Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ghazkull]

And i didn't give you your two acts from Chichisy worship.

Fixed it, its four acts now like it should be.

Jeez you people now i can't sleep in anticipation of all these gambits...

[Madman198237]

I do believe I should have 3 Acts this turn, not 2, since I had two last turn.

Unless I'm mistaken somehow?

[NUKE9.13]

So, Ghaz. Now that Jerick has played the QUEEN of Shadows, that means I'm off the leash, right? Unlike Varalin, I can act on the subject of the gambit as much as I like- or even just personally go to lay some beatdown on them, yeah?

I mean, obviously it also means I'm Lifeslayer lunch, but, you know, always look on the bright side.

[Ghazkull]

Okay first things first:

To a query in pms: Knights can "disable" other cards in so far as they can selectively wound or weaken them. Aka if you play magi or hounds you win or you lose. With knight you can win and kill or win and wound or lose instead.

Now that out of the way next thing.
You are off the leash yes. The question is lay a beatdown on whom? there is no one in the gambit but you and the Lifeslayer. As in physically present. But yeah you are free to lay on the acts within the gambit area...except the one that would kill the Lioaesda since thats the one which is disputed.
Basically if you throw in another act now the other side could go "nope" and start a gambit within a gambit within a gambit for the sole purpose of intervening in that act too.

So basically we have the war of wrath in which you are, then we have the secondary gambit of the destruction of the liosaeda and then the tertiary gambit of act prevention...as an example. To stop youf rom using that one they would however need yet another lifeslayer card or something else to keep you from doing whatever.

@Madman: corrected should be the correct act numbers for your house now.

[NUKE9.13]

You are off the leash yes. The question is lay a beatdown on whom? there is no one in the gambit but you and the Lifeslayer. As in physically present. But yeah you are free to lay on the acts within the gambit area...except the one that would kill the Lioaesda since thats the one which is disputed.
Basically if you throw in another act now the other side could go "nope" and start a gambit within a gambit within a gambit for the sole purpose of intervening in that act too.

So basically we have the war of wrath in which you are, then we have the secondary gambit of the destruction of the liosaeda and then the tertiary gambit of act prevention...as an example. To stop youf rom using that one they would however need yet another lifeslayer card or something else to keep you from doing whatever.

But... the goal of the gambit, for me, is to exterminate the Lioaesda. If I can't do that even by using cards, then how am I supposed to win the gambit?
If one can prevent the other side from achieving their goals in a gambit by opening a new gambit... then what's stopping me from opening a gambit to stop Ralkieis or Kol from killing me? Why would you ever lose a gambit if you can just start a new one?

[Ghazkull]

Ah i think you misunderstood.

You opened a gambit by using an act which Ralkiesis opposed. Now if you start another act within the gambits confines it either goes through if no one opposes it, or if someone opposes it it causes another gambit.

Basically at the moment you say you destroy the Lioaesda, Ralkiesis says no, so gambit happens. Now until you make Ralkiesis lose the Gambit, your act does not go through. At the moment that means defeating lightslayer, which is sent directly to kill you and thus prevent you from using said act, or making Ralkiesis withdraw some other way.

[NUKE9.13]

Ah. See, that wasn't clear. Because it says in the gambit description that my goal is to destroy the Lioaesda, versus Ralkieis' goal of defeating me. Now you're telling me my goal is to defeat Ralkieis. Which, okay, fair enough. But you can understand my confusion.

[micelus]

double post.

[micelus]

Would my action count as joining a gambit?

[Ghazkull]

@Nuke, your goal is still to kill the Lioaesda, but to do that you need to remove any and all opposition in your way. In this case lifeslayers and any other cards thrown in your way this turn, if none of them can stop you, then you will simply end the gambit by destroying the Lioaesda.

@Micelus, it depends if you want to go through with your action and if Roboson goes through with trying to stop you. If you turn around you do not enter the gambit, if you go through with it and Roboson enters it, you are comitted, with all the ramifications included.

I will count all divine avatars (the Sybil and the Avatar of Yeg'Greth) as direct manifestation of said god. So if you end up in a gambit with that creature you will enter it personally with all ramifications that will bring.

[Roboson]

So you can join yourself in a gambit without having the [Whoever you are] card?

[Ghazkull]

Yes, but only when opening the Gambit.

Example going: Lu attacks Varalin, would open a gambit in which both characters are existent in the gambit, without either having played cards yet.

[Glass]

Example going: Lu attacks Varalin, would open a gambit in which both characters are existent in the gambit, without either having played cards yet.

This would also lead to Acter getting involved immediately, because hell no.

[Ghazkull]

indeed it would but acter himself would not be in the initial gambit. If you had a king of house acter card, then yes.

[Glass]

I can promise you, if Varalin was attacked, Acter would step in immediately, because that would not just be an attack on Varalin, he would interpret it as an attack on his entire House. That wouldn't be the god Lu attacking the god Varalin, that would be the god Lu attacking the House of Acter, with the members of the gambit the latter one would imply.