealed Weapon, it goes *BEFORE* the equipment
card is played. So the cost for the card has never been paid.
This is easy to understand. You play Disguised Weapon. There is a gap
for it to be DI-ed. It then resolves. Equipping is only done during
the resolution of the effect.
So I can't think of any situations where DI is playable (per the
20001020 rule, that it can only be played on normally played cards)
where Ravnos Cache would have already kicked in.
>If you DI a 'brother's blood' since the blood burn from it isn't the
>result of the card, but to heal damage or prevent destruction... Would
>he get that blood back?
DI says (online texts):
"That card has no effect"
Part of the effect of Brothers' Blood is the whole healing damage thing.
So that bit doesn't happen. You would, however, announce what the
effect would be as you played it.
>Brings me to another question... I had a cel/tham deck... I theft a
>blood brother, can he 'heal' that damage with the brother's blood?
Theft is not damage. It's steal blood.
>Can he heal more then the damage that was inflicted on him?
No. Healing damage isn't something you choose to happen. It just
happens for as many points as there were damage (until blood runs out).
<Temporary control followed by Malkavian Time Auction>
>So the winner of the bid would get the card permanently? Great... I
>don't like that at all...
Yup (found a useful ruling):
[LSJ 20021025]
"Yes. Changing permanent control of a card erases any lingering
temporary control effects."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DB92F77.75ECCA99%40white-wolf.com
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes:
>> How about ravnos cache? The master card says it's counters on it as
>> blood...
>
>The cost paid is retrieved.
>In a perfect world, it should be simply "not paid" instead of
>"retrieved".
With regards Ravnos Cache, I cannot think of a situation where DI would
be played *before* the cost of the equipment was paid.
And my reading of RC would suggest that it should be tapped when the
payment happens:
"When equipping a minion, you may tap this card to use the blood
counters on it to pay some or all of the [pool or blood] cost of
the equipment."
i.e. it should be tapped to pay for it. If it's prior to the successful
resolution of the equip, you may not be paying for it, because it might
be blocked.
LSJ
>
> In message <3E391CAE...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes:
> >> How about ravnos cache? The master card says it's counters on it as
> >> blood...
> >
> >The cost paid is retrieved.
> >In a perfect world, it should be simply "not paid" instead of
> >"retrieved".
>
> With regards Ravnos Cache, I cannot think of a situation where DI would
> be played *before* the cost of the equipment was paid.
>
> And my reading of RC would suggest that it should be tapped when the
> payment happens:
>
> "When equipping a minion, you may tap this card to use the blood
> counters on it to pay some or all of the [pool or blood] cost of
> the equipment."
>
> i.e. it should be tapped to pay for it.
Correct.
Brian
> Forestal" circle, if it's easier.
Actually, I asked LSJ once if I could use Infernal Contract on Richard
Tauber to Unwholesome Bond superior, and add blood to all the little
Richards in my uncontrolled region.
The response was that Richard Tauber, the vampire in play, is in his
own circle, not a circle including him and all vampires with the same
name.
-- Brian
Not making a "little Richards" deck any time soon.
Brian
> >this card...
>
> Perfectly legal.
>
> Bear in mind that anyone can say what they're going to do.
Not exactly.
Usually, anyone can say what they're going to do, but there are some
circumstances which can prohibit this:
Although you may personally make a decision about the game based on
random or non-game-related circumstances, you may not state that you
are going to do so to another player, or it becomes an illegal deal.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-- Brian
James Coupe
<firstco...@aol.com> writes:
>Although you may personally make a decision about the game based on
>random or non-game-related circumstances, you may not state that you
>are going to do so to another player, or it becomes an illegal deal.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong in several ways.
First of all, doing something yourself (making a decision about the
game) isn't the same as making an illegal deal. Telling someone
something doesn't create a deal.
Secondly, randomised elements are not, of necessity, illegal. Were it
illegal to ever use random elements, Walk Through Arcadia would be
unplayable. Additionally, if a player has two alternate ways to gain a
table win or two alternate ways to maximise their VPs (to within an
acceptable level of probability, ask a judge), selecting between the two
with a coin flip would not be illegal, since in either instance the
player would be maximising their chance to win.
Thirdly, randomised elements in deals are not, of necessity, illegal. A
deal that said "Look, I'll try and get this bleed through and oust her.
She's got so much intercept that I'll *have* to play Walk Through
Arcadia on it. If I don't get through, I'll try such-and-such on my
next action instead, if you help me." A plot between a predator and the
prey of the same person might involve such. The deal involves random
elements, and such are not inherently illegal. Per the Judges
guidelines:
Players participating in standard table talk or in-game
agreements should not be considered in violation of this rule as
long as they meet the following criteria:
<snip>
- No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the
winner.
Random elements in a deal are, therefore, not inherently unacceptable.
Jeff Kuta
> Kulaid wrote:
> > How about ravnos cache? The master card says it's counters on it as
> > blood...
>
> The cost paid is retrieved.
> In a perfect world, it should be simply "not paid" instead of "retrieved".
>
> For instance, if you have a Realm of the Black Sun in play and Sudden your
> prey's Short-Term Investment, you'll gain a pool under the cost retrieval
> system.
>
> But, that's card text for you.
>
> I'll put this on the RT list, since player intuition would tend to run
> contrary to the "retrieval" card text.
So, would this work:
You're a Ravnos player with a Cache with 4 blood counters on it. You
have 1 pool left and are dangerously close to being ousted. Your
grand-predator also has your predator on the ropes and doesn't want
them gaining 6 pool from ousting you. G-P "claims" to have a Direct
Intervention in hand.
Could you equip a minion with an Assault Rifle, paying 5 blood (and
ousting yourself?) knowing/expecting/having made a deal so your G-P
DI's the Assault Rifle, giving YOU the 5 pool back?
Jeff
The Lasombra
>So, would this work:
>You're a Ravnos player with a Cache with 4 blood counters on it. You
>have 1 pool left and are dangerously close to being ousted. Your
>grand-predator also has your predator on the ropes and doesn't want
>them gaining 6 pool from ousting you. G-P "claims" to have a Direct
>Intervention in hand.
>Could you equip a minion with an Assault Rifle, paying 5 blood (and
>ousting yourself?) knowing/expecting/having made a deal so your G-P
>DI's the Assault Rifle, giving YOU the 5 pool back?
No.
You don't pay for the cost until the action is unblocked.
Direct Intervention is played before block attempts, so the cost is
never paid, and the no blood or counters are moved at all.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Brian
> >random or non-game-related circumstances, you may not state that you
> >are going to do so to another player, or it becomes an illegal deal.
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong in several ways.
>
> First of all, doing something yourself (making a decision about the
> game) isn't the same as making an illegal deal. Telling someone
> something doesn't create a deal.
If you tell them you're going to do something random and they agree to
it, yes, it's a deal. I don't like this, but I'll explain why I
believe it.
If I have a Succubus Club, and I offer you a master from my hand for
"any other master you've got, I don't care", then you may give me any
one you wish. If you choose randomly, that's OK too. But, if you
say, "OK, I'll give you the Dominate master card if I flip heads and
the Minion Tap if I flip tails", then that would be an illegal deal if
I continue to agree to it. Just by telling me about it, yes, we are
now cheating.
I think it doesn't make sense that the SC player can make the decision
/unless/ he gets consent to do it, but that's the impression I got
from a series of emails with LSJ.
> Secondly, randomised elements are not, of necessity, illegal. Were it
> illegal to ever use random elements, Walk Through Arcadia would be
> unplayable.
Playing Walk Through Arcadia is not a "decision about the game based
on random or non-game-related circumstances", which is what I
suggested was illegal. First, your decision to play WtA is definite
and non-random: Only its effects are random. Second, it is directly
pertinent to the game, being demanded of a card played.
> Additionally, if a player has two alternate ways to gain a
> table win or two alternate ways to maximise their VPs (to within an
> acceptable level of probability, ask a judge), selecting between the two
> with a coin flip would not be illegal, since in either instance the
> player would be maximising their chance to win.
I never said that was illegal. My guess is it's not.
However, in the same circumstances, making a deal involving "I'll
select how I maximize my VP's based on a coin flip" with another
Methuselah would be illegal.
In a previous post, I told my friend Jason that in an earlier
tournament, since we had each no chance to win alone but TOGETHER we
may, and since he had a Succubus Club, we should have flipped a coin
to determine who would give all their stuff to the other. This was
deemed to constitute an illegal deal (were it to have been made).
Note that either one of us doing so voluntarily would not have been
illegal.
Without the deal, Jason gets 0 more VPs, I get 0 more VPs.
With the deal, one of us gets 0 more VPs, the other gets 2 or 3 more
VPs.
But the random, non-game element makes the deal illegal.
In a series of emails with LSJ, we elaborated greatly:
--Any deal involving a decision based on anything unknown or outside
the game, such as "if the next girl I point to is named Sally", then
it is an illegal deal--even if you are sure her name is Sally.
--It does not matter the importance of the decision, from outright
forfeiture to selecting which Methuselah takes the odd 1 point from a
KRC. Unknowns from outside the game do not belong inside the game.
I no longer have the Emails on file (AOL periodically deletes your old
emails without telling you), but perhaps LSJ has them on file, or
remembers what words were exchanged.
> Thirdly, randomised elements in deals are not, of necessity, illegal.
No, they are not.
But randomised elements in deals != deals based on random decisions.
A random decision as part of a deal is explicitly illegal.
> A deal that said "Look, I'll try and get this bleed through and oust her.
> She's got so much intercept that I'll *have* to play Walk Through
> Arcadia on it. If I don't get through, I'll try such-and-such on my
> next action instead, if you help me."
Again, playing WtA is not a random decision. Choosing between playing
WtA and Daring the Dawn with rock-paper-scissors is a random decision.
> A plot between a predator and the
> prey of the same person might involve such. The deal involves random
> elements, and such are not inherently illegal. Per the Judges
> guidelines:
>
> Players participating in standard table talk or in-game
> agreements should not be considered in violation of this rule as
> long as they meet the following criteria:
> <snip>
> - No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the
> winner.
To what does the above refer with "this rule"?
That is, which rule is this an exception to? I wish to look it up.
> Random elements in a deal are, therefore, not inherently unacceptable.
I think we need LSJ's commentary here before we can continue.
As I see it, either you are mistaken about what is legal, I am
mistaken about what LSJ wrote, or LSJ has made an oversight.
Either way, we'll surely know soon enough.
-- Brian
James Coupe
>it, yes, it's a deal.
There's nothing to agree to.
"I'm going to do <X>."
"Err, okay, you do whatever you want."
Not a deal.
>> Additionally, if a player has two alternate ways to gain a
>> table win or two alternate ways to maximise their VPs (to within an
>> acceptable level of probability, ask a judge), selecting between the two
>> with a coin flip would not be illegal, since in either instance the
>> player would be maximising their chance to win.
>
>I never said that was illegal.
Hello?
"Although you may personally make a decision about the game based on
random or non-game-related circumstances, you may not state that you
are going to do so to another player, or it becomes an illegal deal."
Random. Telling someone. Illegal deal.
This is what you said.
> My guess is it's not.
It's not. Because your previous post was wrong.
>Without the deal, Jason gets 0 more VPs, I get 0 more VPs.
>With the deal, one of us gets 0 more VPs, the other gets 2 or 3 more
>VPs.
>But the random, non-game element makes the deal illegal.
That involves a good stab at a random selection of the winner, to within
a reasonable level of confidence from where I stand - 2 VPs is certainly
sufficient for a table win, with 3 making it guaranteed.
This would be illegal per the cited guidelines.
>--Any deal involving a decision based on anything unknown or outside
>the game, such as "if the next girl I point to is named Sally", then
>it is an illegal deal--even if you are sure her name is Sally.
Your definition of deal involves one person speaking out loud, however.
"Although you may personally make a decision about the game based on
random or non-game-related circumstances, you may not state that you
are going to do so to another player, or it becomes an illegal deal."
This is simply wrong. Telling other people what you are going to do
does not constitute a deal. You said it does. This makes you wrong.
It is also wrong in other ways. It is perfectly acceptable behaviour to
make a deal with someone that goes like:
"Crap... I've got maybe one turn left at the moment. Hmm... I've got,
what, 20-25 cards left in my library? Well, I know there's at least 3
rushes in there. If you rescue Volker for me and I can pull a rush next
turn, I'll rush Arika to keep her off your back; if not, well, I'll <do
something else>. Okay?"
There's a very random element there. If <x> I'll do <y>, else <z>. And
you can't control <x> perfectly, because you don't know what you're
going to draw. It's "based on anything unknown" (your words). I do not
know what I will draw.
Random elements (at the time of the deal) in determining deals happen
all the time. If I can get this through, if I can draw <x>, if... Lots
of them happen.
>> A plot between a predator and the
>> prey of the same person might involve such. The deal involves random
>> elements, and such are not inherently illegal. Per the Judges
>> guidelines:
>>
>> Players participating in standard table talk or in-game
>> agreements should not be considered in violation of this rule as
>> long as they meet the following criteria:
>> <snip>
>> - No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the
>> winner.
>
>To what does the above refer with "this rule"?
>That is, which rule is this an exception to? I wish to look it up.
The bit where it says "Judges guidelines" is a subtle hint.