Left for Dead: Insane mental patient
vermillian
turn with my insane mental patient, I could blow up, and then be left
for dead, coming back to life later, yes?
~SV
LSJ
Yes.
--
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/
Flux
> Yes.
*ahm*
I believe he is asking about using the Escaped Mental Patient's ability
to strike for aggravated damage, then using Left for Dead to get him back.
But since the Patient should be killed by damage before his ability
kicks in (since he is using a hand strike, the opposing minion's
probable hand strike for 1 will kill him), Left for Dead will save him
from the damage-death, but leave him ready to still trigger his
special-ability-death.
Of course, if he somehow manages to use his ability and not get killed
during the combat (ie, Memories of Mortality), LfD will indeed save him.
Right?
I remember this coming up in our playgroup and me ruling it this way. I
was pretty sure I had confirmed it with you at the time, but can't find
anything on Google, maybe I asked it by email.
Flux
Chris Berger
"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message
news:asl9cl$sgngr$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> But since the Patient should be killed by damage before his ability
> kicks in (since he is using a hand strike, the opposing minion's
> probable hand strike for 1 will kill him), Left for Dead will save him
> from the damage-death, but leave him ready to still trigger his
> special-ability-death.
>
> Of course, if he somehow manages to use his ability and not get killed
> during the combat (ie, Memories of Mortality), LfD will indeed save him.
>
> Right?
>
ruling (that is, LfD cannot possibly save them if they use their ability). Of
course, I think that particular ruling is completely at odds with logic, so it
wouldn't surprise me to see something insane like having the two ruled
differently despite having identical wording.
vermillian
>
> > vermillian wrote:
> >
> > >So, if I could somehow manage to get into combat during someone elses
> > >turn with my insane mental patient, I could blow up, and then be left
> > >for dead, coming back to life later, yes?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
>
>
> *ahm*
>
> I believe he is asking about using the Escaped Mental Patient's ability
> to strike for aggravated damage, then using Left for Dead to get him back.
And I believe he understood me correctly... What did he think he was
answering?
"Hi. I blocked someone's action with my ally, and he's going to punch
me and kill me, so can I play left for dead and stay alive?"
Sounds nothing like
"I'm a mental patient, I blow up (implied "using my special ability")
and get left for dead."
Sure, I'm getting punched first. I'll burn, ending combat, I play left
for dead, I don't burn, combat's over though already, so I don't burn
again, (cause me burning in the first place ended combat).
Slightly confusing, but, unless LSJ was insulting my intelligence,
that is, that I have NO idea how to play the card left for dead, then
I believe he was answering that question.
BTW, my apologies. Its really called escaped mental patient. I suppose
insane mental patient is redundant, isn't it?
~SV
LSJ
>
> "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message
> news:asl9cl$sgngr$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de...
> > LSJ wrote:
> >
> > But since the Patient should be killed by damage before his ability
> > kicks in (since he is using a hand strike, the opposing minion's
> > probable hand strike for 1 will kill him), Left for Dead will save him
> > from the damage-death, but leave him ready to still trigger his
> > special-ability-death.
> >
> > Of course, if he somehow manages to use his ability and not get killed
> > during the combat (ie, Memories of Mortality), LfD will indeed save him.
> >
> > Right?
> >
> I think this should follow the same precedent as the Blood Brother Ambush
> ruling (that is, LfD cannot possibly save them if they use their ability).
Good point.
I was thinking that the EMP's effect was just "during strike resolution".
But, yes, it is "at the end of combat".
So you could play LfD.
But then LfD would end combat (card text), and the EMP would be burned (card text).
Flux
> Flux wrote in message news:...
>
> >LSJ wrote:
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> >*ahm*
> >
> >I believe he is asking about using the Escaped Mental Patient's ability
> >to strike for aggravated damage, then using Left for Dead to get him
> back.
>
>
> And I believe he understood me correctly... What did he think he was
> answering?
I don't know, but his answer was incorrect for the situation you described.
> "Hi. I blocked someone's action with my ally, and he's going to punch
> me and kill me, so can I play left for dead and stay alive?"
This would be a 'yes'.
> Sounds nothing like
>
> "I'm a mental patient, I blow up (implied "using my special ability")
> and get left for dead."
This would be a 'no', either because he burns to his special and the BBA
ruling is applied or because you get hit for 1 damage and the LfD
triggers the special ability - which case it refered to was left
ambiguous, and if it weren't for the BBA ruling the answers would be
different.
> Sure, I'm getting punched first. I'll burn, ending combat, I play left
> for dead, I don't burn, combat's over though already, so I don't burn
> again, (cause me burning in the first place ended combat).
My answer explained why that could not be done, even ignoring the BBA
precedent. It has became clear from a recent discussion with LSJ that
the burning (from damage) is done while still in combat, so the special
ability would trigger when LfD ends combat.
Now, while the BBA ruling seems justified enough by designer intent (the
BBA was never meant to exist outside of combat), here its application
seems that much more dubious. If I could rule it myself, I'd rather have
the BBA errata'd to burn whenever he is out of combat (as opposed to
when combat ends), and let LfD save the EMP's life if he manages to
reach the end of combat alive. There is reason to believe that if the
EMP burns when combat ends, LfD will end combat redundantly and not
trigger his special text again. But we've been over that road already,
in this case I'm happy to go by LSJ's ruling. :)
Flux
vermillian
<wnip>
Well I'll be. I guess I just put too much faith in LSJ's rulings...
~SV