Harass + declare means
scrote
Cardtype: Action
(D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any
tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable
to continue, in that combat.
Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less
then four blood" as they announce the action?
Matters in a situation where a tapped minion on less than four blood,
the target of the Harass, can untap in repsonse to the action (as the
tapped requirement is no longer being met...).
Cheers,
-Scrote
LSJ
news:1096650992.7...@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
> Harass [CE:C/PTr4, Anarchs:PAG, BH:PTr4]
> Cardtype: Action
>
> (D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any
> tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable
> to continue, in that combat.
>
> Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less
> then four blood" as they announce the action?
No. They simply pick the target.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Peter D Bakija
> (D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any
> tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable
> to continue, in that combat.
>
> Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less
> then four blood" as they announce the action?
>
> Matters in a situation where a tapped minion on less than four blood,
> the target of the Harass, can untap in repsonse to the action (as the
> tapped requirement is no longer being met...).
I'm confused as to what you are confused by, I suppose--to play Harass, you
need to have an appropriate target. An appropriate target is a vampire that
is tapped or has less than 4 blood. If there is no one who fits this bill,
you can't play Harass. If there is someone, you can play Harass and target
the appropriate vampire (who is tapped or has less than 4 blood). Once the
Harass is played, it doesn't matter what happens between the announcing of
the action and the resulting combat.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your rest home."
-Elvis
Sten During
> scrote wrote:
>
>
>>(D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any
>>tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable
>>to continue, in that combat.
>>
>>Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less
>>then four blood" as they announce the action?
>>
>>Matters in a situation where a tapped minion on less than four blood,
>>the target of the Harass, can untap in repsonse to the action (as the
>>tapped requirement is no longer being met...).
>
>
> I'm confused as to what you are confused by, I suppose--to play Harass, you
> need to have an appropriate target. An appropriate target is a vampire that
> is tapped or has less than 4 blood. If there is no one who fits this bill,
> you can't play Harass. If there is someone, you can play Harass and target
> the appropriate vampire (who is tapped or has less than 4 blood). Once the
> Harass is played, it doesn't matter what happens between the announcing of
> the action and the resulting combat.
>
prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying
Mission inferior. Any valid target left?
Sten During
Peter D Bakija
> And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted
> prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying
> Mission inferior. Any valid target left?
???
You are losing me here. You need a valid target to play the card. Once the
card is played, it doesn't matter what happens. The action has been played.
To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4
blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you
have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion
after the action has already been played.
Darky
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht
news:BD8345D0.19D9D%pd...@lightlink.com...
> Sten During wrote:
>
> > And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted
> > prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying
> > Mission inferior. Any valid target left?
>
> ???
>
> You are losing me here. You need a valid target to play the card. Once the
> card is played, it doesn't matter what happens. The action has been
played.
> To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4
> blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition),
you
> have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion
> after the action has already been played.
no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which
leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search up
relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it.
-Bram Vink
Sten During
> Sten During wrote:
>
>
>>And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted
>>prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying
>>Mission inferior. Any valid target left?
>
>
> ???
>
> You are losing me here. You need a valid target to play the card. Once the
> card is played, it doesn't matter what happens. The action has been played.
> To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4
> blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you
> have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion
> after the action has already been played.
>
That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ
could either verify or declare me wrong.
Sten During
carl
"Darky" wrote
> no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which
> leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search
up
> relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it.
Theoretically one could use a simple Wake to untap in response to the
(d)Harass. Therefore "blocking" the attack BUT since the target is
not-tapped (and presumably has more than 4blood) it renders the
target invalid for the action.
The Meth then bitches and whines like a lawyering rpg'er that they
don't even have to combat because the target is invalid, and therefore
the action invalid.
solution: strike the whiney Meth for 3points blood (and I ain't talking
pool)
for being such a wally.
Darky
"carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:OGp7d.8948$JQ4.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Darky" wrote
> > no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which
> > leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to
search
> up
> > relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it.
>
> Theoretically one could use a simple Wake to untap in response to the
> (d)Harass. Therefore "blocking" the attack BUT since the target is
> not-tapped (and presumably has more than 4blood) it renders the
> target invalid for the action.
Wake doesn't untap your vampire though, it allows him to play cards *as if*
untapped.
A vampire that has played Wake with evenings freshness is still a legal
target for ambush/harass.
> The Meth then bitches and whines like a lawyering rpg'er that they
> don't even have to combat because the target is invalid, and therefore
> the action invalid.
>
> solution: strike the whiney Meth for 3points blood (and I ain't talking
> pool)
> for being such a wally.
after you tell him he's wrong as well. :-)
-Bram Vink
Jyhad_addict
you are right, it is like Entrenching, if you have 4 blood and play
Entrenching using an elder impersonation (leaving you to 3 blood) to
avoid blockers, the action fizzles, because when it is about to
resolve, you have only 3 blood instead of 4.
But practicaly, if you harash/ambush someone and he plays a 2nd
tradition or read the winds or untaps via Eternal Vigilance, then DO
NOT use stealth, let him block and get in combat.
I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in
respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to
block" text, so
there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target
untapping.
henrik isaksson
news:c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com...
Babble is your friend here! =)
/henrik isaksson
Jyhad_addict
> "Darky" wrote
> > no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which
> > leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search
> up
> > relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it.
>
> Theoretically one could use a simple Wake to untap in response to the
> (d)Harass. Therefore "blocking" the attack BUT since the target is
> not-tapped (and presumably has more than 4blood) it renders the
> target invalid for the action.
>
nor correct, Wake or Forced donot untap your minion, they just allow you
to play reaction cards or block "as though untapped" for the duration of the action.
Patrick Lusk
On 10/2/04 6:16 AM, in article
c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com, "Jyhad_addict"
<geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote:
<snip>
> you are right, it is like Entrenching, if you have 4 blood and play
> Entrenching using an elder impersonation (leaving you to 3 blood) to
> avoid blockers, the action fizzles, because when it is about to
> resolve, you have only 3 blood instead of 4.
> But practicaly, if you harash/ambush someone and he plays a 2nd
> tradition or read the winds or untaps via Eternal Vigilance, then DO
> NOT use stealth, let him block and get in combat.
> I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in
> respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to
> block" text, so
> there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target
> untapping.
It's not specific to a rush action, of course, but Zillah's Tears can be
burned "at any time," which should allow a Sabbat vampire to unatp and not
attempt to block.
- Pat
Reyda
"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> a écrit dans le message de
news:c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com...
> you are right, it is like Entrenching, if you have 4 blood and play
> Entrenching using an elder impersonation (leaving you to 3 blood) to
> avoid blockers, the action fizzles, because when it is about to
> resolve, you have only 3 blood instead of 4.
> But practicaly, if you harash/ambush someone and he plays a 2nd
> tradition or read the winds or untaps via Eternal Vigilance, then DO
> NOT use stealth, let him block and get in combat.
> I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in
> respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to
> block" text, so
> there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target
> untapping.
The best case i can see is nose of the hound (aus) which has inherent
stealth vs Zillah's tears or Special report. Even, a Harrass played by
muaziz would fall short with ZT or SpR : it's kind of bugging for a
multirush deck to be stopped by a glitch in the rules =/
LSJ
>>blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you
>>have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion
>>after the action has already been played.
>
>
> no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which
> leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search up
> relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it.
Correct.
"Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not
tapped when it comes time to resolve the action.
--
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/
Peter D Bakija
> That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ
> could either verify or declare me wrong.
What ruling on Ambush?
Peter D Bakija
> Correct.
>
> "Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not
> tapped when it comes time to resolve the action.
What?
Darky
> Sten During wrote:
>
> > That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ
> > could either verify or declare me wrong.
>
> What ruling on Ambush?
>
LSJ states in here:
>Also note:
>
>d/ if your prey's first action is to ambush Torvus, you can burn the Edge
>to untap him, making him an illegal target for Ambush and thus causing
>Ambush to fizzle at resolution.
-Bram Vink
Darky
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Correct.
> >
> > "Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not
> > tapped when it comes time to resolve the action.
>
> What?
An action in which you state a legal target, which becomes illegal (does no
longer meet the requirements) before the action is resolved, fizzles.
There's other examples, but ambush is probably the easiest one.
-Bram Vink
henrik isaksson
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BD8434B2.19DD3%pd...@lightlink.com...
> Sten During wrote:
>
> > That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ
> > could either verify or declare me wrong.
>
> What ruling on Ambush?
>
>
Same rulings goes the other way, for instance with mind numb. Another player
plays mind numb on your untapped vampire with DEM. He plays babble on
another minion and mind numb fizzles. =)
Or any burn/steal retainer or equipment when the target is gone when it's
time to resolve.
/henrik isaksson
/henrik isaksson
Sten During
> Sten During wrote:
>
>
>>That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ
>>could either verify or declare me wrong.
>
>
> What ruling on Ambush?
>
Answer's given elsewhere in this thread.
I assume it's a bad idea for your Salubri with superior obfuscate
to play Faceless Night at superior when your target for Spirit
Marionette blocks. Or any Combat Ends, continue... for that matter.
Basic ruling, I assume, is that if there's not a valid target when
the action resolves the action fizzles.
Sten During
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>
>>Correct.
>>
>>"Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not
>>tapped when it comes time to resolve the action.
>
>
> What?
An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush)
cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e.,
the target must meet the parameters specified.
You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter
combat with an untapped minion.
Peter D Bakija
> An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush)
> cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e.,
> the target must meet the parameters specified.
>
> You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter
> combat with an untapped minion.
Ok then.
Jyhad_addict
> "Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
> news:c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to
> > block" text, so
> > there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target
> > untapping.
>
> Babble is your friend here! =)
>
> /henrik isaksson
YES!, you are correct my friend, that is why i said "i am not
aware...",
lazy me didn't want to search at ELDB for a card or effect that can do
such a thing. But i have suspected that there might be such a card
that slipped my mind at the time.
So, it is true, babble is my friend to make Ambush, Harass and
Nose of the Hound (inferior auspex) users cry in agony. :)
Geoff
>
> An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush)
> cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e.,
> the target must meet the parameters specified.
>
> You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter
> combat with an untapped minion.
You may wish to reconsider this. "Fizzle" results previouslly were,
iirc, for being unable to pay the cost when it came time to resolve
the action. The ambush was legally played and a target legally
selected, the only thing left to resolve is success and cost. Ambush
doesnt care what the status of the minion is after it is played, so
long as it was legal at play.
Otherwise this ruling will make bums rush THE rush card. Not that it
wasn't already imo, but that will be even more the case now.
G
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<UlC7d.656750$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush)
>>cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e.,
>>the target must meet the parameters specified.
>>
>>You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter
>>combat with an untapped minion.
>
>
>
> You may wish to reconsider this. "Fizzle" results previouslly were,
> iirc, for being unable to pay the cost when it came time to resolve
> the action. The ambush was legally played and a target legally
> selected, the only thing left to resolve is success and cost. Ambush
> doesnt care what the status of the minion is after it is played, so
> long as it was legal at play.
"Previously"?
This *is* the "previously" ruling. Nothing has changed (except that
now a few more people are aware of it).
If the action is not valid when it comes time to resolve it (e.g.,
the cost cannot be paid, the acting minion isn't ready, the target
doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid, or a necessary component of
the action is missing) then the action fizzles.
> Otherwise this ruling will make bums rush THE rush card. Not that it
> wasn't already imo, but that will be even more the case now.
No, this ruling changes nothing, since it is how it has been.
Peter D Bakija
> "Previously"?
> This *is* the "previously" ruling. Nothing has changed (except that
> now a few more people are aware of it).
> If the action is not valid when it comes time to resolve it (e.g.,
> the cost cannot be paid, the acting minion isn't ready, the target
> doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid, or a necessary component of
> the action is missing) then the action fizzles.
Given that I am now one of the people who is now aware of this ruling, and
was previously unaware, in regards to, say, Harass, what are the corner case
situations where this actually happens?
I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a tapped minion. The only way I
can think of this action fizzling is:
-Target plays 2nd Tradition or Special Report and attempts to block, as
required, and then I cleverly circumvent their block with some stealth. I
get there, they are untapped, action fizzles. Unlikely, but possible. And
stupid.
-Target plays 2nd Tradition or Special Report. They block me. Combat ensues.
I play Form of Mist and continue the Harass. They play Cat's Guidance to
untap (?) When I get to the second combat, it fizzles, as the minion is
untapped. Maybe.
-Another vampire of target plays Babble. Slightly more likely than above.
-Umm, uh, they have a Godzilla's Tears on them, and they use it to untap in
response to the attack attempt.
Anything else I am missing?
I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a vampire with less than 4 blood.
The only way i can think of this fizzling is:
-They block my action. I let them block. We strike each other. My opponent
hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike
is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste
pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure
if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the
second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass
continues via the Form of Mist, so the second combat fizzles. This highly
convoluted chain of events work the way I think it does?
Anything else on this front?
Derek Ray
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> mumbled something about:
>LSJ wrote:
>
>> "Previously"?
>> This *is* the "previously" ruling. Nothing has changed (except that
>> now a few more people are aware of it).
>> If the action is not valid when it comes time to resolve it (e.g.,
>> the cost cannot be paid, the acting minion isn't ready, the target
>> doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid, or a necessary component of
>> the action is missing) then the action fizzles.
>
>Given that I am now one of the people who is now aware of this ruling, and
>was previously unaware, in regards to, say, Harass, what are the corner case
>situations where this actually happens?
More often occurs with Nose of the Hound (built in +1 stealth) and
Ambush, but could occur with Harass. Zillah's Tears and Eternal
Vigilance are both convenient for this, though; you untap and attempt to
block. The rusher is now left in the unuseful position of needing to
add stealth to keep his maneuver (or press), but being unable to do so
without fizzling his action. 2nd Tradition also works, although it's
harder to stealth past a 2nd Tradition.
There are more untap-effects available in the game now than there used
to be; Torvus' special, of course, being one. I'm sure there are more
that are out there than I'm able to think of off the top of my head.
It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the
rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning
the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle.
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
Peter D Bakija
> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the
> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning
> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle.
Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush...
salem
<pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the
>> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning
>> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle.
>
>Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush...
Alexandra is a slightly more likely scenario, too.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Reyda
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:pq75m05so8um0jkr3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Peter D Bakija
> <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled:
>
> >Derek Ray wrote:
> >
> >> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the
> >> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning
> >> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle.
> >
> >Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush...
>
> Alexandra is a slightly more likely scenario, too.
not really,since her card text is "once during your turn, you may tap or
untap"... and i doubt you would rush yourself even if the rules allowed it
;)
LSJ
Anneke. Temptation (to steal the target). Maybe others. They'd be obvious
by card text, I'd wager.
>
> I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a vampire with less than 4 blood.
> The only way i can think of this fizzling is:
>
> -They block my action. I let them block. We strike each other. My opponent
> hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike
> is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste
> pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure
> if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the
> second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass
Interesting question. I'll get an answer before the end of the day...
> continues via the Form of Mist, so the second combat fizzles. This highly
> convoluted chain of events work the way I think it does?
>
> Anything else on this front?
Temptation again. Blood Tears + untap. Maybe others.
Emmit Svenson
> I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a vampire with less than 4 blood.
> The only way i can think of this fizzling is:
> Anything else on this front?
I've fizzled a low-blood Harass by tapping some Corporeal Reservoirs.
James Coupe
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike
> > is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste
> > pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure
> > if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the
> > second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass
>
> Interesting question. I'll get an answer before the end of the day...
http://groups.google.com/groupsselm=3CA5C0D9.5E86E1E1%40white-wolf.com
> If I block an action, and the acting minion plays Form of Mist, can I
> play Cat's Guidance before the action is complete, to untap and try to
> block again?
Yes. CG is played after the block-combat ends.
[LSJ 20020330]
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though!
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.
LSJ
news:3y8yal6...@newred.gradwell.net...
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>
> > Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > > hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional
strike
> > > is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The
Taste
> > > pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm
unsure
> > > if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and
before the
> > > second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my
Harass
> >
> > Interesting question. I'll get an answer before the end of the day...
>
> http://groups.google.com/groupsselm=3CA5C0D9.5E86E1E1%40white-wolf.com
> > If I block an action, and the acting minion plays Form of Mist, can I
> > play Cat's Guidance before the action is complete, to untap and try to
> > block again?
>
> Yes. CG is played after the block-combat ends.
> [LSJ 20020330]
Thanks for digging that up, James.
Actual link contains a questionmark, though:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CA5C0D9...@white-wolf.com
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
scrote
Babble [BH:C/PM]
Cardtype: Reaction
Discipline: Dementation
[dem] Give another ready minion +1 intercept.
[DEM] Tap this vampire to untap another ready minion. Not usable by a
blocking minion.
Which is why I asked the question in the first place.
Cheers,
-Scrote
salem
scrawled:
ah but you're forgetting the swathe of malk oot rush decks using
madness network during your turn....
*cough*
Peter D Bakija
> Babble [BH:C/PM]
> Cardtype: Reaction
>
> Discipline: Dementation
>
> [dem] Give another ready minion +1 intercept.
> [DEM] Tap this vampire to untap another ready minion. Not usable by a
> blocking minion.
>
>
> Which is why I asked the question in the first place.
Yeah. I already got that one. See how it is third in the list I posted?
:-)
scrote
> scrote wrote:
>
> > Babble [BH:C/PM]
> > Cardtype: Reaction
> >
> > Discipline: Dementation
> >
> > [dem] Give another ready minion +1 intercept.
> > [DEM] Tap this vampire to untap another ready minion. Not usable by a
> > blocking minion.
> >
> >
> > Which is why I asked the question in the first place.
>
> Yeah. I already got that one. See how it is third in the list I posted?
>
> :-)
So you did. Guess I wasn't paying enough attention.
It was pretty funny when the situation came up actually. I was playing
a social game on the Australian NAtionals weekend (just gone).
Borrowed a Muddled VH deck that tooled up the MVH and intercepted with
them. I ended up bleeding the owner of the deck and when he tried to
harass my tapped guy on five blood I babbled him. The rusher was most
impressed.
Cheers,
-Scrote
Reyda
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:10:27 +0200, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com>
> scrawled:
>
> >
> >"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> >news:pq75m05so8um0jkr3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Peter D Bakija
> >> <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled:
> >>
> >> >Derek Ray wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the
> >> >> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then
burning
> >> >> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle.
> >> >
> >> >Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush...
> >>
> >> Alexandra is a slightly more likely scenario, too.
> >
> >not really,since her card text is "once during your turn, you may tap or
> >untap"... and i doubt you would rush yourself even if the rules allowed
it
> >;)
>
> ah but you're forgetting the swathe of malk oot rush decks using
> madness network during your turn....
>
> *cough*
i was leaving it open for you to mention it and show us your v:tes
culture...