Riddle Phantastique with a capacity 1 vampire
floppyzedolfin
on an ally ?
[for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to
reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game,
when there's 1 counter on Wormwood]
The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as
played ?
Name: Riddle Phantastique
[BL:C1, LoB:R]
Cardtype: Action
Clan: Kiasyd
Cost: 2 blood
Burn Option
(D) Put this card on an ally or younger vampire who is not Malkavian
or Malkavian antitribu. Put X riddle counters on this card, where X is
half the capacity of the acting vampire (round down). The minion with
this card burns 1 riddle counter instead of untapping during his or
her untap phase. Burn this card when the last counter is removed. You
may not play this card if another Riddle Phantastique is in play.
LSJ
> What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique
> on an ally ?
> [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to
> reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game,
> when there's 1 counter on Wormwood]
>
> The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as
> played ?
Yes.
Salem
> floppyzedolfin wrote:
>> What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique
>> on an ally ?
>> [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to
>> reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game,
>> when there's 1 counter on Wormwood]
>>
>> The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as
>> played ?
>
> Yes.
There have been numerous statements made by the general vtes public on
this newsgroup about how playing 0 for Secret Horde means it stays in
play indefinitely (or until topped up with a Goth band ;).
does this ruling mean those people have been wrong all along?
--
salem
LSJ
Well, a Secret Horde with 0 counters is burned.
CthuluKitty
>
> Well, a Secret Horde with 0 counters is burned.
Is that an answer to the question?
The text on both cards says to burn it when the last counter is
removed, not when there are 0 counters.
Bram Vink
> floppyzedolfin wrote:
> > What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique
> > on an ally ?
> > [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to
> > reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game,
> > when there's 1 counter on Wormwood]
>
> > The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as
> > played ?
>
> Yes.
This seems contrary to cardtext. The last counter is never removed.
That's the clause for burning. This doesn't come to pass, so there
doesnt seem any reason for it to burn.
However when following cardtext, the vampire untaps regardlessly, as
there's no counters to burn instead of untapping.
Why would it burn? Ruling? If so, it seems like an unneccessary ruling
to me. There's no benefit to having a 0 counter riddle, aside from
preventing another kyasid from playing any. That seems unlikely at
best.
Cheers,
B
> > Name: Riddle Phantastique
> > [BL:C1, LoB:R]
> > Cardtype: Action
> > Clan: Kiasyd
> > Cost: 2 blood
> > Burn Option
> > (D) Put this card on an ally or younger vampire who is not Malkavian
> > or Malkavian antitribu. Put X riddle counters on this card, where X is
> > half the capacity of the acting vampire (round down). The minion with
> > this card burns 1 riddle counter instead of untapping during his or
> > her untap phase. Burn this card when the last counter is removed. You
> > may not play this card if another Riddle Phantastique is in play.-
LSJ
> On 7 mrt, 19:21, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> floppyzedolfin wrote:
>>> What would happen if a vampire of capacity 1 plays Riddle Phantastique
>>> on an ally ?
>>> [for instance, it _could_ be Mata Hari, using her Ankara Citadel to
>>> reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game,
>>> when there's 1 counter on Wormwood]
>>> The "last counter" is never "removed". Would the card be burned as
>>> played ?
>> Yes.
>
> This seems contrary to cardtext. The last counter is never removed.
> That's the clause for burning. This doesn't come to pass, so there
> doesnt seem any reason for it to burn.
Perhaps so. It's a valid point.
> However when following cardtext, the vampire untaps regardlessly, as
> there's no counters to burn instead of untapping.
Incorrect. The vampire doesn't untap.
Burning the counter "instead" is mandatory, not optional.
Burning a counter from a card that has none has no effect.
> Why would it burn? Ruling? If so, it seems like an unneccessary ruling
> to me. There's no benefit to having a 0 counter riddle, aside from
> preventing another kyasid from playing any. That seems unlikely at
> best.
Except for the benefit of preventing the vampire from ever untapping "as normal"
again (until some external means of burning the Riddle is applied), yes.
That's a pretty big benefit, though. Enough to warrant a little dance with the
wording to get the designer intent to show through (exp. when the card indicates
designer intent so clearly -- the text indicates that the card believes there
are counters on it as long as it is in play).
Contrast Powerbase: New York, the ruling on which (combined with card text, as
you say) probably led to all the judgments on Secret Horde for zero remaining in
play.
PB:NY and Riddle are at odds. PB:NY is strictly wallpapaer (and probably fails
to achieve designer intent -- the intent seeming to be that it start with three
counters).
Those three are the only ones who can start empty (not counting Anathema, which
doesn't use the "is removed" template).
The Horde doesn't matter much one way or the other (not abusable or problematic
either way).
PB:NY doesn't function unless it stays in play when played at zero.
Riddle is problematic if it stays in play when played at zero.
PB:NY doesn't get played anyhow, so the question of it losing function is moot.
If anyone cares to play it, however, the old ruling stands -- it is only burned
when reduced to zero from a non-zero number of counters.
The two that actually may see play, Riddle and Horde, follow the same ruling as
each other (and contrary to PB:NY) -- they both burn when empty.
I'll clarify the official card text for those two.
If PB:NY ever gets reprinted, it'll probably be with a three-pool start (and
burn when empty). But that (reprinting it at all) seems unlikely.
Ben Swainbank
> Bram Vink wrote:
>
> Riddle is problematic if it stays in play when played at zero.
>
Not really. The described scenario of "Mata Hari, using her Ankara
Citadel to
reduce the cost of Riddle Phantastique to 1 at a moment of the game,
when there's 1 counter on Wormwood" is really, really cornercase.
Is there an easier way do it? If Mata Hari doesn't want somone to
untap, Sensory Deprivation is a much easier way to do it. And if there
is Wormwood with 1 counter in play (and at leat 9 other Gehenna
Events), Riddle Phantastique is the least of your worries.
>
> The two that actually may see play, Riddle and Horde, follow the same ruling as
> each other (and contrary to PB:NY) -- they both burn when empty.
>
> I'll clarify the official card text for those two.
>
Change them if you want. But I don't see any balance problems if all
three are only burned on actual counter removal. Seems like consitency
would be preferable here.
-Ben Swainbank
Bram Vink
Nice and clear answer, well appreciated!
B
LSJ
> Seems like consitency
> would be preferable here.
Yes. And the preferable consistency would be that all are burned when empty
(matching intent and intuition).
But that really makes PB:NY unplayable.
So the old ruling on PB:NY still stands if anyone want to try it.
If no one does, then it is effectively consistent any how.
chr...@comcen.com.au
start (and
> burn when empty). But that (reprinting it at all) seems unlikely.
Why not? WW reprinted Powerbase: Rome.
That's a shame. What about releasing a set of wallpaper cards
reprinted and improved? It could be in a similar format to the 10th
Anniversary set. A tin or two of reprinted cards. It would increase
our base of playable cards with little investment. All those
Powerbase: New Yorks gathering dust would spring to life and increase
the diversity of our great game. :)
Chris.
Would love to see reprintings of Phobia, Mummify, PB:NY, Pere Lachaise
etc.
Clément
> > If PB:NY ever gets reprinted, it'll probably be with a three-pool start (and
> > burn when empty). But that (reprinting it at all) seems unlikely.
>
> Why not? WW reprinted Powerbase: Rome.
I don't think PB: Rome is a bad card, actually. It could be useful in
some decks.
PB:NY, on the other hand, is unplayable.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
chr...@comcen.com.au
PB: Rome was bad until WW reprinted it. That's what I mean. If PB:
Rome can be upgraded why not other cards.
Chris.
LSJ
Because PB:NY will remain wallpaper unless is it made unrecognizable, at which
point it should just be a new card.
Teeka
I'm still fairly new to the game, so I don't instantly see why PB:NY
is wallpaper. So what bit exactly makes it wallpaper, but cannot be
changed and still keep the card recognizable? Probably the fact that
if the counters are stolen one time, the card burns as well. In which
case I don't see why it would become unrecognizable if you just remove
the burn-clause.
How about a making a vampire who can give the PB:NY a boost (like make
the counters unstealable)? Or one who has a cool special only usable
when controlling the PB:NY? or another location with a "if you also
control..." clause (this new card would have to have an ok function by
itself and a strong "superior" one when combined with the PB:NY)?
Just a thought, I just don't like the idea of any cards being
unusable. I'd rather have some new card allowing for a cornercase
combo which would at least make them viable in a small amount of
decks, than just have certain cards be dust-gatherers...
I'm not a big fan of errata myself, but I think all cards that are
currently considered wallpaper could be made "better" by introducing a
new card that combos with it. Like Well-aimed Car for instance, I
mean, we could have a Rico Loco-style vampire who, like, gets an
additional strike when throwing a car, or throw them for free once per
combat, or something. Still under the power curve in all probable
cases, I know, but at least a bit more playable..
LSJ
> I'm not a big fan of errata myself, but I think all cards that are
> currently considered wallpaper could be made "better" by introducing a
> new card that combos with it. Like Well-aimed Car for instance, I
> mean, we could have a Rico Loco-style vampire who, like, gets an
> additional strike when throwing a car, or throw them for free once per
> combat, or something. Still under the power curve in all probable
> cases, I know, but at least a bit more playable..
Ah, yes. That certainly remains a possibility for all cards. Even PB:NY.
With proper support PB:NY may be reprinted (still with the 3-counter start, I
imagine).