Combo question
Luis P. Duarte
of Leopold? If so, how does it works?
I read it somewhere but i can't figure it out...!
Thanx a lot!
.- Luis....@ip.pt
Joshua Duffin
: Is there in "famous" combo using Cryptic Mission and Society
: of Leopold? If so, how does it works?
: I read it somewhere but i can't figure it out...!
I don't know how famous it is, and it's not exactly a direct combo in
the way that (for example) Disarm and Decapitate are. The idea is to
use Cryptic Missions to reduce a vampire to 0 blood and then play
Society of Leopold on 'em while they're empty (or play Society and
then reduce them to 0 blood before their next turn). Then, being at
0 blood, the vamp with Society will be burned.
("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her
controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card
either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's
choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any
other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.")
In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick.
I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf
but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-)
and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday...
Josh
sadly it turns out I only have maybe 11 Cryptic Missions at the moment...
James Coupe
<du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes
>(I want to say Richard Zopf
>but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-)
Robert Goudie, of V:EKN I believe.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Chris Berger
> I don't know how famous it is, and it's not exactly a direct combo in
> the way that (for example) Disarm and Decapitate are. The idea is to
> use Cryptic Missions to reduce a vampire to 0 blood and then play
> Society of Leopold on 'em while they're empty (or play Society and
> then reduce them to 0 blood before their next turn). Then, being at
> 0 blood, the vamp with Society will be burned.
>
> ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her
> controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card
> either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's
> choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any
> other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.")
>
> In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick.
> but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-)
>
controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought
about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I
don't think so.)
I think the "trick" is this: If the vampire is at 0 blood (or 1 blood),
and has the Society on them, then they may burn 1 blood (and ignore the
effect if at 0 blood already) to prevent being burned. This vampire is
then (barring other effects) forced to hunt. Then, on the next turn,
they have the same thing happen. So, it seems more of a slightly silly
locking-down-peoples-vampires trick. The forced to hunt thing gets
around the ability to move the Society. (Am I really wrong about being
able to choose burning blood when there's none to burn?)
-Chris
James Hamblin
>
> Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the
> controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought
> about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I
> don't think so.)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Leopold _does_ burn an empty vampire
(since they _can't_ burn one blood)... LSJ?
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"Oh, there you are. Out of donuts, are we?" -- Fraser
Official Jyhad/V:tES FAQ Maintainer
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html
LSJ
>
> >
> > I don't know how famous it is, and it's not exactly a direct combo in
> > the way that (for example) Disarm and Decapitate are. The idea is to
> > use Cryptic Missions to reduce a vampire to 0 blood and then play
> > Society of Leopold on 'em while they're empty (or play Society and
> > then reduce them to 0 blood before their next turn). Then, being at
> > 0 blood, the vamp with Society will be burned.
> >
> > ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her
> > controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card
> > either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's
> > choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any
> > other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.")
> >
> > In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick.
> > I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf
> > but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-)
> > and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday...
> >
> controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought
> about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I
> don't think so.)
>
> and has the Society on them, then they may burn 1 blood (and ignore the
> effect if at 0 blood already) to prevent being burned. This vampire is
> then (barring other effects) forced to hunt. Then, on the next turn,
> they have the same thing happen. So, it seems more of a slightly silly
> locking-down-peoples-vampires trick. The forced to hunt thing gets
> around the ability to move the Society. (Am I really wrong about being
> able to choose burning blood when there's none to burn?)
No, not about that - but you are wrong in the belief that failing to
burn a blood satifies the "either ... or" condition of Society.
Since, by failing to burn a blood, the condition remains unsatisfied,
you'll still have to burn the vampire.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
James Coupe
<ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes
>Chris Berger wrote:
>>
>> Umm... I think that the vampire being at 0 blood doesn't prohibit the
>> controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought
>> about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I
>> don't think so.)
>
>(since they _can't_ burn one blood)... LSJ?
LAst time I asked LSJ, it went like this:
Burn a blood or get burned...
Did you burn a blood? No, so you get burned.
xi...@waste.org
Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > ("Put this card on a vampire. During his or her
> > controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card
> > either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's
> > choice). A vampire with this card can put it on any
> > other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action.")
> >
> controller from choosing that instead of burning. (I haven't thought
> about Jyhad in a while, so I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, but I
> don't think so.)
>
> and has the Society on them, then they may burn 1 blood (and ignore the
> effect if at 0 blood already) to prevent being burned. This vampire is
> then (barring other effects) forced to hunt. Then, on the next turn,
> they have the same thing happen. So, it seems more of a slightly silly
> locking-down-peoples-vampires trick. The forced to hunt thing gets
> around the ability to move the Society. (Am I really wrong about being
> able to choose burning blood when there's none to burn?)
In general, I think you're right...but I'd argue that this specific card gets
around the standard not needing to burn blood if you can't. I don't see
anything from the card text specifically indicating that this is the case,
but I certainly can't *defend* the thought process of "Oh, I'll choose to
burn the blood...whoops, looks like I don't have any blood...too bad. I'll
go hunt now." Personally, I think it's pretty weird and annoying that you
can do that...at least with special abilities and such. Like Kalinda (?) --
the burn 2 blood to bleed at +1 with +1 stealth (or something like that). If
you play a card and you can't burn the blood, I believe you aren't able to
play it. Like Govern the Unaligned...well...it's one blood...you should be
hunting. Let's say Kiss of Ra. If you can't burn the blood, I don't *think*
you can play it. However, if you have an ability that requires you to burn
blood, you can ignore the full cost if you can't pay it. In the case of
Cryptic Mission, I think it's all well and good that no ill effects are
suffered when used on a vampire with no blood on it, but for the most part,
otherwise, I think it's pretty lame.
Xian
"you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out."
-Jasper Phillips
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
LSJ
> If you play a card and you can't burn the blood, I believe you aren't able to
> play it. Like Govern the Unaligned...well...it's one blood...you should be
> hunting. Let's say Kiss of Ra. If you can't burn the blood, I don't *think*
> you can play it. However, if you have an ability that requires you to burn
> blood, you can ignore the full cost if you can't pay it. In the case of
> Cryptic Mission, I think it's all well and good that no ill effects are
> suffered when used on a vampire with no blood on it, but for the most part,
> otherwise, I think it's pretty lame.
I believe that all of the cases you would label "lame" are illegal (or,
at least, don't function the way that you think is lame).
If you can/must burn blood "to" do/get something, and you fail to burn
the blood, then you also fail to do/get that something.
You cannot use an ability if you can't pay the full cost of using that
ability.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Richard D. Zopf
>In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick.
>I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf
>but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-)
>and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday...
Wasn't me, but I'll happily take the credit for it ;-)
Regards,
R. David Zopf
guenh...@mindspring.com
Atom Weaver
and future Prince of Charlotte, NC
jt...@cornell.edu
guenh...@mindspring.com wrote:
> du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
>
> >In other words, it's a slightly silly burning-peoples-vampires trick.
> >I heard of it from someone on this newsgroup (I want to say Richard Zopf
> >but that might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it starts with an "R" though ;-)
> >and haven't tried it yet but hope to someday...
>
> Wasn't me, but I'll happily take the credit for it ;-)
>
Somebody else said they thought it was Robert Goudie, which is
plausible. Even starts with an "R". ^_^
Josh
not that I can remember who it was that said that... obviously I'm
all kinds of bad with names...