Rules Team Rulings 01-MAY-2002
LSJ
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
> 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
"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
"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
>
> > 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
> "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
No.
LSJ
> > 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
> 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:
>
>
> 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
"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
> 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
> > > (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
> > the kindred than ?
> Yes.
So what does that do to the Illusions combat? Negate it?
Sorrow
---
"I am Jack's wasted life."
- Narrator
LSJ
> 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
> > > > 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
>
> > > > 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
> 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.
>
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
> > > 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
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
> 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
Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor.
Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".
Sorrow
> > 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
>
> > > 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
> 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
>> 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
> > > 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
> 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
> > 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
"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 !!).
>
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
> 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.
>
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
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aapgjb$cuf88$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> "Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ,
> the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to
> do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced
> ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities
> because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive."
> [CURT 11-Feb-2002]
>
a Daring the Dawn, no? It should go something like this:
1) Vampire acts, dares the dawn.
2) Ally attempts to block, then plays Enhanced Senses, "as a vampire."
3) During play of Enhanced Senses, ally is treated as a vampire and is unable
to block.
4) After Enhanced Senses has been played, ally is no longer treated as a
vampire, but still has +2 intercept.
???
Chris Berger
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020501154629...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
> the RPGer's are
> absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if
> a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the
> using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't
> be rescued.
>
Joshua Duffin
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:yhYz8.34416$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
>
> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:yhYz8.34416$ao1.8801@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > > 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:
> >
>
> 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.
>
Senses. So, technically, I think the world should explode in a puff of
paradox, and the action should fail.
Halcyan 2
>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
>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
> > >
> > > > > 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
>
> 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
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
> > > 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
> > > Sorrow wrote:
>
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> >
> > 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
No.
Methuselahs don't have blood.
Kindred Segregation requires the *Methuselah* to repay the cost.
Kobar Towers gives the Methuselah X pool.
LSJ
Correct.
LSJ
> 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
> 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
> 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
"torien" <tori...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1b258d2.02050...@posting.google.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
>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
"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
>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
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
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
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
>
> 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.
Joshua Duffin
> Damnans wrote:
> > 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.
It seems to me like it would be *so* many times cleaner than the
current situation that it'd still be better. Errata to a bunch
of cards is (IMO) no worse than a "ruling" affecting the same
bunch of cards that affects how they work as much as errata would
have.
Josh
stupid allies anyway
Damnans
LSJ wrote:
> 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.
Then the designer intent is making the game more complicated.
Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
"Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
(should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
LSJ wrote:
He, he... ;-)
Sorry, I was just talking about the Talaq in the RPG.
Greetings,
Damnans
LSJ
> Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
>
> "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
> (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
>
> Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
> usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
vampire.
Petri Wessman
LSJ> 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?
LSJ> Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add
LSJ> a sentence to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to
LSJ> torpor, it is burned instead. I don't think it'll come to that,
LSJ> however.
There is (yet another) facet to this: if allies can go to torpor, that
can be a significant minus at times. Consider a deck that has multiple
copies of a unique ally. If copy #1 gets put into torpor, the deck is
screwed - you can't bring out copy #2 since self-contesting is not
allowed, and I can't figure out any easy way to get rid of the ally in
torpor (Khobar Towers works, of course).
//Petri
LSJ
Well, since the ruling only affects cards that the ally chooses to play,
this "deck screwing" is easily avoided - the player can merely not play
cards whose effects will send the hapless ally to torpor.
Noal McDonald
> Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however.
What kind of crack are you smoking? This is the most fucking ludicrous
departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's
worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form.
If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look
forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That
statement is just plain stupid.
Noal McDonald
VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit
Damnans
LSJ wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
> >
> > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
> > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
> >
> > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
> > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
>
> Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
> effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
> vampire.
For example?
Besides, the game would hardly be affected by the rule I suggest.
The way you have stated allies should play Disciplines makes some allies more
usefull, and others less usefull, but it leads the game into a non-intuitive chaos
of micro rules.
Greetings,
Damnans
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however.
>
> departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's
> worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form.
See also table talk.
> If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look
> forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That
> statement is just plain stupid.
It's no more or less stupid as "allies can play cards requiring disciplines"
(and is a by-product of that). Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire.
For those not keeping up, this came up in January 2000 re: Reform Body
and Shadow Court Satyr.
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Damnans wrote:
> > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
> > >
> > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
> > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
> > >
> > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
> > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
> >
> > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
> > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
> > vampire.
>
> For example?
Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood, says "this
vampire", etc.
> Besides, the game would hardly be affected by the rule I suggest.
Glad to see you've been able to analyze all the ramifications in
such a complex game in such a short time.
CurtAdams
> And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are
>allowed to wear two Flak Jackets.
Why? Do you think it's impossible for a superhumanly strong
individual to wear body armor adequate to stop a .44?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Damnans
LSJ wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> >
> > > Damnans wrote:
> > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
> > > >
> > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
> > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
> > > >
> > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
> > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
> > >
> > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
> > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
> > > vampire.
> >
> > For example?
>
> Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood,
Current texts on allies solve this problem:
"Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life
instead."
Or the blood drop on a card could simply mean both blood and life cost.
> says "this vampire", etc.
If a Discipline card requires a vampire to play, it means that it can ONLY be played by
a vampire, so allies could not play them.
What's the problem?
> > Besides, the game would hardly be affected by the rule I suggest.
>
> Glad to see you've been able to analyze all the ramifications in
> such a complex game in such a short time.
I might have gone too far with my assumptions, but IMHO I think I am trying to improve
the game with arguments and new ideas.
Greetings,
Damnans
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Damnans wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > Damnans wrote:
> > > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
> > > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
> > > > >
> > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
> > > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
> > > >
> > > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
> > > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
> > > > vampire.
> > >
> > > For example?
> >
> > Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood,
>
> Current texts on allies solve this problem:
>
> "Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life
> instead."
>
> Or the blood drop on a card could simply mean both blood and life cost.
I thought you were offering an alternative where allies "had" disciplines
instead of card text. If you're keeping all the text *and* adding disciplines
to allies, what's the point?
Ben Peal
> 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.
However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow
"as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight
"as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen:
The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage,
sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor.
The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage.
Is this right?
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
LSJ
> However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow
> "as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight
> "as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen:
>
> The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage,
> sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor.
>
> The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage.
Correct.
Damnans
LSJ wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Damnans wrote:
> > > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > > Damnans wrote:
> > > > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers
> > > > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
> > > > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
> > > > >
> > > > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
> > > > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
> > > > > vampire.
> > > >
> > > > For example?
> > >
> > > Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood,
> >
> > Current texts on allies solve this problem:
> >
> > "Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life
> > instead."
> >
> > Or the blood drop on a card could simply mean both blood and life cost.
>
> I thought you were offering an alternative where allies "had" disciplines
> instead of card text.
This could be a good idea, but that was not what I was suggesting.
> If you're keeping all the text *and* adding disciplines
> to allies, what's the point?
The point is that allies should not play Discipline cards "as a vampire" but "as an ally",
since the current "as a vampire" text causes confusion. It's obvious that an ally is not a
vampire (and that an ally does not become a vampires while playing a Discipline card).
The current rules treat allies as if they were vampires (for Discipline card playing
purposes), "ignoring" the fact that they have their own merits and flaws as allies, and that
changing this creates some undesirable paradoxes (as some one else has already stated) and
confusion.
I understand this is a CARD GAME, governed by its own rules, but treating allies as vampires
(at least temporarily) contradicts the "spirit" of the RPG on which V:TES is based.
How can an ally enter torpor? According to the current rules, it's perfectly legal, but
according to "common sense" it is not at all.
Greetings,
Damnans
Halcyan 2
>departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's
>worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form.
>
>If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look
>forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That
>statement is just plain stupid.
LOL. Maybe it's time for the NJL to secede again or somethin'? =P
Halcyan 2
Orpheus
> > forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That
> > statement is just plain stupid.
>
> It's no more or less stupid as "allies can play cards requiring
disciplines"
> (and is a by-product of that). Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire.
As stated some place else in this discussion, I have to disagree : use a
discipline like a vampire is just a way to simulate that an ally can be very
strong, charismatic, or whatever, and has nothing to do with actually
becoming a vampire (not the reverse of The Grandest Trick).
Although I disagree with the tone of Noal, I agree with the contents : this
is illogical, and can have dire consequences on the view players have opf
the game.
If it came up again because of the Herald of Tothep, then let's errate him,
not all the allies !!!
--
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
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Correct.
This is preposterous. Why would, say, a feline ally who can use basic
Auspex, be unable to intercept by day ? A Garou can have enhanced senses,
that doesn't make him a vampire !!
Orpheus
> >allowed to wear two Flak Jackets.
>
> Why? Do you think it's impossible for a superhumanly strong
> individual to wear body armor adequate to stop a .44?
No, no more than a Rock Cat wearing 6 Flak Jackets and one leather Jacket
and firing a Sniper's Rifle would be ridiculous, why ?
Personally, I love to equip Ambrosius with a Sport Bike, a .44 Mag, a
Leather Jacket and a Laptop, but it's jsut because of the fun of the
paradox. But this could be physically possible, if a little contrary to the
character.
Animals shouldn't use human equipements, and you shouldn't wear more than 1
jacket of a sort (ever worn a flack jacket ? if you want better protection
you get a bullet-proof jacket, here's an idea for a new equipement !!). But,
of course, I know it's too complicated for game rules ; I guess it's up to
each of us to establish, in home games, what we admit or not.
There are some "ridiculous and illogical" rules in this game we love, but
this is no reason to add more, which would be inconsistent with another game
we love : the Vampire RPG.
CurtAdams
>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.
From the 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.
"All parts of the resolution" certainly sounds like all involved phases to
me. I really don't follow the distinction between "resolution of the play"
and "resolution of the effect". I've never had to worry about whether
the resolution of an action is the resolution of the play of a card or the
resolution of its effect. With permanent effects cards are often "in play"
It seems like Ex Nihilo would hang around effectively by this rule while
Burst would inflict 1 agg - and then go away before the effect (its agg damage)
resolves, leave the ally to face 1 normal damage and no torpor. The discussion
on this backs up my claim that it's complicated - it seems almost everybody
has a different interpretation of "all parts of the resolution".
The Herald set this off. I really don't have a "game world" opinion on how the
Herald's voting attempts should work - it doesn't blow my mind that a non-
vampire could piddle in Kindred politics and it doesn't blow my mind that
Kindred would ignore the piddling. It just seems obvious to me that if
a vampire played Charming Lobby, a vote goes off, so if the Herald plays
CL "as a vampire", a vote should go off then too. Yeah, allies can't call
votes by the rules, but cards override rules. I don't see any reason for
the linkage you've drawn between the Herald and BOS.
The point I've made before
is that "as a vampire" is pretty vague so you might as well interpret it
in a way that makes sim-sense. I can't see any currently playable cards that
cause a problem if you morph "this vampire" -> "this minion". Yeah, Ex
Nihilo hangs about, but it's not like the WoD hasn't a gazillion ways to step
sideways/cross the Gauntlet/walk the Shadowlands etc. Some of the
Fortitude cards would be problematic but you're going to have trouble when
you start considering allied Day Ops anyway.
>The RPG'ers have already "gone nuts" over the ability to
>wear two Flak Jackets as well. So?
Somebody who claims you can't get body armor to defend against
a .44 hasn't a leg to stand on. A WoD complaint that a mage shouldn't
get crisped by generating a little sunlight is very strong.
CurtAdams
>Damnans wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things:
>
>> "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and
retainers
>> (should it be the case) having the required Discipline."
>
>> Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only
>> usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it).
>Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring
>effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a
>vampire.
Quite the minority, actually - I was just looking. Really, you'd have to
determine card-by-card whether a given effect is "reasonable" for an
ally, and by this you could with the choice of "this vampire" vs. "this
minion".
More existing cards would be denied allies than necessary but that's not
the end of the world - I saw less than 10.
Peter Muto
>
> 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
> 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 say my Rock Cat Rampages a location. He can play cards as a vampire
until the end of the action? Which includes the resulting combat if
blocked? (up to when is he longer playing cards as a vampire?) Does he
become vulnerable to cards like Legacy of Power, et al. during the
Rampage action? So he could play taste of vitae in the combat if
blocked while rampaging?
Wes
"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote
>
> Personally, I love to equip Ambrosius with a Sport Bike, a .44 Mag, a
> Leather Jacket and a Laptop, but it's jsut because of the fun of the
> paradox. But this could be physically possible, if a little contrary to
the
> character.
Me too! It's like having your very own Ghost Rider... though I don't
remember the comicbook character ever wielding an iBook.
LSJ
> So say my Rock Cat Rampages a location. He can play cards as a vampire
> until the end of the action?
No.
> Which includes the resulting combat if
> blocked?
No.
> (up to when is he longer playing cards as a vampire?) Does he
> become vulnerable to cards like Legacy of Power, et al. during the
> Rampage action?
No.
> So he could play taste of vitae in the combat if
> blocked while rampaging?
No.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Chris Berger
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020502142622...@mb-md.aol.com...
of an M... All these people talking about the NJL when I always used to think
it was the MJL...
Jake Rake
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow
> > "as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight
> > "as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen:
> >
> > The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage,
> > sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor.
> >
> > The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage.
>
> Correct.
This still makes no logical sense to me. Where did the motavation to
rule that the ally is considered a vampire come from? Inferior Burst
of Sunlight states "Strike: 1R aggravated to all vampires in combat."
An ally isn't a vampire so why would they take the damage? Because of
this ruling? Is that the only reason? What led to this particular
decision being made?
Consider this...a Rafastio Ghoul is in combat with a vampire with
thaumaturgy. They both declare their strike to be inferior Burst of
Sunlight. Assuming that these two strikes are the only sources of
damage in the current combat, how much damage is assigned to the
Rafastio Ghoul at strike resolution?
If the answer to this question is more than 0 but less than 2
aggravated damage then this game should be renamed Generic: The
Eternal Whatever as the rules team obviously doesn't seem care about
game theme in any manner whatsoever.
Thanks
Jake the Rake
scrote
> > > And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are
> > >allowed to wear two Flak Jackets.
> >
> > Why? Do you think it's impossible for a superhumanly strong
> > individual to wear body armor adequate to stop a .44?
>
> No, no more than a Rock Cat wearing 6 Flak Jackets and one leather Jacket
> and firing a Sniper's Rifle would be ridiculous, why ?
>
> Personally, I love to equip Ambrosius with a Sport Bike, a .44 Mag, a
> Leather Jacket and a Laptop, but it's jsut because of the fun of the
> paradox. But this could be physically possible, if a little contrary to the
> character.
>
> Animals shouldn't use human equipements, and you shouldn't wear more than 1
> jacket of a sort (ever worn a flack jacket ? if you want better protection
> you get a bullet-proof jacket, here's an idea for a new equipement !!). But,
> of course, I know it's too complicated for game rules ; I guess it's up to
> each of us to establish, in home games, what we admit or not.
>
> There are some "ridiculous and illogical" rules in this game we love, but
> this is no reason to add more, which would be inconsistent with another game
> we love : the Vampire RPG.
>
>
> --
> Yours,
>
> Orpheus, Prince of Marseille
My personal favourite is a War Ghoul with multiple IR goggles.
I can't say that I see the point to the arguement though. Unrealisitc
yes, but why limit strategies (unecessarily)? Non-human allies can't
equip? Seems to shift some usefulness away from a good deal of cards
with no inherent benefit (other than to soothe someones sense of
logic).
-Merto
Stefano Calzighetti
> 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).
But if he prevents the damage (and his opponent don't dodge) can now
play Amaranth and diablerize his opponent?
Or can he use Taste of Vitae if his opponent lose blood?
Ciao
Stefano. Italy
torien
Not impossible, but can you imagine wearing 2 flak jackets at one
time? That must bring about some disadvantage. Even so, that wasn't my
point. I am willing to concede a certain amount of inconsistency with
the roleplaying element (such as those that existed in the game until
yesterday), but why not try to stick to the story as much as possible?
Rulings that do things like allow allies to go into torpor demonstrate
a complete lack of regard for the roleplaying segment of the game.
Jason
Sorrow
> 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.
An ally is always an ally. And it states in the rules that allies
treat aggravated damage as normal.
Since declaring strikes happens in a different phase than
resolving those strikes, wouldn't it be that the ally would be
treated "as if" a vampire when declaring the strike but not
so when resolving that strike? You've stated many times
that the ally is treated as a vampire only by playing the card.
So by the time the strike resolves, the card has been played
and moved onto another phase.
So, since during the strike resolution phase, the ally is still
an "ally", shouldn't it treat aggravated damage as normal
as provided for in the rules?
Sorrow
---
"No, you're insane"
-Tyler Durden
LSJ
>
> > 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.
>
> An ally is always an ally. And it states in the rules that allies
> treat aggravated damage as normal.
> Since declaring strikes happens in a different phase than
> resolving those strikes, wouldn't it be that the ally would be
> treated "as if" a vampire when declaring the strike but not
> so when resolving that strike? You've stated many times
> that the ally is treated as a vampire only by playing the card.
See the new RTR for the new ruling.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
LSJ
> Consider this...a Rafastio Ghoul is in combat with a vampire with
> thaumaturgy. They both declare their strike to be inferior Burst of
> Sunlight. Assuming that these two strikes are the only sources of
> damage in the current combat, how much damage is assigned to the
> Rafastio Ghoul at strike resolution?
1 agg.
LSJ
As stated several times in this thread: no.
Matt Latham
> The point is that allies should not play Discipline cards "as a vampire" but "as an ally",
> since the current "as a vampire" text causes confusion. It's obvious that an ally is not a
> vampire (and that an ally does not become a vampires while playing a Discipline card).
>
> The current rules treat allies as if they were vampires (for Discipline card playing
> purposes), "ignoring" the fact that they have their own merits and flaws as allies, and that
> changing this creates some undesirable paradoxes (as some one else has already stated) and
> confusion.
>
> I understand this is a CARD GAME, governed by its own rules, but treating allies as vampires
> (at least temporarily) contradicts the "spirit" of the RPG on which V:TES is based.
>
> How can an ally enter torpor? According to the current rules, it's perfectly legal, but
> according to "common sense" it is not at all.
>
> Greetings,
> Damnans
This stands on its own as the best possible argument to me Damnans.
Seems so simple and intuitive. Keep the intention of the "disciplined"
allies (ie mortal or supernatural creatures with above-human
abilities) without turning them into temporary vampires.
Matt
LSJ
I've just responded to this on RustWurk, but for the benfit of others
who don't read there:
So you would have allies that can use discipline cards become unable
to play the ones that refer to the vampire playing it?
(Even though all of them could have been written as "this vampire blah
blah", since the card writers have always assumed that
discipline-requiring cards were played by vampires.)
Mummies would no longer be able to play Eyes of the Dead just because
it says "this vampire gets +1 intercept" instead of the usual "+1
intercept"?
Mummies would no longer be able to play Shroud Mastery or Soul
Stealing for the same reason?
Talaq (assuming he had previously gained enough life via Theft of
Vitae) cannot play Eldrich Glimmer, Magic of the Smith, Perfect
Clarity, Shotgun Ritual, Skin of the Cameleon, Blood Agony, Draught
of the Soul, Foul Blood, Silence of Death, and Veil of Silence, just
because the card writer's used "this vampire" instead of "this minion" (appropriately, since cards that require disciplines can only be
played by vampires with those disciplines, according to the rulebook)?
And you would have Talaq be able to play as many Thin Bloods as he
likes each round, because only vampires are restricted to one per
round?
And Ghouled Street Thug could no longer play Torn Signpost, Increased
Strength, or Disarm?
(Replace "play" with "benefit from", depending on your "solution",
is needed.)
Sorrow
> to play the ones that refer to the vampire playing it?
But why does this mean that the ally treats aggravated damage as if s/he
were a vampire when the ally clearly should not. Not only because it
states that allies treat aggravated damage as normal in the rule book, but
it is also very counter-intuitive and counter to how the WoD treats and
handles non-vampires.
A Human Mage entering a state that is only applicable to vampires...?
You know, I'm actually very curious what the people at WW would have
to say about this new ruling... Granted, they may not have any say in it
but I'm still very curious about what they think regarding how this reflects
on the WoD cannon
Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden
LSJ
> But why does this mean that the ally treats aggravated damage as if s/he
As stated, ally played card as vampire: card play does damage to ally as
vampire (likewise ally gets benefit from card play as vampire).
> A Human Mage entering a state that is only applicable to vampires...?
> You know, I'm actually very curious what the people at WW would have
> to say about this new ruling... Granted, they may not have any say in it
> but I'm still very curious about what they think regarding how this reflects
> on the WoD cannon
Most would be surprised to find that the Assamites are still blood cursed,
that Wake can be used by non-mages, that old vampires tend to stay in
torpor for a far shorter period than young vampires once there, that Igo
can torporize Etrius, and so on, I suspect.
Joshua Duffin
> Matt Latham wrote:
> > This stands on its own as the best possible argument to me Damnans.
> > Seems so simple and intuitive. Keep the intention of the "disciplined"
> > allies (ie mortal or supernatural creatures with above-human
> > abilities) without turning them into temporary vampires.
>
> I've just responded to this on RustWurk, but for the benfit of others
> who don't read there:
>
> So you would have allies that can use discipline cards become unable
> to play the ones that refer to the vampire playing it?
>
> (Even though all of them could have been written as "this vampire blah
> blah", since the card writers have always assumed that
> discipline-requiring cards were played by vampires.)
Pretty much any solution that doesn't require us to pretend
that allies are vampires would be simpler, yes.
I'd think it might be productive to say that when an ally
"plays cards that require discipline X as a vampire of
capacity Y", it is that card that is played as if a
vampire were playing it, not the ally that is treated as
a vampire. IE, "as a vampire of capacity Y [would play
it]", not "as [if this ally were] a vampire of capacity Y".
This would allow allies to play cards that refer to "this
vampire" and use them as if they referred to "this minion".
It would still allow allies to go to torpor in some
situations (eg by playing Ashes to Ashes), but an ally
playing Burst of Sunlight would presumably not take the
aggravated side-effect damage (since it doesn't say "this
vampire also takes 1 aggravated damage" but instead "to
all vampires in combat").
Even just disallowing the play of (or benefit from) all
cards referring to "this vampire" by allies might be an
acceptable trade-off between background-world realism and
card-game wordings. There are (according to Monger) 189
library cards that use the phrase "this vampire", though
not all of them are relevant (discipline masters, for
example). That's out of (if its count is correct) 1098
total library cards, leaving over 80% of cards theoretically
usable by allies.
(And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use
Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-)
Josh
foolish mortal!
LSJ
> Pretty much any solution that doesn't require us to pretend
> that allies are vampires would be simpler, yes.
> I'd think it might be productive to say that when an ally
> "plays cards that require discipline X as a vampire of
> capacity Y", it is that card that is played as if a
> vampire were playing it, not the ally that is treated as
> a vampire. IE, "as a vampire of capacity Y [would play
> it]", not "as [if this ally were] a vampire of capacity Y".
>
> This would allow allies to play cards that refer to "this
> vampire" and use them as if they referred to "this minion".
> It would still allow allies to go to torpor in some
> situations (eg by playing Ashes to Ashes), but an ally
> playing Burst of Sunlight would presumably not take the
> aggravated side-effect damage (since it doesn't say "this
> vampire also takes 1 aggravated damage" but instead "to
> all vampires in combat").
This is a pretty solid argument/angle/solution.
I'll toss the subject back on the list.
[...]
> (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use
> Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-)
Oooh! Lies!
A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength
by playing a TS. :-)
LSJ
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use
> > Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-)
>
> Oooh! Lies!
> A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength
> by playing a TS. :-)
Hmm. Must've missed something. I fell for your bait and assumed
that GST had a strength of 2. But he's only got a 1. So he'd
benefit from the TS under "normal" situations, as well.
Perhaps you're thinking of Blood Brother Ambush?
Joshua Duffin
> LSJ wrote:
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use
> > > Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-)
> >
> > Oooh! Lies!
> > A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength
> > by playing a TS. :-)
>
> Hmm. Must've missed something. I fell for your bait and assumed
> that GST had a strength of 2. But he's only got a 1. So he'd
> benefit from the TS under "normal" situations, as well.
>
> Perhaps you're thinking of Blood Brother Ambush?
Doh! I actually misread Ghouled Street Thug and read
his 2 life as 2 strength. :-)
I recant my testimony. Ghouled Street Thug can currently
gain all kinds of goodness by playing Torn Signpost. And
then Disarm.
(But unless I'm missing something, Bonecraft/Languid/
Disease don't make Signpost *more* useful to him, do they?
Because their modifiers will still be applied to his
reset base strength?)
Josh