(LSJ) victim of habit

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

hi there =)

i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
i manage to kill my prey.
my new prey also happens to play deflections. Is victime of habit still
effective against her ? if no, why ?

thanks !
29 answers Last reply
More about victim habit
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    reyda wrote:
    > hi there =)
    >
    > i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
    > i manage to kill my prey.
    > my new prey also happens to play deflections. Is victime of habit
    still
    > effective against her ? if no, why ?

    When your prey is ousted, you are still left with a card whose text is
    'During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap this card to remove
    three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash heap fom the game to
    cause your prey to burn 1 pool.'

    So yes, if your new prey has the same card you named originally, it
    works on them too. :)

    > thanks !

    -John Flournoy
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    John Flournoy wrote:
    > reyda wrote:
    >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
    >>i manage to kill my prey.
    >>my new prey also happens to play deflections. Is victime of habit still
    >>effective against her ? if no, why ?
    >
    > When your prey is ousted, you are still left with a card whose text is
    > 'During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap this card to remove
    > three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash heap fom the game to
    > cause your prey to burn 1 pool.'
    >
    > So yes, if your new prey has the same card you named originally, it
    > works on them too. :)

    Correct.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
    news:05t5e.5381$44.916@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > John Flournoy wrote:
    > > reyda wrote:
    > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
    > >>i manage to kill my prey.
    > >>my new prey also happens to play deflections. Is victime of habit still
    > >>effective against her ? if no, why ?
    > >
    > > When your prey is ousted, you are still left with a card whose text is
    > > 'During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap this card to remove
    > > three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash heap fom the game to
    > > cause your prey to burn 1 pool.'
    > >
    > > So yes, if your new prey has the same card you named originally, it
    > > works on them too. :)
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > --
    > LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to
    reply)
    > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    >


    What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards still get
    burned but it will not result in loss of one pool?

    Or does it have to bee three (or more..) cards for them to get burned?`

    Daniel Eriksson
    Sweden
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daniel Eriksson" <walkertullaris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:d35ta8$lpi$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
    > > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
    > What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards still get
    > burned but it will not result in loss of one pool?

    Correct. Life playing a Lupine Assault when someone's hand size is less than
    five or using Scrying of Secrets against a payer who's library has fewer
    than seven cards.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
    news:d36288$c60$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    > "Daniel Eriksson" <walkertullaris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:d35ta8$lpi$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
    > > > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
    > > What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards
    still get
    > > burned but it will not result in loss of one pool?
    >
    > Correct. Life playing a Lupine Assault when someone's hand size is
    less than
    > five or using Scrying of Secrets against a payer who's library has
    fewer
    > than seven cards.

    Really? The text is "During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap
    this card to remove three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash
    heap fom the game to cause your prey to burn 1 pool." I thought that
    normally, if you're doing something as a "cost" rather than as an
    "effect", you can't do it partially - you can't even attempt it if you
    can't pay the full cost. As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun
    if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool
    and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you
    can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted.

    Is tapping Victim of Habit to remove only 2 cards possible because the
    removing of three cards is an effect itself (of tapping the VoH), in
    addition to being a cost (for burning 1 pool)?


    Josh

    uber alles, california
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:d368pj$nsp$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    >
    > "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
    > news:d36288$c60$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    > > "Daniel Eriksson" <walkertullaris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:d35ta8$lpi$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
    > > > > >>i put a victim of habit in play naming deflection.
    > > > What if there only are two cards that "match", will those cards
    > still get
    > > > burned but it will not result in loss of one pool?
    > >
    > > Correct. Life playing a Lupine Assault when someone's hand size is
    > less than
    > > five or using Scrying of Secrets against a payer who's library has
    > fewer
    > > than seven cards.
    >
    > Really? The text is "During any Methuselah's untap phase, you may tap
    > this card to remove three copies of the chosen card in your prey's ash
    > heap fom the game to cause your prey to burn 1 pool." I thought that
    > normally, if you're doing something as a "cost" rather than as an
    > "effect", you can't do it partially - you can't even attempt it if you
    > can't pay the full cost.

    You tap VoH "to" burn three copies of the card.

    > As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun
    > if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool
    > and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you
    > can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted.

    True enough.

    > Is tapping Victim of Habit to remove only 2 cards possible because the
    > removing of three cards is an effect itself (of tapping the VoH), in
    > addition to being a cost (for burning 1 pool)?

    Yes.

    If it were just "remove three to cause pool loss", then you couldn't
    do it without three.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
    news:d3693h$oah$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    > "Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:d368pj$nsp$1@domitilla.aioe.org...

    > > Is tapping Victim of Habit to remove only 2 cards possible because
    the
    > > removing of three cards is an effect itself (of tapping the VoH), in
    > > addition to being a cost (for burning 1 pool)?
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > If it were just "remove three to cause pool loss", then you couldn't
    > do it without three.

    OK, that's plausible. So likewise, another Methuselah can give you 1
    pool (if they really want to) to tap Kingston Penitentiary, Ontario,
    even if it is already tapped and they can't get a blood for it, right?
    "Any other Methuselah may give you a pool during his or her untap phase
    to tap this card to move 1 blood from the blood bank to a ready vampire
    he or she controls."

    Oh, and I forgot about this earlier, but I seem to remember that even
    when it's not a cost, if an effect says to do something with exactly 3
    cards, you can't do it to just 2. But this one I might just be
    imagining.


    Josh

    anywhere, we'll be there
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:23:37 +0200, reyda <true_reyda@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >

    > >> Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to
    retrive a
    > >> gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4
    pool,
    > >> but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since
    I
    > >> couldn't pay for that gun?
    > >
    > >no, quite the opposite : you spend as much pool as you can, and get
    > >ousted, without putting the gun into play.
    >
    > So the "you can't attempt what you can't pay for" general stance only
    > applies to (action?) cards you play, not in-play effects. So that's
    > why I get ousted in the Vast Wealth case - when I take that action,
    > I'm going for a 0-cost action originally, so I can pay for it, so I
    > can attempt it. That's it?

    Not quite. In-play effects also have to be able to be paid for. If
    there was a card in play that says 'any vampire can remove this card as
    a (D) action costing two blood', vampires with one blood could not
    attempt that action even though it's not a card being played. But Vast
    Wealth isn't being allowed because it's an in-play effect, but because
    it's simply a zero-cost action that has an effect that makes you spend
    pool (just as Summoning can).

    (Plus following the same logic that lets you use Vast Wealth when there
    are no equipment cards in your deck, or even no cards in your deck,
    Vast Wealth doesn't consider what the cost of the card you might pull
    is.)

    Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for.
    But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action
    requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before
    trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use
    your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything
    of his for the action. :)

    > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

    -John Flournoy
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:50:27 -0400, "LSJ"
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:

    >"Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:d368pj$nsp$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    >> As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun
    >> if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool
    >> and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you
    >> can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted.
    >
    >True enough.

    Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to retrive a
    gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4 pool,
    but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since I
    couldn't pay for that gun?

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    >
    > If you can't pay the pool, the minion cannot attempt the action.
    >
    > If you have 3 pool, your minion cannot attempt to recruit a
    > Renegade Garou (barring cost reducers, etc.).
    >
    > If you have 5 pool, he can, and then when you pay it, you'll
    > be ousted.

    Interesting; I wasn't sure if that was the case or not as I couldn't
    find this ruling someplace convenient (or at least not quickly.)

    (Mainly because the Ruling is listed under 'Playing Cards' even though
    it applies to taking cardless actions as well.)

    > LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap
    to reply).

    -John Flournoy
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo a écrit :
    > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:50:27 -0400, "LSJ"
    > <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:d368pj$nsp$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    >>
    >>> As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun
    >>>if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool
    >>>and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you
    >>>can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted.
    >>
    >>True enough.
    >
    >
    > Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to retrive a
    > gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4 pool,
    > but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since I
    > couldn't pay for that gun?

    no, quite the opposite : you spend as much pool as you can, and get
    ousted, without putting the gun into play.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:23:37 +0200, reyda <true_reyda@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Fabio "Sooner" Macedo a écrit :
    >> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:50:27 -0400, "LSJ"
    >> <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:d368pj$nsp$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>>> As I recall, you can't play a Submachine Gun
    >>>>if you only have 3 pool, even though if you start the action with 5 pool
    >>>>and somehow lose 2 before resolution, you'll still have to pay what you
    >>>>can for the Submachine Gun and be ousted.
    >>>
    >>>True enough.
    >>
    >>
    >> Geez. That means that if I take an action via Vast Wealth to retrive a
    >> gun (and I know there are some Magnums out there) with only 4 pool,
    >> but the first weapon is an Assault Rifle, I don't get ousted since I
    >> couldn't pay for that gun?
    >
    >no, quite the opposite : you spend as much pool as you can, and get
    >ousted, without putting the gun into play.

    So the "you can't attempt what you can't pay for" general stance only
    applies to (action?) cards you play, not in-play effects. So that's
    why I get ousted in the Vast Wealth case - when I take that action,
    I'm going for a 0-cost action originally, so I can pay for it, so I
    can attempt it. That's it?

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1113318444.171450.159570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for.
    > But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action
    > requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before
    > trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use
    > your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything
    > of his for the action. :)


    Not a great way to think about it, really.

    If you can't pay the pool, the minion cannot attempt the action.

    If you have 3 pool, your minion cannot attempt to recruit a
    Renegade Garou (barring cost reducers, etc.).

    If you have 5 pool, he can, and then when you pay it, you'll
    be ousted.

    In the case of Vast Wealth, the action costs nothing, so it
    can be attempted no matter what amount of pool you have.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for.
    > But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action
    > requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before
    > trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use
    > your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything
    > of his for the action. :)

    I think this confuses the issue a bit, since you might find equipment
    which costs blood instead of pool.

    Ankur
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:56:33 -0400, Ankur Gupta <agupta@cs.duke.edu>
    wrote:

    >> Think of it this way: A minion can't take an action _he_ can't pay for.
    >> But a minion doesn't pay pool, you the Methuselah does. If the action
    >> requires blood, the minion checks to see if he can pay for it before
    >> trying. If the action requires pool, the minion will happily pay use
    >> your funds until you're dead, because that minion isn't paying anything
    >> of his for the action. :)
    >
    >I think this confuses the issue a bit, since you might find equipment
    >which costs blood instead of pool.
    >Ankur

    I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does
    not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other
    effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such).

    Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who
    cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling).
    Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can
    have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in
    my library.

    Can I use the Vast Wealth action to try to get it? Or Enkidu can't
    even attempt it because it's an equip action, and up to that point, we
    still can't say if he's attempting to equip with something he can have
    or not?

    Or is it simpler than that - you just do the action and if the
    equipment turns to be a "normal" one, it's burned?

    And in the latter case, do you get to pay for the equipment burned?

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
    > I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does
    > not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other
    > effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such).
    >
    > Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who
    > cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling).
    > Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can
    > have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in
    > my library.

    No, he can't; loquipment is only a location while in play. When not in
    play, it's equipment. Compare and contrast to Jake Washington not being
    a valid target for Compel the Spirit because, when not in play, he's a
    master card.

    (Also: if loquipment was not counted as equipment when not in play, Vast
    Wealth would not be able to find it.)

    > Can I use the Vast Wealth action to try to get it? Or Enkidu can't
    > even attempt it because it's an equip action, and up to that point, we
    > still can't say if he's attempting to equip with something he can have
    > or not?

    He can't do it, because it's an equip action. See also Black Cat and
    Vast Wealth.

    > Or is it simpler than that - you just do the action and if the
    > equipment turns to be a "normal" one, it's burned?
    >
    > And in the latter case, do you get to pay for the equipment burned?

    In the case where Vast Wealth causes you to attempt to equip with
    something that's not valid (Black Cat equipping with a Kali's Fang, for
    instance), the equipment is burned and no cost is paid.

    --Colin McGuigan
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1113327660.485754.108520@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, John
    Flournoy <carneggy@gmail.com> writes:
    >LSJ wrote:
    >> If you have 5 pool, he can, and then when you pay it, you'll
    >> be ousted.
    >
    >Interesting; I wasn't sure if that was the case or not as I couldn't
    >find this ruling someplace convenient (or at least not quickly.)

    In general, you can oust yourself, so it's not that difficult a ruling
    to infer anyway.

    Additional corner-cases, such as someone offering to Life Boon you when
    you do it, are also possible on top of this.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Colin McGuigan wrote:
    > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
    >> I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does
    >> not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other
    >> effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such).
    >>
    >> Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who
    >> cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling).
    >> Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can
    >> have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in
    >> my library.
    >
    > No, he can't; loquipment is only a location while in play. When not in
    > play, it's equipment. Compare and contrast to Jake Washington not being
    > a valid target for Compel the Spirit because, when not in play, he's a
    > master card.
    >
    > (Also: if loquipment was not counted as equipment when not in play, Vast
    > Wealth would not be able to find it.)
    >
    >> Can I use the Vast Wealth action to try to get it? Or Enkidu can't
    >> even attempt it because it's an equip action, and up to that point, we
    >> still can't say if he's attempting to equip with something he can have
    >> or not?
    >
    > He can't do it, because it's an equip action. See also Black Cat and
    > Vast Wealth.

    He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.

    >> Or is it simpler than that - you just do the action and if the
    >> equipment turns to be a "normal" one, it's burned?
    >>
    >> And in the latter case, do you get to pay for the equipment burned?
    >
    > In the case where Vast Wealth causes you to attempt to equip with
    > something that's not valid (Black Cat equipping with a Kali's Fang, for
    > instance), the equipment is burned and no cost is paid.

    Correct.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    > a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    > And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.

    Isn't a location card that is not in play an equipment card, and
    therefore equipment?

    It seems that you state here:

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6e2fe4398c07614f?dmode=source

    That Beast cannot equip with loquipment. Am I reading it wrong?

    --Colin McGuigan
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <o3fo511ll4rejihts9ntk3rlgusr1icu67@4ax.com>, "Fabio
    \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> writes:
    >I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does
    >not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other
    >effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such).

    Imagine Vast Wealth as saying:

    Take a +1 stealth action. During the successful resolution of
    that action, <do something> and roll a six-sided die. Burn pool
    equal to the number that the die turns up.

    You could take that action, even if you had one pool.

    Since the equipment isn't specified when you take the action from Vast
    Wealth, the action doesn't have a cost. It's simply that it instructs
    you to pay the cost to equip as well.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <S4mdnbmS59wxoMHfRVn-1Q@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan
    <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> writes:
    >Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
    >> I guess I'll stick to the idea that the Vast Wealth action per se does
    >> not cost blood or pool, so you can attempt it (unless impeded by other
    >> effects, such as XTC Laced Blood and such).
    >> Expanding on the idea: suppose I play Vast Wealth on a minion who
    >> cannot have equipment, for some obscure reason (like just cycling).
    >> Say, Enkidu. He can't attempt to get a "normal" equipment, but he can
    >> have and use loquipment. I know there's a Palatial Estate somewhere in
    >> my library.
    >
    >No, he can't; loquipment is only a location while in play. When not in
    >play, it's equipment. Compare and contrast to Jake Washington not
    >being a valid target for Compel the Spirit because, when not in play,
    >he's a master card.

    However, he can use a Palatial Estate if it is moved to him.

    A parallel ruling exists on Beast [LSJ 20010209]:

    ****
    <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6
    e2fe4398c07614f>
    > It seems that if you follow Beast's text verbatim, he can
    > actually use these.

    If he can get them, yes.

    > Since equipping them is an "Equip" action and not an "Action Card"
    > action, and since they are not Equipment once in play (so he still
    > doesn't "have or use equipment"), it seems to be completely legal.

    Nah. You have to get it in play first. Beast cannot attempt to
    get it into play since he cannot have it (the equipment card).
    ****


    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:
    > However, he can use a Palatial Estate if it is moved to him.

    How would one go about moving a Palatial Estate once its in play?

    --Colin McGuigan
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <3MX6e.4639$go4.3401@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
    >He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    >a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    >And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.

    That overturns the ruling I just pointed to about Beast:
    <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6
    e2fe4398c07614f>

    Specifically, it also cites that the current restriction on Beast
    matches Beast's old restriction: "Beast cannot equip" because the
    "cannot have equipment" notices that the card is an equipment card he
    can't have, and doesn't notice that it will be a location when in play.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <H5Sdnfp9aMNLxMHfRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan
    <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> writes:
    >James Coupe wrote:
    >> However, he can use a Palatial Estate if it is moved to him.
    >
    >How would one go about moving a Palatial Estate once its in play?

    Same way as always: an ambiguous Disputed Territory. (The Succubus Club
    option is not possible anymore, of course.)

    # Loquipment may be put on any ready minion if moved in an ambiguous
    fashion (by Disputed Territory, e.g.). If the new controller has no
    minions, the locquipment is burned. (Note: currently all moves are
    ambiguous - TOM). [RTR 19960112]

    # Transferring Locquipment via Disputed Territory to the *same*
    Methuselah that currently controls the locquipment results in no effect
    - the locquipment cannot be moved to a different minion of the same
    Methuselah. [LSJ 19971002]

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:
    > In message <3MX6e.4639$go4.3401@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
    > <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
    >
    >>He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    >>a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    >>And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.
    >
    > That overturns the ruling I just pointed to about Beast:
    > <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6
    > e2fe4398c07614f>

    The Locquipment is still an action card. Beast cannot play it.

    > Specifically, it also cites that the current restriction on Beast
    > matches Beast's old restriction: "Beast cannot equip" because the
    > "cannot have equipment" notices that the card is an equipment card he
    > can't have, and doesn't notice that it will be a location when in play.

    Specifically it notes that that was spurios, as well.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Colin McGuigan" <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    news:H5Sdnft9aMMgxMHfRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net...
    > LSJ wrote:
    > > He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    > > a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    > > And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.
    >
    > Isn't a location card that is not in play an equipment card, and
    > therefore equipment?
    >
    > It seems that you state here:
    > That Beast cannot equip with loquipment. Am I reading it wrong?

    Here's the current ruling:

    Beast can get locquipment via Vast Wealth, since it is neither
    an action card action nor does it violate his prohibition on
    having equipment (since he never has equipment -- by the time
    he has it, it's in play and a location).

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <Bt_6e.4705$go4.173@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
    >James Coupe wrote:
    >> In message <3MX6e.4639$go4.3401@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
    >> <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
    >>
    >>>He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    >>>a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    >>>And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.
    >> That overturns the ruling I just pointed to about Beast:
    >> <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6
    >> e2fe4398c07614f>
    >
    >The Locquipment is still an action card. Beast cannot play it.

    Not true when that ruling was made.

    <http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=3C19FC5B.66BE3DA6%40white-
    wolf.com>
    > As a sidequestion I assume that Rewind Time is moot anyway as an
    > equipment card is not an action card. Correct?

    Yes. Although the Jyhad rulebook identified them as action cards.
    That changed in the 1995 V:TES rulebook. It may change back in the
    Camarilla edition; I'll have the DT look into it.
    ***

    The ruling on Beast was made significantly pre-Camarilla Edition, thus
    the action card restriction could not be invoked at that time -
    loquipment wasn't an action card in that sense.


    Can you explain how that ruling functions at that time? Specifically so
    that the card text matched the original intent of "Beast cannot equip"
    which clearly prevented Beast taking an action to get loquipment.


    >> Specifically, it also cites that the current restriction on Beast
    >> matches Beast's old restriction: "Beast cannot equip" because the
    >> "cannot have equipment" notices that the card is an equipment card he
    >> can't have, and doesn't notice that it will be a location when in play.
    >
    >Specifically it notes that that was spurios, as well.

    "A bit", "a lot?" and "maybe" don't seem quite so certain, from where I
    stand.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    > "Colin McGuigan" <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    > news:H5Sdnft9aMMgxMHfRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net...
    >> LSJ wrote:
    >> > He is only prohibited from having equipment. He can equip with
    >> > a location just fine, since doing so never violates his prohibition.
    >> > And he can use Vast Wealth to get that location.
    >>
    >> Isn't a location card that is not in play an equipment card, and
    >> therefore equipment?
    >>
    >> It seems that you state here:
    >> That Beast cannot equip with loquipment. Am I reading it wrong?

    > Here's the current ruling:

    > Beast can get locquipment via Vast Wealth, since it is neither
    > an action card action nor does it violate his prohibition on
    > having equipment (since he never has equipment -- by the time
    > he has it, it's in play and a location).

    If Beast were in the Camarilla (Out of the Frying Pan), could he
    be the recipient of a locquipment if Sheldon calls Alastor?
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
    news:IeSdnSo1a5ItsMDfRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    > > Here's the current ruling:
    >
    > > Beast can get locquipment via Vast Wealth, since it is neither
    > > an action card action nor does it violate his prohibition on
    > > having equipment (since he never has equipment -- by the time
    > > he has it, it's in play and a location).
    >
    > If Beast were in the Camarilla (Out of the Frying Pan), could he
    > be the recipient of a locquipment if Sheldon calls Alastor?


    If it doesn't involve Beast playing an action card or having
    equipment, then it doesn't violate those two restrictions
    on his card text, as above.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games