Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[LSJ] Descent into Darkness, out of play, and tappedness

44 views
Skip to first unread message

James Coupe

unread,
Sep 7, 2006, 10:25:13 PM9/7/06
to
On IRC just, the concept of the Descent into Darkness + Corporal
Reservoir deck turned up in conversation. (You use Descent into
Darkness to reset the tapped state of multiple Corporal Reservoir
cards.)

I hadn't come across this before, so did a brief Google search.

In <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fdb
06e1a1b8eec6d>, the most recent such ruling I could find, we get:

***
>> If a vampire with a tapped Corporeal
>> Reservoir played Descent into Darkness, would the Corporeal Reservoir
>> be untapped when it reentered play?

> I think that being tapped is a possible condition of some cards. The
> default
> is not being tapped (e.g., being untapped). So I think that cards
> retain their cards and counters but not any other status (like, being
> tapped or not).

Correct. Similarly if the vampire was contested.
***

However, in a post six months earlier <http://groups.google.com/group/re
c.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a5041284934047ea>:

***
> But Descent into Darkness implies, I
> think, that it can bring the Descended vampire back into play after it
> sends the vamp out of play, ie that vampires sent out of play by
> Descent shouldn't "forget" anything about themselves other than
> temporary control effects. For example, a tapped Corporal Reservoir
> on a Descended vampire should still be tapped when it comes back into
> play.

> LSJ?

Yes, similar to Banishing an Embrace.
***

Which seems to suggest the opposite.

Then it was suggested that there's a general rule that cards entering
play do so untapped, which doesn't seem to quite gel with the rulebook
which, in the case of contesting and the influence phase, notes that
they turned up untapped, but doesn't seem to imply a general rule. And
I couldn't see anything on the rulings page under e.g. contesting
vampires, or Banishment, or similar.


So, could I get a brief explanation as to why the earlier ruling is
wrong (assuming the most recent ruling is right) and/or a more general
clarification on the tappedness of cards which leave and re-enter play?
(Possibly going onto the rulings page on white-wolf.com?)

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ

unread,
Sep 8, 2006, 8:19:27 AM9/8/06
to

The "yes, similar to Banishing an Embrace" of the second answer is in
reference to the main question of that paragraph: whether a Descended
Shock Troops reverts to being a master: Discipline card or remains a
"shocked" vampire. The answer is that it remains a vampire, just like
an Embrace remains a vampire (rather than reverting to an action card)
when Banished. I overlooked the non-sequitur bit about Corporeal
Reservoir when answering that question. Clearly Corporeal Resevoir has
no parallel to Embrace (unlike Shock Troops to Embraces).

Out of play cards that enter play do so untapped. (As per the first --
the most recent -- answer above).

You could, for example, get around Sensory Deprivation via contesting
(assuming some other player was kind enough to contest your Sense
Depped vampire and then yield), using the contest to untap the vampire.

LSJ

unread,
Sep 8, 2006, 8:21:06 AM9/8/06
to

Corporal Reservoir, of course.

0 new messages