Rules Team Rulings 01-MAY-2002

349 views
Skip to first unread message

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 11:05:33 AM5/1/02
to
Reversals of previous rulings and new errata contained herein go into
effect for V:EKN Constructed Tournaments on May 31, 2002.

CARD-SPECIFIC CLARIFICATIONS, RULINGS, AND ERRATA:

CLARIFICATIONS:

MALLEABLE VISAGE doesn't change the acting minion. The original acting
ally is still the actor. Since he was blocked (a requirement for playing
Malleable Visage), the No Repeat Actions rule (if it is being used) would
restrict him from performing the same action again this turn.

RULINGS:

EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It
allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a
Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action.
It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth,
Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision).
(REVERSAL)

If a vampire bleeds with FORCE OF WILL and the bleed action is canceled
(via Change of Target, for example), then the acting vampire doesn't
suffer the aggravated damage, since there is no combat.

KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally.
(REVERSAL)

The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land)
occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat
ends).

If a vampire is stolen via SPIRIT MARIONETTE and then bleeds (as required)
and the bleed action is canceled (via Change of Target, for example), the
vampire still returns to its original controller, since that "next
action" (the bleed that was canceled) is over. (REVERSAL)

ERRATA:

THE GRANDEST TRICK makes vampires unable to block the minion who played
it, not the action in general (so if it is Masked, vampires can attempt
to block the new acting vampire).

MELANGE should refer to the "minion with this card" not "the vampire with
this card" - it still functions when played on an acting ally.

PSYCHOMACHIA is playable when an ally or younger vampire blocks
(successfully) - not merely on the attempt. (So the NRA rule, if used,
would "kick in" to prevent the vampire from attempting the same type of
action again).

GENERAL RULINGS:

For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby
to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
(REVERSAL)

Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the
single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
combat (see Majesty ruling above).

If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
combat/etc.).

An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is
already a "to be resolved later" combat.

Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect
is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided
by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has
some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the
secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means
"if he uses this card's effect to do so". For example, Ian Forestal with
an Infernal Familiar can play a card that requires, say, Necromancy (a
Discipline he doesn't have) as if he had basic Necromancy. This ability
is granted separately by both his own card text and the text on the
Infernal Familiar. If he plays a card that requires Necromancy via the
Familiar ("if he does so"), then the Infernal Familiar gets an additional
investment counter, by card text. If he uses his special ability to play
such a card, the Familiar doesn't. (REVERSAL)


--
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/

Sorrow

unread,
May 1, 2002, 11:50:17 AM5/1/02
to
> EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It
> allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a
> Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action.
> It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth,
> Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision).
> (REVERSAL)

Why this reversal?

> KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally.
> (REVERSAL)

Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X?

> For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
> resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
> granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
> card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
> resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
> striking "as a vampire")

Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no
such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this
ruling meant to do something else?

> and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed
> if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> (REVERSAL)

So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to
be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc)

> Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the
> single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
> new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
> Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
> end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
> combat (see Majesty ruling above).

So does this mean that Psyche! et. al. can/will get around the damage inflicted
by superior Catatonic Fear?

> If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
> Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
> effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
> combat/etc.).

How/why did this come about?

> An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is
> already a "to be resolved later" combat.

Minion A Bum's Rushes Minion B
Minion B attempts to block
Minion C plays Siren's Lure
Combat ensues between A and B (due to the BR)
Combat is ending
Minion A plays Psyche!

So this is now illegal?

> Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
> say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect
> is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided
> by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has
> some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the
> secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means
> "if he uses this card's effect to do so".

What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any.

Sorrow
---
If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on,
you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made
your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you
from the earth.


Reyda

unread,
May 1, 2002, 12:29:30 PM5/1/02
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com...


> EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision.

this is actually downgrading the card. I understand it will also simplify
the game. So i guess it's okay =)

> KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally.
> (REVERSAL)

it's only a way to make us put some Followers of Set in a Shambling hordes
deck ? ;)

> The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land)
> occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat
> ends).

was that a problem ?

> GENERAL RULINGS:
> For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate cards.

so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only
valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of
agg damage as if she was a vampire ?
What's the point in wallpaperizing one of the few useful allies ?

> Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in
the
> single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
> new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
> Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
> end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
> combat (see Majesty ruling above).

Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of
the kindred than ?
if not, why ?

> Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
> say that some other effect will occur "if he does so".

(snip blahblah)


> For example, Ian Forestal with
> an Infernal Familiar can play a card that requires, say, Necromancy (a
> Discipline he doesn't have) as if he had basic Necromancy.

(snip blahblah)
> (REVERSAL)

why not replace it by "Ian forrestal can use either his ability or the
infernal minion's one when playing a card ? "
creating a new rule only for uncle ian ? ;)


keep up the good work =)

reyda

Reyda

unread,
May 1, 2002, 12:31:01 PM5/1/02
to

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cd01820$0$14819$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...

> > GENERAL RULINGS:
> > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> > appropriate cards.

Does it mean that Rafastio Ghoul can play all cards as if she had superior
thaumaturgy when tremere convocation is in play ? =D

reyda

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:15:29 PM5/1/02
to
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It
> > allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a
> > Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action.
> > It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth,
> > Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision).
> > (REVERSAL)
>
> Why this reversal?

Consistency. Errata reduction.

> > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally.
> > (REVERSAL)
>
> Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X?

No. Gain X pool (See card text).



> > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
> > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
> > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
> > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
> > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
> > striking "as a vampire")
>
> Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no
> such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this
> ruling meant to do something else?

Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however.



> > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed
> > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> > (REVERSAL)
>
> So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to
> be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc)

Yes. Yes.



> > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the
> > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
> > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
> > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
> > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
> > combat (see Majesty ruling above).
>
> So does this mean that Psyche! et. al. can/will get around the damage inflicted
> by superior Catatonic Fear?

Yes.



> > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
> > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
> > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
> > combat/etc.).
>
> How/why did this come about?

It's a ruling now. Interested parties can examine the alternatives and/or
google archives at their leisure.



> > An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is
> > already a "to be resolved later" combat.
>
> Minion A Bum's Rushes Minion B
> Minion B attempts to block
> Minion C plays Siren's Lure
> Combat ensues between A and B (due to the BR)
> Combat is ending
> Minion A plays Psyche!
>
> So this is now illegal?

Still illegal, yes.



> > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
> > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect
> > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided
> > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has
> > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the
> > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means
> > "if he uses this card's effect to do so".
>
> What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any.

Any others that match the template.

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:18:25 PM5/1/02
to
Reyda wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message

[snipping all but rules questions below ...]



> so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only
> valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of
> agg damage as if she was a vampire ?

Yes.

> > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in
> the
> > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
> > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
> > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
> > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
> > combat (see Majesty ruling above).
>
> Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of
> the kindred than ?

Yes.

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:19:01 PM5/1/02
to

No.

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:31:28 PM5/1/02
to
Sorrow wrote:
> > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
> > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect
> > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided
> > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has
> > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the
> > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means
> > "if he uses this card's effect to do so".
>
> What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any.

A few other examples were given by Chris Berger in discussing
this topic:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OjZ08.21449%24Tq.221398%40rwcrnsc54

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:49:02 PM5/1/02
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com...

> Reversals of previous rulings and new errata contained herein go into
> effect for V:EKN Constructed Tournaments on May 31, 2002.
>
> CARD-SPECIFIC CLARIFICATIONS, RULINGS, AND ERRATA:
>
> RULINGS:
>
> EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It
> allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a
> Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action.
> It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth,
> Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision).
> (REVERSAL)

Ah, I approve. :-) I forget, does Anneke get to override
her Meth's previous "I don't block" decision? She says
'after others have declined or failed' which presumably
means after other Methuselahs have declined or failed - does
it mean that, for example, if your predator is attempting to
bleed you, you decide not to block, all other Methuselahs
then decide not to block, you get another opportunity to
block with Anneke now that others have declined?

> ERRATA:


>
> PSYCHOMACHIA is playable when an ally or younger vampire blocks
> (successfully) - not merely on the attempt. (So the NRA rule, if used,
> would "kick in" to prevent the vampire from attempting the same type of
> action again).

Why was this necessary? It made the card interesting that it
didn't apply NRA taint to the playing vampire. :-) Also,
with this errata, the Presence ability is worse than Change of
Target (on two counts: one, it costs blood, and two, you have
to have been blocked by an ally or younger vampire). (The only
advantage [pre] Psychomachia has over Change of Target now is
that if you're *not* using NRA you're not under same-action
restrictions.)

Designer intent? If so, I wish the designer had intended it
to work the way it did before this errata. :-)

> GENERAL RULINGS:
>
> For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
> resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
> granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
> card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
> resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
> striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby
> to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> (REVERSAL)

Hmmm. I thought Curt Adams' suggestion was much better - that
allies should *never* have anything applied to them that's only
supposed to apply to vampires, because when they have these
abilities, it's only supposed to mean that they can do some things
that vampires do, not that they *are* in any way vampires. So
Burst of Sunlight should never do damage to an ally; an ally
should never be able to call a vote (that requires a vampire to
call); an ally should never be able to benefit from Ex Nihilo
(the last one is still true). :-)

> Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in
the
> single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
> new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
> Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
> end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
> combat (see Majesty ruling above).

Oy. Why was this necessary? I can see the logic behind "if
combat doesn't end" but "if a new combat is started" has no
obvious reason to dissolve these effects. The first combat
ended; things that happen "after that combat" can happen; a
new combat can begin.

I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either;
don't all its effects - including the torporization - get
applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or
Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing
vampire eligible to be Psyche!d against. (Fast Reaction
could still be playable if it was the blocking vampire that
was the Rotschreck victim, but again I don't see why a Fast
Reaction being played after resolution of Rotschreck should
retroactively cancel Rotschreck's effects.)


Josh

wishes he were on the rules team ;-)

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:58:54 PM5/1/02
to

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z8Uz8.452$6l1.4...@monger.newsread.com...

[LSJ wrote]

> > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and
the
> > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
> > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
> > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
> > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
> > striking "as a vampire")
>
> Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no
> such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is
this
> ruling meant to do something else?

Ook, I didn't think of exactly what would happen here when I
was writing my last message. So when Rafastio Ghoul plays
Burst of Sunlight "as a vampire", it takes the damage as a
vampire and is therefore sent to torpor by 1 point of aggravated
damage? Since it's taking the damage "as a vampire" it's not
under the "allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage" rule?

I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies
with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if*
they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach.


Josh

allies in torpor! cats and dogs, living together!

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:00:52 PM5/1/02
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> I forget, does Anneke get to override
> her Meth's previous "I don't block" decision? She says

Yes. But not the (final) "Anneke doesn't block" decision.

> > ERRATA:
> >
> > PSYCHOMACHIA is playable when an ally or younger vampire blocks
> > (successfully) - not merely on the attempt. (So the NRA rule, if used,
> > would "kick in" to prevent the vampire from attempting the same type of
> > action again).
>

> with this errata, the Presence ability is worse than Change of
> Target (on two counts: one, it costs blood, and two, you have
> to have been blocked by an ally or younger vampire).

The *card* has an advantage over CoT in the DAI usage. The pre
usage merely increases that advantage by way of versatility.



> I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either;
> don't all its effects - including the torporization - get
> applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or
> Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing

No. Psyche! is playable when combat ends. Rotschreck ends
combat before sending the vampire to torpor. Likewise FR.

Sorrow

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:01:18 PM5/1/02
to
> > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally.
> > > (REVERSAL)
> > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X?
> No. Gain X pool (See card text).

Understood. But this ruling seems to indicate that you can no use it on minions that
cost X (whereas before I guess you couldn't). With that being the case, my question
is if you do use it on such a minion, you get back what you paid (or the X cost of the
minion)?

> > Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no
> > such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this
> > ruling meant to do something else?
> Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however.

How is this possible?

2.3. Play Area
The area in front of each player is divided into two regions: the uncontrolled region,
which will start with four uncontrolled vampires dealt facedown from the crypt, and
the controlled region, which is empty at the start of the game. The controlled region
is further divided into two areas: the ready region and the torpor region. *Torpor is a
special area for wounded vampires* (see Torpor, sec. 6.5).

(emphesis mine)

6.5.1. Going into Torpor

Vampires in torpor are placed in an area to one side of the uncontrolled region, called
the torpor region(+). Any retainers, equipment and other cards on the vampire stay
with the vampire when he goes to torpor.


(+) A vampire going to torpor goes to the torpor region which is a special area for
wounded vampires

So how can an ally reside there?

Also, every mention of torpor says "the vampire", "a vampire". If allies can now "go to
torpor" you are creating this huge grey area that isn't afforded by the rules and is only
vaguely addressed by this ruling.


> > > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed
> > > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> > > (REVERSAL)
> > So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to
> > be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc)
> Yes. Yes.

Ok. Though, I think the correct answer is "Yes. No. It can be either" according
to how the question was phrased. The second excludes the first..

> > So does this mean that Psyche! et. al. can/will get around the damage inflicted
> > by superior Catatonic Fear?
> Yes.

Ok

> > > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
> > > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
> > > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
> > > combat/etc.).
> > How/why did this come about?
> It's a ruling now. Interested parties can examine the alternatives and/or
> google archives at their leisure.

I'm an interested party. What specifically should I be looking for?

> > > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
> > > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect
> > > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided
> > > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has
> > > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the
> > > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means
> > > "if he uses this card's effect to do so".
> > What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any.
> Any others that match the template.

Which are? That was the point of my question. I can't think of any that currently
fit the template.

Sorrow
---
"Our fathers were our models for God.
If they bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to be
prepared for the possibility that God does not like you."
- Tyler Durden

Sorrow

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:01:18 PM5/1/02
to
> > Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of
> > the kindred than ?
> Yes.

So what does that do to the Illusions combat? Negate it?

Sorrow
---
"I am Jack's wasted life."
- Narrator

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:02:52 PM5/1/02
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Ook, I didn't think of exactly what would happen here when I
> was writing my last message. So when Rafastio Ghoul plays
> Burst of Sunlight "as a vampire", it takes the damage as a
> vampire and is therefore sent to torpor by 1 point of aggravated
> damage? Since it's taking the damage "as a vampire" it's not
> under the "allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage" rule?

Right.

> I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies
> with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if*
> they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach.

Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire"
would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google.

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:04:07 PM5/1/02
to
Sorrow wrote:
> > > > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in
> > > the
> > > > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
> > > > new combat is started.

> > > Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of
> > > the kindred than ?

> > Yes.
>
> So what does that do to the Illusions combat? Negate it?

Fizzle. See above.

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:09:29 PM5/1/02
to
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally.
> > > > (REVERSAL)
> > > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X?
> > No. Gain X pool (See card text).
>
> Understood. But this ruling seems to indicate that you can no use it on minions that
> cost X (whereas before I guess you couldn't). With that being the case, my question
> is if you do use it on such a minion, you get back what you paid (or the X cost of the
> minion)?

If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool.
If it cost X blood, then you get X pool.
If it cost X pool, then you get X pool.

The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X
on card text.

> > > Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no
> > > such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this
> > > ruling meant to do something else?
> > Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however.
>
> How is this possible?

Card text. Vampires can go to torpor. The ally is treated like a vampire.
Once there, there's no effect/rule/whatever that indicates the ally should
be burned or moved to the ready region or whatever, so he isn't.



> > > > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed
> > > > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> > > > (REVERSAL)
> > > So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to
> > > be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc)
> > Yes. Yes.
>
> Ok. Though, I think the correct answer is "Yes. No. It can be either" according
> to how the question was phrased. The second excludes the first..

Can the Herald call a vote? Yes.
It can be a PA? Yes.

> > > > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
> > > > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
> > > > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
> > > > combat/etc.).
> > > How/why did this come about?
> > It's a ruling now. Interested parties can examine the alternatives and/or
> > google archives at their leisure.
>
> I'm an interested party. What specifically should I be looking for?

Whatever you're interested in.
Maybe Undead Persistence. Maybe Siren's Lure. That's up to you.



> > > What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any.
> > Any others that match the template.
>
> Which are? That was the point of my question. I can't think of any that currently
> fit the template.

See Chris Berger's post cited by me elsewhere in this thread.

Chris Berger

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:16:45 PM5/1/02
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD02385...@white-wolf.com...

> Reyda wrote:
> >
> > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cd01820$0$14819$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
> >
> > > > GENERAL RULINGS:
> > > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> > > > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> > > > appropriate cards.
> >
> > Does it mean that Rafastio Ghoul can play all cards as if she had superior
> > thaumaturgy when tremere convocation is in play ? =D
>
> No.
>
The reason for this, I believe, is that the Ghoul must choose a level of the
card before it is played. It can only play the inferior level as though it
were a vampire. It is not treated "as a vampire" until it plays the card, at
which point it has already chosen what level to play it at. As it plays the
card, it would seem that it gains the ability to play it at superior, but it's
too late.


LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:19:02 PM5/1/02
to
Chris Berger wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > Reyda wrote:
> > > Does it mean that Rafastio Ghoul can play all cards as if she had superior
> > > thaumaturgy when tremere convocation is in play ? =D
> >
> > No.
> >
> The reason for this, I believe, is that the Ghoul must choose a level of the
> card before it is played. It can only play the inferior level as though it
> were a vampire. It is not treated "as a vampire" until it plays the card, at
> which point it has already chosen what level to play it at. As it plays the
> card, it would seem that it gains the ability to play it at superior, but it's
> too late.

Correct. Clarification on Talaq, from the web page, provides more reasoning:

While Talaq may play cards that require disciplines (Quietus or Thaumaturgy),
he doesn't actually have those disciplines. He doesn't benefit from Tremere
Convocation, for example. Similar to Ian Forestal's special ability. [LSJ
19980303]

Orpheus

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:52:30 PM5/1/02
to
> > > > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an
ally.
> > > > > (REVERSAL)
> > > > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid
for X?
> > > No. Gain X pool (See card text).
> >
> > Understood. But this ruling seems to indicate that you can no use it on
minions that
> > cost X (whereas before I guess you couldn't). With that being the case,
my question
> > is if you do use it on such a minion, you get back what you paid (or the
X cost of the
> > minion)?
>
> If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool.
> If it cost X blood, then you get X pool.
> If it cost X pool, then you get X pool.
>
> The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X
> on card text.

This is enormous !!! Now, a Setite Shmabling Hordes / Puppeteer deck is
among the most powerful things ! Let's just say we put in the setites with
Nec, the Giovanni with Obf, and here we can summon Shambling Hordes and
Puppeteers and let them do their stuff ; of course we have a Path of Bone, a
Charisma and a Tower of London in (after a while), so the Hordes cost 1 and
give U one pool ; When they get tired, you burn them through the Khobar
Towers, and gain 3 more pool !!! The Puppeteers only gain you a total of 2,
for no cost, and can come in handy of course.

This makes the Khobar Towers one of the most powerful locations in the game,
I'm not sure the Setites needed that already (there were two in the finals
of my last tournament, they can already mix with many clans and
bloodlines... In other words, Setites rule !!).

Can we know what motivated this change in ruling ?


--
Yours,

Orpheus, Prince of Marseille

http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel)
http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band)

news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
audio...@yahoogroups.com


Orpheus

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:56:16 PM5/1/02
to

> so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only
> valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of
> agg damage as if she was a vampire ?

So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it
just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?


LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:17:54 PM5/1/02
to

Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor.
Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".

Sorrow

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:28:35 PM5/1/02
to
> > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it
> > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?
> Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor.
> Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".

Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced
in the future to get an ally out of torpor?
Man, talk about unintuitive...

Sorrow
---
"No, you're insane"
-Tyler Durden


LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:37:46 PM5/1/02
to
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it
> > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?
> > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor.
> > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".
>
> Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced
> in the future to get an ally out of torpor?

Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence
to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned
instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:44:40 PM5/1/02
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD02DCC...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:

> > I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies
> > with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if*
> > they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach.
>
> Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire"
> would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google.

Oh, I've seen them. :-) I found Curt Adams' take on the
situation pretty convincing:

"Something is awry with the game mechanics of these "as a
vampire" cards. This is supposed to model minions who can
create effects similar to those of vampires with disciplines
even though they're not vampires and don't actually have the
disciplines. In no present case is the minion "slumming" as
a vampire - they should *never* get the peculiar advantages
and disadvantages of vampires during the process of playing
a card. There should be no "when do they go back to being
an ally" decision because they should never stop in the first
place. If some Tremeresque magus had an ability to actually
become a vampire for the duration of an action, it should need
explicit text a la Grandest Trick."

"Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ,
the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to
do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced
ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities
because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive."
[CURT 11-Feb-2002]

If it's necessary for allies to be unable to play cards that
reference "this vampire" for this to be possible, that's fine
with me. It's nice that Herald of Topheth can play Disarm,
but he probably *shouldn't* be able to play Charming Lobby,
Awe, and Voter Captivation.


Josh

aweful

CurtAdams

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:46:29 PM5/1/02
to
vte...@white-wolf.com writes:

>> I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies
>> with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if*
>> they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach.

>Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire"
>would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google.

The "as if" should modify the card, not the minion. I.e.
replace "this vampire" with "this minion" on the card. That's
much closer to what's "supposed" to be going on - Talaq isn't
really using Quietus, he's using some life-entropy rote
which, if there were a printed card for it, would look like
the appropriately modified Quietus card.

In addition to creating all these complicated issues about
torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn
back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in
the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are
absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if
a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the
using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't
be rescued.

Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:51:05 PM5/1/02
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD02D54...@white-wolf.com...

> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message

> > > ERRATA:
> > >
> > > PSYCHOMACHIA


>
> The *card* has an advantage over CoT in the DAI usage. The pre
> usage merely increases that advantage by way of versatility.

But you'd never use it in a deck that wasn't using the [DAI]
usage, now. It was an interesting effect for [pre] before this
ruling. With a cost of 1 blood, I don't think being able to
cycle it on unsuccessful blocks made the card overpowered at
either Daimoinon level, either.

It seems to inadvisably (IMO) de-parallel the card from Call
of the Hungry Dead and Elder Impersonation, too - those are
playable "when a minion is attempting to block", because "when
a minion has successfully blocked" is (has been) too late to
make the block fail.

> > I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either;
> > don't all its effects - including the torporization - get
> > applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or
> > Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing
>
> No. Psyche! is playable when combat ends. Rotschreck ends
> combat before sending the vampire to torpor. Likewise FR.

Eccch. I don't like having other cards played in the middle of
one card's resolution. Rotschreck shouldn't be interruptible
partway through any more than diablerie is. (I realize this
would make it impossible to Disarm a vampire if Rotschreck is
played; that's fine by me. It'd be more consistent with the
general rule that non-strike or action cards have all their
effects applied before any other effect can intervene.)


Josh

with liberty and justice for all

LSJ

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:52:12 PM5/1/02
to
CurtAdams wrote:
> In addition to creating all these complicated issues about
> torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn
> back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in
> the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are

There are no complicated rules about torporized minions
nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally.

The ally is always an ally.

The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however,
by explicit card text.

> absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if
> a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the
> using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't
> be rescued.

The RPG'ers have already "gone nuts" over the ability to
wear two Flak Jackets as well. So?

Sorrow

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:25:34 PM5/1/02
to
> > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced
> > in the future to get an ally out of torpor?
> Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence
> to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned
> instead.

That would be ideal. I don't have a problem with the fact that an ally takes the
damage as aggravated thus forcing the trip to what would otherwise be torpor.
However, torpor applies only to vamps. Historically in the CCG and also in the
RPG. It is just counter-intuitive otherwise -- a mortal in a state that is really only
applicable to vampires.

> I don't think it'll come to that, however.

It really should.

Sorrow
---
no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force
no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust
no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders
now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes
now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies


Chris Berger

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:29:02 PM5/1/02
to

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:aapdgu$iif$1...@wanadoo.fr...
>
> > [Khobar Towers ruling]

>
> This is enormous !!! Now, a Setite Shmabling Hordes / Puppeteer deck is
> among the most powerful things ! Let's just say we put in the setites with
> Nec, the Giovanni with Obf, and here we can summon Shambling Hordes and
> Puppeteers and let them do their stuff ; of course we have a Path of Bone, a
> Charisma and a Tower of London in (after a while), so the Hordes cost 1 and
> give U one pool ; When they get tired, you burn them through the Khobar
> Towers, and gain 3 more pool !!! The Puppeteers only gain you a total of 2,
> for no cost, and can come in handy of course.
>
> This makes the Khobar Towers one of the most powerful locations in the game,
> I'm not sure the Setites needed that already (there were two in the finals
> of my last tournament, they can already mix with many clans and
> bloodlines... In other words, Setites rule !!).
>
Umm... I think you're overstating just a bit here. Such a deck is, first off,
a wacky combo deck, and will be very difficult to put together. Not that I
won't try, because it seems fun as hell, and could actually be strong, but not
all that strong. For something very similar, you could make a FoS/Prince deck
wherein you create Third Traditions for 1 blood, then burn them with Khobar
Towers. Or you could just play !Tor and gain 2 pool in an action while only
wasting one card, not waiting until your untap for the pool gain, and not
requiring a semi-expensive master card to make it work.

> Can we know what motivated this change in ruling ?
>

I assume it has to do with card text. Khobar Towers gives you pool equal to
the cost of the ally. The cost of Shambling Hordes is 3. I am surprised it
was ever ruled otherwise.


Jon Stahler

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:30:45 PM5/1/02
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD0440A...@white-wolf.com...

> Sorrow wrote:
> >
> > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or
does it
> > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?
> > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to
torpor.
> > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".
> >
> > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something
introduced
> > in the future to get an ally out of torpor?
>
> Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a
sentence
> to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned
> instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however.
>
If the ally is always an ally as you said previously, then why would it go
to torpor at all? Yes, the ally (Rafastio Ghoul in this case or Talaq) play
Burst of Sunlight as a vampire, but when the damage from that strike
actually resolves, he's back to being an ally. I can see them acting "as a
vampire" when choosing the strike, but since the ally is always an ally,
wouldn't it be an ally when the strike actually resolves? Just curious as
it seems a bit corner-case of a situation (maybe not...there just aren't
many Ally's playing burst in our playgroup).

Jon


Chris Berger

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:32:31 PM5/1/02
to

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aapgjb$cuf88$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...

>
>
> "Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ,
> the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to
> do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced
> ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities
> because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive."
> [CURT 11-Feb-2002]
>
Umm... an ally that can play Auspex cards can still use Enhanced Senses during
a Daring the Dawn, no? It should go something like this:

1) Vampire acts, dares the dawn.
2) Ally attempts to block, then plays Enhanced Senses, "as a vampire."
3) During play of Enhanced Senses, ally is treated as a vampire and is unable
to block.
4) After Enhanced Senses has been played, ally is no longer treated as a
vampire, but still has +2 intercept.

???


Chris Berger

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:33:42 PM5/1/02
to

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020501154629...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
> the RPGer's are
> absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if
> a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the
> using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't
> be rescued.
>
Paradox spirits are a bitch, eh?


Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 1, 2002, 5:02:01 PM5/1/02
to

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:yhYz8.34416$ao1.8801@rwcrnsc54...

Heh. That's exactly what I said during the thread I was
quoting from, but no. The ally can't play Enhanced Senses
"as a vampire" because "as a vampire" it's not eligible to
block a Daring the Dawn action. You can't play intercept to
block an action you're not allowed to try to block.


Josh

inauspicious

Chris Berger

unread,
May 1, 2002, 5:31:04 PM5/1/02
to

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aapl4c$c8o8r$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...

>
> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:yhYz8.34416$ao1.8801@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > > "Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ,
> > > the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to
> > > do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced
> > > ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities
> > > because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive."
> > > [CURT 11-Feb-2002]
> > >
> > Umm... an ally that can play Auspex cards can still use Enhanced Senses
> during
> > a Daring the Dawn, no? It should go something like this:
> >
>
> Heh. That's exactly what I said during the thread I was
> quoting from, but no. The ally can't play Enhanced Senses
> "as a vampire" because "as a vampire" it's not eligible to
> block a Daring the Dawn action. You can't play intercept to
> block an action you're not allowed to try to block.
>
But you aren't "not allowed" to block the action until you play the Enhanced
Senses. So, technically, I think the world should explode in a puff of
paradox, and the action should fail.


Halcyan 2

unread,
May 1, 2002, 6:12:36 PM5/1/02
to
>If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool.
>If it cost X blood, then you get X pool.
>If it cost X pool, then you get X pool.
>
>The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X
>on card text.


Then for the sake of consistency, shouldn't Kindred Segregation cause
controllers of Couriers or Shambling Hordes to pay the cost (in something)? It
seems a little contradictory for Khobar Towers to allow one to gain the cost of
an ally (who costs blood) but Kindred Segregation doesn't have one pay the cost
of any ally (who costs blood)...

Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2

unread,
May 1, 2002, 6:28:54 PM5/1/02
to
>EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It
>allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a
>Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action.
>It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth,
>Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision).
>(REVERSAL)


Let's just hope that the Camarilla version of Eagle's Sight specifically
includes a clause letting it block after "I don't block" to clear things up.
Then we don't have errata (or reversals), the card can stay the same as it
always has been, *and* we'll have a latest printing to back it all up...

>For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
>treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the

>appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
>resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
>granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
>card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
>resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
>striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby


>to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
>(REVERSAL)

Um...this is giving me a really nasty headache. I'll respond about it some
other time.

>Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the
>single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a

>new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
>Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
>end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
>combat (see Majesty ruling above).

My god! Psyche! is really getting powerful here!

>If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
>Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
>effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
>combat/etc.).

Huh? So what makes S:CE + something else different? A Catatonic Fear (effect)
resolves (the S:CE part) and sets up an effect to be resolved later (1 damage).
Why is this category of effects canceled by interruptions while other category
of effects aren't? It seems very inconsistent to do so.


>Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to
>say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect
>is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided
>by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has
>some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the
>secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means

>"if he uses this card's effect to do so". For example, Ian Forestal with
>an Infernal Familiar can play a card that requires, say, Necromancy (a
>Discipline he doesn't have) as if he had basic Necromancy. This ability
>is granted separately by both his own card text and the text on the
>Infernal Familiar. If he plays a card that requires Necromancy via the
>Familiar ("if he does so"), then the Infernal Familiar gets an additional
>investment counter, by card text. If he uses his special ability to play
>such a card, the Familiar doesn't. (REVERSAL)


While most of the rulings thus far really suck @ss IMHO (no offense! just me
being bitter and annoyed), I do have to admit that this is a good one. It makes
a great deal of logical sense and deals with really weird corner-case scenarios
(i.e. the Mental Patient using a Lucky Blow during a Dawn Operation). So at
least congrats for this ruling! =)


Halcyan 2

Orpheus

unread,
May 1, 2002, 6:42:17 PM5/1/02
to
> > Sorrow wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ?
Or
> does it
> > > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?
> > > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to
> torpor.
> > > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".
> > >
> > > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something
> introduced
> > > in the future to get an ally out of torpor?
> >
> > Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a
> sentence
> > to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned
> > instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however.
> >
> If the ally is always an ally as you said previously, then why would it go
> to torpor at all?

I agree with Jon : it is inconsistent, and not only for "RPGers", that an
ally should go to torpor. If a vampire becoming an ally with The Grandest
Trick can go outside by day and be unblockable, why should a Burst of
Sunlight harm a human (or wraith, or whatever) ally ? Granted, the stackable
Jackets are not logical, no more than a Rock Cat using a Zip Gun, but is it
a reason to add one more illogical ruling ?

But if you (meaning the WW staff) really rule that an ally taking aggravated
damage is burned, it should be stated in the rules !! But really, it will be
one more reason never to play allies (they are already very expensive for
what they do, and vulnerable to many things).

Games with allies are interesting, and not going to torpor (or burning) when
taking aggravated damage is one of their interests. Please examine that
point again and reconsider this ruling !

Shaun McIsaac

unread,
May 1, 2002, 8:59:43 PM5/1/02
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com>...
>
> GENERAL RULINGS:

>
> For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
> resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
> granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
> card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
> resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
> striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby
> to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> (REVERSAL)

So if a Rafastio Ghoul strikes with Burst of Sunlight and the opponent
dodges, the Rafastio ghoul will be in torpor with 2 life?

GreySeer

unread,
May 1, 2002, 10:11:56 PM5/1/02
to
"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:aapqvr$lv5$1...@wanadoo.fr...

I also agree. I have a problem with allies going to torpor, it dosen't make
sense to me, it also negates one of the advantages of being an ally: allies
treat agg damage as normal. Jon also made a very valid point, sure, the ally
is a vampire when, say, it plays Burst of Sunlight but it's an ally when BoS
is resolved. For bizarre corner cases where an ally goes to torpor whilst
playing a card it should just burn.

GreySeer

unread,
May 1, 2002, 10:21:47 PM5/1/02
to
[snip]

> > > I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either;
> > > don't all its effects - including the torporization - get
> > > applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or
> > > Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing
> >
> > No. Psyche! is playable when combat ends. Rotschreck ends
> > combat before sending the vampire to torpor. Likewise FR.
>
> Eccch. I don't like having other cards played in the middle of
> one card's resolution. Rotschreck shouldn't be interruptible
> partway through any more than diablerie is. (I realize this
> would make it impossible to Disarm a vampire if Rotschreck is
> played; that's fine by me. It'd be more consistent with the
> general rule that non-strike or action cards have all their
> effects applied before any other effect can intervene.)

I don't like this one either. Cards interrupting the resolution of other
cards goes down the track of "that other card game". Unfotunately I think
the reason this ruling was made was that it prevents incredibly problematic
and confusing scenarios from coming up.

scrote

unread,
May 1, 2002, 10:55:09 PM5/1/02
to
"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<aapqvr$lv5$1...@wanadoo.fr>...
> > > Sorrow wrote:
>
> But if you (meaning the WW staff) really rule that an ally taking aggravated
> damage is burned, it should be stated in the rules !!

There is no need as there is no such "rule" existing. The "ruling" is
based on "specific card text" (not a new rule) and the effects applied
due to it, ie. A card that says an ally is to be treated as a vampire
should be handled in this particular manner. Allies still treat agg.
dmg. as normal (barring the aforementioned cardtext).


At least that's my interpretation of what has gone down here...talk
about shake up!

I know it rocked my world! ;)

-Scrote

jspektr

unread,
May 2, 2002, 12:42:45 AM5/2/02
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD0440A...@white-wolf.com>...

> Sorrow wrote:
> >
> > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it
> > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?
> > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor.
> > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".
> >
> > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced
> > in the future to get an ally out of torpor?
>
> Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence
> to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned
> instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however.


What about the following:

A vampire blocks a Rafastio Ghoul. The Ghoul plays any aggravated
damage causing Thaumaturgy strike, and is now considered a vampire.
The opposing player plays Roteschreck, and sends the Ghoul to torpor
(Roteschreck interupts the resolution of the card, and would seem to
take place during the time the ally is a "vampire").

Sending an ally to torpor with Roteschreck doesn't seem right at all.
The intention of "played as a vampire" cards is that they have powers
similar to those of vampires (in the case of Ghouled Street Thug,
exactly the same), but are not, themselves, vampires.

I don't see why they can't be treated as vampires in regards to
requirements (a card that says "this vampire"), but in no other way
(going to torpor, unless the card says "this vampire goes to torpor"
like Day Operation). Surely that is less confusing than making them
transform into vampires temporarily.

While I understand things like Amaranth and Ritual of the Bitter Rose
couldn't be played when in combat with an ally that turns into a
vampire for part of the action, I can see it's going to be really
confusing to explain that to other players.

JSpektr

Dave Brereton

unread,
May 2, 2002, 2:23:29 AM5/2/02
to

Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:s8Zz8.5898$xv1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

All actions shall fail while allies are not allowed to block because it is
too early in the morning.
I'm not sure what this means for my "Snakes for Breakfast" Abbat Kindred
pre-breakfast bleed deck.
Maybe it's an excuse to print a card such as this:

Call a Spade a Spade
Master
no cost
Place this card on a ready non-vampire minion you control. This minion is
now not considered a vampire.

What do you think? Maybe it should cost pool to have such a dramatic
effect?

Orpheus

unread,
May 2, 2002, 4:33:12 AM5/2/02
to
> Sending an ally to torpor with Roteschreck doesn't seem right at all.
> The intention of "played as a vampire" cards is that they have powers
> similar to those of vampires (in the case of Ghouled Street Thug,
> exactly the same), but are not, themselves, vampires.

Agreed. Being able to use Potence cards just means the ally is very strong,
not that he's a vampire.

> I don't see why they can't be treated as vampires in regards to
> requirements (a card that says "this vampire"), but in no other way
> (going to torpor, unless the card says "this vampire goes to torpor"
> like Day Operation). Surely that is less confusing than making them
> transform into vampires temporarily.

Agreed.

And we're getting (once more ?) into a rule that nobody will interpret this
way except if they read these messages or play in tournaments ; and that,
IMNSHO, is not good at all. I've seen players becoming disgusted of the game
because of multiple erratas, this should happen as less frequently as
possible, especially on recent cards that don't need to be errated.

Orpheus

unread,
May 2, 2002, 4:38:08 AM5/2/02
to
> > > > Sorrow wrote:
> >
> > But if you (meaning the WW staff) really rule that an ally taking
aggravated
> > damage is burned, it should be stated in the rules !!
>
> There is no need as there is no such "rule" existing. The "ruling" is
> based on "specific card text" (not a new rule) and the effects applied
> due to it, ie. A card that says an ally is to be treated as a vampire
> should be handled in this particular manner. Allies still treat agg.
> dmg. as normal (barring the aforementioned cardtext).

Yes, I know. I was pushing the logic to its end. But it's even worse to make
a rule like "if any ally takes aggravated damage while it is considered as
a vampire, it will burn". This is illogical, not needed for game balance,
and nobody will know about this rule outside of tournaments anyway.

While I am against the fact that you can take pool back from an ally costing
blood with the Khobar because of game balance, I understand this new ruling
for one simple reason : it is the way everybody understood card text, and I
think it is important that players who don't have access to this forum
should play as the ones who do (just imagine a guy who arrives to a
tournament with a deck based on a mistake he couldn't know about : he will
never come to a tournament again !!).

With this rule about allies, it will be the opposite effect. Not good, says
I.

LSJ

unread,
May 2, 2002, 7:56:49 AM5/2/02
to

No.
Methuselahs don't have blood.
Kindred Segregation requires the *Methuselah* to repay the cost.

Kobar Towers gives the Methuselah X pool.

LSJ

unread,
May 2, 2002, 7:57:06 AM5/2/02
to

Correct.

LSJ

unread,
May 2, 2002, 7:59:28 AM5/2/02
to
jspektr wrote:
> A vampire blocks a Rafastio Ghoul. The Ghoul plays any aggravated
> damage causing Thaumaturgy strike, and is now considered a vampire.

Incorrect. He plays the strike card "as a vampire". He is not a vampire.

> The opposing player plays Roteschreck, and sends the Ghoul to torpor
> (Roteschreck interupts the resolution of the card, and would seem to
> take place during the time the ally is a "vampire").

Not legal. The ally is not a vampire for purposes of Rotschreck (i.e.,
there's no mechanism to make Rotschreck treat the ally as a vampire).

LSJ

unread,
May 2, 2002, 8:00:03 AM5/2/02
to
Shaun McIsaac wrote:
> So if a Rafastio Ghoul strikes with Burst of Sunlight and the opponent
> dodges, the Rafastio ghoul will be in torpor with 2 life?

Yes, unless he prevents the damage (assuming he started with 2 life).

torien

unread,
May 2, 2002, 8:54:27 AM5/2/02
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD03F62...@white-wolf.com>...
> Orpheus wrote:
> >
> > > so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only
> > > valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of
> > > agg damage as if she was a vampire ?

> >
> > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it
> > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?
>
> Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor.
> Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".

There are two major things, in my mind, that have made this game
great. The first is its' intuitive, logical design. V:tes is
relatively easy to grasp, yet complex enough to allow nearly endless
variety in games. The second is the story. I think that all will agree
that this game could not have come nearly as far as it has without the
roleplaying element. The key to game design, as far as i am concerned,
is maintaining a comfortable balance between these two necessary
things. In many cases, if the story were allowed to be compromised,
our game would benefit in becoming a more logical process, but less
people would be interested in playing. And sometimes, in an effort to
be more forthright with the rules, we tread on certain story aspects.

Here's my issue: I don't really see why its necessary to have
roleplaying inconsistencies, when rules are easily clarified in other
ways. For example, a scenario where a Rafastio ghoul is being removed
from the game by exposure to sunlight invites ridicule. I always
thought that when an ally says 'may use tha/pot/pre as a vampire' what
it meant was 'may use tha/pot/pre as a vampire (would)', not 'may use
tha/pot/pre as if it were a vampire'. The distinction is slight, but
it's enough to rend holes in the storyline's credibility. Under the
first reading of the card, the ghoul would not need to go to torpor.
Being that one of our main goals as players is to attract more
players, I think that it is important to maintain the integrity of the
roleplaying backstory -- every bit as important as simplifying and
clarifying the rules.

And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are
allowed to wear two Flak Jackets.

distraught -
Jason

jazzbeaux

unread,
May 2, 2002, 8:47:22 AM5/2/02
to

"torien" <tori...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1b258d2.02050...@posting.google.com...

> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:<3CD03F62...@white-wolf.com>...

<snip>

> And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are
> allowed to wear two Flak Jackets.

Perhaps an errata?
Minions get -1 stealth per additional Flak Jacket after the first.

Hard to miss something the size of the Ghostbusters Marshmellow monster -
covered in flak jackets!
Jazzbeaux

>
> distraught -
> Jason


Andrew S. Davidson

unread,
May 2, 2002, 9:07:51 AM5/2/02
to
On 2 May 2002 05:54:27 -0700, torien wrote:

>And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are
>allowed to wear two Flak Jackets.

I agree with what you say about the "as if" issue but don't see that
Flak Jackets are such a big deal. In the real world, you could wear
two jackets by putting an XXXL size on top of a normal one. They
don't have sleeves, you see - that's the main thing that makes wearing
two jackets difficult.

In the RPG, I'd say that you'd get an extra level of armour class -
the equivalent of full riot gear for the covered parts of the body -
but would suffer the corresponding encumbrance penalty.

Andrew

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 2, 2002, 10:12:57 AM5/2/02
to

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020501182854...@mb-mq.aol.com...

[LSJ wrote]

> >EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It
> >allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a
> >Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action.
> >It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth,
> >Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision).
> >(REVERSAL)
>
>
> Let's just hope that the Camarilla version of Eagle's Sight specifically
> includes a clause letting it block after "I don't block" to clear things
up.
> Then we don't have errata (or reversals), the card can stay the same as it
> always has been, *and* we'll have a latest printing to back it all up...

Well, actually, then we'd have a reversal and a re-reversal by
cardtext migration. I really don't think that would be a good
thing, now that this ruling has been given. :-)

Plus there's no reason (IMO) that Eagle's Sight *should* allow
an "I don't block" decision to become non-final. It never made
sense by card text and as far as I can tell it's not especially
"in-theme" for the card.


Josh

double twist with a re-re-reversal: 9.5

Ben Swainbank

unread,
May 2, 2002, 10:46:46 AM5/2/02
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com>...

>Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
> Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.

Oh Psyche! Finally, an effective countermeasure to Rotschreck. Excellent move.

Now I have to update my decks and my Top 10 list.

-Ben Swainbank

Damnans

unread,
May 2, 2002, 11:24:19 AM5/2/02
to

CurtAdams wrote:

> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
> >> I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies
> >> with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if*
> >> they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach.
>
> >Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire"
> >would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google.
>
> The "as if" should modify the card, not the minion. I.e.
> replace "this vampire" with "this minion" on the card. That's
> much closer to what's "supposed" to be going on - Talaq isn't
> really using Quietus, he's using some life-entropy rote
> which, if there were a printed card for it, would look like
> the appropriately modified Quietus card.

Talaq is not a good example here, since he actually has Quietus, because
he is a human with vampiric Disciplines. He was an Assamite turned into
a human by a powerful mage.

TALAQ

DISCIPLINES: Auspex 1, Celerity 2, Chimerstry 2, Fortitude 1, Obfuscate
2, Presence 5, Quietus 3, Thaumaturgy 3.

Greetings,
Damnans

LSJ

unread,
May 2, 2002, 11:25:44 AM5/2/02
to

Talaq "here" doesn't have Quiteus. He's an ally. He can play cards that
require Quietus, but he doesn't have Quietus:

Talaq, The Immortal - Ally - 3 Pool
Unique !-mage-! with 3 life. <0 strength>, 0 bleed.
<Talaq may strike for 1R damage.> Talaq may play cards that require basic Quietus [qui] or basic Thaumaturgy [tha] as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life. Talaq gets an optional maneuver each combat.

Damnans

unread,
May 2, 2002, 11:39:07 AM5/2/02
to

LSJ wrote:

> CurtAdams wrote:
> > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about
> > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn
> > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in
> > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are
>
> There are no complicated rules about torporized minions
> nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally.
>
> The ally is always an ally.
>
> The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however,
> by explicit card text.

Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the
ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?:

Rafastio Ghoul
Ghoul with 2 life. 1 bleed, 1 strength.
Rafastio Ghoul can play cards requiring basic Thaumaturgy. Any cost in


blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life

instead.

Note that "as a vampire with a capacity of 3" has been removed from that
card's text.

Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to
play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred)

Greetings,
Damnans


LSJ

unread,
May 2, 2002, 11:45:42 AM5/2/02
to
Damnans wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > CurtAdams wrote:
> > > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about
> > > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn
> > > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in
> > > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are
> >
> > There are no complicated rules about torporized minions
> > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally.
> >
> > The ally is always an ally.
> >
> > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however,
> > by explicit card text.
>
> Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the
> ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?:
> [...]

> Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to
> play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred)

Possibly. But that would be errata, and contrary to designer intent
in many cases. Cards requiring disciplines require vampires by default.