Ashes to Ashes vs. Amaranth
Henrik
effect=outferior :) )
Diablerie:
1.All blood on the victim is moved to the diablerist. Blood in excess of his
capacity drains off as normal.
2.The diablerist may take any equipment on the victim.
3.The victim is burned (sent to his owner's ash heap). Any cards and
counters on him are also burned.
4.If the victim was older (had a higher capacity) than the diablerist, the
diablerist can be given a Discipline. His controller may go through her
library, ash heap and hand to get a master Discipline card to put on the
diablerist and then reshuffle her library or draw back up to her hand size,
as necessary. This increases the diablerist's capacity by one, but does not
automatically give the diablerist a blood to fill that new capacity.
5.A blood hunt may be called.
Ashes to ashes
Only usable by a vampire being burned, he or she is sent into torpor
instead.
1 and 2 should resolve, emptying the diablerized vampire of blood and
equipment. When 3 occurs, he plays AtA, causing him to go to torpor instead.
What happens after that? Is the diablerie complete? Does the diablerizer get
a skillcard, and can it be burned in a bloodhunt. And perhaps even more
interesting: Can the vampure burned in the bloodhunt play Ashes to Ashes to
prevent being burned? The bloodhunt, is AIR still in the combat.
And one last question: If a vampire plays the tha effect, has the other
vampire time to play amarath or decapitate (or tortured confession :) ), or
is the combat end effect instanteus bercause it was not a strike?
/Henrik Isaksson
LSJ
>
> What happents when a amarathed vampire plays Ashes to Ashes (the for
> effect=outferior :) )
Parallel to the "Reform Body" effect:
Reform Body:
If the vampire playing Reform Body was being diablerized, but saved himself
with Reform Body, the diablerie is considered unsuccessful. The diablerist
gets nothing from the victim, and no Blood/Wild Hunt can be called.
[LSJ 19970224]
> And one last question: If a vampire plays the tha effect, has the other
> vampire time to play amarath or decapitate (or tortured confession :) ), or
> is the combat end effect instanteus bercause it was not a strike?
There is no Thaumaturgy effect. If he uses the Thanatosis (thn or than) effect,
Yes. The parenthesis indicate that the combat is ending in the normal
"one of the combatants is not ready" fashion.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Halcyan 2
>> effect=outferior :) )
>
>Parallel to the "Reform Body" effect:
>
>Reform Body:
>If the vampire playing Reform Body was being diablerized, but saved himself
>with Reform Body, the diablerie is considered unsuccessful. The diablerist
>gets nothing from the victim, and no Blood/Wild Hunt can be called.
>[LSJ 19970224]
Just to make sure: So if a vampire is going to torpor, the opposing minion
decides to diablerize (burn instead of going to torpor). The unfortunate
vampire fortunately plays Reform Body or Ashes to Ashes (inf) and goes to
torpor instead. Since that minion is still going to torpor, the opposing minion
can play another Amaranth if he/she has one, right? (And hopefully finish the
job right this time).
Halcyan 2
LSJ
Sure.
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Henrik wrote:
>>
>> What happents when a amarathed vampire plays Ashes to Ashes (the for
>> effect=outferior :) )
>
>Parallel to the "Reform Body" effect:
>
>Reform Body:
>If the vampire playing Reform Body was being diablerized, but saved himself
>with Reform Body, the diablerie is considered unsuccessful. The diablerist
>gets nothing from the victim, and no Blood/Wild Hunt can be called.
>[LSJ 19970224]
>
Odd. Considering that the removal of blood and equipment comes before
the burn victim/skill card effect, you would think that the victim
could not play Reform/Ashes until after his blood/equipment was gone.
Following the rules and cardtext that is.
T
Frederick Scott
THAT'S odd! Why do you say that the removal of blood and equipment comes
before the "burn victim" (never mind the skill card)? Not just because of
the order in which they tell you how to do things, I hope? That is, I hope
you're not trying to claim that just because removing blood is #1 and
stealing equipment is #2 and burning the victim's card isn't until #3 that
therefore Reform Body must "by rules" allow blood and equipment to be stolen
before the victim is allowed to reform himself. If so, never mind the order.
Just assume either all that stuff happens or none of it happens and if the
victim plays Reform Body or Ashes-to-Ashes, none of it happens.
In "real life", you can't frisk the body until it stops kicking. That a
rule!
Fred
James Coupe
>Odd. Considering that the removal of blood and equipment comes before
>the burn victim/skill card effect, you would think that the victim
>could not play Reform/Ashes until after his blood/equipment was gone.
The failure to burn the vampire renders the whole diablerie unsuccessful
(per the cited text). Stealing equipment only occurs with successful
diablerie. Reform Body allows this to sidestep, somewhat, the more
usual 'automatic' nature of diablerie.
--
James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near
668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky
And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind
Tobias Loehr
Is the list of events in the rulebook really the order in which things
happen or is just a way of oranizing events ON PAPER so that the rules
of diablerie can be more understood? It was my impression that all
the effects of diablerie all happen sort of simulteneously. The rule
book could have been printed with just one long line of text, but that
wouldn't be as easy to read.
Talo...@hotmail.com
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote:
>In "real life", you can't frisk the body until it stops kicking. That a
>rule!
>
You're either going to torpor or in torpor, or facing final death. I
think you'd be very hard pressed to do any kicking at that point fred.
=]
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3c1d78f8.98145237@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes:
>>Odd. Considering that the removal of blood and equipment comes before
>>the burn victim/skill card effect, you would think that the victim
>>could not play Reform/Ashes until after his blood/equipment was gone.
>
>The failure to burn the vampire renders the whole diablerie unsuccessful
>(per the cited text).
Pre a questionable ruling you mean.
What I'm pointing out is that the burning of a vampire is a
side-effect of diablerie, only 1 of 5 different effects. Reform
body/Ashes only prevents the burning of a vampire as per cardtext, and
not diablerie. The ruling actually changes this and allows the card
to do something in addition to the burn prevention cardtext.
If that's the case, change the card.
T
James Coupe
>>The failure to burn the vampire renders the whole diablerie unsuccessful
>>(per the cited text).
>
>Pre a questionable ruling you mean.
And the text of that ruling - questionable or not - was cited.
Not burning a vampire during diablerie makes it fail. Not having
successful diablerie stops equipment being transferred. It's that
simple.
Frederick Scott
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:14:48 GMT, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote:
>
> >rule!
>
> You're either going to torpor or in torpor, or facing final death. I
> think you'd be very hard pressed to do any kicking at that point fred.
> =]
You know what I mean. You can't rob him of blood and equipment until you've
succeeded at sending him to his final death. Granted, it seems a little
strange that if you were present with the torporized body of a vampire that
you couldn't get its equipment even if you'd failed to torporize it. But
that's the rule regardless of whether it reformed on you after a diablerie
attempt or you had torporized it in combat but failed to burn it.
Fred
Shaun McIsaac
? Talo...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:?3c1d78f8.98145237@news?...
? ? On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:10:38 -0500, LSJ ?vte...@white-wolf.com?
? ? wrote:
? ? ?Henrik wrote:
? ? ??
? ? ?? What happents when a amarathed vampire plays Ashes to Ashes
(the for
? ? ?? effect=outferior :) )
? ? ?Parallel to the ?Reform Body? effect:
? ? ?Reform Body:
? ? ?If the vampire playing Reform Body was being diablerized, but
saved himself
? ? ?with Reform Body, the diablerie is considered unsuccessful. The
diablerist
? ? ?gets nothing from the victim, and no Blood/Wild Hunt can be
called.
? ? ?[LSJ 19970224]
? ? Odd. Considering that the removal of blood and equipment comes
before
? ? the burn victim/skill card effect, you would think that the victim
? ? could not play Reform/Ashes until after his blood/equipment was
gone.
? ?
? ? Following the rules and cardtext that is.
? ?
?
? Is the list of events in the rulebook really the order in which
things
? happen or is just a way of oranizing events ON PAPER so that the
rules
? of diablerie can be more understood? It was my impression that all
? the effects of diablerie all happen sort of simulteneously. The
rule
? book could have been printed with just one long line of text, but
that
? wouldn't be as easy to read.
They go in exact order. For example:
Arika is in torpor with full blood.
Sadie is ready with 1 blood and diablerizes sucessfully.
Sadie gets *2* blood (the excess drains off), and sadie's controller
may look for a master : skill card. Then a blood hunt can be called.
You don't get the extra blood point, AFAIK.
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3c1e4785.104064425@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes:
>>>The failure to burn the vampire renders the whole diablerie unsuccessful
>>>(per the cited text).
>>
>>Pre a questionable ruling you mean.
>
>And the text of that ruling - questionable or not - was cited.
>
>Not burning a vampire during diablerie makes it fail. Not having
>successful diablerie stops equipment being transferred. It's that
>simple.
>
It's not really, only because the rulebook doesn't say that. Not
being able to burn the vampire stopping a diablerie and all diablerie
effects is an excellent solution, all I am pointing out is that the
rules as is don't support that.
Now if step 3 'burn the vampire' had such text added 'if this vampire
prevents himself being burned, cancel the diablerie and all previous
diablerie effects' then the solution would be properly implemented.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote:
Geez fred, on the one had you want me to imagine this vampiric
reality, on the other hand you want me to use the rules as is. =]
Frankly, as I see it, etiher way the blood and equipment would get
moved.
The diablerie rules require a little erratta thats all.
T
James Coupe
>>Not burning a vampire during diablerie makes it fail. Not having
>>successful diablerie stops equipment being transferred. It's that
>>simple.
>>
>
>It's not really, only because the rulebook doesn't say that.
That's why errata, rulings and clarifications are issued.
HTH. HAND.
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3c20b7bb.263887075@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes:
>>>Not burning a vampire during diablerie makes it fail. Not having
>>>successful diablerie stops equipment being transferred. It's that
>>>simple.
>>>
>>
>>It's not really, only because the rulebook doesn't say that.
>
>That's why errata, rulings and clarifications are issued.
>
But oddly, it didnt find its way into the current rulebook.
T
LSJ
> But oddly, it didnt find its way into the current rulebook.
Nothing odd there.
If the rulebook included all the rulings for all the corner-case events
that have been ruled on, it would be unusable for its primary purpose.
James Coupe
writes:
>>That's why errata, rulings and clarifications are issued.
>>
>
>But oddly, it didnt find its way into the current rulebook.
Nor did lots of the other entries on the ERC page. What's your point?
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>> But oddly, it didnt find its way into the current rulebook.
>
>Nothing odd there.
>If the rulebook included all the rulings for all the corner-case events
>that have been ruled on, it would be unusable for its primary purpose.
>
That is true. But when one looks for diablerie effects the rulebook
is where they will look. I only push this issue because I actually
ruled in a recent game that the diablerizer would get the blood and
equipment before a reform body could be played, based on the rulebook
and lack of erratta for diablerie.
Of course the ruling was buried in the Reform erratta as it turns out.
T
James Coupe
>>> But oddly, it didnt find its way into the current rulebook.
>>
>>Nothing odd there.
>>If the rulebook included all the rulings for all the corner-case events
>>that have been ruled on, it would be unusable for its primary purpose.
>
>That is true. But when one looks for diablerie effects the rulebook
>is where they will look.
When looking for many things, the rulebook will often be consulted.
Given that a specific card is also involved, it would be wise to consult
the rulings/errata/clarifications, just in case. Having a print-out of
a recent copy to hand takes a relatively small amount of time once. And
given that, because of the nature of cards over-turning specific rules,
a number of cards manipulate corner-case ambiguities or esoteric
situations, it is wise to remember that the cards also interact with the
rules.
Glancing down the file of ERC is extremely useful. Not memorising it,
or being able to tell everyone what the exact effects of every card is
(though these can be helpful, especially with particularly problematic
cards) but being aware of what ambiguities and resolutions exist in
purely general terms.