Non-Mortal Minion

Azel wrote:

You also cannot Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Harrod without burning an Orun, because Harrod is a non-mortal minion.

Pascal wrote:

Well, you can do this, as the action targets Tasha Morgan (not a mortal minion, but a mortal retainer) and not Harrod. You could also burn a Secure Haven on Harrod with Arson (this action targets the Secure Haven).

Ankha wrote:

I guess Azel got confused with counters on Harrod.
Targeting counters (such as blood) on a minion targets the minion.
Targeting cards on a minion targets the card (not the minion).

I would venture Azel was thinking of an analogy:
actions target cards in play, which are controlled by a Methuselah, and are therefore considered, by extension, to also target "you" as the Methuselah. It is not a big stretch to assume that actions which target cards "on" other cards (such as retainers or equipment on any minion) also target the minion they are on.

Whaaa? You mean I can loot minion attachments with my Laibon now! Yay!

I'm not targeting them, just their stuff. Good. This has been a useful topic.

PS: Quibble for posterity, you don't burn blood to Orun, you burn an attached Orun.

Pascal wrote:

Azel wrote:

You can however Far Mastery Tasha Morgan from Jake Washington without burning an Orun, because Jake Washington is a mortal minion.

Partially correct - you can do this without burning blood to Orun, but the fact that Jake Washington is a mortal minion is moot. What matters is that Tasha Morgan is not a minion, and thus not a non-mortal minion.

Also, for clarification: Burning a Pentex Subversion and Haven Uncovered on your minions. The target of these actions is the card itself, however card control is still retained by the Methuselah who played it. The action is against the card itself, which is currently on your own vampire, but you have to remember the card's controller is elsewhere and thus burning it is a action against them. Because you're targeting the card, which is on your side of the table, while being controlled elsewhere by table.

This really sucks as a visual reminder. The "Put this card on (a minion)" for master cards seems needlessly confusing. Shouldn't there be some visual consistency. Like clauses "Put this card into play and choose (a minion)" which leaves it on the controller's side of the field, and then "Put this card on (a minion), it's controller now controls this card." Or is this a legacy holdover?

'Cuz if it's a legacy holdover, it's absolutely fine to me. Keeps away new players by being confusing and all, but quite entertaining. It's like an elitist group reading 'legalese' or something, very Byzantine politics, retains the mood.

Azel wrote:

PS: Quibble for posterity, you don't burn blood to Orun, you burn an attached Orun.

Good catch I edited that post. Thanks

Azel wrote:

Also, for clarification: Burning a Pentex Subversion and Haven Uncovered on your minions. The target of these actions is the card itself, however card control is still retained by the Methuselah who played it. The action is against the card itself, which is currently on your own vampire, but you have to remember the card's controller is elsewhere and thus burning it is a action against them. Because you're targeting the card, which is on your side of the table, while being controlled elsewhere by table.

Correct.

Rulebook 6.2.2 wrote:

1. Who May Attempt to Block: If the action targets one or more other Methuselahs (or things controlled by other Methuselahs), then the action is called directed, and only the Methuselahs who are targeted (or control the targets) may use their ready untapped minions to attempt to block the action (going clockwise from the acting Methuselah, as usual).

Azel wrote:

This really sucks as a visual reminder. The "Put this card on (a minion)" for master cards seems needlessly confusing. Shouldn't there be some visual consistency. Like clauses "Put this card into play and choose (a minion)" which leaves it on the controller's side of the field, and then "Put this card on (a minion), it's controller now controls this card." Or is this a legacy holdover?

This wouldn't be helpful for the "choose a minion" part - as the minion would still be on the other side of the table.
For the "that minion's controller now controls this card", this would change a lot of things. For instance, burning the Haven Uncovered would be an undirected action (rather than a D action against the Methuselah who played it).

There are ways of remembering who played that Pentex Subversion.
First, you can ask. Players remember that.
Second, if you use sleeves, you can check who's card it is by the colour of the cardsleeve.
And third, there's the background logic. A combat-player is more likely to use Haven Uncovered than a vote deck.

It is some sort of "legacy" - it's based on the background of the game, in which Methuselahs struggle to overcome other powers. What they, and what they use, is theirs.

Azel wrote:

'Cuz if it's a legacy holdover, it's absolutely fine to me. Keeps away new players by being confusing and all, but quite entertaining. It's like an elitist group reading 'legalese' or something, very Byzantine politics, retains the mood.

There are cards that are linked to more than one card or player: master cards played on another player's minion, superior Unholy Penance, Bauble, Blood Stone, boons,... No matter where you put those on the table, there will always be something else to remember.

And that's not even counting cards that change controllers that you need to remember to get back at the end of the game