New Beast Question
Lupus Australis
I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is
now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he
gets them.
What would happen if Beast played Fast Hands to take opponent's weapon.
Is he even allowed to play the card? If so, does the card have no effect,
or is the weapon transferred to him and then burned?
[I suspect it would be transferred to him and then burned, just like
stolen blood in excess of capacity -- a prior example of stealing
something that you cannot have.]
On a similar note. Imagine I have Heidelburg Castle in play, and Beast
out. Someone puts Charnas on another of my minions. Can I tap Heidelburg
to send Charnas to Beast (which burns Charnas)?
Is it forbidden for Charnas to target Beast, or is Charnas merely burned
when this is done?
Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I
keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In
either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect
because he does not have the Stake?
What happens if you play "Shackles of Inky-Doo" on Beast? Does he "have"
the equipment, or is it merely "on" him? Is there a distinction here?
Assuming not, what happens? Is it burned? Does combat end?
What about Paralyze cards like Rowan Ring and Stake? I would assume that,
in this case, the paralyze effect is independent of *having* the item, and
lasts until the vampire is rescued from torpor even if the stake or ring
is burned as soon as Beast receives it?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
LSJ
> I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is
> now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he
> gets them.
>
> What would happen if Beast played Fast Hands to take opponent's weapon.
> Is he even allowed to play the card? If so, does the card have no effect,
> or is the weapon transferred to him and then burned?
Beast cannot play Fast Hands. In general, a minion cannot attempt
to steal equipment that he is prohibited from having [LSJ 980208].
> On a similar note. Imagine I have Heidelburg Castle in play, and Beast
> out. Someone puts Charnas on another of my minions. Can I tap Heidelburg
> to send Charnas to Beast (which burns Charnas)?
No, since Beast cannot have reatiners, you cannot attempt to give
him a retainer.
> Is it forbidden for Charnas to target Beast, or is Charnas merely burned
> when this is done?
It is forbidden.
> Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I
> keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In
> either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect
> because he does not have the Stake?
Not sure. I'd say that the stake is given to Beast and then
(immediately) burned. I'll put that on the RT list for confirmation.
In either case, the victim doesn't untap while in torpor.
> What happens if you play "Shackles of Inky-Doo" on Beast? Does he "have"
> the equipment, or is it merely "on" him? Is there a distinction here?
> Assuming not, what happens? Is it burned? Does combat end?
You cannot Shackle beast.
> What about Paralyze cards like Rowan Ring and Stake? I would assume that,
> in this case, the paralyze effect is independent of *having* the item, and
> lasts until the vampire is rescued from torpor even if the stake or ring
> is burned as soon as Beast receives it?
Yes.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Lupus Australis
> > What happens if you play "Shackles of Inky-Doo" on Beast? Does he "have"
> > the equipment, or is it merely "on" him? Is there a distinction here?
> > Assuming not, what happens? Is it burned? Does combat end?
>
> You cannot Shackle beast.
A minor point for consideration: A shackled minion may "have" the
equipment, but certainly not in the normal sense of the word. His
controller is not the controller of the card.
He does not have it in the same sense that its previous owner had it, and
can never use it. It merely marks him as shackled, and when he he is
unshackled, the card is burned.
Am I correct on this last point? I have been assuming that a Shackled
vampire cannot use the Shackles if he/she somehow gets into combat,
thereby transfering it to a third minion. But I could find no rulings or
clarifications to this effect.
Martin Jamieson
Enabled....
LSJ wrote:
>
> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is
> > now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he
> > gets them.
<Snip...>
> > Suppose I strike Beast with a Wooden Stake for aggravated damage. Do I
> > keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In
> > either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect
> > because he does not have the Stake?
>
> Not sure. I'd say that the stake is given to Beast and then
> (immediately) burned. I'll put that on the RT list for confirmation.
>
> In either case, the victim doesn't untap while in torpor.
>
My god, the man is mortal!
Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the
wooden stake even be able to target beast? Other cards - like kiss of
Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't
Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be
a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call
it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples
(wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). Wooden stake also
has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in
order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you
therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden
stake?
By the way, what happened to the survey that was carried out by Mark.
Have there been any results compiled yet or has it been abandoned. Not
that I'm overly interested in the result - just a little curious.
Martin.
Electronic portal closing..................
Lupus Australis
> Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the
> wooden stake even be able to target beast? Other cards - like kiss of
> Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't
> Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be
> a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call
> it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples
> (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). Wooden stake also
> has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in
> order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you
> therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden
> stake?
I rather dislike this idea...for the following reason.
In terms of disciplines and special abilities, Beast is just about the
most overpowered vampire ever printed. This is compensated for by what
appears, at first glance, to be some serious restrictions (cannot play
action cards or allies, cannot have or use equipment or retainers).
A little thought reveals that this restriction is almost meaningless,
because any deck that features Beast is not going to include any of the
above cards. The restriction of him not being able to do this, is about
as meaningful as a restriction forbidding him from from playing
Thaumaturgy Cards, Obtenebrate Cards, or anything else you have no
intention of putting in your Beast deck. Beast is, quite simply, a rush
deck's dream, with no real downsides. Who cares if he cannot play action
cards? The only action he needs to take is printed right on him.
What you are proposing is to further turn his "restriction" into a bonus,
by making him immune to many things his enemies will try to do to him.
He already has been ruled immune to Shackles and Charnas. I hope he will
not be immune to Stake, Wooden Stake, and Rowan Ring as well.
If Beast were affected normally by Wooden Stake, but, unlike most
vampires, unable to benefit from it's use once he rescues himself, this is
actually the only way that I can think of that his "restriction" could
actually hurt him in a deck designed around him.
LSJ
In a perfect world, Shackles would've said "burn this card to put a Shackle
counter on the opposing minion." However, it isn't and it doesn't. It is
still equipment after being "put on" the opposing minion.
The Shackled minion cannot put the Shackles on another minion, because
(and this is a *really* weak explanation) card text says "you may", and
that "you" is referring to the controller of the card (which didn't change
when the first minion was Shackled).
Factoring in all the questions about how to interact with the equipment
after it is put on a minion (transfering it, Heidelburg, diablerie, Beast,
etc.), this is going to get pretty messy.
I'll put this card on the RT review list to see if a reasonable fix
(and the "mark the opposing minion" seems a fairly reasonable fix,
but I haven't really investigated the issue) can be found.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > > I was wondering about a few issues raised by the new Beast text, who is
> > > now forbidden to "have or use" equipment or retainers, no matter how he
> > > gets them.
> > > keep the Wooden Stake? Or is it transfered to Beast and then burned. In
> > > either case, can Beast untap while in torpor? Or is this not in effect
> > > because he does not have the Stake?
> >
> > Not sure. I'd say that the stake is given to Beast and then
> > (immediately) burned. I'll put that on the RT list for confirmation.
> >
> > In either case, the victim doesn't untap while in torpor.
>
> wooden stake even be able to target beast?
Yes. The Wstake, when used as a strike, is capable of affecting Beast
(doing damage). The "give this eqipment to victim" effect doesn't
even think about occuring until the victim is sent to torpor.
And there's really no way of always knowing whether the target
will prevent enough damage to avoid triggering the inappropriate
(give this equipment to) effect.
> Other cards - like kiss of
> Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't
> Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be
> a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call
> it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples
> (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier).
The real difference is that Kiss of Ra has an explicit restriction
prohibiting its use, whereas Wstake has an additional effect that
occurs only when certain conditions are met. When those conditions
are met, the additional effect is not optional. And, since it
is not allowable, the card is burned.
A minion with a Sport Bike cannot attempt to equip with a Hawg.
But that same minion can take a Vast Wealth action. If that
action retrieves a Hawg, then the Hawg is burned with no other
effect (since it is not allowable).
> Wooden stake also
> has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in
> order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you
> therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden
> stake?
No. You are free to attempt to meet the conditions of the
additional effect if you like.
ber...@cco.caltech.edu
> > Just something to think about. For a little consistency sake, would the
> > wooden stake even be able to target beast? Other cards - like kiss of
> > Ra, for example - cannot target a vampire with fortitude. Wouldn't
> > Beasts little trick of not being able to have equipment or retainers be
> > a similar sort of targeting requirement (or whatever you want to call
> > it). I know there are also obvious differences in the two examples
> > (wooden stake = strike, Kiss of Ra = action modifier). Wooden stake also
> > has the further requirement of needing to do more than one damage in
> > order to transfer the equipment to the hapless minion. Would you
> > therefore be *unable* to do additional damage to Beast with the wooden
> > stake?
>
>
> He already has been ruled immune to Shackles and Charnas. I hope he will
> not be immune to Stake, Wooden Stake, and Rowan Ring as well.
>
> If Beast were affected normally by Wooden Stake, but, unlike most
> vampires, unable to benefit from it's use once he rescues himself, this is
> actually the only way that I can think of that his "restriction" could
> actually hurt him in a deck designed around him.
>
You mention some very good points. I'd like to propose that using Wooden
Stake, etc. on Beast will still have their normal effects on him but will not
transfer or burn. Instead, the original minion should keep them. This seems
to make some sense, as all three seem to have two clauses. a) The paralyze
or do agg damage clause, and b) the "tranfer to victim when used" clause.
Beast should simply cancel the second clause, allowing the wielder to hold on
to his weapon. This also seems simpler and more intuitive than burning the
weapon or ruling that it is burned when transferred to Beast.
-Chris
Martin Jamieson
>
> I rather dislike this idea...for the following reason.
>
> In terms of disciplines and special abilities, Beast is just about the
> most overpowered vampire ever printed. This is compensated for by what
> appears, at first glance, to be some serious restrictions (cannot play
> action cards or allies, cannot have or use equipment or retainers).
>
> A little thought reveals that this restriction is almost meaningless,
> because any deck that features Beast is not going to include any of the
> above cards. The restriction of him not being able to do this, is about
> as meaningful as a restriction forbidding him from from playing
> Thaumaturgy Cards, Obtenebrate Cards, or anything else you have no
> intention of putting in your Beast deck. Beast is, quite simply, a rush
> deck's dream, with no real downsides. Who cares if he cannot play action
> cards? The only action he needs to take is printed right on him.
>
> What you are proposing is to further turn his "restriction" into a bonus,
> by making him immune to many things his enemies will try to do to him.
>
I didn't say that I liked it, I was just pointing it out. Consistency in
the rules seems to be a pretty big issue at the moment and I just
thought I'd try and look at it from a couple of different angles.
Martin.
Lupus Australis
> > He already has been ruled immune to Shackles and Charnas. I hope he will
> > not be immune to Stake, Wooden Stake, and Rowan Ring as well.
> >
> > If Beast were affected normally by Wooden Stake, but, unlike most
> > vampires, unable to benefit from it's use once he rescues himself, this is
> > actually the only way that I can think of that his "restriction" could
> > actually hurt him in a deck designed around him.
>
> You mention some very good points. I'd like to propose that using Wooden
> Stake, etc. on Beast will still have their normal effects on him but will not
> transfer or burn. Instead, the original minion should keep them. This seems
> to make some sense, as all three seem to have two clauses. a) The paralyze
> or do agg damage clause, and b) the "tranfer to victim when used" clause.
> Beast should simply cancel the second clause, allowing the wielder to hold on
> to his weapon. This also seems simpler and more intuitive than burning the
> weapon or ruling that it is burned when transferred to Beast.
Current rulings seem to tend toward the pattern that Beast simply cannot
get equipment in the first place, rather than burning it once he gets it,
so this would seem consistent.
However, transfering and then burning the item makes more "story" sense.
The reason that a Stake paralyzes, (or that a Wooden Stake keeps you from
untapping while in torpor), is that it is stuck through your heart.
Remove the stake, and the vampire is free again.
If I still have a Stake in my hand after striking Beast, it is rather
difficult to see what is keeping Beast in torpor tapped.
If it is burned as soon as Beast gets it, this is still a problem, but
rather less of one. I can still imagine that a piece of wood is stuck
through Beast. The fact that it was burned can be thought of as
representing the fact that (as far as "using" it is concerned) it simply
does not exist in Beast's animal mind. Once Beast is rescued from torpor
and paralysis, he will discard that piece of wood as though it did not
exist. For him, it is not equipment, just a useless piece of wood.