two things (LSJ?)
Wouter Kuyper
I would like to know how WW chooses its distributors. The matter is,
that in Holland we still don't have CE. Ofcourse this isn't the end of
the world, but hey, if it could be done better...
and another, ruly thing. I don't have the cardtexts here (at work) but
suppose i block with my vamp with deerrifle, add a
dragons-breath-round and then play Rotschreck, do i still have my
rifle in the end?
thx,
W
LSJ
>
> Hi there,
>
> I would like to know how WW chooses its distributors. The matter is,
> that in Holland we still don't have CE. Ofcourse this isn't the end of
> the world, but hey, if it could be done better...
Unknown.
> and another, ruly thing. I don't have the cardtexts here (at work) but
> suppose i block with my vamp with deerrifle, add a
> dragons-breath-round and then play Rotschreck, do i still have my
> rifle in the end?
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/
Henrik Isaksson
> > and another, ruly thing. I don't have the cardtexts here (at work) but
> > suppose i block with my vamp with deerrifle, add a
> > dragons-breath-round and then play Rotschreck, do i still have my
> > rifle in the end?
>
> Yes.
>
What happens if I block an action with an Escaped Mental Patient, opponent dodge, I strike agg and
play Rötschreck, and then opponent play Psyche?
/Henrik Isaksson
LSJ
> What happens if I block an action with an Escaped Mental Patient, opponent dodge, I strike agg and
> play Rötschreck, and then opponent play Psyche?
Psyche! starts a new combat. The rest of Rötschreck's effect is lost.
Still no strike resolution, however, so the EMP doesn't burn.
Fredrik Ljungberg
Combat continues, the effects of the Rötschreck are canceled.
Sebastian O
starting a new combat in the event of Rötschreck but, at the end of the new
combat, the vampire playing Telepathic Tracking still going to torpor. Is
this still the case?
Thanks
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3D6B96B3...@white-wolf.com...
LSJ
>
> I seem to remember something in this group about Telepathic Tracking also
> starting a new combat in the event of Rötschreck but, at the end of the new
> combat, the vampire playing Telepathic Tracking still going to torpor. Is
> this still the case?
No. Rötschreck's effect is lost.
James Coupe
O <joe...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I seem to remember something in this group about Telepathic Tracking also
>starting a new combat in the event of Rötschreck but, at the end of the new
>combat, the vampire playing Telepathic Tracking still going to torpor. Is
>this still the case?
No, nor has it ever been.
When a card - like Rotschreck - ends combat and does all sorts of stuff,
all at the same time, once you interrupt it, the rest is lost. If you
look at the rulings that preceded this, a number of cards could be
played "as combat ended" or interrupting the resolution of Form of Mist,
losing the continue action effect. This is just a more general version
of that - if you interrupt the combat ends part of a resolution, the
rest is lost.
(By the same token, I'd like to see [LSJ 19971003] on Illusions of the
Kindred removed, as it uses a similar template - Combat ends... then
something.)
Since you interrupt the resolution, the "go to torpor" bits don't ever
resolve. So there's nothing to hang around forever. This is the
reverse of something like Undead Persistence - the whole card has
already resolved, the whole effect is waiting to finish.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D Don't just clap. What's the use of that?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 You there, gorgeous creature.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D Stop...that...bus!
scrote
> I seem to remember something in this group about Telepathic Tracking also
> starting a new combat in the event of Rötschreck but, at the end of the new
> combat, the vampire playing Telepathic Tracking still going to torpor. Is
> this still the case?
>
This one had me for a while too (I used to remeber the same thing:).
What you have said is basically correct, except for one important
factor. Telepathic Tracking does not start a new combat, it continues
the existing one. So what happens is effects that would happen at the
*end of combat* are merely delayed until this later *end of combat*.
Cards such as psyche get around this...combat _does not end_, instead
start a _new_...or something to that effect.
I hope i got that right, I looked for long enough last week to find
the right thread :)
-Scrote
LSJ
>
> "Sebastian O" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<eEjb9.216144$v53.11...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > I seem to remember something in this group about Telepathic Tracking also
> > starting a new combat in the event of Rötschreck but, at the end of the new
> > combat, the vampire playing Telepathic Tracking still going to torpor. Is
> > this still the case?
> >
>
> This one had me for a while too (I used to remeber the same thing:).
> What you have said is basically correct, except for one important
> factor. Telepathic Tracking does not start a new combat, it continues
> the existing one. So what happens is effects that would happen at the
> *end of combat* are merely delayed until this later *end of combat*.
> Cards such as psyche get around this...combat _does not end_, instead
> start a _new_...or something to that effect.
Rötschreck doesn't set up an event to happen after combat.
It ends combat and does something else. That something else is
lost if combat does end or is restarted.
Petri Wessman
LSJ> Rötschreck doesn't set up an event to happen after combat.
LSJ> It ends combat and does something else. That something else is
LSJ> lost if combat does end or is restarted.
Petri Wessman
LSJ> scrote wrote:
>>
>> "Sebastian O" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<eEjb9.216144$v53.11...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
>> > I seem to remember something in this group about Telepathic Tracking also
>> > starting a new combat in the event of Rötschreck but, at the end of the new
>> > combat, the vampire playing Telepathic Tracking still going to torpor. Is
>> > this still the case?
>> >
>>
>> This one had me for a while too (I used to remeber the same thing:).
>> What you have said is basically correct, except for one important
>> factor. Telepathic Tracking does not start a new combat, it continues
>> the existing one. So what happens is effects that would happen at the
>> *end of combat* are merely delayed until this later *end of combat*.
>> Cards such as psyche get around this...combat _does not end_, instead
>> start a _new_...or something to that effect.
LSJ> Rötschreck doesn't set up an event to happen after combat.
LSJ> It ends combat and does something else. That something else is
LSJ> lost if combat does end or is restarted.
Ok, so is the following correct:
Peter D Bakija
> How about setting up a FAQ on the White Wolf VTES page that covers
> stuff like this, maybe with references to relevant rules/errata
> points?
Umm, there is an official FAQ. It is posted here regularly. It probably
already is on the WW site (although I could be wrong).
Peter D Bakija
PD...@bigplanet.com
http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6
"I need a doctor, kinda, sorta. What's wrong with me?
He said there's a skid mark on my aorta and there's no remedy."
-The Donnas
LSJ
> Ok, so is the following correct:
>
>
> Part 1.2 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: 8bit
Don't know, can't read it.
Try posting in real plain text, not encoded text.
James Coupe
<or...@orava.org> writes:
>1) Combatant A strikes with aggro damage, plays Rötschrek
Fine.
>2) Combatant B plays Telepathic Tracking. This overrides the "end
> combat" effect of R.
Well, as combat is ending due to the words "combat ends" on Rotschreck,
you play Telepathic Tracking.
The rest of Rotschreck then doesn't resolve.
>The errata/rulings on R says "If combat is continued
> or a new combat started, then rest of the effect of Rotschreck is
> lost". In this case combat is continued so the "go to torpor"
> effect of R is lost.
Correct.
>3) Combat ends at some later point, at which time R does *not* put
> Combatant B into torpor.
Yes, because the rest of the effect was lost.
Petri Wessman
LSJ> Petri Wessman wrote:
>> Ok, so is the following correct:
...
LSJ> Try posting in real plain text, not encoded text.
Hmph, my newsreader apparentyl saw the odiaresis character in the
proper spelling of Rotschrek and decided to encapsulate the message,
without asking me about it. Sigh.
Here's a plaintext copy
---
Ok, so is the following correct:
1) Combatant A strikes with aggro damage, plays Rotschrek
2) Combatant B plays Telepathic Tracking. This overrides the "end
combat" effect of R. The errata/rulings on R says "If combat is continued
or a new combat started, then rest of the effect of Rotschreck is
lost". In this case combat is continued so the "go to torpor"
effect of R is lost.
3) Combat ends at some later point, at which time R does *not* put
Combatant B into torpor.
LSJ
Correct.
scrote
> Petri Wessman wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:53:36 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> said:
> >
<snip posting problems>
> >
> > Ok, so is the following correct:
> >
> > 1) Combatant A strikes with aggro damage, plays Rotschrek
> >
> > 2) Combatant B plays Telepathic Tracking. This overrides the "end
> > combat" effect of R. The errata/rulings on R says "If combat is continued
> > or a new combat started, then rest of the effect of Rotschreck is
> > lost". In this case combat is continued so the "go to torpor"
> > effect of R is lost.
> >
> > 3) Combat ends at some later point, at which time R does *not* put
> > Combatant B into torpor.
>
> Correct.
Huh? You said the same thing in the an earlier thread.
From the online clarifications...
Telepathic Tracking
Superior Telepathic Tracking may interrupt the end of combat produced
by Rotschreck. The target will still go to torpor when combat finally
ends. [LSJ 20011205]
This seems to be a direct contradiction of what you are saying here
LSJ. Please bring me up to speed. Am i missing something (like some
crucial synapses?)? I assume that *target* refers to the target of the
rotschreck.
-Scrote
salem
> Petri Wessman wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so is the following correct:
> >
> >
> > 2) Combatant B plays Telepathic Tracking. This overrides the "end
> > combat" effect of R. The errata/rulings on R says "If combat is continued
> > or a new combat started, then rest of the effect of Rotschreck is
> > lost". In this case combat is continued so the "go to torpor"
> > effect of R is lost.
> >
> > 3) Combat ends at some later point, at which time R does *not* put
> > Combatant B into torpor.
>
> Correct.
but, under the new text or rotschreck, the rot card is still put on
the opposing vamp (as that's the first thing the card says to do), and
so the rot'd vamp will still not untap as normal in it's next untap
phase?
although the rot wouldn't tap the vampire in this case (as it's one of
the things the card does after ending combat, which is lost because of
the TT...)
also, the new rot does not mention the "strike must be effective at
current range" errata/ruling/clarification/whatever. the new rot
explicitly states "whether the damage would be successfully inflicted
or not". is this a change to the card, or should the range requirment
be there? (but for some reason isn't..)
thanks,
salem.
Anthony
effect of Rotschreck is lost. [RTR 20020501]
I suspect that the newer ruling applies, although the older ruling
should probably be amended at the V:TES Official Clarifications,
Rulings, and Errata web page.
Anthony Barker.
VEKN Prince of Brisbane.
LSJ
> but, under the new text or rotschreck, the rot card is still put on
> the opposing vamp (as that's the first thing the card says to do), and
> so the rot'd vamp will still not untap as normal in it's next untap
> phase?
> although the rot wouldn't tap the vampire in this case (as it's one of
> the things the card does after ending combat, which is lost because of
> the TT...)
Right.
> also, the new rot does not mention the "strike must be effective at
> current range" errata/ruling/clarification/whatever. the new rot
> explicitly states "whether the damage would be successfully inflicted
> or not". is this a change to the card, or should the range requirment
> be there? (but for some reason isn't..)
Card text is (still) sufficient: "on him or her".