More questions
James R. McClure Jr.
> 1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
> and the first piece of equipment was a sport bike . Well shes not allowed 2
> vehicles so at the time we made her get the first non-vehicle piece of
> equipment . Is this right ? Or should she have been forced to burn the
> hawg (could someone have taken it off her if they werew untapped) should she
> have got nothing ( although considering the must - take even if it kills you
> ruling this is unlikely )
Peace JA,
I haven't got an answer for that one, but as an additional question, what if
Black Cat has a Laptop Computer and the next piece of equipment is a LC?
> 2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike.
> His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
> or damage . Cos is the steal was first the victim woulda gone to torpor
> if the 44 had gone first the victim would have stayed active and poor
> Ulugh would have got nothing from the deal . Based on the normal before
> aggro theory we played that as steal isnt as bad as damage ( some say! )
> steal goes before normal damage . ANy ideas on this (hopefully rare) one ?
This is only a guess, but I'd say that the target goes to torpor and UB gains
two blood.
> 3)And what is the current a)ruling on cross table bleeds with (d) cards
> and b)whats peoples opinions on this?
Boy, you must really want to start a big net.argument.thread! Officially,
(D) bleeds are legal, that is a card with a (D) on it can be directed at
any other methuselah. There are two big camps: those pro-(D) bleeds [typified
by myself and Joe C.] and those who are anti-(D) bleeds [Curt and Alan, for
example]. This has been discussed at length (and how!) and I don't see a
reason to get it started again.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
Mr JA Chapman
most of you ended up giving me answers that conflicted with someone else).
Heres a few more tricky ones which came up recently.
1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
and the first piece of equipment was a sport bike . Well shes not allowed 2
vehicles so at the time we made her get the first non-vehicle piece of
equipment . Is this right ? Or should she have been forced to burn the
hawg (could someone have taken it off her if they werew untapped) should she
have got nothing ( although considering the must - take even if it kills you
ruling this is unlikely )
2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike.
His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
or damage . Cos is the steal was first the victim woulda gone to torpor
if the 44 had gone first the victim would have stayed active and poor
Ulugh would have got nothing from the deal . Based on the normal before
aggro theory we played that as steal isnt as bad as damage ( some say! )
steal goes before normal damage . ANy ideas on this (hopefully rare) one ?
3)And what is the current a)ruling on cross table bleeds with (d) cards
and b)whats peoples opinions on this?
more bizarre questions coming soon (sigh)
JA Chapman
Anthony Barker
> 1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
> and the first piece of equipment was a sport bike . Well shes not allowed 2
> vehicles so at the time we made her get the first non-vehicle piece of
> equipment . Is this right ? Or should she have been forced to burn the
> hawg (could someone have taken it off her if they werew untapped) should she
> have got nothing ( although considering the must - take even if it kills you
> ruling this is unlikely )
I had the same thing happen to me with a Vast Wealth on Black Cat and
then getting a second sport bike. We played that the second bike was
discarded without cost (if it hadn't have been Black Cat equipping).
>
> 2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike.
> His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
> or damage .
>
I'd say that the Steal Blood goes first but maybe the question should
be, what is resolved first a Vampire's strike or a retainer's?
> 3)And what is the current a)ruling on cross table bleeds with (d) cards
> and b)whats peoples opinions on this?
I think that cross table bleeds should be allowed, we often use them
if one person is getting too powerful, just to slow them down a bit.
Joseph Cochran
Mr JA Chapman <jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
>and the first piece of equipment was a sport bike . Well shes not allowed 2
Hmm. Well, I suppose that we now have to interpret the spirit
of the card. Personally, I'd say that there is an implicit "that the
minion can equip" in there, and skip over the Sport Bike to the first
piece of equipment that she can equip with. This would keep consistency
across situations like vehicles and laptops, and would also apply to
future cards (if they made, for instance, clan only weapons). Note that
she can equip a duplicate Sengir Dagger just fine if that's what you
find.....
>2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike.
>His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
>or damage . Cos is the steal was first the victim woulda gone to torpor
I'd go with the steal first then damage. As you point out, it's
logically consistent with damage then aggravated.
>3)And what is the current a)ruling on cross table bleeds with (d) cards
>and b)whats peoples opinions on this?
Currently they are legal. For opinions, look back a couple of
weeks. There are *many* of them there. I refuse to start the fire.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Alan Kwan
In article <3lq8l1$f...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr JA Chapman) writes:
>1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
>and the first piece of equipment was a sport bike .
This seems to be a rules loophole in the game. I haven't seen any
official rulings, so I'd suggest the following house rule.
Allow a minion to take any number of `restricted' equipments,
i.e. Laptops, vehicles. However, as soon as a second is taken,
all in excess of one has to go into `storage' and cannot be used.
Equipments in storage can be destroyed, stolen, taken by other
friendly minions (and thereby out of storage), ect.;
they just cannot be used. They remain
in storage even if the excess restricted equipments go away;
the minion (when ready) can perform an undirected action
at +1 stealth to `activitate' any/all equipments `in storage'
it has; this is essentially a `take equipment' action on itself.
(You have to put other excess restricted equipments back into storage,
though.)
I like this house rule, because for example it allows two minions,
one with a Hawg and one with a sports bike, to exchange equipments
using two actions. (Not that this would be practically useful ...)
>2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike.
>His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
>or damage .
I'd say allow the striking vampire to choose the order of application
(i.e. Steal Blood first);
the aggravated + normal rule is almost based on this principle.
>3)And what is the current a)ruling on cross table bleeds with (d) cards
>and b)whats peoples opinions on this?
3a) definitely allowed
3b) heated debates in here. No concensus reached up to this date.
> more bizarre questions coming soon (sigh)
(Sigh.)
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Thomas R Wylie
Anthony Barker <b930...@student.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>> 1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
>> equipment . Is this right ? Or should she have been forced to burn the
>> hawg (could someone have taken it off her if they werew untapped) should she
>> have got nothing ( although considering the must - take even if it kills you
>> ruling this is unlikely )
>I had the same thing happen to me with a Vast Wealth on Black Cat and
>then getting a second sport bike. We played that the second bike was
>discarded without cost (if it hadn't have been Black Cat equipping).
Correct. Vast Wealth just pulls out the first equipment card found. If the
minion can't equip with that card, for whatever reason, then the card is
simply burned, and no cost to "equip" is paid.
>> 2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike
>> His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
>> or damage .
>I'd say that the Steal Blood goes first but maybe the question should
>be, what is resolved first a Vampire's strike or a retainer's?
The blood would be stolen before it was necessary to heal or prevent
the damage.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
CurtAdams
>>> 2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a
strike
>>> His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
>>> or damage .
>>I'd say that the Steal Blood goes first but maybe the question should
>>be, what is resolved first a Vampire's strike or a retainer's?
>The blood would be stolen before it was necessary to heal or prevent
>the damage.
That answers the specific question, but it doesn't answer why. Is a
vampire's strike ALWAYS resolved before any strike of its retainer?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
cb_m...@smcvax.smcvt.edu
Well, as for case one, your interpretation seems to make sense, so it
may go against the rules. As for case two, the little book of Jyhad confusion
states on page 36 this about stolen blood: "A vampire heals wounds after
stealing blood, unless the damage was done with first strike." It would be
inferred then, that the results of the theft come before damage resolution.
So, in this case, Ulugh would have stolen two blood, THEN the bullet that hit
simultaneously couldn't be healed because the victim no longer had blood, and
the victim heads for torpor.
In case three, I do not know the current ruling on cross table bleeds,
but in general I am in favor of them as they are a useful tool for interaction
between players and causes more attention be paid the other players at the
table beside your predator or prey.
Good luck and good gaming,
Cliff Murphy
cb_m...@smcvax.smcvt.edu
In article <3lq8l1$f...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr JA Chapman) writes:
> Thanx to those who answered the my last question (even though
>most of you ended up giving me answers that conflicted with someone else).
>Heres a few more tricky ones which came up recently.
>
>1)Black Cat had vast wealth (shock horror!) and a hawg . She tapped VW
>and the first piece of equipment was a sport bike . Well shes not allowed 2
>vehicles so at the time we made her get the first non-vehicle piece of
>equipment . Is this right ? Or should she have been forced to burn the
>hawg (could someone have taken it off her if they werew untapped) should she
>have got nothing ( although considering the must - take even if it kills you
> ruling this is unlikely )
>
>2)ULugh had a ghoul retainer with a .44 and chose theft of vitae as a strike.
>His victime had 2 blood left . WHich takes affect first - stolen blood
>or damage . Cos is the steal was first the victim woulda gone to torpor
> if the 44 had gone first the victim would have stayed active and poor
>Ulugh would have got nothing from the deal . Based on the normal before
>aggro theory we played that as steal isnt as bad as damage ( some say! )
>steal goes before normal damage . ANy ideas on this (hopefully rare) one ?
>
>3)And what is the current a)ruling on cross table bleeds with (d) cards
>and b)whats peoples opinions on this?
>
> more bizarre questions coming soon (sigh)
> JA Chapman
>