Attempt at a !Gangrel Deck.

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Jasper Phillips

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Well, since I just picked up a whole bunch of Gangrel Conspiracies
(Thanks Mark!), I thought I'd give a go at probably the most obvious
!Gangrel deck archtype. I remember seeing a similar deck (with Muaziz
even) on one of the Archives.

Naturally, it's got problems with the Crypt, and too many masters.
I have this itching suspicion that it will flow like molasses, and
alternately be awesome, then suck hard. Any Ideas how to fix it,
without watering down the Rose too much?


"Amaranth"

VAMPIRES
2 Samantha GangrelA 10 PRO, CEL, OBF, bishop, agg. hand, +1 Lasombra int.
3 Zachary GangrelA 7 PRO, CEL, OBF
2 Blaise GangrelA 7 CEL, obf, +1 hand
2 Sadie GangrelA 2 pro
Huang Pander 1 pro , rushed by GangrelA
Igo Caitiff 1 pro , no stealth hunting
Nik Caitiff 1 ,cel


90 Cards

MASTER: 20
Dreams of the Sphinx
Barrens
The Parthenon
3 Haven Uncovered
6 Gangrel Conspiracy
4 Blood Doll
2 Protean
2 Celerity

OTHER: 26
7 Ritual of the Bitter Rose
7 Amaranth
12 Bum's Rush

PROTEAN: 10
6 Bone Spur
4 Wolf's Claws

CELERITY: 34
12 Psyche
6 Blur
6 Sidestrike
6 Pursuit
4 Flash


IDEAS
Anson!?
Minion Tap Instead?
Form of Mist?
Quick Meld?
Arson?
Elysium?
Obfuscate?
Hidden Lurker
1000K Faces

--
/\ Jasper Phillips
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--.
* http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Jasper Phillips wrote:

> Well, since I just picked up a whole bunch of Gangrel Conspiracies
> (Thanks Mark!), I thought I'd give a go at probably the most obvious
> !Gangrel deck archtype. I remember seeing a similar deck (with Muaziz
> even) on one of the Archives.
>

I have only 1 Gangrel Conspiracy :(

>
>
>
> Naturally, it's got problems with the Crypt, and too many masters.
> I have this itching suspicion that it will flow like molasses, and
> alternately be awesome, then suck hard. Any Ideas how to fix it,
> without watering down the Rose too much?
>
> "Amaranth"
>
> VAMPIRES
> 2 Samantha GangrelA 10 PRO, CEL, OBF, bishop, agg. hand, +1 Lasombra int.
> 3 Zachary GangrelA 7 PRO, CEL, OBF
> 2 Blaise GangrelA 7 CEL, obf, +1 hand
> 2 Sadie GangrelA 2 pro
> Huang Pander 1 pro , rushed by GangrelA
> Igo Caitiff 1 pro , no stealth hunting
> Nik Caitiff 1 ,cel
>
> 90 Cards
>
> MASTER: 20
> Dreams of the Sphinx
> Barrens
> The Parthenon
> 3 Haven Uncovered

simply drop the Haven Uncovered and the Parthenon. Your Bum's Rush will have to
suffice. I would probably put in one Pentex (TM) loves you to increase your bleed
power. This would put you to 17 Masters. Or simply exchange the cards for
some Computer Hackings. Yep. They won't help you in diablerizing Vamps. But after
all you want to oust your prey.

>
>
>
> 6 Gangrel Conspiracy
> 4 Blood Doll

I would exchange 2 Dolls with Minion Taps (since you want to refill your vamps
via Amaranth and Ritual of the Bitter Rose anyway)

>
>
>
> 2 Protean
> 2 Celerity
>
> OTHER: 26
> 7 Ritual of the Bitter Rose

7 Rituals are a little bit much, because you need to diablerize before. 4 are
about right, I think. Exchange them for 3 Sideslip. The chance to use this card
is higher than that of RotBR.

> 7 Amaranth
> 12 Bum's Rush
>
> PROTEAN: 10
> 6 Bone Spur
> 4 Wolf's Claws
>
> CELERITY: 34
> 12 Psyche

Exchange perhaps 2x Psyche for 2x Form of Mist, but FoM won't help you to beat
S:CE when you want to hurt your opponent. If you play in a hvy S:CE environment,
leave the 12 Psyches in your deck.

>
>
>
> 6 Blur
> 6 Sidestrike
> 6 Pursuit
> 4 Flash
>

Nice deck. <<Bon appetit>>

Michael Beer


Jasper Phillips

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
In article <35D93496...@leila.ping.de>,

Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote:
>Jasper Phillips wrote:
>
>> Well, since I just picked up a whole bunch of Gangrel Conspiracies
>> (Thanks Mark!), I thought I'd give a go at probably the most obvious
>> !Gangrel deck archtype. I remember seeing a similar deck (with Muaziz
>> even) on one of the Archives.
>
>I have only 1 Gangrel Conspiracy :(

I actually have more than I need now, since I erred on the side of
abundance (I have some friends that want some too anyway).

>> MASTER: 20
>> Dreams of the Sphinx
>> Barrens
>> The Parthenon
>> 3 Haven Uncovered
>

>simply drop the Haven Uncovered and the Parthenon.Your Bum's Rush will have to
>suffice. I would probably put in one Pentex(TM)lovesyou to increase your bleed


>power. This would put you to 17 Masters. Or simply exchange the cards for
>some Computer Hackings. Yep.
>They won't help you in diablerizing Vamps. But after
>all you want to oust your prey.

Hmmm, getting rid of the Haven's probably is the way to go, although I'm
not fond of adding +bleed. This deck has plenty of non-combat cards as
it is, and I'm afraid it will lock up everytime it succesfully does
something.

>> OTHER: 26
>> 7 Ritual of the Bitter Rose
>
>7 Rituals are a little bit much, because you need to diablerize before. 4 are
>about right, I think. Exchange them for 3 Sideslip.
>The chance to use this card
>is higher than that of RotBR.

In retrospect, I think you're right, although I'll probably go 5. I can't
really take advantage of thta many succesfull 'Roses anyway, although there
is something to be said for the fact that the less I have, the less
likely I'll be to get it at all.

>Exchange perhaps 2x Psyche for 2x Form of Mist, but FoM won't help you to beat
>S:CE when you want to hurt your opponent.
>If you play in a hvy S:CE environment,
>leave the 12 Psyches in your deck.

Gotta have the psyche. Even with 12 the deck is still quite vulnerable
to S:CE.

>Nice deck. <<Bon appetit>>

Heh, that's the idea! I don't think it'll be as satisfying -- or even
as effective -- as Pot+Pro, but I've always wanted to eat left and right.
Maybe I should rename the deck "Buffet"?

Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Jasper Phillips wrote:

> In article <35D93496...@leila.ping.de>,
> Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote:
> >> 3 Haven Uncovered
> >
> >simply drop the Haven Uncovered and the Parthenon.Your Bum's Rush will have to
> >suffice. I would probably put in one Pentex(TM)lovesyou to increase your bleed
> >power. This would put you to 17 Masters. Or simply exchange the cards for
> >some Computer Hackings. Yep.
> >They won't help you in diablerizing Vamps. But after
> >all you want to oust your prey.
>
> Hmmm, getting rid of the Haven's probably is the way to go, although I'm
> not fond of adding +bleed. This deck has plenty of non-combat cards as
> it is, and I'm afraid it will lock up everytime it succesfully does
> something.
>

Ok. Replace those cards with Bum's Rush instead (that is what they were supposed to
do anyway)

> >Nice deck. <<Bon appetit>>
>
> Heh, that's the idea! I don't think it'll be as satisfying -- or even
> as effective -- as Pot+Pro, but I've always wanted to eat left and right.
> Maybe I should rename the deck "Buffet"?
>

Perhaps. It's your choice. I think the first deck of this kind was called
"Waiter, there's a vampire in my soup" or something like that (on Judith's and
Mark's Jyhad Page)

I am currently thinking of another approach:

A Stanislava from hell deck:

Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist

then eat your opponent for snack, allow it yourself with Absolution of the
Diabolist,

and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*

>8]

Michael Beer


Jasper Phillips

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
In article <35D95DFF...@leila.ping.de>,
Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote:

[snip]

>I am currently thinking of another approach:
>
>A Stanislava from hell deck:
>
>Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
>Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
>
>then eat your opponent for snack, allow it yourself with Absolution of the
>Diabolist,
>
>and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*

That's pretty damn funny. :-) Is it legal though? I thought you couldn't
play Amaranth after Combat Ended...

I've actually got a similar deck that tries to work the Grave Robbing
angle rather than the diablerie, but it wouldn't take much to switch
in Amaranth (of course, then you _have_ to get Stanislava out).
It'd be a funny suprise for people who were expecting grave robbing
though...

Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Jasper Phillips wrote:

> In article <35D95DFF...@leila.ping.de>,
> Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I am currently thinking of another approach:
> >
> >A Stanislava from hell deck:
> >
> >Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> >Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
> >
> >then eat your opponent for snack, allow it yourself with Absolution of the
> >Diabolist,
> >
> >and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
>
> That's pretty damn funny. :-) Is it legal though? I thought you couldn't
> play Amaranth after Combat Ended...
>

The unpreventable aggro (by Dawn Op) damage (by Drawing out the Beast) ist
dealt "after each round", that is (immediately) before the combat ends (if S:CE
was played)

Then the opposing vampire has unhealed damage, thus would go to torpor, thus
would legalize an Amaranth.

LSJ?

>
>
>
> I've actually got a similar deck that tries to work the Grave Robbing
> angle rather than the diablerie,

Diablerie needs lots of cards. Graverobbing needs less cards (and since there
is the no-repeat-action rule you should perhaps work with some Graverobbings
anyway)


> but it wouldn't take much to switch
> in Amaranth (of course, then you _have_ to get Stanislava out).

You play with 12x Stanislava, or perhaps with 6x Stanislava and some low caps
for help.

>
>
>
> It'd be a funny suprise for people who were expecting grave robbing
> though...
>

"funny" for you. I don't think that your preys find it funny when their minions
fall prey to this tactics.

You can even mix Stanislava with the !Gangrel and let them make the "Diablerie
Championships". After all, Stanislava has CEL too to compete with the City
Gangrel (and let you use your cards)...

By the way: The !Gangrel diablerie deck need rares in abundance,
the Stanislava way of dinner only commons and uncommons.

Michael Beer


Jasper Phillips

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
In article <35D9696A...@leila.ping.de>,
Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote:

>Jasper Phillips wrote:
>> I've actually got a similar deck that tries to work the Grave Robbing
>> angle rather than the diablerie,
>
>Diablerie needs lots of cards. Graverobbing needs less cards (and since there
>is the no-repeat-action rule you should perhaps work with some Graverobbings
>anyway)

Yah, that's why I've gone with Graverobbing in the past. Getting new
vampires is also better than killing them...

>> but it wouldn't take much to switch
>> in Amaranth (of course, then you _have_ to get Stanislava out).
>
>You play with 12x Stanislava, or perhaps with 6x Stanislava and some low caps
>for help.

In the "Wynn-Wynn" tradition of course. ;-)

>> It'd be a funny suprise for people who were expecting grave robbing
>> though...
>

>"funny" for you.I don't think that your preys find it funny when their minions


>fall prey to this tactics.

Actually, you'd be suprised. My play group places a certain value
on ruthlessness. :-)

>You can even mix Stanislava with the !Gangrel and let them make the "Diablerie
>Championships". After all, Stanislava has CEL too to compete with the City
>Gangrel (and let you use your cards)...

I'd actually thought about that back when I didn't have so many Gangrel
Conspiracies, since then I could work in the Absolutions too... In
the end I think going one way or the other is better, otherwise you'll
get mismatched combos too often. I've been thinking about using
Clan Impersonation though, just to extend the scope of the !Gangrel
a bit.

>By the way: The !Gangrel diablerie deck need rares in abundance,
>the Stanislava way of dinner only commons and uncommons.

And Sabbat Rares at that. I had to fork out for those Conspiracies.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote:

: I am currently thinking of another approach:

: A Stanislava from hell deck:

: Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
: Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist

: then eat your opponent for snack, allow it yourself with Absolution of the
: Diabolist,

: and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*

This would be hilarious. The only problem I see is the same one I
had when I tried to make a Tremere bruise/bleed deck with Dawn Op/
Weather Control/Skin of Night: After you eat about one vampire, no
one will want to block you. With Stanislava, you may be able to
force them to block or die since the bleeds could be big, but
then of course you risk Archon Investigation, which would suck a lot.

But I really like the idea. Especially the Absolution of the Diabolist
part. (It's absolutely fabulous, I tell you.)

I personally think these Gangrel-playing types should really consider
trying to get some good use out of Rotschreck now that it works the
useful way again. Of course, there's the slight difficulty that you
can't play both Rotschreck and Gangrel Conspiracy on the same time
around the table...

which means that it might be more effective in an all-Muaziz deck,
using Burst of Sunlight, Skin of Night, Rotschreck, Amaranth. The
good part about this is that you do it when blocking, so you don't
have the problem of having trouble getting into fights. The bad
part is, being an intercept deck, you don't do as much damage to
your prey as you'd like. But I bet that could be worked around if
the Amaranths can be made to work often enough.

Josh

diablerie with no bloodhunt... whose bright idea was that?


Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:

> Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote:
>
> : I am currently thinking of another approach:
>
> : A Stanislava from hell deck:
>

(deck snipped)

>
>
>
>
> This would be hilarious. The only problem I see is the same one I
> had when I tried to make a Tremere bruise/bleed deck with Dawn Op/
> Weather Control/Skin of Night: After you eat about one vampire, no
> one will want to block you. With Stanislava, you may be able to
> force them to block or die since the bleeds could be big, but
> then of course you risk Archon Investigation, which would suck a lot.
>

I even thought about using Necromancy weenies to deal with this problem. And if
Stanislava gets Necromancy, a Soul Gem would work just fine. I don't belong to
the group of players who shy away from deck ideas just because of the mere
existence of AI.

My prey should get the decision between being ousted or loosing its minions AND
being ousted.

>
>
>
> But I really like the idea. Especially the Absolution of the Diabolist
> part. (It's absolutely fabulous, I tell you.)
>

:)

>
>
>
> I personally think these Gangrel-playing types should really consider
> trying to get some good use out of Rotschreck now that it works the
> useful way again. Of course, there's the slight difficulty that you
> can't play both Rotschreck and Gangrel Conspiracy on the same time
> around the table...
>

Well, it would work, but I am not such a friend of Rotschreck. I have seen it
work in both ways (the old and the new version), but I prefer other deck styles.

>
>
>
> which means that it might be more effective in an all-Muaziz deck,
> using Burst of Sunlight, Skin of Night, Rotschreck, Amaranth.

Skin of Night is good with Dawn Operation, since as acting minion you cannot use
Rotschreck to avoid the aggro damage.
As reacting minion, using Rotschreck, NO damage is dealt because the combat ends
before the resolution phase, so you don't need Skin of Night.

> The
> good part about this is that you do it when blocking, so you don't
> have the problem of having trouble getting into fights. The bad
> part is, being an intercept deck, you don't do as much damage to
> your prey as you'd like.

I always wondered why intercept decks don't work with Reversal of Fortunes.
MY Tremere deck does, and I have a lot of fun with it.

> But I bet that could be worked around if
> the Amaranths can be made to work often enough.
>

Another way to get rid of vampires in torpor is Nephandus, the !Tremere ally.
He's cheap, can bleed and is not unique. You swarm your prey with a dozen
minions, and the last Nephandi kill any leftover trash in torpor.

Michael Beer


Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
> Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote:
>
> : I am currently thinking of another approach:
>
> : A Stanislava from hell deck:
>
> : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
>
> : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with

> Absolution of the Diabolist,
>
> : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
>

Is this combination of cards legal?

Michael Beer


Robert Goudie

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to

Yep. DotB (at superior) does 1 point of unpreventable damage at the end
of the round. The play of a strike that ends combat still allows the
end of round effects to take place. The 1 pt. of damage takes place
during combat and would be aggravated.

--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

LSJ

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Michael Beer wrote:
> > Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote:
> > : A Stanislava from hell deck:
> >
> > : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> > : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
> > : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with
> > Absolution of the Diabolist,
> > : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
>
> Is this combination of cards legal?

Yes. But the action will not continue as if unblocked.

Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently
disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't
explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the
ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=102367942

I'll put this on the RT review list, just to make sure.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote:
: Joshua Duffin wrote:

: > : A Stanislava from hell deck:
: >

: > This would be hilarious. The only problem I see is the same one I


: > had when I tried to make a Tremere bruise/bleed deck with Dawn Op/
: > Weather Control/Skin of Night: After you eat about one vampire, no
: > one will want to block you. With Stanislava, you may be able to
: > force them to block or die since the bleeds could be big, but
: > then of course you risk Archon Investigation, which would suck a lot.

: I even thought about using Necromancy weenies to deal with this problem.
: And if
: Stanislava gets Necromancy, a Soul Gem would work just fine. I don't
: belong to
: the group of players who shy away from deck ideas just because of the
: mere existence of AI.

: My prey should get the decision between being ousted or loosing its
: minions AND
: being ousted.

Heh, that could work. I like the Necromancy/Soul Gem idea. (Hadn't
thought of Soul Gem as AI defense.)

: > which means that it might be more effective in an all-Muaziz deck,


: > using Burst of Sunlight, Skin of Night, Rotschreck, Amaranth.

: Skin of Night is good with Dawn Operation, since as acting minion you
: cannot use
: Rotschreck to avoid the aggro damage.
: As reacting minion, using Rotschreck, NO damage is dealt because the
: combat ends
: before the resolution phase, so you don't need Skin of Night.

Oh yeah, I was forgetting about that. I thought it was supposed to be
an easier combo than that...

It seems to me that this should be a very effective deck. I really
ought to try making it sometime. My only problem is I don't have
enough Muaziz... (and maybe not enough Rotschrecks)

: > The


: > good part about this is that you do it when blocking, so you don't
: > have the problem of having trouble getting into fights. The bad
: > part is, being an intercept deck, you don't do as much damage to
: > your prey as you'd like.

: I always wondered why intercept decks don't work with Reversal of Fortunes.
: MY Tremere deck does, and I have a lot of fun with it.

Well, many intercept decks would have trouble passing the vote. But
it would be very cool if you can use it.

: Another way to get rid of vampires in torpor is Nephandus, the !Tremere ally.


: He's cheap, can bleed and is not unique. You swarm your prey with a dozen
: minions, and the last Nephandi kill any leftover trash in torpor.

Wow, Nephandus is awfully good for an ally. (I don't think I've ever
seen one - just looked it up on the spoiler list.) Yeah, that would
be good for extra bleed and non-diablerie vampire destruction.

Josh

well the kids are all hopped up and ready to go


Karl and Sam

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to

LSJ wrote:

> Michael Beer wrote:


> > > Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote:
> > > : A Stanislava from hell deck:
> > >

> > > : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> > > : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
> > > : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with
> > > Absolution of the Diabolist,
> > > : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
> >
> > Is this combination of cards legal?
>
> Yes. But the action will not continue as if unblocked.
>
> Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently
> disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't
> explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the
> ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist:
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=102367942
>
> I'll put this on the RT review list, just to make sure.
>
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
> http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

I would have thought by your previous ruling on the
Rotschreck/Amaranth/Decapitate question that this would not be the case. Since FOM
is ending the combat wouldn't the same ruling apply??
(ie. since the combat ends when R. is played niether Amaranth or Decapitate may be
played, as they are combat cards.) Why the distinction between the text "Combat
ends before damage is resolved" (the Rotschreck text) and S:CE which in practice
they are exactly the same???

Just a bit puzzled, Karl


ber...@cco.caltech.edu

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to

> > > : A Stanislava from hell deck:
> > >
> > > : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> > > : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
> > > : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with
> > > Absolution of the Diabolist,
> > > : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
> >
> > Is this combination of cards legal?
>
> Yes. But the action will not continue as if unblocked.
>
> Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently
> disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't
> explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the
> ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist:
>

Sorry, but I don't think this makes any sense whatsoever. This seems about
equivalent to saying "dealing damage disrupts the 'continue action' effect."
I can understand the ruling on Psyche/Hidden Lurker/Fast Reactions vs. Form
of Mist, but Amaranth doesn't cause any effect that would reasonably cancel
Form of Mist's continuation.

-Chris

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote:

> > > > : A Stanislava from hell deck:
> > > >
> > > > : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> > > > : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
> > > > : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with
> > > > Absolution of the Diabolist,
> > > > : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
> > >
> > > Is this combination of cards legal?
> >
> > Yes. But the action will not continue as if unblocked.
> >
> > Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently
> > disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't
> > explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the
> > ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist:
> >
>
> Sorry, but I don't think this makes any sense whatsoever. This seems about
> equivalent to saying "dealing damage disrupts the 'continue action' effect."
> I can understand the ruling on Psyche/Hidden Lurker/Fast Reactions vs. Form
> of Mist, but Amaranth doesn't cause any effect that would reasonably cancel
> Form of Mist's continuation.
>

Perhaps it is meant as "sets his attention on something different than the original
action", not "disrupting", but in the end, wouldn't change the ruling as such.

Well, well, I can live with this ruling as well.

Stanislava wakes at the beginning of the turn because some vamp (of your prey) hears
loud musik.
Stanislava is angry and calls for her Dog Pack (or Raven Spy or Wolf Pack or
Renegade Garou friend or embrace a new child or...) to search the cretin.
Stanislava Freak Drives and Bum's Rushes the unlucky one.
Stanislava plays Drawing out the Beast and Carrion Crows and strikes with Clawed
Scorpion Sting, preventing the damage with Fortitude, tasting her opponent's vitae.
Stanislava then remembers an age old offense, and with her Force of Will she wents
bleeding, daring the dawn, changing the aggro damage to normal damage with Skin of
Night, and adds a Foreshadowing Destruction (so she bleeds unblockably and does NOT
enter torpor for 6-8 pool, for only 2 blood cost!)

And:

If Stanislava is blocked, she plays Drawing out the Beast, Dawn Op, Earth Meld or
Form of Mist, Amaranth, Absolution of the Diabolist

Bleed defense would be Rats Warning + Deflection, Vote Defense her own votes and
rushing hostile voters.

If she really gets badly wounded or is pound into torpor somehow, just let her reach
Golconda and get a new copy out or let her progeny (and herself) learn Necromancy,
put some Possessions in your deck and don't forget the Soul Gem of Etrius. (I think
Golconda would be best because you can focus on ANI FOR PRO DOM, which is plenty
enough for disciplines)

Hmmmmmmmmm......

Would be worth a try in JOL....

Michael Beer


LSJ

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote:
> > > > : A Stanislava from hell deck:
> > > > : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play
> > > > : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist
> > > > : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself
with
> > > > Absolution of the Diabolist,
> > > > : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam*
> >
> > the action will not continue as if unblocked.
> >
> > Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently
> > disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't
> > explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the
> > ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist:
>
> Sorry, but I don't think this makes any sense whatsoever. This seems about
> equivalent to saying "dealing damage disrupts the 'continue action' effect."

Right. But the disruption (from DotB, for example) is not "sufficient"
enough to cancel the "continue action".

> I can understand the ruling on Psyche/Hidden Lurker/Fast Reactions vs. Form
> of Mist, but Amaranth doesn't cause any effect that would reasonably cancel
> Form of Mist's continuation.

Yes, it does: Diablerie (typically with the resulting opportunity to
call a Blood Hunt followed by the Blood Hunt referendum itself) is
a "sufficient" disruption.

Diablerie subs for combat in another area, as well:
A vampire blocking a ready vampire enters combat with that vampire.
A vampire blocking a torporous vampire gets the opportunity to
diablerize that vampire (by rules or card text).

Still, the ruling will be reviewed by the RT, as I noted.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Michael Beer wrote:

> Stanislava then remembers an age old offense, and with her Force of Will she wents
> bleeding, daring the dawn, changing the aggro damage to normal damage with Skin of
> Night, and adds a Foreshadowing Destruction (so she bleeds unblockably and does NOT
> enter torpor for 6-8 pool, for only 2 blood cost!)
>

Actually, it would cost only 1 pool, but does 2 damage.

The card text of Daring the Dawn says:

Vampires cannot block this action.
This vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action is complete.
As above, but this acting vampire takes 1 aggravated damage.

The superior version does NOT say:

As above, but this action vampire takes 1 aggravated damage (not preventable).

Is this a situation like the "old" Ruthor's Hand, so that the damage of superior DtD
COULD be prevented, or does an errata (or clarification) exists which explains that the
damage is unpreventable in the superior version as well?

Then this action *would* "cost" only 2 pool, since you would prevent the damage of
Daring the Dawn with the Skin of Night...

Michael Beer


LSJ

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Karl and Sam wrote:
> I would have thought by your previous ruling on the
> Rotschreck/Amaranth/Decapitate question that this would not be the case. Since FOM
> is ending the combat wouldn't the same ruling apply??
> (ie. since the combat ends when R. is played niether Amaranth or Decapitate may be
> played, as they are combat cards.) Why the distinction between the text "Combat
> ends before damage is resolved" (the Rotschreck text) and S:CE which in practice
> they are exactly the same???

Yes, it is confusing, as Josh Duffin noted when I made the
Rotschreck ruling [JOSH 980730] :-).

The issue is being reviewed by the RT for possible changes to
make the whole system more uniform, as I noted when Josh pointed
out the disparity in the rulings.

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=377788019

The current set of rulings have been around for a long time, and
I'm not sure of the reason(s) for the apparent disparity.

Perhps it has something to do with the fact that Rotschreck is
a Master card and S:CE is a minion-card effect. Or that S:CE doesn't
end combat when the card is played, but instead it waits until
strike resolution. Or perhaps something else.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <35DB26E1...@leila.ping.de>, Michael Beer
<Mi...@leila.ping.de> writes

>Then this action *would* "cost" only 2 pool, since you would prevent the damage
>of
>Daring the Dawn with the Skin of Night...

The use of "As above" brings down everything from the top line and then
modifies it. It therefore brings down "unpreventable". Note that
Rutors has to *specifically* rule the damage as unpreventable because of
it. (Okay, in Rutor's case, it doesn't give another amount of damage).
But DtD is still unpreventable at superior.

--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply

Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Michael Beer

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
James Coupe wrote:

> In article <35DB26E1...@leila.ping.de>, Michael Beer
> <Mi...@leila.ping.de> writes
> >Then this action *would* "cost" only 2 pool, since you would prevent the damage
> >of
> >Daring the Dawn with the Skin of Night...
>
> The use of "As above" brings down everything from the top line and then
> modifies it. It therefore brings down "unpreventable". Note that
> Rutors has to *specifically* rule the damage as unpreventable because of
> it. (Okay, in Rutor's case, it doesn't give another amount of damage).
> But DtD is still unpreventable at superior.
>

You remembered phoning your mum, did you?

For comparison, here is the card text from Force of Will:

Only usable by a tapped vampire. Untap this acting vampire; he or she bleeds at +1
bleed as a (D) action, but takes 2 points of aggravated damage (damage not
preventable), even if the action is blocked. Damage occurs after the action or
combat is resolved. As above, but the (D) bleed is at +2 bleed and the acting
vampire takes 1 point of aggravated damage(damage not preventable).


That is, in both cards, the card text regarding the damage to be received is
modified, so the "brings up everything down from the top and then modifies it"
doesn't count, because the damage from Daring the Dawn is modified to be

As above, but this acting vampire takes 1 aggravated damage.

As I said, the text to override the former damage description is NOT

As above, but this acting vampire takes 1 aggravated damage (damage not prevantable)

So I STILL think that the damage from superior DtD is in fact preventable.

Michael Beer


LSJ

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
Michael Beer wrote:
> [Re: Daring the Dawn]

> For comparison, here is the card text from Force of Will:
>
> Only usable by a tapped vampire. Untap this acting vampire; he or she bleeds at +1
> bleed as a (D) action, but takes 2 points of aggravated damage (damage not
> preventable), even if the action is blocked. Damage occurs after the action or
> combat is resolved. As above, but the (D) bleed is at +2 bleed and the acting
> vampire takes 1 point of aggravated damage(damage not preventable).
>
> That is, in both cards, the card text regarding the damage to be received is
> modified, so the "brings up everything down from the top and then modifies it"
> doesn't count, because the damage from Daring the Dawn is modified to be
>
> As above, but this acting vampire takes 1 aggravated damage.
>
> As I said, the text to override the former damage description is NOT
>
> As above, but this acting vampire takes 1 aggravated damage (damage not prevantable)
>
> So I STILL think that the damage from superior DtD is in fact preventable.

It is not preventable [LSJ 970711].
(And it occurs after the action, for that matter.)

Both of these are derived from the "As above" phrasing.

Likewise, the damage from superior blood fury cannot be prevented
by cards that require fortitude, even though the superior doesn't
restate that modification to the damage.

The fact that FoW restates the "not preventable" modifier doesn't
mean that it had to. The "As above" would've sufficed in that case
as well.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:

: Karl and Sam wrote:
: > I would have thought by your previous ruling on the
: > Rotschreck/Amaranth/Decapitate question that this would not be the case. Since FOM
: > is ending the combat wouldn't the same ruling apply??
: > (ie. since the combat ends when R. is played niether Amaranth or Decapitate may be
: > played, as they are combat cards.) Why the distinction between the text "Combat
: > ends before damage is resolved" (the Rotschreck text) and S:CE which in practice
: > they are exactly the same???

: Yes, it is confusing, as Josh Duffin noted when I made the
: Rotschreck ruling [JOSH 980730] :-).

Ah, my life is complete. I've been cited by LSJ. ;-)
(Do you have an automated system for doing those citations, or
do you have to type them in by hand each time?)

: Perhps it has something to do with the fact that Rotschreck is


: a Master card and S:CE is a minion-card effect. Or that S:CE doesn't
: end combat when the card is played, but instead it waits until
: strike resolution. Or perhaps something else.

By the way, when might we hope to see the next batch of RT decisions
on matters such as this?

Josh

remove the stone of shame... attach the stone of triumph!


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages