Two (unrelated) questions: Zelios and The Oath
Jozxyqk
location with his blood instead."
A) When does Zelios need to tap, in order to use his ability?
That is, if I am playing the Parthenon and would like to use
his ability, do I have to tap him before the opportunity to
play Sudden Reversal arises?
B) Can I tap Zelios when putting a location into play that doesn't
have a pool cost? (if I want him tapped without taking an action
for some reason)
C) Can I tap Zelios when putting a locquipment into play?
D) If C is yes, can I wait until action resolution to tap him?
Now my question about The Oath:
"A vampire with 2 oath counters from this vampire cannot block or
enter combat with this vampire."
The general question is: What is the definition of "cannot enter
combat with"?
The specific examples are below, with the assumption that
Vampire A has placed 2 oath counters onto Vampire B.
A) If Vampire A blocks Vampire B, does the action simply end with
no combat?
B) Can Vampire A and Vampire B be targets of Taunt the Caged Beast
(superior), Blissful Agony, or other third-party-sends-you-into-combat
effects which would make Vampire B the one "entering combat with"
Vampire A?
B2) What about the above effects if Vampire A is chosen to "enter
combat with" Vampire B?
C) If Vampire B is a Slave Gargoyle, and one of his controller's
Tremere get blocked by Vampire A, can the Slave Rule be invoked to
untap the Tremere and tap the Gargoyle but fizzle the combat?
LSJ
> "If Zelios is ready, you may tap him to pay the pool cost of a
> location with his blood instead."
>
> A) When does Zelios need to tap, in order to use his ability?
When the cost is paid.
> That is, if I am playing the Parthenon and would like to use
> his ability, do I have to tap him before the opportunity to
> play Sudden Reversal arises?
No.
> B) Can I tap Zelios when putting a location into play that doesn't
> have a pool cost? (if I want him tapped without taking an action
> for some reason)
YEs.
> C) Can I tap Zelios when putting a locquipment into play?
Yes.
> D) If C is yes, can I wait until action resolution to tap him?
Yes. Indeed, there is no other choice.
> Now my question about The Oath:
> "A vampire with 2 oath counters from this vampire cannot block or
> enter combat with this vampire."
>
> The general question is: What is the definition of "cannot enter
> combat with"?
?
entering combat is prohibited.
> The specific examples are below, with the assumption that
> Vampire A has placed 2 oath counters onto Vampire B.
>
> A) If Vampire A blocks Vampire B, does the action simply end with
> no combat?
Correct.
> B) Can Vampire A and Vampire B be targets of Taunt the Caged Beast
> (superior), Blissful Agony, or other third-party-sends-you-into-combat
> effects which would make Vampire B the one "entering combat with"
> Vampire A?
No. See also Deflection and Minor Boon.
> B2) What about the above effects if Vampire A is chosen to "enter
> combat with" Vampire B?
Combat takes two.
A enters combat with B === B enters combat with A.
It cannot be true that A enters combat with B while B does not enter combat with A.
> C) If Vampire B is a Slave Gargoyle, and one of his controller's
> Tremere get blocked by Vampire A, can the Slave Rule be invoked to
> untap the Tremere and tap the Gargoyle but fizzle the combat?
No.
Chris Berger
>
> > The general question is: What is the definition of "cannot enter
> > combat with"?
>
> ?
>
> entering combat is prohibited.
>
> > The specific examples are below, with the assumption that
> > Vampire A has placed 2 oath counters onto Vampire B.
>
> > A) If Vampire A blocks Vampire B, does the action simply end with
> > no combat?
>
> Correct.
>
> > B) Can Vampire A and Vampire B be targets of Taunt the Caged Beast
> > (superior), Blissful Agony, or other third-party-sends-you-into-combat
> > effects which would make Vampire B the one "entering combat with"
> > Vampire A?
>
> No. See also Deflection and Minor Boon.
>
> > B2) What about the above effects if Vampire A is chosen to "enter
> > combat with" Vampire B?
>
> Combat takes two.
> A enters combat with B === B enters combat with A.
> It cannot be true that A enters combat with B while B does not enter combat with A.
>
> > C) If Vampire B is a Slave Gargoyle, and one of his controller's
> > Tremere get blocked by Vampire A, can the Slave Rule be invoked to
> > untap the Tremere and tap the Gargoyle but fizzle the combat?
>
> No.
Wow! You post a "?" first, like it's a self-evident answer, but your
answer kind of blew me away. I would have personally taken "cannot
enter combat with" to mean "cannot take an action to enter combat
with." Never thought of it the other way. I like that, though.
Means that The Oath is slightly better than I thought it was, though I
still think it sucks. Maybe I'll try playing with it to see...
Though it still seems rare to survive a combat where the "play Taste
of Vitae" step actually occurs (either I don't have a combat deck on
either side of me, or I can S:CE or otherwise avoid combat, or I can't
do that and get totally wrecked to the point where playing The Oath
would be pointless). Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the long run...
The Lasombra
>Means that The Oath is slightly better than I thought it was, though I
>still think it sucks. Maybe I'll try playing with it to see...
>Though it still seems rare to survive a combat where the "play Taste
>of Vitae" step actually occurs (either I don't have a combat deck on
>either side of me, or I can S:CE or otherwise avoid combat, or I can't
>do that and get totally wrecked to the point where playing The Oath
>would be pointless). Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the long run...
I think you are missing the point of The Oath.
"or steals blood from this vampire."
Taste of Vitae is mentioned first, but blood theft is in the position
of finality.
The Oath is a Tongue of the Serpent/Theft of Vitae silver bullet,
because Treaty of Laibach decks are winning all of the tournaments
with their non-damaging strikes that hose fortitude.*1
(Actually, it is really a Call the Lamprey silver bullet, because the
Lasombra are too strong and CtL needs to leave tournament play.)*2
The following library cards allow blood theft during combat:
Absorb the Mind
Call the Lamprey
Diversion
Drain Essence
Kraken's Kiss
Theft of Vitae
Tongue of the Serpent
Veiled Sight
The following crypt cards allow blood theft during combat:
Anastasz di Zagreb
Goratrix
Tariq, The Silent (ADV)
The Oath can be played against all of the above library and crypt
cards. It can also be played against Taste of Vitae.
*1 Yeah, right.
*2 Oh, again with the sarcasm.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
Now also selling boxes and individual cards.
bwross
> The Oath can be played against all of the above library and crypt
> cards. It can also be played against Taste of Vitae.
It can also be used against actions that steal blood because it's also
a Reaction card. So you can add in things like Cryptic Mission, or
more actively, vampires you've made hunt after putting Restricted
Vitae into play. That really seems to be the only way to actually try
to use the card that I can see.
Brent Ross
Jozxyqk
> > The general question is: What is the definition of "cannot enter
> > combat with"?
> ?
> entering combat is prohibited.
...
> Combat takes two.
> A enters combat with B === B enters combat with A.
> It cannot be true that A enters combat with B while B does not enter combat with A.
OK.
The reason I asked is that the phrase "X enters combat with Y" is
used all over the place in card text, so I thought that order mattered.
i.e. I would have thought it was legal for the guy who dropped the oath
counters to rush the guy with the oath counters, but not vice versa.
Good to know.
Salem
> On Feb 10, 12:32 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The Oath can be played against all of the above library and crypt
>> cards. It can also be played against Taste of Vitae.
>
> It can also be used against actions that steal blood because it's also
> a Reaction card. So you can add in things like Cryptic Mission,
hold up!
Cryptic mission *looks* like blood steal at superior, but it is in fact
*not* blood steal.
[tha] (D) Burn 1 blood on a vampire, or do 1 unpreventable damage to any
ally or retainer.
[THA] As above, and the acting vampire gains 1 blood from the blood bank.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Jozxyqk
When you play The Oath, it does not stay in play.
It just puts a counter into play, like Vampiric Disease or
Corruption would.
But, it gives a new possible D action to the person
playing the Oath.
If A played the Oath to put a counter on B, can he
continue to take actions to put more and more Oath
counters onto B, even though only the first 2 matter?
And since this action is not from a card *in play*, is it
repeatable within a single turn?
Chris Berger
No, it's like Vampiric Disease.
Chris Berger
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:15:49 -0800 (PST), Chris Berger wrote:
> >Means that The Oath is slightly better than I thought it was, though I
> >still think it sucks. Maybe I'll try playing with it to see...
> >Though it still seems rare to survive a combat where the "play Taste
> >of Vitae" step actually occurs (either I don't have a combat deck on
> >either side of me, or I can S:CE or otherwise avoid combat, or I can't
> >do that and get totally wrecked to the point where playing The Oath
> >would be pointless). Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the long run...
>
> I think you are missing the point of The Oath.
>
> "or steals blood from this vampire."
>
> Taste of Vitae is mentioned first, but blood theft is in the position
> of finality.
>
> The Oath is a Tongue of the Serpent/Theft of Vitae silver bullet,
> because Treaty of Laibach decks are winning all of the tournaments
> with their non-damaging strikes that hose fortitude.*1
>
> (Actually, it is really a Call the Lamprey silver bullet, because the
> Lasombra are too strong and CtL needs to leave tournament play.)*2
>
Unfortunately, after reading the last two paragraphs, I have no idea
whether the rest of the post was meant seriously or if the whole thing
was a joke. =)
But I still think it sucks. Steal Blood is a rare effect - sure the
Tremere do it a lot, but that's about it. Taste of Vitae is common,
but at least half the time it's played, if not more, The Oath won't do
you much good afterward. So, yeah, IMO, sucks. On the other hand,
I'm willing to admit I've been wrong before (once or twice)... so
maybe it'll start turning up in tournament-winning decks?
LSJ
Correct.
Chris Berger
I missed what your actual question was - my bad. I thought you were
saying that since it doesn't stay in play, it can only be used the
turn it's played. What you actually asked was if it's a repeatable
action, which LSJ answered "you can". Sorry.
Jozxyqk
Can I tap Zelios to absorb the pool cost of a location played
by another Methuselah?
(This may be useful if the jerk is playing Club Zombie in order
to line up a Parity Shift against me, or something...)
Chris Berger
Signs point to no. You don't pay the cost of other methuselah's
master cards, so you can't tap Zelios to pay it with his blood
instead. I believe the text functions identically to "you may pay the
cost by tapping him and paying his blood instead", because "you may
tap him to pay" implies that you are the one paying, and if you aren't
the one responsible for paying the cost, then you may not pay the
cost. LSJ may rule otherwise, but I *think* this is correct.
Jozxyqk
> On Feb 11, 4:16 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> > Another Zelios question:
> > Can I tap Zelios to absorb the pool cost of a location played
> > by another Methuselah?
> >
> > (This may be useful if the jerk is playing Club Zombie in order
> > to line up a Parity Shift against me, or something...)
> Signs point to no. You don't pay the cost of other methuselah's
> master cards, so you can't tap Zelios to pay it with his blood
> instead...
Honestly, I think the answer is "no", too, but for different reasons:
There's nothing in the text that stops it from happening, but it's
all about the Sequencing Rules.
I believe that paying the cost for a card is a mandatory effect
that can not be "passed". So there's never an opportunity for
Zelios to be able to tap when your predator plays that Club
Zombie, because he _must_ pay the cost while he still has the impulse.
And even if someone voluntarily wanted you to pay for their location
with Zelios, they couldn't escape the sequencing of this effect
(because what if you pass on paying the cost, and then Zelios's
controller declines to tap him?)
I also could be wrong.. but the text was just ambiguous enough that
I felt the question needed to be asked.